Bill Miller

"So. Let's assume that is correct. There is a clear line of sight from the suggested BM to kennedy's head. Apart from the obvious question of whether there is a figure there, what's the hullabaloo about? As I understand the figure, if there, would have to be behind the fence and supposedly has a line of sight to the kill zone. I thought the suggestion was that the figure was at the wall, not the fence. Looking at sizing clears that up (IMO). If there, it's behind the fence. Similarly if there is a figure at Arnold, then the size is within error margin it seems, and not in the way? So what's the controversy?" John, for some people it is difficult to judge distances between objects on a 2D image such as a photograph, and rightfully so when certain information is absent from the equation. But the interesting point about the Badge Man images is that we have someone like Gordon Arnold who had been telling of his experience since day one. Gordon not only got his location correct, but he also got the timing of the shot correct and which ear it passed by. Moorman's photograph confirms what Gordon had been saying when the only way Gordon could have knwn those things would be if he had indeed actually of been there when it all occurred. The idea of Badge Man being at the wall is nonsense. Bill

So I suppose the question is that if there is a person there then as Ron asked. Would the badge be visible (or covered by the arm)? Would a line from the tip of a suggested rifle to Kennedy's head pass through the concrete wall or above it? John, JFK's head was 4' above the street. So the answer to your question is .... Yes, the President would be visible over the wall. Bill

I'll address two things here ..... 1) The alleged Badge Man digitial enhancement at the top of this thread is nothing more than a transparency overlay of Roscoe White over the top of the Badge Man image. It was taken from either an animation I created or one of the stills I posted some time ago. The shoulder of Roscoe White is quite noticeable in the alleged enhancement. (see below) 2) One can take ordinary people and place them where Arnold said he stood, along with where Badge Man was located behind the fence and replicate their images above the wall from Moorman's location. 6'2" Tony Cummings took up the Badge Man location by merely standing on the bottom horizontal support board of the wooden fence. A concrete parking barrier at the same location could have allowed Tony to achieve the same result. The conclusion we reached was that real people standing above the knoll could replicate the Badge Man images with little effort. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Jack, you can buy Trask new book at the 6th Floor Museum, but you probably won't like it because it deals with actual facts and data. Bill

and knowledge of the assassination buys you what, Bill -- be very specific, what do all those .gif animations and the thousands, upon thousands of posts buy YOU? One thing those animations do is help support and/or debunk any false claims concerning the assassination. "The Mystery Man seen through the pyracantha bush" not being an assassin, but rather Emmett Hudson was one such example. That allows the researcher to separate the fact from the fiction before getting started. There is also infromation within those animations that gives a researcher something to draw on. The moment of impact to Connally's right shoulder is just one example. The fact that Connally's right wrist was to the right and above his right nipple when the bullet passed through his chest has disproven the existence of the single bullet theory. Now tell us what all those say nothing snotty-assed replies that you make offer the advancement of the JFK assassination case ... "yes there is, Stephen -- Bill Miller and I have had our last exchange" ... especially those remarks that you had no intention on following through with? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Are we debating something here? Should I be nervous about something? rofl! No, David .... debate would call for you to have knowledge of the assassination. When you get pressed for information - you respond like this "I think I'm done with you, Bill-goodnight." Bill

"please continue -- you too Evan if you find it necessary to join in -- seems Lampoon needs a little support when he attacks ones motives for doing something unrelated to his (Lamson) wet dreams... Lampoon's pettiness is duly noted for all to see -- as for comments regarding nationalism... well, never mind, I have much respect for others freedom and their flag to degrade the term 'patriotism' with the likes of you know who... For the record, this tidbit found should only embolden you, I suspect it already has ---- thanks! You ever serve in the military Craig? have a nice life, guy -- be MORE than enough for you -- still plugging away... " Two replies and no specifics ... now is this the extent of your rebuttal, David? Bill

ahhhh, this is the best the other side of the equation can come up with? LOL! I suggest, save it, for your comments regarding discussion soon at hand -- you'll have your hands full, believe me! David Healy Is the above the extent of your rebuttal, David?

You can bet that they didn't see that ridiculous "Moorman in the Street" garbage or they may not have hired him. Bill

If he has some rational explanation I'll apologize, if he doesn't he should apologized to the entire forum. I don't see what the connection is between how many posts a member makes and their honesty. Len is correct. In the manner in which he applied the term 'disinformation agent' does indeed apply to Healy in much the same way it applied to 'Baghdad Bob' in the Gulf War. It seems that some of these guys spend a lot of time making accusations and no time actually trying to get the facts first. Groden is not inaccessable and if David wanted to know more about Robert's inspection of the camera original he could have obtained it quite easily. They often times show a pattern of leaving vital details out of their repsonses which always points away from photo and film alteration. When such behavior borders the realm of deception, then it can certainly be classified as disinformation and this is why Len seems justified in what he has said. Bill

"Miller is unfamiliar with Dealey Plaza. The south side of Elm is MUCH LOWER than the pedestal. Therefore THE LINE OF SIGHT RISES DRASTICALLY FROM SOUTH TO NORTH. Thus a person standing in the street is much taller to reach the line of sight. Dr. Mantik, who is PhD in physics, used a theodolite to establish PRECISELY the line of sight to the pedestal. (see attached) It is obvious that a person on the line of sight ON THE GRASS is much too short, but a person on the line of sight IN THE STREET is exactly the correct height. Jack" Jack, it is good to see that you are reading my post despite you saying otherwise. I know Dealey Plaza a little better than you think. I know Dealey Plaza well enough to know that there is about a 10 to 12 inch difference in elevation where you claim Moorman's camera lens was and where her camera actually was when she took her #5 Polaroid. I know that difference lies in the distance from where Mary is seen in the Zapruder film on the grassy slope and where you think she stood over the curb in the street. Let's look at the facts ... Moorman thinks you are silly for saying she was standing in the street when she took her famous #5 Polaroid. I know this because Mark Oakes who stays in constant touch with and sells autographed photos for Mary has told me so. The Muchmore film shows Mary and Jean Hill standing side by side as the cycles rode by their location and Jean said point blank that she was back over the curb and on the grass BEFORE the first shot was ever heard. Groden, Mack Thompson, myself and others have shot recreation photos that match the details seen in Mary's photograph in every way. One such example is seen below on he left ... the comparison on the right is from where you took your photogragh and the degree of both vertical and horizontal differences between the corner of the pedestal and the window gap are quite distinct. I might also add that what Josiah Thompson said about the windshield height of the motorcycles is a fact. It is mathematically impossible for a 54" camera lens height to see over the top of a 58" high motorcycle windshield if both are in the street and only a few feet apart. Moorman's camera was clearly elevated in such a way that she was able to see over the tops of those cycles windshields and the only way that could happen is that she was standing in the grass, which confirms why the pedestal and window gap in your animation is so far off. Your line of sight is too low and had you raised it and moved west you could have duplicated Moorman's photograph correctly. Bill Miller

My concern with the Z film is that some of the movements depicted don't seem possible and eyewitness testimony/comments contradict what is shown. Thanks for your work and comments in this area. Can you be more specific about any one thing that you would like to see addressed? Bill

"I probably will have very little to say about Zavada. In his report he admitted that HE DID NOT STUDY THE IMAGES of the Zfilm for authenticity...only the technical aspects of the film used. I have no doubts that the film was GENUINE KODACHROME, with all the relevant coding and technical specifications. It is the IMAGES that are in question...not the film stock. Zavada is not aware of the real issues. Jack" Groden is aware of the issues and he has said that he has personally held the film - studied every aspect of it - and claims that it was the genuine artifact.. Bill

fine, then you won't mind posting your bio to the forum, will you? Or is just me than can't view it? I posted my bio when I joined this forum ... contact the admistrator and have him run it down for you. BTW .... do you think asking about my bio is staying within the topic of this thread. If you wish to be taken seriously - you may not want to do the things that you just complained about others doing. Bill

simple, No case in point, Bill -- just start your own thread..... on disagreement. There's NO room for disagreement regarding a proposed discussion. Unless of course you disagree that two or three known experts in their field may present thoughts, ideas and evidence review regarding a certain crime committed in Dallas Texas? A comment was made in this thread that I responded to ... I have no intention of starting new threads when replying to statements made within this thread. Bill

Case and point ... Jack mentions that he will discuss anything with anyone which I guess is not thread jacking in your view, but my pointing out that I disagree with him on that point is thread jacking. Your sense of fair play is overwhelming! Bil

"You need to learn to read...its in my post or do you need the link for thr FOURTH time...?" Maybe David's inability yo read is why he has never learned the facts of the JFK assassination so he could offer some intelligent rebuttals. At least that would be one logical explanation for his constant behavior pattern. Bill

Alan...I do not DEBATE anyone on any subject. I will DISCUSS any subject with anybody. I do not respond to attacks and challenges by anyone; it is a waste of time. In DEBATES one has an OPPONENT. In DISCUSSIONS, there are NO OPPONENTS; perhaps differences but not attacks. Others may do as they please. Jack Right, Jack ... no attacks ... give me a break! You have been presented with evidence that not only showed the gross errors in your observations, but it was done civily and you didn't address the points made at all because you are not one to admit your mistakes. Instead you call people who show you up - "disinformation agents". Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator

Josiah writes: Why do you think Mary Moorman was standing in the street and not on the grass when she took her famous photo? David responds: How about; she said she stepped into the street and took a photo? David - you just did what Jack attempted to do when he said Jean Hill claimed she stepped into the street, as well. The problem for you guys is he timing in which it occurred. Jack leaves out Jean saying she stepped back out of the street before the first shot sounded. Now you are implying something while leaving out some important facts, as well. Mary Moorman did step into the street to take a photo, but it was the photo of Officer McBride that she did this. How do we know this to be the case? We can look at the McBride photo and see the people along the north side of Elm Street through his windshield and not from over the top of it as in Moorman's #5 Polaroid. A simple rule of physics and an understanding of perspective says it all for a 54" view from in the street will be looking through a 58" tall windshield. For a 54" view to be looking over the top of a 58" tall cycle's windshield means that Moorman had to be over the curb and in the grass as she claims she was and no misrepresenting the facts will change any of this! Bill

dgh01: Bill: so even you can understand: post right here: [ ] where have I said Jack White is wrong 100% of the time? -- Who do you think your dealing with -- btw, where's YOUR forum bio it was not available a few minutes ago? David, I was hoping that you'd try and play dumb on this one for it seems to be a common these these days with some of you. Let me make this so simple that even you should be able to follow it ... Jack has made countless claims concerning what he believed to be evidence that the photographical record surrounding JFK's assassination is altered. You have read and heard each one of those claims over the years and after having done so - you made the statement on this forum that you have not seen any proof of alteration. That means 0% - that is the opposite of Jack's position, thus if you have not seen proof of alteration after seeing all Jack's claims, then you have said in so many words that you disagree with each of Jack's alteration claims and that they had not convinced you that anything had been altered. Bill

The idea that one must be an expert to have a correct opinion is a diversion tactic used by a select few IMO so to try and keep a particular belief alive. I have seen things within the films and photos that caused me to take up those observations with experts such as Sherry in order to seek validation from a scientific standpoint. The non-expert can speak intelligently on a subject just by what information they had obtained from an expert ... I used Stu Wexler's CSPAN presentation as one such example. Bill