Bill Miller

Jack, let's keep it real here. As was stated in another post .... the time period when Towner's film is missing frames was captured by Martin and Bell, so nothing about that turn was missed. In fact, C~roft's photo showing the limo immediately coming out of the turn shows us that everything is fine inside the lkimo so far. Nothing out of the unordinary occurred when the limo rounded the corner onto Elm Street, no shots were fired, no assassins ran up to the car, no one even so much had thrown a tomato, thus it is irrational thinking on your part IMO to assume that the Zfilm is altered because Zapruder didn't capture the limo turn.

I was on the looney forum and participated in those debates ... no one had to tell me anything ... and don't worry about believing me, there were plenty of people who were listening and participating in those discussions. How about you ... I seem to recall that your big mouth was running all the time back then in those threads ... maybe you can tell us who said it? Bill

If you are talking about the Mary Poppin's stuff - I captured them off the movie. And only a jackass would try to distract away from the message they convey by bringing up copyright laws. Most, if not all photo or film captures placed on these forums are copyrighted and isn't it funny that the one that bites you in the ass is the one you have copyright concerns over. You're a class act all the way, David!

No, David ... I am not interested in your computer examples. I am glad however, that you want to stay focused, so lets focus back to the fact that in 1963/64 that there were no computer graphics to do alteration with and that they had to be done by hand. Let's get focused on that grain and dye problem that you keep dancing away from. The site I referenced was not just any site, but one by Kodak ... so I can understand you not being interested in any information that destroys the crap you preach. On the Kodak site it says, "The location of these crystals is also random. Development usually does not change the position of a grain, so the image of a uniformly exposed area is the result of a random distribution either of opaque silver particles (black- and-white film) or dye clouds (color film), separated by transparent gelatin (Figures 21 and 22)." So on the original film there are grains and dye clouds that are distrubuted across the film emulsion at random ... this will prove important. Would you not agree that the grains and dye clouds have a certain mathematical ratio to the over all image that they cover. So when the original image is blown up - the grains and dye clouds are blown-up at the same ratio. (Surely you can follow that simple rule) Next the alteration would be done to the blow-up which has it's own grains and dye clouds in its emulsion. The problem here now is (and I know you have never considered it) is that the new grains and dye clouds are going to look far too small because they are of normal size on an enlarged image off the Zapruder film. And because they are distrubuted in the emulsion at random - they will not cover the grains and dye clouds that transfered with the original image. In fact, the new grains and dye clouds will now make double the normal grains and dye clouds on a piece of film, which an expert would catch under high magnification. Also because of the enlargement that was done ... the original film's grains and dye clouds under high magnification will appear blurred around the edges, while the new grains and dye clouds on the altered film which was only shrunk down will still look sharp around their edges. This is just another tell-tale sign that an expert see's that tells them that they are not looking at an original piece of film. Nor you, White, Costella, or any Zfilm alteration supporter has ever considered this stuff, but why would you ... you are not experts in Photography. Bill Miller

davcid, you reference the Zapruder film original and have never seen it either. But actually ... you've referenced Costella's web page and "TGZFH" and both of them referenced the Mary Poppins movie in support of alteration. You do read the materials before recommending them to others - don't you! Also, this was on one of your links and appeared to be in your words .... you said, "Obviously (or perhaps not, to Durnavich and Wimp), any special effects editor will match up features from frame to frame to present the illusion of reality. Surely this was more than possible in 1963: the techniques were used primarily for motion pictures, after all! Could you imagine “Mary Poppins” losing the illusion of reality because a piece of grass jumped all over the place from frame to frame?" Did you not say this or were you quoting someone else? Bill

David, all one needs to do is measure the forward advance of the car between each frame. If the forward advance is "X" between each frame before the splice and then the limo jumps forward "2X", then two frames are missing. If the car jumped forward 3X, then it would suggest that three frames were missing. The important part isn't whether the film is missing 2 or three frames ... but rather that two at least two other films captured the missing moments from Towners film and the car remained in the center lane. Now I hope you were able to follow that simple process of deduction. David, it must be rough not knowing the JFK case and having dyslexia on top of everything else. I never implied that the Doorman film covered the missing frames from Towner's film, but rather that it showed the limo halfway through its turn and the car is turning into the center lane. Unless you think a tie rod broke sending the limo out of control and causing it to run towards the curb, despite there being no evidence of such an event, then who in their right mind would think the limo did anything other than remaining in the center lane when ading the Bell and Martin films to the equation. If my memory serves me correctly ... there are two splices in the Towner film with the splice of importance to this discussion being the splice during the limo turn as the car passes in front of the TSBD doorway from Tina's angle. As I stated above ... measure the forward advance of the limo with each frame prior to the splice and make a grid. Next apply the position of the car against the background after the splice and see how many increments it went forward in one frame and this should tell you how many frames are missing. As I stated before however, when other films that are not spliced have captured the time frame where Towner's film is missing frames, then Towner's mising frames become a moot point except for those paranoid schizophrenics that will try to make a case for concern no matter what the evidence shows to the contrary. The statement you are inquiring about came up on the looney forum back around the year 2000. It's been too long for me to recall who all claimed to observe the incident in their "other film" version, but never-the-less it was said. I cannot be 100% sure, but it too may have been Scott Myers who made the statement. The person's name wasn't what caught my attention as much as the fact that it was just another variance in the alleged "other film" witnesses descriptions that meant to me that at least some of these individuals were not talking about the same film even though they were all being added to the support list as seeing the "other film". I wouldn't think that mentioning the descrepencies in the alleged "other film" witnesses observations is a waste of time, but even if it was ... do you think that you should be the only one who should be allowed to waste bandwidth on this forum. I invite anyone to go back into the archives and pool all your responses together to see just what percent of them dealt with anything specific that was being said and see how it quantifies as 'wasted bandwidth'. And none of them pertaining to the evidence before us. Bill Miller

Jack, it appears to me by looking at the test frame that the FBI just had their object car sitting on the street and started from a certain point. The line of cars in the background suggest to me that they didn't do a turn off of Houston in their recreation test .... would you not agree? If that is the case, then what difference does it matter where they started from ... what would seem important is where their car was positioned when the shooting started. However, if their scope photo is a match to where they have the car sitting on the street, then it may suggest that they needed to place the test car there to get an unobstructed view through the trees. Either way it doesn't mean a lot for Tina Towner said she had stopped filming and was about to walk away when she heard the first shot. Betzner and Willis have that shot trapped between their photos (Z186 to Z202). Bill

There are several Zfilm alteration supporters on this forum who seem to have not been able to grasp what I have been telling them about emulsion grain and what to expect during a transfer from one size film to the other. I hope that those who are really interested in the process will take the time to review the information and examples on this web page so to be able to intelligently discuss the subject in the future if the need arises. Bill Miller http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...tometric6.jhtml

Maybe you should try getting a good quality print of the tramp photo and use something better than a magnifyier that came out of a 'happy meal' to view it with. In other words, your observations can only be as good as the source materials and tools you have to work with. Bill

David, as someone who's research stops with paranoia, you obviously haven't cross referenced the Bell and Martin films ... as well as the full sprocket Doorman film against Towner's film. The splice that you speak of in Towner's film covers possibly two frames ... you aren't suggesting that the limo ran over the curb and got back on track in 2/18s of a second are you? Next, the Doorman full frame film shows the limo in the center lane halfway through its turn. The Bell and Martin films are not spliced and they pick up the limo during the time Towner's film is missing its two frames and the limo is seen in the middle of the street. So if we can get past the unecessary paranoid assertions and actually compare the evidence ... the limo made a correct turn and remained in the center lane the entire time. If the "other film" shows something different, then it is a fabricated film. We are not talking about personal beliefs, but rather a systematic viable way of cross checking the evidence ... I just mentioned above how that was done concerning the allegation that the limo left the center lane of traffic and ran over the curb. I don't know how to address something that does not accurately reflect what I said, but I will try. No one said that these alleged witnesses to this other film had ownership of it ... I am puzzled how you even made that connection. Maybe you should read my remark again ... "these people who claimed how vivid and shocking their "other film" was ... cannot seem to pinpoint the date that they saw this film or give the names of anyone who saw it with them." Everything I said was in past tense. And it doesn't matter if I saw it or not ... what I have been saying is that their descriptions of what their "other film" depicts do not even match what the other alleged "other film" witness says. OK, you can name cameras ... what does that have to do with the information I have provided here? Bill Miller

Let's be sensible here ... one can see through a chain link fence and what I am saying is that the wall of the shed is visible through the fence and the only way you could not see the shed is if the cameraman was against the TSBD looking down the side of the building, but with the camera out away from the building like it is ... the shed is visible right down to the pitch of its roof. You may recall you thinking the cop was taller than the object I said was the shed, thus I must be wrong ... here is an example showing a photo taken below the standing height of the man in the photo. Please pay close attention to the photo and study it because the same rules of perspective apply to the tramp photograph. This will make you better qualified to discuss the rules of perspective in the future. More sources showing the shed can be seen in the 26 volumes. Volume 24/pqge 544 CE 2114, page 548 CE 2118

Well, Shanet ... maybe the next time you are in Dealey Plaza you might take the time to go in and ask Gary Mack to show you a clear high resolution scan of that photo and you will see why I had said what I did. Until then, you just keep living in your world of delusion. All I can do is point things out to you that I know ... I cannot make you smart enough to understand why they are valid. To suggest that what you see is a fence or a backdrop hanging on a rod when there are so many photos showing this to be nonsense is just border line lunacy IMO. Bill

Tom, you were presented on Lancer with evidence that at the moment Connally's right shoulder gets shoved forward from the 'transfer of the momentum' of a bullet ripping through his chest and causing him to grimace in pain ... that his right wrist is seen too high and to the right side of his body to have taken the single bullet which is essential for there to have been a single assassin. Even from Zapruder's elevated view which would make Connally's wrist appear lower on his person compared to seeing it from a horizontal plane - it's too high to support the SBT. In fact, the Commission had to believe that Connally had his wrist down near his lap and over the center of his body for the SBT to work. If that is not enough, then the fact that Connally's suit jacket is seen slid down his forearm at this particular moment, thus exposing so much of Connally's white shirt cuff, means that the SBT cannot be plausible for the bullet made a hole in the outer edge of the coat sleeve as it passed through the wrist. So you can tell people that you choose to ignore it or that you aren't sharp enough to understand it means, but you cannot honestly say the evidence has not been produced. Bill

Chuck, Scott Myers (one of the alleged "other film" witnesses) said that Kennedy and Connally were being shot all to hell as the limo was rounding the corner from Houston Street to Elm ... now I don't consider that a "slight variation", especially when not one witness in Dealey Plaza said that the shooting started as the President was pssing through the intersection in front of the TSBD. There is also a big diference IMO between a .5 second limo stop and a 4 second limo stop where everything was alleged to come to a halt. And oh yes, those who claim to have seen this alleged "other film" and who saw the limo run up onto the north curb as it came around the corner ... the Towner Film shows that to be false, as well as the notion that Connally and JFK were being shot up during the turn onto Elm. So maybe it is those types of things that you can feel comfortable with in lumping them all together as the same film, but not I. Either someone is lying their ass off or these people who claimed to have seen this alleged "other film" had seen a dramazation. I personally do not believe they saw an "enhanced version" as you suggested. I'll leave you to ponder something else ... these people who claimed how vivid and shocking their "other film" was ... cannot seem to pinpoint the date that they saw this film or give the names of anyone who saw it with them. One fellow claimed he saw it in college, so how could one not know the names of anyone who was present. They don't even mention the names of anyone who they discussed this tramatic event with right after they saw it. This is something that had it been seen as they claimed, then people would have ben kicking it back and forth for the longest time - thats human nature, so something about their story deserves to leave some doubt in any investigators mind IMO. Bill

These guys while seeing some things that were similar - they often described other areas of their alleged "other film" as showing something different from each other, thus they were only similar films and not the same one. There is also the possibility that they were watching recreations and didn't know it. Bill

Lets look again. There is a shoulder high fence that extends straight back from the building, this is visible in both photos. The temporary screen angles back away from the low fence and is not visible in the Tramp Photo... and it appears to be strung on temporary rods ......... Shanet, it is not a crime to be perspectively inept, so don't take offense when I tell you that the top of the shed only looks shoulder high because the camera in the tramp photos was taken from a position lower than the tramps upper bodies and as taught in any art class ... things in a photo all run to a vanishing point. It's called "perspective". You don't think someone hung a backdrop in the photo below because Altgens looks as tall as a lamppost - do you? And don't be so hard on yourself for always being wrong - it shows consistency! Bill

It was traveling slow enough for Jackie to track it and capture it ......... Jackie could not have seen squat for the Zapruder film shows her looking right into her husbands face from only inches away and when the head exploded she turned away from the imapct in a normal reaction. If Jackie saw anything ... it had to of been a piece of shredded brain matter that flew onto the trunk when JFK's head was flung backwards. Bill

Why on earth would you think that debris traveling at nearly the same speed of the bullet would be seen on a blurry film running at only 18fps. Bill Miller

A. It isn't a screen on a rod. It is a sunlit metal roof with a shadow under its overhang because of the angle to the sun arounf the lunch hour. B. That statement makes no sense because the east end of the shed is seen in the tramp photo. Part of the west end of the shed is missing from the tramp photo because the photo cropped it off. C.

If I live to be 100, I will never understand someone justifying a bullet hitting JFK's with such force to somehow bring his seat springs into play and yet have his head turn back to its original position in less than 1/18th of a second. I only wish Sherry was still around to address this for I am certain what has been suggested is impossible. Bill

What ever spatter that Jackie did or did not get on her in Dealey Plaza would not necessarily be captured on a film full of motion blur. Also, I think that the President's head on his left side worked as a shield and protected at least some of Jackie's face from some flying debris. But keep in mind that the MPI frames are not the cleanest images ... but even at that Jackie's face looks to have some sort of visible blemishes. Bill

The shed is visible in the tramp photo if one knows what to look for. Bill Miller

Ron...WHY GUESS? Read page 463 and following in TGZFH. I know at least four persons who HAVE SEEN THE OTHER FILM. Why speculate? Jack Jack is right ... the looney forum had a long list of people all claiming to have seen this so-called "other film". The problem that surfaced however is that when these people started breaking down what their alleged "other film" showed ... their descriptions started varying from one another. One guy says his showed a limo stop of around 3 to 4 seconds while another guy says his showed a .5 second limo stop. One guy went as far as to say that his other film showed Connally and Kennedy reacting to being shot as the limo was rounding the corner, but witnesses like Betzner and Phil Willis said the first shot hadn't sounded before Z186 and no later than Z202. Mary Woodard said that JFK was smiling and waving to her and some other women when the first shot was fired, which also supports what Betzner and Willis had said. So how reliable are these "other film" testimonials? The implications are that some, if not all, of these people were not telling the truth about really seeing this "other film", or there were numerous "other films" showing various versions of how the assassination occurred. But what the heck ... it sounds better to some to just lump them all together. Bill Miller

Maybe someone should show Vince how motion blur erases such details from a film ... better yet, let him know about MPI's use of filters to remove the grain on their version and how that too, would make fine details like blood droplets hard (if not impossible) to see. Bill Miller

Ed, what people want is you to show the image as you found it before you destroyed it so they can check and see if you are blowing-up leaf shadows on a fence again and claiming they are men carry cameras or people. There is no excuse for you not showing what photo or film you created your image from. Below is one such example ... Bill