Bill Miller

Once again you prove that HONESTY is not your strong suit. You are a disgrace to photographers everywhere.... One should give Jack credit where credit is do ... after all, it is not easy trying to find the right frame that will mask the sidewalk from being easily detectable. Then if you cannot get the right effect once you find your target frame ... you simply crop out the parts you don't want people to see. Then 'lo' and behold' you have another Zfilm alteration claim to offer to your flock. Bill Miller

Yeh, right Jack ... crop off the front of the truck so no one can see the sidewalk. Well, here it is again ... Bill Miller

Healy is just someone who has shown time and time again that he doesn't even know the simple basics concerning the laws of physics that makes what he says pure nonsense. These guys cannot even present a sensible and plausible case for how so may alterations were done before Life started making prints for their Magazine not 24 hours after the assassination had taken place. It is a known fact that Muchmore's film wasn't even known to exist at that time as with many of the other assassination images when Life Magazine started making a lot of prints from the film. I believe that the same can be said about the Nix film, as well. Altering the Zapruder film before being sure that all the other films had been confiscated would have been insane. Someone pointed out to me earlier today that no one takes Healy seriously, except Healy. Groden said it best when he told me, "Instead of these 'Jackasses' talking about how it could be done, let them actually do it. It cannot be done given all the factors!" Healy takes the position that if someone points out a known law of physics that destroys his position, then he doesn't consider the point valid unless you get the person who made the discovery eons ago to come onto the forum and present the in formation for themselves. These alterationist have spent countless time writing books, flooding forums with proaganda that many times didn't even address the issues at hand, and promting web pages that they didn't even know what was written on it. (The latest being Healy acting like he was unaware that Costella claimed the Life pics were forgeries) So much time and energy wasted instead of them seeking out a well qualified expert and having he or she address their concerns. Could it be that they have made such attempts, but were told the same things that I passed along from those I had spoken too ... it would certainly explain why they have not come up with anyone. I think the entire alteration cult mindset can be best shown by reminding everyone how they went around talking into rain sensors as if they were listening devices. How can anyone take them seriously. Below is some data that I was able to obtain from Gary Mack concerning this discussion. Bill G.Mack: LIFE's November 29, 1963 issue went to press late Sunday afternoon, 11/24, and subscribers started receiving their copies in the Tuesday, 11/26 mail. Orville Nix, Jr. has said he picked one up at a Dallas newsstand on Monday, 11/25, but there's no way to know for sure if his memory is accurate about that. For subscribers to have received that issue on Tuesday or Wednesday means that within 48 hours of the assassination - before the Muchmore, Nix or Bronson films of the shooting were taken out of their cameras to be processed - LIFE chose and started printing 31 Zapruder frames in black & white. Here are the frame numbers appearing in that magazine: 126, 144, 166, 216, 226, 228, 232, 237, 244, 248, 254, 258, 261, 267, 269, 323, 325, 328, 337, 340, 342, 348, 351, 353, 355, 357, 359, 361, 363, 366, and 369. To promote the sale of the issue, LIFE temporarily licensed at least seven frames to the Associated Press and United Press International for distribution. Newspapers all over the world published them beginning on Wednesday, 11/27. For example, The Sixth Floor Museum's collections include the Brisbane, Australia Telegraph for 11/27. Almost half of its front page is frame 230. Additional frames 237, 274, 307, 348, 369, and 382 appeared on pages 2 and 3 of that newspaper. Less than two weeks after LIFE's 11/29 regular issue, the magazine released a special Memorial Edition devoted entirely to the assassination. That issue included nine Zapruder frames in color, some of which were published for the first time: 183, 226, 232, 258, 277, 309, 346, 369, and 392. This means LIFE magazine published a total of 39 different frames of the Zapruder film within two weeks of the assassination. The frames showing President Kennedy, 144-392, cover a time period of 13.6 seconds.

Jack, on your best day you cannot BS me on my worst day. Here is your riduculous and somewhat dishonest alteration claim concerning the truck's bed. (see below) Here is the same truck, but rather than use a blurred frame - I offer a better frame of choice. Only a bone head would find it acceptable to use a film frame of poor quality to try and make an accurate observation. It is common knowledge how motion and/or panning blur can effect how things are seen on film. Not only have you (JACK) been told this before many times, you consistently and purposely bypass good images to use the more pitiful film frames to make your idiotic claims. The deception doesn't appear to lie with the Zapruder film, but rather with your attempts to make things appear differently than they really are in order to salvage your credibility concerning the Zapruder film being altered. Below are some Zapruder frames showing different degrees of blurring between them ... note how the truck bed becomes clear and then fades out from normal blurring. Jack, Your dishonestly only exceeds your stupidity. Bill Miller Considering that all solid objects in the Plaza at that time of day should cast shadows ... maybe its your Cancellare photo that has been altered!

What made you believe that was Emmett Hudson, Robin? That is not Hudson. Hudson can be seen in the Nix and Muchmore films wearing a light colored cap. Furthermore, Hudson had thick white bushy hair ... also visible in Groden's book. Bill

Lee, some of the things you say are so off-the-wall that there is little hope of you ever understanding the JFK assassination ... and that is my opinion. William Hudson, Emmett's son, told me that his father showed the Moorman photo to countless family and friends over the years as he claimed the guy in the white cap is him. The idea that the Moorman photo, which was still in Mary's pocket when she took it out and allowed it to be filmed not 30 minutes after the shooting shows Emmett still standing on the steps. To suggest that Mary's photo has been altered in any way within the first 30 minutes of the assassination and while still in her possession, let alone to tamper with Hudson's image is insane ... and that is also my opinion. Maybe this link will help you in some way ... http://www.jfklancer.com/miller/mysteryman.html By the time that Towner took his photograph after the assassination - Hudson is on the ground. I believe (from memory) that image is on page 54 of Groden's book "TKOAP". Bill Miller

David, I think the noise you are talking about was happening when you asked me to show where Costella had ever said that Life Magazine had printed altered Zapruder film images. How irionic that you didn't even know enough about the facts to intelligently discuss this matter. The problems I have described apply to any film being altered, but even more so to Kodachrome II film and you have yet to show any signs of understanding those points. Groden said that he has examined the Zapruder film for sharpness and color balance, among other things. Zavada has described the things he had done when examining not only the original Zfilm, but the three copies, as well. You have continuously come across as someone who is trying to salvage a poorly thought out theory that you people have formulated by demanding that someone produce an original Zfilm frame example on this forum, which wouldn't even accurately replicate how the film image looked before all the changes that putting it on the Internet would have caused. If you want to see how grains build up on film transfers - go view the copies made from the camera original. You will find that they are much grainer than the original and it occurred for the reasons that the experts stated. I have presented the information presented by the experts, some of them who have actually examined the Zapruder film first hand. If you or any of the other 'alteration' cult leaders would like to get an expert to go examine the Zapruder film and its copies, then do so and post their findings here as well. Until then, you have nothing to bring to the table. So far you haven't even presented an expert to refute the data presented to you concerning the grain transfers. You bozos have alleged that this other test film was shot, presumeably prior to the assassination, and somehow all one would need to do is incorporate the limo and its occupants into it, not excluding the witnesses in and around the scene. That means that someone had to know that Zapruder would actually go get his camera and film from atop of the pedetal ... that the test pilot film would know the exact panning speed the limo would be traveling, that the test film would be able to duplicate every blur and camera tilt that Zapruder's film shows, and somehow balance every frame by hand to match the half of a roll of film shot prior to motorcade footage. And all this would need to be done before Liffe Magazine started processing prints within the first 24 hours of the shooting. It just doesn't wash! Bill Miller

Just so you are aware .. the bluish gray tint is because in the Zfilm the subjects coat is seen on the side away from the sun and the Zfilm is much darker that the latter photograph. Also, colors such as tan, yellow, light blue, light green, light blish gray, and white will all look the same on a B&W photo. Did not Jackie's hot pink suit look to be the same color as the white concrete wall in Moorman's photograph? Is not the white sign on the pole the same bluish color in the Zfilm as the man's shirt/jacket ... of course they are. Just wanted to give you more to think about. Bill

There is some HSCA footage out there somewhere that you can view and see where the smoke came out of the gun they used. I am certain that Gary Mack could supply you with the source for that occurence. I am fairly certain the the man behind the pickup truck is the same man who only moments earlier was seen on the Zfilm heading that way. I think he circled around the truck and watched the scene from there.

In a past response I had mentioned the following to some remarks made by Jack White. My response to Jack was as follows ... "Jack, I'm still waiting for your reply. You've had lots of time to adjust your position, so lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I am still anxiously awaiting your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks." It appears that Jack White is off looking at what he thinks are faces in gunstocks and isn't going to address the narrow window of time for his alleged alterations to have taken place, so I am going to go ahead at this time and explain why I believe that Jack and his followers have not put as much thought into their claims as they try to make it appear. On 05/06/2006, Jack White narrowed the possibilities of Zapruder film alteration down a bit by saying the following, "It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!" Jack purposed the alterations were done this way ... "a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA, USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist." In fact, Life Magazine had the black and white stills already in print within days following the assassintion. In Jack White's view, only 500 blow-ups could have been retouched - one frame at a time - and then the altered frames filmed with another exact replica Zapruder camera. I have already gone into the grain problems and sharpness loss within the images that would be detectable between film transfers, so I see no need to repeat that data once again. However, I will attempt to share some more things that Jack White didn't appear to have considered before making his allegations of simple Zapruder film altering. Groden and experts who Gary Mack has consulted have talked about the color balancing that would need to take place with each and every film frame and that would include the film frames that Jack never considered. I have posted Groden's remarks already and I will only add what he has recently stated. Robert said, "The concept here is to believe that every single one of the 486 Elm Street frames of the film plus all of the home movie footage was created by the use of well over 1,500 individual 8x10 prints and that there was no degradation of picture quality. This concept is so insane that it isn't worth the time to deal with it. There are no photo print papers that would retain the tonal quality of Kodachrome and then still hold up when re-photographed to at least a second generation copy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE!" As I usually will do, I then sought out independent verification for the things Groden had been telling me all along. This is the information I obtained through Gary Mack ............ Gary writes: "For those who think the Z film was faked by photographing paper prints of frames that had been altered, there are several insurmountable problems. As I understand it, anyone familiar with physical aspects of Kodachrome II film will recognize that the color and density of the result would be totally unlike how normal images on that specific film stock always appear. One could simply study a few frames on a color or spectrum analyzer and the physical properties such as density and luminosity would be completely different from real life. The color intensity and phase (same as the "hue" on your color tv) will change and cannot be completely corrected for with any filters, darkroom tricks or electronics. The changes are measurable on color and spectrum analyzers. When one graphs the image, the contours will have a very different shape than normal Kodachrome II film. Photographing prints of altered still frames, as has been suggested by the alteration folks, produces an image of greatly limited dynamic range. For comparison, think of a Z frame with a light-to-dark range from 0 to 100. Kodachrome II film can reproduce that entire range. But an 8x10 color print, no matter how expertly created, cannot. It can only show a range from 10 to 75. That limited dynamic range is noticeable to a trained eye and is easily measured on analyzers. The reason for this is simple. Kodachrome II film was designed specifically for amateur use filming scenes outdoors only. Artificial light drastically affects how the emulsion responds to light and no filters can fully offset those changes and not be detectable. Roland "Rollie" Zavada is well aware of such problems for he and his team of Kodak scientists are the ones who invented Kodachrome II film. There is no better expert on such matters than Rollie. Another way to show that alteration has not occurred is by examination of the Zapruder family footage. While the whereabouts of the camera original film is unknown, copies still exist. Had someone somehow altered the assassination scenes, they would have had to alter all the family footage as well, for those earlier scenes would otherwise have a completely different color and tonal look - thus revealing that some footage had been altered and some had not. Think about it. There are nearly 500 Zapruder frames in the 26.5 seconds of assassination-related footage. Since side one (the first half) with the family scenes runs about 90 seconds, that means 90 x 18.3 = 1647 OTHER frames would also have to be copied to 8x10 prints and then rephotographed the exact same way. Even then, the "look" of the result would be dramatically different from all other camera original Kodachrome II films. I hope this helps you understand some of the physics involved with Kodachrome II film. It is one of the most unique film emulsions ever created and was designed for a specific purpose: to work reasonably well with amateurs who have little experience in photography and who film under varied lighting conditions." So would the altering of the Zapruder film be a simple matter as Jack White suggested or has it been shown that there was much more to the process that Jack White and his followers had not considred ... you can be the judge. Bill Miller

I had spent a lot of time with Ed a few years back and even had Tony Cummings film my time spent with him and his familiy in the RR yard going over ever detail. Ed is also not in good health, so do not be discouraged if he doesn't get back to right away or if at all. You will find that the smoke comes out the end of the barrel and is propelled in the direction the gun is pointed. Depending on which way the air is moving will determine which way the smoke will go after that.

In Ed's "TMWKK" inmterview he took BOTH hands and demonstrated how the guy adjusted the brem of his hat. Hat's with a brim all the way around them were fedoras. I showed Ed the fedora and asked him if that was the guy he had seen and the type of hat he had wore and he pointed to it and shook his head "YES". Ed is only deaf - not stupid. Ed knows the difference between a policemans hat and a fedora. Ed saw the man from the rear - the side - and the front as the guy walkewd to the steam pipe. You are at the right location in Moorman's photo, but you have people near the Hat Man ... so close that you are claiming they would be seen above the fence line. That is not what Ed described, nor Bowers as to the other man's locatgion. The man in the RR clothes was said to be waiting on the west side of the steam pipe which is about 90 - 100 feet away from Hat Man's location. 3.6/18s of a second to be exact. Who needs an expert to tell them that the smoke would be propelled in the direction of the President when the gun discharged? Please take note where JFK is in Moorman's photo. Draw a line from the Hat to the limo and see what you get. Again, you are seeing the Dallas sky across the RR yard.

The area marked blurred is the fedora of the man Hoffman saw. Ed confirmed this for me. The wind was moving from the northwest, thus the light area marked smoke is on the wrong side of Hat Man for that alleged smoke to be accurate. Instead it appears to be the high Dallas sky seen across the RR yard. Bill

The photographical record shows the cycles in the street and none of them in the grass on the knoll. In fact, one of the cycles can be seen parked near the curb in the street. Bill

Thanks, I have never understood why someone would say he (or anyone) rode his cycle up the knoll. Bill

Jack, I see why you didn't respond to the Zfilm alteration question I put to you in another thread .... you must have been too busy working on this important find! Believe it or not ... I have actually seen that face before, thus I think I can end this mystery right now! (see clip)

Jack, I'm still waiting for your reply. You've had lots of time to adjust your position, so lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I am still anxiously awaiting your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks. Bill Miller

No. Moorman's photo captures one of them who looks like he is near the Hudson tree, but that is an illusion. If looking at the fence from the south and perpendicular ... the Hat Man was about 10 feet or so west of the Hudson tree. The shot was heard from that location, Hoffman saw the man at that location, the smoke came through the trees at that location. The second man was said to be about 10 feet from the other man. BTW, Bowers wasn't clear as to which mouth of the underpass was he talking about ... there are three. Being in line with the tower and the Commerece Street opening would be close to where the Hat Man and anyone west of him was seen. I just wanted to ad that thought for your consideration. The overhanging tree foliage from Bowers elevated view probably hid the Badge Man and anyone standing near him. My understand from talking with Ed Hoffman was that he didn't have a view of the side of the fence that ran parallel with the walkway because of the cars and overhanging tree branches blocking it from his view. I would not kid myself for an elevation of 14 feet in the air allows one to see that area with ease - cars or no cars. As I said before ... I don't think Bowers took his attention away from that location despite what he said to the Commission. He obviously saw it well enough to mention the flash of light or smoke at fence level. Can anyone tell me what motorcycle drove up the knoll? Also, by the time any police made it to the knoll - Hoffman had seen the man walk back up towards the corner of the fence where he would have disappeared under the overhanging foliage from where Bowers was sitting in the tower. All I am saying is that two men vieweing the same area (one elvated in the air and one from the side) saw only two men along the Elm Street stretch of fence. The full photos yes, but not the Hat Man crops from Groden's copy negative print. Compare the detail of the crop below to the Hat Man in the drum scan and you should see a big difference.

I was trying to help you beause I know you have severe dyslexia when it comes to reading responses on JFK forums. Besides, I thought you were busy reading Costella's web page and trying to learn what John has said so when you advise people to look at it in the future ... you will actually know what is written on it. Btw, here is that URL again in case you have lost it ... http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html In referring to the Life Magazine prints, Costella said, "But in their rush to publish something, the forgers made mistakes." How did Josiah help me? He merely said he witnessed the things I said first hand and told everyone they were true. The points I posted are valid and could be understood by a child. Now do you have anything to dispute the observations I made or are you just trying to make it look like you have something to say when in fact you have nothing of any value that you can say? Bill Miller

Sure thing, David. I am always happy to educate you on the things that you have told others to go read. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html In referring to the Life Magazine prints, Costella said, "But in their rush to publish something, the forgers made mistakes." In other words in case you don't know what that means ... Costella is implying that he see's signs of forgery in the Life Magazine prints. Do you know what the bone head thought was the giveaway? He felt the Zapruder images in Life Magazine were too sharp. Now do you want to know what he compared those too sharp 1st generation Life Magazine prints to ... he compared them to what he see's on the MPI photos of the original film frames that have been filtered down during the film transfer process. I hope I answered your question to your high standard of inquiry. David, is their such a thing as being dyslexic when it comes to hearing? No one has said that someone couldn't alter the Zapruder film. A helper monkey with a pencil and a razor blade can alter the Zapruder film, but the difference is that the film could not have been altered in such a way that through scientific examination by an expert that he or she would not detect the forgery. Your immediate remarks don't make sense. I don't recall Costella in his piece or I mentioning any numbering of the Zapruder frames. The optical printer crap has already been addressed without any attempt by you to in turn to address the problems put forth so I won't waste anymore time on that matter. Bill Miller

I hadn't mentioned the alleged build-up on the street, but when the road surface was redone - Gary Mack went out and looked at the asphalt depth and if I recall correctly, it was about an inch or somewhere in that neighborhood. It wasn't nearly as thick as you guys guessed at. My complaint wasn't about you standing in the street ... my complaint is referenced in the animated overlay showing your transit's LOS that you claim matched Moorman's. How can someone so smart not understand that point when you have heard it said so many times. Again, I am talking about your LOS photograph showing the corner of the pedestal touching the corner of the colonnade window seen in the background. Your pretending not to understand what I am talking about is at least a higher road than White took for he merely lied about the gap only being seen in the Thompson Drum Scan, but his attempt to avoid admitting his error is only a half of a step below yours. I am also not sure who the leader is that you speak of for I did my own investigation into the matter. As you recall, I am the one who pointed out that Moorman's camera lens is standing above the tops of the motorcycle windshields, which it should not have done while holding the camera to her eye to take a photo. I am the one who pointed out Mary's shadow barely reaching over the curb not two seconds before the cycles passed by her and Jean. I am the one who showed that the one photo Mary did take from in the street as she had stated was the McBride photograph where her camera shows her looking through the cycle's windshield and not over the top of it. And I am the one who said Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman what she thought about the claim that she was in the street when she took her famous Polaroid and Mary said, "I think the whole thing is just plain silly". So you guys made boners then and are making them now by not admitting to them. Bill Miller

Jack, I see that Shanet, 'the guy who hates to see forum space wasted', made a post doing nothing more than copying and pasting your response, so I entend to just answer your remarks rather than to post the same thing twice. But before I do ... lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I anxiously await your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks. Bill Miller

Doorman's film shows there to only be about 2.5 to 3 feet of space between the wall and the shrubs. Zapruder's elevated view allows us to see some of that space as the gree grass and the base of the wall is visible. Shaking a film and motion blur makes still objects appear to move. By stabilizing the image, much of the movement is reduced. I didn't bother to adjust for the change in tilt in the Zapruder camera between these frames, nor could I remove the blur between the frames, but slowing it down allows one to see how the illusion is created. Also note the pyracantha bush above the Willis girl's head and see the branching fade in and out. This also occurred with the shrubs which gives the false impression of movement. MPI raw version MPI stabilized version reduces the illusion of movement from camera shaking, but not from blurring. I hope this information has been found useful. Bill

Lee, Ed Hoffman's man who the weapon was tossed to was said to have been waiting at the steam pipe. And it was not the Hat Man who was met by Officer Joe Smith, but instead the other man who Bowers said was standing about 10 to 15 feet away from the suited man at the time of the shooting (Moorman's photo). Keeping in mind that Bowers said these were the only two men at that location, I suspect you have thought the overhanging tree foliage looks like peoples heads in the poorer Moorman prints. Go to Thompson's book "six seconds in dallas" or Groden's book "the killing of a president" and I think the sharper versions of that location can be found there and they will allow you to make a more accurate detrmination as to what you are seeing. Bill