Bill Miller

Because you are dealing with people who many of them do not know the facts of the case or have knowledge of the subject matter they are having put forth to them. Instead they will make claims and ask that you prove them wrong instead of they proving their claims right. Consider the sources. Bill Miller

What about addressing the points being made by Jack. If you disagree with him, explain why. Good point, John. If I were to bet on this matter - I would not be surprised to see that the city planners probably passed new ordinances that prevented lamppost from being right on he curbs. Has anyone bothered to see if lamppost were moved throughout Dallas or were they limited to Dealey Plaza? This may be a question to ask Gary Mack. As far as the lamppost being moved around effecting recreation photos and films - that is plain nonsense. There are so many landmarks in Dealey Plaza that are available for alignment purposes that the lamppost are not even needed. Bill Miller

That's the point Craig addressed by mentioning the 'angle of light reflectivity' and how it shows up on film. Shoe leather, belts, and even dark clothing (such as a black sock) shows up as white on B&W film when being effected by light reflection. (see below) Once again ... note that Connally's face is still Connally's true image, but after the 'dodging' it appears somewhat cartoonish just as Clint Hill's foot did. Bill Miller

Here is an example of Connally's facial area being dodged. Bill Miller

Because we are talking about Mary Woodard's interpretation, then we should go by what she has said. The President was directly even with her position along Elm Street and was looking to his immediate right at her and the women she was standing while waving and smiling at them when the shot sounded and he immediately stopped his wave and brought his hand to a position in front of his face. Mary believed that to be when the President was first hit. When was JFK waving and smiling and when did he pull his hand towards his face ... the Zapruder film shows this occurence, thus it could be as soon as Z193 to Z198 or less than 1/3 of a second. I am talking about the laws of physics when it comes to the transfer of momentum. No crystal ball is needed ... maybe if you can get the software that will allow you to make stabilized clips of the Zapruder film - you will then be able to do overlays showing the precise moment that Connally's right shoulder is shoved forward. Even Dale Myers realized this happened at Z223/224. Bill Miller

No 'Alice in Wonderland', Purvy ... just paying attention to the witnesses. For instance, I wouldn't know who JFK was looking at when the first shot was fired, but because of Mary Woodard - I do know the answer to that question. She said he was directly out in front of her location and looking at her when the shot went off and he immediately stopped his wave/smiling and brought his hand into the car in front of his face. There is only one place on the Zfilm that shows this as the limo passed by where Woodard was standing, thus its a no brainer. I should also tell you that the people I have spoken to have said that a bullet does not enter a body tumbling and then exits in a righted position. The wound in JFK's throat did not show signs of a tumbling bullet that I recall. As far as when the first shot was fired for the official version - they too had to ignore the witnesses because it was obvious that in order to have JFK and Connally hit by the same bullet - one had to find a medium ground to work from. In other words, one cannot have JFK hit at Z193/195 and Connally shot at Z223/224 and have the shooting be done by one man. So they split the difference and said JFK reacted immediately and Connally must have had a delayed reaction, which was hogwash. Connally's right shoulder is driven forward starting at Z223/224. That forward motion can only be the direct result of the transfer of momentum of the bullet ripping through his chest. If JFK and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then Z223/224 is when it had to of happened, thus the tree plays no role in the shooting. I might also add that Connally's wrist was not out over his left thigh as the official version stated and how I know this is because I have seen enhancements of the Zfilm that the Feds never saw, or if they did ... they didn't make it known. Bill Miller

What Purvis is doing is about as silly as claiming the first shot was fired on 11/21/63 so yet to invent a totally new shooting scenario. In other words, Purvy is willing to invent a timing situation for the first shot to have occurred despite what the witnesses who were actual there had said about the location of the limo when the first shot actually sounded off. Bill Miller

Instead of wasting time talking about how to explain away a possibly planted bullet ... why not listen to those witnesses who were actually there and can time stamp where the President was and what he was doing when the first shot was fired. Independently Betzner said he took his photograph just prior to the first shot sounding off. Willis said it was that first shot that caused him to take his photograph. Mary Woodard said that the President was directly even with her and the women she was with and that JFK was waving and smiling to them when the first shot sounded. All these witnesses are locked into a time frame between Z186 to Z202. The tree was no longer a factor IMO. Below is the last clear frame showing JFK smiling and waving to the women Woodard spoke of as the first shot sounded off. Immediately following this frame the President flipped his hand over and brought it into the car and across his face. Bill Miller

One doesn't have to of been there, Jack. All one needs is an ounce of common sense to know that Hill's legs were not limited to two feet in length. For Hill to have his foot on the seat, then he would have to be in a squating position and I don't see his knees protruding forward as if this was the case. Instead, his femur/upper thigh is pointed striaght downward, thus he had no choice but to bend his leg and place it somewhere. Hill did what he was trained to do and that is to stabilize himself for the speedy race to Parkland. And for those that believe Hill lied about his foot being over the car - plkease explain to me why he would do that when on other more important points he said things that didn't support the official findings. Below Hill mentions the rear portion of the President's head being blown off and part of the brain missing. The official version said the back of the head was in tact and the President's brain was of normal weight. Next Hill said he heard only two shots when the official version said there were three shots fired. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me to think that Hill would not budge on these other points, but would lie about hooking his foot over the car. The photos of Hill from both sides of the limo support his statements. Bill Miller Mr. HILL. As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear any more than two shots? Mr. HILL. No, sir. Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. I had my legs--I had my body above the rear seat, and my legs hooked down into the rear seat, one foot outside the car.

Maybe using a clearer image may help ... do you think? Bill Miller

Considering that the arm bends at the elbow ... does anyone think that JFK had such a long forearm? The shoe being a hand fails on so many levels that it is silly IMO to even consider it any further. Bill Miller

I have asked this question several times without anyone addressing it, but with Jackie craddling her husbands head in her lap - it would take a 6' long arm to have reached the area in question. Does this not tell us something! It was not uncommon for photos to be dodged in places. I offered the Altgens photo as seen in 'Four dark Days" to show this. I have seen another version of Altgens photo where there is no arm holding the rear view mirror because someone erased it. Why? Only the art department of those publications can answer that question IMO. I am however, positive that it wasn't done to mislead anyone because these publications still knew that there was an 'original photo' out there showing the real deal. As far as wanting someone to recreate the photo - any dufus with a couple of kitchen chairs can set them up and bend their legs in such a manner to get a feel for the posture Hill used to control his balance as the limo raced to Parkland. I also find it ludicrous to assert that Hill merely made up a story about hooking his foot over the door panel, especially when there is a second photo showing him just a second or so from reaching that posture. I also shake my head in bewilderment when I hear how the official record uses the Yarborough exhibit as if it must be the best image available. The Commission for example also used the Zapruder film frames, but their quality left something to be desired when compared to the original images. Bill Miller

I don't get it ... we give sources for the best prints and we even post the name(s) of people who have seen the best prints, yet somehow we are to seek the prints out ourselves and post them? Yes, someone lay on their left side with their head just under where we see Jackie's and just see how close your arm is long enough to reach the location in question from the photo. Bill Miller

There was no mention as to what the standing height of the camera was in the duplicate film test as compared to Zapruder's. As you know, the higher the camera - the more distance between curbs will be present. Zapruder also had his camera on auto-zoom ... did Chris do the same? Despite a 'Rush to Judgment' on Jack's part to claim something is afoul ... some causes for the alignment differences was not considered ... and if considered - they certainly were not discussed. However, these variances can be rectified by simply scaling the overlay correctly. Hopefully Chris will see this animation and realize that his film wasn't all that bad at attempting to duplicate Zapruder's film. Bill Miller

I believe Gary Mack called this the 'dodging' of an image. Do any of you know the history of the print you are using? If the original photo clearly shows a foot, then what you stated is ass-backwards. In other words, the photo was manipulated which removed the appearance of a foot and gave a false impression of seeing a hand ... not the other way around. To further illustrate your error ... are you prepared to tell me how with Jackie holding her husband's head in her lap, how long would JFK's arm need to be to reach the top of the seat and what evidence do you have to suggest that Kennedy had the ability to move his limbs after having 1/3 of his brain blown out of his head? Pat, what I said was that Mack usually has the original photos at the Museum or good quality scans made from them. It could be that Miller or his family still has the original photograph. The Museum has assassination original photos in their possession that are on loan to them for historical reasons, but the original photographer still has the copyrights. Below are some examples of how manipulating a photo by contrast or lighting changes can alter an image. This effect seems to occur much more with B&W images due to the limited color tones to work with. I also think that I saw the lines you guys spoke of and if we are talking about the same thing, then I think my initial impression was that they were the result of the scanning of the photo. Bill Miller Nice post, Ed. Bill Miller

The two photos are one in the same, thus Gary Mack is correct. However, while there is a slight diference in the sharpness of each print over the other ... neither has anything to do with the original photograph. The resolution of the scan as it shows up in print is another matter altogether. I might also add that Gary Mack sits on a huge collection of JFK assassination materials, many of which are the original photographs or high resolution scans of the same. These images are almost always copyrighted by the owners which prevents them from just being freely distributed over the Internet. However, one can go into the Museum and see these pristine images for themselves and only then will you know why Gary Mack says what he does about them Vs. the poorer quality prints being used for photo interpretation purposes on these forums. What has happened in part is that the brightness and contrasting has been altered between these copy prints. In the one print the Connally's have been all but wiped out of the photo. In the process the heel of the shoe has changed shape between the light and dark areas. The part of what once was the sole of a shoe has now become darkened towards the ball of the foot. Other things like the rear wheel of the car has changed in appearence and the little kid being held by the man across the street has become hard to see. These are all changes that took place not because of the degree of sharpness of the photograph, but rather how it was processed before being placed into print. Let me ask this question: With Jackie holding JFK's head in her lap and with the President laying on his left side ... how long would his arm have to be to be seen in place of Clint Hill's foot? I am thinking that if you approach this sensibly from another direction that possibly you will see how ridiculous it is to think you are seeing a hand, instead of a foot. Bill Miller

The next time you are in Dallas, call into the Museum and ask Gary Mack to allow you to come in and see a high resolution scan of it. You will walk away wondering how you could have been so wrong about anything. The lesson you will then learn is that photographs that have been degraded or altered from their opriginal state can cause changes that take place that is sometimes nothing more than an illusion. In the words of a fellow researcher of the JFK assassination: "I spoke to Richard Trask yesterday and his Miller prints - from a vintage AP negative and from a copy negative loaned to him by the late David Miller - are sharp, clear, and unquestionably show a foot. I, too, have seen an excellent Miller print and the object is a foot. For people today who look at dramatically degraded images in a book or magazine reproduction and attempt to discern something from them is the epitome of ignorance....and a disservice to researchers everywhere." Any idea as to the sun's position when the photo is question was taken? Bill Miller

Jack, I expect such idiocy from you because you cannot seem to rationalize why one should trust an actual clear sharp original photo over a poorer quailty print, but to think that John and Pat would follow suit is somewhat puzzling. However, a tree is still a tree and a rock is still a rock no matter how much one plays with the image to make it appear to be something else. Each researcher has to set the bar to the level of research they wish to be known for. Right now your bar is laying on the ground IMO. If you guys think that you have made some great discovery by way of a dodged photograph, then by all means tell the world and let the chips fall where they may. Bill Miller

And people wonder why we are called "buffs". The AP didn't misrepresent anything ... they very well may have believed it to be Kennedy's foot sticking over the side of the limo. It's only when one reads Clint Hill's statements and see's the other photo showing Hill getting his leg and foot into position does one get a better picture of who's foot is seen hooked over the door panel. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_...during+printing It was quite common for 'dodging' to be done to photographs and Jack is very aware of this. In some cases it gives off a cartoonish/artistic appearence. I supplied an Altgens 6 example showing this same thing. But these things that were done to copy prints doesn't have anything to do with what is seen on the original photos. In this thread there is a Moorman photo showing a manipulated image of the President without Jackie being in the car and what looks like a woman wearing a white hat. Now would I be accurate to suggest that someone tried to hide the fact that Jackie rode next to the President or suggest that the original photo must not show Jackie in the car? The fact is that the original photograph and good quality prints made thereof clearly shows a foot over the side of the limo. It is only when a poor quality print is offered into the mix that someone like Jack can use it to make something out of nothing from it. The sunlight shining off of Hill's shoes leather all of a sudden becomes a palm ... just as I supposed I can say the man standing on the other side of the limo is holding a dog up for the dying President to see. The point being is that there has been an attempt to use poor quality images to make assertions pertaining to the evidence of the case and I find this very troubling. 'Troubling' because once the downside of this behavior practice has been exposed as faulty and misleading ... one has to wonder why the same people continue to promote it. What Gary has been trying to tell you is that the photos are the same, but how they were manipulated can make things appear differently. For instance, what is being called JFK's hand only looks that way because of the contrasting of the sunlight shining off of Hill's shoes. In a more balanced print the illusion of a hand isn't seen at all. Try to keep in mind that the shoe is closer to the camera, thus the scaling between it and the actual size of Hill's head will need to be adjusted. Combine that with the shoe being tilted away from the camera and maybe things will make much more sense to you. Bill Miller

Jack certainly has the right to use poor images to make unfounded claims and I'll even support Pat's right to wrongfully claim Hill's foot is JFK's hand by using second and third generation prints. However, the only thing that clears anything up is looking at the original photos or very good first generation prints. Bill Miller

You guys are a hoot, Pat! It must be very reassuring to have Jack agree with you when he couldn't understand how a foot tilted at an angle could look smaller than a hand being seen head on. Furthermore, you guys are assessing a copy print rather than dealing with what is on the actual photograqph. Who cares why a newpaper retouched a copied photograph? Below is a crop of Altgens 6 out of "4 Dark Days" and the area around JFK and Connally's head has been obviously retouched, while the original photograph shows no retouching. (note JFK in the back seat has the corner of the sunvisor passing behind his head) Bill Miller

Bill, it's doubtful it's Hill's foot in the Miller photo. Hill's right leg is angled down into the car. The other photos show Hill's leg draped across the back of the car, with his foot behind the tire. The "foot" in the Miller photo, on the other hand, is coming out of the passenger compartment. If you or someone can re-create this photo, with your foot upside down directly to your right while you're faced forward in a car, I'll say "fine, that's his foot." Meanwhile, I'm with Jack and suspect it's Kennedy's hand. It has become a practice of Jack's to use inferior images to make ridiculous claims, but there is no law that says that he cannot do it. If you want to join his practice, then it is your business. However, all I am saying is that in the original Miller photo - it is without a doubt a foot being seen. To suggest that it is JFK's foot is plain foolishness IMO. The large B&W image Lee posted in response #20 shows Hill getting into that posture you find so hard to achieve. Hill merely needs to slide his foot forward along the door panels edge and turn his knee inward and he is in position. His posture is almost like the one we use to create in school when we'd be standing beside a buddy and try and kick him in the seat of the pants as if we were minding our own business. Bill Miller

I agree about it being the work of hackers, but what stays in the back of my mind is how was it that some researchers had mentioned this threat weeks ealier because of their software getting notices of it and their warnings seemed to go by the way side. It just seems to me that when a virus is later discovered and it just so happens to be the virus being picked up by come peoples systems before the rest of us get it, then we may want to pay closer attention to the initial warning signs. Bill

David Miller took the photo in question. In Trask book, POTP, Richard tells about this photo. Justin Newman also took a photo from the other side of the street as the limo raced past him and in that photo we can see Hill's outstretched leg getting into the posture seen in Miller's photo. By hooking the leg over the door panel and his hand on the other door panel ... it offers Hill some stability in the event the limo makes any sudden sharp turns. It was not uncommon for press agencies/newspapers to attempt to better an area on a photograph by 'dodging' the image. I believe that Bob Jackson's photo of Ruby shooting Oswald was also dodged in order to make Ruby's gun easier to see. Bill Miller

Jack used Z254 to equate to Altgens 6 when Z255 is the correct frame to use. As you can see, Jackie's hand moved between those two frames. There is nothing seen about Jackie's hands that cannot be duplicated in similar light. Bill Miller