Bill Miller

David, state one JFK assassination fact from the above remarks. Once again you are merely XXXXX because that is all you are capable of. I wasn't crying about anything, but merely pointing out the weaknesses of the "other film" claim and instead of you addressing the statements made that I referred to - you just play the role of the forum troller. If you want to talk about the facts, then post them and we'll discuss them. Bill Miller edit: removal of offensive phrase

David, Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". While you are correct that each assassination film may not cover the complete Houston to Elm Street turn of the limo ... combined, they do account for every second of that turn. So do YOUR homework, dufus! Bill Miller

DellaRosa merely says he saw this alleged 'other film' at the University - no mention to what month or even what season of the year so to narrow the time frame down. DellaRosa also fails to pinpoint where at the Univerity was the alleged film shown. Was it in the theater, the gym, the science class, the history class - WHERE? It is these little things that would help someone go back into the school records to look for what guest were scheduled to come and speak to the students. It would allow researchers to seek out the people in charge of a particular area of the school who could then offer more information pertaining to this alleged 'other film' showing. It would allow researches to look for a registery that may contain the names of those who attended this alleged event. As late as 1990 or so, DellaRosa said he had seen the alleged 'other film' again and yet no further information has been forthcoming, which only prevents anyone from either validating the event or exposing it as a hoax. When I see a continuous pattern of deniability or memory loss among these so-called witnesses to the 'other film' - I tend to find the witnesses a bit suspect. Bill Miller

Go here ......... http://www.rainsensor.com/ Bill Miller

Jack, please allow me to explain why your illustration cannot possibly be reliable. First of all, this alleged 'other film 'was said to show the same event as the Zapruder film with some obvious differences and so to be used to edit the existing Zapruder film. That would mean that this alleged elevated photographer would be visible in Moorman's photograph and yet you and Mack pored over the best quality Moorman print which showed Arnold, Badge Man, and a RR worker, and no such photographer existed. So what do you do - you ignore the evidence from the best Moorman print and use a poor quality and somewhat blurred Betzner photo in order to come up with an image that can account for an 'other film' claim that you wish to embrace. The second thing you didn't consider is that the illusion that you see as an elevated photographer is the same size as Zapruder. For someone to be back behind the fence, they would appear much smaller than someone much closer to the camera. What this means is that the scaling of your proposed subject is too large to be a real person. The third thing that makes your observation unreliable is that you could not shoot the assassination from two different locations and then start splicing the films together and not have someone pick up on the differences in perspective within the same image. To shoot a dummy film - one needs to at least be in the same camera location as the original photographer was filming from. And before you start complaining how you are being attacked ... let me remind you that you attempted to show that Moorman was in the street by using the same premise that I just described. In other words, you correctly believed that Moorman's location could be determined by following the alignment of certain landmarks within her field of view. The same would apply to aspects of a film of the assassination. To avoid a perspective change from becoming noticed - one has to film (the other film) from the same location as the target film (Zapruder's film) that one is planning on dubbing onto. Bill Miller Why go to the trouble and risk of them tweeking their original remarks ... let someone copy and paste their original post from DellaRosa's archives. Bill Miller

There are lots of things that you do not understand, Jack, so what's your point! These guys saw what they claimed to be the murder of a US President and thats about it. Myers said on the looney forum that the version he saw showed JFK being shot up as the limo was turning off of Houston and onto Elm Street, which means the film he saw could not be connected with the reality of the events of 11/22/63 because the Betzner photo shows the location of the limo in relation to Elm Street and not a single shot had been fired at that poiint. I called Myers on his point time and time again and unless he has changed his position on his web site - he either has lied or he saw a recreation film which he thought years later, when he saw the real Zapruder film, that they were one in the same. It's like saying that one guy saw a film of JFK in an open car in his other film and the other alleged witness says the film he saw showed JFK in a horse drawn carriage with someone like yourself proclaiming that you fail to see the difference ... and thats the part that man y of us do not understand. Bill Miller

Was there another slow day on the job, David ... so you thought you'd XXXXXX on the ol' JFK forum again? Let's see if I can address all the say-nothing trolling remarks you made above in one sweep ... The first stupid thing you said is answered by the third stupid thing you said. (see above) The topic was discussed in detail on the looney forum (aka: JFKResearch) Those threads should still be archived, unless like some post made there that was damaging to the theme of alteration .. they may have been removed and are no longer obtainable. The second stupid remark in the list is typical for you and I expected little else. Only someone with an agenda or lacking the basic skills of comprehension would not see the descrepencies I mentioned in an earlier post concerning what these various alleged witnesses had seen on the particular films they saw. Stupid remark #4 refers to why they would answer any questions I had asked. One might assume that a forum that is claiming to be searching for the truth would not mind answering questions put forth by other members there. In fact, there were several people there who were wanting to know more about the circustances surrounding the alleged witnessing of this 'other film'. Burnham and Myers both had responded to my inquiries and that is how I know about the particulars concerning the alleged films they had seen. About the only thing these alleged witnesses had in common was that none of them could verify the month and year they saw this 'other film'. Keep in mind that ths was supposed to be some of the most vivid images of JFK's assassination and before anyone had really seen the Zapruder film and certainly not a good clean image of it. Yet no one could offer any names of people who were present at these showings so someone could seek independent collaboration. The 5th and 6th stupid remark you made goes to what has becaome common knowledge and that is that anyone challenging the alteration crowd on the looney forum soon had their memberships revoked. In my case it wasn't until DellaRosa had cashed my check for my fees. And if anyone thinks that the attitude of that forum is not like that I have stated here, then just let them read the many sorry responses that you give instead of taking the time to rebut what has been said with actual data. Bill Miller edit: removal of offensive phrase

Yes ... and all since 9/11 ... imagine that!

Sorry, BS, but both of you have become known for the same style of posting, just on opposite ends of the scale ... just go back and read the threads. Bill Miller

You posted Mack's email to you, but it appears you didn't bother to read what he said. For instance, "The ABC special used a video tape of the National Archives' preservation film copy of the 8mm camera original Zapruder footage." I'd have to see those reciepts, but it doesn't say much when you sound like the guy who took 25 years to get through high school as if he somehow was more educated than someone who did it in four years. For instance, I guess that you didn't view them long enough to know Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination. The same can be said when you always would say that there were no identifiable pictures of Sitzman in Dealay Plaza ... despite her turning around and looking right at Zapruder before Abe had filmed the assassination footage. It's like having a library full of books and never having read any of them. Bill Miller

Is BS helping you with these say nothing responses or are you just as good as he is in making them? Bill Miller

Jack, the people you are citing about seeing this other film cannot be talking about the same film ... because the events they describe from within the film the saw has varied from testimonial to the another. I have been through this before with you-you cannot see the problem with there being so many different versions and how that applies here, then there is nothing more to discuss. Burnham's version saw a 1/4 to a 1/2 second limo stop. Another witness (Myers) to this 'other film' says he saw a 4 second limo stop. Scott Myers posted on the looney forum that the version he saw showed JFK getting shot up as he was rounding the corner onto Elm Street. Not one witness has ever claimed that they heard any shots at this time, nor did they describe seeing the President and Connally shot this early in the Elm Street ride. In fact, Betzner said he had already taken his photo when the first shot rang out. Willis said it was the first shot sounding off that caused him to take his photo, thus Myers was either lying or there are different films out there that are being lumped together as one film called "the other film". If the latter is true, then at least some of these people saw a staged film for whatever reason that it was created. Now you can tell this forum that all these alleged witnesses have described the same events, but I was on that forum when all this came out and I am telling you flat out that you are mistaken. Furthermore, DellaRosa could not name one person he was with when he saw this alleged "other film". DellaRosa was so vague that there was no way to even pinpoint the month and year at his school so to go back in their records and find out what events that took place there so to see who it was who was responsible for bringing the film to the school in theo first place. I remember this because I wanted to help locate this other film, but was frustrated by the severe lack of detail that was forthcoming over this so-called shocking event. So spin it any way that you like, but you are either lying to these forum members or you are so delusional that you no longer have a grasp on reality of what transpired over this so-called "other film" business. Bill Miller

Gary does forward me responses to Zapruder film information that he is sharing with others, but not always, nor have I said Gary always does this. As far as the rain sensor thread ... I am sure that you can think up more trolling responses faster than most people can research, but knowledge is the key to warming up to any topic and you have not shown that you hav any particular knowledge about the irrigation system in Dealey Plaza. Bill Miller

I said this before ... Trask's details in his book how one can get a copy of the Zfilm from NARA. If one is willing to pay for the copy to be made, then the National Archive will make it obtainable. The purpose for how it will be used (commercial or otherwise) is sure to make a difference on how much one has to pay for the film copy. About the restoration part of your question ... Monaco was willing to restore the film through some new techniques, but NARA had concerns as to whether one should risk damaging the camera original film. In short - they didn't want another incident on their hands as like what happened with the Dillard negative and how it was damaged. After careful consideration it was decided to not risk destroying a national treasure like Zapruder's film. Bill Miller

David, I have asked you several times to post Mack's information if you had gotten it by now. If Gary has sent it to you, then open it and look to see if he "CC'd" it to me or not. Why you choose to spank your monkey instead of just getting to the point is rather sickening and nothing more than what you complain about BS doing. As far as where to post it ... if you have recieved it, then why not post it to the thread that you were trolling in when you asked the questions that you want answered. My memory tells me that it was the thread where we were discussing NARA's having Monaco doing some work for them and whether or not that work was used by Dale Myers. Bill Miller

Quite a few bootleg copies were created during the New Orleans Garrison-Shaw trial. Additional copies of the Z-film were reproduced in NYC, for the FBI. In 2000 Roland Zavada made a presentation to the NYC branch of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers) Present with him was Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics, NYC. Hall commented during the 2000 SMPTE conference; his firm in 1963 made 16mm copies (they had to adapt a film printer for the job, same a Moe Weitzman firm had to do) of the Zapruder film. As for 8mm copies, who knows... It should be noted that Cine Magnetics became one of the worldwide industry leaders in providing 8mm SOF versions of commercial released Hollywood feature-films amongst other places. The film industry terminology: IN-flight films, provided to/for every commercial airline. A summary [link] of the SMPTE conference: Film Forensics and the Zapruder Film, hosted by Roalnd Zavada is located below http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm any further questions, Bill can help you - he's the expert! DHealy Thanks for citing some actual data pertaining to the subject ... I hope that you not suffer any ill-side effects as a result of this. Bill Miller

It appears that they insist on not being thorough so people like yourself who cannot understand what is said can xxxxx forums and speak out of both sides of their mouth. The Indians here in British Columbia call it 'talking with a forked tongue'. Surely you are not suggesting that meeting flawed WCR supporters work should be done by rebutting them with flawed CT's work. Again, you have seen Costella's work and have said that you have seen no proof of alteration. So if your position is that you do not understand or have a need to understand Costella's work, then how can you defend it, unless playing the role of the forum provacateur is your objective. Yes, and it was you who brought up Costella's thoroughness in post #5. Then you mentioned Costella being a phyicist as if that means something. If that is all you have in support of Costella's remarks concerning alteration, then his past history of thoroughness should be examined to see how it applies to his thinking on this matter. By the way, it seems that you have time to spend away from work to xxxxx the forums, but no time to post that reply that Gary Mack was going to send you ... why is that? Did Gary not send you the information that you were seeking or is it that he did send it to you, but it wasn't something that you no longer wanted to share with your fellow forum members? Bill Miller

I am guessing that if your information is correct, then your friend is mistaken as to where he obtained a copy of the film. Before Jim Garrison went to trial against Clay Shaw, Garrison was said to have had bootleg copies of the Zapruder film sent out to various people. It is possible that your friend may have one of those copies. You might start by asking your friend if he recalls whether the film was B&W or color? As far as the "other film" goes ... that story stinks to high heaven. Not only are there numerous versions of this 'other film' being alleged, but not one person who claims to have seen the showing of this shocking piece of footage can cite even the month it was seen or anyone else who was present when they saw it. I am not even aware of anyone that these people may have discussed this amazing and shocking piece of film with following its alleged viewing. It's funny that when someone see's a blurry distant photo of the assassination showing a poor quality image of a woman who is thought to be black when she is actually white - the Zfilm seems suspicious to them. Yet the lack of detail surrounding the alleged other film isn't considered suspicious. One thing about all this is that the alleged 'other film' witnesses have locked themselves into a it being very sharp and clear. So if you find your friend's copy to be of poor quality, then you do not have the alleged 'other film". If it is little more than mud, then it most likely is a bootleg copy of Zapruder's film. Bill Miller

The laws of physics have been on the Internet even longer, but that doesn't mean that you understand them. Your attempt to divert away from my calling you on your 'trolling' will not work. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You cite Costella's alteration views as if he is reliable, but you, yourself have said that to date you have seen no proof of alteration. This means that either you do not understand what Costella says or you do understand it, but do not agree with him ... which ever choice you pick is fine with me for my point has been made. Here is just one example of what Costella has said that shows that he is not as throrough as you make him out to be ... "In what is in my opinion the most important Moorman research carried out to date, Jack demonstrates why the region of the Zapruder pedestal in the Moorman is almost certainly altered or fabricated: “Zapruder” and “Sitzman” are indistinct, despite being in bright sunlight; their depiction in the other films and photographs of the assassination is inconsistent; and the fact that there are “windows” of the pergola structure behind Zapruder that are missing, which indicates that whatever or whomever was perched on that pedestal was edited out, and replaced by indistinct figures in such a way that cropped versions of the Moorman published in the days following the assassination would not be invalidated—Zapruder literally “melts into the stonework” in a way that would be impossible for a real person standing in bright sunlight on that pedestal." The "thorough" Costella didn't bother looking at the Moorman photo that was filmed and displayed on NBC within hours of the assassination. As I have said many times before, Moorman's photo was filmed not 30 minutes following the shooting and her image does not show the colonnade windows Costella is talking about. The reason it doesn't show those windows is because the part of Zapruder's clothing that is lightened by sunlight is blending in with the colonnade behind him. This is what happens when dealing with limited color tones on B&W images. Jack and Costella only see the shaded part of Zapruder's clothing as his total outline and because they didn't either find out about Mary's photo being filmed right after the assassination or knew about it and just didn't think to check it for these alleged missing windows, they have shown their lack of "thoroughness". There is no way around this blunder, David and you can copy and paste links until the cows come home, but it does not validate the content that you are tring to sell. I had assumed that after knowing about these claims, that when you said that you had 'not seen any signs of alteration' that this meant that you understood the critiques being made about Costella and White's observations, but when you post links that are offered as proof of Costella's accuracy and thoroughness, then you are only contradicting yourself, which doesn't help White or Costella in any shape - way - or form. One would think that when an instant photo is filmed while still being in Moorman's possession and that photo DOES NOT show the colonnade windows ... that a rational and sensible person would understand that the reason for the missing windows is something other than the photograph being altered, but I guess that isn't important to a 'phyicist' like Costella or to those who try and sell him as being thorough. Bill Miller

David, you have to be the biggest troller of forums I have ever witnessed. I have yet to see you actually explain why one position is preferred over the other. The best I have seen you do is place a link in your reponse which doesn't tell anyone if you even have an understanding as to what you are saying or why you are saying it. Instead of citing facts, you attempt to promote a position by way of propaganda in their place. Your "physicist" is the same guy who at first supported Jack by saying that Moorman was standing in the street when she took her number five Polaroid. The physicist not only failed to see Moorman's camera looking over the top of the cycles windshields, but he didn't even attempt to find out how tall one opf those sysles stood from the ground to the top of its shield. (So much more thoroghness!) So just being a physicist doesn't mean a hell of a lot when you make such errors. One person in this thread has said that he has experience with such irrigation systems and while not having been in Texas, he has seen such techniques as those used in Dealey Plaza used in another state. Costella didn't even offer to tell the reader whether or not he bothered to find out if these irrigation methods were used in other parts of the country that by the way would be unrelated to Dealey Plaza or JFK's assassination. But as long as he has a 'Baghdad Bob' like yourself who is willing to say one thing even if the record says something else, then that must be all that counts to a troller. Bill Miller

The questions have been answered, but one has to actually read the information and also be able to comprehend what they have read. http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/rainsenless.html Bill Miller

Chris, did you know that just prior to the limo getting onto Stemmons Freeway ... that the limo had slowed to a crawl as Curry's car pulled along side of it as they shouted directions on how to get to the hospital to Greer? Curry called it a "rolling stop", which means a near stop, but still moving. I am willing to bet this is when Hill made his move to get into position by placing a foot up on a hand hold and pushing himself across the trunk and over the top of the back seat. The Zapruder film shows JFK falling over and onto his left side, so for his head to bleed down the front of Jackie's seat - he must be angled from the back passenger side of the seat of the seat to the front middle to drivers side of the bench seat. Bill Miller

I am not sure what difficulty you are having ... photos looking down into the limo shows the amount of room the back seat had. The blood running down the front of Jackie's seat must have gotten there as the President bled all the way to Parkland. I would like to know where you got the idea that Jackie ended up on the floor? Jackie simply bent forward and craddled her husband's head and tried to hold the top of his head on just as she testified to. She remained in this position all the way to the hospital. I recall reading where she was still holding her dead husband and had to be asked to allow the SS to remove him from the limo so to get him into the ER. Bill Miller

It's always good to see one of your "thorough" and detailed responses, David. Costella's lack of thoroughness has been shown several times ... one instance that comes to mind was when he mistakenly wrote about this big window of time when Moorman's photograph could have been altered because he hadn't bothered to even find out the first time it was publicly displayed. Had Costella of done so, he would have discovered that it was filmed in the Plaza not 30 minutes following the assassination and while always being in Mary Moorman's possession. As far what the non-alteration crowd would say ... you should know the answer because you are one of them. It certainly shouldn't be necessary to constantly keep reminding you that you have said that you have never seen proof of alteration. I would think that common sense would tell someone that depending on whether you are talking about areas that are flat and have little to no run-off, areas that are shaded most of the day, or areas that are on slopes and do not hold water easily would need to be watered differently. My question to you, Jack, or Costella is ... What have any of you done to check with other parks similar to Dealey Plaza to see how their watering system is set up so to determine if DP is operating no different than other alike parks? Bill Miller

Jack, if like most sprinklers ... they can be set to water in a 360 drgee spray pattern right down to to a 1/4 spray pattern by simply adjusting them, so did you or Costella bother to see how they were adjusted? And considering that they can throw spray a good distance, the pole seems to be of little significance. I might also add that the low wattage light to that pole gets heavy Texas rain storms pouring down on it from time to time and with no worries concerning the wiring or ability of operating with water falling upon it. So when you make statements like the one above - I have to wonder if you or Costella had bothered to give a lot of thought to this matter at all. Also, the sensor mounted on the sign was not under the lip of the angle iron support beam, but rather it was sticking out to the side of it ... much the same way the man is mounting one on a gutter in the photo on the link below. http://www.rainsensor.com/WRS1P-Cut1.htm Bill Miller Bill Miller