Bill Miller

"I don't consider that is the chin, because: a close look at the movie in that area indicates to me that this is the shadow of the head extending over the shirt cuff or Jackies hand (white gloves??)." Well, John ... lets get that myth out of the way right off for the sun was in the southwest shining from Jackie to JFK. That makes it impossible for JFK to cast a shadow onto Jackie. Bill SHADOWS CAST AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION

John, If JFK's head turned to his left upon being shot ... would one not expect the amount of visible hair width on his neck to grow larger as the head rotated away from the camera ........ and would not also his protruding chin in profile in Z312 disappear if the President turned away from the camera? While the hairline does blur ... it looks to narrow - the chin in your animated movie remains in profile which would tell me that no twisting of the head occurred ... if an ything it may have twisted to the right - would you not agree when these points are considered or am I missing something? Bill

While David Healy is off looking for Gary Mack to cite the source for the average running speed for the Nix camera - the rest of you can find the source and information on page 190 of Richard Trask book called "Pictures of the Pain". Trask says it was the "FBI" who gave the 18.5 fps average running speed for the Nix film. Bill

David, I would just as soon that you don't give me anything ... credit or otherwise for having one's name associated with yours can only ruin one's reputation. However, now that you have jumped into another thread as if you know something and as usual I am sure that you'll not add anything of value to show that you do .... each film frame captures a moment in time with degree's of time in between that are not captured. Whether one says the Nix film ran at 18.3 fps or 18.5 fps ... is it your intention to try and create something out of nothing by arguing over .2 fps, thus who really cares where the 18.5 fps came from. By the way, where were you when Jack posted a known misnumbered MPI Zframe ... I would think that was a bigger deal than worrying about .2 fps of a film speed. Let me add this as well ... even if every camera ever made ran at 18.3 fps - that would not mean that the assassination films of the shooting are capturing the exact moments in time. The only way one could hope for a perfect match between films would be if they all started at the precise moment. Imagine a drummer hitting his drum on the up beat and another on the down beat. The same could happen with movie cameras as to when their user actually pushed the start button. The film from what I gather can also vary its speed through the camera, especially with cameras that were spring loaded. While you don't know crap about the evidence of the case - you can still read, can't you? The figures were cited as coming from Gary Mack, so email Gary and inquire about the numbers from him. That email address is GMack@JFK.ORG Bill

I agree with Jason, there are no apperant disrepancies between the two frames. Len There is one problem with Jack's claim that is worth noting before doing anything else .... Jack used the MPI Z380 and didn't account for MPI's misnumbering of the frames. Below is the MPI frame Jack used against the correct frame created by Costella. It was Gary Mack who pointed out MPI's numbering mistake long ago and I assume that Jack was aware of it, but simply had forgotten about it. I would however, recommend to Jack that before making any more alteration claims that he at least makes sure that his information is correct before starting! To be even more precise, Gary Mack offered me some information in the past and once again today that calculates the timing of these two films (the Zapruder and Nix films). Gary has permitted me to share it with other researchers. Gary said - "To analyze the two films properly, one needs to know the common head shot frame numbers and the exact speed of the cameras. In this case, the head shot frames are N23 and Z313. The Zapruder camera ran at 18.3fps, whereas Nix' camera ran at 18.5fps. Therefore, N90 @ 18.5fps = (90-23/18.5) or 67/18.5 = 3.62 seconds after the head shot. 3.62 seconds x 18.3 = 66.3 Zapruder frames, which means the Zapruder frame equivalent to Nix90 must be 313 + 66.3 = 379/380" Gary went on to say, "Note that Hill's left hand moves forward in those two Zapruder frames and, considering the angle from which Nix was filming, Hill's hand would appear to Nix to be touching Jackie's arm." I certainly agree with what Gary had said and I understand it perfectly. Jason also hit the nail on the head in part. Jason recognized the differences caused by "perspective". The Zapruder frame in question shows plenty of space between Jackie's head and Hill's, yet the Nix film shows the two heads right up to one another. The angle at which these two films are shot is the key to the differences in time and space (provided one doesn't use a source like Jack did that has the frames numbered improperly). Main Entry: perspective Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, probably modification of Old Italian prospettiva, from prospetto view, prospect, from Latin prospectus -- more at PROSPECT 1 a : the technique or process of representing on a plane or curved surface the spatial relation of objects as they might appear to the eye; specifically : representation in a drawing or painting of parallel lines as converging in order to give the illusion of depth and distance b : a picture in perspective Jackie's left hand looks to be only inches away from the passenger side hand hold on the back of the trunk when in reality it is much further away - its all related to perspective which to some people like Jack ... it gives a false impression of distances and depth if they do not consider its importance. One last thing ... if people who disagree with Jack are "The provocateurs", then what would one call those people like Jack who continually make the same mistakes over and over again ... "The incompetenteurs"? Bill

I've been trying to isolate headwound from blood mist, and yes, I see the wound as you say. However, a determination of exact head pose at this point seems to me to be crucial. I'll post on why I choose to see the head as I have described. Suffice to say for now is that I think it is possible to see no disparity between the autopsy photos and what the frame shows here. (Maybe I've just gotten used to seeing it that way, but I definitely can see the head snapping to the right and twisting to the anti clockwise.) John, invert the frames which may allow you to see the mist pattern better. Email me at Imsjle@aol.com and I will send you the frames I used. I will also have better ones soon once I find a disc I have misplaced. A computer crash caused me to lose the ones I had on my hard drive. Bill

The first frame of the zfilm showing the limo has her already past the pool. IOW there is a gap of no cross referencing there. There are frames where people step out in road and back again in just a few frames. There are major shifts in where people are over such gap periods. The last of the towner frames is not so easy to fix, but I think it may be just before the first of the z. Therefore a gap again. This one would convince me something may be wrong, however, until then its just an idea. The edge of the kerb of houston is easy to locate by looking at the feet of the people in the early zfilm frames pre limo. This shows people standing on the road and carrying through the kerb location to later frames where there is too many people there to be sure, again shows people on the road. at a slow rate due to family commitments for a few more weeks) Another example at how people appear stacked against one another when seen at an angle is to look at the Willis and Betzner photos showing the people along near the Stemmons sign and then look at them again in the Bronson slide .... same folks - they just look spaced differently from different angles.

Thanks greatly, Ed. I appreciate your agreement with the facts. Note I said FACTS, not my opinion. The provocateurs have a hard time disagreeing with FACTS. For instance, about a month ago I posted my studies on the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman. There was TOTAL SILENCE from the provocateurs. They did not dare confront the FACTS. For instance, attached is a study of the MOORMAN PHOTO USING ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE PEDESTAL (these are factual things). Applying the pedestal measurements to the Moorman photo, we see that Mr. Zapruder is FOUR FEET TEN INCHES TALL. This is not my opinion...it is a fact. Zapruder's daughter says he was FIVE FEET ELEVEN. Conduct your OWN calculations. If you come up with a 5'11" Zapruder, let me know. Even if I am off an inch or two, does it matter? Whom do you believe...the provocateurs or your own eyes? Let's see how many of the provocateurs reply to this message. Thanks, Ed...for speaking up. Jack Jack - Don't get too excited that you won over Ed for he is the guy who posted the tree foliage shadows on the fence from Moorman's #5 Polaroid and claimed it to be cops with cameras filming the assassination ... I will be happy to post that fiasco once again if you need to be reminded of it. Your non-moving people claim is ridiculous and it seems I have posted overlaid Zframes on this forum in the past showing that you are simply wrong. Once again you call the people along the north side of Elm street "virtually motionless for several seconds" ... let me point out that the time frame on your example goes from Z130 to Z138 which is just under 1/2 of a second. By overlaying those two points in time on top of one another and putting them in motion ... let us see how "virtually motionless" they really are! Virtually motionless you say .... HOGWASH! I'll even explain why those people were not milling around like those on the south side of Elm Street ... it is because they were already in position and looking for the President to come down the street towards them. The people on the other side of the street were watching the President come down Houston Street and several followed his car by walking the sidewalk area as the limo rounded onto Elm. others who were looking up Houston Street had merely turned around between those two points in time as their attention was on seeing the President. By the way, why is it that you atuomatically refer to people who disagree with your poor evaluations - "provocateurs"? You refered to others who will not accept your conclusion about the "virtually motionless" people as provocatuers and yet it is you who was dead wrong once again, so now maybe you can come up with a name we can give you - you think? I am also pretty sure that your Zapruder pedestal study has been addressed in the past and should be somewhere in the forums archives ... someone can correct me if I am wrong. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

John - this is what I came up with so far in bringing Z312 over the top of Z313. I watch the area of his hairline near his neck in the back and I am having trouble seeing any real change, thus not seeing his head turn other than the slight rotation of the limo between frames. However, can you see the avulsion of the bones to the right back side of his head? The back side of the head was shaded away from the sun, but where the bones opened upward - they become illuminated, thus allowing the sun to separate them from the rest of the back of the head in shadow. While this will be hard for some to see and rightly so because of the camera film speed that the incident was captured at - it does seem to add support to what the Parkland doctors said about the bones on the right back of the head being sprung open. Bill

John, in the meantime ... have you checked your conclusion against the Muchmore or Nix films? Bill

John, I see what you are talking about, but the clip may be misleading in the sense that it isn't sized equally from frame to frame. Note how far Jackie shifts on her left side. I will create a better clip that keeps Jackie in place and display it in a day or so once I am back in my office and hopefully we can have a more accurate look at what is going on. Bill

However, here ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=5334 ) we have a widening of the distance between the wound and the back of the head, and other indicators, if one lets ones eyes rove over the head outline, thet indicates a 'unpivoting' in a clockwise direction. The movement to expect as per the pivot you are talking about should be anti clockwise, which then indicates that the pivot here is actually MORE than one actually sees. John, I wish I could view the clip, but it doesn't play for me. Bill

In a bizarre way, it is sort of admirable that he continues to cover for his son. Jack So in your mind ... OJ covered for his son by lying about ever owning Bruno Magli shoes ... that is simply amazing!

I think JFK's head appears to pivot early on much the same way that the crossbar on the limo appears to pivot. I believe this pivot gives a false impression that JFK is continually leaning towards Jackie, but note that the top of his head remains at the level of Jackie's eyebrows. While these frames do not represent the moment of the headshot - I believe the same principals applied all the way through the shooting. Bill

I think you are right and I believe Nicole's family had heard this before. I wouldn't pay much attention to Jack ... you see how he tried to bring in nonsense about 911 to justify his lack of knowledge about what Nicole may or may not have told others. It appears that Jack's conclusions are usually made up of about 10% fact and 90% paranoia. Bill

"It is Miller as usual who does not get it! The photos were altered by the photographer who took them FOR PROFIT. He sold them to THE GLOBE for big bucks after altering the shoes. The photos of course were made long before the crime, but the shoes were altered. It had nothing to do with the crime, but was a guy trying to cash in on the trial by making the shoes appear to be Maglis. Even if OJ owned such shoes (which he denies AND THE PROSECUTION NEVER PROVED) HE PROBABLY DID SHOW UP AT THE CRIME SCENE AFTER JASON CALLED HIM. It is dumb to comment on things where you are not aware of the facts. Jack" Jack, as usual you leave out just enough of the important details to put a spin on what it is you are trying to push onto the reader. Please allow me to cite from USA today .... "SANTA MONICA, Calif. - Jurors Monday saw 30 newly unearthed photographs purporting to show O.J. Simpson wearing the same rare model shoes as the attacker who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend. But Simpson's expert photo witness said the new pictures didn't change his opinion that another photo, by a different photographer, was faked to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes. "It doesn't change my opinion, no,'' said Robert Groden, a Dallas technician." As much as I like Robert, what he said was really silly on his part IMO. A totally different photographer who was at the same game takes 30 pictures and still has the negatives ... negatives that show Simpson was wearing Bruno Magli shoes and that didn't seem to matter to Robert and it seems that it didn't matter to you either. The article goes on to say .... "A poor-quality version of one of the pictures appeared in the November 1993 issue of the Bills' official publication, Buffalo Bills Report. It is impossible to make out what kind of shoes Simpson is wearing in the published photo, but in the higher quality original prints, it appears Simpson is wearing the same clothing and shoes as he is wearing in the lone disputed picture taken by free-lancer Harry Scull. Jurors were shown the pictures over the objections of Simpson's attorneys, who argued the photos were being introduced too late. "It's a total sandbag,'' said Simpson attorney Dan Leonard. But Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki sided with the plaintiffs, agreeing they could use the photos to impeach the Groden's credibility on cross-examination. The jury was shown enlargements of four photographs, along with close-up pictures of each of those photos and two proof sheets containing other head-to-toe images of Simpson. Defense attorneys saw the pictures for the first time Monday, looking at the enlargements at the same time as the jury. Simpson didn't review the photos, but he took notes on a legal pad. Groden didn't explain why the newly discovered pictures failed to change his mind about Scull's picture. " Here is the link to the entire article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns153.htm Another article at this link offers some more information - http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns150.htm Here is part of what this article reports .... "New photos may cause trouble for O.J. LOS ANGELES - A new set of photographs showing O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes, the same brand of shoes experts say a killer wore, may be admitted as evidence in Simpson's wrongful death trial. Sources for both the plaintiffs and the defense in the civil trial said Tuesday there likely would be no legal way to stop the pictures from being introduced. The newly revealed photos, which clearly show Simpson's shoes, were taken on the same day, but by a different photographer than the one who took the picture being called a fake by Simpson's attorneys in a wrongful death trial. The pictures were inspected Sunday in Buffalo by John Q. Kelly, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the trial under way in Santa Monica. The free-lance photographer, E.J. Flammer, said he just found the pictures last week. An FBI shoe expert identified Simpson's shoes in the trial photograph as Bruno Maglis - the same model that left bloody prints near the bodies of Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman. Like the photo at issue in the civil trial, these new pictures were taken of Simpson on Sept. 26, 1993, at Rich Stadium in Orchard Park, N.Y., before a Buffalo Bills game against the Miami Dolphins, said Mark Cramer, Flammer's attorney. Flammer holds the originals and, according to sources, is negotiating with the National Enquirer for a lucrative sale. A poor-quality version of one of the pictures appears in the November 1993 issue of the Bills' official publication, Buffalo Bills Report. It is impossible to make out what kind of shoes Simpson is wearing. But Cramer said that in looking at the higher-quality original prints, Simpson appears to be wearing the same clothing and shoes as he is in the trial-exhibit picture taken by another Buffalo photographer, Harry Scull. "I would say that it corroborates Mr. Scull's picture. You can see the tops and the sides of Simpson's shoes,'' said Cramer. Scull's attorney, Mike O'Connor of Buffalo, who also has seen Flammer's pictures, said the photos "completely shoot down any defense theory or claim that Harry's photograph was doctored.'' So another photogragher took photos showing the same thing as the alleged faker's picture ... at least one photo from the second set of prints was published in the Buffalo Bill's newspaper in the year before the murders. So tell me this ... now who is it that doesn't know what they are talking about, Jack? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Miller has not looked at original prints of "OJ wearing the shoes". Clearly PhotoShopping was involved. At the time Robert had no facilities for copying them and making the needed enlargements. He and I spent two days using my equipment and enlarging the prints and contacts. The fakery was obvious when enlarged. One of the faked photos that Robert and I studied is attached. Jack Forgive me for not being one demensional, but you totally missed the point as usual. The photos were taken and published long before the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman ever took place. Now are you going to say that someone altered the pictures to make OJ look guilty long before the crime ever occurred .... somehow knowing that the future murder scene at his wife's home would show Bruno Magli shoe prints on the walkway .... thus OJ was set up in advance? Give me a break! The jury didn't buy it and neither do I. Bill

The Bruno Magli shoes was part of what hung OJ at the civil trial. I realize Groden felt that the photo of OJ with those shoes on had been altered, but as I recall .... the photo(s) were taken and published long before OJ's wife was murdered. The jury realized the significance of this and Groden failed in his analysis in their view. Bill

My belief is that Dershowitz was trying to ethically get word out that his client was not guilty of murder, but of protecting his son. Detective Bill Dear investigated the case on his own, and came to the same conclusion that I had reached several years earlier. Jack Just when I think I have heard it all ....... What size Bruno Magle shoes did Jason wear? Bill

"Since one of his books led directly to the solving of the Martha Moxley murder, I wouldn't say that all of his books are laughable." I am glad to see someone set the record straight. I had to smile when I read where Jack said that Furman was a bozo .... an odd comment coming from someone who helped make "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" the 'bozo handbook for JFK assassination researchers'. I also do not believe Furman ever tried to frame anyone in the O.J. case. O.J. got off because the prosecution got the cart ahead of the horse because they felt they had their man right off and could make a case after the fact. Bill

What is relatively easy is to make both limos at same level to each other, and then choosing an item to line them up. Perhaps the door handle, or the back of the seat. .... or perhaps the black reference line I placed on the clip in post 18. Bill

"If you look at only Jackies forearms and imagine her hands where they might be, you can see a movement that almost appears as if she is pushing Kennedy's TORSO almost directly towards Zapruder. I don't think she pushes him, I think her hands are on his body. The right hand (her right) is about behind his left shoulder. The left hand is probably on his left forearm. What happens is that his body moves towards Zapruder and her arms extend. It also appears to me that during this tilt the head also twist anti clockwise to a degree. It seems to me that the possible movements are fairly limited, but a proper interpretation combined with some knowledge of ballistics would make a good guess posssible. ...................................... Yep, that one slipped me by., Bill. Anyways, you know what I mean. I wonder how much you felt you had to rotate one of the frames in order to line the limo up correctly to only look at the relative movements of objects (persons in this case). It'd be nice to check angles there as it impacts on what angle a persons head is in relation to that of a previous frame." "If you look at only Jackies forearms and imagine her hands where they might be, you can see a movement that almost appears as if she is pushing Kennedy's TORSO almost directly towards Zapruder. I don't think she pushes him, I think her hands are on his body. The right hand (her right) is about behind his left shoulder. The left hand is probably on his left forearm. What happens is that his body moves towards Zapruder and her arms extend. It also appears to me that during this tilt the head also twist anti clockwise to a degree. It seems to me that the possible movements are fairly limited, but a proper interpretation combined with some knowledge of ballistics would make a good guess posssible. ...................................... Yep, that one slipped me by., Bill. Anyways, you know what I mean. I wonder how much you felt you had to rotate one of the frames in order to line the limo up correctly to only look at the relative movements of objects (persons in this case). It'd be nice to check angles there as it impacts on what angle a persons head is in relation to that of a previous frame." Jackie's hands can be seen on JFK in Altgens photo and I have never seen any evidence that she ever placed them anywhere else until after the kill shot to the President. I feel that much of what you feel that you see is related to 'perspective'. Bill

Jack - I think that if you had someone hold their hand in the same position and you looked at it from the same two angles in question - there would be very little change take place. I know this to be true because I just tested it myself. To the eye it would appear to be even less of a change because of the white gloves Jackie wore. Bill

"Look at Jackies left arm that she has on Kennedys back. See how it moves. Look at her right arm which is probably on Kennedys arm, see how it moves." John ... did you mean to say that Jackie's RIGHT ARM is on jFK's back? Jackie placed her hands on the President's left forearm shortly after JFK first reacted to being shot. Upon the President being fatally hit in the head - Jackie lifts her left hand off JFK's forearm and places it on the back of his neck/back. Jackie's right hand lifting off the President's forearm. Bill

"I will not base my opinion solely on the Zapruder film. I have done my best at taking into account 1) witness statements, 2) physical evidence 3) photographic and video evidence." Antti, your approach is well grounded IMO. While I like to see what John has to say ... I am not sure if I agree with what has been said in this thread. For instance the head shot - for there to have been two shots to JFK's head, there must have been two separate signs of independent blood spatter. Blood spatter is not a theory, but rather a science. I have never seen any sign that blood spatter occurred from a shot striking JFK's head from the rear. I contend that a bullet hit the top front part of the bone plate which rocked JFK's head forward while driving his shoulders backwards at the same time. With the neck tethered to the upper torso - the head had little choice but to be flung rearward with the upper body. No sign of spatter when the head starts its rearward movement ... thus there must have been a secondary cause for this rapid change in direction to JFK's head. Jackie's hands resting on the President's arms from two separate views ... Bill