Bill Miller

"you have demonstrated to me and others competent in the photographic arts, that you have ANY clue about photography in general or compositing specifically -- its no surprise to me you can't document now, or in the past, photo expertise." David, I understood what Groden said about the things that demonstrate why the existing Zapruder film was not altered, especially in the way that you suggest. It has been YOU who has not addressed even the simpliest aspects of it. Instead you continue to offer say-nothing snippets for a rebuttal. Any time you wish to take your hands out of your pants and start addressing the points I put to you in my past responses - feel free to do so! "Not a vote of confidence for Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding." Still nothing of substance to say, David? "Forget about Len, he's late, you guy's really have to get your schedules down pat -- you're so predicatable, its funny. For that sake -- he's in the same league as a few others, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, either...." You can start addressing the issues put to you at any time instead of continuing your usual Baghdad Bob approach. We all will continue to wait for you as long as it takes. Bill

Len, have you not heard Baghdad Bob's latest claim ... March 28, 2006 "David Healy always addresses the issues and does not merely make moronic say-nothing replies in order to try and cover-up his lack of forethought concerning possible Zapruder film alteration."

Below is just one more example of how David Healy does nothing more than masturbate on these forums. Carefully look at the ramblings he responded with and tell me where did he address one single issue presented to him over the reasons the assassination films have not been altered. I find it sad that Healy will cite books and experts (usually by name only without being specific on anything) and yet make idiotic remarks about experts someone else has gone to who has presented data and issues pertaining to the matter at hand without David rebutting a single fact that was presented to him. Some of us here are investigators .... something David Healy apparently is not. For instance ... to be good at the game of pool - one only needs to understand 'angles' and how to apply them to the game. In other words ... one doesn't need to have a degree in geometry to become a pool shark. But in the case of JFK's assassination - one can find experts and solicit information from them that applies to the evidence of the case and I am sure that many researchers have done this very same thing from time to time. Has anyone ever noticed that the experts they have spoken to are most always to the point and have no problem in addressing the matter being dicussed .... yet David Healy who seems so interested in others credentials and who never addresses a thing presented to him, continues to create replies with the type of asinine remarks as those shown below. Am I an expert in photography ... not really. However, I have probably studied the assassination films frame by frame as much as any person who has ever entered into this case and I have seen the Zapruder film frames under about every lighting, color, and contrast change that can be given to it. So when I do talk to a photo expert who tells me about the contrast, quality, and color changes that take place by copying film from generation to generation ... I know of the changes that that take place that they are speaking of. I also know that the optical prints of the Zapruder film never show the area between the sprocket holes. So when one compares these areas between the sprocket holes with the remaining area of the actual film frames in question and finds that no changes in contrast, clarity, color, and lighting are present, then someone like David Healy should have an obligation to address these findings. Instead, David takes on the role of Baghdad Bob. (By the way, David ... your trying to skirt away from the similarities between Baghdad Bob's role in the Gulf War and what you do on these forums isn't going to happen as easily as you might hope. You both are mouth pieces who make statements as if they are fact and do all you can to avoid having to address the facts needed to back up what you have said) I also want to say that if you are implying that you are a veteran .... I only hope that those who served around you found more use for your presence than anyone does on any of the JFK forums you lurk on. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator "What are you drinking Miller? Back on that Dr. Pepper, again.... careful there Sonnyboy -- Groden ready to come to your rescue? So, ah, Miller -- so we're squared away on one issue, you support (through your 10 thousand internet posts) the current photo record as it stands regarding the films of Dealey Plaza, YES? If your going to be taking pot shots at someone regarding these films we're gonna have to know your expertise in photo matters -- Being a cheapshot artist you gonna have to pay your dues, especially if you expect to be recognized when it gets down to the nitty-gritty - don't-cha-know... I can sympathize, I know its tough keeping the interest up, isn't it? You guy's don't have much to say when the varsity is in town do ya? "Baghdad Bob Healy..." what are you doing making fun of ones military background? Bad taste champ! Typical, no class! Probably not even a veteran..... LOL"

sounds like a silly ole fart making like a photog, foisting away the winter, in the dear old midwest... Get a life Lamson, you've no excuse explaining the rigors of photo manipulation to anyone.... well on second thought, get brushed up in 35mm compositing -- maybe Ray Fielding will give you quickie seminar so you don't make an ass out of yourself... NODAL point? that sounds like something you'd lance, that on someones rearend or a tripod? LOL and if you haven't rolled a CP16 -- sit down, you're beyond redemption trailer boy.... Hey Baghdad Bob Healy ... just address the issues and save the stupid say-nothing replies for another forum.

Has anyone considered that this object is too large to be a human being? If we consider what we see to be the upper half of a human being, then that would make him nearly as tall as the front of the building. Bill

Do you believe that a professional sniper with a high powered rifle and scope could have fired from this location into the kill zone in Dealey Plaza? Meaning, before Greer and SS agents would have had adequate time to react. I don't believe for a minute that a sniper stationed outside of DP had fired at the motorcade while it was within DP. Ceratainly anyone stationed along Stemmons could not have seen Elm Street because of the trees - the stockde fence - and due to the hill leading from the RR yard to the street. To anyone on Stemmons directly behind the triple underpass - a quick look at the Daniels film shows that JFK's limo wasn't even visible until it was nearing the underpass because of the curvature of Elm Street. Bill

WEBSTER'S DEFINES A COUP D'ETAT AS; THE SUDDEN OVERTHROW OF A GOVERNMENT. IT DOEN'T REALLY MATTER MATER HOW MANY PEOPLE GET KILLED - IF YOU ATTEMPT IT YOU BETER MAKE SURE IT WORKS. SO WHAT IF CONNALLY GETS SHOT OR NELLY OR JACKIE. THE ANGLE OF FIRE DIDN'T MATTER. THEY'D RATHER NOT SHOOT JACKIE OR CONNALLY OR ANYONE ELSE. BUT IF THATS WHAT IT TOOK- THEN SO BE IT. JFK WASN'T LEAVING DALLAS ALIVE. AND HE DIDN'T ! JIM FEEMSTER I find it rather troublesome to think that anyone would have been positioned along Stemmons in the event that the assassination attempt in DP failed. The main reason is that the SS would have been on the car by then and Greer would have been racing at high speed to get out of the area. The chances of shooting JFK with a rifle at such a distance from the road at that point would be zero IMO.

"SOSM – David, Same Old Straw Man. For the umpteenth time NO ONE IS SAYING THAT OPTICAL EFFECTS DON'T PREDATE THE Z-FILM." Len - David has to keep saying such things because it is the only factual thing he has said about the entire matter. To address anything else is to admit that his part in Fetzer's book was a waste of time. What David did was to take one small piece of a puzzle and then imply that he had it in the right place on the board without actually checking to see if the other remaining pieces that surrounded it would fit. I am sure that he now knows he was in error, but having the character to admit it is another matter altogether for him. Instead - he just repeats the one thing that he was able to cite correctly even if it didn't go anywhere. I know he has seen these replies of mine and his inability to address them speaks volumes ... but just wait a few days or so and he'll be back to either offer more say nothing remarks that don't address anything or he will have to conclude that without the latter issues being resolved, then there could not have been any undetected alterations made to the Zapruder film by means of using an optical printer. Bill

My view: We need to see the original image. The black and white image here has been manipulated. The yellow tinted image shows signs of having been 'worked' on. For what purpose and to what end? EBC Let's think this through for a moment. If in fact this is someone with a long gun and I have doubts that it is .... if what would be the stock (the thicker section) with the longated thinner section being the barrel, then it seems more likely that we are looking at a shotgun rather than a rifle. However, I personally believe that the object beyond this person has given a false impression as to what we are seeing. Bill

Len, it is obvious that David didn't know as much as he let on. He may know about optical printing, just as Groden does, but he didn't know squat about the rest of the equation that needed to be addressed in order to logically discuss the probability of the Zapruder film being altered. David could have learned about these other obstacles had he just bothered to put forth a little effort and sought out the people who might know the answers instead of constantly making off-the-wall replies saying how we are 'on the run' and so on. David is nothing more than the Baghdad Bob of the photo alteration position. Bill

Gary Mack was kind enough to share the following information with me ... "Corham Art Flower Company was at 1645 Stemmons, which puts it just 1/2 block south of Oak Lawn Avenue at Stemmons. Here's the map: http://tinyurl.com/g3dcx Market Center Boulevard was called Industrial in 1963 and the Trade Mart is at the northeast corner of Industrial and Stemmons, about 1/2 mile away."

You had an opinion in relationship to the highway and Kennedy's position as relates to the motorcade route - I was assuming that you knew the position of Corhams and where it was located on Stemmons in relationship to the Trademart - would you mind telling us the address so that we could get a better understanding of whether or not a gunman may have been present as part of a second operation in the event the original plan failed to come off as planned? Where was Corham's in relation to the Trademart please.... - lee The old Corham building was on Stemmons just before the Industrial Boulevard exit. Bill

No - the man is not on top of the triple underpass. In fact, the photo shows cars parked in front of stores in the background of that photo. I think a web search for an overhead view of the plaza to the Stemmons Freeway sign will show no shops between the triple underpass and the Stemmons Freeway. Bill

Telltale 'film' signs -- listen, you're busom buddies with Groden, get'em over here, we'll talk film -- Have Bob explain to me and the rest of the world what Roland Zavada and Ray fielding will put forth.... roflmfao! Better yet, have him post a few 35mm frames from one of "Moe Weitzman's" 8mm bump to 35mm -- then we'll talk. Oh, have him bring a KODAK Wratten manual....Thanks for making my weekend... David, I have been holding back a little bit to see if you would actually tell this forum anything factual in support of your position, but as usual you appear to not have anything intelligent to say about the main issues. For instance ... you have been going on about optical printing and not addressing the processes of the film transfer that would take place when attempting to alter a film. As someone who thinks he knows it all about optical printing - you must be aware that by using that process that you cannot capture the area between the sprocket holes. As Groden points out - the going from 8MM Kodachrome film to 35MM film causes contrasting changes within the image. There are also cyanic color changes that take place. Moe never transfered 8MM film to 35MM film and then back to 8MM film. But lets assume that Moe had done all those things .... an optical printer would not allow him to have access to the area between the sprocket holes, thus the contrast and color changes that take place from film generation to film generation with Kodachrome II film would not have the same appearance as those areas between the sprocket holes that the optical printer never had access to. Your not seeing these obstacles tells me just how little you have bothered to learn the subject matter before wanting to debate with experts such as Groden. Once again you have done little more than make unfounded allegations without knowing the facts beforehand. Now do we need to bother Groden over the basics that should have been common knowledge to anyone like yourself that surely would have bothered to educate himself on the other aspects of the processes concerning film alteration? In an earlier post I used the following scenario concerning the approach you had taken about the possibility of optical printing being used to alter the Zapruder film .... "Another example would be wanting to discuss why someone should take a certain route on a trip to save time while knowing that doing so would mean coming to a bridge that was already known to have been washed out, thus the effort was a total waste of time." You have now come to that washed out bridge and unless you find a way around it that the experts cannot find - you have little choice but to turn around and go back and put an end to these unfounded allegations you have purposed. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

"this position is viable" ???? What is there about Sherry's presentation that says some guy standing on a building from so far away from the street had a viable shot at a car that wasn't even supposed to be passing by him in the first place? Bill

Well Len, why don't you write a book on the subject, perhaps he'll give you a call. Till then, get along with the Zavada-Fielding/Healy discussion regarding the Zapruder film .... So, how is Roland Zavada/Ray Fielding doing? You're the self appointed representative/presenter for the Zavada side of the equation, whats the latest? Why the delay? Thought this was a slam-dunk? Been what, 5-6 weeks now? Too damn many editors; "wide purchase...", can be a problem at times! Having optical film printing problem/issues? I know a few specific SMPE/SMPTE periodicals that might help! Just trying to move this along.... Still jerking around on the forums - hey David! You sound like the fool who wants someone to address the effects of gasoline on a motor that runs soley on a battery. Another example would be wanting to discuss why someone should take a certain route on a trip to save time while knowing that doing so would mean coming to a bridge that has been washed out, thus the effort was a waste of time. Who in their right mind would wish to argue optical printing effects with you when you cannot address the next step which is the tell-tale signs of alteration when trying to do it on the type of film Zapruder used. Are we to assume that you are the only person who cannot see the problem with what you are trying to purpose? I would be curious to know if you could find another person experienced in optical printing who knew about the problems with Kodachrome II film and still then would waste so much time following a path that cannot go anywhere. Bill

I personally doubt that what we see is a man with a gun. For one thing it seems like the wrong place to be if one wanted to shoot at JFK because the car would have been traveling right to left across his field of view with Jackie between he and the President. Also, this location is not on the motorcade route, which is another reason it makes little sense to me for a gunman to be standing atop of a building so far from the street where the President was not expected to be traveling. If it was thought for some reason that this route may have been used by the SS if shots had been fired back in Dealey Plaza, then surely an assassin had to of known that the limo would be traveling at a higher rate of speed as it raced on to safety. The whole idea that this is someone who was out to shoot the President is about nill IMO. Bill

Hi Jack, Are you really trying to say "Bill Grote"? If so, that's me. All I did was increase the contrast of your "Badgeman" image in photoshop and fiddle slightly with the contrast to bring out the image. The same could be done with the "curves" tool in Photoshop. Bill, seeing how EBC didn't get your name correct and I certainly had not heard of your work ... how about posting the images that EBC probably was talking about, but didn't direct us to where we could see them? Thanks! Bill

Who is Bill Scrote and where are his "truly extraordinary enhancements" of Badgeman? Jack A very good question, Jack. God only knows who Bill Scrote might be but one has one's suspicions. Is Bill Scrote someone we know ? Nudge..nudge EBC EBC, you are the one who mentioned him in the first place .... don't you have any information on this person? Where did you hear about him before posting his name on this forum? Bill

Who is Bill Scrote and where are his "truly extraordinary enhancements" of Badgeman? Jack A web search didn't produce anything under that name. Bill

Bill, I do believe your getting a little dense. The ONLYreason I'm still here is Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding, you're not even on the radar screen, Bill ... so wait, dance around or something -- just like I'm doing... Still have nothing of value to say, David? Explain how 8MM Kodachrome II film can be transfered to 35MM film - altered - and then put back onto 8MM film without being detectable under close scrutiny ... because without addressing this - you have no justification for even discussing the possibility of optical printing involvement in the altering of the Zapruder film. You doing nothing more than trying to propose a possibility that would be built on an impossibility. It would be like implying that Oswald shot Lincoln while knowing that Oswald had not even been born yet. So unless you are ready to address the Kodachrome II matter that Groden mentioned, then your optical printing scenario could not have existed. So rather than you waste any more time and space on this subject - address what Groden said about the processes needed to be done to have attempted such an alteration and why you believe that such alteration by way of those processes would have been undetectable? Bill Miller JFK assassination reseracher/investigator

"Oh Bill... why all the snipping? Nothing funny here, guy. Robert mentioned? roflmfao! My rebuttal: Moe DID IT his testimony is part of the official record. Did Robert mention his experience doing it? Nothing to discuss, especially if your're talking about what somebody mentioned.... rofl! Stick around, better yet; get Groden in here he can speak for himself... Jerking you around? Incapable? -- For someone that has no experience in this field, your getting rather bold there, champ -- hope your not being setup... Bottom line for what Bill? I doubt you'd know a good blowup if it hit you between the eyes... Envy is not a friend, Bill....." David, allow me to share something I do know about ... people who dance around and never present any data like you do, do so because they have nothing to offer of any substance. They take up a position, but cannot explain why they have taken it. So supposed you tell us where Moe said that you could alter 8MM Kodachrome film II film and have it go undetected under close scrutiny ... ? Bill

I have not seen the Mark Oakes video that Don Roberdeau references, nor have I ever talked to Mark Oakes, who you say says something different, either directly to you or in a video, than what Don says his video says. So I'm really not qualified to say anything further. Ron Mark interviewed Edna and shot the video of her going to the furrow location ... feel free to email him for specifics ... jfkrealfacts@hotmail.com Bill

Hear it from me, Bill Groden talks about nothing, if he had anything to say, he'd be here. A smart one, there are many questions he's left unanswered. therefore, he's a ghost. Why are you covering for him? David, Robert mentioned the processes concerning transfering Kodachrome II film from 8MM to 35MM and back again. To date you have not offered anything in rebuttal, nor have you produced anyone who has disagreed with Robert. Let me quote from his book: Chapter 1 page 17-18 quote on Special-effects procedures are as infinitely varied in their application as the kinds of production problem which can arise, for each effects assignment is a NEWone (emphasis mine), and is different in its pecilarities from every other one done before. It is the variety of problems and solutions which renders the field so interesting; it is the same variety which also makes the work of the special-effects conematographer so complicated. There are few rules, if any, and mistakes are common. The tools of the art range from simple, inexpensive devices which can be held in the hand, to extrememly costly machines weighing a ton or more. The length of time spent on a effects shot can range from a few minutes to several weeks. In the end, only familiarity with the tools and techniques of the field will provide the right solution for a particular problem (emphasis mine) and only a certain amount of experience will provide consistently professional results. quote off Ray's words, not MINE, Bill. Once again you are talking about the altering of film, but not addressing the problems with doing it to the type of film Zapruder used to a point of it not being detectable. What is funny is that you are always pushing to have the Zfilm looked at on one hand and trying to say that such a film can be altered beyond detection - so why bother either way if you really feel that way? The bottom line is that you are doing nothing more than jerking around over something you are incapable of addressing. Bill