Bill Miller

It is amazing at how people can ignore Hill's testimony (the same Clint Hill that didn't back off of saying the back of the President's head had a large hole in it, unlike the official autopsy photos, and instead take a B&W photo where there is no way to see his lower body detail because of the dark clothing he wore and merely draw in any way you feel his leg would have been bent. Hill does not have his leg bent at the knee out in front of him, but rather it is straight downward with his foot still hooked over the door just as he is almost in that position in the Newman photo. Maybe someone should consider talking to a doctor to see what motor functions they believe JFK had once he had 1/3 of his brain blasted out of his head, then maybe all this foolishness would end. Bill Miller

Jack, Is this the same alleged event that Gary Mack said in a response to you, "I happen to have an audio tape of the Jean Hill appearance - which was several years earlier - and I'd be happy to play it for you to refresh your so-called memory." If this is the case, then maybe you should take Gary up on his offer because has been shown over and over again that your memory is not all that accurate most of the time. As far as why you'd make up such a thing ... maybe it is not from your intentionally making something up, but rather due to you not bothering to get your facts straight before posting about it. Bill Miller PS: I knew Jean Hill and I can't recall if it is in her book without checking it out, but she had told me that she was interviewed off the record before being filmed about her "dog in the midle of the seat" remark. Jean said that she had been asked what her first impression was as to what she saw. After Jean told the interviewer that she wasn't sure what it was she had seen, he still wanted her to retell the story for the camera and to give her first impression of what she had witnessed ... that's how the 'dog in the seat' remark ended up in her interview. Jean was made to regret ever complying to the interviewer's request.

I realize that Jack googled your name and I also realize that had Jack of googled your name without separating "Brendan" and "Slattery" that he would not have gotten nearly as many hits, but Jack was wanting to know more about "YOU" and didn't go into your family's personal life. Dawn makes comparisons concerning your research approach, but still doesn't attack your intimate personal life. Even if what you said about Robert was true - it had no place on this forum. What's worse is that you said something about Groden and his family without knowing a damned thing about what you were talking about and it is crossing the line. Anyway, I only tried to warn you of something I had seen happened before ... it's like trying to warn a moth from not flying into the range of the campfire. Take it for what it is worth! Bill Miller

Understandable - I've been asked the same question in LA for decades. If some of the local Indians I have meet here in British Columbia ever join the forum ... they will really look suspicious because of their names. I know of one named Denver Bob. It seems that it is quite common for them to have 'first names' making up their entire name.

Peter, give me a ball park figure of how many times you have ever asked Gark Mack through any type of correspondence what his personal feelings were pertaing to whether he believes there may have been a conspiracy or not in JFK's assasination? It seems that some of you are too emotionally involved in your position to understand that the Gary Mack who respresents the Musuem, as part of his job, is supposed to remain neutral and cite the 'historical record' of the assassination while in their employment. Bill Miller

It seems to me that if you wish to make a post telling what the book store sells, then you may want to have visited there within the past few years. I might also add that had you of been there in the past few years ... you would have known about "National Nightmare" and many of your erred post could have been avoided, but like you said, "it has little that I need or want". Maybe had you of been there in the past few years - you could have done as I did and asked Gary to allow you to see a wealth of very clear assassination photos, (many I had never seen before), but then again like you said, "it has little that I need or want". Maybe had you of been there in the past few years you could have seen a really good image of Sitzman in her high heels that you believed was not the case because she was too tall, which we now know was not the case, but maybe avoiding being wrong on that point as well was as you said, "it has little that I need or want". Bill Miller

Gary Mack believes there was a conspiracy, but needs to remain neutral while representing the Museum. Gary believes that you and his Badge Man work is valid. As far as knowing what the Museum sells ... you didn't even know about Trask's book "National Nightmare" being sold there. National Nightmare is a book on the Zapruder film which you claim to have an interest in.

Jack, as Robin shows in post 34, Sitzman wore high heels on 11/22/63. The Betzner and Willis photos also show Sitzman to be the better part of a head taller than Zapruder as they stood side by side. (see Groden's book "TKOAP" for good quality enlargements) The Altgens 8 photo can be seen in a good enlargement on page 68 in Richard Trask's book "That Day in Dallas". The two (Zapruder and Sitzman) are shoulder to shoulder next to the pedestal in that photo. The Bell and/or the Paschall film shows Mr. Z just starting to walk away from Sitzman. Also, the Bronson slide that you like to display at times shows Sitzman's face next to Zapruder's ... now how was she able to be so tall if not wearing high heels - was she standing on a box? For someone who says he has studied the photographical record for 40 years - you do not seem to know it very well. I guess one should look at your time spent as equal to that of someone who has taken 40 years to complete high school. We'll just say you went for quanity and not quality. As I said before, Zapruder and Sitzman are side by side in the Altgens 8 photo seen in Trask's book on page 68 in "That Day in Dallas". That moment caught by Altgens picks up in one or more of the assassination films mentioned above. So trust your memory if you must - I will trust the multiple photos and films showing you to be wrong as usual. As far as 'tall women not wearing high heels' - Robin's film capture of Sitzman wearing her high heels on 11/22/63 says it all. I also think that I recall Sitzman's co-worker (Mrs. Hester) was wearing heels that day as well. I guess that she and Sitzman wasn't aware of your views on what tall women should and should not wear to work. Additional various sized women wearing high heels can be found in many of the post assassination films and photos. Two such photos can also be found in Trask's book "That Day in Dallas" on pages 85 and 94. Once you have seen those photos - tell me again just who is shoveling crap - Jack! Below is a film capture from the Zapruder film showing more various sized women in heels. Look for a better image like this one of Sitzman in high heels in Groden's book "TKOAP" You've now been shown! Bill Miller

Why guess or rely on a relative ... Sitzman in heels is the difference and she can be seen standing next to Zapruder in several post assassination films and photos and her height compared to Zapruder's is quite distinguishable. (POTP/Trask/page 317/Altgens 8) Oh yeh, I want to tell you that beige colored clothing will look dark when someone is casting a shadow over them which is what happened in Moorman and Bronson's images. Bill Miller

Brendan, I wasn't limiting your meaningless responses to one thread, but regardless ... they all add up and its OK to make them as long as you do not mind the post count on a thread being too high. Sitzman was about 6' tall. On the say of the assassination she wore high heels and as all the assassination images of her shows - she stood taller than Zapruder because of it. Bill Miller

Brendan, it was in another thread (the shoe thread) where you were complaining about the number of pages being posted over that matter ... would you like for me to compile your responses on this "education forum" so we can evaluate the contribution you made Vs. the pissing around and causing some of those needless pages to add up? Here is a small sample ... Brendan Slattery Jul 5 2006, 07:39 AM Post #83 Experienced Member Group: Members Posts: 183 Joined: 3-May 05 Member No.: 2905 This is right up there with Bill Lovelady in the doorway and "Lamb Chop" in the back seat. Experienced Member Group: Members Posts: 183 Joined: 3-May 05 Member No.: 2905 That, my friends, is a shoe. Game over Brendan Slattery Yesterday, 06:17 PM Post #397 Experienced Member Group: Members Posts: 183 Joined: 3-May 05 Member No.: 2905 27 pages and counting .. over a shoe. <insert primal Howard Dean-like scream here> -------------------- As far as my being a teacher ... I let the evidence do the teaching, you may wish to stop and try and learn something from some of the asassination images I have posted, especially the location of Connally's coat sleeve at the moment he took his bullet in the back and apply that to the SBT which needs to be accurate to keep the lone assassin conclusion alive. Bill Miller

I quite often get a copy of those emails and they do not effect my computer. Bill Miller

This looks like one of those 'the conspirators didn't get it right' images. Len's image is clear and Jack's image is blurred and degraded. Bill Miller

Brendan, while I think you respond far too often with remarks that have no value to them which only runs up the pages of threads that you have said were too long - this time your question is legit. One moment Jack is telling us that Zapruder and Sitzman was never on the pedestal and the next moment he is trying to tell us which image of them on the pedestal is correct and which one isn't - go figure! Bill Miller

Sorry, Terry ... I didn't take it that way. Bill Well, John ... Von Pein can say he has never had his photo taken, but I don't believe him. In a day when a digital photo can be taken within seconds and posted .... well, you get what I'm saying. Bill

Ashton, welcome to the world of "Jack". Your original response was correct, as well as your overlay. While your getting the two images over the top of one another was a tad bit off ... your point could not have been any clearer. Jack's first illustration was so far off on where he believed the head to be on one of the images that I didn't even waste time correcting him. If he wants to post a larger version of the two images - I'll address his mistake and show you a good overlay. Even in the poorer print - Sitzman's shoulders are still higher than Zapruders, thus Zapruder is never taller than Sitzman unless one misreads the image as Jack did. Bill Miller

Terry, with all due respect ... Craig could post a photo of his cousin and you or no one else would know the difference. These CIA references are really stupid for if you ever read Prouty's work, then you's know that the CIA can work counter intellegence just as easily. In other words, you could be a CIA agent who posted a better photo so not to draw attention to yourself and by making a lot out of nothing ... one could say you were trying to keep attention away from yourself by trying to keep it on someone else. I mean, where does all this idiocy stop??? For instance, I posted a photo of myself and Jack tried to make a big production out of it being someone else besides me. It seems that the evidence pertaining to JFK's murder would be more important than sitting around like a bunch of snot nosed school kids trying to get the other one in trouble. I'm starting to think that some people here are not going to be happy until John Simkin gets tired of all this crap and just pulls the plug on the forum. I hope you and others consider some of these things before actually carrying this nonsense any further. Bill Miller

Now, I realize I'm no beauty, but after repeatedly staring at Len's avatar, I'm sorry to say that I find it hard to visualize him as a human being at all. When I squint, I can just make out the features of a small child with a large pumpkin on her head. Most of the time I can't discern any coherent image at all. Could there be a rule about this? Perhaps the image of the face should be no less than 80% of the width of the photo - and masks and purdah disallowed? :D Sid, I have an observation and a solution ... I notice that your image is blurred and Len's, while smaller, is sharper, so with a magnifying glass - Len's actually has a better image to offer than you do. Bill

The difference you see between the two photo prints is that one was scanned differently than the other before being published and its also important that the photos be flat against the scanner or one image will appear to be bent differently. This is quite common when scanning from a book or magazine. A good example of this is when we have scanned text from a book and the nearer to the fold - the text will appear to be bent, thus a flat scan of the same will not allow a perfect overlay to be accomplished. Below is an example. Look at the text in the red box compared to alike letters and spacing in the blue box. The size and spacing should appear different under close scrutiny. Below I moved the word "which" over to the same word on the other side of the page. The image was not flat when scanned which caused such descrepencies in letter size and spacing within the same scan. Bill Miller

Jack, are you so senile that you have forgotten that it was you who posted a photo of Larry and I shaking hands with the caption asking what we were shaking hands about? When you are not implying that Larry and I are planning some sort of an attack on your poorly thought out claims - you are then claiming that we are all CIA. You have said recently that you do not have the time to invest in the JFK assassination because of your being needed in the 9/11 and moon conspiracy matters, so why not do it and quit wasting peoples time by always whining about individuals who were outspoken concerning your alteration claims. I am starting to wonder by some of these recent post of yours if John Simkin sometimes wonders if he running a JFK education forum or a day car center for people who care to act like whining babies. Bill Miller

Oh come now, Jack ... maybe Craig just figured that you'd be able to see him better by using a poor quality picture of himself ... after all, it seems to be your preference when discussing the photographical evidence of the JFK assassination. Bill Miller

John, I didn't alter the size of the image. And if one scans a photo and lowers its size from 10 x 12 to 7 x 9 or even 4 x 7 ... the width and height of the image remains scaled evenly. However, email me a request for the scan and I will email it to you. Bill

Bill has no PROOF of this statement. None. His self-evaluation of the Z-Film is not "proof", regardless of what Bill The Photo Expert claims. David, if you ever make it back to the forum, then feel free to be more specific concerning your remark above. It seems to me that you had recognized the proof. You didn't argue the location of the wrist, but rather you challeneged it even being a hand. Next, having failed, you opted to imply it may have been Connally's left hand. Once that failed, now you are trying to say that there is no proof that the wrist is in the wrong place. The official version has Connally's right wrist out over the center of his body because they knew it needed to be there to make things line up. So when someone like yourself claims that I have not evaluated the film correctly despite your numerous errors in interpreting the images - I don't feel bad because you are not qualified to understand anything that is presented in favor of conspiracy to kill JFK and even if you could understand it - you have shown yourself to be less than eager to be forthright in evaluating the evidence. Bill Miller

I am certainly happy that I have exposed your dishonesty. Merely following the skin toned object as it rises and while the following frames become sharper makes it quite clear that it was Connally's hand. Below is what you said ... you even went as far as to imply it could be Connally's left hand because after all "he did have two of them on 11/22". (DVP) "And IF it is a "hand", why couldn't it be his LEFT hand? He did have two of them on 11/22." By the way, your mentioning Groden's opinion as to the number of shots fired has no bearing on the SBT and the clip I have presented other than it was a weak attempt on your part at trying to draw attention away from Connally's wrist position when he ws shot. Bill Miller I believe the assassination evidence is short several bullets, but 43 years after the fact is too late to run a complete and thorough investigation. The important thing is that the clip demonstrates that regardless of what evidence was gathered or had disappeared - Connally's wrist is not in the right place to have made the SBT work, thus there was a conspiracy. Bill Miller

David, even all the official versions that you embrace had claimed that Connally was holding his hat in his right hand. In fact, if you have the MPI DVD ... just forward the frames one at a time and you can follow the hat and hand right up to this position ... ... but of course you already knew this, but rather than to admit you were mistaken because it would mean there was a conspiracy - you pretend that there is a chance that Connally was holding his hat with his left hand. Well, it is Connally's right hand and you're screwed. I do however appreciate your response because it will offer testiment to others that there are some people who will turn a blind eye to the evidence just as your have now attempted to do before admitting that there was a conspiracy in JFK's murder. Bill Miller