Bill Miller

Zapruder was not standing errect in Moorman's photograph. The Bell and Nix films, as well as the Bronson slide show the two standing next to one another. Altgens took a photo of Zapruder and Sitzman as they had just gotten off the pedestal. My question is why did Jack not measure from a fixed object to the top of the pedestal so to cut down on error? Information I obtained from Gary Mack reads as sollows ... "I measured the pedestal height this morning. Rather than use the grass, as Jack did, I used the top of the bottom and top steps that adjoin the pedestal (there are three steps in all). The distance from the top of the top step to the top of the pedestal is 40 inches; the distance from the top of the bottom step to the top of the pedestal is 49.5 inches. I would ignore the "camber" at the top of the pedestal, since Zapruder's shoes would straddle the raised center section. The result would be that his shoes (which would add 1/4-1/2 inch) would be placed very close to the outer edges of the rectangular pedestal. My measurements were made to the outer edge. Zapruder's daughter has also told me that Z was about 5'10" and, as researchers who knew her confirm, Sitzman was also very tall, almost six feet. FWIW, I met Henry Zapruder and he was almost six feet. With that information, you should be able to scale the photos accurately to determine Sitzman's height and Zapruder's. Zapruder, of course, was crouching somewhat by the time of the head shot."

Bill, You are a member of Lancer where it is forbidden to speak on alteration at the pedestal.I do not see any point in discussing alteration at the pedestal area with you here,when you believe,by default, that Debra's decision to censor such postings is acceptable.With regards to other matters not pertaining to the pedestal area, i may or may not respond to you if and when i feel i have something to say. Duncan Duncan - photo and film alteration threads have existed since 1999 on Lancer when I joined and they continue there today, so I again don't know why you say the things you do. You also can feel free to address the points I made on the alleged Zapruder Waltz when ever you feel like you can. For some reason I had already assumed that seeing how you were claiming support for Jack's opinion on this subject ... that you already given some serious study on this particular topic. I will leave you with all the time you need to actually study the evidence before offering an opinion on Jack's accuracy. Bill Maybe "dead" in the eyes of some, not that I pay much attention to that end of the argument/photo evidence... The photos comparison has raised a question in my mind; based on Groden's pic, on or off the pedestal -- heights of these folks, front or back, doesn't wash... David, I'll make you the same offer as I did Duncan and that is if you have any specifics you would like to address or any facts you'd like to offer, then feel free to do so and we will discuss them. Now let me share some information that I obtained that you didn't provide ....... The Bell and Nix films show Zapruder and Sitzman standing next to one another. The Moorman photo shows the same, but with Zapruder bent to the side slightly which would make him appear shorter next to Sitzman. The Bronson slide shows Zapruder looking pretty much errect as he is standing next to Sitzman who is wearing high heel shoes. I believe that Tom Purvis posted once that he spoke to Zapruder's son who put his fthers height at 5'10". Now about the Groden measurement ... I consulted Gary Mack about the known height of Abraham Zapruder and the height of the pedestal. Gary mentions that some slight changes in the sod around the pedestal may have occurred since the time of the assassination, but that there are fixed objects that can be used for measuring because they have remained unchanged since 11/22/63 .. the steps next to the pedestal being one such example. The following infomation comes from Gary Mack: "I measured the pedestal height this morning. Rather than use the grass, as Jack did, I used the top of the bottom and top steps that adjoin the pedestal (there are three steps in all). The distance from the top of the top step to the top of the pedestal is 40 inches; the distance from the top of the bottom step to the top of the pedestal is 49.5 inches. I would ignore the "camber" at the top of the pedestal, since Zapruder's shoes would straddle the raised center section. The result would be that his shoes (which would add 1/4-1/2 inch) would be placed very close to the outer edges of the rectangular pedestal. My measurements were made to the outer edge. Zapruder's daughter has also told me that Z was about 5'10" and, as researchers who knew her confirm, Sitzman was also very tall, almost six feet. FWIW, I met Henry Zapruder and he was almost six feet. With that information, you should be able to scale the photos accurately to determine Sitzman's height and Zapruder's. Zapruder, of course, was crouching somewhat by the time of the head shot." Bill

Paraphrasing isn't good enough when accusations are being cast by you.My Post Number 44 tells the truth.and anyone reading it will see how twisted your accusations have been. As I recall, I not only paraphrased what you implied, but I also invited everyone to go to Lancer and read up on the archived post AND YOU TOLD THEM NOT TO! So what you have done is basically told people not to read Lancer's forum as I suggested and then implied that I wasn't letting everyone know the truth ... I find that truly amazing! Debra has been exposed for what she is,a non seeker of the truth,and anyone who can not see that is a fool.You declare yourself as researcher and truth seeker Bill, yet decide to stay and fester among the censors who as shown in post number 44 do not allow free speech on photographic alteration.Something does not compute Will Robinson.Danger Danger !!! Duncan Duncan - Jack's Zapruder Waltz had already been dead in the water and Debra knew that you were not offering it up because you have new information on it - she knew you were trying to run up forum space by getting the pot stiirred. Here is the link to that thread for those who 'wish to know the truth' as you like to put it ... http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search If anyone thinks that you were sincer, then let me invite them to see that all you had done was place an enlarged fuzzy Bronson print on the thread and all you said was ... "Scroll around this version." Your next posted response said only this, "Thanks for showing us the Zapruder waltz which clearly shows Sitzmans legs in front of Zapruder. It's nice to see you promoting Jack's work." Your heading for that response said, "This Bronson Tells No Lies !!!!" You never said why Jack was correct - you didn't offer a single example as to why you believed in the alleged Zapruder Waltz claim ... you merely threw it out there to put in a plug for Jack and to waste forum space where the person who started the thread had only asked why it was so hard for him to see Zapruder and Sitzman in the Bronson slide. You never addressed the posters question, but instead you tried hi-jacking the thread in a new direction. Even on this thread I have asked several times if you would care to address the evidence I have presented as to how Jack misread the Bronson slide and instead you only keep making senseless replies that do not address the Zapruder Waltz at all. You have counltess post up on this forum calling for civility and to stay on the topic only to then do the opposite yourself. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

The banning of me only took place after Jack's Zapruder Waltz was forwarded by me as a point of discussion.Censorship lives at Lancer,you and many others wish to be a part of that,i don't. Duncan Technically, you are right ... your post on the Zapruder Waltz did come before you made that stupid remark about someone having their mouth to her ass and sucking on it. I can only assume that you are not use to making such references to women with class and seeing how they react. If doing such a thing didn't make you look foolish enough .... pretending to not know that what you did that was wrong makes you look even worse, but it is probably not your fault for you apparently were never taught any better. Let me give you an example: If I said that that you'd be a better person if you were not hanging around with some trampy-slut like 'Jane Doe' .... do you think that even though my remark was directed at you that 'Jane Doe' would appreciate what I referenced about her? Once you come to grips with the mistake you made - you can finally start taking responibility for what you did. Now if you wish to say something else stupid about that affair ... please do and I will leave you with the last word because we are now talking about something that not only has anything to do with the JFK assassination, but we are also talking about something that one should have known better than to ever let happen in the first place. Now in response #39, I presented the evidence as to why Jack must have misread the Bronson slide ... would you care to discuss the information I posted? Bill

I know the thread well Robin but i don't get your point.I'd prefer to keep on topic re: the copy of Groden uploaded. Duncan Groden, like Thompson with the Moorman print, has several Betzner prints of different qualities ... I take it you are scanning one of them from his book as if you are discussing how the BDM looked in the actual camera original photo ... is that right? Bill

Is this an admission Bill? Are you saying that it doesn't matter that you have manipulated the image you presented as long as you get your point across? Sounds like it to me. It's a little cryptic but I'll except it. I think the reason has already been explained by me more than once and the point was made to the extent that those seasoned researchers that I have presented it to had all understood it's purpose. Your inability to follow what I have said is something I can not do anything about. When Jack White colorized the Badge Man images - you said nothing of the same. Like I said before ... it is only because you failed miserably in your attacking Arnold's credibility that you are reduced to complaining about one example in a list of many that I produced. Had I of said that I found a Betzner print and didn't tell that it was made up of a transparency that I created, then it would have been one thing. The fact of the matter is that I have presented a mountain of evidence and the shade lines was in my view a necessary way of presenting what I deemed important. FWIW, you don't have to interfere with the images to persuade your audience, you just present them side by side & let the people make up they're own minds. In that mountain of evidence that I have presented over the past two years on this matter is plenty of side by side comparisons. I might add that maybe someone else can see how your transparency overlay showed a match of something, but I was not able to see it. You even admit that those shapes have nothing in common, but the shade line transpartency overlays I created were presented with a lot of other evidence and they all did have something in common. What I find truly amazing is that had I of shown two photos of the TSBD and taken only seconds apart - where one of them showed a particular window partially opened and the other did not - you would probably have considered that transparency overlay a viable way of showing their differences. I basically did the same thing by showing the similarities of the shade line passing over both individuals in question. I'm only complaining about the one bad apple & if you keep using it as an example of how the shapes above the wall in Betzner & Moorman are the same, then I'll keep complaining. The shape in that GIF is not seen in the Betzner photo & you know it, it's a distorted image. So why do you keep using it? Because it's convenient? Wouldn't you rather show us a full zoomed-in overlay of the best examples of these figures you have available to you, from both Moorman & Betzner? Maybe the shapes don't match when you use good images? Well they match when you look at them from Betzners position/POV on Elm don't they? I have lost track at how many examples I have created and presente don this matter ... In the beginning I sought to have them peer reviewed before ever posting them and once I obtained confirmation that others saw the same things - I shared them with the research community. Your inability to understand their use is a personal problem IMO. This is exactly what I did. I compared it to the figures in Betzner3 & Moorman5 & I could tell instantly that the frame you are using as an example of Betzner is a frame from a GIF where the "image transition effect" has been used. I know because I have done the same exact thing myself. The only difference is I would never edit the GIF down to just two frames & then present that in public in the way you do, as if it actually held any value. So you saw the obvious ... are you looking for a prize? The two frame animation I have mentioned several times now is not a composite using a transparency. The two frame animation was the actual sunspot seen on the Moorman individual overlaid over the top of Betzner image - PERIOD! No you still haven't explained why you did this butcher job, I just got the exact same response as before, a non-denial denial & now a quote from Garrison, which I have to guess at is meaning since I can't see the relevance between justice & what you have done with that image. ai find it funny how researchers from Groden to Mack to Conway to Law have all seen my presentation and it is only an arm chair researcher like yourself that complains about the way I presented the infromation. Again, that is a personal problem that you'll have to deal with. If it appears that my only purpose is to attack Bill then you are mistaken, there is no other I've come across that has has talked, researched & studied BDM more than he has, he actually thinks it's an important figure & I'm of the same opinion...... only that's where we part. He's sure he knows who it is & I disagree with his conclusion. The difference between us is that you started with a conclusion that the BDM was some sinister individual in black clothing who had already fired a shot at JFK and Betzner's photo had captured the smoke coming from his alleged gun. Had you done just the simpliest of research on the matter you would have seen that Betzner said that he took his photograph before the first shot had been fired. Considering that you started with a false assumption ... I have no doubt that you have disagreed with my investigation. If I've said anything out of order or used any words that you find offensive & unfitting to this well thought of forum, then please wrap it in a quote & pull me about it. Once more, it is not about me or Bill, it's about the photographic evidence that we have access to & are trying to make the best of. The only person you need to apologize to is Gordon Arnold IMO. Bill

Apparently Deb is not aware of the Bronson slide showing "Sitzman" standing IN FRONT OF "ZAPRUDER". Jack Actually Jack, Debra was aware of your claim and she was also aware that you totally misread the Bronson slide and didn't apply much in the way of sound reasoning to what you thought you were seeing. I say this for the following reasons ... 1) Betzner takes a photo showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. That photo shows Sitzman with her right arm behind Zapruder and her left arm bent with her left hand on her hip. (see the far lower left insert) 2) Willis took a photo showing the exact same thing .5 seconds later. Bronson took his photo/slide 1.5 seconds after Willis took his photo and Sitzman's left arm is still bent and her left hand is still on her hip. 3) The white of Sitzman's left hand can be seen along the outer edge of Zapruder's back in the Bronson slide. Sitzman wore a black scarf and the white of her face can be seen as she is still looking eastward. (see middle lower insert) 4) Both the Nix film and the Moorman photograph shows Sitzman still in the same posture. (see the lower right insert) To think that Sitzman turned around in less than 1.5 seconds is a bit much to start with, but to not consider all the other pictures and films so to reach the reasonable conclusion that you merely misread the picture in the first place is mind boggling. Bill

I wouldn't advise anyone joining Lancer as it is a Forum which practices CENSORSHIP.Alteration views are not tolerated there,nor are argumentative discussions with Bill Miller.To those who do not know,i am BANNED from Lancer.I made a comment on Lancer directed at Bill,something like "You are sucking ass with Debs", and Bill someohow conned Debs into believing the remark was directed at her,IT WAS NOT,but because they are as thick as thieves i was banned.The comment i made was nothing unusual,and exactly the same kind of comment that Bill continually directs at members of ANY forum,this one included,who do not agree with his point of view. Lancer was a good forum at one time,but Debs has applied a "Be polite to Miller policy,but he can be as rude as he wishes to you policy."as well as her censorship policy on alteration to those she choses to censor simply for their beliefs. Duncan, you are not only a poor hipocrette, but as damned xxxx as well! Lancer's archives have similar heated discussions that go back for years. You say that Debra and I are thick ... she has posted responses to me that can be found in Lancer's archives where she had gotten after me for remarks I had made in some of my responses over heated issues. The difference between you and I is that I had enough brains to back off instead of posting to the forum that she has someone with their mouth to her ass and sucking on it. You crossed the line, not by your senseless arguing with me, but for bringing Debra into the middle of it and then making such a stupid remark about her. Several times leading up to her banning you she had warned you of such things, so what did you expect her to do? Debra wrote, "Duncan, Don't even think you will start up that bizarre and false claim here. Zapruder is standing in front of his secretary. Period. She is behind him. Period." "I will not tolerate the study of the assassination of President Kennedy to be reduced to such idiocy on this forum." Duncan remarks, "Ok Debs,it's your forum,and what you say must go, ......... and just because i agree with Jack White on the apparent content of this ONE particular image shouldn't mean i get censored yet again,and i believe many on here would agree with that,but as i said,it's your forum and what you say goes. Miller remarks, "Duncan, Debra has a portion of the forum set aside for such silliness and its under "New Weird Stuff". Here is a link to a web page that offers poor photo interpretations in the spirit of promoting photo and film alteration ... http://www.rejectz.com/jfk.htm ... feel free to post your observations there if you like ... I am sure that Debra wouldn't mind your doing that although your claim would probably fall under "Old Weird Stuff". Once you do post there, I will post a good image from the Nix film showing that Sitzman is behind Zapruder and is being shaded by his body just as we see in the Bronson slide. See ya there!" Duncan (aka: Mr Civil) replies, "Bill..You can suck ass as much as you like with Debs,it wont distract me from my point." It wasn't your remarks about me that got you banned, but rather your making them and now including Debra in them. Instead of being smart enough to take the topic to a designated area so we could continue, you had to direct a nasty remark at Debra ... now how smart was that! I might also add that I had not talked to Debra in the better part of a year and only after she asked on the forum if I would present at the 2005 Lancer conference concerning some things I was posting on at the time. So once again you are blowing off your big mouth as usual and it is worse when you do not acept responsibility for your own doing. I could fill up an entire thread on this forum with snotty-assed replies you made on Lancer where Debra never said a word to you about it. Here are some examples: "I noticed that you avoided mentioning this,and instead waffle a lot of horse #### about fish and so on....lol" "Personally i think they are just sad nondescript ass suckin turkeys with no friends who are desperate for a Christmas card from even you...lol" "What a stupid statement to make even for you.If a person or persons is at an open window in sunlight,they will appear light as can also bee seen by looking at the people at the open windows in the lower windows." "HA HA HA HA HA..I can't stop laughing here,what a ludicrous beyond belief piece of crap that statement was.42 years after the event,and the window is clean,astounding discovery Bill,this really puts new light on the issue,but then again,they wouldn't clean any evidence would they,like the Limo...nah..that would be silly." "You are talking crap Bill.I've just had a relook at my copy of "The Killing of a President", ...." "No kiddin Einstein......" A forum member that I have also had heated debates with wrote this in the very thread I pulled a fraction of you remarks from ... "I have to say Bill, You've done a real nice job here of presenting >your case, using the actual photo and location on the photo Duncan >was referring to, and not completely insulting him in the process." That's the beauty of there being archives because when someone like you tries misleading others, all one has to do is go back and pull your past post to show your dishonesty. I conned Debra about nothing concerning that stupid remark you made towards her. In fact, I'd have to check the archives there to be 100% sure, but I am confident that I laid off responding when I read your reply to Debra because I knew you had gone somewhere that I did not want to be. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

John, you cannot illustrate history honestly by using altered images. The frame Bill uses as as an example of the figure in Betzner3, has not only been manipulated for his animation but is one of the worst replications of Black Dog Man I have seen for a long time. This is deliberate & coming from a guy that constantly berates people for using bad images... well you know the word don't you. I spotted it only because it is my favourite subject & study these items more than anything else. So I've noticed it & now I've pulled him about it again(this makes three times) but he still keeps avoiding the issue & trying to change the subject. Now that Alan has had his say, let me tell you what he didn't say and why ... First of all, I invite anyone reading this forum to go over to Lancer's forum and do a search under the topic of "Black Dog Man/Gordon Arnold" to read the things that Alan failed to tell the members of this forum. If one does this, then they'll find a history of Alan doing everything that he could to try and debunk Gordon Arnold and his story. In your topic search you will see where I went around and around with Alan and in nearly, if not every instance, Arnold came out on top. Alan would just have prefered to show that Arnold never existed at all, but too much work has been done to show that a man in an overseas uniform was indeed seen in Moorman's photograph. You see ... it has always been Alan's position that a man in black clothing stood at the corner of the concrete wall above the knoll and shot the President of the United States without anyone seeing it happen. It is Alan's position that what I call a sunspot on the BDM's right shoulder is in his mind a gun flash or smoke coming from a shot having just been fired. I will state flat-out that the idea that the sunspot is a gun flash is ridiculous on the grounds that there is almost 1 second that elapsed between Betzner taking his photo and Willis taking his picture. That is equivilant to 16 Zapruder film frames and as one can see in the Ruby/Oswald shooting clip ... a gun flash is so quick that it would come and go in less than 1/18th of a second/one film frame. I also want to point out that Hugh Betzner stated that he took his photograph "BEFORE" the first shot was fired. This not only eliminates the possibility that the BDM was demonstrating a muzzle flash from a rifle, but it also certainly destroys the notion Alan has that what we see is smoke covering part of the BDM image because one cannot have smoke from a rifle occuring if one hasn't had a gunshot fired yet, but none of this matters to Alan because in his mind he has always seen a sinister looking man in black clothing at the wall and come hell or high water that is all he is going to accept. Now having been shown how the BDM could not be someone firing a shot from the corner of the concrete wall, Alan's only option left is to try and divert attention away from the evidence that destroys his past beliefs and to make it appear that the evidence in support of Gordon Arnold is not correct either. I'll add that Senator Ralph Yarborough didn't contact Earl Golz in 1978 to tell him that he witnessed a sinister looking individual in black clothing dive to the ground following the shooting, but rather to confirm that he had seen the service man mentioned in Earl's 'DMN' article. (Dallas Morning News) So now you all may recall my saying in another posted response that there are only two choices left now ... 1) There was a BDM who was at the corner of the concrete wall who ran off at some point after Willis took his photograph and Arnold ran in and took BDM's place before Moorman took her photograph or ... 2) Arnold was always where he said he was and his figure is in fact the BDM in the Betzner and Willis photos. NOW WHAT ALAN LEFT OUT OF HIS POST THAT HE DIDN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ... When I first starting examing the possibility of there being a connection between the figure seen in the Moorman photograph and the BDM, I had noticed a dark shade line passing over both individuals. It was this shade line that promted me to make the transparency overlay that Alan is bitching about. You see, the fact that Betzer is so far away from the subject and his photograph is very limited in color tones being it is a B&W photo which makes separating outlines against a background difficult to do ... I wanted to see how that shade line played out on the subject in both Betzner and Moorman's photos. So what I did was to draw attention to the odd turn in the shade line that passed over the Moorman figure - see below. (Oh yeh, did I forget to mention how Alan left that part of the equation out of his complaint concerning that animation ... I invite anyone to go to Lancer and see how many times I had explained that shade line to Alan and others and then you can determine whether or not Alan simply forgot about it or purposely withheld that information from this forum) SHADE LINE ON THE MOORMAN FIGURE And while over at the Lancer archives, you may come across this next fade-in animation which was a stepping stone to the animation that Alan is so concerned over - see below. Once I saw that the shade lines seemed to match ... it lead to the creation of this next transparency overlay ... the one Alan feels is so sinister and misleading. There is a saying that goes, "Let justice be done though the Heaven's fall" and that was my approach when I started looking into the Gordon Arnold story and then the Arnold/BDM connection. Despite Alan's selective memory and his withholding some of the facts surrounding the transparency overlays I created ... my work was archived at Lancer and it's progress can be tracked as I checked and double checked the evidence as I was finding it. Before I close out this response, one may ask themselves why Alan left out some of the details concerning my past animations and why did he not address the two frame animation I made where I offered the two sunspots from both the Moorman and Betzner photos as I found them? I disagree with Alan that creating a transparency overlay is somehow distorting the evidence for such a technique is used all the time in this type of an investigation. It is my opinion that Alan had failed so miserably in every turn at discrediting Gordon Arnold that he only had the evidence in support of Arnold that he could ridicule ... and that evidence only seems to be narrowed down to the transparency overlay I created. Alan tells you that "he only spotted it" while referring to the BDM/Arnold animation because that is his area of interest. Not only did I refer to my animation as a transparency overlay, but anyone could have merely compared my animation to the actual Betzner photograph and seen what I had done and any idiot could have understood why I created such an overlay, especially when I had given that reason in my responses many times over the past two years. So now I have had my say in response to the BS Alan brought to the table. A little more of the facts concerning my transparency animation and its purpose have now been presented. While I don't know if Lancer's images can be seen in their archives at this time ... the text should still be there. I welcome researches to go read it and then apply it to Alan's remarks on this forum. I leave off by saying that it is my opinion that the evidence points to Arnold being the BDM. That Arnold and BDM did not swap positions between the Willis and Moorman photos. That BDM did not stand at the south corner of the wall and shoot at the President with Zapruder and Sitzman not 17 feet or so away. That the BDM did not go unnoticed while shooting a rifle with SS Agents looking right at him. That the light area on BDM's right shoulder is not the result of a shot being fired and causing a flash or smoke, but rather a sunspot shining off Arnold's right shoulder. (Remember that Betzner took his photograph before the first shot sounded). That because of the limited color tones in the Betzner photo - Alan only sees the shaded area as the entire outline of the BDM. That the BDM is not wearing black clothes, but rather is wearing lighter colored clothing as pointed out by Robert Groden in "TKOAP". That Ralph Yarborough validated Arnold to Earl Golz as being the individual standing above the south end of the concrete wall. That while the two sunspots in question may have changed in shape ever so slightly as Arnold turned his body to track the limo with his camera as he said he did ... they are so similar that it is obvious to me that they are one in the same in both the Betzner and Moorman photographs. There is another dozen or so reasons that I can give as well, but when is there enough been said to make a point! Bill Miller JFK asasination researcher/investigator

B&W for Lee Forman - lightened even more. That was my point, Duncan. You are taking a very blurred image and trying to compare it to other alike blurred images which is a joke. It's like pouring gas onto the ground and looking for all the cool shapes one can find from the sunlight hitting it. BTW, the white spot you see near the underside of the pyracantha bush is light hitting the bark of one of the branches ... had you cross referenced some other photos with the image you used, then you may have seen this. But by all means, don't do the logical thing and continue on with your game of "What does this blob look like". Bill So you are telling me that you can not see BDM in Willis because it is blurred?..That's the biggest load of HxxxxSxxx No - that is not what I said. As usual you have blown it! Bill

Again, see post 2 and 11 ... everything is covered. You pretending the information has not been posted is something I can do little about. Bill

Bill ...Your argument towards my composite post is invalid in this discussion,as the Betzner photograph has absolutely nothing to do with my composite comparison of the 2 color photographs which show the same anomoly at DIFFERENT TIMES.Why don't you butt out of this for a while and let others have a think about it. . Duncan That was my point, Duncan. You are taking a very blurred image and trying to compare it to other alike blurred images which is a joke. It's like pouring gas onto the ground and looking for all the cool shapes one can find from the sunlight hitting it. BTW, the white spot you see near the underside of the pyracantha bush is light hitting the bark of one of the branches ... had you cross referenced some other photos with the image you used, then you may have seen this. But by all means, don't do the logical thing and continue on with your game of "What does this blob look like". Bill

Once again Bill beats around the bush by ignoring my more than competant composite image which clearly shows the same figure.To anyone reading this Bill is talking through a hole in his lower region when he says that the images i posted are blurred and blobby looking.Take a look at post number 10.They are simple unenhanced blow ups of the photographs,ZERO manipulation which shows the SAME figure in a different position with the SAME "sunspot anomoly".Anyone can look at the photographs to confirm this,and get the same results i got by simply blowing them up.You are on the run here Bill,simply because my posting does not fit in with your theory. Duncan Duncan, you are probably my best asset because your remarks are so stupid that they constantly prove my point. When you are not creating poor images, you are trying to use ones that were naturally made. Name one researcher besides you who thinks that the BDM figure in the Willis photograph is sharper and less blurry than the same figure in the Betzner photograph ... just one??? Bill

You notice how the middle image consists of items made up of both figures? That is what you have done. You have took a frame from an animation that is made up of parts of the Betzner & Moorman figure & have used it in your GIF that proports to compare the shapes seen on the "Arnold" & "BDM". Yes I have asked this before but you keep avoiding the real issue. Don't you realise that the image you are using in your comparison GIF is from an animation of yours & not from any of the souces of Betzner that we use? Does any one here not know the point I'm making? Alan Alan, Let's get something straight here ... I tolerate poor research practices coming from some of you people ... I watch you make assertions about witnesses that you never spent a dime bothering to get the facts on beforehand ... I seem to have to repeat myself time and time again as if you have no recall capabilities of your own ... and I watch you make the same stupid mistakes over and over again as if you never learned anything from them the first time around. I am going to address this once more and then you can continue on your own way for I am not going to tolerate your misdirected remarks anymore on this matter. It is true that I have made transparency overlays in some instances and animated them with a fade-in process to show people the similarities I had discovered. The south shadow line passing over the BDM and the Moorman figure was one such example. I went to great lengths to explain the twist and turns of that line and how any individual moving off that spot would lose that shade line passing over him and I then used that premise to show that the figure seen in Betzner and Moorman were one in the same person. I had also made similar transparency overlay animations with the BDM image as well, but at the same time I also have went to great detail to offer animations where I used both the straight Moorman figure sun-spot and the BDM sun-spot from the Betzner photo. Now you guys can complain about the quality of your images compared to mine for bigger is not always better. I have spent considerable time discussing this process with both Gary Mack and Robert Groden. I have gone back to Groden so many times so to be sure that what I was saying was correct that he started asking me why I am wasting so much time dealing with people who don't care to listen. He has said and I quote, "Now you see why I don't bother with forums. I use to belong to them, but they are a waste of my time." Now before you start huffing and puffing ... keep in mind that I am just the messenger and I have sat on Robert's comments for a long time and they are being repeated only now because I feel it is appropriate to do so. Below is a Betzner image that I have had in my files for years - even way before I ever learned to even make a gif animation. Save it, study it, or shove it ... it doesn't matter to me. You guys scan books and magazines for your image sources. Jack White recently posted the Badge Man image from the print that he used Vs. the one that most of you have to work with - THERE IS NO COMPARISON! I have did the same by way of the Hat Man in the past. You people use images that are full of half-tones which have degraded the image despite some of them appearing greatly enlarged, thus fooling you into thinking you have witnessed more clarity. There is a shade line just below the sunspot on both individuals being discussed here (Arnold and BDM). Two different cameras at two separate distances from the subject, along with different film stock in each will make one shade line appear darker than the other, but ragardless the shade line is visible in both images. They are not the result of a transparency overlay. I have heard things about Gordon Arnold come from you (Alan) that had no foundation for you saying them ... and you certainly didn't get your information by actually investigating the matter. People have made claims that Arnold only came forward with his story to seek publicity ... that was totally false because Gordon didn't want to tell his story publicly at all. Had it not been for a friend of Earl Golz overhearing Arnold telling his story privately to someone else - we may never have known about Gordon Arnold at all. Earl told me that it took a lot of coaxing on his part to get Gordon to let him take down his story. Gordon's wife stated that Gordon had told of the events on the knoll to family and close friends from the very beginning. People were critical of Gordon getting emotional at the end of his interview in TMWKK ... what they didn't see was just how bad it had gotten and that Turner opted to not show Arnold breaking down as bad as he did, so that part was left out of the Turner interview. Gordon told of things that occurred on the walkway and at the moments they happened that he could not possibly have known about unless he was actually there and had experienced them. When Senator Ralph Yarborough read about the service man in Golz article ... Ralph contacted Golz to confirm that he had seen Arnold over the corner of the conrete wall. Yarborough's remarks concerning Gordon's actions can be heard in his TMWKK interview. The two men in dark clothing Gordon spoke about who had approached him as he laid on he ground can be seen in the Towner 3 photo, as well as some of the Bond photographs where part of the skyline over the fence is blocked out by their figures. Groden has pointed out that someone in light colored clothing can be seen just over the wall in one of the assassination films as JFK approached. And when I accompanied Robert to the lab to have my 16mm copy of the Nix film worked on ... Robert brought his best print and he, I, Royce Bierma, and the lab guy all watched loops following the head shot that showed someone over the south bend of that wall turning to their left as if o get out of harms way. And is it not a coincidence that the figure in Moorman's photo just happens to look to be wearing a light colored uniform with an overseas cap on. So keep blowing up images full of half-tones and continue on making the same old mistakes ... you have wasted far too much of my time on this matter. To ignore the evidence and to believe that the individual in Moorman's photograph is someone different than the individual we see in the Betzner and Willis photos is to believe that the BDM ran off the walkway and Arnold ran over and took his place in a time frame of about 3 to 4 seconds following Willis taking his photograph, because the film frame that Groden mentions in his book TKOAP limits that window of time greatly. Instead, go read post #10 from Duncan and relish the moment of being in the presense of the blob looking enlargements of the BDM that he offered. Time and time again Duncan has been confronted with the failings of using such poor quality images, most of which he creates, yet he doesn't listen. Instead of using the better Betzner print and comparing a B&W photo with a B&W photo - he opts to use a color photo that shows such blur on the BDM that the sun-spot is almost nonexistent. Now isn't that some real top notch research on Duncan's part. I use to be one of those people who faulted Groden for not coming onto these forums, but when I see post like that in this thread ... I don't fault Robert anymore! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Just for a change, instead of you explaining how part of it looks exactly like part of the figure in Moorman Bill, please explain to me where this catastrophe came from & what it has to do with either of the two best versions of Betzner we have access too(see link). I put it to you that this shape we see in the middle of the white area is a result of overlay/image transistion between Moorman & Betzner & that it has no place at the end of a gif proporting to be a reproduction of what we see in Betzner. Alan, as long as anyone can run the program that you mentioned - YOU should have no problem matching up shapes and showing us how easy it is. Also about your overlay/image transition remark ... as I recall from the many times I have repeated this to you - the transparency was done to show that bent shadow line crossing over both individuals. Below is Moorman's Arnold's sunspot coming over the top of the BDM sunspot as taken from each photo ... no transparency overlay, but rather one image coming over the top of the other. Two individuals standing at the south end of the wall ... two sunspots with the dark shadow patch in the middle ... now where did I have the audacity to think they were one in the same person! And by the way ... you cannot take any two shapes and make them match. If you would like to put your money where your mouth is ... I will furnish you several selections and give you now until 'dooms-day' to make them match and you will not be able to do it. Bill MIller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

"...even more laughable...? I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! David, it would have been helpful had you actually countered Craig's opinion with facts instead of just posting more childish banter. Would it kill you guys to take your hands out of your pants and seriously address these responses with actual data? Bill

The data and information you produced is in error and hypothetical.You stated Arnold was facing both camera's.That was a clear error on your part.I do not think my comment was senseless as you suggest.I merely wanted to set the record straight on that fact.You made a mistake and i pointed it out to you.No fancy words can change that.We all make mistakes,don't feel bad about it Duncan Duncan ... you're jerking us around again. Of all the dozens upon dozens of researchers I have explained this to - you are the only one petty enough to try and make such a ridiculous point. The SS Agent I marked in this Zapruder frame below is not looking directly into the camera, but it would be a true statement if someone said that his body is facing the camera. The same can be said about the Willis girl. Now was there anything important about the post I made that you'd like to address or were you only interested in playing games with me? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Ron, it is nice that you see faces all over the place, but did you not see the resemblence of the sunspot on each individual over the corner of the wall for that was the crux of the matter in the work I presented. Bill

Duncan - get the photos out and look at the President and tell me who is seen just beyond JFK - is it not the figure over the wall? No one said that JFK was dead centered on a line between Arnold and the cameras, but rather was merely facing them. The example below shows the President not more than a few degrees from being centered between the figure at the wall and the camera. There is no way of knowing if Arnold had his camera pointed directly at Kennedy or just pointed at the limo. The only way to know this is to look at Arnold's film to see if JFK was in the center of the lens at all times. If Arnold was like most people - he aimed his camera at the limo and did not pan with JFK in the very center of his lens, so to be so foolish as to think otherwise. You bare trying to hard to pick pepper out of nat dung in order to find something worng with my post, which only makes you look silly. All one can say for sure is that Arnold was surely aiming his camera towards the limo and just beyond that was each photographer. Did you not learn anything from what I posted? Bill

Miller presents an interesting animation of Betzners "blackdogman" and Moorman's Gordon Arnold. BUT...A BIG BUT...Betzner was at the top of Elm, pointing his camera WEST. Moorman was on the grass infield south of Elm, pointing her camera NORTH. Therefore the two images cannot be made to coincide. Sorry, no cigar. Jack PS...I think it possible that blackdogman is a red herring introduced by retouching Jack - you seemngly missed the points that were made. It doesn't matter if the camera in each instance was pointed in different directions as long as the subject was LOOKING TOWARDS THE CAMERA at the time the picture was taken. What you stated about the direction the camera was pointed between Betzner's and Moorman's photographs made absoutely no sense at all. In each case the President was between the figure over the wall and the camera, thus the subject was facing the camera! If you are interested in this subject, then I suggest that you rethink it through for Gary Mack, Robert Groden, and a list of other seasoned researchers had no problem following this presentation and the trail of evidence it offers. By the way, what part of the sunspot on the right shoulder of this person did you not understand for they were identical. The south shade line passing over each was a match. Pay very close attention to the two sunspots below ... one is from Arnold as he is facing Moorman and the other is from the BDM (black dog man) as he is facing Betzner. For anyone to have taken a step in any direction would have caused that sunspot to hit a diferent point on their body, if still at all. Yet in both images the sunspot is the same and the cenetered dark patch on their clothing in the sunlit area is present on both - thus we are looking at the same person regardless of who you believe this person was - PERIOD!!! Below is some of what I presented at last years Lancer Conference ... You believe Gordon Arnold as I do - RIGHT? Gordon didn't say that someone was standing between he and the approaching President and blocking his view - did he? Gordon Arnold didn't say that some black dog man ran off and he (Gordon) quickly ran over to his location and started filming at the last second ... now did he? No, in fact ... Gordon said that he took up a position near the south end of the walkway and was doing some test pans when he saw the President coming down the street. This means that anyone seen at the south end of the walkway in the Betzner, Willis, and Moorman photographs is Gordon Arnold if you believe Gordon told the truth. The matching sunspots show that this person was one in the same. The enhancement of the Moorman individual shows a man in what appears to be a overseas uniform and "garrison cap". Forget the retouch nonsense for a moment and just follow the evidence and you'll have little choice but to see that the BDM and Gordon Arnold are one in the same person. Below is the 'line of sight' from each photographer in question to the individual that we are discussing. These lines of sight all meet at the same location that Gordon Arnold said he stood and where the BDM is seen. Here is some more food for thought. I saw a video presentation done once that mentioned how the BDM got his name. The video mentioned the slope of the shade line resembling that of a sitting dogs back and it also mentioned the two points on the top of the head that resembled 'dog ears'. Are you aware that when someone is seen wearing a 'garrison cap' and that cap is slightly turned ... that it makes two points that match those seen on the BDM shape? See the example below. Sometimes it would pay you to actually look at the available evidence before you and not be so quick to think that everything that you fail to immediately understand must be a result of photos that have been altered and retouched. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator