Bill Miller

"Can't you read? I said "it's even bigger than seen in Z"" Thanks for pointing out my error and I have since corrected it. Hoever, you forgot to mention what scaling process you conducted to make a determination that one flap was larger than the other ... was there an investigative scaling process that you conducted before making a determination? "I was referring to the "bone plate" in Muchmore. A slightly different angle than in Z, is it not?" Thank you ... that is a correct statement and it would effect how big the bone plate looked against JFK's head. The bone plate is at least as wide as the distance from JFK's right ear to a point several inches in front of his nose even when his head is slightly turned away from the camera. The missing chuncks of hair from the top rear portion of JFK's head gives us an idea as to how much cranial space the bone plate covered, thus giving us a better idea of its actual size. Bill

More food for thought .... The alleged painting-in of the bone plate would not have to just occur on one Zframe (Z313), but on each and every frame following the head shot where the President's wound is still visible. As one can see - the frames have various levels of blurring going on idependently of one another and an artist would need to be able to not just paint on a bone plate, but also add the exact amount of blurring to mathematically match that which can be found in each individual film frame. The purposal for pulling this off without detection doesn't even pass the laugh test. Bill

(by the way, i am a professional in the field of editing before any of you go off on my credentials.) Would you like to know where you can buy the Zapruder and Nix films on DVD .... that would allow you to achieve the best captures to work with. Bill

"So: If he Limo had been travelling along the centre this may be how lines extended from the crossbar would be seen on a series of frames." John ... when the limo was gliding down Elm Street it was said to be covering about 11" per Zfilm frame. The limo's speed had been cut in half, if not more when the head shot occurred, so we are talking about it rolling forward 3" to 5" ... hardly enough to effect anything. Bill

"Yes, as strange as it seems, I did check Nix and Muchmore. In Nix the same debris shooting upward and forward seen in the Z film is faintly visible, as is the head snap, but no hint of a flap. " Could it be that the bone plate isn't seen in the Nix film because Jackie is between Nix and JFK and the distance to the limo is too great .... "What the arrow in the still appears to be pointing to is the same red halo of blood seen in Z. If it is actually pointing to the underside of the bone plate or flap, it's even bigger than seen in Z, and also extends too forward, over his forehead, so I seriously doubt that's what it is." Really - you content that the bone plate was too far forward in the Muchmore film and to large to match that in the Zfilm. let me ask you this ... what scaling process did you do to determine the flap was to large in the Muchmore film to match that seen in the Zfilm? Did you consider that the angle at which it was seen from each photographer may make a difference on how big it looks? I have posted a similar clip many times on the forums ... does not the bone plate extend well out over JFK's forehead and face in Z313 before falling down ... Bill

More gibberish. I have not read Groden on this, so how could I not follow him? All I have read is what Mantik says Groden said. Yes, I can follow what Mantik wrote, as long as he's not writing me a prescription, but I have said I cannot address the technical issues he's referring to (he doesn't get technical, he simply refers to them) because I am not qualified. I simply pointed out that Mantik, right or wrong, addresses in a brief and general way the technical issues raised by Groden, a point that you then evaded with something about Moorman. It's sad that you have to twist what people say to try to win a point or advance your argument. I guess that the artist in your view also drew in the underside of the bone-plate in the Muchmore film, as well ... or did you not think to cross check any other films on this matter? Here is another thing to wrestle with ... the bone plate is seen in many Zapruder frames following the head shot. Those frames have different degree's of blurring going on between them ... is it your contention that some artist was able to draw in the bone plate in each frame and get the amount of blurring needed to make the alleged drawing match the data within that frame or is something else you have not considered ... feel free to consult with Mantik's writings if you like. Bill

"Ron I am totally with you on this. I think the "blob" was superimposed on the Zapruder film to hide a front to back rear exit wound, the wound that was seen by the Parkland doctors. Lifton makes it pretty clear that the casket that Jackie Kennedy accompainied was empty and that a black hearse brought JFK's body to Bethesda via the back door." Sherry Gutierrez, blood spatter expert, teaches people like Wecht, Mantik, and etc. on the science of what occurs when a skull is shot and she says the Zapruder film shows EXACTLY what happens when a head is shot from the front. Now tell me how someone painted in an image that just so happens to depict a frontal shot when viewed by a leading blood spatter expert? I think I also mentioned that Kodachrome II film is made for daylight exposure ... this means that anyone painting in a wound on one piece of film would then have to expose that image back onto another roll of Kodachrome II film with artifical light. There would then be a difference in apparence that would be noticeable to an expert. Can anyone offer any evidence that the current Zfilm was exposed to artifical light, which is crucial if one is going to make claims of film tampering? Bill Ron writes: "I pointed out that Mantik addresses this issue, and your response was to make fun of Mantik. That tells me that you can't handle what he says about it. " I think Mantik may be a good doctor, but he is not a photographic expert. I will address his claim once I find where I put that particular copy of Fetzer's book so to be exact and accurate ... you should appreciate that much. I then may consult some photographic experts to be sure I recall correctly what they have told me in the past ... that would be the responsible thing to do in my view. I must also say that I find your ability to follow what Mantik says and not what Groden had to say because according to you it was over your head - to be somewhat interesting. Bill

The proof is in the pudding. I don't understand what I see in the film, so I smell a rat. If someone can reconcile what the film shows with eyewitness testimony from Parkland -- and I wish someone could -- my opinion will be that the film was altered. How or when I don't know -- but my eyes tell me that something is mighty queer. Bill can talk about "bone plates" till the cows come home... Allan Nice analogy, Allan ... if you don't understand something, then one should smell a rat. Should this rule also apply to not understanding how steam engines work, or how they get the ship inside the little bottle, or how planes get their lift so to fly, and so on? Many people don't know how a camera is able to take a picture, thus should they also consider something sinsiter is going on because of this? There are certain things about having to alter a Kodachrome II film that would give the alteration away ... according to experts. They say that those signs are not present on the Zapruder film, so where does that leave us? It's like someone saying that there must be a way to get the yoke out of an egg without penetrating the shell ... don't tell me it can be done - show me ... show the experts. Until then, it is just another chicken little running around yelling the sky is falling because he doesn't understand what's really happening. Bill

It’s like Pavlov’s dog. Jack White posts something on a forum and these same mutts show up and start foaming at the mouth. It’s just soooo predictable. Ron W Hello, Ron. I take it that because it is Jack that we should just ignore his mistakes. That if he uses a film frame of MPI's and calls it Z380, when in fact MPI had made a mistake in their numbering and this is why MPI's Z380 doesn't match N90 like it should, we should just ignore it and allow others who wouldn't know any better to remain misinformed. Got you, but no dice. ...... That would hardly make this an 'education forum' if we did that. Bill

(PS I don't conced that I'm wrong about the head turn etc.I concede you have raised an important point which I'm looking into. This will take a bit of time as I'm making a number enhancements and clips out of which one set will have to do. Perhaps the result will be an agreement with what you say, perhaps not... and so on.) No problem, John. Another thought .... The limo's crossbar is turning away from Zapruder with each frame. You also have a bullet slamming into his skull and alegedly twisting it in the same direction as the crossbar is turning ... now does it make sense that his face would still be seen in virtually the same profile in Z314 as it was in Z312 .... I say that is beyond the realm of plausible and that the head didn't really twist in Z313. Bill

Miller fails to inform you that the "GAP" was created by persons unknown in Tink's famed "drum scan". The rest of the story: Jack - how do you sleep at night saying such things? Open Groden's book "TKOAP" and look at his copies of the Moorman photo - the gap is present in each one of them and they are not of drum scans. It is amazing at the things you are willing to say to keep from admitting you were in error. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

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. Isn't that the same Mantik that assisted in getting the view above and then proclaimed that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid because he, Fetzer, and White had found the correct line of sight from Moorman's location to the pedestal. A picture speaks a thousand words they say .... see above. Bill

What needs to be considered is the changes in direction indicated by the cross bar. IOW if there is no change of direction on a level surface then a line indicating the alignment on the cross bar (on properly aligned frames) will have a common vanishing point. IMO: While viewing the frames individually gives an idea. One needs to properly align the frames check the relative angles of the crossbar frame by frame in order to get a correct view of limo direction of travel Does that make sense? I think it would make good sense if we were dealing with an actual head trun like you had first thought and if were were looking over many frames. The fact still remains that JFK's head didn't really make that abrubt twist as you first thought when Z312 and Z314 are examined and overlaid onto one another. The direction of travel could not have changed very much within 2/18ths of a second and with the limo barely rolling - don't you think? The FBI said that when the car was coming down the street that it was moving forward at 11" per film frame. At the time JFK was fatally shot ... the limo was nearly stopped, so just how much turning could Greer have accomplished at that point ... I think that it is almost nill, thus it has little to nothing to do with the bend in the street over those three film frames. So what I am saying is that I cannot see how it is possible that JFK could have had his head vilolently wrenched to the side and come back to center within one film frame adn then consider the cars line of travel in two to three frames with the limo at a near standstill in the street. Bill

My ignorance of photography has nothing to do with witnesses who were liars and unreliable. They made themselves liars and unreliable, I had nothing to do with it. My experience is that not every witness is going to remember everything the same - some may even be incorrect about some things and/or changed their mind - but not every witness is incorrect about everything they saw and when they have a film that supports their observations, then the researcher has the responsibility to investigate the validity of the film right down to the extent as whether it could have been altered in the way that he theorizes. As I have stated, I have not gotten that far, I'm in the process of researching the JFK assassination, as I have been doing for several years. Well, I think that before I started claiming the Zfilm a fraud and those witnesses liars on the point concerning the skull flap/bone plate .... I would investigate some things beforehand so to be certain of my allegations. And so we are clear - I am not saying that you need to 'shut-up" as you put it. It is up to each person to set their own standards of research and you have made yours clear to me. Bill

I think that you also forgot the Zapruder film ... for if it was not altered, then all your nonsense is for nothing. I find it unbelievable that you would make such a claim about the Zfilm and call all those witnesses liars and unreliable while in the same breath admitting that you know nothing more about photography other than pushing a button on a camera to take a picture. And if you know nothing more about photography other than pushing a button on a camera so to take a picture, then how unresponsible is it as a researcher to not have consulted those experts who could have explained educated you one way or the other about the possibilities that you proclaim? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

The core issue is, there was no such massive flap observed or found at Parkland according to the credible evidence, and I'm trying to resolve how that could be. The number of answers is pretty damn limited. Baxter mentioned the flap seen at Parkland ... you just shoose to ignore him. Also, the alteration supporters have not addressed the transfer issues that Groden set forth to me. Bill

Jim, I think Craig is at a point where he is tired of the shotty efforts put forth by those claiming to be authoritive on the subject of Zfilm alteration. Craig is a photo expert when it comes to understanding the inner-workings of photograqphy and that is where the probablities of the Zfilm being altered end ... he just wants those who think otherwise to debate him with using actual facts and known data, which doesn't seem to ever happen. Bill

John ... no problem for I know your interest is sincere and must be right in your mind or it will nag at you. I demonstrate the slight rortation of the crossbar between these frames for your consideration. Bill

This does further damage to his credibility, if I understand correctly where Hoffman was at the time. He was north of the limo as it passed, and JFK was lying flat with his head pointed south. Hoffman was on the northwest side of the underpass and looking straight down into the limo as it passed underneath him. I really cannot tell you what Jackie was doing as the car rolled under the Stemmons Freeway, nor can I tell you how JFK's head was position at tha exact moment ... I am afraid I'd have to rely on someone who was there ... like Hoffman. By the way, I posted some things in the past that would have had to of taken place had the Zapruder film of been altered because of the type of film Zapruder used. I mentioned how the transfering of Kodachrome II 8MM film to 35MM film and back again to 8MM would show distinguishable color and contrast changes, yet none of this is present on the Zapruder film espcially in the immediate frames concerning the head shot and woundIt seems to me that if you are going to lay claim that the bone plate seen on the Zapruder film is some form of an alteration, then you must be prepared to adress how such a transfer process could have been done and the results gone unnoticed despite what the experts have said. You see, Ron ... what you have done is little more than make a claim like someone saying to a group of people that a murder has taken place when the person you claim was murdered is actually standing there with the others listening to you. To even begin to debunk a witnesses credibility over seeing something that is supported by the Zapruder film - one must explain how the impossible is possible. The sum of all this is that you believe the story of a witness who never got his story straight about whether the assassins he said he saw nonchalantly hung around to fool people, or took off running for the railroad yards. You say he somehow saw a wound like in the Z film before he ever saw the Z film. You can't prove that, it's what he and/or his family or someone else told you. What is the first thing an investigator will do once hearing a witnesses descripotion of an event ... he or she seeks colloberation. Had has not only the colloberation he needs, but he also has a Kodoachrome II film that shows absolutely no signs of alteration according to the experts. Now weigh that against all the supposition in the world and see where it gets you! And you know something else? As hard as you've tried you can't prove Gordon Arnold was on the grassy knoll either. But you accuse me of going by suppositions and not facts. But that's okay, carry on. I think to have had Gordon Arnold's claim proven to you .. you first have to have the ability to not only follow, but to also be able to understand the evidence. Gordon, like Hoffman, has colloberted evidence to suuport what he said. Both men had photographic evidence to support what they had said. Bill To also address Robin's reply where he writes: Excuse Me. I wasn't aware i was participating in this discussion. Robin, I apologise and have corrected the error in my post. It was one of those instances where I meant to be writing out one persons name and thinking of another. Bill

Kinda tough to swallow isn't it? There are those that just don't buy the WC story, nor certain segments of the Zapruder film... course if you discount eyewitness testimony, especially testimony from Parkland MD's who treated JFK -- only then would you have a leg to stand defending the Z-film... So what you 'guess' was addressed, remains a open question.... After all these years I've never heard anyone ask, "...what should of been in the Z-film?" Its alway's, "so, who shot him from the front...? Not lack of knowledge as you profess, just common sense, champ! David, are you not capable of writing anything other than a few say-nothing disjointed sentences? How many times do I have to remind you that "YOU" have not seen anything that proves photo and film alteration, so why are you wasting my time. I don't buy the WC story either and I spend a great deal of time researching and creating clips to show the viewer why I say what I do. However, to date, as you also have acknowledged, no one has shown any proof that the Zapruder film is altered. I've heard people say that there should be bullets seen flying through the air in the Zfilm - details of the avulsed bones in the hair on the back of JFK's head should be seen - and so on ... but it is their lack of knowledge of the camera Zapruder used, as well as the type of film Z used that prevented him from capturing such details. And what common sense are you talking about ... because what ever it is - it never demonstrated to you that the Zfilm had been altered because that is what you have said to this forum. Your disjointed ramblings appear to be double talking ... so any time you decide to present a case for alteration, expect to be thorough about it and to have your own words come back and bite you on the rear. Bill

What I'm after is facts, like Joe Friday. If facts don't bear out the hypothesis I'm exploring, I'll drop it, in which case it will never become a "theory." I like to fancy that I'm following the scientific method. No, Ron ... you are not following facts, just implementing suppositions on your part. The fact is that Hoffman said he saw the top of JFK's head ... Ed goes as far as to place his hand on his own head where he said the wound was. You then go from that to supposing he was talking about the occipital part of the skull. And the reference to jello was because he brain tissues were shaking like jello does when moved. Once he had acted out exactly what happened for TMWKK, you would think he would have worked things out well enough by 1992 that he could make clear through a professional interpreter that he meant walk, moving in a relatively slow and casual fashion, and not run (as he had told the FBI in a letter) as if making a getaway. Interpretation is just that ... it is not 100% accurate. I would take Ed's acting out what he saw over someone trying to interpret what he meant. I recall going around and around with a guy once because Holland said Connally was driven down into the floor when shot. This guy was implying the Zfilm was altered because Connally is never seen in the floorboard of the limo. Ed's daughter can sign and knows Ed far better than any interpreter and she even had trouble relaying exactly what Ed was saying at times ... and Ed became quite irritated over it when he caught such instances happening. You can call it crap, but I see it as the crux of whether he was making up a story or not. I don't consider the described MO of JFK's assassins to be irrelevant crap. Yeh right, Ron. The bone plate coming off the top of JFK's head never happened. Hoffman lied about seeing a wound that just so happened to be seen publicly on the Zfilm 15 years later. Newman actually saw JFK's ear fly off ... etc. If he did see JFK's head, what did he see? Did he say he saw an open flap? He is quoted by Sloan as saying "the side of the president's head looked like a bowl of Jell-O." Since JFK at the time was lying more or less face down, either on the seat or in Jackie's lap and depending on how soon Jackie would have obscured any wound with her hands, what Hoffman may well have seen is remaining brains and blood in the gaping occipitoparietal hole in JFK's head, i.e. the right rear of and part of the "side" of his head. The Z film flap could have nothing to do with it (particularly if there wasn't one there). More factless supposition BTW Hoffman also said he saw JFK's foot hanging over the side of the car. A lot of people thought that from a published photo. Whether Hoffman saw it live or in a photo, it was Clint Hill's foot. So what if Hoffman saw JFK's foot or Hill's foot in a photo ... it has nothing to do with him describing independently a wound that other witness had claimed to see. Bill

"If these are the best images available I think there is reason to think the texture of the shirt, the cut of the collar, the lay of the shirt on the body, where it's buttoned, indicate a closer match to Lees than Billys clothing." There are better prints and I will try and find the clip I created using one such print showing without a doubt that the man in the doorway was wearing Lovelady's plaid shirt. Bill