Bill Miller

Bill - Jack is 80 years old - can't you cut him some slack, or give him a little respect on the basis of his age at least? If you have the full color version - why not just post it. It's like picking on your grandfather man. I don't care if Jack is 180 years old, when he makes claims and states evidence of the case, newbies take those things as fact because of who has said them. So just so you know ... I don't post for Jack's sake, but more for the new researcher who deserves to have the facts straight and an explanation as to why a certain claim is not valid. Bill Miller

But compositors of 1963/64 could not do such an undetectable job as to fool todays experts. Bill Miller

Yes, check the WH garage photos or maybe the Croft photo for signs of retractable antenna mounts. I believe they were retractable. look just behind the corner of Jackie's seat and there appears to be another antenna mount. NIX FILM CLIP CROFT PHOTO CROP It can show up white on film just as Hill's coat could did. It's caused from the angle of reflection. I also think that you see the sock as all white, but some is the sides of the shoe and the photo has been washed out in pplaces when the print was made. Yes, someone somewhere tried to better bring out the shoe by retouching the photo in order to make it more understandable to its readers and that is why one version seems to have a drawn in foot. I think we all agree that there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK, just that some of us feel that are research should be more thorough and be done in a responsable fashion. Bill Miller

Jack, I mentioned Trask book when we were all debating the authenticty of Zapruder's film. Bill Miller

An excellent question! Since the film is an animation, that is entirely possible. I do not know the answer. Jack, because you claim Moorman was in the street, then your answer should have been that at least part of the yellow curb stripe had to be added, at least the part that Moorman would have stood in front of, but you didn't think of that. I just wondered how thoroughly you would think the question through before answering. Thanks for the promt answer. Bill Miller

Question: Jack, do you believe there is any reason to think that the alleged animaters altered the curb stripes on the existing Zapruder film? Bill Miller

Is it possible that the self-proclaimed ZAPRUDER FILM EXPERT hasn't read Richard Trask's 2005 book National Nightmare, which is all about the Zapruder film? It's a book that is loaded with related photographs - some of which are previously unpublished. For instance, here is a good photo (see insert) of Sitzman standing next to that pedestal that you like to claim she was never on. There is even a good photo of Zapruder just inside the doorwary where you can see his face, while most other prints are too dark to tell that it is Mr. Z. Inside this book is also the color version of the Croft photo. Bill Miller

Your 100% correct, Floyd. I am going to attempt to explain what is wrong with the photo interpretation that some have made who believed it to be JFK's hand. To start with as I have already mentioned - JFK's arm on the Zapruder film fell limp when his brain became ripped to shreds as the bullet passed through his skull, thus there is no evidence that Kennedy had limb control once that happened. I also mentioned that with the President's head in the First Lady's lap - JFK could not have reached the location above the seat with his arm bent at that angle. But there is much more to show ... 1) Let's start with what some think is the palm side of JFK's hand laying on the seat and what's wrong with that notion. The limo had leather seats and they were not made of some new space aged foam that engulfs what ever lays against it. If what people see is a wrist and palm, then they might ask themselves why is so much of it missing as if it has sunken into the top of what they think is the rear seat? (see line C2) And if this is the top of the rear seat, then why is it higher that the top edge of the rear seat clearly seen to our right of line B between the area in question and Hill's body ... is it not because the two are not part of the seat, but rather one of them is the underside of Hill's shoe sole? The latter seems to be the only logical conclusion. 2) Next is the alleged fingers. Has not someone wondered why they are so dark when the alleged palm and wrist are so brightly illuminated? (see lines A1 and C1) Could it be that you are seeing the heel underside of Hill's shoe which does not reflect light like the well shined sides of Hill's shoes? I ask that people hold their hand out in front of them and those whose fingers form a nice perfect arch appearence to please post a photo of your hand for I know of no human being having such a set of fingers. Having said this ... the December 14th edition of POST Magazine shows a continual arched shape which is still somewhat present even in extreme blow-up such as the image being used in this respose. Look at the base of line A1 and note a elongated rectangled dark area. What that is is where the heel of the shoe turns downward at a right angle to where less light is illuminating it compared to the underside of the heel and sole of the shoe. There certainly is no logical explanation for JFK's hand to have darkened fingers when his alleged palm and thumb is so well lit. 3) Next, look at line B. As I said before ... to our right of line B there is the top edge of the seat, but note that to our left of line B there is nothing but a white space and no seat edge. If we are looking at the palm side of JFK's hand and wrist where it meets his suit jacket, then where is the edge of the top of the seat ??? Could it be that the white space is still part of the illuminated side of Clint Hill's shined shoe leather, thus its being washed out against the illuminated trunk of the limo? I would think this to be the most logical observation because if it is not, then one has a manipulated photo where the top edge of the seat has been removed from the image, thus this photo is also unreliable. (see illustration below) 4) The reasons why (A1, C1, and D) are all dark is because they are made up of a different substance than the sides of the shoe, thus they do not reflect light in the same manner. The idea that what is seen as a hand has come from an illusion and not thinking the image through in a step by step manner. I hope that after some of the points I have made have sunk in ... that everyone will better see how the image could not be a hand, but rather Clint Hill's shoe. The rear seat didn't suck up half of JFK's wrist and hand, nor were JFK's fingers scorched during the ride from Love Field. What has happened is someone made an observation from a poor Yarborough print and didn't think the sensibility of their interpretation through before starting a thread over it. Bill Miller Uh, if thats a shirt cuff it is turned at least 1/2 a turn from where it should be, which would be BEHIND HILLS FOOT! LOL! Jack just thinks things up - he doesn't bother to think them through. Bill Miller

It's because when someone has finally found fault with all the trees and bushes in the countless assassination images, some of them being said to be people standing up in the limo as it enters the underpass, they have nothing left to do but go outside of the box to find stupid things to post about. Jack thinks that all forums should cater to him as the 'looney forum' has done for so long, so when they don't - he becomes deeply puzzled, but then again Jack becomes deeply puzzled why a blurry image of a bush doesn't show the detail that a sharper image of the same offers. Bill Miller

So to keep things straight .... Shaneyfelt was not trying to replicate Zapruder frames, but to photograph a man standing between the alleged snipers nest and the curb near where Tague stood. Please read ... (Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt) Mr. Shaneyfelt. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 31 is a photograph taken from in front of the school book depository building looking down toward the Triple Underpass, showing in the center area of the picture two men in white shirts standing along the south curb of Main Street at the point where the mark on the curb was found. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 32 is a photograph made from under the Triple Under-pass looking past the point where the mark on the curb was located towards the Texas School Book Depository Building, which relates this area to the rest of the assassination site. There is a marker that has been set up on the curb with an arrow pointing down, that is directly over the area where the mark is located on the south curb of Main Street. The photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, is a photograph made from the location of Mr. Abraham Zapruder who made motion pictures of the assassination on November 22, and this photograph was made ha ring a man who can be seen standing in the center of the picture, placed in the center of Elm Street, along a straight line between the mark on the curb and the assassination window in the Texas School Book Depository Building, the sixth floor. The man is standing in that direct straight line between the assassination window and the mark on the curb, and the photograph then shows where the President in the Presidential limousine, would have been on Elm Street as related to the Zapruder films if a bullet going from the sixth floor window to the mark on the curb went directly over the President's head. Mr. Redlich. Are you able to tell us the frame in Zapruder's sequence which would correspond to the position of the man standing on Elm Street in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33? Mr. Shaneyfelt. Yes; this would correspond to frame No. 410 in the Zapruder films. Of course, this, as stated, is based on the assumption that a bullet going from the window to the mark on the curbing went directly over the President's head. It would have occurred at approximately frame 410. In relating this to other previously determined facts regarding the Zapruder films, this would be 97 frames after the frame 313, which is the frame of the Zapruder films that shows the shot that struck the President in the head. At 18.3 frames per second, this 97 frames would represent a lapse of time of 5.3 seconds between the shot to the President's head at frame 313, and any shot that would have occurred at frame 410, if such did occur. Mr. Redlich. Now, with further reference to the relationship of this location to the Zapruder films, the Commission previously requested that the Bureau, advise us as to when Special Agent Hill of the Secret Service reached the Presidential car. Can you tell us now the results of that investigation? Mr. Shaneyfelt. Yes; I examined the Zapruder film and determined that Agent Hill first places his hand on the Presidential car at frame 343. This is approximately 1.6 seconds after the President is hit in .the head at frame 313. Special Agent Hill placed one foot on the bumper of the car at frame 368, which is approximately 3 seconds after frame 313. Agent Hill had both feet on the car at frame 381, which is approximately 3.7 seconds after frame 313. Mr. Redlich. Going back now to frame 410 on .the Zapruder film, which is the frame that would correspond to the location of a man appearing on Elm Street in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, can you tell us the location of Special Agent Hill and Mrs. Kennedy at frame 410? Mr. Shaneyfelt. At frame 410 in the Zapruder films, Mrs. Kennedy has returned to the seat beside the President .after having climbed out on the back deck or the trunk lid, and Secret Service Agent Hill is in the process of climbing from the bumper into the back seat of the car and is about midway from the back bumper to the President, crawling across the trunk lid. Mr. REDLICH. IS it correct to say, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that at frame 410 the principal target on the back of the Presidential limousine would have been Special Agent Hill and not any of the other occupants of the rear seat of the car? Mr. Shaneyfelt. I do not have an opinion on that, except my recollection of the frame, as I recall it, the Connallys are down in the car, and the President is down in the car to a point where he may not be visible from the sixth floor It's not CE33, but rather "Shaneyfelt Exhibit 33". http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0253a.htm It is the camera height that changed between Elm Street images and that is what has effected the way the street matches up between photographs. Bill Miller

Jack, that frame comes from the Peter Jennings special that aired nearly THREE YEARS AGO. You are just now finding out about their version of the Zapruder film? And you call yourself an expert on the Z film???????????? How can this be? Have you written a letter to ABC? Placed a phone call? Have you done anything but act baffled? Bill Miller

No, Jack .... it was Floyd Stephens who thought the foot of Clint Hill may be hooked around the antenna, which he later changed that position - please pay closer attention. In post #199 - I drew an arrow to the antenna on the drivers side of the car and said that it was the anntena seen beyond Hill in the Miller photo. By the way, the antennas were retractable. They were down when JFK entered the plaza and came up when the radio was in use on the way to the hospital. Bill Miller Yes, Jack ... Nellie's roses can be seen in the Zapruder film, but we were talking about the Miller photo and it being Connally who was sitting up. Below are some better images of Nellie's roses. Bill Miller

Wrong again, Jack .......... there is no cycle directly beyond Clint Hill in the Miller photo - the cycle is behind the rear drivers side of the car. The anntena can be seen in the Croft photo. Bill Miller

Email me the photo - the larger the file - the better. Send to ... imsjle@aol.com That is whats being called the Yarborough photo image and its the best version I have seen as far as clarity and there is no doubt that it is a foot. There are several reasons for saying this. One is that the underside of the forefoot of the shoe sole shows its slight upward curve. The sunlit shoes well on the side of the leather show and doesn't expand like in the poorer quality versions. Lastly, the underside of what some believe to be the hand is illuminated by sunlight and if this were a hand, then the underside of the fingers would also be sunlit. There are also shade marks on the oher side of what has been said to be a hand, thus it is impossible then to say the fingers are shaded because both sides of the hand cannot be shaded. In other words, whether the illusion appears to be a closed fist or a open hand - if the palm is sunlit, then the fingers on the same side must also be sunlit. And yes, what is seen as the shadow of the seat by some does not look that way in the good pprint. The difference in lightness and dark is that the leather sides of the shoe has a high reflective capibility, while the soles are dark and cannot reflect light in the same fashion. Bill That's the light reflecting off of Nellie's hair, Jack. I might also add that it has nothing to do with Connally's head. Bill Miller

Jack, it is your illustration that has a line pointed to Connally head while claiming it to be JFK's head. Are you now saying that you didn't mean to call that line "JFK" and instead meant to say "roses"??? Below is an enlarged insert of Connally's head as seen in the Miller photo. Jack, you certainly are not going to claim that we are looking at Nellie's roses? Bill Miller

Jack, Here is another good photo of the pyracantha bush which supports the condition of the branches in the Zapruder film. All it takes is a little effort to research these things rather than resting ones hat on blurry images. Bill Miller

I think that everyone who knew that Connally was the gray haired man between the choice of he and Kennedy has said it. To date, every researcher I know has seen the Zapruder film and Jack is the only person that I have heard say that it is JFK sitting up in the car. Maybe I should ask you, "Who said that JFK heaved himself up in the car?" Do you want to ask that question to Jack or should I??? Now if it is your contention that the Zapruder film is altered by showing Connally sitting up in the car because you think he couldn't do it, then the Miller photo must also have been altered to show Connally sitting up. The latter is ridiculous and has not been suggested for 43 years for a reason. David, I can play the idiot game as well as you. Cite where Nellie said that the Governor didn't sit up after Z350. Cite where Nellie said that the Governor wasn't raised up off her lap up when David Miller took his phtograph? Let me give you an example as to how ridiculous your line of questioning sounds .... 'Tell me where someone said that Mrs. Newman was laying on her right side after the shooting? Tell me where someone said Mrs. Newman raised her head up and looked over her left shoulder? Tell me where someone said that Bill Newman's son raised his head up and looked at the man with the camera?' Why do I ask ? ... I ask because their are films and photos showing her and Newman's son doing these things, but no one actually came out and said it! Does that mean the photos and films are altered? Bill Miller

I'd be careful, Chuck ... you bare a strong resemblence to Mayberry's "Ernest T. Bass". http://tsbolton.com/bertramslair/ernestt.htm Bill

What did you call this again, David .... "feeling left out"? Bill Miller

Have you attempted to obtain a print from the original negative? I thought we were talking about clothing items. Did I not point out white patches all over Hill's clothing, not to mention the officer riding next to the limo. The same thing happened to Jackie's clothing - what is the mystery? Bill Miller

I am an American and I agree 100% with John's statement above. Bill Miller

John, you are correct in your observation. Bill Miller

Your inabilty to see your errors is why your reputation has gone to the dogs. The two photos are not scaled correctly and my previous example showed this. I might also add that the replica photo was not shot at the same camera height as Zapruder's, which would also effect how the two images match up. The test photo also needed to be tilted because the camera was not being held at the same angle as Zapruder's camera. Bill Miller

Andy, you may not know it, but there are several members of this forum who used a false name and photo. It may be that Denis uses this forum and you just don't know which named he used. Bill

What an odd thing to say. You criticize Mack for believing what he does about the assassination and while he believes there was a conspiracy .... he still feels that Oswald was part of it - yet that makes him a whore. Some people have gone on and claimed the Zfilm was altered even after their theory was shown to be wrong, yet I didn't hear you call them a whore. I believe there was a conspiracy, yet I don't believe many of the nutty things said by other researchers when it comes to a conspiratorial matter ... I guess that makes me a whore as well. Again, what an odd thing to say. Bill Miller