Bill Miller

Len, it is funny that them guys have said the same thing that Groden told me ... David seems to ignore them all even though he has no expertise to do so. I remind veveryone once agin that Groden did examine the camera original and I posted his response concerning its authenticity which David also ignores. Bill

Even if Moorman was in the street ... her height would be much higher than Fohne's waist, which should have been a clue that your study had a big flaw in it. By the way ... The yellow stripes were painted on the curb in Dealey Plaza years before JFK was ever elected President. I have posted this information before. The stripes are to let drivers know that the road bends and is why you will not find them on Main Street. I obtained this informaion by way of talking to several sources ... one of them being Dallas Cab drivers. Bill

"Costella based his conclusions upon evidence whose quality you are calling ito question. Therefore any conclusion he drew is highly suspect esp. considering his complete ignorance of the subject and inability to use common sense." Len, you're exactly right. I don't belive that David meant to do this, but he has inadvertently denounced Costella and any other alteration supports opinions because of the position he has taken. I certainly don't agree with his way of thinking that one needs to see the camera original image to see many of the false claims being made in support of film alteration, but at the same time I have no problem with it as long as he applies it to both sides of the isle so-to-speak. Bill

I have a tendency to listen to opinions from those with trackable experience, especially when it concerns format matter I understand and work with daily -- and quite frankly those belong to none other than Jack White and yes, Gary Mack! And I don't agree with either 100% of the time According to you ... you have disagreed with Jack's claims of film and photo alteration 100% of the time for you have stated that you HAVE NOT seen proof of alteration. There's no damage control, Bill -- How can there be damage control? You can't prove a damn thing - Jack can't prove anything and neither can I we don't have access to originals -- when it comes to educated guesses regarding still photography, my money's on Jack -- The issue is photo credibility, its always been photo credibility. What the hell do you think Zavada did DP film testing for? Who cared about full claw issues between 1967-1990? and WHY care? There two issues here ... 1) If you are sincere in your beliefs, then apply them to Jack's post as well. 2) Even if all the photos and films were fake - the misreading of them is what Jack is being accused of and has nothing to do with their validity. Bill

for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! David, where were your concerns about camera originals whan Jack made his claim? These guys are` addressing the images that Jack used. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. While it is apparent that you know little about the evidence ... I think that if all you plan on doing is being a refere, then at least call them the same for both sides. [this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! But yet you didn't bitch to Jack when he makes his claims by way of using photos that have no credibility in your view. Moorman says she was in the grass - Hill says she was back in the grass before the first sounded ... so do you think you can do damage control for Jack by talking lineage? Furthermore - the problems are not over the credibility of the photos, but rather the flaws in Jack's allegations and reconstructions. Bill

"Looks like the DP eyewitness accounts are under attack... Experts that flap around in the breeze aren't experts -- one can tell who the 'preservers of Dealey Plaza History' cheerleaders are -- Unfortunaltely for some, what they need to avoid, at ALL costs, is WCR testimony and the SBT...." David, While I find some of what you said to be probably true ... it too, is little more than cheerleading in itself. Now to address the person with actual evidence whose text was copied in your response ... Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman a couple of years ago what she thought about the "Moorman was in the street" claim and Mary said (according to Mark) that "it is silly". Mary told Mark that she was standing right where the Zapruder film shows her to be. This person whose text I'm referring to must not have read all the claims made within Jack's claim for Jack also said that Jean Hill was in the street with Mary when the cycles passed by them. I would invite this person to look at the Muchmore film because it picks up within a second or so from when Altgens took his photograph. Altgens photograph shows Mary and Jean's shadows barely reaching over the curb and onto the street, which is exactly what the Zapruder film shows. None of the assasination films show Moorman and Hill moving into or out of the street as the cycles pass by and Altgens #6 gives one a side view of just how close those cycles handbars come to the curb as they rode down Elm Street. I have pointed out many times that Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of the windshields of the cycle riders and that their known windshield hieght is 4" taller than Jack gives for Moorman's camera height. Jack doesn't say Moorman stood on a box while in the street, nor does he say that Hill laid on the ground so Mary could stand on Jean so she could get her camera higher than those cycles windshields, so how does Jack address this ... HE DOESN'T! How does Fetzer address this - HE DOESN'T! One day when I was in the plaza with Robert Groden and we were talking about how foolish this Moorman in the street claim was - we decided to shoot a Muchmore recreation shot to make a point about Mary and Jean's shoes being seen in Marie's film. You see, as Altgens #6 photograph shows, the hill slopes down to the curb and the curb drops another 8 to 9 inches. This means that for Hill and Moorman to be in the street and over that slope, plus the curb, their shoes could not possibly be seen from where Muchore stood. The recreation photos Robert and I shot with stand-ins proved this beyone any doubt. How did Jack address this - HE DIDN'T! How did Fetzer address this - HE DIDN'T. Jack White also had claimed that Jean Hill had said that she had gotten into the street and he used those words in support of his conclusion. Jack is correct - Jean did say she had gotten into the street. What Jack didn't tell the readers of his claim was that Jean stepped into the street as JFK had rounded the corner and she yelled at him to look her and Mary's direction. Jean was asked point blank on Black-Op radio about her stepping into the street and Jean said that she had gotten back up out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD SOUNDED. When Fetzer came on Lancer's forum in defense of his reputation, he was confronted with these type of errors involving the alteration claims in his book and Fetzer's reply was that he didn't consider himself responsible for the claims others made in his book. Moorman being said to have been in the street was in fact a claim that Fetzer had supported. Jack in turn posted recently, " I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. What is to be gained by supporting the validity of the film?" Ironic that Jack says this dispite the evidence against him even told by the actual people who were there. Jack implies in his last sentence that he doesn't understand what's to be gained by supporting the validity of the Zapruder film, but I guess one could easily ask Jack what is to be gained by falsely claiming the Zapruder film is altered? Below is an overlay showing Jack and Fetzer's Moorman recreation photo against that of Moorman's. A cursory glance can tell someone that their camera was too low and too far east to be at the right place to get Moorman's position. Had they of gotten Moorman's location correct, then there would be no shifting taking place between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. Yet despite what White says about how distressed he gets when reserahcers hold a view that is unsound ... he has and will continue doing the same thing despite the evidence showing that he was in error. It is great to show that there was a conspiracy and it is not the fact that Jack makes mistakes that bothers many of us. Instead it is the idea that he is willing to ignore the facts even if it means discrediting the witnesses to push a claim that he wants people to believe. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

John Simkin won't need to add more bandwidth if he goes back and removes all the post you had made where you did nothing but cheerlead without offering one single shred of data to the discussion. I would also like to say that if Fielding and Zavada come up with those 100 reasons in support of non-alteration as you stated ... I'd like to make it 101 for them by adding your posted response to this forum where you had stated that you have never seen any evidence of alteration yourself. Bill

"I am here to present my opinion as i see it.On reading many articles about Ed Hoffman,i have to come to the conclusion that he is telling the truth,but that he cannot locate the exact area to a degree within a few feet,which is understandable. Ed Hoffman does not have a pinpoint location for hatman,only as you say, "near the tree "which includes my figure and Hatman." Duncan, would you like to tell everyone what your reading source was that said that Hoffman didn't know where along the fence the man was standing that he seen? I have to ask because Tony Cummings and I filmed Ed walking us through the RR yard and showing us EXACTLY where the man was standing. I might also add that Ed approached me at a Lancer Conference that he attended a few years before and he said that the blow-up of the Hat Man seen in Moorman's photograph that I showed during a presentation was the same man at the same place along the fence that he had seen. So while opinions are nice to hear ... they are only as good as the facts they relied on. So can we have the source where you got your information so to be sure you read it correctly? "I didn't say that they were rushed,i said that their time was limited.There is a difference,but understanding that requires a good understanding of the English language." Duncan Yes, it is good to have an understanding of the English language. Did not your remarks about Mack and White not getting to study the Moorman photo in more detail due to limited time factors apply to the definition below ... keep in mind before saying something else stupid ... I'm not responsible for the writing of the definitions in the dictionary. Like I said - you're playing games and jerking us around ......... rush 1 (rsh) v. rushed, rush·ing, rush·es 1. To cause to move or act with unusual haste lim·it (lmt) n. 3. A confining or restricting object, agent, or influence. 1. To confine or restrict within a boundary or bounds. limit·a·ble adj. Synonyms: limit, restrict, confine, circumscribe To restrict is to keep within prescribed limits, as of choice or action: Circumscribe connotes an encircling or surrounding line that confines, especially narrowly: "A man . . . should not circumscribe his activity by any inflexible fence of rigid rules" John Stuart Blackie.

Robin ... I cannot think of any socks that reflect sunlight, but shiny black mens dress shoes do. You did notice that the sun was shining off the shoe and it only made the foot look to be a different shape - right? Bill

"I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this board could tell the difference between a camera original Kodachrome or KodacolorII, or dupes of either. Us guy's have never hidden, where's your guy's - that's the real question The silence is deafening!" I assume that this includes you in the list of people who "could not" tell the difference in the camera original and a duplicate film. However, Groden says it can be done, he claims he has done it, and he listed reasons that none of you guys had ever posted about because you never thought of it. bill

"Yes you used my accurate outline containing the accurate Hoffman shooter" You're just here to jerk us off, Duncan .... Ed Hoffman said that the Hat Man seen near the Hudson tree is the man he saw. Of course, I will let Ed know that he was wrong. "What Jack says is up to Jack.I have a tongue of my own" I saw that when he had to tell you that you got it wrong about he and Mack being rushed with the Badge Man images. Bill

I think thats great and yes, 50%, if they get to court... Actually they can contract up to 40% and seek 50% if there is an appeal. ah, who is complaining? interesting? Is Stu Wexler a expert in film? Balckburst, eh? ROFL I don't need no stink'in experts on film Sure you need film experts for that was obvious when you were talking possible Zfilm alteraion by way of an optical printer, while not knowing the obvious signs that would be present in the transfering of Kodachrome II film. That's the problem with you guys - you only get one aspect of the equation addressed and leave out the rest. Bill, if the Z-film gets to court, ANY court, I suspect it'll be a criminal case! Ask Groden about those kind of cases Well, David ... if the Zfilm gets to court - I hope the evidence will be presented by better qualified people than I have seen on these forums. Bill Good to see you promoting being civil again, Duncan. In 4 decades no one had ever seen anyone where you claimed hism to be. So the image wasn't clear at all and is why you felt the need to outline him as you called it. It is your outline that I used against the size of Emmett Hudson. I might also add that the floating head was placed exatly as you have him in one of your examples ... I'll be more than happy to go find your image and show you to be in error once again. Now getting back to the size of Sitzman and Zapruder ... are you still taking the position that you can merely cut and paste someone out of a picture and stand them in front of another object and make a rational and reliable size comparison without adjusting their sizes accordingly? Don't you think that if what I am saying is wrong that Jack would be telling us this ... he doesn't argue what I said because he is aware that I was correct. There is a saying that says that the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man never see's when he is wrong. Bill

many, Many more alternatives than 2, so how long has the tree been there? The trees have been there long enough for me to take their picture 40 years later and have their main trunks and branches still match. Are you going to try and make a case for them being replaced by trees that looked like those back in 1963? dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field? I can see why you only post off-topic remarks because you can't seem to follow a bloody elephant through a freshly fallen snow. I believe I made it clear that I did the investigational work on the first case. Both cases involved medical experts, reconstruction investigation experts, and legal experts testifying. well, I think thats great -- to bad the attorney's get such a 25%+ cut, heh....anyway, your expertise is in photography? Or are you dependent on "other" experts in the field? Attorneys can get as much as %50 in such cases. And would you not agree that from the answers I have presented to you many times that I sought outside experts like Groden ... that should have answered your question before you ever asked it. whatever Wexler discussed if it neutralize Rahn arrogance, I applaud But yet you compain when the same investigational processes Wexler used are implemented in debunking the alteration claims - Interesting! We're your cases civil or criminal and are you yourself an attorney, licensed in what US state? When was the last time a crimial case was awarded money - try using your head, David. I am not an attorney and the cases were tried in Illinois. Bill

Can someone on this forum explain to me what Duncan is talking about? He draws in a cop head and torso a good distance down the fence line that is roughly the same size as Emmett Hudson .... Duncan doesn't seem to get it that a person that far from the camera could not be anywhere close to the size Hudson is as he stands on the steps. I had thought that by showing how the boxes in my illustration grew in size the closer to the camera they had gotten that somehow he would get the point, but it seems to be too complicated for Duncan to understand. Can anyone explain it to him on a level that he can understand? Let me try this example ... I have referenced how one shrinks in size the further from the camera they get. This time I use the Willis photo to illustrate this. I have used the SS agent on the follow-up car in relation to Mrs. Hester to make my point. Now if Duncan saw a shape in trees halfway down the fence line that was the same size as one of the agents standing on the running board of the follow-up car when the two shapes are placed side by side on the same photo ... then how difficult would it be for anyone to realize that what Duncan thinks he see's cannot possibly be what he thinks it is! This is what occurred in the illustration that Duncan is complaining about. The figure he drew in the tree foliage was the same general size as Emmett Hudson who was half the distance to the camera ... Duncan either is unable to reason through this matter or he is purposely playing ignorant on the facts before him - either way I cannot make it any simplier to understand. Bill

dgh01: I can just hear the other sides attorney if something like this is presented in court -- "your honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury; what we have here in Dealey Plaza, a tree and its branches that has NOT grown in circumfrence in 40+ years..." that in and of itself makes your photo overlay suspect. David, these trees were mature at the time of the assassination ... I simply shot a recreation photo 40 years later. There are only two alternatives here ... one is that you don't know squat about tree growth after one reaches maturity or the distance at which the photo was taken does not allow one to see small detail changes in size ... the latter going towards what Jack White is wanting to do with the subjects on the pedestal. dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field? The first suit was filed on my behalf after I investigated the matter for over a year and had sought my own experts after researching the subject matter in great detail. One of the things that I was most proud of was when my attorney told me one day that the experts in my case were surprized when he told them I was the client. I guess they had thought from my questioning them and citing information to them that I too was an expert in the case. So the moral is that one doesn't have to be an expert to discuss issues that experts have an interest in. Stu Wexler is a prime example as he did a remarkable job on CPAN when he discussed the lead test conducted in JFK's assasination. Groden did not participate in any of the cases I participated in. dgh01: I suspect not, if you won money. Not bad for a cel animator, that a hobby, yet, still - ever was? I'm not sure what you are saying, but I am sure that it has nothiong to do with the JFK assassination case. Bill Duncan writes: Here we can see proof of Bill's "Whatever suits his claim" hipocracy. By simply replacing Bill's lowest animated figure of his animation back to the original position of the "Hoffman Shooter"in Moorman,guess what?,(and it's no surprise to me),it's an EXACT fit,proving that he made NO compensation for size in this particular analysis,thus proving that he is dancing around with Jack in Jack's study with his reference to compensation for size. Duncan Duncan, I am not going to waste time trying to explain something to you that you are not smart enough to comprehend. I didn't need to make your floating Cop torso any larger - all I had to do is show that it was the same size in the photo as people who were half the distance to the camera. Once doing this, you can do the math. If you still do not get it, then maybe someone else on this forum can better explain it to you. Bill

"Bill completely contradicts himself in his analysis of your study. Bill Says "Also, before you get too happy over Duncan's placement of Zapruder and Sitzman in front of the pedestal ... you might want to consider that he has taken an image of them further back from the camera and merely moved them forward without computing the increase in size they should have been given to compensate the change in distance from the camera." Now look at this....He is in effect saying that moving objects in photographs can not prove an objects size,yet he used that method to prove his "verdict"on my study. Here is his analysis,(it's his animation,not mine,forget the topic or your opinion of the topic) using the exact same size measurement method to discredit my Hoffman shooter. As you can see there is no difference in our methods.The only difference it seems is that he uses his method to both support HIS claims and then does a complete about turn to discredit the claims of others,in this case to discredit your claims on the size of Zapruder and Sitzman.His evidense is completely contradictory. Duncan" And to think that people wonder why I am so hard on you for the replies you make. Once again, before asking any questions for validation of what you are about to say or to attempt to get a better understanding of the topic matter before making accusations - you just come out with another dumb comment - one that I am sure you'll later say that it was someone else's fault or that you were just set-up. You are a prime example of what I meant when I said that many of these claims can be dealt with by applying things that should have been learned in a beginners art class. I will attempt to explain why what you said above is completely in error - AS USUAL! The same principals here are going to apply to the point I made about your 'floating Cop torso' and you not adjusting for size concerning a field of depth. The above illustration shows what every beginner is taught in art class. That rule says that alike objects should get smaller the further from the camera they are ... just like the bigger they should get the closer to the camera they become. My illustration has 5 boxes of all the same size laid out in a way to make this point. The further from the camera they are - the smaller they should appear. In art class, the size is determined by using a vanishing point on the horizon. This technique is how we keep things like fence post scaled properly when drawing them in a way to show them running in a direction away from the viewer. Now having said this ... it would be wrong for someone to take box 3 in my example and merely move it up to box 1 and not adjust its size accordingly. To do this would misrepresent box 3's accurate size in relation to its new location. This is the point I made about you and Jack not considering this when thinking all you needed to do was merely copy Zapruder and Sitzman and paste them in front of the pedestal in order to make a point. To do what you guys were suggesting would be no different than someone taking the people on the north side of Elm Street in the Willis photo and moving them without asjusting their sizes and putting them next to the agents riding on the follow-up car and claiming that these people are too short to be real. In the claim concerning the 'floating Cop torso', I merely pointed out that your alleged figure (#4) was so large behind the fence and while being so far away from the camera that he was no different in size compared to those individuals on the steps (#1) who were only half the distance to the camera. What I did was show that your alleged floating torso was the same size as people half the distance to the camera, thus he was far too large to be real. It is these sorts of little mistakes that continually cause many of the alteration claims to fall on their own weight. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

hello Chris -- your correct of course.... and shh -- no such thing as optical film printing David I thought the issue wasn't whether optical film printing couldn't be done, but rather could it be done where experts would not be able to see signs of it. One should try and remember that there is a difference. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Why don't you put us all out of our misery and go out and shoot from where you think the correct spot is and where Jack shot from, do the comparison and get back to us.. David, I am glad to help show you what you must not have been able to see on your own. In the example below I have placed a blue cirlce over the west corner of the pedestal in Moorman's photo showing the colonnade window in the background and its relationship to that corner - I did the same in Jack's photo. I also did the same with a yellow circle and the colonnade window that matches Moorman's photo is all the way to the east side (left) of Groden. Now can you see how far off Jack was stationed in order to have these reference points be so different between photographs? Jack was not only aligned inccorectly left to right, but because of the elevation change in the south pasture as it slopes downhill, his vertical view was also incorrect to try and match what was seen in Moorman's photo. Below is a Moorman recreation photo that I shot with the naked eye. The overlay not only lets you see the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window that I obtained in relation to Moorman's photograph, but you can also see that I had gotten the major tree trunks and branches aligned to near perfection. btw, what court cases did you win and where? What capacity? -- If your a photo consultant I hope you didn't consultant Groden in the OJ fiasco... I did all the investigational work in my 1997 case where I was awarded $750,000.00 - Robert Silberstein presented the case to a jury. In 2005, I won another verdict where I played a major role in the collection of evidence and a jury awarded me $565,000.00 in that case. James Carter presented that case on my behlf and both cases are a matter of public record. I had also assisted Silberstein on several criminal cases that he represented. Groden did not participate in any of the cases I participated in. Thanks for your interest! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Again, Miller is not paying attention. The photo of Groden on top of the pedestal WAS taken with a normal lens (not telephoto), from the alleged location of Moorman ON THE GRASS across Elm. That is why the quality is not very good. I have stated this numerous times over the past five years. Miller's speculation that I shot Groden from some OTHER location is...well, bullxxxx. Jack Jack, your statement is not only incorrect about you being at Moorman's location when you took the Groden photo, but a mere glance at your photo in comparison to Moorman's can see that your pedestal in relation to the fixed points on the colonnade are way off. There is a downhill slope to the south pasture and if you are off by 3 - 6 feet east or west of Mary's true location, then how tall people will look compared to the fixed points on the background of the colonnade with vary considerably. So once you go back and look at what I am talking about, please tell me again who is not paying attention. I might also add that Costella may be good in math, but he is not that sharp in other areas. Costella once agreed with you that Moorman was in the street, while totally blowing the gap difference between your photo and Mary's. He then changed his mind and said that you got it wrong. Not once did he notice that Mary was looking over the tops of those cycles windshields, even when he thought you were correct at first. Somehow Costella didn't notice that a 54.5" camera height cannot be looking over the top of a 58" windshield height. Part of the reason for his error was that he never bothered to get all the facts and one of them was knowing hoiw tall a DPD cycle was in the first place. So as I said ... Costella can be sharp in some things and not so sharp in others which can lead to erroneous conclusions. You also said in one reply that only the Nix film shows Zapruder with his hat on ... Altgens took a photo of Zapruder just as he got off the pedestal and he clearly is wearing his hat. The Bell film shows Zapruder wearing his hat. The Moorman photo, while not clear, also shows Zapruder with his hat on ... I offer proof by way of an animated clip. Also, before you get too happy over Duncan's placement of Zapruder and Sitzman in front of the pedestal ... you might want to consider that he has taken an image of them further back from the camera and merely moved them forward without computing the increase in size they should have been given to compensate the change in distance from the camera. This is a valid point here and is why you need to seek peer review for you tend to make little mistakes that effect the outcome and accuracy of your claims and many times people like Duncan are not going to see it right off. Surely you of all people can understand the dangers of these little mistakes and lead to a false conclusion. Something else I noticed ... because Moorman was looking uphill, we cannot see Zapruder and Sitzman all the way to the bottom of their feet ... we only see what we can of them over the horizon line which is the front top of the pedestal .... how much of their true height is lost from that angle and where did you copute that into your equation? Bill

Ok..I agree with you overall..I'll stick to the topic in any replies i give to anyone including Miller in any of your threads.Bill is laying more bait in this thread as you have probably noticed,but i'll ignore his persistence and stick to the topic.I'll respect your wishes,and hope you can do the same in any of my threads which you may want to contribute to. Duncan Duncan, you have a history of agreeing to things without even knowing why. I am still awaiting you to address the Zapruder Waltz information I posted to you on another thread. If by laying bait - you mean that I have offered examples and facts only to wait for a response, then you are correct. Now about this BDM nonsense: Let's start with the basics here ... Alan thinks that the light patch on the BDM is smoke filling the air from a shot that has just been fired. Now I understand that neither you nor he has ever been to the plaza to have a better sense to just how close and visible the BDM would have been to the SS agents in the motorcade, not excluding witnesses looking in his direction. I would hope that while the BDM may look dark in a photo taken from the other end of the plaza and aimed just to the right of the sun's direction ... you do understand that in real life the figure would have been well lit and look nothing like we see him in the Betzner photo. It works under the same premise as looking at a road tunnel from a distance and seeing a pitch black hole and then again from much closer and being able to see into the tunnel itself. It's understanding that the BDM in real life would stand out against his background and not be limited in detail by our eyes from a lack of color tones such as those we are stuck with in a B&W photo. Now if you have followed what I am saying so far and understand it ... I also have pointed out something Alan had never mentioned in all the years I have seen him debate the subject and that is the simple fact that Betzner took his photograph - BEFORE - the first shot was ever fired. Now I don't know how things work in Alan's world, but in the U.S. there has to be a shot fired first before smoke can be seen coming from the barrel of a gun. Is that the way it is in Scotland too? Another thing that Alan has failed to ever consider, least ways he has never applied it in any of his post in the past two years, and that is if it had of been smoke, why didn't anyone see it as they were looking right at this individual? Does anyone think that any of the witnesses or the SS agents would not have noticed someone aiming a gun and firing it, plus leaving a cloud of smoke behind and lingering over their person and not put 2 and 2 together ... I think not. Would you not agree that these are relevant and important details that should be considered before jumping to the conclusion that the light spot seen over the right side of the BDM is smoke from a gunshot? So having just stated some common sense reasons why Alan has misread the photo to begin with, we have to try and consider what the light patch really is. I have shown IMO that the south shade line that bends across the BDM's body matches that of the same shade line on Arnold in the Badge Man images. I have done this by way of transparency fade-ins, side by side comparisons, and direct intermitent overlays using the actual images as I found them. I have posted countless times that Arnold said he was already at that location and filming the President as the car was coming down the street. I also have said that Senator Yarborough saw Arnold as he dove to the ground after the fatal shot. I have also stated that Groden mentions seeing not black clothing, but rather light clothing on an individual standing at that very spot over the wall in one of the assassination films before the fatal shot to JFK was fired. Now my question to you and anyone else is this ..... If the first shot had not been fired yet when Betzner took his photograph, would it not be logical to rule out the light spot being smoke lingering in the air from a gunshot? My next questions is, would it not be logical to see that there was a sunspot coming through the Hudson tree that was being cast upon the right shoulder of the BDM and that because this sunspot matches in basic shape the one seen on the Arnold figure that we can not only rule out it being smoke, but also that these two indiviuals must be from the evidence one in the same person? I also have included an image of the BDM without the half-tones taking away from the two points at the top of the shade line. Some of the images you fellows are using show those points somewhat melted away. It was those points as some of you may recall that helped give this individual his name "Black Dog Man". Bill

Wow!!!..Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.One thing i am glad of at least is that you are aware of Miller's baiting tactics,but it's a pity you don't have the guts to speak to him in the same tone as you have just spoken to me here with no provacation from me whatsoever.I will admit however that arguments in threads are very annoying,but sometimes unavoidable when serious allegations are being thrown around,but if you want to get to the source of the argument go make your point to the agent provocateur aka Miller. With respect,but disappointed by your unjustified attack. Duncan So it is still always someone else's fault with you, Duncan.

Jack, so let me see if I understand you right ... are you saying that no one was atop the pedestal in all those images or are you saying that Sitzman and Zapruder WERE atop the pedestal, but someone retouched their heights? If the latter is the case, then do you care to speculate why in God's name someone would need to retouch Zapruder and Sitzman's heights? One other thing too, have you considered having your process of figuring their heights from photo to photo peer reviewed? Bill

Bill,do me a favour and go on holiday or something.This is really boring me now.If you have something sensible to say other than continually seeking brownie points from Debra then say it,and if not go do something useful like playing with your GI Joe dolls. Duncan Duncan, I see that you are not so bored as to continue replying. I also do not think that Debra uses this forum for I have yet to ever see her online here. And I'd be happy to do something useful, but as you may remember - you cannot address the points that I made concerning the alleged 'Zapruder Waltz' because you haven't had time to study them or so you say ... although you wasted no time in voicing support for Jack's claim being accurate. I am thinking that if you spent more time examning the evidence that I presented you with and less time trying to pretend that what you did with Debra was right, then we both can get to discusing something useful! By the way, it took me less than a few monutes to see how Jack misread the Bronson slide ... with you already having the evidence pointed out to you - Why are you not able to address the Zapruder Waltz evidence that I presented after so much time? Bill

Jack, in the future if you are going to make a photo comparison with a test subject like Groden and compare his height to that of those seen in the assassination images - you should do it from the same location and height off the ground that the original photos were taken. The camera height and location in the Groden photo is no where close to that of the comparison photos you referenced, thus any comparisons are doomed to fail before you ever got started. For instance, had you of shot the Groden photo from the same angle and location to the pedestal as Moorman did, then you could compare Robert's height against the background of the colonnade in relation to Zapruder and Sitzman's in Moorman's photograph. That would allow anyone to see if they were within the norm or not. Bill