Bill Miller

David, there is one thing worse than a jackass, and that is a jackass who cannot stop running his mouth long enough to know what he has read. If Trask has written when Shaneyfelt numbered the frames, then shouldn't you bother to first find out how Trask came to know that date instead of playing the role of the forum idiot ... I would surely think so! BTW, it really makes you look like nothing more than a xxxxx when you ask for a source of information and then take the position that you don't care what someone has written in their book or how they got the infromation. Bill

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"

Hey Baghdad Bob Healy ... that's not exactly what I said, but when do you ever repeat anything correctly. Did I not mention "Nightmare in Dallas" by Richard Trask. Do I need to get Trask book out and read it to you? Did not Trask say the frames were numbered in January of 64' ... I'm citing from memory here, so call me on it and let me know how far I'm off, if at all, David. BTW, that's one of the books the 6th Floor Museum carries, so maybe you should order it ... of course that means someone will probably need to read it to you ... and definitely many times over! Also, I was interested in knowing what the 6th Floor Museum had to offer in relation to everyone's question, so here is the information I recieved from Gary Mack ... "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" Bill Miller

Bernice, I think you'll find that the Museum is made up of different departments. I once heard that Gary could have taken a higher position at the Museum and didn't seek it because of his interest in the JFK assassination. Gary's position is "curator" of the museum. That fact alone tells me that he doesn't oversee everything that goes on with the Museum. I am also aware that the Museum doesn't own everything they have, but are merely the caretakers of many of them, if not all. It seems that I recall it being said that many times they have to get clearence from the owners who donated or turned over items to the Museum for the materials to even be used, but Gary could offer better clairification as to that bit of information. I have also heard that the Museum now has a head person who oversees what goes on there and that they may possibly be more open to the conspiracy side of things. It might be worth your while to call or email Gary and find out what you can. Bill

Bernice, what you have said isn't exactly correct. I believe that I mentioned Josiah's book being sold there. I recommended someone seeking a definition from Gary as to what the Museum considers a conspiracy book and what criteria does one need to meet to get it sold there. You are correct however on it not being Gary's decision for I believe he told Robert to put something together and he'd present it to the people who make the decision as to whether they will sell it in the Museum's bookstore. This is what I said in the earlier post ... "I think one needs to first define 'conspiracy book'. Does not Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" imply that there must have been a conspiracy and is it not sold in the Museum's book store or am I mistaken about that?" "Has anyone bothered to contact Gary Mack for a defined explanation as to what the Museum will or will not stock in the book store?" Bill

I don't think you have to worry about paying out on that offer. Bill

Said in true 'Baghdad Bob Healy' fashion as the American tanks are seen rolling up behind him. Would you care to cite those alleged post of mine that needed correction for it seems they have disappeared from the Education Forum archives. No, David ... it is a museum dedicated to Dealey Plaza being a historical landmark. Historic \His*tor"ic\, Historical \His*tor"ic*al\, a. [L. historicus, Gr. ?: cf. F. historique. See History.] Of or pertaining to history, or the record of past events; as, an historical poem; the historic page. -- You are coming across as a brat who is preparing to throw a tantrum. Why should the Zapruder family buy the museum a set of the 26 volumes ... I own two ... do you want to buy a set from me and donate them to the Museum so anyone who comes in off the street can handle and browse through them? Bill Miller

I don't know what Costella has presented in your presence, David. I can however go back and paste the discussion that you and I had again so to remind you that we were talking about his comments on the Life Magazine images being altered forgeries. That is what I like about these forums - they are archived and you cannot get away from what you had said only days earlier. So there are only two alternatives here, David ... one is that you had never bothered to actually read what Costella wrote on his web page or you had read it, but forgotten what John had said. If it is the latter, then you probably have forgotten what John said in Deluth, as well, thus making your being present at any given event irrelevant seeing how your ability to retain information is so poor. At the same time, if you are saying Costella said something different in Deluth compared to what he wrote on his web page, then there is little defending someone who speaks out of both sides of their mouth and I'd be most interested in what he had to say when you called him on it. Gary Mack has never asked me to post anything for him any more than Kodac, Groden, Zavada, the 26 Volumes, the HSCA records, and etc., has asked me to post information for them. They are all sources that are available to anyone serious enough to seek them out for information. That is a question that you can ask Zavada or people who have spoken to him in the past. The particular camera Zapruder had on the Day of the assassination was purchased no less than seven months prior to the assassination. To the simple minded who appears to not do much in the way of critical thinking ... it may not appear it had anything to do with it, but to someone capable of seeing that the Life prints depict what is still seen on the Zapruder film today and that those prints were actually made within the first 24 or so hours of the assassination ... those critical thinking researchers will see how impossible it was to have completed such alterations at that time, especially when the whereabouts of all the assassination films and photographs were not known at that time and it would have been suicide to put something on a film that would not be on the possible other assassination films. No, David ... I am the guy who actually goes to the Photographic experts and relays to the forum what I have learned. I gather that Shaneyfelt had numbered the frames for his analysis which started in January 1964. I believe you will also find that information in Trask book "Nightmare in Dallas". I think you'll find the answer to many of your questions if you first take the time to study the case in more depth than just trolling forums. Bill Miller

It would probably be ggod to tell people what the differences are .... A "hot splice" is what the pros use, but amateurs don't. A hot splice is nothing more than an ordinary splicer with a small heating element that helps the film cement dry quicker....it's just a convenience/speed thing for those needing to edit/splice in a hurry. Gary Mack has said, "Pro equipment (which is rarely if ever used for 8mm work) cuts the film ON the frame line. Amateur splicers do not. Amateur splicers cut the film within the image and one must scrape off the emulsion of part of the frame to overlap the film you are attaching to it. When you don't get all of the emulsion scraped off, a slight blue tint can be seen under the overlap. The overlap area is roughly 1/3 of the entire frame. How do I know? I've had first hand experience with 8mm film since the early 70's. Remember, LIFE worked with still photos and would have little use for any 8mm equipment. To get Zapruder frames over the weekend, they probably bought or borrowed a projector and splicer." Bill Miller David, there are several well kown books out there that details the things you seem oblivious of. It might benefit you to take some time and actually study the case. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Bill Miller

I hardly consider my being there and hearing the information being shared between Gary and Robert first hand as "speculation", but maybe you are just wanting to appear intelligent again like you did when you tried to tell me there was a difference in the terms "enlarged" and "blown-up" when discussing Photography. "dgh: A question does pop into my mind though; does the museum have for sale, the complete set of Warren Commission books and the final Warren Commission report? If not, why NOT?" Obviously everyone doesn't know what's there are you would not be asking a silly question about a set of books that were limited in numbers when printed ... have not since been reprinted in over 41 years ... and are only found on Ebay or in Book Shops where they have usually have taken them on consignment from private owners. Bill Miller

I think that people should not lose sight that the 6th Floor Museum is a 'historical museum', thus they have a responsibility to cite that history even if they have their own personal beliefs about it. Two blocks away is 'The Conspiracy Museum' where one can buy all the conspiracy materials that they can afford. Bill Miller

I think one needs to first define 'conspiracy book'. Does not Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" imply that there must have been a conspiracy and is it not sold in the Museum's book store or am I mistaken about that? I was standing on the knoll last Fall listening to Gary and Robert Groden talking about the Museum's criteria for the sale of books (conspiracy or otherwise). I had the impression that the Museum would consider selling a conspiracy book that called into question the lone assassin theory if it dealt with fact, but they did not want books that were dilluted with mere speculation. Has anyone bothered to contact Gary Mack for a defined explanation as to what the Museum will or will not stock in the book store? Bill Miller

No, your responses usually give it away! I wasn't aware that there were restrictions as to forum members joining into discussions and asking questions pertaining to something someone like yourself has said. Until John Simkin tells us otherwise, I will continue to ask for clarification and the sources for the things you say. I will also just figure that you're not able to explain yourself. Also, I appreciate your ridiculous response about you only answering questions that you deem to have enough merit to be worthy of answering ... it shows that you have little interest in the purpose of this forum. Questions are supposed to be asked before drawing conclusions or making assertions. The topic at the time pertained to whether altering film would be detectable or not. The information I presented came from talking to experts and people knowledgeable about the history of the Zapruder film. Who did you consult again? All I recall at this time was you asking was where did Costella ever say that the Zapruder film images in Life Magazine were altered ... something you would have known had you actually read Costella's web page before recommending to others to go see it. Glad you feel that Gary would be a good source for such information for he has told me that you obviously have never bothered to read one word of documentation about how and why it was absolutely impossible for more than three prints to have been made. He has also told me that you ignorant as to Zapruder having shot home movies for several years prior to the assassination and that he had a nice Bell & Howell projector so he could actually show his home movies to his family. Maybe you'll feel this question has merit enough for you to address it .... Please tell this forum how soon after the assassination did Life make their prints from the Zapruder film? Don't confuse their printing date with what I have asked ... I am talking about the date Life Magazine actually made their copies off the Zapruder film. I look forward to a simple and honest answer ... for a change! Seeing how you have become known as the Baghdad Bob of the JFK assassination community - I'll ignore your last remark. If you just address the original question put to you we will have accomplished something. Bill Miller

He did? Any other films shot with the B&H414? How long did he have the B&H414 again? Maybe someone should tell Rollie about this, dont ya think? Any confirming documents regarding the same? Implying? Read my words... research Watson, simple research -- ... Maybe Gary can tell us how many labs Abe Zapruder was in during his film career, and tell us if he, A. Zapruder knew the difference between a film projector and a film printer? David, what gets you into trouble is that you are one of these guys who reads the headings and never the text so to really know what you are talking about. Then when you are called on it ... you quickly dance away in another direction. Case and point: You started out saying, "And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so." By first just asking someone who has had contact with the members of the Zapruder family over the years ... you would know that Zapruder had shot home movies for years prior to the assassination, but rather than you actually seeking information beforehand, you do what you always do and that is to just plant suspicion unnecessarily. So without addressing the errered assumption you had implied, you then switched gears and referenced specifically a B&H414. So I will now ask the following question in light of your maneuvering ... Are you suggesting that Zapruder's specific camera and/or projector looked so much like a printer that he would not be able to visually tell the difference? And in the future you should cite those sources that you're talking about because as we learned with the Costella web page that you promoted so often ... you didn't know he had 'screwed your pooch' by saying the alterations had already been done before Life Magazine ran the Zapruder film stills shortly after the assassination. In other words you are known to incorrectly promote things based on not actually knowing all the facts. Bill Miller Jack, I think you meant the 'Zapruder original' that was in Life's possession at the time the damaged occurred. Seeing how you have had many years to do so ... you surely addressed your 'unexpert opinion' with the experts - right? If so, what did they tell you their expert opinion was concerning what you thought would be impossible? Bill Miller

IMO ... No one cay answer that anymore than they can assume that he didn't know the difference. Bill Miller which renders Abe's declaration....what? Pure window dressing... David, Zapruder had shot home movies and projected them on his projector for years, so what are you implying here ... that Zapruder somehow couldn't visually tell the difference between a projector and a printer because in your view they look identical somehow? Bill Miller

IMO ... No one cay answer that anymore than they can assume that he didn't know the difference. Bill Miller

You might check with Gary Mack because if Hudson worked for the city ... they may have had pictures of their employees. In Groden's book showing the Towner photo enlargement - Hudson is seen with thick white bushy hair, which is what his son (William) had told me about his fathers appearence at the time of the assassination. The man in the RR yard image had on a black hat and what looked like a jacket that was longer than the one Hudson had on that day. That's the problem with B&W photos because the guy in the RR yard could have had on yellow, or tan, or pink, or light green, or light blue pants and the color would look merely light on the photo to the observer. Bill

You are assuming that was Hudson. In your opinion that was Hudson. Lee, getting back to how colors look on film when in shadow or silhouette ... I think we are all on the same page now about it being Hudson seen theough the pyracantha bush in the Zapruder film ... that he wore a white/light colored cap as shown in the assassination images and that because Hudson was standing taller than the dark haired man as the limo passed below him ... it has to be Hudson seen on the Zapruder film. Have said this, I think you can now see the connection between the jacket seen on the man who ran across Commerce Street and the guy seen standing near the pickup truck. Let me know if I can asist you with any more images or comparisons. Bill

John, I think it was in Post # 55 that Lee mentioned the pickup truck man on Commerce Street ... it wasn't until post #65 that Jack incorporated his Zfilm alteration claim into the mix by way of a blurred Zapruder film frame of the pickup truck. Maybe I should not have responsed to Jack at that point as to his using poorer images to make his silly claims with. It was not my intention to hijack anything, but rather to respond to post within this thread that I have knowledge of. If you wish to delete any of those post that you feel should not belong in this thread ... I am fine with it. Bill

Great, Blair ... and some of us are trying to teach others that it is unacceptable to use the more blurred images over the better clearer ones when attempting photo interpretation. While you may have learned this quite easily - others have not. Here is one of Jack's cars (1955 Chevy) that I spent an hour searching for on the Internet ... maybe you can help pinpoint the model of the other one. Bill

Actually, Jack ... the photos I offered were of middle to late 50's pickup trucks. I don't know what to make of your car image, but I can do an Internet search for the models that look like that, but I need a view of it that doesn't look like we are seeing it through a 1" thick sheet of ice ... if you know what I mean. By the way, did you think adding a reverse image of the car would somehow tell us something more about what the car looks like on the other side that the original view didn't do .... Bill

David ... I really laughed when I read your response ... no, I really did ... for you could quite easily be the poster boy for that gene pool. Why don't you do something constructive and help Jack try to figure out who's face is seen in the gunstock. No one said I have seen the original Zapruder film, but I have investigated and passed along information to the members of this forum from those who have examined the original film. You see, I didn't need to be there to watch the apple fall when it Sir Issac Newton witnessed it to understand the principals concerning gravity. And the researcher title that can go under my name is "The guy who investigated things concerning the evidence of the JFK assassination more thoroughly than David Healy ever had". BYW, did you finally go look at the web page you like to push so much and see that Costella really did say that the Life Magazine Zfilm images were forgeries. I bet the optical printers would have to be smoking on the night of the assassination to make all the alterations they need to create before Life was processing the images for print. And could you imagine the stress the forgers must have been under to make sure that their forgeries would support the other assassination photos and films that had not been turned in by that time. Now that's pressure! Yeh, David ... I'd include you in that gene pool as well. Bill Miller

Shanet, thanks again for another fine well defined presentation covering your points as it pertained to me being in error and Jack being correct. I guess one can only assume that you thought we were talking about "straw". I only hope that if you guys ever get someone to actually go examine the original Zapruder film that you choose someone who is a bit more thorough as to how they draw their conclusions and not be out of the same gene pool that causes one to offer such detailed replies as the previous one that you gave in support of Jack's nonsense. Bill Miller

Jack, what in tarnatioon are you talking about! Your original observation said the truck bed was covered in the Zfilm and without a cover in the Cancellare photo. You went on to say that a guy was sitting in the truck's bed ... you were wrong on both counts. Then you questioned seeing a sidewalk and again you were wrong because you were looking at a blurred B&W image where color tones tend to blend together ... the less blurry frames showed the sidewalk quite clearly. Your statement above in quotes describes what is supposed to happen in the real world, so I have not a clue why you bothered saying what you did. And so you know ... the old trucks had high raised hoods that sat higher than the rear side panels of the beds did. If you have assumed that the bed of the truck should be the same height as the front hood, then you are mistaken once again. Bill Miller

Mark, you appear tp have missed my point altogether. It is not a matter of interpreting one single frame, but rather comparing that frame to the ones before and after it which may be clearer, thus eliminating unnecessay and poor interpretations that are misleading. This does not take an expert to do. Jack knows all of this and it is his attempt to bypass the cleaner frames to use a blurred ones to make this alteration claim is what I and others come down on him about. The clip should be self-explanatory ... Bill