Bill Miller

Most energy is usually absorbed by the bullet passing through the water which composes most of what the brain is. A tangential strike edge on to a wall of skull bone means more energy absorbed by solid body and causing the violent movement necessary John, I took the liberty to go back and run a comparison between Z311 and Z312 to see if there were any signs of a bullet having already struck the President's head at the time of Z312's exposure. My findings were that there was no signs that a bullet had struck the President by the time Z312 had been exposed. That there were no visible signs of forward spatter that would have been appearent upon the intital penetration of the President's skull. And that there were no signs of any violent moments or jolts to the President's head between these two frames and that the only visible changes I witnessed were attributed to the limo making its counter clockwise rotation between Z311 and Z312. Bill

I note you state that 313 is 'too blurred'. I disagree. You say the movements I suggest are too much to happen in the time frame. I disagree. What I am saying is that a bullet smashing into a human skull will cause the skull to transfer the momentum of that bullet immediately. This is what I refer to as a primary reaction. This can occur in less than 1/18th of a second. However, it would continue on for no less than a few more frames and in no way could JFK withstand the impact of a bullet wrenching his head volently and then he right himself on a right to left axis within the next 1/18th of a second. That would be what I refer to as a secondary reaction. The Zapruder film frames are increments in time and space. As with the strawberry example - if a bullet has entered JFK's head and is on its way to the back of the skull as captured on a single film frame, then the science of blood spatter says that if a bullet is inside JFK s head at Z312, then blood spatter should also be present in the image immediately at the point of impact. Z312 shows no sign of backspatter being released. Bill

Jack Shanet...I discovered that the knoll area was blacked in (crudely) more than 20 years ago. You can even see the edges of the retouching. Jack Jack Shanet...I discovered that the knoll area was blacked in (crudely) more than 20 years ago. You can even see the edges of the retouching. Jack First of all, the Nix film was overexposed and in 1973 - UPITN (United Press International Television News) had the Orville Nix camera original and it was Groden who helped work on making a print(s) for the movie "Executive Action". One of their goals, if not the main goal, was to better the color on a film print and make it more balanced. Groden says that they adjusted the contrast for the print, thus causing the darker areas to become even darker than seen on the original film. This is one of a couple of reasons why the prints that we see today appear so dark along the knoll. Next, the reason why Moorman's print shows a light background next to the shelter and why its not that way in the Nix film is because Mary was positioned near the curb on Elm Street, a much lower elevation than Nix had, thus Moorman's camera is looking upward at the wall along the walkway, which makes the train car seen in the Nix and Bell films to be down and out of sight below the wall in Mary's Polaroid. I will remind everyone once again that Moorman's photograph, while still in her possession, was filmed not 30 - 35 minutes following the shooting and it doesn't show the train in the RR yard either. Bill

To be honest i know very little even though Jack and Fetzer and the crazy old lady down the street have accused me of being a CIA agent. I do know a little bit about Costella 1) he believes that the 6th Floor Museum's very low-fi web cam is part of nefariuos plot to keep researchers in Dealy Plaza under survelence 2) he believes the rain sensors in DP are really listening devices and are part of the same mefarious plot, 3) he suspects that the teacher who substituted for him at Mentone Grammer is a CIA agent, 4) he suspected that his (now) ex-wire was a CIA agent, 5) he believes that the CIA (or some other intelligence agency) sabotaged his shirts, electric razor, digital camera and memory card while the were in checked baggage in order to undermine his presntation at Fetzer's conference in Duluth. This leads me to conclude he is a paranoid nut. As to number 5) above all he had to do was but a new shirt and razor to resolve the first two, something that could have done in a few minutes esp.since he had a local contact (Fetzer). I also wonder what kind of idiot would put a digital camera let alone a memory card with images he needed for a presentation the next day into checked baggage? I also know until his new job he was working as a grammer school science and math teacher being perhaps the worlds most under employeed science PhD. Len, I think you have just explained why John Costella would be chosen for some sort of national security work - it's obvious that he is "expendable". I suspect that we'll possibly see Costella on the world news one evening after they have just announced that their leader had just been shot as the camera will then quickly go to a scene where it looks like some guy resembling John Costella will be being led through an Australian police station screaming, "I'm just a patsy!" Bill

A minor point, after the headshot cavitation Kennedy didn't right himself. A barely living bag of bones, tissues and fluids held up by such things as various tissues and a steel rod tightly wrapped with cloth brace obeys, sans voluntary muscle, according to various predictable forces. John, Blood spatter science states that the spatter is immediate. If a bullet has already entered JFK's head in Z312 as you suggest ... then where is the blood spatter should have been released when the bullet first brong through the skull? remember ... I said everything must add up and fall into place. Bill

I wonder if the job is like those held by Walter Mitty and John Nash. But if it's true by your own logic he is longer credible. Len, the person that walks the President's dog and pick's up its crap has a security clearence - just thought you should keep that in mind when wondering what Costella could possibly be doing related to National Security. Also, your remark about David's past logic is a good one ... I had to smile because it was true and on target. But I think you'll find that while David suffers from a case of ignorance over the evidence in the JFK assassination, he also suffers from selective paranoia as well. In other words, David only applies his brand of logic when it best suits his needs and plays dumb about it when it back-bites him in the ass. Bill

John, with all due respect ... while it is possible for a bullet moving at 2000fps to smash into a skull and cause it to start to rotate within 1/18th of a second, it is impossible for the President to have reacted and brought his head back to center in the next 1/18th of a second. It is because of this that I am certain you have misread Z313. Crossbar rotatation between Z312 and Z314 Bill

Thanks, Jack. This process is obvious and color/contrast could be retained and even enhanced by doing this. It is pretty obvious to me this is where the "blob" came from, since the doctors at Parkland all saw the back of Kennedy's head blown out. Evidently the Zapruder film and the Bethesda autopsy materials were HEAVILY altered (in the interest of national security, of course) Shanet This appears to be another instance of the simple minded leading the blind. Jack mentions increasing the size of an 8MM print to 8 x 10s to make all these alleged alterations, but never addressed what Groden and other experts have said about reducing them back to 8MM Kodachrome II again and the tell-tales signs that would give such an atempt away. Ask Jack how a transfer from 8 x 10s with artifical light could possibly produce a natural light exposure without detection or does not these obstacles matter to you, Shannet? There was a line in the movie "JFK" that reminds me of the way some people have accepted the glossing over the issues that Jack has done and it went like this, "How do you know who your Daddy is ............ Because your momma told you so." After I spoke to Robert Groden about photography and how it pertained to this subject matter, I then went to Gary Mack asking what he had learned about these particular issues from talking with the many photo experts he has come in contact with over the years. While Gary is quick to point out an error when Groden makes one - the experts Gary Mack had spoken with supports what Groden had said about the things that would be detectable had such an attempt been made to the Zapruder film to alter it in such a way. I guess that in a sense - all there is now is for some people to decide whether they really want to know or not if their momma was correct! It appears that at least a couple of people here don't seem to care to know anything beyond Jack's generic replies and that they are merely satisfied with Jack telling them that someone could alter a photo or a film in 1963, while not caring if it would be detectable or not. Bill

Turning and tilting of the head appears just from the limo traveling from left to right across Zapruder's field of view. One such example is offered below. Bill

"So a simple left to right movement in this instance, in 2d appears as a forward snap, it's not, it's a simple left to right snap!!!" John, my concern is that you are trying to get information out of a terribly blurred image (Z313). I again feel that it is impossible for JFK to have turned his head in Z313 because of the blunt force of a bullet's impact to his skull and then come back to its original forward direction within the next 1/18th of a second. I personally believe that had JFK's head of been turned by that abrupt impact, then it would have continued to be turned for several film frames before coming back into profile as we see it in Z314. Bill

No, Jack ... as I posted in an earlier response while you must have been nodded off ... Zavada has been ill, but was expecting to recover. But while you are waiting with interest to hear what Zavada has to say ... feel free to address the points Groden had made. Bill

"I've been watching this exchange with glee David. You should really try and stay away from these sorts of discussions because you are not mentally equipped to play." No kidding ... what kind of a person would post that he is a 'composting professional' and has not found any signs of alteration only to then attempt to make stupid responses that don't address the information I obtained from the experts that supports the Zapruder film being authentic. In my previous response I had just mentioned the transfer issues with emulsion grain at 'Baghdad Bob Healy's' request and did he dispute it with any data - hell no! Instead, the loud mouth responds with, "here you have it Lurkers -- when it comes to defending Zapruder film authenticity, absolutely nothing from Miller, AGAIN! -- you're in over your head, Bill. You do have something going for you, it's called comic relief... Experts? ROFLMFAO....what experts have you consulted? Whoops, your the expert, right.....?" I can give David one thing ... he doesn't mind looking like an ass. "You tell Bill that you are a compositing professional, and maybe its true you earn money for making composites. But the examples you have posted here and elsewhere showing your computer compositing skills on Zapruder frames are childish in execution. Perhaps you have found clients that are willing to accept crap, but its pretty clear that you don't have the mental equipment to play. No David, you are so over your head when it comes to film based compositing its not even funny. Hell you can't even do a decent computer composite. So why is it again you are attempting to play? Give it up. You don't have the equipment upstairs. P.S. You really should bone up on stereo viewing...then perhaps you would not look so F--king stupid." What David said is like the kid down the street who cuts lawns and gets paid for it ... I guess that makes him a lawn specialist. And don't expect him to speak to experts or even bone up on stereo viewing because he is obviously only interested in trolling and has no interest in learning anything about the Kennedy case. You cannot help this moron ... other than maybe recommending a good surgeon who might be able build him another set of lips so he doesn't have to keep talking out of both sides of his mouth. Bill

"this answers questions regarding your vast knowledge and comment about film processing and composing???? roflmao! -- Don't quit your day job champ...." David, I must have something going for me for a jackass like yourself to continue avoiding the points I have introduced to the subject and instead just offer jerk-off replies that never deal with any specifics. "Examples, Bill, show the lurkers AND me -- no more bullshxt....I imagine Groden has done many things with the 35mm print of Zapruder film, then some.... You ask Dr. Mantik, I don't do X-Ray's, after all he's the M.D. and a Ph.D! Your not claiming that expertise these day's are you?" David, if you know someone who has used stereoscoping on the Zfilm who found part of the image floating above the underlining picture, then please post it. I mentioned at least three people who have done it and they never reported finding any alterations. And I am aware that you don't do Xrays ... you can also include the fact that you don't seem to study the details of the case, you don't seek out experts before blowing off your big mouth, and you don't address my responses with facts. "why dodging (pardon the pun) commenting about emulsion comparisons between altered Kodacolor II 8mm film and non-altered Kodacolor II 8mm film, Bill? What don't you understand about that? Have you done or witnessed same? Or shall we just assume this is more wishful thinking on the Lone Neuter side of the equation" I didn't address your question because I had already addressed it in an earlier response on this subject ... you must have been sleeping with Jack at the time. The experts I have spoken to have all said that Kodachrome II has an emulsion pattern of its own that is different than that of other films. So if one cropped and pasted part of another film onto an existing Kodachrome II film - the emulsion grain pattern differences within the frame would be noticeable under close scrutiny. Also, if one enlarges 8MM emulsion grains to 35MM size to attempt such an alteration ... the 8MM will become blurred as you could expect, so when the film is lowered back down to 8MM from 35MM ... the 35MM emulsion grains will appear sharp, while the original 8MM grains will appear out of focus/fuzzy. Now this is the second ot third time I have spoken about this on this forum, so please don't wait a while and then pretend that it has never been addressed - thanks! dgh asked"Are you sure you read Fetzer's book HOAX?"[/b] "Oh Bill, you did? Guess you forgot I expertly crafted about 30 or so pages in it, I even read the damn thing -- cover to cover, TWICE. What's that prove? Don't know other than comments from the likes of Harrison Livingstone, who lioke my down to earth homey style.... rofl!" Yes - you wrote a half-assed piece that didn't address the points Groden raised. You also posted on this forum after writing those 30 or so pages that you have not seen any proof of film alteration. dgh asked: And what does the following mean? "It is like having someone say that a stone appeared to have been thrown through a glass window without so much as even breaking the glass..."[/b] "I'm a professional compositor and your excuse these day's? That aside doing what I do, let's expand on your "rock dealie"... You live in a glass house, floor, ceiling and walls -- your looking at a picture of same structure and you can see all panels, there's a rock in the middle of the floor, one that takes up about 5% of the 2D space -- you have no idea how it got there. No broken windows AND the glass structure was not *built* around the rock.... How'd that rock get there?" David, where did the rock come into play ... let me remind you once again what you have said on this forum .... you have stated that you have seen no proof of film alteration. What that says it that there is no rock laying in the middle of the floor IYO. The rock is the sign of photo alteration and you, nor I have seen any signs of it. If you ever do see any sign of it, then by all means - share it with the forum as eagerly as you do these idiotic say-nothing responses of yours. "Motive? those that suggest motive should not live in "glass houses"! Btw, you setting this forums posting criteria here these day's? I'm sure JSimkin will appreciate that...." David, I think that if you would just merely respond with actual facts pertaining to the issues being raised, then less responses on my part would need to occur. And yes, I am sure John Simkin appreciates my gifs and remarks pertaining to the evidence of this case ... I know this because he mentioned it in Dallas. However, I do not recall much good said about your participation on this forum from anyone present at the time. I would not have mentioned this, but seeing how you brought it up - why not! Bill

Jim, if you are talking about the yellow stripes on the curb ... they had been there as far back as the mid to late 50's before JFK was ever elected President. I have questioned several old time cab and bus drivers in Dallas and their remarks were consistent. Such stripes were painted on the curbs in and around Dallas where there were bends in the road. The stripes were to alert drivers at night that the road curves. Bill

Jack, I believe I have seen some footage of Lovelady sitting in the DPD and he looks towards the camera while wearing the shirt that you claim cannot be his, so there is no question that it is Lovelady in that doorway and in the DPD photos. The animated overlay below was created by me in my infancy at doing scaled overlays ... the plaid design on the man in the doorway's shirt and Lovelady's red shirt is the same. Also, a profiled view of Lovelady will make it appear that his shirt is buttoned at the collar, although there is nothing unusual about a person who enters into a government building wanting to button up his shirt so to be more presentable, especially in 1963. But in the flier there is an image of Lovelady in profile which makes his shirt look buttoned at the collar, but in the movie footage that the still image was taken from, Billy turns slightly at one point which exposes more of his white T-shirt, thus showing that his shirt wasn't actually buttoned as the profile look made it appear. Bill

That makes as much sense as someone saying they never have read "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" and because Jack White is on record as saying the Zapruder film is a fake, then one doubts that TGZFH sheds much new light on anything. It might be wise to actually read a book before deciding whether or not it sheds new light on anything. For the most part, Wrone did a pretty good job and the book was somewhat informative. David did get into some things that I felt took away from the impact of the book. One such distraction was his mentioning the possibility of the man in the doorway in Altgens #6 photograph may be Oswald. The notion that the man in Altgens photo could be Lee Oswald instead of Billy Lovelady had been long put to rest, so I was a bit surprised to see where Wrone even brought it up. Bill

"Bill, I'd love to post the photos you mention but I'm sitting in a small motel in Birmingham, Alabama where I just arrived to work for the next two weeks on a murder case. So I can't. But this should be said. What Jack White refers to as my "drum scan" is a minutely scanned copy of a negative very nearly the actual size of Mary Moorman's Photo #5. In 1967, Moorman permitted a professional photographer in Dallas to copy here Polaroid using an approximately 4" by 5" negative. This negative, of course, has not decayed at all in the intervening years and may well be the best surviving rendition of Moorman's famous photograph. But it really doesn't matter since EVERY rendition of the Moorman photo shows the gap as it is shown in the drum scan. It shows the level of White's commitment to honest, objective research that when things go against him he won't admit it and tries to impugn the very clear message of the evidence. As usual, he's just wasting people's time." It's ok, Josiah .... I referenced the copies in Groden's book for anyone who wishes to study them and the original print filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination and like I said ... they all show the gap that Jack's alleged correct LOS recreation (done with Fetzer and Mantik) does not show! How (what should have been) three intelligent men could look through a transit positioned to not show the needed gap that Moorman's photo displays and not to have a single one of them not see their error is beyond comprehension IMO. (TRUE INCOMPENTUERS!) I strongly suspect that at least one of these individuals had sat out to show Moorman was in the street regardless if the evidence showed otherwise. Then when things started falling apart, I believe that some of their responses were designed to supply false information to the reader/listener in order to salvage what they could of their claim .... denying the gap in other Moorman prints is just one example of this dishonesty because had they of known of a Moorman photo that showed no gap to match Jack's LOS, then there is little doubt in my mind they would have posted it at every possible opportunity. The worst part about all this is the damage that these individuals have inflicted on the rest of the research community, especially those who feel there was a conspiracy in Kennedy's murder. How is it supposed to look to others when two PH.D's and Jack make such horrific errors while straying from the reality of the total evidence in the case itself. If the job wasn't hard enough already to get people to see that there was a conspiracy to kill the President in this case, we now have to do it with with a cloud of suspicion hanging over our heads because of the actions of these few who's findings were if not shoddy on purpose to promote a particular conclusion ... it was then shoddy due to their incompetence ... either way - it sucks! Bill

.... and for any 'incompeteneurs' who now are finding that they wasted their hard earned money for a book that is a total sham - just remember that it may still be used for leveling tables that have one leg shorter than the others.

No, Jack ... we are not saying that you just thought of this nonsense, while I must say that it does appear however that you may have come up with idea rather quickly and without a lot of forethought. And whether people read it in a book or see your alleged evidence here on the forum - it will not change the fact that your approach was flawed and full of errors. There is a saying that says that the diference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man doesn't know when to admit he was wrong. The camera lens height that you gave for Moorman is SHORTER that the standing height of a DPD cycle's windshield by four inches. It was obvious to me the first time I looked at your claim that Moorman's camera was well above the Officers 'Hargis and Martin' windshields, thus Mary cannot be standing on the street, but rather she is elevated above the curb. As I said in an earlier reply, Moorman said to Mark Oakes that the claim you've made about her being in the street when she took that #5 photograph is silly. It's odd that when I, Thompson, Mack, Groden, and a list of others have gone to Moorman's location as seen in the Zapruder film and shot a recreation photo ... we all achieve the gap that is seen in her Polaroid. A first grade art student could tell that your LOS was too far east and too low to be the same LOS Moorman was on. As I recall, Tony Cummings was present during your investigation and tried to tell you guys the mistake you were making, but you all were too arrogant to listen to him. Ironically and without you being aware of it, the photo of Fetzer holding the stick shows Moorman's gap better than your transit LOS. The reason being for this is because the person holding the camera for that picture is now west and above the transit ... just as Mary was and as I have said from the beginning. The Fetzer photo shows that in fact your transit was too low and too far east to be on an accurate LOS with Moorman's camera in her #5 Polaroid. Yet when you and Fetzer do the same alleged recreation - your gap closes as seen in the insert above. So we find that your gap is off, Mary's camera is above the DPD windshields where your LOS would not be, and Mary herself says to Mark Oakes that the idea she was in the street to take that photo is silly. Ah, lo' and behold ... a regular non-drum scan Moorman print and it too shows the gap, which Jack's transit photo does not have. Bill

"The only problem was that White's research was sloppy. The two points don't line up. The true line-of-sight formed by these two points confirms the location of Moorman's camera as shown in the Zapruder film. White's point was all hooey! So now White is claiming that not the Zapruder film but the Moorman film has been faked. This silly argument has also been around for a long time. Bill Miller, having years earlier disposed of White's earlier argument, based as it was on sloppy research, disposes of this one in the same way. "Jack, the reason you can't see the two windows is that Zapruder is standing in front of them! Duh!!? To describe this research as "sloppy" does it a favor! Thanks Bill." Josiah, Aside from all the errors in Jack's claim from his not noticing that Moorman was looking over the tops of the cycles windshields in her #5 Polaroid - to ignoring Jean Hill when she said she had stepped back over the curb and onto the grass before the first shot was fired - to the Bronson slide showing Jean Hill's shoes and Moorman's socks which would not be visible from Bornson's location had these women been over the hill slope and having stepped off an 8 to 9 inch curb on top of it all (just to name a few) ... Jack has recently said that your 'drum scan' of Moorman's photograph has created at gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window seen in the background that was not there on Moorman's original. I have noted that the original Moorman photo filmed not 30 minutes after the shooting seems to also show a gap, so I do not know how Jack can justify his remarks about your drum scan ... so would you care to address Jack's allegation that the drum scan misrepresents the true cap between the pedestal and the window of the colonnade? (I mentioned in an earlier post that Groden's copy prints of Moorman's photo shows a gap and I'd expect that if your drum scan created a gap that wasn't never there, then Jack would have posted one of his Moorman prints showing what he said to be accurate, but he did not. However, to prove the point even more - would you post one of your non-drum scans of Moorman's print showing the gap that Jack said doesn't exist or wanted to demonstrate using one of his own copies?) Bill

The answer to Jack's claim is quite simple and it has been pointed out to him many times in the past even though he chooses not to listen to reason. The Willis, Betzner and Bronson photos hold the answer. Note that part of Zapruder's clothing in the three previously mentioned photographs is lightened by the sun shining on him from the SW. Now understand that Moorman's photo is a B&W image with limited color tones, thus the part of Zapruder's clothing that is lightened by the sunlight has blended into the background of the colonnade. What Jack see's as Zapruder's total outline is only the dark shaded part of Mr. Z's clothes. Jack either purposely ignores this or he simply cannot comprehend how the sunlit portion of Zapruder's clothing is covering the window openings in Mary's #5 photo. Anyone who can get access to a good copy of the news footage that was shot of Mary's #5 Polaroid not 30 minutes following the shooting and while still in Mary's possession will see that the window openings of the colonnade are not seen on the original photo either. Now with that being said, I think that we can all agree that Mary Moorman did not alter her own photograph within the first 30 minutes of the assassination, thus if no window openings are present in the news film showing her famous Polaroid, then there must be a logical answer found elsewhere for not seeing them in the later prints. I have given you the only logical answer in my opening remarks within this response. Bill

Oh Brother! In post 15, Burtons's bottom photo shows the building burning clear down past the fire trucks with most of the debris near the point of impact. I hope I misread the caption and that it is not being implied that the photo Jack has used is supposed to be the impact site, as well. This par fpr the course .... a photo taken just beyond the debris field is supposed to represent that the firemen were on scene and there was no debris, not even debris from any explosion (plane or otherwise?) ... give me a break! Camera angle and distance from the building are the two most deciding factors as to what is not being seen in Jack's photo illustration. Thesxe are the same types of 'rush to judgment' mistakes that have been made of the JFK film and photo alteration claims. Bill