Bill Miller

Let me give you a clue regarding RZavada's, therfore RGroden's 8mm film "issues". In short, they're irrelevant. All Groden has to do is ask Moe. White noise, those arguments. You'll figure it out, your a smart guy -- David Why is that when Groden talks about something - he can offer an explaination based on data and when you (David) respond to what has been said - you only use words like "noise" ... now who is it that doesn't know jack-xxxx about the photographical Kodachrome II issues when attempting to alter images! Why not just save the say-nothing responses with cult 'words and phrases' and try and get some information from a photographical expert of your choice that can possibly offer something of value to the conversation ... it will at least make it appear that you are serious even if you are not. Bill

That's what I'm talking about too. But never mind. Ron, I think I see the problem. Mrs. Hartman mentioned the cement apron which is the top of the curb that ran along the south side of Elm Street. She also considered the area along the curb as part of the sewer drainage system. When Mark Oakes and Todd Vaughn accompanied her to the plaza - Mark started to head towards the manhole cover and Edna told him that it was not that far down where the furrow was. Don should still have the video caption of Edna pointing to the ground that I had posted on Lancer some time ago. I do not have the video with me of Edna, but there has obviously been some confusion gone on as to what she was talking about whern referencing areas in the plaza. Mark reminded me today that Edna even called Houston Street - "Hudson Street". I have offered a general view of the place where Edna said the furrow was compared to where the manhole cover is. Bill

Ron - there was said to be a strike near a manhole cover, but whether there was or not doesn't matter here because I am talking about the location where Mrs. Hartman walked out in the plaza to and demonstrated where it was to Mark Oakes. That furrow led back to the Badge Man location. I don't have my Hartman caption in front of me at the momen, but I remember looking at the botgtom of the knoll steps from where she stood so to try and find her location while in the plaza. Below is a rough idea of how Hartman and Moorman's locations would compare. If we are talking about the manhole cover strike ... my memory tells me that it was supposed to lead back to the records building or that general area. Bill

According to Don Roberdeau's map, the bullet that caused the furrow just west of the manhole cover on the south side of Elm would have been fired around Z400 if it was aimed at the limo from Badge Man's position. If true, Badge Man's "puff of smoke" in Moorman is clearly not from a shot that caused a furrow over 80 Z frames later. The furrow Mrs. Hartman saw was just west of Moorman's location. Bill

There is lnot a shred of evidence that Arnold was there at all either -- and although I lean towards believing he was there - I do not believe he is in the position that you locate him in. Believe it or not, Lee ... when a man describes an event and gets as many things as Arnold got right that were not substantiated with photos or film until many years later - his statements are "EVIDENCE". How does what is seen in the Nix film in any way line up with what Hudson said? And I am not clear myself on any one 'kill shot.' The kill shot is obviously the shot that blew the President's head open. The Nix film shows the man who was standing next to Hudson - turn and flee up the walkway at the moment JFK was killed. Did Hudson tell you that? How do you know that? I know this because the Nix film shows Hudson turning back to his right to look at the limo going by below him. The Zapruder film caught the back of Emmett's head as he watched the limo speed away. See the clip below ... HUDSON ON THE STEPS HUDSON TURNING BACK TO WATCH THE LIMO GRODEN STANDING AT THE HUDSON LOCATION HUDSON TRACKING THE LIMO AS IT RACED AWAY Emmett confused the man who came up the steps and told him to get down with the man who had been next to Emmett earlier. Did Hudson tell you that? Did Hudson's family tell you he said that? Did he also make a mistake on the number of shots he heard, and the sequence? The assassination films tell me that. It was also learned during the making of the movie "JFK" that depending on where one stood in the plaza would make a difference on what shots they did and did not hear. I think we should get back to allowing Eugene to continue on with where he was going on his thread. Eugene - FYI below. Using Don Roberdeau's plat - roughly, these would be the locations of 1. The Nix Classic Gunman, as possibly seen by Hicks and possibly heard by Zapruder [maybe Sitzman, if the breaking of a coke bottle was in reality the use of a silencer and an ejected shell hitting the concrete]. The "Classic Gunman" has been proven to be nothiong more than light shining through the tree foliage and onto the side of the shelter wall. 3. The rough location of the GKS - muddy footprints, cigarette butts, smoke, Ed Hoffman location, man in Moorman wearing the cop's hat. Not only did Hoffman see one man at the Hat Man's location at the fence, but he said the man was wearing a fedora type hat. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

So the Badgeman was standing to the right of and behind the tree? Hidden behind the tree from Zapruder's position. Would this not make any shot fired from there appear to hit President Kennedy at an almost 45 degree angle? Yes, it would have hit JFK in the side of the head, but as you may know .... there was said to be a furrow on the south side of Elm Street as told by Mrs. Hartman andc that furrow led back to the Badge Man location. Seeing how I can see no second impact spray to JFK's head on any of the assassination films ... and seeing how the Badge Man seemed to have fired behind the Hoffman shooter ... it seems reasonable that if the furrow Mrs. Hartman seen and said to be made from a bullet by at least one officer on the scene - with its path leading back to the knoll it seems likely that it may have been the missed Badge Man shot. Then there is the problem of the tree's foliage...Would it not have obscured the 'Badgeman's' line of sight? There does not appear to be any tree foliage between Moorman's camera lens and the Badge Man, so I do not see how tree foliage would have been a factor from Badge Man to JFK at the moment Mary took her photograph. Also about the bullets path ... Dr. Clark, I believe it was, had said that a tagental strike to a persons skull by a bullet can cause the bullet to change its path when passing through the head. Bill

Yes - but that's also in question. For example, is it nefarious to consider that Emmett Hudson, the DP groundskeeper, was not presented the Moorman photo when he was called to testify? I wouldn't want to place a bet. William Hudson (Emmett's son) told me that his dad had a copy of Moorman's photo that he showed his family and friends when telling them about his experience on the steps. - Behind Emmett are a bunch of folks, lots of folks, trying to get pictures. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone besides Arnold stood behind Hudson with a camera. - They separate before the arrival of the motorcade. If you are talking about the man next to Hudson separating from him - that happened after the kill shot and can be seen on the Nix film. - The young man is lying on the sidewalk. He is urging Emmett repeatedly to lie down. Emmett also goes prone, and the final shot sounds as if it travels over his head. He doesn't witness the result. He also never bothers to mention that the young man bolted like a mule for cover - because he didn't/ You can see Emmett and the young man in aftermath shots. Emmet was standing as JFK's limo raced for the underpass. Emmett never paid any attention to the man who stood next to him as he raced up the steps because Emmett was focused on the President But the problem starts when you view the films and photos. Emmett had to have been lying, or was senile. Or the photos and films are phony. Can't have it both ways. We should see 2 men lying on the ground in Moorman, or at a minimum, one man lying on the ground urging the other to do so - otherwise, something is wrong with the location of the Lincoln and where Kennedy received a shot to his head. Emmett confused the man who came up the steps and told him to get down with the man who had been next to Emmett earlier.

"I have previously stated why I don't think it was Arnold, and I don't think you were able to provide a satisfactory answer. Until you do, I will remain unpersuade." It's ok, Ron ... for if you have not picked up on the things I have pointed out so far, then you probably are not going to be able to follow anything else I have to tell you either. Bill

The problem that exist for using a camera like Moorman's and replicating her photo is that I do not think the same type of film is available any more and the tree foliage would have to be the same so to difuse the light in the same manner. Anyway...the retaining wall - it would depend upon the location behind the wall, the location of the sign in 1963, vegetation conditions, location on the underpass, etc. Plus - the Hicks shooter location, as I understand it, is much further down, and would not be seen from the top of the underpass at all. The photo shown in this thread from the overpass is taken from atop of the Main Street section. The view from where Holland and so many others had stood during the assassination (the Elm Street section) did not have an obstructed view of where Arnold/BDM stood. I might also add that the Franzen's were across the street and would have had a clear view of this area, not to mention Summers, Altgens, Hill, Moorman, Brehm, Hill and Tony Foster as she walked towards the limo at the time of the kill shot. A simple glance from Sitzman or the Hester's would have allowed a clear view of this area. The Willis photo shows us what people and the SS agents would have seen while watching the limo glide down Elm Street, thus they would have been looking directly at the Arnold/BDM figure during the shooting. As appealing as it may saound - there is no evidence of anyone being on that particular area of the walkway other than Gordon Arnold/BDM. Personally, I still believe it's a camera crew behind the wall. A shooter would have been behind the fence, at the tree - where Ed Hoffman saw him, and then behind Zapruder, where Hicks said he was located - close to the pergola hut shelter. But I couldn't say, that's how it is for 100% certainty. Ed Hoffman never saw the individuals at the Badge Man location. The reason for this is quite simple .... the cars parked along that area and the overhanging tree foliage created cover for those standing up near the fence. In the series "TMWKK" there was an editing job done in the film that made it appear that Ed was referencing the Badge Man location ... this was unfortuneate and misleading to those who have never spoke to Ed. The man Ed saw was at the location where Holland saw the smoke come through the trees. His location has often been referenced as "the Hat Man location". The Hat Man location is marked below ....

"I think the most sensible explanation of Black Dog Man is that it's the black couple that was seen in that area by Sitzman. They were moving when the photos were taken, thus blurred, and they ran away. And it's a shame that they have never come forward. Ron" Yesterday you said the BDM was some guy in a black cape - today you say he is a black couple ... maybe tomorrow he will be Gordon Arnold. Bill

"regarding the above, in a word Bill, bullxxxx! Len hasn't a clue, no more than you. While your pondering that, what the hell are Groden's film qualifications? Moe teach him everything he knows? The ARMY? Did he go to college? As for you, I doubt you've ever been inside a film lab -- so tell me, what would be detectable? I'm sure lurkers are curious! Or, you gonna let Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding do the heavy lifting? OBLIGATION? Obligation to WHO? You? ROFLMAO! " I have been inside several labs ... the last one in Seatle not a year ago on another film matter. I have posted the issues that Groden raised and to date you have not offered any rebuttal that would dispute the things Robert said. To date you have not offered any rebuttal stating that you have found another photo expert who disagreed with the points Robert raised. To date you have done nothing but offer the same childish say nothing responses that you are well known for making. "Remember, I'm the one that CAN't prove alteration"" You are not only the one who cannot prove alteration, but you have stated that you have not seen any signs of alteration as well! Bill

"dgh: come on you silly guy, what do you know of photography," I think the better question would be - What do you know about photogrqaphy, David? You spent all that time questioning the Zapruder film by saying that it was possible to alter a film by way of using an optical printer, but never gave any consideration to the process needed to be completed to attempt such an alteration on Kodachrome II film and why it would be detectable under close scrutiny. Forget trying to push your lack of forethought off on Len for it was YOU who had an obligation to know what processes one would need to follow for such an undertaqking so to know if your suspicions had legs or not. Groden made some really valid points pertaining to this matter, so unless you (or a photographical expert) can rebut the things Robert pointed out that would leave the tell-tale signs of alteration when using Kodachrome II film .... you are doing nothing more than . Bill

"Is this what the 'Badgeman' and Black Dog Man saw?" The road sign would not have been an issue for the Badge man because the pyracantha bush hid it from his view. The President would have come into view from the right sign of the foliage of the pyracantha bush. I also do not think that because we do not see the wall that the location is not exact either. Bill

Yarborough clearly states that it was the way they guy dove for cover that made him "think". He "thought" he was an infantryman. If he saw a man in a serviceman's uniform the word "think" would never enter into it. This is what we call common sense. You sure use the word "clearly" a lot .... and when one who knows the case sees how "unclear" you are on the facts, it becomes apparent that you are not qualified to offer an opinion on this subject. For instance, above you stated that it was the way Arnold dove for cover that made Yarborough think he was an infantry man, but that is not the case at all. Yarborough said Arnold dove to the wall like "a flying tackle", yet he didn't mention Arnold must have been a football player. To correct what you have stated ... it was the timing of Arnold hitting the ground immediately after the sound of a gunshot that caused Yarborough to make a reference to Gordon already having his military combat training. "There is never any mention of a uniform nor the wall at the top of the knoll, no specifics at all in either the article or the documentary." It is asinine IMO that you keep going back and referencing an article that mentioned only two or three very short sentences as if that was all that Golz learned from Arnold. People who know Golz and who have actually made the contacts instead of being an 'armchair researcher' like yourself have learned much more than what was referenced in the article. I specifically recall mentioning to Earl that there was one particular person who held onto the position that Earl had written all that he and Arnold discussed when he put together his article and Earl was surprised that someone would be so naive to think such a thing. To date you have attempted to argue against Arnold (rather poorly I might add) and said things about Golz's being unable to get the facts straight and yet you have not once posted where you actually went to the source to get the story first hand. Your 'I don't have to spend any energy to learn more about the facts that were not written about in the short DMN article' so you can avoid admitting you were in error reflects very badly about your sincerity in wanting to know the truth. The same can be said about what more you could learn by contacting Turner and/or Sue Winter about Yarborough's interview. If you are not going to spend any effort in contacting these sources, then one has to assume you are only interested in yanking chains in this matter. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Some additional information obtained through Gary Mack ... I know you are aware of this message, Alan. "Golz mentioned Arnold BECAUSE he claimed to be a witness in an important location. Had there been any doubts, Earl would not have referred to him at all. As you'll recall, that August 1978 article was about Secret Service imposters, one of the many recurring stories of interest. To repeat, Yarborough read Earl's August 1978 article - the one WITH the photo - and took the time to call Earl to confirm that he had seen a man up there throw himself upon the ground. Then in late December, Earl called Yarborough who stood by what he had said four months earlier. The article Earl wrote mentioned Yarborough's confirmation and the quotation Bill Miller has repeated is complete and accurate. The same quote appears in Henry Hurt's book, Reasonable Doubt, and probably in other sources, too. I was aware of all this in 1978, for not only did I know Earl, but in September 1978 I drove him up to Ada, Oklahoma to view the Bronson film. Earl was the reporter who found Bronson and I brought along my slow motion movie projector. We discussed Arnold on the phone at the time and during that trip. There's no question that Earl was impressed with what Yarborough had told him."

Who in their right mind could take that reply seriously? Are you genuinely implying that people who get trained in certain areas are only allowed to use those skills whilst wearing their official uniforms? Alan Discjockey/Philosopher/armchair researcher Malcomb Summers hit the ground and no one ever said he looked like he had his infantry training. The same about the Newman's and the Hester's. Whether Yarborough noticed a man in uniform is one thing had he not added his impression about the man's training, but to totally ignore or play dumb about how Yarborough got his impression and considering that there was someone in Moorman's photo that appears to have been in uniform ... it doesn't seem like a stretch to understand why Yarborough chose that analogy in describing why the man hit the ground. Bill Who in their right mind could take that reply seriously? Are you genuinely implying that people who get trained in certain areas are only allowed to use those skills whilst wearing their official uniforms? Alan Discjockey/Philosopher/armchair researcher Malcomb Summers hit the ground and no one ever said he looked like he had his infantry training. The same about the Newman's and the Hester's. Whether Yarborough noticed a man in uniform is one thing had he not added his impression about the man's training, but to totally ignore or play dumb about how Yarborough got his impression and considering that there was someone in Moorman's photo that appears to have been in uniform ... it doesn't seem like a stretch to understand why Yarborough chose that analogy he used in describing what he saw. Bill PS: Why not contact Nigel Turner or Sue Winters and ask them for more information concerning the interview they did with Yarborough. What's the worst that can happen .... you discover that the rest of your argument is destroyed?

Yarborough cleary refers to his "right" & that is all. No uniform, no knoll, just "to my right". To his right was a grassy area that many may consider the beginnings of the grassy knoll. I keep hearing the phrase "Yarborough knew the article was referring to a man on the grassy knoll" but why do you automatically assume that Yarborough knew where that was? Facts only please. Pretend to be dumb, Alan. Here is a message that Gary Mack sent to you that you must ignored ... "Alan, I knew Earl Golz in 1978 and spoke to him that August when his Gordon Arnold story appeared. There was a lot that was not in the finished article, for Earl had conducted a long interview with the man. Early usually recorded his calls and those tapes, and his notes, were given to the AARC in Washington. Contact Jim Lesar for access. Earl also told me that August that the day the story ran, he got a phone call from Ralph Yarborough that he had seen the guy - Arnold - and could confirm that part of his story. Yarborough told Golz he had read the article and remembered it. So it was clear to Golz that Yarborough was referring to Arnold up on the hill. Golz later wrote a follow-up story for the December 31, 1978 Dallas Morning News about several key witnesses whom the HSCA knew about but had not interviewed. Arnold was one of them. Golz contacted Yarborough, confirmed their earlier telephone conversation, and then wrote about the Senator's confirmation of having seen Arnold hit the ground. Bill has quoted that paragraph accurately and it also appears in several books, including Hurt's. Yarborough did not say the man was in uniform. He said that, from his actions dropping down, that he figured he was a combat veteran. I don't know about you, but anyone in the same circumstances would have hit the ground the same way, so there wasn't anything about the movement that said military to Yarborough. So there must have been something else, and that something may have been his uniform. That, of course, is speculation. But it was very clear to Golz who Yarborough was speaking about, for the article about Arnold was the sole reason Yarborough decided to call him. Any questions? Gary Mack " was located. I'm sorry but that's not good enough, I'm a sceptical so & so. People who produce newspaper articles & television shows are usually nowhere near as exacting as what real reserchers are. Again, what do you know about it? Your sceptisism really showed when you hung onto that ridiculous BDM claim about smoke lingering in front of him in a photo that was taken before the shooting ever started. Yarborough had a wall to his right, more than just a few people hit the dirt in this area. I think the Ralph read Golz's article & assumed he had seen the this same man. I think he was wrong to do so & I'm entitled to that opinion from the research that has been made available. Alan Dancer/Shaker Yarborough's car is in the tree shadow when Altgens took his #6 photo. The FBI said the limo was moving 11" per Zframe. Z313 - Z255 = 58 frames. Is it not possible that Yarborough's car rolled 40+ feet after Altgens took his photograph? If the later it true, then would not Yarborough be looking to his right when he saw someone dive to the wall at the time of the kill shot to JFK?

Your full of it & you calling me biased on this topic with your track record would be hilarious if I didn't take this subject seriously. All it does is show you up for the hypocrite you are. As for facts, you have none & I can't ignore them when there aren't any. Yeh right ... you have yet in the past two years to post where you spent one thin dime to contact Golz and talk to him ... you are nothing more than an armchair researcher IMO. In fact as I have pointed out previously - you immediately took the position that the Black Dog Man had fired a shot at JFK from not 100 -150 feet away with numerous people and SS agents looking right at him without first learning what Betzner said about when he took his photograph in relation to the first shot. Your lingering smoke claim was in error from the beginning because you didn't bother to seek out the slightest facts about what you were talking about. Gordon's family and friends heard about his experience on the knoll from the very beginning - Gordon sought no fame - Gordon refused to even take money for his interview because of principle. Gordon mentioned certain things about what transpired on the knoll during and after the shooting that were never known photographically until many years later. Instead if telling us how he knew those things - you ignore them in the same half-assed way you started out thinking BDM was shooting at JFK. When I look back at how much you had gotten wrong in order to reach the conclusion that you had and despite all the added information that you have been given to date without wavering from your original position - I must clonclude that you are on a mission driven by bias or you are a very inept investigator who doesn't feel that he needs to contact sources to learn more about the subject before rendering an opinion. Either way, you are going to think what you like even if you have to close your eyes and plug your ears. "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. Arnold claims he was on the knoll that day & that is still the only fact we have. Everything else is a matter of opinion & your opinion on how I view this topic is of little value to me but yanks all the same. Actually there are two assassination image sources that support Arnold being where he said he was. Once agin you are in error because you didn't do a proper investigation. The only source we have of Yarborough ever relating to a man in uniform or this specific wall on the knoll is from you, his biggest supporter, the same guy who twists everything he can get his hands on to point towards Arnold being honest. You claim that, after a conversation with him, that it is Golz's opinion that this was exactly what Yarborough said. Now you are suggesting to me that just because Golz & Turner never mentioned this, it doesn't mean it never happened. What kind of a journalist leaves out details like this from his work? You really expect me to believe that Yarborough may of told both Turner & Golz that the guy he saw was in a uniform above the wall but they both decided that it wasn't important enough to include in their work? And I'm the joker right? Why not stop being an armchair researcher and contact Golz, Turner, or Sue Winters and ask them what all Yarborough said to them and why they only offered a single sentence or so from all Ralph's interview time to be heard in their documentary? Most Arnold supporters agree that neither Golz or Yarborough ever mentioned a uniform. As far as you are concerned, it seems, they're all idiots for not thinking the way you do. Your statement is not correct as usual. The supporters I know understand that Golz mentioned Arnold as the service man on the knoll and Yarborough mentioned he knew right away that the man he saw had already had his infantry training. Neither can I get anything but opinions on Yarboroughs exact placing of this guy he claims to have seen diving for cover. It seems as though Yarborough & Golz never pinned it down. "..to my right" points to the area where the Hesters were but yes lots of others dove for cover too & probably a lot of others who weren't caught on any film. You are the only person I have ever heard act so confused about something that is so simple. It almost sounds as if you think that Turner just took a remark Yarborough made about seeing the Hester's (Charles sitting on a bench) and edited it into the Arnold on the knoll piece as if to decieve the public. It is that kind of thinking that shows why armchair researching is not the best way to really learn about a subject. We even have you claiming that the one time Yarborough was pinned down on this positioning by an interviewer, that he must have been losing his marbles because Ralph said that the very idea that he could of seen someone behind the wall on the knoll from his position in the motorcade was crazy! Maybe you'd like to explain your position on this for people like me who haven't looked at this interview before? I have already explained this. Do you know what Yarborough's mental state was just prior to his death? Let's see ... he wasn't confused about seeing someone in 1978 after reading Earl's article ... and he wasn't saying he could not have seen Arnold when Turner interviewed him for TMWKK series. So in an honest bit of armchair researching it is your position that Yarborough was incorrect all those years and got it right just before he died when Murph mentioned his where-a-bouts when the shooting started. My step-father is 85 years old and recollections he has told many times over the years are not as vivid to him today and many times he gets confused on certain details .... your inability to see these things is not suprising to me. So on the one hand we have you claiming that Golz left out important references to this guys clothing & specific position for no apparent reason & on the other we have you suggesting he was always thorough. Let's hope his notes reflect his thoroughness with Yarborough better than his article did, since it seems to mention nothing of these items that would have left future researchers in no doubt that it was Arnold he saw. Again, you need to understand the purpose for Golz writing his article in the first place. I thought that Gary Mack had already went over this with you for I think Gary was a journalist at one time. After talking to Gary - contact Golz or Godwin ... speak to people who worked in those areas and let them tell you why so much is left out of a n ewspaper article like Earl wrote. Earl contacted a lot of people to find out of Gordon was a credible person, but there is no mention of this in the article. There is also no mention of Earl's source for finding out about Arnold in the first place. You seem to think that writing a newspapre article in like writing an autobiography or a book .... you are sadly mistaken. One thing you can be sure of if you know anything about Golz. You should be careful about taking his word for on anything. I'll stop with your last remark ... just what do you know about Earl Golz and his credibility??? Bill Miller JFK researcher/investigator

"Mysteries upon mysteries, will they EVER cease? So do I feel better? Hell, I should be asking you that question. Learn MY mistakes...? what the hell does THAT mean?" "learn my mistakes" .... your sentence structure needs work. There is no need to study your mistakes for they can be generalized by saying that you don't put enough forethought into your position. Like I said before, while it was possible to alter a film in 1963, the process for doing so would leave tell-tale signs, thus your initial time spent considering the possibility was a wast of time due to not gathering all the needed data beforehand. "Your personals hold no interest for me, Bill -- your background in media production and post production does however. I see nothing, nada, nil to support any level of expertise regarding same. So my question is: why should anyone give credence to what you post re same? Course everyone is entitled to opinion! There's short supply re: generation, provenance and source information concerning JFK related Dallas/DPlaza imagery including: .gif, .bmp, and .jpeg animations on the internet. Won't you agree?" There was a reason why I gave you my personals ... it was to make a point .... a point that you failed to see it seems. I can also tell you that I withheld some things about my experience. I did so because the points you attempted to make concerning media and post production didn't mean squat when it didn't address the tell-tale signs that are not present in the films and photos you offer into question. It's like someone trying to argue that he is a chef, thus someone who doesn't cook at his level should not be heard .... but when the chef has mistaken lard for butter - it doesn't matter how well he thinks he can cook - his dish is crap before he ever got started. The same thing happened when you made a big deal out of telling people how it was "possible" to alter a film in 1963, but failed to discover that the alteration would be quite noticeable even to a laymen when put under scrutiny. You attempted to make a case and didn't give any thought to the type of film Zapruder used and how altering any images on it would show up because of the processes it would be subjected to. A similar thing happened when Jack and a PHd (Fetzer) thought they knew all about where Moorman stood, but failed to learn the standing height of a DPD motorcycle and apply that to their standing height for Mary's camera and how it related to her "McBride photo" and then her #5 Polaroid. So what I am saying, David ... is that all your media production knowledge doesn't mean squat if you do not know the photographical record and understand the photographical processes that would take place and expose alteration on an 8MM strip of Kodachrome II film. "Owning 2 or 30 sets of the WCR is irrelevant when it comes to understanding photo manipulation, AND we both know how LNutter's feel about eye witness testimony..." If you do not know the photographical record, then you cannot know what to look for that may lead to you seeing that an assassination image may be incorrect. Also, had you of known about the processes that would take place when altering a 8MM Kodachrom II film, then you would have seen that without those signs being present on the existing images, then no post alterations had taken place. Bill

David - I do not know what happened to my bio for it was posted when I put my picture on the forum ... in fact, I recall emailing it to John Simkin when he requested it. It is certainly a mysetery ... maybe you can figure out all the probables as to what happened to it - you think! I can however give you a brief run down .... I am 48 years of age, brown eyes, red hair, and I am 6'1" tall. My favorite color is red. I enjoy fishing, camping, hiking, dining out, reading, and watching comedies. I play the guitar and enjoy looking at pretty girls. Is that what you wanted to hear ... do you feel better now, David? Do you want to know more? I was born in Peoria Illinois in 1957. My sign in "Leo". When I lost my mother at the age of 20 years old - I found out that I was adopted. I went to work at Rohn Tower Company in 1978 and was elected to a union position by my fellow employees. I then attended the JFK UAW center in Chicago with three other elected Union officials. In 1980 I went to work for Caterpillar Tractor company until they started laying people off in 1980. I worked some small jobs until the late 1980's when I went to work for Inventory Technology. I was in training for a company position when I was diagnosed with cancer. I continued working everyday during my 6 months of chemo until I suffered a chemotherapy extravasation to my dominant hand, which ultimately disabled me. In 1993, I relapsed and underwent a bone marrow transplant with only a 30% chance of survival given to me at that time. As you can see - I am still alive and maybe you can compute out the probability as to my life expentancy in much the same way you attempted to do with the authenticity of the Zapruder film ... hopefully you will learn all the facts beforehand so not to make the same mistake you did over the possible alteration of the Zfilm. Do you feel that you know enough about me now, David? Have you learned anything that would tell you how I am able to debunk those alteration claims and show the short comings of your idea that the Zfilm could have been altered in such a way that no one could detect it under close scrutiny? I have spent over a quarter of a century studying the JFK assassination case. I own two sets of the 26 volumes and my special interest involves the photographical record and how it is supported by the actual assassination witnesses. I have spent considerable time talking to witnesses, various experts, and other researchers in an effort to gain as much knowledge as possible to help in my formulation of what transpired on 11/22/63. I have spent countless hours cross referencing the various assassination images in order to get a detailed image of the time line in which they were taken. I have built countless transparency clips stabilizing the Zapruder film, along with the Muchmore and Nix films, in order to watch the most intricate movements of the occupants within the limo in order to better understand their actions and reactions. I have also done the same with witnesses standing along the parade route. Have you learned anything new here, David? Do you feel better now? Any questions about the photographical record you'd care to discuss .... just let me know! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

"Calling me biased here is somewhat of an honour. I had always thought you had the monopoly on that title when it came to the Arnold myth." Alan, I am not going to keep replying to someone who finds that not doing any real research is an honorable way to investigate a matter as important as JFK's assassination. Let me repeat the differences between what I have done Vs. what you are doing ... I said, "Opinions should be based on facts and what you constantly suggest is biased speculation absent of any attempt to learn the facts." I don't think anyone could do a better job of not looking at the facts of this case if they were trying to avoid them altogether. What is even worse is that you seem to think that is something to be proud of. You are starting to remind me of a little kid who continually plays the child's game of asking "Why?" just to be yanking ones chain. There comes a point when one starts realizing that you are not being serious. I will explain why that is as I go through the repetitive meaningless remarks you once again have posted rather than attempting to contact someone who could better educate you on the facts. "There are no hard facts to support Arnold, I have learnt that much. All we have is "circumstantial" evidence, so opinions & speculation are quite valid(as much of your work on this topic clearly illustrates) & I am still not convinced of his presence on the knoll that afternoon, far from it. You taking Golz's word for something that I have seen no other evidence for & then spouting it as fact, does not stop me from wanting confirmation." Below is a list of people who interviewed Arnold before TMWKK series interview. This information was obtained by my questioning Gary Mack on the subject. I will quote Gary below ... Aug 1978 Howard Upchurch Aug 1978 Earl Golz May 1979 Anthony Summers May 1979 Earl Golz May 1982 Henry Hurt Nov 1982 Gary Mack Dec 1982 Gary Mack Jan 1983 Gary Mack ??? 1985 Jim Marrs Jul 1988 Gary Mack Mack said, "There were probably others, but these are the ones I personally know of. Arnold was specific and consistent with all of us about the general area where he stood: the top of the hill a few feet in front of the fence, back in the shade, near one of the trees. He did not remember the exact spot, nor was he asked to stand in any specific location by Dallas Morning News photographer Jay Godwin. I do not know how much detail he offered to the others about where he stood, but I know what he told me." Something else I learned from Gary Mack ... and that was when the first time anyone ever solicited from Arnold what he was wearing on the day of the assassination. This was important to know IMO and Golz had not asked Arnold that specific question. It has always been quite impressive to many investigators that Arnold was able to get his location on the knoll during the shooting accurate within reason, the position of the President at the moment of the shot coming past his ear, the exact shoulder that years later the Badge Man images would support a shot being fired over, Gordon's follow-up reaction after the shot was fired over his shoulder, the fact that there was later discovered to be two individuals in dark clothing near the spot where Arnold would have been on the ground, but more importantly I find that Arnold described to Gary Mack the clothing that he wore on the day of the assassination as he stood over the knoll. Yes, Gary Mack asked Arnold that all important question well before TMWKK series was ever filmed. In 1982, Gordon told Mack that he was wearing his 'tans". Mack not knowing what that meant had then asked Gordon for clarification and Gordon told Gary that this was the uniform he wore. I believe Henry Hurt was told by Arnold in May of 1982 that he had wore his military uniform that day, but I think it was Mack six months later who got Gordon to be a bit more specific about his clothing. Gordon also mentioned that he also wore what he called his "cunt cap". Another name for such a cap is called a "garrison cap". Is it not odd that not only had Arnold gotten so many details correct in his recounting of his experience during and after the shooting, but he also described wearing clothing that would not be photographically validated until the Badge Man work by White and Mack's was aired on the Turner series. Until that time Arnold had not been shown the Badge Man images that had been discovered. Something else that Gary Mack points out that is worth consideration even to those arm chair researchers like yourself. Gary said .... "If one suggests Arnold made up his story, one must ask, For what purpose? He sought no further interviews or notoriety. He turned down other interview requests. He refused to accept even a token payment for his appearance on TMWKK. And he declined additional interviews after the show appeared. At the time of his first interview with Arnold, Golz looked into the man's reputation and contacted several of his coworkers. Arnold passed every test Earl could think of." "I was after specific quotes from Yarborough(not Arnold) because what I have heard & read so far leads me to the conclusion that Ralph got mixed up & never once specifically pointed to the wall where we see BDM." What you have read so far???? Yarborough wasn't mixed up in 1978. Yarborough wasn't mixed up when Turner's people interviewed him in 1988. Only the aging Yarborough not long before his death had gotten confused about the question Murph put to him. As has been said previously, there is a difference in when Yarborough recognized the first shot Vs. what he later found out as to when the shooting actually had started. I have offered Yarborough's smiling face in the Altgens #6 photo as proof of Ralph's not being aware of the assassination at that point in time. Altgens #6 equates to Z255. Your failing to accept what Golz said in his article and why Yarborough contacted him is par for your bias in pretending to ignore the evidence. You were all too willing to accept the sunspot on the BDM as gun smoke without giving any consideration as to when Betzner took his photograph, but unwilling to understand what everyone else seems to follow concerning Yarborough talking about the man above the knoll at the wall. Instead, I have heard it referenced by one person that Yarborough must have seen the Bill Newman falling to the ground. Not only would Newman be hidden by the line of people along the curb, but Yarborough specifically said in the Turner interview that the man dove to the wall. The same applies to Charles Hester. With people standing along the curb and Yarborough's head not 4' above the pavement - the Senator could not have possibly seen Hester and surely not seen Hester diving like a flying tackle to the wall. Yet you miss those little details. This is one of the reasons why replying to your post is starting to look like a waste of time because you cannot discuss the evidence when all you have chosen to do is armchair research. You have sought little information from Mack, you have not spoken to Golz, you have made silly mistakes in your photo interpretations by not getting the basic facts tied down to when the shooting started compared to when the photos were taken, and you have failed miserably in understanding the information concerning Arnold and Yarborough by not going beyond the few sentences offered in Golz articles and what was said by Yarborough in TMWKK. "I have doubts that Golz looked at this comfirmation from Yarborough as critically as he should have. If it is Golz's opinion that the senator was referring to the area where BDM stood then you would expect there to be something in either his notes or his articles that would confirm this." Your comments are unfounded and seem really silly. Those who know Golz say that he is thorough and that is certainly the impression I got from talking to him. And it seems you need to be reminded once again ... Golz wrote about the service man above the knoll and it was Yarborough who sought Golz out to confirm Arnold being there after reading Earl's article. There is no 'Golz opinion' involved here for it was Yarborough who came to Earl to offer confirmation for what Gordon had said to Earl. Again, this is a problem when armchair researching for you are confusing important events that tell the story. Golz spoke to Arnold on several occasions and did the same with Yarborough and yet he only offers a few select sentences in his articles concerning each. To assert that there was nothing else said between these parties other than what was written in the newspaper or to imply what should or should not have been important to put into the articles by Earl is doing so without having a clue to what the purpose was for writing the articles in the first place. "You think? You mean you haven't read the follow-up either? If you do have it, then why not quote from it & tell us exactly how we can tell Yarborough was talking about a man behind the wall atop the steps & not the grassy area in front of the pergola." Someone IM'd me asking why it is that you are doing nothing more than going around in circles on this subject. I believe the articles have been posted on Lancer and can be found in their archives. Certainly you participated in those threads and saved the articles yourself - correct? Contact Mack at the 6th floor and ask him to read the articles to you for I seem to recall him going over them with me before, but of course that would mean that you would actually have to take a sincere step forward in wanting to learn something about this matter. ""It also seems that I was told"?? You mean you don't remember? Is that what you meant to say? Listen, I am not concerned about the general area, Arnold already stood in "the general area" for the photo that accompanied Golz's first article. What he, Golz & Yarborough never did is mention the man ever being behind that wall, or near/on the path, not even near it. Yet that is cleary where he is now considered to have been by his supporters only because of your belief in Jack's interpritation of the Moorman blow-ups." So you know - Jay Godwin took the photo that you speak of and Jay told me that he just had Arnold stand out where he could be seen near the knoll for a photo that would be included in Earl's article. Jay said there was no attempt to recreate Arnold's exact location when he took Gordon's photo. Of course I am only repeating once again what you have been told before. Golz made a reference in his article that researchers had pored over the assassination photos and films looking for evidence of someone being above the knoll and had not found this person. Earl went on to explain how Gordon went to the ground when the shooting occurred and alluded to this being a reason why researchers couldn't find Arnold in any of the post assassination images. Yarborough on the other hand mentioned Gordon diving to the wall. Ralph knew that Golz spoke of a service man above the knoll - Ralph was interviewed by Turner's people about Arnold and once again repeated what he had seen. To assert that Yarborough was talking about someone along the curb or sitting on a bench as Hester was doing is just plain absurd IMO. In fact, I would question the investigative ability of anyone who was not able to follow the evidence in such a way to derive at the conclusion you have proposed. "What you have spouted is only a rumour as far as I'm concerned. You have shown nothing to support your claim that Yarborough mentioned seeing a guy over this specific wall wearing a uniform. If you ever get a chance to read Golz's notes & find something to back this claim up, I will be genuinly astounded." If you ever lifted a finger to actually do some real digging into this subject - I'd be astounded! Golz mentioned the man above the wall on the knoll. Yarborough confirmed this individual to Golz and then mentioned seeing this man dive to the wall in the Turner interview. IMO, your inability to follow these points is shameful if you are purposely not seeing the connection and inept as an investigator if you are sincere in not seeing it. "FWIW, Gary told us last year, that that's exactly what did happen. Nigel Turner positioned Arnold to line up with "the figure" in the blow-ups. Why are you having trouble taking this in?" Gordon didn't know the exact location as I said. Turner wanted to see him over the South wall from Moorman's location for obvious reasons that Gordon would later discover. So having Gordon move a step or so one way or the other is a moot point for I had to do the same with my test subjects when I shot my Moorman recreation photo as well. You appear to be implying that Arnold had not a clue as to where he was on the entire knoll and had to be led over to the top of the walkway and that is nonsense. "Yarborough said his eye was attracted to the right, not in front. To his right was the grassy area & dozens of unknown witnesses lining the street, anyone of these could have dived out the way & caught his eye. It's very clear in "TMWKK" that he was talking about someone moving to his right, he claimed they jumped about ten feet & landed against a wall, once again to his right, not up infront somewhere." I again remind you that Golz and Turner went into great depth with their witnesses and Yarborough knew exactly what these interviewers were saying about Arnold and where he was located. I know of no other researcher who has ever taken such a preposterous position like that you have offered here. But then again I try to keep in mind how it was you who claimed the BDM had smoke lingering in the air in front of him while standing in front of so many witnesses and SS agents and was never challenged. That this was your position and how I had to remind you that Betzner had taken his photo "BEFORE" the first shot was ever fired. So your misinterpretation of the evidence is not all that shocking to me at this point. "Golz suggested Arnold was "hidden in the shadow of a tree" no mention of him diving behind or near a wall, ever. Your use the word "evidence" but where is the evidence that told you "Yarborough knew where he was talking about"? Please post, that's all I'm after." Yes, Earl suggested that Arnold was hidden in the shadow of a tree ... in fact this is what the Moorman's photo shows us through White and Mack's work. Earl also went on to mention Arnold going to the ground when the shot came past Gordon's ear. This is where Yarborough comes in and mentions seeing this man dive to the wall. These are excerpts from two witnesses who when put together they offer a picture of what transpired above the wall. 10 years later when Turner put his series together - Yarborough once again offered support for Arnold being above the wall. Not once is Yarborough on record saying that Turner misrepresented what Ralph had witnessed and where the individual was when he witnessed him diving to the ground. Your position is not only weak, but has shown an astounding inability to follow the evidence through these various sources. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

"IF, as some conclude the Z-film is NOT the real deal, why and what makes them think that?" David, the answer to that question has been given countless times. People who were at the assassination and saw the shooting have never said the Zapruder film shows anything other than what they saw. Not one thing seen on the Zapruder film shows anything different than what the other films and photos show that represent the same moments in time. I have already posted what Groden said about Kodachrome II film and what would be noticeable had someone tried to transfer it to 35mm to alter the images and then attempt to put them back onto 8mm film. Those who have made claims of alteration did so by making erroneous observations that were full of mistakes. You read "TGZFH" and came out of it afterwards stating that you HAVE NOT seen proof of alteration. With that said .... there simply is no reason to believe the Zapruder film is altered. In fact, there are things seen on the film that has caused people who specialize in sciences that were not in use many years ago who say the film shows just what a frontal shot would look like. They say that it is ridiculous to think that the film was altered to show what something like blood spatter science would support decades later. The fact is that the Zapruder film shows evidence of a conspiracy to those who know what to look for. "That was my starting point ---before that could be answered, one has to determine if, in FACT, it was possible to alter the in-camera Z-film original, you know: equipment, manpower, technology, know-how and of course time - that all elusive, TIME! were those things available?" David, it was possible to bounce a bullet off of several buildings and hit JFK in the head, but there is no evidence that it happened and this is the one of the reasons that film alterationist have been considered incompetent in their research. "For your benefit, and others: I can't conclude the Z-film is altered. I can WITHOUT reservation state: the equipment, manpower, technology, know-how and of course time - that all elusive, TIME! was available in 1963-64 to alter the Z-film [for '?' reasons] prior to the WC formally screening the Z-film mid-to late February '64. If you say I'm wrong, simple, prove me wrong. " David, the Mary Poppins movie is proof that films could be altered - the difference is that they could not be altered beyond detection under close scrutiny. You keep going on about Craig and others when in fact it is you who is ignoring the most important point of all. Films and photos can be altered, but as Groden pointed out - the type of film that Zapruder used cannot be altered and then have it go undetected because the process needed to be completed to make the alteration would certainly leave tell-tale signs of the alteration when put under close scrutiny. END OF STORY! BIll Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

"Come on now, Bill. If you were a newbie to this debate I'd grant your point -- what you fail to understand is this: I deal with probables, and what if. As I stated, IFthe film was altered, then it did its job -- simple! Your not going to suggest the Warren Commission didn't base their conc;usion on the Z-film are you?" David, you never respond with anything of substance. To say "If someone altered a film, then it did the job" is a senseless statement. The only way anything can do its job is if it really happened. In other words there can be nothing that did its job if it never really happened. If you deal in probables, then you should know that without a shred of any proof of alteration, then it is not probable that anyone got away with doing anything, unbless of course you consider making you paranoid was an accomplishment. Bill