Bill Miller

Could not the same amount of bravery be given to Charles Brehm, Jean Hill, Mary Moorman, James Altgens, the Franzens, The Newman's, and etc.? Zapruder was further away from the target than the above witnesses, yet no one seems to wonder how they all kept their composure. Bill Miller

If a may enterject by attempting to offer a little observation here to this fascinating mystery ... Jean Hill said that she had stepped into the street and yelled out for the President to look her way, which according to Jean - JFK did turn to look to her side of the street. Jean said in her book that she didn't know if the President had actually heard her or not or was just turning to the people on both sides of the street, but JFK did turn in her direction. Jackie Kennedy is looking towards the south side of Elm Street as well, thus this is not the point in time where Jean saw the Presidential couple facing one another. So when was it? It could not have been before Z161 because the Croft photo shows Jackie still looking towards the south side of Elm Street. It could not have been before Z202 when the first shot has been heard because JFK is looking to the nouth side of Elm Street. In fact, the only time that JFK and Jackie are facing each other is after the President has been hit. That is when Jackie has raised her white gloves to take hold of the President's forearm. Altgens #6 photo shows what that posture of the Presidential couple looked like and at that point JFK would not be finding anything amusing, nor is Jack holding onto anything but her husband. So again we have Jean offering her impression of what she saw during those few brief moments - no more or no less. So the evidence seems to point to Jean's false interpretation of the event. Maybe to Jean she thought JFK looked to be amused. Jackie said JFK looked to have an expression like that of having a slight headache, so it seems that one woman's interpretation of looking amused is another woman's interpretation of someone having a headache. The point being is that no matter how Jean interpreted what she saw ... JFK was now shot and Jackie wasn't interested in showing off flowers or a stuffed toy to her husband. So again, Jean was not lying, but had only described what her impression was concerning those few brief moments in time, which are n ot supported by the evidence, but not supported by logic and sound reasonable hindsight, as well. Below is a crop from Altgens #6 photo taken from the street. Jean's angle of this event would be slightly different. Perhaps the flag blocked part of her view ... maybe Greer hindered Jean seeing what the white gloves of Jackie was actuly holding - who knows? The fact is that in reality - Jackie was not holding anything up for JFK to see during the entire ride down Elm Street. Bill Miller

This is my opinion only and directed at only those who are capable of comprehending the message I am attempting to relay ... I can certainly understand why if we limit ourselves to look at B&W images (many without clear detail) that something like a light colored bouquet of flowers could leave room for debate over how the image cane be interpreted, but what I am seeing is that when a really good sharp close-up of Jackie holding onto the object shows it to be a small bouquet of flowers, I have to wonder why would any rational person still be wasting time over whether or not those flowers could be viewed as a 'white dog' or not? Has not anyone here but me ever read Jean Hill's book? Would not Jean Hill know more about how the little white dog story came to be or are we better capable of knowing more about Jean that Jean knew about herself? Jean and I have talked about this incident and I would have thought that Jack, having known Jean, would have heard the same things I did. And I am reasonably sure that Jean told this story in her book called "The Last Dissenting Witness". Jean had said that before that infamous filmed interview of her was ever taped ... that she and the interviewer had gone over the things that she had witnessed during the assasination. Jean had said that she originally didn't know what the light colored object was that she saw on the seat of the car as it quickly passed by, but the interviewer had told Jean that he wanted her to give whatever her 'impressions' were of what she had witnessed, thus Jean said that her impression was that possibly the first couple had a little white dog with them. It was that statement that Jean then repeated during the filmed interview that followed, which was in complianance to the request that was made of her beforehand by the interviewer, that she said in her book that she had ever since regretted making. If one actually watches Jean in the Zapruder film, Jean only turns her head towards the limo just prior to the head shot and by the time Mary has taken her photo - the back seat would no longer be visible to Jean Hill. This means that Jean had less than .5 seconds or so to see from her elevated view what the little light colored object on the seat was. This would be equivalent to being shown a flash card in the same amount of time and then being asked to give your impression as to what you had seen. But regardless, it was Jean who told this story and it was Jean who said that she really didn't know what it was that she saw, but had only given the interviewer an idea as to what her impression was concerning what it might have been. This doesn't mean that Jean lied about anything, but rather she had only gave her impression to what she may have seen. So why would someone still be trying to make it out to be more than it really was? Those who were anti-Jean want to use that statement about the little dog to discredit her and those who want to vindicate Jean try and come up with images that could be interpreted as a little white dog. The whole thing seems silly to me once Jean, herself, has set the record straight and has shown that there was a simple explanation for why she made that statement during her filmed interview. If there is a lesson to learn here, it is how blurred images can take on the appearance of about anything. That just because a witness gives an impression as to what they had saw and it is found to be in error - it doesn't mean the witnessees is lying. In post #13, Jack points out how the object in question (a bouquet of flowers in clear images) looks like his childhood pet dog ... a (Toy Spitz). In another blurred image the object looks like' Lamb Chop' (the puppet) when IMO the face of Lamb Chop looks totally different than Jack's childhood dog's face looked. All I can tell people is to look for the clearest images of the same and utilize them to the best of your ability. When possible - use color photos because what is thought to be a possible all white Lamb Chop puppet in a B&W image may be found to have some yellow colors to it that only a bouquet of aster flowers would have. Below is a color image of fair quality and in it I can see 'Lamb Chop's' flowery petals. Bill Miller

A still photo can be misleading and for some reason I thought I had seen a piece of film showing Connally taking his hat off as Jackie came into the limo. Does anyone have any different knowledge than this? Bill Miller

I agree. But let's not forget about the little boy who cried wolf and why no one believed him. It's better to offer just one well thought out piece of evidence for a conspiracy rather than to post utter nonsense again and again that can easily be showed in error. Bill Miller

You alone are turning that into her walking into thew shelter at that time, which is understandable, but involves a measure of faith that it then is her shown in that particular Bond photo. I'm hoping for something more certain than your or anyone elses statement of belief about it. [b]Well, John ... if you find another woman in or around the plaza that wore a black scarf around her head and was near the pedestal - let me know. Bill[/b]

I'll let the record speak for itself, Peter. I respond to sorry assed poorly thought out alteration claims ... it just so happens that Jack invents nearly all of them, thus he is the one I respond to. The trial is in the evidence that is offered in rebuttal. Bill Miller Maybe someone can start a thread over why someone would continue to call known CT's LNRs or in this case ... try to provoke others by playing with the spelling. Bill Miller Chemotherapy is not a pleasant experience to endure and may seem to be a nagative thing to those having to deal with it, but it counters the cancer which is the worse of the two evils.

Peter, you are another one who shows a very biased opinion of the things Jack says. Let my post be directed at Von pein or Slattery, then you would never have a negative thing to say about it. Your thinking is so biased that I can see that you are still a bit confused as why I respond to all Jack's claims in the manner that I do. Well, let me make this clear for I have said it before ... many of us don't have Jack's notoriety and with fame should come responsibility. People who know little of the assassination and who certainly won't have a way of checking the evidence for themselves will think that because Jack White says something ... that it must be true because most people believe that people of Jack's notoriety want to be sure to have run a thorough inquiry before attaching their name to something. If nothing else, the 'hoax' book that Jack participated in showed how silly errors could even fool what would be otherwise intelligent people at a first glance. The seriousness of this type of recklessness cannot be down played because it not only has misled those people who have no way of checking Jack's claims for accuracy, but it also has given ammunition to those who want CT's to not be heard and what a better way to do that than to show how badly researched many of their views are. Bill Miller

Gee, I've heard the same kinds of opinions of Richard Helms and Ted Bundy. Maybe some of you guys can form a "Bill Miller Admiration Society" and start a forum for it somewhere else with the free forum software that's available, and keep him coralled over there stroking and petting him (all posts must be in boldface only, of course), and maybe then there'd be some chance in hell of keeping a thread on topic in this forum. Ashton Gray So Ashton, you don't mind Jack saying what he did because you didn't suggest that Jack start a "Bill Miller non-admiration Society", but instead you only comment like some biased jack-ass when someone responds to remarks concerning me that Jack started himself. Is there anything about Jack's alteration claims you'd like to discuss or are you merely interested in everyone only hearing what Jack has to say? Let me ask you something ... Jack posted a claim where he had chose the only frame that would make a woman's legs align with a cycle's tire in order to be able to say that she was now a boy in blue jeans. Jack also did the same thing in the Martin film capture - Jack had chose the only frame that would blend Jackie's glove with the black man's clothing who was standing along Houston Street so to be able to bring up lamb-chop. Had Jack looked at the frames prior and/or after that instant, then he would have seen Jackie with an empty hand. To get the frames Jack chose in those two threads - he had to bypass those frames that clearly showed his observation to be wrong, so in your fair minded unbiased way ... how do you defend this pattern of selected frame choice that Jack has demonstrated? If you find that you cannot be unbiased, then tell me what your response would be had Brendan Slattery of done the same thing??? That's the difference between us ... whether it be a CT's claim or a LN'r claim, if I have looked at it and can see an error over what is being said - I can and have had no problem is saying it the way it is. Bill Miller

John, from one poor quality image of a woman entering the shadows of the shelter doesn't mean much, but when someone who knows how to investigate this matter actually watches this woman and Zapruder get off the pedestal - have their backs photographed by James Altgens as they have just stepped onto the ground next to the pedestal, and while another film photographer picks up this woman walking into the shelter wearing the same clothing Sitzman wore - how much faith is needed at that point? Bill Miller

Let's think about Duncan's image. Number 2 is Zapruder and he could not shoot two films at the same time. Sitzman (#3) in Bronsons's slide has one hand on Zapruder's back and the other on her left hip, so unless Marilyn had three hands - it cannot be her. The 'connect the dot' figure (#1) behind Zapruder and Sitzman could not have shot the other film because Zapruder and Sitzman would have blocked out much of his view, not to mention that anyone back in the shelter would be seen in the same door in Willis's photo that was taken less than one second later. A great enlargement of the Willis photo can be seen in Groden's book "TKOAP". Cross referencing photos and films was not one of Duncan's strong points. Bill Miller

There was a line in the JFK movie that I think applies to the whining I am seeing on this forum concerning Jack's ridiculous postings and it went like this ... "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall." At one point on this forum I had Jack posting that he met me 6 years ago in DP when I gave him a Dillard 8 X 10 negative, which only I would have known this, besides Jack. (I see Jack's story has now grown to our meeting date to 15 years ago) I had also given a copy of the same negative to Groden only minutes earlier and I showed that negative to countless people at Lancer's conference during that time period, yet I was forced to tolerate nothing about the truth of what I was posting on, but rather the ranting of a senile babbling idiot going on about how I was some other guy. Jack could have viewed a copy of the Lancer conference for that year and he has said that he is friends with Robert Groden and despite my telling Jack that he could verify who I was by speaking to Robert - Jack chose not to. In other words, if Jack decides something is sinister, then he is going to not do what ever he can to find out differently. Then Jack posted a photo of me and Larry Peters shaking hands with a caption asking the question as if something sinister was going on and it read 'What is Peters and Miller shaking hands about?' At that moment in time Jack didn't mind the idea that Larry and I were different people because he wanted to imply that we were plotting against him for what ever reason. Now Jack wants to imply that Larry and I are one in the same person despite John Simkin telling Jack otherwise in a past response to one of Jack's periods of paranoia. Let me share a line that I had gotten from one of the forum administrators concerning Jack ... "No problem. I was aware that you were working well with Lee until Jack entered the scene. Has that man got problems." Jack says that I cannot prove that Larry and I are not the same person. Well, let's see ... if we offer birth certificates, then we'll probably hear that the documents may be forgeries. If we offer photos, then they may be altered. If we have those who have met us say that we are not the same person, then those people are ignored and why ... because as I said - Jack believes only what he wishes to believe. Mike Hogan has told me that I shouldn't waste so much time with Jack because I have destroyed the accuracy of his alteration claims so many times that anything now is just overkill. Mike may have a point. Then there are people like Ashton who cannot challenge the merit of the rebuttals concerning Jack's claims, so he whines and bitches about someone rocking the boat by calling Jack out on the rug for his remarks ... well, it has been suggested to me that Jack has a cult following and there are people who do not care if Jack is right or not, thus they do what they can to shift attention away from Jack's claims and try to make it appear as if Jack is just being attacked. Others have told me that some people are just ignorant concerning the area of the assassination that they are attempting to defend, so these people are easily persuaded by anything that sounds conspiratorial ... either way it doesn't matter to me because like the line from the JFK movie ... "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall" ... that's the way it has to be. This isn't a CT's or a LNr position, but one of just wanting researchers to be responsible when it comes to the evidence. I have stated that Jack had done some good work many years ago, but his alteration claims are nothing more than the result of poor research practices ... some of them being seen here in recent threads. Someone has asked why I am spending so much time on Jack and the answer is simple ... Jack is spending an equal amount of time thinking up poorly thought out observations in the name of alteration. I only wish the assassination films and photos were altered ... nothing would tickle me more, but let it be proven by thorough and responsible research instead of merely throwing xxxx at the wall in hopes something will stick. What saddens me is that there are clearly some select individuals who don't seem to think that JFK deserves better! To those same individuals I ask the following question ... When did they start thinking that JFK's murder getting a responsible and thorough investigation should take a back seat to Jack White??? There is a forum on the Internet that is designed to cater to Jack and people who couldn't care less about what really happened to President Kennedy. People like Ashton can go there and cheer Jack on over claims about lamb-chop and girls turning into boys, but when I was invited to come here it was said to me that this was an "education forum" pertaining to the evidence in JFK's assassination. In fact, I was once told that some people had limited image posting allowances, while on the other hand, I was given a higher posting allotment. The reason for this is simple and has been demonstrated when someone will post a poor quality image while claiming a girl has turned into a boy and I am able to come back and show what is clearly a cycle tire blocking out a woman's lower body by way of using better quality images. Jack is now saying that I don't do any real research, well it seems that the person who gave me that allotment of posting space doesn't agree with Jack's assessment. I also take pride in the Mary Ferrell award that I received for the discovery of new evidence in the assassination of JFK. In recent times I don't know anyone who ever did overlays showing Connally's shirt cuff at the moment he took a shot through the chest. Those overlays show IMO that Connally's wrist is not in the right position for the SBT to have been accomplished. So why would Jack say that I have not done any real research ... it is said IMO because Jack sees anyone who points out the errors of his claims to be the enemy. It also seems that he has some narrow minded followers who also think in this manner. One poster here who never offers any research which doesn't seem to bother Jack, presumably because this person feels all the assassination images are suspect unless you can hold the originals in your hand, calls anyone who disagrees with Jack - a lone nutter. It doesn't matter to this bird that one has demonstrated that there was a conspiracy in JFK's murder ... he feels that it an all or nothing proposition. This is the type of mentality that is currently being demonstrated on this forum by a select few. And isn't it funny that those are the same individuals who are whining the loudest about why I would feel it necessary to respond to Jack's alteration claims. It is these individuals who don't seem to grasp the harm that has been done to ever getting a future inquiry done concerning any new evidence pertaining to the assassination. The next time some of you want to respond about Jack's treatment - take a moment and think about not only the treatment JFK got when he turned onto Elm Street on 11/22/63, but also think about the treatment he is getting on this forum. Does not JFK's memory deserve a voice ... I think it does! Bill Miller Jack also wrote the book in recent years on poor research by way of throwing xxxx on a wall in hopes something sticks. We have been continuously seeing Jack's ability to point out frauds ... how else would we have known a white woman was black or that a motorcycle tire was in fact blue jeans. Bill Miller

You are correct, Robin ... just as Jack is correct about the lack of sleeves Sitzman's outfit had. The black head scarf as Jack pointed out is also another factor. Also, Sitzman's dress was shorter and if what we see in the Betzner photo is correct - Sitzman's dress had large noticeable buttons up the front of it. It appears that John's gamma test is not a reliable method for matching up images in photos. Bill Miller

If you mean by a couple of years as being "quick", then you are correct about the time span I was on the looney forum. If you mean by the word "quick" as the amount of time I was allowed to be a member of that forum after my challenging Jack White over his poorly thought-out observations concerning 7' tall Toni Foster, Moorman being in the street, parking meters taller than people, girls turning into boys, Zapruder and Sitzman waltzing on the pedestal, and etc., then you are also correct. David Lifton has never told me to get lost. He asked for an explanation several times by way of email and we conversed back and forth. David Lifton has never shown the lack of having class concerning JFK's assassination like you do. Your message is so disjointed that I have not a clue as to what you are talking about, which brings me to one of the symptoms of Schizophrenia that you often display - Disorganized or Bizarre Behavior . Bill Miller

There is now! You tell people not to trust anything they cannot hold in their hand, but who amongst those, including yourself, would actually know what they are looking at? Your statements are for the ignorant that cannot see the lack of logic and sound reasoning in the things you say. Thank goodness that their numbers are few. Lifton, while I admired his investigation into the subject so many years ago, is another one who couldn't see that Moorman's camera was above the cycles in the #5 Polaroid that Mary had taken. You will note that in the 'Hoax' book that he doesn't offerr peer review by experts who would know the subject better than he. Again, you play on peoples paranoi and lack of knowledge of the subject. Do I need to post more of the symptoms of schizophrenia to see how many apply to your postings? Distrust or Suspiciousness Poor Memory or Learning Ability Overly Dependent Behavior Reckless or Impulsive Behavior Obsessive Thinking or Compulsive Rituals ... and it is said that people with this ailment are not aware that they have it. Bill Miller

One of you guys can buy a copy of Groden's DVD which has the assassination films on it, then you can post every frame from every film to a web page or forum if you want to and people then can save the images for free. Or those same people who have no money can try and get a copy of the same DVD off of ebay which has sold for as little $10.00 on occassions.

It's funny how when one uses clear images ... an alleged white puppet becomes white flowers. Jackie wore white gloves that extended several inches past her wrist. Along with special red roses, Jackie received a group (called a "spray") of white and yellow aster flowers. As easily seen in these and other close-up photos at Love Field, she cupped the asters in her glove UNDERNEATH the roses. Once she stepped in the car, as seen in this WBAP-TV news film, she briefly showed the asters to JFK. The "sock puppet" story is a myth - believed only by people who have not studied high-quality images. Bill Miller

Well, Peter ... allow me to tell you what that day would be like .... It would be a day when Jack didn't use poor quality images to make his claims. It would be a day when he did post his images - that he would post a full frame image as well so one could better determine what they were seeing. It would be a day when sound responsible study of an image had actually taken place. And it would be a day when we wouldn't have Jack telling us how white women are black and how a motorcycle tire passing in front of a woman in a dress has changed her from a girl to a boy. (We saw the images Jack posted and I can't find a Zfilm copy as degraded as the one Jack used. Now compare that to the animation below) And of course we wouldn't have people like yourself who must be just as photographically inept to be praising such nonsense, unless you have an agenda for wanting to accept poor research practices. Anyway, that would be what such a day would be like and wouldn't it be grand! Bill Miller The same moment in time from another angle shows Jackie has nothing in her left hand and is merely running her white gloved hand over her hair.

Jack, you cannot be serious!

David, your response showed most of the signs of Schizophrenia. I can't help you. The inability to reason intelligently was the first sign. (Poor Concentration or Attention). Continually calling people LNRs just because they do not agree with you falls under the symptoms (Reckless or Impulsive Behavior Obsessive Thinking or Compulsive Rituals). Like I said earlier - I pity you. One can tell that Zapruder turned his camera off by finding out how much time elapsed between the time the lead cycles rounded onto Elm Street to the point Kennedy's limo did ... the time frame cannot exceed the capabilities of the cameras running running time. Then there is that 'start-up' frame that I told you about. If you do not understand what a start-up frame is or why it appears brighter than the rest, then nothing I can tell you will make you understand what happened. Bill Miller

The cycle is blocking the lower portion of the woman in the dress ... that's why Jack used the frame he did. This is one time that it took less time to see what Jack's was trying to pull off than it did for him to create such a hair brained observation. Bill Miller

" ... it was apparent to me that we're being fired upon. I went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the - to notify the officer who was leading the escort that he had been hit and that we're going to have to move out. [The shot,] it was back over my right shoulder."

I'll leave your salvation to the creator. However, I can respond to your paranoia and lack of knowledge concerning the timing of those films you mentioned although it will be nothing that hasn't been said to you several times before. First of all, one might ask Tina Towner (a young teenager at the time of the assassination) why she stopped filming. The same can be said for Hughes, Bell, and Martin. To question why ordinary people do the things they did under extraordinary circumstances as if there is a set standard to filming a presidential motorcade is a bit over the top for most people and could be considered a poor attempt at trying to find fault with something where no fault ever existed. And while it is true that some Dealey Plaza films had breaks in them of a few 18ths of a second and others only recorded segments of the limo's turn onto Elm Street - there is no point at which the President's car was never being captured and filmed on Elm Street by someones camera. Now having said this once again .... it seems that a sensible person would see that there is nothing suspicious about the films concerning JFK's turn from Houston onto Elm, while on the other hand - a paranoid non-educated indivdual who hasn't bothered to piece together the available evidence pertaining to the overlapping of these various films just might see things differently. A Zapruder type camera (Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera) runs anywhere from 50 to 66 seconds on a full wind, less if the camera is not wound tightly. Winding it too tightly means running the risk of breaking it and in that event ... no film of the President's arrival would not be obtained by Zapruder. I know this because I have owned several of them and tested each one. I believe that Zapruder filmed the lead cycles so to get a feel of the tracking speed of the motorcade ... a type of test if you will. Had he not stopped filming, then he surely would have run the possibility of running out of filming capability when the President finally arrived. Common sense tells me that Zapruder stopped his camera. One reason for saying this is because there is a 'start-up' frame at Z133. A start-up frame as you know is brighter than the following frames. The second thing is that Zapruder from his earlier test pans of the cycles would be aware that until the President was visible west of the lamppost - he would be obsecured by the tree foilage. Zapruder did what I would have expected and that was to wait until he saw the President come into full view so to utilize his cameras remaining running time to the fullest. With the limo advancing at just under 1' per film frame, it appears that Zapruder was off and filming within one second of him seeing the President emerging from behind the lamppost. That's roughly 4 seconds before the first shot was fired. While someone looking to find fault with Zapruder and/or his film may see it differently, I feel as though I have looked at his actions in an unbiased way that is both logical in hindsight and the most plausible explanation when considering the evidence as a whole. Below is Z25 with a crop of the limo from Z133 inserted into the image. To date, all of the alteration concerns I have witnessed has been the result of paranoia, poor research, and a lack of knowledge of the facts. For those individuals there will never be any closure concerning Zfilm alteration. The biggest reason for this is because those who have been making such claims have not shown any signs of being able to understand their mistakes. On pages 83 and 84 of Trask's book (POTP) it is said that Richard Stolley (Life) was present on the morning of the 23rd when Zapruder took out his film and projected it for the SS and others who were there wanting to see it. Zapruder had kept the original film and a 1st generation copy. So unless someone broke into Zapruder's safe and altered the film and the copy - the opportunity was never there IMO. Bill Miller

BS, there are a few frames missing from the Towner film, but we are only talking about a few 1/18s of a second with the limo emerging unscaved without any disturbances inside the car. David surely knows this, but he has no other way to express his paranoia. FWIW, Six or seven years ago, Gary Mack made William Reymond an offer, which he refused. The offer was to personally contact all the major news organizations to get a reporter to travel to France to view the "other" assassination film. Reymond, as you probably know, claims to know the identity of the man who has it. Gary said that he he has friends and acquaintances in many major news rooms, both nationally and locally. So far, not a peep out of Reymond, who will not tell anyone who the mystery man is. Bill Miller

Maybe if you buy Trask's book instead of trolling the forums, you'd know the answers to these questions of yours. But first you have to take JFK's murder seriously enough to actually learn the case. As far as being mad at you about anything - it simply isn't the case ... I actually feel pitty for you. Bill Miller