Bill Miller

All of the JFK aides are accounted for in the several photos Stoughton took of the swearing-in, except for General McHugh, who is known to have stayed with the coffin (and wanted everyone on the plane to know he was going to do so), and would therefore be party to the theft. Wasn't Dave Powers on that filght?

There was a decoy casket, but not at Parkland. I believe the only possible time the body could have been stolen was during the swearing-in ceremony. Indeed the need to steal the body has to be the only reason there was a swearing-in at all. It was a completely unnecessary delay, with LBJ lying when he said that RFK told him to take the oath in Dallas. Why would anyone tell him that?

After the body was placed in the casket, when was it possible to steal it at Parkland? Since Rike said he was with it the whole time, was he in on the conspiracy? Also, there was only one way out of the room. I recall reading somewhere that everyone was asked to leave the E.R. area where JFK was ... my memory tells me it was about 15 - 30 minutes in duriation, but its been too long ago to be certain. Anyway, there obviouskly was a decoy coffin involved because Boswell (at BNMH) admitted to Dennis David that it was the casket that David's team brought into the morgue that had the President's body in it. I believe Dennis told me that this admission by Boswell came on the Monday following the assassination weekend. Gary Mack tells me of another 'scuffle' that took place at Parkland, as well. Gary said, "The Parkland scuffle was the Secret Service vs. local FBI agent Doyle Williams, who is now deceased. His report about the incident is at NARA. Hoover called the Dallas office and ordered someone to be present in the room, if at all possible. Williams tried to enter the operating room and, for some reason, was thrown to the floor by the SS. Apparently he was told to stand back and he refused. We interviewed him several years ago telling his story for a local 1/2 hour program called, JFK: The Torch Is Passed. Unfortunately, the Museum has not yet made it available on home video. In it, Williams showed his copy of his report to HQ. Williams, who drove the replica limo for the May 1964 FBI Dealey Plaza re-creation, is now deceased." Gary reminds me that the Rose incident was more of a shouting match and some possible back and forth movement of the casket. Bill

Antti, I don't believe the scuffle was an attempt on anyones part so to distract - certainly not on Earl Rose's part. I believe the scuffle came about when Rose was about to take an empty coffin and the SS was not going to have any part that. Bill

James Altgens is the name of the man you are asking about. Below is what he testified about concerning that moment you see in the Zapruder film .... Bill Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good close-up of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera. Because, you see, even up to that time I didn't know that the President had been shot previously. I still thought up until that time that all I heard was fireworks and that they were giving some sort of celebration to the President by popping these fireworks. It stunned me so at what I saw that I failed to do my duty and make the picture that I was hoping to make.

"That's great Bill, (and Jack). Bill What is the exact size of that crop in real life? I know the Moorman was small, like only a couple of incehes square or something like that." Here is a image I saved from Moorman's photo that shows emulsion grain ........

what are you whinning about now? -- you bounce around like a puppet on a string.... course we're all familiar with LONE NUTTER dodging and weaving, especially when the going gets rough....but don't let that slow you down David, I believe there was a conspiracy, so when you address my remarks - don't waste everyone's time talking about LNrs and how the going gets tough ... save that nonsense for the looney forum for it has nothing to do with you stating to this forum that you have not seen any proof of alteration in the Zapruder film. Bill

I do not recall any of the above, so I checked with Jim Fetzer. He replied: "This is nonsense. I have an extremely low opinion of Bill Miller and his approach to the study of the case. I would never have considered inviting him and most certainly did not! You may say so on my behalf on the forum. This is a false and fabricated claim." Another lie of "Miller/Peters" exposed. Jack Jack, just so to remind you old timers who cannot seem to keep their history straight ... Fetzer was still affilated with Lancer's conference when he contacted me about presenting and it was before you two got banned from ever presenting there again ... so just so you know ... I wasn't talking about that 'Mickey Mouse' conference that Jim had in Minnesota that took place much later. One more thing ... I'll challenge you two con-men to polygraphs that not only did Fetzer invite me to speak at a conference, but that you invited me to come to JFK research the day we met in the plaza and I gave you that Dillard negative. I'll add that I was the same man, wearing the same suit, and having the same haircut as my forum pictures shows despite you trying to tell people I was someone else that you met that day. I'll state that you praised my work once I had been on the JFK Research forum and that it wasn't until I challenged your Moorman in the street claim did your praise for my work stop. The wager: I pass the test - you two forked tongued dumbasses leave the JFK research community for good - I fail, then I'll leave the JFK Research community and even pay for the polygraph. So let's set it up ... I'm ready to take it right now! If the above wager seems to steep for you, then I'll offer the same whereas that when I pass the test - you and Fetzer stop those ridiculous alteration claims - if I fail the test, then I never show another mistake you've made. Either way we go - I'll pass the test and the JFK assassination research community will be better off for it. Bill Miller

and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ David, must I keep reminding you that you have seen the alteration site, just as you read "TGZFH" book and yet you claimed that you have seen no proof of alteration ... so why push a site that obviously didn't convince you of film alteration? You have missed your calling as a politician because you are pretty good at playing both sides of the fence. Bill You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What's you and Jack's word worth, Jim? I think the overlay speaks for itself - don't you! Mark Oakes, who sells autographed photo copies of Moorman's photo for Mary, had asked her what she thought about the claim that she was standing in the street when she took her famous Polaroid. According to Oakes - Mary replied, "I think the whole thing is silly ... I was in the grass."

An enlarged look at the emulsion on the Moorman photo ....

"These photos are reminiscient of Beverly Babushka and The Amazing Yellow Heel, as recently seen at a Forum near you...BTW: Agent Provocateur is someone who incites; Confusion Agent distracts. But, in this case, the lines are blurred - much like the photos themselves and the interpretations. Nonetheless, provocation or confusion, mission accomplished. JG" Photo interpretation is not a science, but rather an art. There are varying degrees in photo and film clarity between photo sources and that is when one has to look for things within the image that tells the observer if the images are consistent to one another. In the comparison below it was the shape of the tops of Jean and Mary's shows against the light colored lower legs that told me that their shoes were visible in the Zapruder film even if the image wasn't sharp. If one is not able to merely view a set of images and detect the similarities, then there is always the option of subjecting them to similar degrees of clarity. The Zapruder film is highly contrasted, shows motion blur, and is a distance from the subjects in questions compared to the close up still photographs that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill took of one another prior to the motorcade on 11/22/63. Below is an example clip showing some of the ways still frame and photos can put compared to one another by creating a set of circumstances that add balance between the set of images being tested. Bill

"well, we know all about who follows jack all over the internet, appears to a lot of us, you lead the pack, why is that?" David, I was not aware that two JFK forums represented "all over the Internet" ... and you wonder why you now have the name "David 'Baghdad Bob' Healy".[/b\ "well, that's not quite the way more than a few of us remember it -- but I'll leave that up to you to explain" How could you remember anything for you were not present in the Plaza when Jack told me about the forum he post on and gave me the invitation to come and check it out. "Where's what? You and Jack post? I could careless whether JSimkin invited you here, he did me too, so what? The issue is attacking Jack, this thread is a prime example, you weren't addressed. Nevertheless you start right in on him... There a fixxation complex going on here? " David ... without going back and looking ... I am sure that I did not respond to this thread until Jack mentioned alteration once again - I have the right to respond to such claims - don't I? And my mentioning Jack and I posting on only two forums together goes to the propaganda that you threw out there by say that I chase Jack all over the Internet. And I am sure that if Simkin goes back and reviews all your responses as a whole and see's that you never actually post real data ... that John probably regrets giving you that invitation. "Miller. You forget who got you started on these boards? We haven't!" I don't know who 'started on' these boards ... what I do know is that Jack has presented claims of photo and film alteration and I have rebutted his claims ... and that after doing so you said to this forum in one of your responses that YOU have not seen any proof of alteration. Now Jack may be too dense to know what you have said in a nutshell, but many of the rest of us do. So you can whine and groan all you like ... you basically have agreed with me that Jack has not proven anything as far as his recent film alteration claims go. You have heard all he has said, you certainly read the book "The Great Zapruder film Hoax" and yet you have posted on this forum that you have not seen anything that proves there was alteration ... end of the story as far as you go. "Proves alteration? Certainly, the film could of been altered. Need to see and test the alledged in-camera Zapruder original. Unless you've had someone holding your hand, you sure haven't had the Z-film tested... So how would you know it wasn't altered? Gary tell you so? .gif animations prove nothing -- then of course, there's a little thing called film/photo provenance -- hell of a stumbling block for what you post -- but if you post-by-the-ton, I guess you can convince others it wasn't altered.... BTW, what's taking Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding so long? I think I know." You talk in circles, David, but I guess that is all one can expect from someone who has never really studied the case. And so you know ... I hear Zavada has not been well, but hopefully he will be better soon. Maybe if you didn't run your mouth so much and listened more ... you would have known that. "You paid buy the mile, or gross internet post tonnage?" Well, considering that I usually answer Jack's claims ... I guess I get the same rate he gets. Bill

Jack, you can't even recall if you have your pants on without looking down to see if you do. The day I met you in the plaza and gave you the Dillard negative was when you asked me if I had ever heard of the JFK Research Forum and invited me to come and check it out. But of course, how would you remember that .... you have said I was someone else in one iof your paranoid 'Miller must be CIA' type of rants. Your memory is as piss-poor as your alteration claims. By the way, it was Fetzer who invited me to speak at a conference in Dallas the following year. We spoke several times on the phone and he mentioned your praises of my work more than once ... maybe his memory is better than yours. Of course, all this took pplace before I spoke out about the alteration fiasco that you people created ... maybe he'll have selected memory loss as well, but for now I will give hinm the benefit of the doubt. Bill

Hey Bill, wear your ouster from JFKResearch as a badge, you were outed -- so move on. Travel on over to alt.conspiracy.jfk -- many oldtime CTer's are being outed, as we speak... they're Lone Neuter's hiding out in CT clothing have been for a looooonnnnggggg time.... guess what, some of THOSE were booted from JFKResearch before you even knew what a negative was ... so rest easy, some here know the game... And who wants a gig, anywhere? What do you think this is, American IDOL? ahhwhen was the last time you did anything for a television camera, that aired in a town with a population over 500? Surely, you've garnered a little tv time? Jack surely has, all over the place... It was a few years ago in Dealey Plaza ... it aired on Channel 9 out of Chicago ... what's your point? Is it your position that because Jack has been on TV in the past that it somehow gives him the right to now make ridiculous claims based on poorly conducted research? Only you would think that! Below is just another example of what you must think Jack has earned the right to do ... I guess Jack must have thought Mary Moorman had hooves like a cow! JACK'S CLAIM CLOSER LOOK SHOWING MOORMAN'S BLACK SHOE IN THE GRASS "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999. =

what's NOT new is about 10 individuals have followed Jack White all over the internet the past few years, actually i think a few have made Jack a fulltime career... but, we know that, don't we? I think lurkers have figured it out... When one needs to post a signature block with "researcher" below ones name, ehh, speaks volumes -- David Healy Driver - I own a car David 'Baghdad Bob' Healy doing what he does best ... I don't know about following Jack all over the Internet, but when have you ever said anything that was accurate. I went to the looney forum because Jack asked me to. Up to the point where I was forced to leave there ... Jack had praised my work and Fetzer had asked me to speak at his conference. It was only at the 11th hour when I spoke up about the mistakes in Jack's claims is when all that changed. This is the second and only forum I have belonged to where Jack post and I am here at John Simkin's invitation, so once again you do not know the facts, but what is new! And what about Jack's critics .... you are the new poster boy for being critical of Jack's claims. You have heard all he has said, you certainly read the book "The Great Zapruder film Hoax" and yet you have posted on this forum that you have not seen anything that proves there was alteration. The only difference in your position and mine is that I go the extra mile to show what mistakes Jack made. Doesn't President Kennedy's murder investigation deserve a thorough and indepth study of the evidence - I think so even if you do not. Bill - I own three cars - so what!

Jack ... Do you not find it odd that of all the photographic analyst who ever studied the assassination that you are the only one who seems to think Newman should be seen in the Zapruder film? You show a photo of an unknown man of unknown height - you take a photo of a passing car in the inside north lane and not in the center lane the Prsident's limo was traveling - and your illustration is cropped so not to show anything that can be tested for scale. I don't think anyone could have purposely set this up so not to have their claim checked ... was that your intention because it seems to be a consistent behavior pattern in your nearly all your illustrations. I mean how hard would it have been to have asked someone to stand in Newman's place and take on his posture as seen in the Nix, Muchmore, and Moorman images so to test what should be seen with a car in the middle lane and with the camera on zoom as Zapruder's was. This type of criticism is nothing new to you for it dates back to the looney forum days. One would think that when a shotty way of illustrating a point is brought to light that you would want to do everything possible in the future to keep that from being said about your work ever again, but not you! You continually make the same shooty mistakes over and over and then act like you're being picked on. As a seasoned researcher - you have an obligation to be more thorough and to set an example for others by promoting responsible investigative research practices. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Did you read Mantik clearly, Bill? You have quoted him incorrectly. Here's what he wrote: "Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen before the motorcade sequence in the extant film" (emphasis added). There is a difference, Bill, between "before" and "in." Thanks for the correction, Ron. I had copied and pasted the quote as it was given to me by Royce Bierma for he was giving me excerpts from the book ... I had loaned my copy out long ago and it never found its way back. I guess that it is a moot point whether it was 'during/in or before' considering the motorcade sequence was not within the first couple of inches on the film reel. You ran an incorrect statement by those several researchers. You should go back and apologize to them for wasting their time. I accept the responsibility for the allowing the wrong word to get into the quote for even if I got it that way from anopther researcher, I still am responsible in a way for its accuracy. However, it was an error that didn't make any difference because before could mean in the frame(s) just before the motorcade sequence and either way, Mantik is incorrect. He was also incorrect to assume that all film is loaded in light. I also found out through my inquiry that labs will often times remove the fog frames when they slit the film. That is not to say that is what happen in this case, but it was wrong for Mantik to have assumed that it should always be seen on a film. According to the link, the HSCA used stereoscopy to try to show that JFK and Connally were in the right positions to make the single bullet theory work. It was not used to check for authenticity. You say it can be used for that, but since the HSCA used it to promote utter nonsense I have to wonder. I will have to speak to Groden about that for it was he who told me that he DID use stereoscoping on the autopsy photos in 1978 while with the HSCA.. As you pointed out however, the process was used to determine other factors, as well. Unless I am mistaken, didn't Mantik use this same idea when he looked at the autopsy photos so to tell if they had been altered? I don't know. I haven't read all of Mantik. Maybe someone can help here - for I specfically recall Mantik talking about his work on the autopsy photos by way of stereoscoping ... it was on a show I watched. Did he discuss the head wounds in the latter MWKK episodes? The Zapruder film has emulsion grain on it. To alter an image within that small piece of film, one would need to transfer the 8MM film onto 35MM film so to enlarge the image to a point where one could do the alterations. 35MM film also has emulsion grainson it and when the altered image is sent back to 8MM size ... it now has more than double the emulsion grains it had beforehand. This would be another give away to an expert in detecting such things. It certainly would be noticeable to even a laymen had only select frames been altered, while others remained in their original condition. That sounds like a good point. You don't cite any source and I'm not qualified to agree or disagree. That's the trouble with me and photography. I don't know. A simple search on Google under the name "emulsion" will give you all the information you want on the subject. I don't know if you recall my going back and forth with Duncan one time about his assertion that the alleged floating cop torso at the fence line had been washed out. I told him that alike colors will look the same on a B&W photo ... for instance, Jackie's pink suit in Moorman's photo matched the color of the sky, the wall, and other things that were known to be a different color in the real world. In that discussion I had made enlargements of cropped areas from within Moorman's photo. Those enlargements showed little dots all over the photograph ... that was the emulsion grain. Different size films will have diferen emulsion grain patterns and when two images are supperimposed onto one another - their emulsion grains are also multiplied and this would be noticeable under extreme magnification when compared to other film frames that were still in their original condition. If I come across my Moorman drum scan - I will illustrate this for everyone. Now in closing, you stated or implied earlier that alterationists deliberately mislead. I will agree with you, at least in that I found what appears to be a case of it in Mantik's article. I'm disappointed that you missed it. In arguing that Moorman took her photo (as if she took only one) in the street, Mantik quotes this excerpt from an interview: Moorman: . . . (Jean Hill), as the car approached us, she did holler for the president, “Mr. President, look this way!” And I’d stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And . . . Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think “rifle shot?” Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn’t know what was wrong. Then Mantik writes, “These are Moorman’s own words—she stepped into the street to take her Polaroid picture.” Now come on, Mantik. She stepped into the street to take a Polaroid picture. Surely Mantik knows that Moorman took more than one photo, and that in the very excerpt he’s quoting she says she stepped back onto the grass after the second shot. The fatal head shot hadn’t been fired yet and she of course wasn’t through taking pictures. Now that kind of crap doesn’t necessarily mean that Mantik or other alterationists are wrong about everything. But it sure as hell doesn’t enhance their cause or credibility. I am just glad that Hoffman or Greer didn't get caught doing it. You are also correct about Moorman taking other pictures. Remember, it was I who told White, Fetzer, and Mantik that Moorman's camera height was above the cycles in her famous photo. They gave Moorman around a 54" lens height and the cycles stood 58" tall to the tops of their windshields. Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of those cycles windshields passing by her. That one major point was overlooked by White, Fetzer, and Mantik and I have yet to hear one of hem acknowledge its relevancy. Mary either stood on a box in the street or was standing back up over he curb as all the assassination films and photos show.The one photo that Moorman did take from within the street was the McBride photo. In that photo we see that her camera is looking at the people across the street through the cycles windshields and not over the top of them as the number 5 photo shows. ALTGENS PHOTO SHOWING BREHM, HILL, AND MOORMAN'S SHADOWS BEING CAST ONTO THE CURB AND STREET Bill

Did you read Mantik clearly, Ron? Here is a quote from MIDP that Mantik wrote ... "Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen in the motorcade sequence in the extant film." Now I have run that statement by several researchers and they all said that Mantik has implied that fog should have been seen in the motorcade sequence. I assume Mantik said this because he didn't note that the reel Zapruder was shooting from had already had home movies ahead of the Dealey Plaza footage, but regardless of his options for excuses - HE SAID IT NEVERTHELESS! Now let me share some more information with you that Mantik didn't feel necessary to tell you. Did you know that film will not always have fog detectable on the first few inches of the reel. There are people who will load their film in a dark place so not to allow light to get to their film, but when they load their cameras in a lighted area - they can expect 'fog' on the first couple of inches of the film. So if someone ever assumes that all films should show loading fog - they would be incorrect. Now there is a sure fire way that is known to photo analyst to tell if an image has been altered by placing something onto the film that wasn't originally there. The process is called a 3D examination. My understanding is that while Jack doesn't mention doing it to the suspected frames that he contends is altered ... I am willing to bet that he has seen Z312 and Z313 by way of this method. What happens is that by looking at one frame with one eye and the other frame with the other eye ... you will accomplish a 3D effect. What this accomplishes is exposing any areas that were added to the film after its original exposure. For instance, if the bone plate was painted onto the film as you have suggested, then by way of the 3D examination process, one would see the alteration hanging above the original image ... in this case it would be the painted on bone plate floating above the image of JFK's head. If the bone plate is part of the original image, then it will not be floating above JFK's head, but rather be right down on it as it should be. Gary Mack reminds me that the HSCA photo panel examined the JFK autopsy photos - and possibly the Z film - this same way, according to either the panel's report and/or their public testimony. I believe the term used was "Steroscopy". http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0012b.htm Unless I am mistaken, didn't Mantik use this same idea when he looked at the autopsy photos so to tell if they had been altered? FOG DOES NOT ALWAYS MAKE IT ONTO A FILM - Now let me share some more information with you that Mantik didn't feel necessary to tell you. Did you know that film will not always have fog detectable on the first few inches of the reel. There are people who will load their film in a dark place so not to allow light to get to their film, but when they load their cameras in a lighted area - they can expect 'fog' on the first couple of inches of the film. So if someone ever assumes that all films should show loading fog - they would be incorrect. THE 3D EXAMINATION - Now there is a sure fire way that is known to photo analyst to tell if an image has been altered by placing something onto the film that wasn't originally there. The prcoss is called a 3D examination. My understanding is that while Jack doesn't mention doing it to the suspected frames that he contends is altered ... I am willing to bet that he has seen Z312 and Z313 by way of this method. What happens is that by looking at one frame with one eye and the other frame with the other eye ... you will accompplish a 3D effect. What this accomplishes is exposing any areas that were aded to the film after its original exposure. For instance, if the bone plate was painted onto the film as you have suggested, then by way of the 3D examination process, one would see the alteration hanging above the original image ... in this case it would be the painted on bone plate floating above the image of JFK's head. If the bone plate is part of the original image, then it will not be floating above JFK's head, but rather be right down on it as it should be. Unless I am mistaken, didn't Mantik use this same idea/process when he looked at the autopsy photos so to tell if they had been altered? I'm pretty sure that he mentions looking at them in 3D. THE BUILDING UP OF EMULSION GRAINS The Zapruder film has emulsion grain on it. To alter an image within that small piece of film, one would need to transfer the 8MM film onto 35MM film so to enlarge the image to a point where one could do the alterations. 35MM film also has emulsion grainson it and when the altered image is sent back to 8MM size ... it now has more than double the emulsion grains it had beforehand. This would be another give away to an expert in detecting such things. It certainly would be noticeable to even a laymen had only select frames been altered, while others remained in their original condition. Bill

Why ... because if Mantik is making claims on false assumptions, then he is misleading people like yourself who look at what he says and just assumes he knows what he is talking about. Alteration claims seem to be born from false assumptions and are designed to mislead the ignorant. Bill

"Mantik doesn't claim that loading fog should be seen in the motorcade sequence. Why would he? He calls it "loading" fog for a reason (he also calls it "initial" fog), it only appears at the beginning of a film, or the "pre-motorcade segment," which Mantik says was cut out of certain copies. " Ron - the motorcade doesn't start at the begining of the film reel ... Zapruder had shot home movies on the reel long before going to the plaza, then there was Sitzman next to the Hester's and then the motorcade. If I understand Groden correctly, the loading fog comes into play at the beginning of a reel ... not each time the camera is stopped and started again. Bill

I've just been reading Mantik's chapter on the Z film in Murder in Dealey Plaza, and he addresses this issue on p. 349. What he says sounds reasonable to me. This is the start of my look into the question of authenticity, and Mantik himself says there are objections to the Z film alteration notion "some of which admittedly cannot be answered easily or with finality." That may be the bottom line in the end. While some alternation scenarios go over the top IMO, the question of whether any part of the film could have been altered effectively may be ultimately unanswerable. So what else is new in the JFK assassination. Let's address one of the things Dr. Mantik said about his belief that the Zapruder film may be altered .... Mantik writes, "Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen in the motorcade sequence in the extant film." Mantik then explains that there is no loading fog because the part of the film where Zapruder and Sitzman and Hester are filmed before the motorcade, had been cut off. The first thing I would like to know is whether Mantik sought to find out if the other home movies of Zapruder's had "loading fog" and if so, should it really be seen in the motorcade sequences as Mantik claims. It would seem important to me for Mantik to test his conclusion just to be sure he had his facts straight. If there was no loading fog seen in other reels of film that Zapruder had shot, then it would appear that Mantik was in partial error which allowed him to inccorectly tell his readers something that wasn't totally factual. I then went to Groden (a photographical expert) to find out if Mantik had gotten it right concerning when 'loading fog' should be seen in a film. Groden writes, "This is only true at the beginning of the film, and only for a few inches on the outer winds of the film. The anti-hilation backing layer built into the film prevents the light from fogging the film past that point. Period! Past the firat foot, you would never see fogging. In fact, the opening home movie section of the film in Zapruder's back yard DOES have fogging." Mantik failed to mention this in his article ... it appears that Dr. Mantik wasn't aware of an anti-hilation backing layer built into the film that prevents the light from fogging the film past the first several inches. I hope that now you understand why I said in a previous post that I wouldn't go to Groden for my medical advice ... because along the same line of thinking ... I wouldn't want to rely on a medical doctor for my photographical advice. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

I didn't use any scaling process except what is built into my eyesight. The pinkish area looks like it could be the explosion of blood seen in Z313. It extends too far out from his head to be the flap. In fact I don't know what it is. It looks like some sort of artifact in the image. Something has been done to this image, has it not? This looks to me like film alteration. I see nothing like this in the clip I've watched or in the frames I have saved. There are other places in the image with the same pink color. What are those pink blotches scattered through the grass of the knoll? Are those all blood or pieces of bone plate? How can that be? The frame from Muchmmore came from Groden's DVD and a Gif I made long ago before any of this foolishness stuff ever came up. Bill

In the past when these unfounded claims by the alterationist have been met with cross checking other films and photos - their responses was that these other images must also have been altered so to match one another. It never ends with these people. Bill