Bill Miller

LET REMIND YOU WHAT YOU WROTE, "I assume that the Shooter / Spotter should be located somewhere in the area of the red box." I don't care at what elevation Nix was - if Moorman cannot see a spotter/shooter, then he cannot see her ... and more impartly he cannot see the lower elevated Kennedy. I did an overlay showing the location of your red boxes on the better images I shared with you. Your shooter/spotter is nothing more than sunspots on a wall. Bill Miller

There is no one at the location you speak of. The sunspots on the shelter wall can be seen long after the shooting in both the Nix and Bell films. Moorman's photo shows the top of the steps leading into the shelter doorway. Unless someone backed a 'matchbox' car up to the shelter wall, a normal sized car would stand tall enough to have been easily seen in Moorman's photo. There is no car seen next to the shelter wall in Moorman's photo. Bill Miller

Lee, The objects seen in the Nix film are not as close to the shelter as they appear. For instance, the RR car is clear across the RR yard even though it looks to be near the fence. Also, seeing how Moorman's photo falls in the same time sequence that Nix was filming and Mary's photo shows no car next to the shelter from where she stood ... no car is that close to the shelter in the Nix film. Bill

I am guessing that possibly the message was supposed to self-destruct after you had read it, but the timer was set incorrectly. If it wasn't that, then the only other thing you might do is check your forum tools option and see if you have somehow accidently put a check in the box next to the "disappearing ink" option. Bill

And the Museum selling a version of the Zapruder film preserves the in-camera original how, David? What you are saying has nothing to do with the remark you made earlier ... "the 6th floor museum has been assigned the chore to administer/preserve the in-camera Zapruder Film". Read Trask's books. Besides, it matters little if if the exisiting Zapruder film has been authenticated. Actually you are being logical even though you didn't mean to be. My Mother died in 1978, so yo are correct in saying that you aren't going to be telling her anything anytime soon. Bill Miller

If you were serious, then you would not have said, "the 6th floor museum has been assigned the chore to administer/preserve the in-camera Zapruder Film." That statement is false. The only control the museum has on the Zapruder film is the copyrights. In other words, anyone wanting to use the Zapruder images in a book, movie, etc., must submit a request to the museum. I also think that if you were serious, then you would have posted your last response in the correct thread ... this one was supposed to be about the conspiracy material that the museum does and does not carry in their book store. David, your thinking is so twisted that I find it astonishing! Of course someone told me so ... it was an Film expert who actually examined the Zapruder film. I mean, what do you think you are going to do ... look at the Zfilm yourself and be able to authenticate it? Le3t me ask you this, why do patholigist do autopsies and why do courts use their findings? To take your position one would be arging that we are only taking the pathologist word for his finds and that somehow his findings are suspect until each person in the courtroom gets to run the test themselves - that is a very idiotic and asinine postion to take IMO and if that is the best rebuttal you have on the Zfilms authenticity, then you have no rebuttal. The only problem I saw was your responding with erroneous data which needed correcting. No, David ... I am just a guy who bothered to learn the history concerning the Zapruder film so to know when someone says, "the 6th floor museum has been assigned the chore to administer/preserve the in-camera Zapruder Film" ... I'll know they don't know what they are talking about. Bill Miller

You are correct because if I am correct .... Gary believes that his Badge Man observation is correct, thus he would then keep any books that said that 'only three shots were fired from the rear' from being sold, but he doesn't. Bill

LMAO -- John -- I doubt I'll be wasting anymore time on Miller, thanks anyway! DH From what I remember about a discussion I had with John last fall at the hotel ... he won't lose any sleep over your decision, David. Bill Miller Transfered post: I have noticed of late that Gary is mentioned quite often it seems, re the photos, and in the information relating to them......that he relates to some of the members, in whatever, the comparisons, timing, and such...as well as yourself, in his emailings ..and it is then posted.. Yes, I seek Gary Mack out if needed because after I have solicited one source such a Groden for information, I will then call Gary and ask for other sources that he may be aware of for my own validation purposes. In other words, I just don't hear one thing from an individual and let it go at that ... I want to get a consensus when ever possible in an effort to be sure that the in formation I have gotten is correct. Gary Mack has had a strong interest in Photography and as you must be aware, he has been affiliated with many experts in that area because of his position there with the Museum. I have asked Gary on many occassions if others have started contacting him regularly for information or direction concerning the photographical record and he has told me that I am but of a very few people that ever seek information of that type through the Museum. Below is some addition infromation I was able to obtain through Gary pertaining to this topic ... "Bill, Well, since you asked, here's the answer. The Museum has seven or eight full sets of the Warren Report and 26 volumes in its collection, acquired from several people including the Phil Willis family and Dallas FBI agent Manning Clements. The Warren Report is sold in the gift shop and is required reading for anyone wanting the basic information (regardless of whether they believe the conclusions or not). The public is welcome to make an appointment to read them during regular office hours at no charge. The same applies to any video or book in the Museum's library regardless of content or whether it is also available in the store. Gary" QUOTE I have noticed of late that Gary is mentioned quite often it seems, re the photos, and in the information relating to them......that he relates to some of the members, in whatever, the comparisons, timing, and such...as well as yourself, in his emailings ..and it is then posted.. Yes, I seek Gary Mack out if needed because after I have solicited one source such a Groden for information, I will then call Gary and ask for other sources that he may be aware of for my own validation purposes. In other words, I just don't hear one thing from an individual and let it go at that ... I want to get a consensus when ever possible in an effort to be sure that the in formation I have gotten is correct. Gary Mack has had a strong interest in Photography and as you must be aware, he has been affiliated with many experts in that area because of his position there with the Museum. I have asked Gary on many occassions if others have started contacting him regularly for information or direction concerning the photographical record and he has told me that I am but of a very few people that ever seek information of that type through the Museum. Below is some addition infromation I was able to obtain through Gary pertaining to this topic ... "Bill, Well, since you asked, here's the answer. The Museum has seven or eight full sets of the Warren Report and 26 volumes in its collection, acquired from several people including the Phil Willis family and Dallas FBI agent Manning Clements. The Warren Report is sold in the gift shop and is required reading for anyone wanting the basic information (regardless of whether they believe the conclusions or not). The public is welcome to make an appointment to read them during regular office hours at no charge. The same applies to any video or book in the Museum's library regardless of content or whether it is also available in the store. Gary" *************************** Well I am pleased to hear that he responds to you with said information that you may consult him about..re the photos...so he has had no formal training, but through the fortunate experience of meeting with said experts he has learned much...well that is similar to many..as I understand it, who have spent many years doing such...and they are regarded as experts also... I do believe that most, if not all, do correspond and get others opinions, that are regarded as experts..in that area you and a few are not alone..but there are other experts other than Groden, to consult, if not he certainly would be inundated..and at times, I have read the complaint, that if whomever is not known to whomever they receive no response, unless they have an intermediary to send on such a request.. Now I realise, that most people are busy, and they cannot possibley reply to hundreds, as that is more than likely all they would do..so in some cases it is hard to get through. But if they are serious, it does eventually come about, so you newbies keep trying and hang in there.... I have not been so fortunate, with information from Gary, but that does not mean I may not try again... and he mostly,has been cordial...at times we all slip..perhaps it was the subject of my requests?? I appreciate your replies...and information that you have related to us. B This post has been edited by Bernice Moore: May 29 2006, 06:07 AM -------------------- Biography http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1999 Full Edit Quick Edit Bill Miller May 29 2006, 06:33 AM Post #63 Advanced Member Group: JFK Posts: 915 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 Bernice Moore May 29 2006, 06:06 AM Post #62 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 231 Joined: 12-April 04 Member No.: 632 QUOTE(Bill Miller @ May 28 2006, 06:49 AM) QUOTE I have noticed of late that Gary is mentioned quite often it seems, re the photos, and in the information relating to them......that he relates to some of the members, in whatever, the comparisons, timing, and such...as well as yourself, in his emailings ..and it is then posted.. Yes, I seek Gary Mack out if needed because after I have solicited one source such a Groden for information, I will then call Gary and ask for other sources that he may be aware of for my own validation purposes. In other words, I just don't hear one thing from an individual and let it go at that ... I want to get a consensus when ever possible in an effort to be sure that the in formation I have gotten is correct. Gary Mack has had a strong interest in Photography and as you must be aware, he has been affiliated with many experts in that area because of his position there with the Museum. I have asked Gary on many occassions if others have started contacting him regularly for information or direction concerning the photographical record and he has told me that I am but of a very few people that ever seek information of that type through the Museum. Below is some addition infromation I was able to obtain through Gary pertaining to this topic ... "Bill, Well, since you asked, here's the answer. The Museum has seven or eight full sets of the Warren Report and 26 volumes in its collection, acquired from several people including the Phil Willis family and Dallas FBI agent Manning Clements. The Warren Report is sold in the gift shop and is required reading for anyone wanting the basic information (regardless of whether they believe the conclusions or not). The public is welcome to make an appointment to read them during regular office hours at no charge. The same applies to any video or book in the Museum's library regardless of content or whether it is also available in the store. Gary" QUOTE Well I am pleased to hear that he responds to you with said information that you may consult him about..re the photos...so he has had no formal training, but through the fortunate experience of meeting with said experts .... Bernice, that is not what I said. Even I have had a hands on class in Photography, but that doesn't make me an expert. It is probably best that you contact Gary to learn more about what experience he has had concerning Photography before drawing your conclusions. QUOTE I do believe that most, if not all, do correspond and get others opinions, that are regarded as experts..in that area you and a few are not alone..but there are other experts other than Groden, to consult, if not he certainly would be inundated..and at times, I have read the complaint, that if whomever is not known to whomever they receive no response, unless they have an intermediary to send on such a request.. Now I realise, that most people are busy, and they cannot possibley reply to hundreds, as that is more than likely all they would do..so in some cases it is hard to get through. But if they are serious, it does eventually come about, so you newbies keep trying and hang in there.... If Photography is what your interest is, then the Libraries and the Internet is full of information. One doesn't need Groden to learn about Photography and film. QUOTE I have not been so fortunate, with information from Gary, but that does not mean I may not try again... and he mostly,has been cordial...at times we all slip..perhaps it was the subject of my requests?? I appreciate your replies...and information that you have related to us. B Gary is not alway available, but he usually gets back to people who have asked him for information. I would not give up on seeking him out for a source of information. You are certainly welcome for any infromation that I was able to share with you. Bill -------------------- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37 Full Edit Quick Edit Bernice Moore May 29 2006, 10:19 AM Post #64 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 231 Joined: 12-April 04 Member No.: 632 Bill: ""Gary Mack has had a strong interest in Photography and as you must be aware, he has been affiliated with many experts in that area because of his position there with the Museum."" Bernice ""Well I am pleased to hear that he responds to you with said information that you may consult him about..re the photos...so he has had no formal training, but through the fortunate experience of meeting with said experts .... Bill""Bernice, that is not what I said. Even I have had a hands on class in Photography, but that doesn't make me an expert. It is probably best that you contact Gary to learn more about what experience he has had concerning Photography before drawing your conclusions."" Bernice: Well I did take what you said, to mean that he was no expert, if in error I am sure he will let us know eventually in one of his emails... I mentioned the fact that he has been very fortunate in being able to consult with the experts.. I do not think there are diplomas in expertise given out for JFK Reseach...never has been....in any category, but the men and woman who have studied in the past as well as now and in the future, have my enduring admiration, whether anyone considers or calls themselves such, I do not think it important, that is up to them..the students know who has the knowledgeable are for themsleves....but those who have and had the wherewithal to have studied and educated themselves over those years, by some are considered such...Whether you or Gary regard yourselves or will some day of being experts or not, or others considering you or he as such....is entirely up to you ...and them... The people who have the learned the knowledge within the subjects and who have obtained a degree, in their educations are also most extremely valued, some such as Dr.D.Mantik, Dr.Cyril Wecht, who have given us the opportunity of their special knowledge and "smarts" have added greatly to the findings..and some who have and do say work in the industry..imo. ************************** Bill:''If Photography is what your interest is, then the Libraries and the Internet is full of information. One doesn't need Groden to learn about Photography and film."" Bernice: No ,one does not need Groden, there are others and also much information out there for any who are greatly interested..and would like to pursue such in courses or books and such.. ************************** Bernice :""I have not been so fortunate, with information from Gary, but that does not mean I may not try again... and he mostly,has been cordial...at times we all slip..perhaps it was the subject of my requests?? "" Bill:""Gary is not alway available, but he usually gets back to people who have asked him for information. I would not give up on seeking him out for a source of information."" You are certainly welcome for any infromation that I was able to share with you. Bill"" I appreciate what you have passed along Bill... ****************************** Bill:""It is probably best that you contact Gary to learn more about what experience he has had concerning Photography before drawing your conclusions."" Well I did receive an email from Gary with a questionable inference today, it is included below as well as my reply, in the middle of all the messy email...and I did try to search him out, as you suggest...but it came back as a "failure notice" this is all I got in response......so I think for now, I will not waste my time again, perhaps in the future ...but not right now...I have never had much luck it seems as far as Gary is concerned, so be it....see below...again I have appreciated your replys... This email addresses I include,such as Gary's ,you have already posted his on this F...my own many have already. So no problem..B.. 29 May 2006 01:34:40 -0000 From: MAILER-DAEMON@yahoo.com Add to Address Book Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Learn more To: bmoore1242@rogers.com Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. Bill Miller May 29 2006, 03:00 PM Post #66 Advanced Member Group: JFK Posts: 915 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 Bernice, I will only try and relay this message one more time ... hopefully with more clarity. A person can have formal training in Photography and not be an expert. You implied that I said that Gary has had no formal training and that is not what I had said. You drew an erroneous conclusion that Gary has had no formal training in Photography when I said he 'has had a strong interest in Photography' and I suspect from his answer to your email that this is one type of example to what he was talking about concerning the things you have said. And because Gary has worked with Photographic experts on so many projects and has been there first hand to aks questions, observe, participate, and so on, he is able to pass along valuable information that he has learned through working with these experts. Gary Mack would not say that he is a Photographic expert any more than I would make such a claim about myself. However, Gary is very knowledgeable about Photography and he has a good understanding of the physics surrounding it. If Gary is an expert in anything, then he is an expert researcher. In other woprds he knows how to find information, retain what he has learned, and is smart enough to apply it to the JFK assassination. Gary is so knowledgeable about the JFK assassination that often times I will cite something in our discussions and if I say even the slightest thing in error, he will always catch it and will explain the differences in what I said Vs. what is rfecorded in the official record. Bill This post has been edited by Bill Miller: May 29 2006, 03:07 PM -------------------- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37 Full Edit Quick Edit David G. Healy May 29 2006, 06:36 PM Post #67 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 716 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 712 'Bill Miller' wrote: Bill: ""Gary Mack has had a strong interest in Photography and as you must be aware, he has been affiliated with many experts in that area because of his position there with the Museum."" Bernice ""Well I am pleased to hear that he responds to you with said information that you may consult him about..re the photos...so he has had no formal training, but through the fortunate experience of meeting with said experts .... Bill""Bernice, that is not what I said. Even I have had a hands on class in Photography, but that doesn't make me an expert. It is probably best that you contact Gary to learn more about what experience he has had concerning Photography before drawing your conclusions."" Bernice: Well I did take what you said, to mean that he was no expert, if in error I am sure he will let us know eventually in one of his emails... Bernice, I will only try and relay this message one more time ... hopefully with more clarity. A person can have formal training in Photography and not be an expert. You implied that I said that Gary has had no formal training and that is not what I had said. You drew an erroneous conclusion that Gary has had no formal training in Photography when I said he 'has had a strong interest in Photography' and I suspect from his answer to your email that this is one type of example to what he was talking about concerning the things you have said. And because Gary has worked with Photographic experts on so many projects and has been there first hand to aks questions, observe, participate, and so on, he is able to pass along valuable information that he has learned through working with these experts. Gary Mack would not say that he is a Photographic expert any more than I would make such a claim about myself. However, Gary is very knowledgeable about Photography and he has a good understanding of the physics surrounding it. If Gary is an expert in anything, then he is an expert researcher. In other woprds he knows how to find information, retain what he has learned, and is smart enough to apply it to the JFK assassination. Gary is so knowledgeable about the JFK assassination that often times I will cite something in our discussions and if I say even the slightest thing in error, he will always catch it and will explain the differences in what I said Vs. what is rfecorded in the official record. Bill dgh: hmm, Bill needs a break, perhaps? little R&R ....? [LURKER'S, even for those adamant, US, JFK photo/film researchers, the above is a bit over the top ] On bended knee, DHealy Jack White May 30 2006, 01:03 AM Post #72 Super Member Group: Members Posts: 1211 Joined: 26-April 04 Member No.: 667 Several years ago before being kicked off of the JFKresearch forum for misconduct and disruption, "Miller" posted a photo of himself in full beard. Nobody that I know saved it, so maybe he will replace the current photo of the red-headed guy with the bearded picture. OK? Jack This post has been edited by Jack White: May 30 2006, 01:04 AM -------------------- http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/findaids...tm#Bio%20Sketch Full Edit Quick Edit Bill Miller May 30 2006, 01:30 AM Post #73 Advanced Member Group: JFK Posts: 915 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 QUOTE(Jack White @ May 30 2006, 01:03 AM) Several years ago before being kicked off of the JFKresearch forum for misconduct and disruption, "Miller" posted a photo of himself in full beard. Nobody that I know saved it, so maybe he will replace the current photo of the red-headed guy with the bearded picture. OK? Jack Jack, you are insane. My so-called being disruptive on the looney forum was for not agreeing with your poorly thoughtout alteration claims. I can also say that it doesn't suprise me that no one has a photo of me in a full beard because I have never worn one, nor have I ever worn a fake one, thus no picture ever existed of me in a beard. As usual you are just making stuff up as you go ... much like your alteration work. It looks like this is just another attempt on your part to hijack another thread. Bill Miller Bill Miller May 30 2006, 01:32 PM Post #78 Advanced Member Group: JFK Posts: 915 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 QUOTE dgh: What's my lack of respect for YOU and your photo reasearch capabilities [or lack thereof] got to do with MY respect for JFK? If you respected JFK so much, then you'd be addressing the evidence presented to you instead of trolling in an effort to disrupt the topic. A forum designed to educate people in his name deserves as much ... JFK's memory deserves as much. QUOTE Hell, JFK was MY Commander-in-Chief? Yours too? Your father knew JFK too? Deliver votes for him? JFK was the Commander in Chief of those who killed him and attempted to cover up his murder, so what's your point? As I recall, those around Cesar tried to sell themselves in the same fashion as you're doing and we see how much they respected Cesar. You have a modus-operandi of saying one thing and doing another ... did you think saying you served under JFK means you respected him. Your many actions have spoke louder than your few words. QUOTE My piece regarding the Z-film was finished over a month ago... Not one word of it will change now or after Zavada/Fielding post the new, EXTENDED and approved Zavada Report. So, urge those guys on, then I'm gone... You were never in the game, David. To have been in the game one must first participate by attempting to learn ... something you have refused to do. There are so many checks and balances in determining the authenticity of a film like Zapruder's that you guys never knew about and by the looks of your respnses - you don't understand them either, and yet you always reach the same conclusion even if it means not coming to grips with the information before you. Your taking the position that no matter what information is presented to you will not change your belief is by definition a cult-like mentality, not based on fact, but rather on emotion. JFK deserved better IMO. Bill Miller David G. Healy May 31 2006, 07:25 AM Post #86 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 716 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 712 QUOTE(Bill Miller @ May 30 2006, 11:32 AM) QUOTE dgh: What's my lack of respect for YOU and your photo reasearch capabilities [or lack thereof] got to do with MY respect for JFK? If you respected JFK so much, then you'd be addressing the evidence presented to you instead of trolling in an effort to disrupt the topic. A forum designed to educate people in his name deserves as much ... JFK's memory deserves as much. QUOTE Hell, JFK was MY Commander-in-Chief? Yours too? Your father knew JFK too? Deliver votes for him? JFK was the Commander in Chief of those who killed him and attempted to cover up his murder, so what's your point? As I recall, those around Cesar tried to sell themselves in the same fashion as you're doing and we see how much they respected Cesar. You have a modus-operandi of saying one thing and doing another ... did you think saying you served under JFK means you respected him. Your many actions have spoke louder than your few words. QUOTE My piece regarding the Z-film was finished over a month ago... Not one word of it will change now or after Zavada/Fielding post the new, EXTENDED and approved Zavada Report. So, urge those guys on, then I'm gone... You were never in the game, David. To have been in the game one must first participate by attempting to learn ... something you have refused to do. There are so many checks and balances in determining the authenticity of a film like Zapruder's that you guys never knew about and by the looks of your respnses - you don't understand them either, and yet you always reach the same conclusion even if it means not coming to grips with the information before you. Your taking the position that no matter what information is presented to you will not change your belief is by definition a cult-like mentality, not based on fact, but rather on emotion. JFK deserved better IMO. Bill Miller BMiller [ the checks and balances citing authenticity of the Zapruder film, especially the ones RZavada doesn't know about -- please put them right here between the brackets] Cult, cult, cult, you losing it there, Bill? I've no alternative, you've finally reached; STUMP of the MONTH status. My conclusion has not changed since day one, I can NOT prove the Z-film is altered, period! Were the necessary things present to alter of the Zapruder FILM, including the TIME? Absolutely, ALL of them were.... So, what is it don't YOU understand about the english language, Bill? -------------------- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6029 Full Edit Quick Edit Bill Miller May 31 2006, 11:33 AM Post #87 Advanced Member Group: JFK Posts: 915 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 QUOTE My conclusion has not changed since day one, I can NOT prove the Z-film is altered, period! Were the necessary things present to alter of the Zapruder FILM, including the TIME? Absolutely, ALL of them were.... So, what is it don't YOU understand about the english language, Bill? David, I understand you perfectly and I have made it clear many times that what you are saying DOES NOT address the evidence presented on this forum. You are constantly saying the Zfilm could have been altered in the manner that you suggest and you are correct in theory for you could change the appearence of a film frame from it's original image. However, as I have said repeatedly .... what you have suggested in the way of altering a film could not have gone undetected under close scrutiny and in there lies the difference. That the things I have passed along from the experts would not allow such a forgery to go undetected. Your time allowance for these alterations is certainly not supported by the experts either. As Jack had said, enlargements would had to of been made and all the alterations taken place before putting them back onto 8MM Kodachrome II film. As Groden points out ... the color balancing of all the frames on that roll of film that also holds the assassination sequence would had to of been done, not by computer, but by hand which would mean redeveloping, readjusting, and processing each image the old fashion way to make it balance perfectly with the prior one on the film. All this would had to of been done before Life started publishing the Zapruder film images showing the shooting sequence. All this work would need to of been done within the first 24 hours of the assassination while not knowing what all the other assassination photographers films would eventually show as those films would be brought forward in the days and weeks that followed. The whole argument becomes ridiculous when put into perspective. None of this even touches on this 'other film' nonsense whereas a fake film was shot of the scene and used to splice in all the needed alterations. Without even getting into all the technical problems such a task would have to take on, that means that all the witnesses seen in the Zapruder film that were not present in any parts of the fake film would also have to of been repositioned by inserting them onto the 'other film' and all this takes up time that simply didn't exist within the first 24 hours of the assassination. And why do I mention the first 24 hour time frame ... because for Life Magazine to start the presses by Sunday - the final product needed to be done because once published, Life would be stuck with whatever the frames showed. Could someone of altered the Zfilm with an optical printer - YES! Could they have altered the Zfilm in such a way it could not be detected - NO! What you have done is only suggest that a minute part of something COULD have possibly been done. That's like saying it is a possibility to take a trip from the earth to the moon without oxygen by simply holding your breath which in theory it is correct, but realistically it is impossible! Bill Miller This post has been edited by Bill Miller: May 31 2006, 06:03 PM -------------------- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37 Full Edit Quick Edit David G. Healy May 31 2006, 09:56 PM Post #88 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 716 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 712 'Bill Miller' wrote: QUOTE My conclusion has not changed since day one, I can NOT prove the Z-film is altered, period! Were the necessary things present to alter of the Zapruder FILM, including the TIME? Absolutely, ALL of them were.... So, what is it don't YOU understand about the english language, Bill? David, I understand you perfectly and I have made it clear many times that what you are saying DOES NOT address the evidence presented on this forum. dgh01: what evidence have you presented on this forum? Appears to me what YOU present and lamson and Colby present is ALL conjecture and opinion. I'll gladly review ANY evidence regarding the authenticity of the Z-film You are constantly saying the Zfilm could have been altered in the manner that you suggest and you are correct in theory for you could change the appearence of a film frame from it's original image. dgh01: duh! However, as I have said repeatedly .... what you have suggested in the way of altering a film could not have gone undetected under close scrutiny and in there lies the difference. That the things I have passed along from the experts would not allow such a forgery to go undetected. dgh01: well you'll have no problem posting right here what a frame looks like that has gone through the process -- what-the-hell is holding you up -- no more polka dot patterns, please the real deal. Or is you can't post because of the needed requirement, could it be, you CAN'T get access to a 1st generation Z-film frame? If that's the case, no wonder your dance keeps going round and round and round.... Your time allowance for these alterations is certainly not supported by the experts either. dgh01: it isn't please post the actual date when Shaneyfelt numbered the film -- personally I could careless about your experts, there wasn't one damn film/photo expert sitting on the Warren Commission, was there?... As Jack had said, enlargements would had to of been made and all the alterations taken place before putting them back onto 8MM Kodachrome II film. dgh01: is that the way I suggested the film was altered? Maybe you should be speaking to Groden about **rotoscoping** you do understand that term, correct? As Groden points out ... the color balancing of all the frames on that roll of film that also holds the assassination sequence would had to of been done, not by computer, but by hand which would mean redeveloping, readjusting, and processing each image the old fashion way to make it balance perfectly with the prior one on the film. dgh01: bullxxxx, get Groden in here to tell me himself, we can talk 'light house packs' -- he and I can dance, from what I've been told he's stood at a optical printer more than once... All this would had to of been done before Life started publishing the Zapruder film images showing the shooting sequence. All this work would need to of been done within the first 24 hours of the assassination while not knowing what all the other assassination photographers films would eventually show as those films would be brought forward in the days and weeks that followed. The whole argument becomes ridiculous when put into perspective. None of this even touches on this 'other film' nonsense whereas a fake film was shot of the scene and used to splice in all the needed alterations. Without even getting into all the technical problems such a task would have to take on, that means that all the witnesses seen in the Zapruder film that were not present in any parts of the fake film would also have to of been repositioned by inserting them onto the 'other film' and all this takes up time that simply didn't exist within the first 24 hours of the assassination. And why do I mention the first 24 hour time frame ... because for Life Magazine to start the presses by Sunday - the final product needed to be done because once published, Life would be stuck with whatever the frames showed. : dgh01: so were those frames numberd? Seems I've asked this question of you countless times, yet you keep regurgitating the same nonesense.... copying and pasting again, huh? Could someone of altered the Zfilm with an optical printer - YES! Could they have altered the Zfilm in such a way it could not be detected - NO! What you have done is only suggest that a minute part of something COULD have possibly been done. That's like saying it is a possibility to take a trip from the earth to the moon without oxygen by simply holding your breath which in theory it is correct, but realistically it is impossible! dgh01: ahhhhhh... above Bill said: "Could they have altered the Zfilm in such a way it could not be detected - NO!", as a motion image compositor, I probably a have a differing idea about that... and, do you think the Warren Commssion knew the difference between 8,16 and 35mm film? Better yet, you think Shaneyfelt had the qualifications to say, whoops, who altered this film, think the question was ever, EVER raised-- Me, I doubt the question was ever raised by or to anyone associated with the WC investigation Bill Miller This post has been edited by David G. Healy: May 31 2006, 10:03 PM -------------------- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6029 Full Edit Quick Edit Bill Miller May 31 2006, 11:13 PM Post #89 Advanced Member Group: JFK Posts: 915 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 QUOTE dgh01: what evidence have you presented on this forum? Appears to me what YOU present and lamson and Colby present is ALL conjecture and opinion. I'll gladly review ANY evidence regarding the authenticity of the Z-film Go back and read it ... that is the beauty of a forum like this one - the material is archived for someone like yourself who was too busy trolling to actually read the threads. QUOTE dgh01: well you'll have no problem posting right here what a frame looks like that has gone through the process -- what-the-hell is holding you up -- no more polka dot patterns, please the real deal. Or is you can't post because of the needed requirement, could it be, you CAN'T get access to a 1st generation Z-film frame? If that's the case, no wonder your dance keeps going round and round and round.... David, it's been done, but you were too busy running your mouth to see it. The web page of Costella shows a original Zfilm print Vs. one that was processed as MPI did with the film. Even Costella mentioned one being so much sharper than the other. If you cannot get passed the easy stuff, why waste time showing you anything else. And besides, we are talking about testing that is done on the original with high magnification ... you continue to ask for something that takes hands on examination to do. It's like asking someone to post the itch that a mosquito bite brings. One can explain the physics of it - one can even understand it if they are smart enough - and one doesn't have to be bitten to know that it itches. QUOTE dgh01: it isn't please post the actual date when Shaneyfelt numbered the film -- personally I could careless about your experts, there wasn't one damn film/photo expert sitting on the Warren Commission, was there?... Who cares ... the Zapruder film has since then been studied by experts using forms of advanced methods that wasn't even available in 1963, so your logic is terrlibly flawed. QUOTE dgh01: is that the way I suggested the film was altered? Maybe you should be speaking to Groden about **rotoscoping** you do understand that term, correct? I have discussed with Groden your claims and he thinks you are an idiot who only knows optical printing and not the rest of the data needed to attempt a forgery. QUOTE dgh01: bullxxxx, get Groden in here to tell me himself, we can talk 'light house packs' -- he and I can dance, from what I've been told he's stood at a optical printer more than once... Feel free to email Groden at RobertG1@airmail.net and discuss your issues with him personally. Then feel free to post them even though I am sure because of what he tells you that you will not want others to know the whole story. QUOTE dgh01: so were those frames numberd? Seems I've asked this question of you countless times, yet you keep regurgitating the same nonesense.... copying and pasting again, huh? Shaneyfelt said he started working on the film copy the last week of January. I believe it has been said that the first thing he did was number the frames for referencing purposes. His personal notes have been turned over to the 6th Floor Museum ... feel free to inquire about his notes there. I will say this however, when Shaneyfelt numbered the frames is irrelevant to the films authenticity. I believe that several places that examined the film had numbered the frames that they had worked on - even started at a different number. Just like with the thread where Jack used Z410 from Costella's web page and I used MPI's Z408 ... they are still one in the same frame regardless what number someone placed on them. QUOTE dgh01: ahhhhhh... above Bill said: "Could they have altered the Zfilm in such a way it could not be detected - NO!", as a motion image compositor, I probably a have a differing idea about that... and, do you think the Warren Commssion knew the difference between 8,16 and 35mm film? Better yet, you think Shaneyfelt had the qualifications to say, whoops, who altered this film, think the question was ever, EVER raised-- Me, I doubt the question was ever raised by or to anyone associated with the WC investigation Again with the smoke and mirrors. The Zfilm has been examined by experts who used modern methods of verifying the film, so what the WC did or didn't do is meaningless. But let's assume the WC had examined the film in every way possible and used the best experts ... you'd then be sitting here trolling this forum and bitching that their methods were outdated and unreliable. That is why I don't waste time whining about what the Commission did and did not do for its since been done by way of more accurate and advanced methods the commission and their experts could have used by 1963/64 standards. Bill Miller This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Yesterday, 04:07 AM -------------------- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37 Full Edit Quick Edit David G. Healy Yesterday, 12:23 AM Post #90 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 716 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 712 Go back and read it ... that is the beauty of a forum like this one - the material is archived for someone like yourself who was too busy trolling to actually read the threads. dgh01: well you'll have no problem posting right here what a frame looks like that has gone through the process -- what-the-hell is holding you up -- no more polka dot patterns, please the real deal. Or is you can't post because of the needed requirement, could it be, you CAN'T get access to a 1st generation Z-film frame? If that's the case, no wonder your dance keeps going round and round and round.... David, it's been done, but you were too busy running your mouth to see it. The web page of Costella shows a original Zfilm print Vs. one that was processed as MPI did with the film. Even Costella mentioned one being so much sharper than the other. If you cannot get passed the easy stuff, why waste time showing you anything else. And besides, we are talking about testing that is done on the original with high magnification ... you continue to ask for something that takes hands on examination to do. It's like asking someone to post the itch that a mosquito bite brings. One can explain the physics of it - one can even understand it if they are smart enough - and one doesn't have to be bitten to know that it itches. dgh02: ROFLMAO -- Not on your life has it been done, if it had, you'd be plastering it all over the internet, so the best you and all the rest can do is TREAD water... Oh hell, you make this too easy: no Bill Miller, not the nonesense you post -- not Costella frames, not JWhites frames, not MPI frames, not Healy frames -- GET Groden's 35mm frames, show us that. Your buds with all these dudes, your their go-to guy... gett'er done!--- dgh01: it isn't please post the actual date when Shaneyfelt numbered the film -- personally I could careless about your experts, there wasn't one damn film/photo expert sitting on the Warren Commission, was there?... Who cares ... the Zapruder film has since then been studied by experts using forms of advanced methods that wasn't even available in 1963, so your logic is terrlibly flawed. dgh02: what experts have studied the Zapruder regarding authenticity, Roland Zavada? He can't convince anyone Zapruder's B&H414 took the alledged Zapruder film dgh01: is that the way I suggested the film was altered? Maybe you should be speaking to Groden about **rotoscoping** you do understand that term, correct? I have discussed with Groden your claims and he thinks you are an idiot who only knows optical printing and not the rest of the data needed to attempt a forgery. dgh02: of course he does, what with all his displayed courage, nobody around here will be impressed with all his "technical" expertise regarding optical film printing... Besides he's got plenty of morons to do his bidding dgh01: bullxxxx, get Groden in here to tell me himself, we can talk 'light house packs' -- he and I can dance, from what I've been told he's stood at a optical printer more than once... Feel free to email Groden at RobertG1@airmail.net and discuss your issues with him personally. Then feel free to post them even though I am sure because of what he tells you that you will not want others to know the whole story. dgh02: Why? Robert G can't handle the pressure of appearing here in person? If he did, I'd insist on Larry Peter's vetting him, thoroughly-- LOL! dgh01: so were those frames numberd? Seems I've asked this question of you countless times, yet you keep regurgitating the same nonesense.... copying and pasting again, huh? Shaneyfelt said he started working on the film copy the last week of January. I believe it has been said that the first thing he did was number the frames for referencing purposes. His personal notes have been turned over to the 6th Floor Museum ... feel free to inquire about his notes there. I will say this however, when Shaneyfelt numbered the frames is irrelevant to the films authenticity. dgh02: Really? Irrelevant.... funny this about chain of evidence issues.... his numbering the frames tells us where the Z-film in-camera original is/was at that particular date --- did he number the frames based on the original OR a optical print, or a print of a print of a print -- nobody knows there Bill. Then again if the film was altered very early on, he numbered the film frames based on a altered film? That would be a pisser, wouldn't it? Can you help us out? "Last week of January", I suspect counselor he'd have to be a bit more specific that that..... I believe that several places that examined the film had numbered the frames that they had worked on - even started at a different number. Just like with the htread where Jack used Z410 from Costella's web page and I used MPI's Z408 ... they are still one in the same frame regardless what number someone placed on them.[/b] dgh02: what you believe or I believe is irrelevant, just the facts counselor, just the facts dgh01: ahhhhhh... above Bill said: "Could they have altered the Zfilm in such a way it could not be detected - NO!", as a motion image compositor, I probably a have a differing idea about that... and, do you think the Warren Commssion knew the difference between 8,16 and 35mm film? Better yet, you think Shaneyfelt had the qualifications to say, whoops, who altered this film, think the question was ever, EVER raised-- Me, I doubt the question was ever raised by or to anyone associated with the WC investigation Again with the smoke and mirrors. The Zfilm has been examined by experts who used modern methods of verifying the film, so what the WC did or didn't do is meaningless. But lest assume the WC had examined the film in every way possible and used the best experts ... you'd then be sitting here trolling this forum and bitching that their methods were outdated and unreliable. That is why I don't waste time whining about what the Commission did and did not do for its since been done by way of more accurate and advanced methods the commission and their experts could have used by 1963/64 standards. dgh02: the only FACT counsellor is, your not aware, nor can you prove any *alledged* FACT concerning the Z-film. Whinning? Whinning ? If you don't whine about the Z-film, how in the hell do you think any credible CT'er can believe ANYTHING you have to say about the assassination? Maybe Mr. Groden can help us out, ya think... Bill Mille Bill Miller Yesterday, 01:17 AM Post #91 Advanced Member Group: JFK Posts: 915 Joined: 2-August 04 Member No.: 1084 QUOTE dgh02: ROFLMAO -- Not on your life has it been done, if it had, you'd be plastering it all over the internet, so the best you and all the rest can do is TREAD water... Oh hell, you make this too easy: no Bill Miller, not the nonesense you post -- not Costella frames, not JWhites frames, not MPI frames, not Healy frames -- GET Groden's 35mm frames, show us that. Your buds with all these dudes, your their go-to guy... gett'er done!--- David, you haven't given anyone a hint that you're able to follow the basics that have been presented to you, so why would anyone want to show you anything that takes even more understanding. I just showed you how the processes of making copies causes one to lose the sharpness of the original image by comparing the Life 1st generation prints against the MPI third generation prints and it seems to go right over your head. I don't give a damned if it is a Zapruder film image or any other film that ever existed ... the same rules of getting further away from the original image when making copies apply to everything. dgh01: it isn't please post the actual date when Shaneyfelt numbered the film -- personally I could careless about your experts, there wasn't one damn film/photo expert sitting on the Warren Commission, was there?... Who cares ... the Zapruder film has since then been studied by experts using forms of advanced methods that wasn't even available in 1963, so your logic is terrlibly flawed. QUOTE dgh02: what experts have studied the Zapruder regarding authenticity, Roland Zavada? He can't convince anyone Zapruder's B&H414 took the alledged Zapruder film Zavada and Groden have authenticated the film. What experts weren't convinced otherwise that you know ... the guy who couldn't understand why Life's first generation prints were sharper than the MPI images or the guy who can't tell that his recreation Moorman photo doesn't show the gap between the Pedestal and the colonnade window compared to Moorman's photo? QUOTE dgh02: of course he does, what with all his displayed courage, nobody around here will be impressed with all his "technical" expertise regarding optical film printing... Besides he's got plenty of morons to do his bidding I'm not sure who you are talking for, but they should know that Groden is not only a Photography expert, but he also achieved the highest level of experience in optical printing that one can reach. Once again you fail to tell the whole story. QUOTE dgh02: Why? Robert G can't handle the pressure of appearing here in person? If he did, I'd insist on Larry Peter's vetting him, thoroughly-- LOL! Again with the 'I need Sir Issac Newton here in person to tell me that the laws of gravity are valid' ... what a stupid position to try to embrace. It isn't hard to see why people of higher qualifications don't waste their time on you any longer. QUOTE dgh02: Then again if the film was altered very early on, he numbered the film frames based on a altered film? That would be a pisser, wouldn't it? And if you knew anything about how to determine if a film is a copy or an original film, then you'd not be wasting so much forum space. Ignorance is not a defense, David. QUOTE dgh02: the only FACT counsellor is, your not aware, nor can you prove any *alledged* FACT concerning the Z-film. Whinning? Whinning ? If you don't whine about the Z-film, how in the hell do you think any credible CT'er can believe ANYTHING you have to say about the assassination? Maybe Mr. Groden can help us out, ya think... I don't think Groden can help someone who doesn't want to be helped. First you tell people you don't care what Groden thinks and then you want to solicit information from him. It's like you have two personalities and both are mental cases. Bill Miller This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Yesterday, 04:00 AM -------------------- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37 Full Edit Quick Edit J. Raymond Carroll Yesterday, 02:01 AM Post #92 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 342 Joined: 10-March 05 Member No.: 2672 QUOTE(Bill Miller @ May 31 2006, 10:33 AM) That's like saying it is a possibility to take a trip from the earth to the moon without oxygen by simply holding your breath which in theory it is correct, but realistically it is impossible! Bill Miller[/b] I always enjoy Bill Miller's posts, and I always learn something from them, but I have to speak out and say that this metaphor is simply priceless beyond words. Thanks again, Bill. This post has been edited by J. Raymond Carroll: Yesterday, 02:21 AM -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3444 Full Edit Quick Edit Michael Hogan Yesterday, 02:59 AM Post #93 Experienced Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 16-February 06 Member No.: 4310 Mr. Carroll wrote: I always enjoy Bill Miller's posts, and I always learn something from them, but I have to speak out and say that this metaphor is simply priceless beyond words. This time I wholeheartedly agree with him. Mike Hogan -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6146 Full Edit Quick Edit David G. Healy Yesterday, 04:54 AM Post #94 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 716 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 712 'Bill Miller' continues: dgh02: ROFLMAO -- Not on your life has it been done, if it had, you'd be plastering it all over the internet, so the best you and all the rest can do is TREAD water... Oh hell, you make this too easy: no Bill Miller, not the nonesense you post -- not Costella frames, not JWhites frames, not MPI frames, not Healy frames -- GET Groden's 35mm frames, show us that. Your buds with all these dudes, your their go-to guy... gett'er done!--- David, you haven't given anyone a hint that you're able to follow the basics that have been presented to you, so why would anyone want to show you anything that takes even more understanding. I just showed you how the processes of making copies cause one to lose the sharpness of the original image by comparing the Life 1st generation prints against the MPI third generation prints and it sems to go right over your head. I don't give a damned if it is a Zapruder film image or any other film that ever existed ... the same rules of getting further away from the original image when making copies apply to everything. dgh03: now Bill, right in front of me is the Nov 29th 1963 issue of LIFE magazine, the Zapruder film images (not numbered) are all b&w they're absolutely horrible - lousey resolution image on a black background, contrast max'ed out, make it/them reasonably small [we do the same when we need to use lo-rez imagery, such as VHS for broadcast], then hope nobody notices.... so let's scratch those images, not worthwhile from photo/film a researcher point of view. And certainly we do not see the Z-film running, so these images are essentially a bust... Now these published images are the ones that *prove* no alteration happened to the Zapruder film? Would you care to comment on HOW that proves the Z-film wasn't altered? I say, hogwash.... When it comes to image resolution... my grandson draws better cartoons...that relates to all 30+ published frames in that issue. Then there's the 10 color images in the Memorial edition, what do those mean when it comes to "proof the Zapruder film was not altered? I do believe JCostella had quite a bit to talk about regarding image number 3 in that edition. something about it being impossible the foreground and background in that image being in perfect focus, when panning one or the other has to be out of focus, right -- can you or Groden explain that anomoly? There's a whole lot of people that would like to put that one to bed. Finally, your not strong enough to throw something over my head concerning this particular subject matter. Have you EVER seen an original Z-film frame? Now the frames in the October 2nd 1964 Life issue; those are in color, and NOT Shaneyfelt z-frame numbered interesting by-it-self (why is that, they were numbered months prior) ... so, your MPI imagery is 3rd generation? You did do the old de-interlace gig on those MPI images didn't you? After all the MPI images are all NTSC 2field MPEG-2 720x480 images, might account for some blurriness, actually, I guarantee it.... Back to the drawing board You ever see those images in LIFE magaznes Nov 25th 1966 issue? Now these frames are numbered, why oh why did it take that long to get those numbers out to the general public, makes one wonder. At that, only one frame published after 248, 312! Hmm, and you wonder why there's questions of alteration -- November 25th 1966 dgh01: it isn't please post the actual date when Shaneyfelt numbered the film -- personally I could careless about your experts, there wasn't one damn film/photo expert sitting on the Warren Commission, was there?... Who cares ... the Zapruder film has since then been studied by experts using forms of advanced methods that wasn't even available in 1963, so your logic is terrlibly flawed. dgh03: it has? WHO? and when -- gotta tell ya, I don't think it was studied in-depth from 1963 till 198? I'd say thats plenty of time to do anything to the film, if one desired. dgh02: what experts have studied the Zapruder regarding authenticity, Roland Zavada? He can't convince anyone Zapruder's B&H414 took the alledged Zapruder film Zavada and Groden have authenticated the film. What experts weren't convinced otherwise that you know ... the guy who couldn't understand why Life's first generation prints were sharper than the MPI images or the guy who can't tell that his recreation Moorman photo doesn't show the gap between the Pedestal and the colonnade window compared to Moorman's photo? dgh03: there you go, AGAIN -- well, we're waiting for Rollie and Ray -- so what about Groden, he have 1st generation prints of LIFE's in-camera Zapruder original? After all, he's a expert on the film, right? Maybe that's the reason why he won't show up here.... dgh02: of course he does, what with all his displayed courage, nobody around here will be impressed with all his "technical" expertise regarding optical film printing... Besides he's got plenty of morons to do his bidding I'm not sure who you are talking for, but they should know that Groden is not only a Photography expert, but he also achieved the highest level of experience in optical printing that one can reach. Once again you fail to tell the whole story. dgh03: didn't do too good as a photo expert when he testified during the OJ case, did he... win some-you lose some. The highest level, he did? He have any credits we can check, I'm sure Hollyweird would of sought him out if he was THAT good! From what I can understand and by the tone of Mo's testimony, Zavada's report and David Lifton's comment... Mo wasn't a happy camper when he found out his "not so perfect copy" of the 8mm-35mm blowup got him in front of a congressional investigation... Anyway, with all that expertise why not drop by and set my misgivings right.... ? dgh02: Why? Robert G can't handle the pressure of appearing here in person? If he did, I'd insist on Larry Peter's vetting him, thoroughly-- LOL! Once again with the 'I need Sir Issac Newton here in person to tell me that the laws of gravity are valid' ... what a stupid position to ty and embrace. It isn't hard to see why people of higher qualifications don't waste time on you any longer. dgh03: no Bill, don't

That's a shocker! Maybe you didn't see them because you were too busy thinking about how Toni Foster got to be 7' tall. The yellow stripes would be on the side of the street that you were driving towards where the bend occurs. As far as the plaza being lit by street lamps - how many street lamps do you count near the south curb on Elm Street on 11/22/63 by looking at the assassination images? I counted "ZERO". On the other hand, Jack ... you might be on to something. The many times I have taken cabs from DFW to Dallas, the drivers did look like CIA operatives who's sole purpose was to lie about those yellow stripes. In fact, I believe the Museum has photos showing those same stripes dating back to the mid-fifties. I'm thinking that those photos must be forgeries ... yes, its all making sense now. Jack, Beverly did not step in "wet paint" any more than the last person who ever scraped their car against a painted pole guard at a fast food drive-thru or brushed against another car when parking was dealing with wet paint. Instead, it was a situation where dried paint was transfered from one surfaceto the other. I cannot fathom the street being painted even hours before the motorcade's arrival and not having the paint dry by then. Do you have any evidence that someone painted the curbs on the morning of 11/22/63? Well, Jack ... you're an investigator, so tell us what the city told you. Has there been a policy change, are they painted at random and without a size requirement, or did you not ever bother to ask anyone which would be my guess? Bill Miller

I don't think anything Hill would be doing would please everyone. Some question that he didn't act soon enough ... others that he got to Jackie too fast. As early as Z320 - Z330, Hill starts to reach the back of the limo. Altgens takes a photo of the limo from the rear and while Jackie is up on the trunk of the car and Hill is already standing on the back of the limo. (see POTP by Trask/pg 316) Hill is standing on the back of the car before, during, and after Z410. It is Hill's standing on the back of the car that elevates him high above Jackie when viewed from Zapruder's pedestal. Bill

Hello, Chuck. I did leave the MPI Z410 frame out of my animation because MPI Z408 equates with the Costella Z410 frame Jack used. MPI Z408 is in my animated clip sequence. I hope you find the information helpful. The first thing that will help someone is to use the most natural and cleanest images possible. I do not know why it is, but the one particular Zfilm image of Z410 that Jack used has had the contrast turned up and its total overall image is more blurred than the Z410 he posted when he started this thread. I offer a comparison of clarity below to the image Jack posted and the one I am using in this reply. In the next illustration I have three pplaces marked off. A) The illuminated leaf is vertically thicker than the top of the curb and has a bluish color tint. There is no shade line over Clint Hill like that on the top of the curb. This is because what we are looking at is the green tint combined with the illuminated part of the pyracantha bush foliage. This combination can be seen in the frames leading up to Z410. There are several reasons for the blurred appearence of the leaves. One is that Zapruder had his camera on telephoto which makes things close to the camera appear fuzzy. Then there is the panning blur and shakiness of Mr. Z's camera that also played a role in the blurring of the foliage. And lastly is the process that MPI used in making their film which caused the sharpness of the images to be reduced when compared to how they look on the original film. C) The uneven shape of the leaf is visible against the shaded side of the curb that is visible.

If people will get good images to work with and watch the green foliage and illuminated leaves move across the screen, then they might be able to understand why it looks like part of Clint Hill is missing. The green of the pyracantha bush matches that of the green of the south pasture. Add some slight blur and things only get worse when trying to tell where one thing starts and the other ends, unless of course they study very closely the changes taking place from frame to frame. Bill Miller

Jack doesn't understand perspective or how the illusion of blurred sunlit leaves between the subject and the camera can fool someone either. It is even more interesting as to how quick Shanet was willing to support Jack's observation without actually studying it for accuracy. Bill Miller

MPI botched the numbering of the frames

Maybe if one used the full wide version of the frames and cross referenced them with the Nix film, then maybe Hill's posture would not be so much of a mystery. Bill Miller

If one watches the motorcade footage taken on 11/22/63 before JFK reached Dealey Plaza they will see the same sort of blurring in those films as well. A Photography expert could give the specifics as to the "Why" side of things, but I can tell you that basically depending on the movement of a camera at a given moment in time can cause selective blurring. Note that in one frame the blurring seems to effect vertical objects more than horizontal ones and then visa-versa in other frames. That is related to in part to the movement of the camera when that frame was exposed. Bill

If you respected JFK so much, then you'd be addressing the evidence presented to you instead of trolling in an effort to disrupt the topic. A forum designed to educate people in his name deserves as much ... JFK's memory deserves as much. JFK was the Commander in Chief of those who killed him and attempted to cover up his murder, so what's your point? As I recall, those around Cesar tried to sell themselves in the same fashion as you're doing and we see how much they respected Cesar. You have a modus-operandi of saying one thing and doing another ... did you think saying you served under JFK means you respected him. Your many actions have spoke louder than your few words. You were never in the game, David. To have been in the game one must first participate by attempting to learn ... something you have refused to do. There are so many checks and balances in determining the authenticity of a film like Zapruder's that you guys never knew about and by the looks of your respnses - you don't understand them either, and yet you always reach the same conclusion even if it means not coming to grips with the information before you. Your taking the position that no matter what information is presented to you will not change your belief is by definition a cult-like mentality, not based on fact, but rather on emotion. JFK deserved better IMO. Bill Miller

Jack, you are insane. My so-called being disruptive on the looney forum was for not agreeing with your poorly thoughtout alteration claims. I can also say that it doesn't suprise me that no one has a photo of me in a full beard because I have never worn one, nor have I ever worn a fake one, thus no picture ever existed of me in a beard. As usual you are just making stuff up as you go ... much like your alteration work. It looks like this is just another attempt on your part to hijack another thread. Bill Miller

mumwah, me? LOL. Your lack of respect for JFK's memory in not bothering to take the time to learn the evidence of the case overridden by your desire to merely continue trolling such forums like this one is a disgrace. I would think that you'd be busy compiling all those post of mine that you said you always had to correct. You are a credit to your cult. Bill Miller cult (kŭlt) n. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

Bernice, I will only try and relay this message one more time ... hopefully with more clarity. A person can have formal training in Photography and not be an expert. You implied that I said that Gary has had no formal training and that is not what I had said. You drew an erroneous conclusion that Gary has had no formal training in Photography when I said he 'has had a strong interest in Photography' and I suspect from his answer to your email that this is one type of example to what he was talking about concerning the things you have said. And because Gary has worked with Photographic experts on so many projects and has been there first hand to aks questions, observe, participate, and so on, he is able to pass along valuable information that he has learned through working with these experts. Gary Mack would not say that he is a Photographic expert any more than I would make such a claim about myself. However, Gary is very knowledgeable about Photography and he has a good understanding of the physics surrounding it. If Gary is an expert in anything, then he is an expert researcher. In other woprds he knows how to find information, retain what he has learned, and is smart enough to apply it to the JFK assassination. Gary is so knowledgeable about the JFK assassination that often times I will cite something in our discussions and if I say even the slightest thing in error, he will always catch it and will explain the differences in what I said Vs. what is rfecorded in the official record. Bill

Bernice, that is not what I said. Even I have had a hands on class in Photography, but that doesn't make me an expert. It is probably best that you contact Gary to learn more about what experience he has had concerning Photography before drawing your conclusions. If Photography is what your interest is, then the Libraries and the Internet is full of information. One doesn't need Groden to learn about Photography and film. Gary is not alway available, but he usually gets back to people who have asked him for information. I would not give up on seeking him out for a source of information. You are certainly welcome for any infromation that I was able to share with you. Bill

More trolling today, David? Bill

It's ok, Scott. However, the same rule still applies ... If an original image does not show a defect (in this case a triangle) while still in Moorman's hands or prints made immediately thereafter, then this guy has a latter print that somehow got something on it by accident or it was purposely put on there. An example would be like this ... one see's a bowl of apples and only one has a bite taken out of it while the rest do not. Should one not think that the apple with the bite out of it occurred later after it was picked or should he think they all had bites out of them while formed on the tree, but somehow healed themselves except for the one apple. Logically there should only be one answer. Bill

So let me get this straight, Jack .... You get up at night and check your computer and its a normal thing to do, but if I get up at night and check mine ... that is something sinister. What a warpped way to look at things! Should I then think that because you were online at 3:48 A.M. that "incompentuers" seem to be trolling around the clock. I expect one day to be checking the news and finding that the Feds have your place surrounded and are at a standoff with you and your cult followers like what happened at Waco. The heading on the bottom of the TV screen will read ... 'STANDOFF AT WACKO!' Bill Miller

Scott, The original Moorman photo ... nor any of the copies made from the original Moorman photo show a cone, thus I would think it is a defect in that one picture whether it got there naturally or if someone purposely placed it there. Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination and no white cone is seen either. If one thinks about it - why would a cone have the point pointed towards the knoll for if it was to prespresent blood spatter spray - the further from the skull the debris is ... the wider the pattern would get. I hope this information helps. By the way, how did you come to the conclusion that the photo you mentioned was "undoctored"? Thanks, Bill