Bill Miller

" now who the hell cares whether he's 'technically' correct or not? Does one think alterationsist gave a damn if anybody found out about film alteration, after-the-fact? 40+ years AFTER the fact? IF any film/photo alteration job was performed, it DID, in fact, THE job; the WC did not argue the SBT as baseless - therefore, any argument against Z-film alteration is a waste of time .... end of story..." David, I really do not know what goes through your mind .... your reply had nothing to do with what I had said to Craig. I also have to tell you that your comment makes absolutely no sense. You first state that "If" alteration was performed .... only to then imply that the alteration job worked. In other words, if there was no alteration performed, then how could it have done the job? Bill

And btw, boosting exposure to blow out detail to MAKE NEW DETAIL is not "optimizing exposure". Its photo manipulation. That Jack is a fact. Craig, technically you are correct, but I think the difference lies in whether one is merely creating an image that never really existed or allowing an image to be better seen. I have taken many images and backlit them which allowed otherwise dark areas where nothing could be seen only to then light them enough to see what was really there. One such example might be a photo that is dark in the background and when lightened we can see the details of a wall ... it seems some autopsy photos may have been done that was if I remember correctly. I mean - even taking a negative and exposing it at different levels and then making prints is a form of manipulation if one wants to make a case for it, but the question lies "Did it only create detail that was not really present in the photo or did it help better bring it out?" Bill

"looks like the old WANKER-yanker found a way out of the snow - hopefully he'll be able to follow the bouncing ball and read the entire thread -- hell, we don't even know if this guy owns a camera, much less has "darkroom experience"..... that's okay " Why make another idiotic resxponse instead of just asking someone what their darkroom experience is? "Oh, what's GaryM have to say about Badgeman these day's?" I believe Gary stands behind he and Jack's study.

"Do you mean that you turned up the contrast only on the other areas and not on the puff of smoke, so that the other areas became as bright as the puff of smoke? " I turned up the contrast equally for the entire image. If you'll just test this on another B&W image as I suggested - you'll see that some areas will brighten to a certain point while others will increase to a point of catching up to those that reached their limits. The end result is multiple places on the image that have the same intensity that did not start out the same on the original image. "In any case, the four objects I referred to all seem to be the same phenomenon ("puffs of smoke"), only varying in size and shape (and originally, depending on how many you turned up the contrast on, in brightness). Seems to me that your contrast work does not explain these objects away." On the Moorman photo as it is - Jackie's pink suit is the same color as the Dallas sky, not to mention other objects in the photo ... this is what happens to images with limited color tones to work with. Because they can all be contrasted equally does not mean they are all the same intensity even though they can all reach a point that they will cause them to appear that way. Bill

"Coincidence number one is that Mary Moorman took her famous photo at the very instant that a muzzle flash was visible on the knoll, so that the flash is seen in what appears to be full bloom, not just starting or not just fading but a big white blotch, in the photo." Moorman took her photo in reation to a shot going off - just as Willis said happened to him ... this is not hard to understand IMO. "Coincidence number two is that there is in fact not one “muzzle flash” in the photo, but two side by side. There is a slightly larger one to the right (our right) of what is considered to be Badge Man’s muzzle flash. Other than the slight difference in size, they look like the same phenomenon. So how is one a muzzle flash and the other isn’t? " Unless someone else did it too - your examples look like the ones I did when I tested the images to see if they'd separate from the tree foliage. It is the turning up the contrast that has caused the other areas to become so bright looking. Because it was a B&W image to start with with limited color tones ... it is difficult enough to separate alike colors. Adding contrast only pushed the light pathches closer together on the intensity scale. Try this with any B&W image and you will see a similar result. Bill

You are right and that is why some of us know that Badge Man was not at the wall, but behind the fence and behind Gordon Arnold ... and not just behind Arnold, but behind and over his left shoulder. Now isn't it funny how Arnold claimed to have a shot come not over his right shoulder, but his left shoulder. My experience with Badge Man/Arnold critics has been that they do not seem to consider all the evidence as a whole ... at least for those who are capable of understanding it. You would be surprised just how many people have stated Bade Man is at the wall because they didn't bother to actually look at the photo in enough detail to see what you were able to point out. Bill

Might a closer look at the attached enlargement of the bottom right corner of the picture not then convince one of the depiction of both the 'badge' and the 'shoulder patch'? However, supposing what is being depicted is the lens of a camera ( the 'badge') and the exposed left wrist/watch of a cameraman (the ' shoulder patch'), is it then possible to discern two hands holding a camera ... and perhaps resting on top of a pointed fence? Ed, I notice that you tend to see a lot of cops with cameras in many of the assassination photos ... can you explain why if someone wanted to keep a low profile while filming the assassination that they would use cops holding cameras? I mean, it seems that would stick out as odd to most observers. Bill

I contacted Gary Mack today for some additional information on Yarborough and Arnold. This is some of what he said to me .... "Yarborough told Golz, as he reported in the News on December 31, 1978, "Immediately on the firing of the first shot I saw the man you interviewed throw himself on the ground. He was down within a second of the time the shot was fired and I thought to myself, 'There's a combat veteran who knows how to act when weapons start firing.'" Yarborough knew Golz had written about a man up on the grassy knoll." "Whether Yarborough thought the guy was a soldier based on his movements or upon his clothing, or both, is of little significance. He saw a man up on the knoll drop to the ground, not a man with a family next to him (Newman) and not a guy on the south side of Elm which, from his location, would have been partially or completely obstructed from Yarborough's view." "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."

Golz wrote the original article & you are Arnolds biggest supporter. Why would anyone look for another opinion? I wonder. Opinions should be based on facts and what you constantly suggest is biased speculation absent of any attempt to learn the facts. So you are saying that you remember Golz telling you that, from his memory of his notes, Yarbourough talked to him about seeing a serviceman, in uniform, not only standing above the wall but also diving away at the sound of a shot? Golz told me what he recalled specifically while talking to Gordon Arnold. Well okay then, first question. Did Golz ever put this in print or even in his notes? Your not sure right? I have not seen Earl's notes, nor did I ask him if he had them in front of him when we spoke. In fact, I think I already stated that Earl said he had donated his notes to a university or something. Earl appeared to recall his conversations with Gordon quite well. Earl did not come across as someone who was merely guessing or searching for an answer. Secondly, if Yarborough really did say what you suggest, don't you think it would of been only right to tell Arnold of this? I think Yarborough was mentioned in a follow-up article that Golz wrote - wasn't he? As was made clear to both you & I last year, at the time of the "TMWKK" filming, Arnold was clueless as to where he stood & was only positioned where we see him because of Jacks interpretation of the shapes above the wall. I question the accuracy of your interpretation of the facts. I believe that Gordon wasn't sure of the exact spot where he stood .... not the general location. It also seems that I was told that Gordon was not positioned anywhere by Turner or his people. Yarbourough was brought out in support of Arnold in "TMWKK" but if you liten closely & know where he was positioned on Elm St, it is obvious he was talking about someone to his right, on the grass most probably & IMO its Mr. Hester who caught his eye. Mr.H ended up about 15' from the bench he & his wife were near & the are very close to "a wall", the pegola wall. Yarborough's car was actually just passed the shade spot cast on the street in the Willis photo when JFK was shot in the head. Ralph's car was angled in a SW direction, thus the south corner of the wall was to his right front. More importantly is that Ralph called Golz after reading Earl's article and Yarborough knew that Earl had written about a young service man on leave. Your thinking that Yarborough must have been talking about the Hester's is comical and reflects well on the unreliablity of 'arm chair researching'. Not only did Earl make it clear that researchers could not find Arnold for years while looking over the assassination images because Gordon told him of falling to the ground, thus being hidden out of sight above the knoll, but Yarborough was quite clear about the man he seen diving to the wall like an old-time flying takle. The Hester's are seen in several assassination images and they were nowhere close to the wall that Golz and Yarborough were talking about. When someone like yourself misses these kinds of pieces of the evidence ... there is no use in trying to convince them of anything IMO. Bill

This IS exactly what Yarborough said, "I thought he was an infantryman" & because of what he did, not how he looked. So Golz has no record of these further details? How queer! Alan Alan, your lack of effort in running down the facts of this matter does not reflect well upon you IMO. We have been through this before and I never heard where you have attempted to contact Golz or anyone else who might shed some additional light on the subject. Instead you just post off-the-wall rebuttals in much the same way the alterationist only attempt to cast suspicion about the Zapruder film. For instance, to say that Yarborough saw the Hester's fall to the ground and then somehow read the story about the serviceman standing above the wall in Golz story and confused the two is absurd and really not worth addressing. Yarborough knew who Golz was talking about and the two corresponded back and forth several times about Gordon. I remember touching with Golz on the subject of a select few people who believed that Yarborough may have seen the Newman's or Chism's and confused them with the person in his article and I cannot quote Earl at this late date, but I can tell you that his position was that such a thing was utter nonsense. About Golz notes ... I asked him about his correspondances with Yarborough and his notes and as I recall, Earl said that he had donated them somewhere, but I just cannot remember to whom that was. Seems like it may have been a library or univerity in the state of Texas. Maybe Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museum can be of some assistance if you wish to learn more about them. I can tell from your responses that you have never sought to contact Golz and I have the impression that you don't seek a lot of information from Gary Mack. I can only pass along what information I obtained when I sought these sources out and because Golz didn't have his notes to hand over to me doesn't mean a hell of a lot IMO. Earl cited from memory, but we went over the same things several times from several angles and I am completely satisfied that he was being truthful. I wish you luck with your "arm chair research". Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator

"I will post one rebuttal to Roland Zavada/Ray Fieldings' (editor regarding optical film printing issues-possibilities) initial post. I will then retire from the Ed Forum Z-film/DP film-photo debate. I mentioned same re: my Ed Forum DPlaza film/photo debate position in a email sent to Roland Zavada a few weeks ago." Does this mean that you will retire on your past position that you have never seen any evidence of alteration? Bill

"Take a look at Altgens 6 as kennedy is clutching his throat and Secret Service agents are looking around for the shooter, the Johnson's are totally oblivious as to what has just happened, they are smiling. Yarborough was in the same car. This is what he said about the first shot. QUOTE: Golz wrote, Arnold's "presence on the grassy knoll was confirmed Saturday by former U.S. Sen. Ralph Yarborough of Texas, who was riding in the motorcade two cars behind the presidential limousine. He was a passenger in a car with Vice President Lyndon Johnson and Mrs. Johnson. Immediately on the firing of the first shot I saw the man you interviewed throw himself on the ground," Yarborough told The News. "He was down within a second of the time the shot was fired and I thought to myself, 'There's a combat veteran who knows how to act when weapons start firing." I have posted on this in detail on Lancer's forum and will touch on it briefly here .... Not only are the Johnson's smiling in Altgens #6, but so is Yarborough. JFK and Yarborough were friends, so unless one thinks Ralph was aware that shots were being fired by the time Altgens took his photograqph and was smiling about it .... the Senator was UNAWARE of gunfire at that moment. I spoke to Golz in detail on the subject of Yarborough and it was quite clear to me that Ralph, upon hearing what he recognized to be the first sound of gunfire, noticed a serviceman above the south corner of the wall who immediately dove to the ground. The physically and mentally aging Yarborough that Murph spoke to in the latter part of the Senator's life before he died did falter when asked about what he saw when the shooting started because there is a big difference in when Yarborough was aware of gunfire and when gunfire was later known to have started. Bill

"Take a look at Altgens 6 as kennedy is clutching his throat and Secret Service agents are looking around for the shooter, the Johnson's are totally oblivious as to what has just happened, they are smiling. Yarborough was in the same car. This is what he said about the first shot. QUOTE: Golz wrote, Arnold's "presence on the grassy knoll was confirmed Saturday by former U.S. Sen. Ralph Yarborough of Texas, who was riding in the motorcade two cars behind the presidential limousine. He was a passenger in a car with Vice President Lyndon Johnson and Mrs. Johnson. Immediately on the firing of the first shot I saw the man you interviewed throw himself on the ground," Yarborough told The News. "He was down within a second of the time the shot was fired and I thought to myself, 'There's a combat veteran who knows how to act when weapons start firing." I have posted on this in detail on Lancer's forum and will touch on it briefly here .... Not only are the Johnson's smiling in Altgens #6, but so is Yarborough. JFK and Yarborough were friends, so unless one thinks Ralph was aware that shots were being fired by the time Altgens took his photograqph and was smiling about it .... the Senator was UNAWARE of gunfire at that moment. I spoke to Golz in detail on the subject of Yarborough and it was quite clear to me that Ralph, upon hearing what he recognized to be the first sound of gunfire, noticed a serviceman above the south corner of the wall who immediately dove to the ground. The physically and mentally aging Yarborough that Murph spoke to in the latter part of the Senator's life before he died did falter when asked about what he saw when the shooting started because there is a big difference in when Yarborough was aware of gunfire and when gunfire was later known to have started. Bill

Hello, Mark. If you look closely you may notice a little kid in profile who is wearing a stocking cap. It is that cap that obstructs the mans face. Bill

I won't say that Occam's Razor applies here, but I think Sitzman had no reason to make up a story about seeing a black couple behind the wall (and remains of someone's lunch were found at the bench), whereas Arnold could have made up a story about himself, as other people have done in this case, and trying to prove his story involves shadows, waist lines, etc. that seem to move away from the proverbial razor. But you may be right. Whoever it was, he or she didn't shoot the president (though some folks argue that too). Ron Sitzman didn't lie IMO, but what you don't seem to understand is that as the crowds were cheering as the motorcade approached ... she never looked back to the bench and instead looked towards the entrance in the plaza for the President's arrival. As far as Arnold making up his story ... he told about the details before they were ever photographically discovered, so unless he was another 'Amazing Kreskin' type of individual - he told the truth and part of his story is supported by Senator Ralph Yarborough. Bill

Ron, I think that Arnold realized that someone was shooting at the President and JFK was traveling left to right, so Arnold went the other direction just as Hudson and the guy on the steps next to him had done. Bill

"Bill, lose the condescending attitude; it's definitely not justified." Yeh right, Tim. It was just as justified as "Which part is "consistent with the movement witnessed by Yarborough and reported by Arnold," the part when he "hit the dirt" or the part when he was "moving to his left"? Did he crawl to his left or to the camera's left? "So you are saying that Arnold moved to his left (camera right), behind the retaining wall, as part of his dive to the ground. But are you also meaning to say that Bob Groden agrees with you that BDM, seen in Willis and Betzer, was Gordon Arnold?" That is what I am saying. I have attached an email between Robert and I below .... Subject: RE: Answer me this question, Robert ......... Date: 3/1/2006 10:28:00 PM Pacific Standard Time From: robertg1@airmail.net Reply To: To: IMSJLE@aol.com CC: BCC: Sent on: Probably the late 1970s. Perhaps 1978. RG -----Original Message----- From: IMSJLE@aol.com [mailto:IMSJLE@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:05 PM To: RobertG1@airmail.net Subject: Answer me this question, Robert ......... Robert, Recall back to when we discussed the connection between the Arnold figure in the Moorman photo and the Black Dog Man .... at that time you told me that you had always thought that those two figures were one in the same person. Can you remember how far back you had first made that connection? Bill "And that Yarborough could see Arnold dive to the ground from his location at street level east on Elm St with the retaining wall in the way?" Yes, we know that people cannot see through concrete walls, but I believe that Yarborough applied a little common sense and assumed that as Arnold dove and went out of sight behind the wall that he did hit the ground. "And also that Arnold heard "several other shots" after hitting the dirt following a shot from Badge Man at Zf-315? " Yes, I believe Arnold said he thought he heard another shot or reports coming from back behind him. Bill

David, you've already said that you have not seen any proof of alteration, so you must be able to say what there was about all those alteration claims in TGZFH that didn't seem convincing to you. Len's question is a fair one and considering you have responded countless times in these alteration threads ... you should have no trouble addressing his questions. Is it your intention to only offer nonresponsive replies on this forum? Bill

If, according to Bill, Groden believes BDM was seen still standing in Moorman at Zf-315 in the purported Arnold/BDM location, and that he hadn't "moved," as Groden said to me, how can it have been Arnold "moving to his left after the kill shot" when he had supposedly "hit the dirt?" Which part is "consistent with the movement witnessed by Yarborough and reported by Arnold," the part when he "hit the dirt" or the part when he was "moving to his left"? Did he crawl to his left or to the camera's left? T.C. Tim .... use a little sense. Arnold didn't fall straight down like the World Trade Center fell. Instead he seems to have dropped his arm and turned to his left, which must have been the beginning of his diving to the ground as Yarborough described. While this person was still in deep shadow in Groden's alleged first generation copy of the Nix film, he was still visible to the point that Robert, myself, Royce Bierma, and the lab tech saw the leftward movement. The movement was quick and sudden .... we could not follow him but for a brief moment. We looped it over and over under magnification. Let's keep in mind that it was Yarborough who read about the serviceman on the knoll in Earl Golz article and it was the Senator who called Earl to confirm Arnold being right where he said he was. Yarborough said in TMWKK series that when the man dove to the ground he knew he was seeing a man who has had his infantry training. That tells me that Yarborough saw a serviceman who had been given his infantry training already. The figure in the Badge Man images is wearing what is called a "Garrison Cap", which is what Arnold wore in 1963. Arnold's then girlfriend told Turner and his assistant producer that Gordon had told his family about his experience on the knoll immediately after the assassination. Bill

As a laymen, I'd say if he is standing on the ground then it can only mean one thing, he as about as close to the wall as he could get. As for how high this "man" has his pants pulled up, I'm sure anyone can judge from the rest of his upper body that he has them in "the normal position"(ie. definitely below his navel). Alan Lets not forget that Arnold told Golz many years before the Badge Man work was ever done that he was standing on a mound of dirt. Did Gordon mean that to be a high spot covered with grass or a freshly dug mound - I cannot say. It would however explain why we see his belt line. If one wishes to get an idea how servicemen wore their uniforms in the 60's ... watch an episode of Gomer Pyle and see how he and his buddies wore their clothes. One other thing .... a few post back, Alan mentioned the ground near the south bend in the wall and how he believed that it didn't slope in 63 as it did in the photo of Gary Shaw taken by Robert Groden. I would like to know where Alan got his information because I have spoken to Gary Mack, historian at the 6th floor museum, and Gary told me that he never recalls the ground being any different there until that area was eventually covered over with concrete years later. The reason for the slope as Gary explained was for run-off purposes when it rained. Bill

The third possibility is that it isn't a person seen at the corner of the wall in Moorman. As for the above statement regarding Groden's position, it seems to imply that he believes BDM and Arnold to be one and the same. I'm not sure if Bill really intends to be making that claim. When I asked Groden what he thought happened to BDM between Willis and Moorman, he succinctly replied: "He moved." T.C. As I said before, Groden mentions in his book that the light colored clothing of someone can be seen over the south edge of the wall in one of the assassination films. The color of the clothing matches that of what Arnold would have worn. I can also tell you that Groden said to me point blank that he believs the person in the Betzner and Willis photo is the same person seen in the Moorman photograph. Robert and I went over this very carefully together on the knoll. While I have posted this information before, I will say it once again .... Robert and I took his best color Nix film copy to the lab this past year and we could see this person over the wall in motion moving to his left after the kill shot to the President. This was consistent with the movement witnessed by Yarborough and reported by Gordon Arnold, so take it for what it is worth to you. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Where did you find this Betzner image, a novelty shop? I found it in your two framed GIF. You were comparing it with what is obviously a blow-up of Moorman5 but I don't recognise the source of this frame, it certainly isn't any Betzner3 I've seen(& I've seen some crappy ones but this takes the biscuit). Won't you help us pin it down like you did for Eugene? Alan Alan, you are looking at a composite made up of two transparency images overlaid into one. The animation that image came from was a fade-in illustration showing the shade line similarities and this is why the shade on the BDM is faded in tone. I have posted all the gifs I have ever made - go look for them if you didn't bother to save them. We have been through all this before on Lancer's forum and I walked you step by step through the images I created and why they were made. I did the same sort of thing when I created the image below so to compare my photo with Moorman's ... (see below) The BDM is so far away from the camera in Betzner's photo and because it is a B&W photo with very limited color tones - I wondered if parts of the figure over the wall was blended into the background, thus hiding his true entire outline, I then decided to concentrate on that shade line passing over both individuals. Now I see that Ron is having trouble understanding the similarities between the BDM and Arnold in Moorman's photo. While I have said this before, maybe I should remind you guys of something that you are refusing to consider ... For the BDM not to be the same person in the Moorman photo there has to be a switch that took place, but Groden points out in his book that this individual can be seen in one of the assassination films just over the south bend in the wall at a time before the kill shot to JFK was fired. This closes the window considerably for this switch to have taken place. Arnold didn't say he ran over and took another persons spot at the wall - Yarborough didn't say he saw such an event take place - and didn't Don Roberdeau once post a statement from Rosemary Willis where she said she too had seen an individual standing over the wall. So unless you people can explain away this siwtch that would have needed to take place in about three seconds or so, then you might want to consider this person in each photo being one and the same individual. I have pointed out what those similarities are and you can either see them or you can't. There can only be two choices ... 1) BDM in Betzner and Willis is not the same person in Moorman, thus a switch had to have taken place or - 2) It is the same individual in all three photos and the similarities I have pointed out have merit. Bill

Ron, I know you were not talking about sunspots. Look at some of the BDM images I have posted - some are taller and narrower than others. One example of what I am telling you would be ... two cameras are used to take a photo of a building ... one camera makes the building look tall and narrow while the other camera makes the building look shorter and wider. Its still the same building is it not. I took the BDM and the Arnold figure and pulled the same two individuals together and saw the shade line on each come together on their south side. Bill

Ron ... I have not a clue as to why you said what you did. One of the first things I did when I tested the two images is to check and make sure I sized other fixed objects in each picture so to appear about the same size. You are aware aren't you that Moorman and Betzner's cameras made similar things in each photo look to be different sizes compared to one another. The two sun spots speak for themselves, combined with witnesses statements .... any differences in their sizes and shapes are mostly due to the two cameras lenses. Bill "SO BILL YES PEOPLE DO SHOT IN FRONT OF CAMERA PEOPLE AND EVEN POLICE AND GUARDS." Nancy, you misunderstood the point I made. I said no one could shoot from that location and not be seen by the witnesses looking in that direction. I did however add an important fact and that was that Betzner took his photo before the first shot was fired. Bill

"Are you still seriously claiming that this image below, which I pulled from your GIF, can be compared with what we see in Betzner? What kind of joke is this?" Alan, I will explain this one last time because the only joke is the one where you keep pretending not to be able to follow what I did and why. To start with ... there is no smoke seen in front of the BDM in Hugh Betzner's photo because the first shot had not even been fired yet when Betzner took his photograph. Your previous conclusion was in error from the get-go, which I could see how in the beginning it might have clouded your thinking. There are several levels of quality of both the Moorman and Betzner prints which I have utilized at different times. Below is one such image of the BDM from the Betzner print. (see below) I first noticed a shade line on the south side of the BDM which seems to be very similar to the shade line passing over the figure in the Moorman photograph. ( see below) Once I created a transparency overlay so to allow the viewer to see how they compared to one another - I then went back to a Betzner print showing the BDM such as the one below. (see below) By taking the sunspot from the Arnold figure and bringing it over the top of the sunspot on the BDM - the similarities are quite obvious to me. Below is an animation that does not combine the two sunspots, but rather shows them as they are in each individual photograph. (see below) My conclusion is that no one fired a shot from the corner of the retaining wall in wide open view of everyone. That Gordon Arnold stood at the end of the walkway and it was Gordon that Senator Ralph Yarborough saw dive to the ground when the shooting was going on. That the alike sunspots on each individual tells me that the figure in Moorman's photo and the figure in the Betzner photo are one in the same person. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator