Bill Miller

Personally, David ... I think you use these forums like Pee-Wee Herman uses Adult stores. Let's address your most recent misrepresentation of the facts - shall we ... I have only ever joined three forums in my life - JFK Research - Lancer - the Education Forum. Only one of those three forums do I refer to as the looney forum. So your remark about "every forum" I join that disagrees with my position is just more 'Baghdad Bob Healy' talk. As far as the alterationist and their tent goes ... they might as well fold it up because even a most devoted paranoid CTs such as yourself has seen their evidence and has stated that he has not witnessed any evidence of alteration. So it seems that the alterationist tent is too full of holes to be of any value to even yourself. I will add that your ignorance alone is proof of the problem that alterationist have in selling their faulty claims. You constantly divide people who disagree with you into camps of LNrs and CTs when in reality it is also CT's who are finding these alteration claims to be little more than poorly researched assertions being made by a very small number of individuals. In your last response alone you openly admit that you haven't spent much time dealing with the 'other film' story, but the difference between you and I is that I did spend considerable time dealing/evaluating all the information that had been presented concerning this alleged 'other film' and that is why I remember the little things so well that told me these people had not all seen the same film, but various films depicting the assassination which they may have only thought at the time was the real Zapruder film. The others are just lying IMO. Bill Miller

What gets me with Jack is that even if he isn't very good at determining angles, perspective, shadows, and etc., .... why would he just not recreate the damned image instead of wasting so much time? Jack has had at least 42 chances since the assassination to test what the shadows in Dealey Plaza should look like because that is how many 11/22s that have passed by since JFK's murder. Below is Charles Brehm's shadow seen passing over the curb ... note that it doesn't cast due east of Brehm, but rather in a more northern/northeast direction. Is there any reason to believe that Zapruder and Sitzman's shadows are special and should cast differentlly - of course not! Bill Miller

Jack, you've gone from a once respected researcher to a more recent babbling idiot. You asked for opinions and when you get one that you are not capable of sensibly debating - you go into a rant about Mad magazine. It's only a matter of time that I suspect that we'll be hearing about someone finding you sitting bare-assed on the knoll mumbling something about Moorman being the street or chanting the age old question ... 'how a woman can turn into a boy?'. Go look at the peoples shadows from the SS follow-up car as seen in Betzner's photo and you should get a better idea as to where one would find Zapruder and Sitzman's shadows in relation to the pedestal in Bronson's slide. Bill Miller

Jack - two things ... 1) Aren't you the guy who has told this forum that you do not provoke attacks ... I believe you are, so why are you calling people idiots for not responding to what is clearly another ridiculous misreading of an assassination image??? 2) I addressed this error of yours days ago in another thread and starting this crap in a new thread is not going to change the outcome. The shadows cast NE - not due east. This means that the shadow on the ground is being cast to our right and away from the camera. Zapruder and Sitzman's shadows are not visible because the pedestal is hidding them. If you need a reference, then look at Moorman and Hill's shadows on the curb in Altgens 6. Bill Miller

Well, David ... you were a member of the looney forum when all that discussion was going on and I brought up to Burnham that his time allotment for the limo stop was several seconds diferent than othes who were at that time claiming to have seen the so-called other film. Why, if you were reading the forum at that time, that you would not have heard about the limo stop lasting 3- 4 seconds is something that I cannot explain other than you were not paying enough attention or have merely forgotten it. It was those variances in these other film claims that caused me to question that so many individuals had seen the same 'other film'. Why would some rabid alterationist make a false claim in support of their beliefs ... you are kidding me - right! Who might be dishonest enough to make such a claim ... maybe the same people who were being given all these different versions of another film and then claiming that they alll belonged to a list of people who say saw the same 'other film'. Bill Miller

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ... Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid. But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film. Bill Miller

1. Limo is seen turning corner and going downhill without stop in filming 2. Limo makes "wide" turn 3. "Cuban" runs into street and signals to Greer 4. Limo stops for two seconds while head shots occur Jack There can be no doubt IMO that you are talking about a reenactment film or you have been duped. Moorman's photograph, which was taken within 3.6/18ths of a second from the head shot, shows the limo's wheels to be moving, plus all the assassination films showing the head shot seem to support Mary's photo. Again, Mary's photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination and within the next 2.5 hours it was then broadcast on a major news network. This means of course, that because of the authenticity of Moorman's photo ... any film showing a limo stopped at the time of the head shot must be a reenacted film and cannot possibly be the real event that took place on 11/22/63. Bill Miller

The answer is "YES" ... perspective can be guaged with accuracy. If you want to know how objects should look from a particular filming location ... just draw a line(s) from a photographers location to a particular reference point off an overhead view of Dealey Plaza and compare that information to what is seen in the assassination images. Do the same from another known filming location and compare these same peoples reference points to one another so to see how they fall on your original reference line(s). I have offered a link that will help you do this. http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg Bill Miller

David, have you, Jack, Fetzer, Lifton, or anyone else that has been involved in the alteration side of the coin ever bothered to ask anyone? Bill Miller Stephen, you and Peter mentioned a couple of things that would surely offer some answers to the authenticity concerning the Zapruder film and I am in disbelief that Jack or David Healy hasn't mentioned the following link for the answers to some of these questions .... www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm Bill Miller

It appears that you are looking at an MPI generated frame. MPI's Zfilm is nothing more than photos taken of each Zframe. MPI made mistakes and is why their film shows irregularities that the original film does not. Bill Miller

Yes - it is the Hesters.

Ok - here is your answer even though it may not be conspiratorial enough for some peoples liking .... Zapruder panned the President's car and he stopped filming when that car left the plaza by way of the triple underpass tunnel. Did Zapruder film any more than what is seen on the Zapruder film ... not likely. Why? Because within the next 11 seconds we can see Zapruder hopping down from the pedestal in Paschall's film. That left 11 seconds from the time he stopped his camera for both he and Sitzman to have climbed off the pedestal ... Then within hours Zapruder is having the film duplicated where it was also shown at the lab. No one who was present at the showing (including the lap personnel who projected the film) has ever said the film as we know it today didn't end where we see it each time we view it. Bill Miller

If you are talking about the people in the Zapruder film who are walking towards Elm Street behind Foster, then it is a simple matter of perspective in relation to how they appear from Bronson's angle compared to Zapruder's. Bill Miller

The woman is in a darker colored dress than Sitzman, their hair styles are different, the mystery woman has no chin whereas Sitzman has a squared jaw line, and Sitzman doesn't appear to have taken off her scarf for even when she went up by the TSBD - she still was wearing her black scarf. Maybe someone can post the rest of the image so we can check her dress length and shoes against Sitzman's? Bill Miller

Mrs. Hester did wear sunglasses on 11/22/63, but the woman is not her ... not even close. Bill

Peter, I can now see why you get so caught up in the erred alteration claims. To start with - the interview of Zapruder was done the afternoon of the assassination. This means that unless Zapruder must have gotten a hair cut immediately following the shooting ... which hardly seems reasonable. You may also note that Zapruder's head was shaved from about midear forward. The other man's hair extends forward of the ear by several inches, thus neither man resembles the other with the exception that they both wore bow ties.

I am finding this hard to buy. A film frame is a 2D image and if an object is filmed from two different angles, then I do not think that an optical printer is going to turn one image to match the filming angle of the other. Bill Miller

David, I can go read Zapruder's testimony for you, but why should I when you are surely capable of reading it yourself. And who would think that out of the hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination that there would be more than one older balding man. Now that is truly suspicious! I am thinking that if one needs a side by side comparison to see some of the obvious differences between the two balding men ..... that holding the camera originals in your hands will be of no help. BTW, if the balding men look alike, then the mystery woman must be Amelia Earhart. Bill Miller

Has anyone ever considered that Zapruder's camera was running on auto-zoom and that it was his tracking of the limo combinded with the limo's forward advancement that effected how the images looked on his film from frame to frame? I ask this because to achieve the exact same zoom ratio's ... someone would need to be seeing the limo from the same distance while having their camera's auto-zoom to be duplicating Zapruder's ratio's as well or it would be impossible to combine the two films and have all the images match up perfectly. If someone thinks this was not a problem, then please tell me how they reached their conclusion? Thanks, Bill Miller

Jack, how did you scale the two images of Zapruder? One image of Zapruder has the doorway opening nowhere close to the height as the same doorway in the other image. I think that you'll find that if you scaled the two colonnade images to the same size, then your two Zapruder's would match as well. Bill Miller

David, let me ask you a question ... Was Zapruder asked by the Commission if he went into the shelter? It seems to me that for many of these assassination witnesses to have said specific details that they would have had to of been asked the specific questions. As has been posted many times now - Trask's has a good lightened print of Art Rickerby's photo showing Abe's face quite well as he is standing in the shelter with Sitzman and the Hesters. Of course we don't have the camera original of Rickerby's photo so to prove it wasn't altered to look like Zapruder was inside the shelter, so we'll just say that the photographical record as it is ... supports by earlier statement. As far as the guy in the earlier photo, unless Zapruder had gotten a haircut before giving his filmed interview - they are not the same person. The sides of Zapruder's head was bald above the ears to the top of his head and all the way back to the rear portion of the skull. The man in the photo as seen in profile shows thick hair above the ears all the way to the top of his head. Bill Miller

Zapruder went into the shelter where he met with Charles Hester, then Marilyn and Beatrice Hester who worked for Abe. The man is not Zapruder and that man can be seen in serveral post assassination photos.

I believe you are 100% correct about the women, Robin. The timing of the frame you posted certainly is very close to the head shot, but without seeing it in motion - its hard for me to say. The Nix film showed Toni Foster making that abrupt direction change when the President's head exploded. Toni's direction change has not taken place in the frame you posted. Bill

So basically what you are implying is that maybe John Simkin might as well turn off the image posting part of the forum because any study of the photos and films is a waste of time unless each one of us can actually hold the originals in our hands. As I recall, in the 'Hoax' book that you particpated in - none of the images used in that book to make claims were the originals, yet I didn't see you mention a single word about that part of the book being a waste of time. How interesting! While agree that having the alleged originals authenticated for evidentuary value is important, it has little to do with the photos not being worthy of study. In fact, all the alteration claims I have seen so far having nothing to do with the authenticity of the film or photograph because it was the information within the image itself that was being misinterpreted. Bill Miller

Mark, the 'WEST' window figure that Groden discusses in his video was from the Tom Dillard wide angled view of the TSBD immediately after the shots were fired. The WC used Dillard's photo in their evidence, but had cropped off the far west window of the 6th floor while leaving the right side of the photo in tact. I can only assume that the WC felt that the high Dallas sky east of the 6th floor was far more important evidence than showing the west end of a floor where the alleged assassin was supposed to have acted alone in killing a U.S. President. Below is that far west window. Because some people had been pretending in my view to act as if they couldn't see the figure in the window - I wanted to show them the difference between what an empty window looked like Vs. the same window with the figure in it. Also, the Bronson film shows the 'EAST' end of the TSBD. Bill Miller