Bill Miller

Let me set the record straight if I can. I was once one of those individuals who was critical of Gary Mack not posting on forums, but it didn't take much of an effort on my part to discover why that was. The 6th Floor Museum "DOES NOT" want to take a position one way or the other on the JFK assassination as far as whether there was a conspiracy or not to kill the President. The Museum wishes to remain neutral on this matter and function as a keeper of the historical record .... and I certainly can understand why this is. Gary is a representative of the Museum and that means that he has to be careful about getting involved with JFK assasination forums and the debates that go on there. I personally know of one other person who was doing tours in the plaza through the museum and because this person had refused to remain neutral while representing the Museum - the Museum was forced to let him go! So the decision to participate on forums is not necessarily Gary Mack's. Does Gary Mack have opinions concerning the assassination of President Kennedy - sure he does. Can he back them up - probably better than the majority of his critics can do. Do I always agree with Gary's interpretation of the evidence - no! Try asking yourselves this quesation: Who among us who could have the chance to be sitting atop of such a historical wealth of data and information concerning the JFK assassination would risk throwing that position away by breaking the rules put forth to them by their employer ??? I sure as hell wouldn't! I for one am one of those people who solicits information from Gary Mack on a regular basis. The reason why I go to Gary as a source of information is because of his position with the Museum and the resources they have at theor dispposal. Gary doesn't just offer an answer to a question, but he cites the sources for researchers to go view the evidence for themselves, thus if anyone is thinking that Gary Mack is somehow trying to confuse researchers and to get them to think as he does on a particular matter, then as far as I am concern they couldn't be more wrong. If anyone has complained about Gary contacting them, then Gary was mistaken in thinking that a particular forum member would be interested in knowing the facts of the case and where to find them. (If anyone doesn't wish to get contacted by Gary Mack - then block his email or simply use the delete function which takes only a second to accomplish.) Is that grounds for suspension ... I do not think so. As someone who died defending peoples rights - I wonder what John Kennedy would say about all this? Should Gary Mack post a photo of himself, sure ... if he is going to post on that forum, but if he is merely reading the forum - who cares if he post a photo of himself or not. I know of several people who post on JFK forums who use photos of other people .... does that mean what they say is any less correct or if we don't know any better - does that mean we are satisfied that they have at least posted a photo on their bio even if it isn't really them? And getting back to Gary's contacting the administrators about the virus problem ... had you all of listened to him in the first place, then maybe you would have saved yourselves and the members a headache. Did Gary appear to come on too strong ... that is up to the interpretation of those he contacted. However, the virus could have been devastating to peoples sytems who have large data bases in their computer, so I personally can see why Gary would have been very forthright in his attempt to relay the seriousness of the matter to the proper authorities. The entire matter seems to have been much to do about nothing IMO. Bill Miller

Jack, please show me where I said the curbs, sidewalks, or storm drains and gutters had been replaced as you stated above? Bill Miller

Jack's study shows Moorman's camera lens height to be 4" lower than a Dallas Motorcycles windshield, however, the camera in Moorman's photo is elevated above those 58" tall DPD cycles shields. Either Moorman's camera took that photo with Mary's arms raised over her head or Jack's study was in error, as usual. Moorman, herself, has told Mark Oakes that Jack's claim is silly and that she was in the grass over the curb when she took her photo. Moorman's photo showing her camera looking downward over those DPD cycles windshields supports Mary saying she was in the grass, which BTW is supported by all the remaining films and photos taken at that time. Bill Miller

Sorry, Jack .... I was waiting for the information I was seeking to come back to me. If you want to see the proof - call Mack and make an appointment to see the photos of the road work he has taken. Message from Gary Mack to Bill Miller .... "In the 12 years I have been at The Sixth Floor Museum, the city of Dallas has resurfaced the Dealey Plaza streets at least twice. The last time was in late 2003 and, in both cases, they stripped off the old asphalt down to the original brick roadway that was installed in the 1930s. In both instances, which I observed and measured three years ago, the asphalt along the roadway was less than 1.5 inches thick. It is thicker only directly in front of the openings to the storm sewers which, of course, must be LOWER than the roadway to be effective. Sometimes the city adds a thin layer of asphalt over the old surface to smooth out the road (since it is a major exit from downtown Dallas, Elm always gets a lot of traffic), but the total asphalt thickness is under 1.5 inches. The photo you asked about is highly misleading, for it gives the impression that the entire street has several inches of asphalt. Such an assumption is absolutely false and is easily disproven by competent research. And yes, I took some pictures and will publish them some day." That about settles the matter for me. Bill Miller

This is ridiculous, Jack and it shows your lack of thoroughness IMO. One cannot look at that poorly done overlay of yours and tell if the hole of the sewer drain opening has been made smaller or if the street is actually higher. To get the answer - simply measure the distance from the top of the curb to the street and compare it to the known curb height in 1963. The only other way to know is if you were one of thos people who walked out to the street when the resurfacing was being done and looked where the asphalt had been removed down to the base and see how thick the coating of asphalt really was. I just have discovered that not only did Gary Mack get his account suspended for trying to warn the forum administrators of the virus problem in its infancy, but his account is still inactive well after the two week deadline had come and gone as of July 4th. This means that I had to send him the post Jack made and I will relay what ever information Gary shares with me. Bill Miller

Jack, I am sure Ed does this so to be able to make claims that never could exist otherwise ... you of all people should know this. Bill Miler

I am pretty sure that I was told that the old bricks could be seen after the asphalt was stripped off Elm Street. Bill Miller

Interesting remarks from someone who is always doubting the authenticity of photos ... maybe it was a matte job to make it appear to be thicker than it really was. I have emailed Gary Mack to see if I remembered the asphalt matter correctly. Knowing that the inside of the sewer hole was concrete - one cannot merely look at a wall and tell how thick it is. But when the asphalt has been removed down to the bricks that was once the original street and the asphalt layer depth is only an inch or less, then it has to mean more than looking at a B&W photo of a wall and trying to guess its thickness. Bill Miller

Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo, taken from inside the drain, shows a buildup of asphalt of about three or four inches, incicated by the arrow. Jack Jack, Gary Mack can correct me if I am wrong, but the street slopes down into the hole and what you are looking at in that photo appears to be a layer of concrete/asphalt, which has nothing to do with its actual thickness. A four inch slope with an inch of asphalt over it doesn't mean the asphalt is 4 - 5" thick. Some time ago when the street was stripped down to its base for resurfacing - Mack went out to the road and noted that the asphalt was not as thick as you had claimed it to have been. I seem to recall that he said it was only about an inch in thickness. So having had Mack go out and look at it in person verses your looking at old B&W photos - I'll take Mack's observation as being the more reliable at this time. Bill Miller

Groden has the best enlarged print I have ever seen in his book "The Killing of a President". Bill Miller

That would be incorrect. When the asphalt was removed from the street down to the original base - there was only about an inch or less of asphalt that had been on the street. Bill Miller

The above answer in bold print makes no sense to me, so I cannot address it. First you are critical as to why Len or anyone would care about the lamp selection throughout Dallas and then you say you do care. I don't mind anyone not agreeing with me. The point I am trying to make is that I am constantly hearing about assertions and/or conclusions being drawn without first even checking out the basic facts. Right now I am hearing about the possibility of suspicious activity having gone over the movement of the lamppost in Dealey Plaza and not one word has been said as to whether the change in lighting locations was limited to DP or was it done throughout Dallas, perhaps by way of some new guidelines or ordinances I am not worried about it, so you shouldn't be either. I think that the reading of the threads is not limited to certain members, but maybe you know something that I don't about that. So assuming for now that all the forum members are allowed to review all the post on the forum, I can only also assume that for us to better understand what is being said is to ask questions. My question was in response to something you said about 'Len's job' and I'd like to know what that is? By the way, David ... when Len posted to Jack - you responded to Len even though his post was not directed to you. Were you feeling left out when you replied? Is it not right for others here to be afforded the same rights as you seem to want to have. Bill Miller

How hard could it be to live in or around Dallas and find a source for photographs taken around the city over the years. Bill Miller

Purvy, what ar the city specs now for the distance a lamppost should be from a curb ... surely you have checked before reaching a conclusion, so tell us what you found out? Also, if you think that you cannot pinpoint JFK in the Zapruder film at certain points, then have you considered doing it with the Nix, Bronson, or Muchmore films where permanent landmarks ARE present in the background? Bill Miller I think if you have been paying close attention, then you would understand that if the street lamps all around Dallas were being replaced and moved back from the curbs, then there would not be anything suspicious about the lampspost in the plaza being different or moved back from the curb ... and this is why it is important to know certain things before jumping to a false conclusion, unless of course - false conclusions are what you are looking to promote. Do I detect another 'everything is altered thanks to my shoddy work' book coming out again? What exactly is Len's job and what do you consider to be yours, David? Thanks in advance! Bill Miller

That's right. The colonnades, the pedestals, the wall on the knoll, the steps leading up to the walkway, the trees, the width of the street, the sidewalks, the manhole cover, the triple underpass, and so on are still the same as they always were. Singling out the lamppost as if they prevent one from being able to conduct accurate recreation studies is like complaining that the grass has been cut since the assassination in order to prevent people from easily carrying out any research in the plaza. Besides that .... the lamppost are not responsible for the mistakes I have seen with Jack's recreation efforts, thus they have little value to researchers unless one has an interest in vintage lamppost. I will say this though on behalf of preserving the plaza .... I can understand lamppost being damaged over time and needing to be replaced .... and I also understand why one would not want to have different looking lamppost mixed in with the lamppost already in the plaza because we must understand that lamppost manufactures do discontinue some styles over time and we want them all to look the same, but I would think that there were many vintage lamppost throughout Dallas in other park areas like those in Dealey Plaza that could have been replaced with the newer styles and then those remaining good old style lamppost could have been utilized in the plaza for the sake of preserving the look of the plaza as much as possible. Of course, maybe no one though of that. Bill Miller

The enlarging of the photo greatly explains away much of the original question. But on a side note ... if that newspaper scan has been greatly enlarged ... that had to be the smallest newspaper in the world. Bill Miller

The quality of the Zfilm image on the newspaper reminds of those images Ed O'Hagen post ... maybe he can give you the recipe. There are several factors at play here just as the WC printed muddy versions of the same frames. To think that the original film was tah bad is the same as being ignorant of the testim ony of those who saw it and spoke of the clear images contained on it. All one needs to do is adjust the contrast and the image starts to wash out. Next is the copy that was sent over the wire. It would not be the only poor quality print ever known to be sent over a news wire for some of Moorman's prints were not very good either. And how good was the machine that recieved the print? Then the scan of the newspaper itself is so poor that one cannot read anything but the largest letters. If such detail is lost in the text, then would it not also be lost in the picture quality ... of course it would. Has anyone not also considered how much detail was lost in the extreme enlarging of the image? BTW, I believe Gary Mack has told me that the newspaper in question was dated 11/27/63 ... not 11/25/63. Bill Miller

in·car·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nkär-nshn) n. The act of incarnating. The condition of being incarnated. Incarnation Christianity. The doctrine that the Son of God was conceived in the womb of Mary and that Jesus is true God and true man. A bodily manifestation of a supernatural being. One who is believed to personify a given abstract quality or idea. A period of time passed in a given bodily form or condition: hopes for a better life in another incarnation. Gary Mack tells me that he 'has been with the Museum full-time since 1994 and have seen several Dealey Plaza lampposts replaced over the years, including the one Jack is ruminating about. The posts get damaged from the elements and, on rare occasions, from traffic accidents. The city tries to keep the posts as close as possible to those in 1963, but that style just isn't manufactured anymore.' Bill Miller

To those who were not there - in the infancy of Jack's flawed claim about Moorman being in the street ... it was quickly pointed out to him that a DPD cycle stands 58" tall from the ground to the top of its windshield and Moorman's camera lens height was about 54" according to Jack. The relevancy to all this was that Mary Moorman was looking over the top of the cycles windshields when she took her photograph. The options for Mary achieving this feat was - 1) Jean Hill laid in the street so Mary could stand atop of her 2) Mary had stood on an object that she had sat in the street 3) Mary was elavated above the curb just as the assassination films and photographs all show To this day I have never seen Jack explain how Mary was able to stand in the street and still have her camera raised above the highest point on the passing cycles. Instead, Jack just makes unfounded excuses about the drum scan being the only Moorman print showing the gap, while at the same time not showing us what Moorman prints do not show the gap. Below is a non-drum scan print - the drum scan - and Jack's alleged recreation photo. Jack continues to make false excuses for the gap rather than to admit that he was wrong. Bill Miller

Jack, I never said it was your illustration ... the frame is too clear to be one of yours, however ... you were the individual who posted the image from the Zapruder film ... and it was you who made the stupid claim that it was JFK who was sitting up in the car. I believe Ron Hepler, James Gordon, and myself were among those who posted enlargements and pointed out that it was Connally's gray hair on the person in question. Bill Miller Jack - I never said that you took the other photos because they were of Zapruder and Sitzman and we all know you were not in DP on 11/22/63 ... how you could think otherwise is beyond me. But your notion that all you have to do is take a photo of the 6'1" Groden atop of the pederstal from any location, any camera height, and or any distance from the subject and somehow compare that to the assassination photos just shows how over your head you are on some of the aspects of doing an accurate study. Are you not aware that you can use the same person in two test shots and without moving the camera ... if he is even 6" closer to the camera in one photo - he will appear taller and wider against the background. Your work on this subject is flawed and Groden would be the first to tell you this. Bill Miller

Jack is senile. Thompson explained the drum scan on this forum already. Jack took the position that the drum scan was altered because of his idiotic 'Moorman in the street' claim. You see, his recreation photo didn't show the gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background. However, that was a load of crap Jack handed everyone because it was obvious that all the Moorman prints showed the gap that Jack's recreation photo failed to achieve. When asked by Mark Oakes what she thought of the Jack White claim about her being in the street to take her famous Polarid ... Moorman replied, 'I think the whole thing is silly ... I was in the grass above the curb.' Let Jack post the gap as seen on the Badge Man print! Bill Miller

Thanks for your reply, John. Good thinking, but... The further the distance objects are from the camera when the locations change - the less they will shift with other objects. The lamppost recreation is flawed because the gaps between the colonnade windows do not even match. Also, I believe that it wasn't until 1983 before the lamppost were changed, thus there was ample time for researchers to document the plaza since the assassination before lighting improvements were made ...(possibly to give better lighting for the tourist visiting the plaza during the evening hours.) Bill Miller

Jack - your work is so bad that it falls below an "F" score. Just by looking at the windows in the colonnade ... I can see that your test camera was not even in the same location or height as Moorman's. These types of mistakes will effect how tall someone looks against the background. Bill Miller

Look, Pat ... I am not going to defend myself over a photo that is a poor quality print. What is on the original print is what is important. Contact Trask if you like and see where you can buy a good Miller print, then we will take it from there. Bill Miller Here is the wide variety of techniques that involve photo dodging in case you have forgotten them .... Dodging is the shading of a part of the photographic paper from the projected image while making a print. http://photography.about.com/library/gloss...def_dodging.htm Dodging 'Local' control of density in photographic printing achieved by shading (using your hands, small pieces of card or various other dodging tools), therefore, ... http://www.peterashbyhayter.co.uk/glossaryD-E.html Dodging - Selectively lightening part of a photo with an image editing program. Download, downloading - The process of moving computer data from one location to another. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/d...lphotography/... dodging tool from reproducing in the print, you must keep the dodging tool in constant motion during the exposure. Use a circular, sideways, or shaking movements to accomplish this. http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14...s/14209_301.htm dodging: Also called holding back; in traditional darkroom work, the hand of the developer or a piece of cardboard would be used to block light passing from the enlarger to the print, thus lessening the exposure in only specific parts of the picture. http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras/... DODGING - Blocking a portion of the light when printing a photograph so that an area of the print will be made lighter. DOUBLE-EXPOSURE - Exposing the same film frame twice. A typical double-exposure shows the same subject twice in the same image. http://photographytips.com/page.cfm/1601 Dodging Holding back the image-forming light from a part of the image projected on an enlarger easel during part of the basic exposure time to make that area of the print lighter. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/gl...ry/termsD.shtml Dodging Selectively lightening part of a photo, either on an enlarger for traditional film printing or with an image editing program. The opposite to "Burning". Download ... http://www.nikonians.com/html/resources/... and dodging"Burning-in and dodging Techniques used in printing to alter the tonality of an image by darkening areas that are too light and lightening areas that are too dark. http://www.clemusart.com/exhibit/legacy/gl...y/gloss-ab.html 14. Dodging - Selectively lightening part of a photo with an image editing program. 15. Doppler - The Doppler effect (or shift) is the change in frequency of light, radio or sound waves when source and receiver are in relative motion. (1) 2 - »»» ... http://www.airviewonline.com.au/glossary/default.asp?Lt=d Dodge ( Dodging ) In photographic printing, to dodge a print is to reduce the exposure in a section of the image to make that area lighter. Compare this to the technique of burning. http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/photographic%20glossary/... It's in dodging & burning that one of the huge advantages of the f-stop method of printing starts to become apparent. Suppose you're printing a landscape and the sky needs some burning in. http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques/viewt...ue.cfm?recid=71 Dodging and burning are both traditional ways of lightening and darkening specific areas on a photo negative. By adjusting the exposure of only a selected portion of your image, you are effectively dodging and burning your digital negative. http://www.fotofinish.com/resources/center.../edit/edit3.htm -Holding back - 1. Shortening the development time given to film to help reduce image contrast. 2. Method of decreasing exposure given to selective areas of the print. Also referred to as dodging. http://www.profotos.com/education/referencedesk/glossary/... Darkroom-like dodging, burning and other manipulations are possible and can be done without wasting large amounts of paper and chemicals until the photographer got the desired result. http://www.swmocameraclub.org/articles/pfs.html This is what is known as dodging and burning in traditional photography where a darker part of the image will be given less exposure to lighten it, relevant to its surroundings. Flash intensity can be set over 2 EV in 1 stop steps. http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Casio-P505/...P505-review.htm " Then the printers have to go back and figure out what combination of paper grade and dodging and burning will produce the combined result desired. This is the ideal working relationship. http://www.photo.net/learn/labs dodging (shading ) Means of reducing exposure in selected areas during printing by holding a solid object between the lens and the light-sensitive paper. By moving the object, abrupt changes in tone can be avoided. http://www.mich.com/~fandreae/Glossary_f.html A doubling of speed is indicated by an increase of 3 DIN. 21 DIN= 100 ASA. Dodging: A term for shading when exposing a print. http://www.jafaphotography.com/photterm.htm Topic: Photography See also: Print, Light, Image, Photo, Photograph

Chuck, with all due respect, you and others have embraced claims in the past without so much as spending any real amount of time on them to see if the claim is accurate or not. You will question the vailidity of a photo and not bother to first learn the history of the photo. For instance, Jack is presently making a claim that the Willis photo is altered to show Sitzman and Zapruder on the pedestal as if they were never there. Jack knew Jean Hill and she has said to me that she saw Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. Moorman still had her instant photo in her possession not 30 minutes following the assassination when her photo showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal at the time of the fatal shot to JFK would be displayed on NBC within the next 2.5 hours. Jack has used the Bronson slide many times to show Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal, yet if you didn't know these things you might be taken in by the latest nutty claim he's made that the Willis photo was altered by placing Mr. Z and Sitzy on the pedestal. Here is one of Jack's keen observations below where he has said that it is JFK we see sitting up in the car as it leaves the plaza ... maybe if someone didn't know that Connally was the one with gray hair ... they may be fooled into thinking JFK was not really fatally shot. It seems that some of you are very quick to embrace poorly thought out claims, but dead set against accepting logical explanations for what you are missing. So an opinion is only good if you first know the facts. Here is a saying that you may want to embrace in your future research practice ... "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value." - Rene Dahinden, August 1999 Bill Miller