Bill Miller

3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

And I suppose in your world, Bill, when witnesses do look at their watches and the times doesn't agree with the official version, it is be ignored? 

I just said what I believe based on my experiences as well as others - do you have a point to make?

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

IMHO, the WC testimony of all the TSBD workers tally well if we allow that their minute to minute TIMING was off.

First, Vicki and Sandra hung around the fourth floor gabbing with the girls and looking out of the many windows at the Grassy Knoll for 5-8 minutes, as Sandra seems to recall (not Vickie).

Secondly, Gloria Calvary came running up to Shelley and Lovelady within 20 seconds. After about 40 seconds they decided to take a closer look.

After Shelley and Lovelady got to that  "little old island" They heard someone holler so they looked back to see Baker and Truly run into the TSBD.

Then they walked with a cop to the railroad tracks, saw nothing special, and then returned to the TSBD side entrance where they saw Vickie and Sandra.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

You got that right, Paul. Peoples memories of spaces in time when it comes to being stressed or in a state of shock and/or confusion is not to be considered a time clock of the event. If a witness looked at their watch periodically during that same period, then that would be a different matter, but as far as I am aware - that didn't happen. Who hasn't had an experience where they recalled an event seeming as if it took forever to get through while perhaps others thought it went by rather quickly. It happened to me each time I ever went to a dentist.  

2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Show the girth!!!!!

I am getting to it .... then I will look forward to your next excuse for why it should be ignored.

57 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Stop deflecting.

Show the girth!!!!!

So summarizing your comments is deflecting .... nice!

51 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

How can anybody judge the girth (circumference of a solid object) of somebody from a 2d photo. Do you mean width?

It would take someone skilled in Photogammetry to do that, Ray. However, Oswald was a very thin individual and his size can be compared to other people around him. In this particular case, Lee's shoulder width could be visually compared against that of Prayer Man's to see if they are similar or if there is a noticeable difference.

Several people have posted that Prayer Man looked rather large to be Lee Oswald. I am certain that Kamp is aware those observations and is why he made a big deal that I had shown a photo of Lee in just a T-shirt. The implication could only be that had Lee had his second shirt on - then he would appear as large as Prayer Man. But I asked just how thick could the material of Lee's second shirt be because to me he still looked like a skinny man with a second shirt on. I also suggested that the thickness of Lee's shirt could not have been more than 1/8th of an inch in additional thickness.

For some reason Kamp has not seemed very eager to find the answer to the question of whether Prayer Man is too large to be Oswald. I can think of one damaging reason ... If Prayer Man is not Lee Oswald, then that would explain why Frazier, Lovelady, Shelley, Molina, etc., did not report that Lee was outside standing with them. That means the theory that all these witnesses were leaned on even before Oswald had been thought to be the assassin of the President is hogwash.

And who knows - maybe Prayer Man and Lee will appear to be very similar in size. I am certainly not afraid to find out if there is a way to check it.

43 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Buahahahahah

I do not need to post a study as I see no girth, you yet still have to post an image that shows Prayer Man's girth. Stop the smoke and mirrors exercise. 

I still await an answer for the NYHT fugezi remark, I mean the last thing we want is Albert/Brian Doyle to keep believing......

Come on we are all waiting!!!

So you complained of a slight of hand by my not posting a photo of Oswald without the additional shirt as if that would somehow bulk him up .... well it appears that it didn't do anything but show a skinny man with a shirt on over his T-shirt - which by the way .... you didn't tell me how thick you believed his all important shirt to be? Is it because you now see that his shirt didn't really add any noticeable width to his shoulders - that must be it.

Smoke and mirrors?  You have not even bothered to see if Prayer Man is the same size as Oswald and I am the one using smoke and mirrors ..... if you say so.

42 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

That is what Miller said.

It's the same with his assertion that Baker and Truly are mentioned in the NYHT article, there simply is no trace of it, yet Doyle believes it and Miller has been quiet ever since after asking for evidence and he feels too big to retract his rubbish.

 

I never mentioned a NYHT article.

So the buying a coke and drinking it puts Oswald in the lunchroom even sooner than if had not yet bought a coke. So what was there to gain by making up a story that Oswald had a coke when confronted by Baker .... is it because only assassins drink coke?

11 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Am I missing somethin?, Is there confusion as to where the Coke story came from? Is Bart just rejecting that account or claiming that there is no account of the Coke?

 

Cheers,

Michael

He says that when Oswald was met on the 2nd floor by Patrolman Baker that he never had a coke because Truly and Baker didn't mention it in their statements or testimonies.

45 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

This is highly misleading Miller, you have some interesting tricks up yer sleeve, but they do not amount to much.

You need to pub the ones where he is wearing his shirt not his t-shirt!

    So how much thicker will Oswald be with his shirt added to his shoulder width -  perhaps 1/8th of an inch on each side?

You can clear all this up by letting us see your study ... if you have even bothered to do one.

7 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Still waiting for your girth study Miller

Still waiting for the explanation on the coke

Still waiting on where it says in the NYHT (even Doyle believes it ha ha ha) where Truly and Baker went in.......

The explanation of Lee having gotten a coke was something I had read. You may have noticed that I am not alone as Paul Trejo posted about Lee having a coke as well. And so you know - I have no intention on going back over the countless books and articles I have read on the assassination in my lifetime over a bottle of coke.

Now prove that well fed looking Prayer Man is the scrawny looking Oswald because it looks to me like you are attempting to fill up a 2lb bag of Prayer Man with a half of a pound of Oswald.

5 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

There is nothing responsible about your method at all, you are reaching.

LIke MacRae and Doyle.

Back it up with proper analysis, not wishy washy make believe.

The issue has been raised - now it is up to the one pushing the claim that must be sure that Prayer Man truly is Oswald.

8 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Tell me something Sandy, does that line on Molina look as it was placed at the same angle?

What does this tell you?

The lines are all the same length. There were places on mean and women. I chose a reference point that could be seen without being confused as being part of someone else. Oswald was pretty thin and was not very broad shouldered. It's seems to me that if Prayer Man had a said width between two points on his person (visible left and right side) and while rotated away from the camera, then that line could be used against others in the frame who appear broader shouldered than Oswald.

Someone can do the same test and create a line between to points on the body on Prayer Man. If Prayer Man is as wide as Molina who is facing the camera for example ... one must ask him or herself if Prayer Man is Oswald - should his shoulders be as wide as lets say .... Molina's?

2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

OK say you are right. And in the past this bushy hair was used as a defence to Doyle's 'handbag' (don't ask....)

Then at the same time this dark spot does not correspond with Prayer Man's girth either. As a matter of fact it would have a slimming effect instead.

That is even in your faded gif noticeable

A responsible way to determine Prayer Man's girth would be to find a point that is not mixed in with other people on the stairs. I chose the shoulders.

3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

 

How about the amount of detail would not allow you to determine anything like this and that a better quality image is needed.

Placing a few lines on top of an image on a wide angle shot of which only a certain amount is shown (it's cropped) from a multi generational image isn't anything of scientific value either.

And if you are throwing this malarky into the ring and ask me to interpret then I'd say that the so called width of the lines points even more to a male person than a female. That combined with those lower arms makes it even more certain.

These lines mean nothing more than a similar exercise MacRae did and Doyle declared as gospel. And boy did that end up badly for the two of them, three actually Lamson was involved behind the curtains no doubt.

Perhaps this stuff would have had an effect 20 years ago on the internet, but things have moved on you know.

And the PM image, is only the icing on the cake. You can debate all this as long until the cows come home, but any layman doesn't need a lot of convincing that the images and the evidence clearly point that this is LHO.

There are 4/5 people here who are against that thought, yet there are literally thousands who think the opposite, you are in a clear minority here, hell you are practically non-existent.

I gather from all your Jibber-Jabber above that you have not conducted any type of study on your own to know if Lee Oswald's body width would equal that of  Prayer Man.

22 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Rubbish, like Doyle you only grab one snippet and hammer it to death thinking it changes anything when it comes to the big picture.

You did jump in the Bill Kelley thread without even reading it beforehand.

And once your mistakes are pointed out, you squirm and try to wiggle your way out of it.

Smoke and mirrors Miller.......

Where can we find your study on Prayer Man's girth to that of Oswalds?

19 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Prayer Man as Oswald is more alive than ever. This is something that confuses and hurts people like Miller, Doyle and so on. The blatant refusal to even entertain the idea.......my my.

You are not being truthful here - It was entertained and reasons have been given for why it is not Oswald. Your not agreeing with those reasons does not mean the idea wasn't entertained.

On 1/12/2016 at 3:00 AM, Bart Kamp said:

 

Prayer Man still looks to wide to me to be skinny Oswald.

Frazier didn't know that Lee was going across Elm Street to buy his lunch - he assumed so. He said Lee sometimes bought something off the "truck".

And you are correct - Frazier said he saw Lee post shooting to which he did not tell the Commission. Some 50 years later and he is not afraid to divulge seeing Lee after the shooting, so I doubt he would be afraid to tell people that Lee was standing outside on the landing at the top of the stairs had that of been the case. Perhaps a researcher could contact Buell and talk to him about his seeing Lee after the shooting and ask why he didn't tell that to the Commission.

On 3/14/2017 at 9:47 AM, Brad Milch said:

@Bill Miller

I consider your analysis of the Blevins Dillard photo as adequate to the debate. I do hope Mr. Blevins reads what you wrote & responds here at EF or in his future YouTube visual analysis videos. I'll have to go through all his videos on his channel to determine what else he has analyzed in the JFK ambush films before I draw my own opinion as to how good or bad his take on the JFK visuals is.

Since you tell us that you bought the same negative of the Dillard photo that Mr. Blevins used in his analysis video with the difference being your photo shows nothing in the sniper's nest window vs. Mr. Blevins shows what appears to be LHO's half body in the photo, questions should arise as to what the heck is going on here? Who got punked, Blevins or Miller (lol). Or is Blevins guilty of punking us all? Perhaps you might post a copy of your Dillard photo so that EF readers can compare it to the images Mr. Blevins has presented in his YouTube analysis video?

For me, like the rest of the controversy that continuously swirls around the JFK assassination, it's a case of black & white, it is or it isn't. The image is LHO, or it isn't.

I honestly can't remember when I first saw the Dillard photo. Whether it was on TV, newspapers or books, I don't recall attention being drawn to a face in the window until just recently. If the image has been manipulated somewhere in the timeline of the Dillard photo, that should lead to an investigation of the matter that might settle the issue one way or another. If the Dillard image was the victim of manipulation, EF readers should note that the manipulated image (if it was) was not passed off to the public as showing LHO in the sniper's nest window by any of the early investigators (including the DPD, Dallas County Sheriff's Dept., FBI & WC). The MSM didn't draw attention to the 'LHO face' in the Dillard image either. So why is the LHO face there in Mr. Bleviins' version of the Dillard photo (since the photo wasn't used to either incriminate LHO or used as proof he wasn't a shooter)?

If the image is genuine, I see what appears to be LHO leaning forward behind 2 stacks of boxes, one stack closer to the window than the stack behind it with a camera up to his face. In private correspondence, some friends of mine see a microphone (as from a walkie talkie) up to 'LHO's' mouth, as if he's talking to someone on a radio.

None of us sees things exactly the same. That's one of the reasons I would never attempt to be a visuals analyst. I know from my own experiences in life that some people wouldn't see the ocean (if pointed out to them) if they fell into it face first (lol).

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

I will try and find it when I get back to BC next month. I bought a copy negative directly from the Dallas Morning News.

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

I would amend it to say that BSW = BTGSW = Gloria Calvery, and that Woman In White Wearing White Scarf very close to BTGSW in Couch-Darnell  = WIWWWS very close to BSW in the Z-Frame.

The woman in Zapruder's film who is next to Brandt's friend is pretty tall .... would it not be important to know how tall Gloria Calvery was so to know if that woman might be her?

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bill:

I think what Andrej is saying is that from his ordeal on the first day where he was detained and arrested and his house was searched and he was brought in for a polygraph etc., that he knew that the police were honed in on Oswald as the perp.

Therefore, if he said anything that violated that belief, they would go after him any way they could.

Oswald could have been seen as having some involvement in the assassination and still been seen as standing next to Buell at the time of the shooting. And like many witnesses in the last 10 to 20 years that spoke out against the official version - Frazier said he saw Lee after the shooting in his interview with the 6th Floor Museum which he didn't say to the Commission in 64. So had Lee of been on the stairs with Buell .... I do not believe Buell would withhold that information at this time.

What if someone said Bill Shelley shot the President - do you really think no one would have spoke up and said he was on the steps with me and other  workers who were watching the parade?  Of course they would have spoken up. And I still say that Prayer Man is too wide to be Oswald.

On 3/14/2017 at 10:55 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

I apologise to everyone for dragging the discussion to curtain rod story but the question asked repeatedly and understandably by fellow researchers is why would Mr. Frazier not say whether Prayer Man was or was not Lee Oswald, and the answer would be that he may not volunteer any information about who stood next to him (if it were Oswald) since he was compromised from the very beginning.

Huh?   If Frazier had said Lee was standing there with him and the others - there would have been no need to fear anything for Oswald could not have been on the 6th floor and next to Frazier at the top of the stairs in front of the TSBD at the same time.

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Bill, the Z film now makes me and you a "witness" of sorts to the shooting.  I would put more weight into my own analysis of what I see compared to those women.  The car was going past them so they didn't have the advantage of being back from the action.  Plus, they were not standing around expecting any of this to happen, so there's that as well.

They had one advantage over us - the could see JFK"s face with clarity from a distance of 15 feet away so to see any sudden changes in his expression that we cannot.

I can only add that the wound to JFK's throat was what would be referred to as a soft-tissue wound. I believe I have seen data on reaction times to a stimulus to be around 1/2 of a second. From the moment Willis took his photo until the time JFK disappears behind the road sign is .5 seconds. In that time he stopped his smiling and waving and brought his hand inside the car and across his face .... when he emerges from behind the sign ... his hands are clutched in front of him and on their way to his mouth where it appears to me that he tried to cough as if he felt something had entered his throat and he wanted to dislodge it.

29 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Yes, there is something illogical in the curtain rod story. Mr. Frazier insisted he saw a package two feet long which he saw Lee holding between his hand and armpit. For a person of Lee' height, the arm length would be 22-24 inches, which would be what Mr. Frazier reported. The size of the parcel was later specified to be some 27-28 inches, however, Lee would not be able to carry a parcel of this length in the style described by Mr. Frazier.

You must be joking!

For one thing - which is it - 27" or 28"?  No need to guess when it could be measured with a ruler or tape.

Secondly, did Lee have the top of the package folded over by a few inches?  One wouldn't want the end of a rifle barrel sticking out of the sack while trying to sell the idea that the bag contains curtain rods - now would they.

5 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Is Kellerman looking to his right?

Kellerman was as his job was to monitor the people on his side of the  car.