Bill Miller

Greer's job was simple: Hit the gas if anything bad starts happening. Instead he hit the brake and slowed the limo suddenly, according to Nobel phyics guy Alvarez among others. As a consequence of Greer's action, we see what we see in Zapruder frame 313. In the old West - the Indians would attack with their backs to the sun because it made them harder to see to the enemy. At the time of the shooting, Greer had the limo pointed right into the direction of the sun and people on the underpass were probably little more than silhouettes against the high Dallas sky as viewed through his windshield. Once Greer was aware that shots had been fired because by Z255/Altgens #6 he appears unaware to danger at that time ... he had just a few brief seconds to pinpoint where the danger was coming from. Altgens #6 shows several people in that area unaware of shots being fired by that time. Charles Brehm is clapping and Ralph Yarborough is still smiling. Had the shooter of been on the overpass, Greer would have only made the President more vunerable by continuing west without an agent over the passengers, so giving Clint Hill a chance to catch up and mount the limo was the best move Greer could have made under the circumstances IMO. Bill

I believe that Gordon Arnold very well may have been telling the truth...however, I see no reason why Gordon Arnold has to be the shape defined as what appears to be an individual to the right [our left] of White and Mack's Badgeman, in the image Jack posted. . Gordon Arnold could have been the man on the stairs for all we know. Unless someone has a very good view of the area, taken that day, to indicate the location of a mound of dirt - it may have to remain a mystery for now. One deosn't need to have a photo of a mound of dirt to verify anything for that still would not prove the figure is Arnold. Maybe if I share some additional infromation with you ... you will be better able to reach a reasonable conclusion based the evidence. Are you aware that Arnold was telling his family of his experience on the knoll immediately after the assassination? That information came in part by remarks Gordon's then girlfriend and later wife made to Nigel Turner. Let me show you a little better enhancement of the figure in the Moorman photograph and you tell me what the odds are that Arnold would have worn a uniform that matches that of the figure in Moorman's photograph and the subject seen in the example I am furnishing below. Gordon Arnold said that he was located beyond the wall as the President was coming towards him. Gordon said he was tracking the President with his movie camera. That means that if Arnold is telling the truth, then he must be in the Willis and Betzner photos - correct? Look at the sunspot on the uniformed man in Moorman's photo ... it is inside the white box. Now let's overlay the sunspot on the figure in Moorman's photo with the sunspot seen on Black Dog Man from Betzner's photo and see how they compare. See below ... It appears that the two sunspots are an match right down to the centered dark spot that is visible in each. There is no doubt in my mind that Gordon Arnold in his overseas uniform and cap was standing beyond the wall and is the individual seen in the Betzner and Willis photographs. One more thing ... Gordon said he tracked the limo with his camera as it approached him. In both the Betzner and Moorman photos the individual over the wall is basically facing the camera. That means that we should see a right body turn between those two photographs by way of the sun and shadow changes as this individual (Arnold) pivoted while tracking the limo. The next overlay is a partial insert of the two figures, one from the Betzner photo and the other from Moorman's Polaroid. Note that as this individual faces Betzner, his left shoulder is in a sunspot, but as he rotates towards Moorman his left shoulder rolls into the shade. This evidence also tends to support what Gordon Arnold had said about tracking the limo with his camera. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

As I said in my earlier post it is a great idea, that possibley this could be worked on together, but it seems that some guard what they have and will not share.. and that is the way it is.....but we carry on... Thanks..B Bernice, I am curious to know just how many request have you made to Jack White to give you duplicates of his Badge Man slides to work on? How many request have you made to have duplicates of his collection of Moorman photographs? If you say you've aked him for them and he refused, then your complaint is justified. However, if you have never asked him for them, then your complaint is not justified. Bill

5. Gary Mack and Jack White are respected JFK Researchers. Knowledgeable, experienced, etc. However, for them to assert that there are only 3 individuals present, especially using Moorman as the frame of reference, is absurd - isn't it? Can there be a monopoly on the truth using altered images? Lee, you are leaving out so much information that I hardly know where to start. It is granted that the Moorman photo is a black and white photograph with limited color tones. However, the images seen within her photo, while subject to visual interpretation, can be further investigated. Jack and Gary Mack made detailed measurements on location and correlated them to what was seen on the photograph. A few years ago I had taken real subjects and placed them in the same locations as Arnold, Badge Man, and the RR worker and I took a photograph. I discovered that the shapes seen in Moorman's photograph were within the realm of size and shapes of real people standing at the same locations. This means that if one is to believe these images are just a fluke, then they are a fluke that mimicked the correct size and shapes of real people standing in their place above the knoll and it also mimicked the fields of depth needed to fit Arnold's statements. It should also be noted that before Gordon Arnold ever saw the shapes discovered in the Moorman photo, he had told of his experience on the knoll. Gordon said that a shot came past his left ear and that it was so close to him that it felt like it pushed his eardrum out the other side of his head. So we are on the same page here ... make believe objects do not cause loud gunshots to go off next to peoples ears. By the way, did you notice that the RR worker shows sunlight passing over his person as well as shade from his head being cast onto his torso ... make believe objects don't do that either. That single fact alone tells me that someone real was standing there. That following the assassination this object or person is now gone and that also tends to support that the RR worker was someone who was able to move out of the area after the assasination for a stationary object at that location would be still visible in post assassination photos and films. So these are just a few things that are considered when doing photographic interpretations. I just wanted you to know that more went into the study of the Badge Man images than just staring at a photo and making up images out of thin air. Bill

Bill,I don't think you read what i said.I said ...."I now have part of that answer."....I'll leave that as it is for now. I would counteract to your response by saying that i think it is people like you who cause damage to CT's efforts in this case by your rigid non movement and everything must stay as it is policy.Do you know there are still people who believe the Earth is flat no matter how much evidence for the world being round is pushed at them?.I place you in this bracket,but i also suspect that if Gary said the Earth was flat only on Sundays you'd probably find a way to agree with him.That's how i see it. Duncan Duncan, I read your reply in full. The problem is that you are side stepping the fact that you should have sought the answers before making the asserted claim. As far as what Gary Mack said ... I challenge Gary every now and then on his interpretation of the evidence, so your remarks are as unfounded on that matter as they were throughout this thread. You could have easily emailed Gary Mack and obtained his statement and then did the same for Jack, but you didn't. Here is a recap of just some of the things that transpired in this thread that for some reason you seem to not take any responisibilty for ... " I was wondering when you would appear from your darkened cave. Once more you are spewing out unprovoked insults and ignorant crappy assertions based on your "Miller knows it all" theory which is as accurate as Oswalds Carcano." "What i am saying is that Gary and Jack did not study closely,if at all,the area which i studied.Their time was limited as far as i know,and the Badgeman area was top priority." Jack White writes: "I congratulate Miller on the complete accuracy** of what he says above." In yet another reply, Jack writes, "I verify that Gary's statement is correct. We studied the Moorman image for at least two years, with NO limitations on time. The statement is correct that the three people identified are the ONLY ones we found, and despite years of analysis, found nothing more of significance within the print." So it seems that you (Duncan) was wrong, thus your insults and remarks were also wrong ... so who was just wasting forum space and who was merely stating the facts that they had sought? In a response to Lee I had written, "I understand what you are saying, Lee and this is just the point I have been making concerning people using such poor prints to make claims of seeing assassins, photographers, and soda drinkers when they should be seeking to find out what was visible on the more superior prints." Duncan then replies, "What does all or any of this, interesting as it is, have to do with the topic of this thread other than disrupting the main issue of discussion.?" Duncan goes on to say in another response, "I was talking to Bill Lee. I should have made that clearer...Give him a chance to get away from the main topic in any of my posts,and he'll sieze the opportunity to redirect the thread as far from the topic as possible." Duncan, you refuse to see that the use of poor muddy images in making false claims without seeking better images and factal data is part of what this thread was about because it goes to the validity of your claim. You went on to say in another response, "It appears to me from this thread that the majority in general are in favour of the Coke Bottle man although some say it appears he may be holding a camera or binoculars......live with it and go have a Coke to let that overactive hot wind blowing mouth of yours cool down.....unless you're still on the Jack Daniels of course.....hic" You offer no stats in support of your remarks, but you merely just spouted them off. It was Lee who did what you should have done as he replied to your remarks, "Duncan, By my count 15 people have responded to this thread. Of them only two say they can see a bottle of Coke, two see a camera and the rest either aren't sure or don't say. That comes out to about 13%." It appears that you in great error once again, yet rather than to calculate the numbers - you merely spouted off with your response without regard to checking the facts first. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

here's that problem again -- to answer your question -- yes, it should be there! However when images are posted nobodys asks for said photo lineage -- A researcher could be working with fine resolution digital .tiff images (Most of JackW early work was with actual FILM stock) -- post a 320x240 .jpeg of same and wallah -- the bottle may be gone due to JPEG compression artifacting--- or worse yet, we got Photoshop cowboys riding the pixel range -- they just cloned where the bottle may of been with surrounding area imagery. Course if that is determined and someones called for that this is what you'll hear; "hey it wasn't me, who knows where that image came from..." One may consider that the soda bottle is not only seen on the wall in Moorman's photo, but it isn't visible in the Betzner and Willis photos, nor is it visible in the Nix and Muchmore films. Bill

The opticals limits of the film/lens/distance make something like the badgeman image impossible. I'll repete myself again. All of this "enhancement" either via a computer or film is silly. Its a fools errand. Craig, with all due respect ... Groden told me that he used no computer software to make his copy negatives and slides. That the print that he deemed the best copy of Moorman's photo was not done by way of a computer. That the Badge Man image Jack shows from the actual film transfer in post #85 is not computer enhanced. Bill

Bill. I was not in misery.i was merely seeking an aswer as to my assertion was being correct.I now have part of that answer. Duncan, Maybe sometime you can explain why you always seem to make the assertions first and then have to be forced to ask the appropriate questions after the fact. It seems that most anyone would learn from their mistakes, but you seem to continually repeat them - why? It is that repetitive mistake that you make that I feel causes the most damage to the CT's efforts in this case. If you would only investigate first and then reach your conclusions, what ever they may be, I would not have a problem with your assessments of the evidence. Bill

I have a great interest in this area, therefore I do read all, and Bill occasionally you do say something worth reading, another kudo.....Lordy will wonders never cease..? Like I said, Bernice ... we can go back and pull together all the post that contained the types of remarks you are whining about that had actual factual data inserted to address the issues and do a tally of those posters who did the same, but only made the same types of remarks without addressing any of the issues. I know you won't join me in this undertaking because we both know that it would show a large variance in who is doing it and without offering any data in rebuttal ... and it would beg to ask the question - Where was your concerns when certain parties have been consistently doing it? You'll also find that the threads I have participated in were over photo and film alteration claims which you tend to support. Your bias comes to no surprize to me and you are welcome to address the specifics of those claims any time you like. Bill

Bill, let me put it bluntly. It is impossible for "badgeman" to exist in the Moorman polariod. Period. The resolution of the lens/film/distance makes it impossible. Period. Any imabge that portends to show badgeman is simply a creation from thin air. Period. Its a creation via photographic manipulation. Period. A simply JFK "ink blot test". Period. Well, Craig ... in this instance I disgaree with you. The image is visible, it can be separated from the foliage, it has been validated by MIT, and the timing is right to confirm Gordon Arnold's statement concerning the shot coming past his left ear. My experience has been that if something like Badge Man is a mixture of let's say ... the distant tree foliage ... then he and the foliage would all lighten and contrast equally. However, when I checked this ... Badge Man separated from all the tree foliage around him which had washed out. Then I compared Badge Man's size and body proportions to see if they fell within the norms of a human being in the same posture and below is what I came up with. So while I understand your points, I believe there are ways to check the validity of Badge Man's image that at least tips the scale considerably as to his actual existence. Bill

David, I just read your responses in post #93 and #94 ... I am interested in seeing if Bernice bitches about your remarks or not. Meanwhile, don't you ever have any facts to bring to a forum or is it all about being a jerk-off wih you. Bill

I verify that Gary's statement is correct. We studied the Moorman image for at least two years, with NO limitations on time. The statement is correct that the three people identified are the ONLY ones we found, and despite years of analysis, found nothing more of significance within the print. Jack, thanks for finally putting Duncan out of his misery on this one. The work you and Gary Mack did pertaining to Moorman's photo was not only good, but it was "damned good!" You two did the responsible thing as researchers when you spent considerable time first trying to obtain the best prints available to work with, then you two spent considerable time studying those prints, and then as responsible researchers you two sought a reliable outside source to peer review and validate what you had found. For some unknown reason to me ... that process has become a dying technique by many in the research community. I agree with Craig that the process you used was a form of manipulation to Moorman's image, but you are also correct in saying that anything you do in the process of developing a photo could be considered a manipulation. A simple example of this would be when one walks into a dimly lit room and turns on a light - he has manipulated is surrounding area by making things easier to see without changing anything that already wasn't there. I do not believe for a single minute that your Badge Man work was a creation of mere manipulation, nor do I think Craig is suggesting that this was the case persay. At that time, in the early 80s, I believed the Moorman image to be entirely genuine. However, since that time, I have come to believe that some alteration took place in the area of the "Zapruder" pedestal. Jack There is nothing that I can see about the area around Zapruder's pedestal in the Moorman photo that isn't reflected in the Betzner, Willis, Bronson, and Nix images. Bill

"A coke bottle was seen on the wall in Bond,now to me that tells me,using common sense that someone was drinking coke." I agree with your obvious deduction. Bill .No one,exept the man at the top right who some say has a rifle (i don't buy that one) had gone to the wall area until the Towner photograph,agreed?Therefore the only answer can be that the bottle was always at the wall area being held by someone,or it belonged to the aforementioned alleged rifleman at top right of Towner.Agreed? Duncan There are at least two other people who could have deposited the bottle on the wall that are visible in the Towner 3 photo.

"Bill..I have asked Jack to confirm my claim that time was limited to produce the final Badgeman result as we know him in the studios concerned.If Jack chooses to answer or not that is his choice.We all know they had been looking at the possible figure for years,that point is noti n question." Duncan, not that it matters, but you seem to have morphed your remarks a tad since your response in post #33 where you said, "What i am saying is that Gary and Jack did not study closely,if at all,the area which i studied.Their time was limited as far as i know,and the Badgeman area was top priority.If i am wrong then i'm sure Jack will say so." It was Jack who over time and close study of the area in question that he found Gordon Arnold and then later on he found the RR worker. You have offered no source for saying that Jack and Gary were limited in time when it came to their work on the Moorman photograph. Badge Man was the first image found to be in Moorman's print by Gary Mack. Jack's discovery of Gordon Arnold and the RR worker came later on. It appears that what you are now attempting to do is open a door that allows Jack to say that he missed seeing your alleged image due to some sort of time retraints that he had to work on the Moorman print. As usual you have made a claim without first seeking verification for its accuracy and it has caused you to respond in the way that you are doing. Gary Mack said to me .... " Jack White and I studied the Badge Man images for more than two years beginning in 1982 and continuing ever since." Gary went on to say, "The only shapes we believe are people in that area are best depicted in the colorized version seen in The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

It has become extremely unpleasant to read yours, and a few others reply posts...as this has seemingly become a very bad habit...that you, and they continually get away with ???? Bernice, any time you want to ... we'll go back through this forums log and compare the various remarks made by a few select posters and see who provided the most assassination related documentation and who made the most senseless 'snide remarks' as you put it. Did you know some people no longer bother. Therefore your message is not getting out there, and at times like this perhaps, they wonder whatever that is.... Yet you continue to read those very same post - INTERESTING! There was also a few members once who pointed out that the threads I participated in seemed to get more hits than any others, but according to you ... nobody reads them ... ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT!

I was talking to Bill Lee.I should have made that clearer...Give him a chance to get away from the main topic in any of my posts,and he'll sieze the opportunity to redirect the thread as far from the topic as possible.I know this from 5 years experience of sometimes interesting sometimes not exchanges with him.I'm a believer in new Topic =New Thread,otherwise none of us will ever get anywhere and it all ends up in a jumbled mess leading nowhere. Duncan Duncan, my reply was in response to a previous post by someone else, so who is trying to get away from the topic! What it boils down to is that you didn't bother to check with Jack or Gary Mack to see if a good quality print shows what you thought you saw on a poor muddy print. You assumed that Mack and White were under some time strain to work on the Moorman photograph when all you had to do is merely email either man and ask the question outright. I find it odd that you have plenty of time to make these senseless childlike responses, but you don't have time to post some of these all important questions before making claims about there being soda drinkers on the knoll. Bill Ron, your points are reasonable, but if you are going to be presenting rational thinking on this matter - be prepared to be met with resisitence. Bill

when they're needy for solace, the anti-Fetzer crowd loves to gather together, moan and groan about all things Kennedy, hence all thing Democratic -- when it comes to the Zapruder film and possible alteration of same, their noise level increases to the highest of heights... the Lone Neuter obsession with that subject is remarkable.... and they control the film evidence - which makes it astounding... The mantra the detrators sing is: Maintain the status quo. Questions and Ideas are for the little folks. David ... you have been told before that it isn't just LNrs, but also CTs that dispute Fetzer's alteration claims. Let's put it this way ... If Fetzer's alteration claims are so well made, then why is it that YOU are on record for saying that YOU have not seen any evidence of photo and film alteration? Did you not read Fetzer's book ... did you not see the claims made in that book being discussed on these type of forums well in advance to the books release? It seems you are always making snotty-assed replies ... so can we assume that you were aware of the issues being discussed or are YOU just making noise! So I guess what it boils down to is that some people like yourself are also part of the anti-Fetzer alteration crowd as well, the only difference being is that some say it in a-round-about-way because they are too much of a chicken-sh#t to say it outright. I personally think if Fetzer should ever pick a mouthpiece for his alteration claims ... he might not want it being someone who has seen the alteration claims being made and still says he hasn't seen any evidence of film and photo alteration. Bill

But there are other sources which can be used to cast doubt on the details presented in the Altered Moorman photo - these include the fact that Emmett Hudson was not presented with the Moorman photo during his testimony - but instead, an Altgens and the FBI reinactment [if memory serves] - clever. The fact that he claimed to have been standing for some time with a young man - who went prone immediately after the first shot was heard [by Hudson], and repeatedly urged Hudson to go prone as well - which he claims to have done PRIOR to the final shot, which in his opinion, went directly over his head. I have repeated this one too many times, so I apologize - Hudson stated that there was a 'whole bunch' of people behind him, taking pictures. He never said anything about being with 2 persons. Nor did he say that the young man fled from the scene - as we see in the altered Nix and altered Muchmore films. I do not think that it is the photo sources so much that cast doubts over the authenticity of the assassination films and photos in as much as it is peoples misinterpretation of the facts pertaining to them. Emmett Hudson had a copy of Moorman's photograph and his son (William) told me his dad showed it to lots of people over the years. Hudson was 56 years old at the time of the assassination and the man next to him when the shooting first started had ran up the steps at the time of the head shot. The man in the red shirt then came up the steps and in the Nix film we can see this man start to get down as Hudson goes off the screen. The key is not that Hudson started to say the man was 'sitting' and then corrected it to 'standing', but rather that it was the man who was along side him at the 'present time' the suggestion to get down was made. Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind. As far as 'the first shot goes ... this is what Hudson said about the number of shots and when they were fired - Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether? Mr. HUDSON - Three. Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was. Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I don't know if you have ever laid down close to the ground, you know, when you heard the reports coming, but it's a whole lot plainer than it is when you are standing up in the air. So - I don't know if I have been of much help here. I do not trust the Moorman photo. The man on the stairs was removed, and other details appear to have been added or changed. There are too many 'differences' between different versions of the photo. Your Coca Cola man is most likely one of the camera crew, in my opinion. And the real shooter that can be seen in the Moorman is beside the tree, wearing a Cop's hat - and he was French, associated with the Corsican Maffia, brought in through Canada, working with a breakdown man, as witnessed primarily by Ed Hoffman. - lee You should have written that you do not always trust the source for the Moorman print you are looking at. Newspapers were notortious for air brushing photos. The photo you opted to show was one such photo where a decision was made to remove the tramatic scene and just draw in the foreground. The photo you used for an example looked like a five year old drew in the images, thus no real sinister attempt was made to alter anything IMO. Bill Bill[/b]

Bill...You are three thirds crazy and more by implying to Jack,in the hope that he will turn against me,that my figure is beside the Railroad man.I SAID NO SUCH THING MORON.This is YOUR fantasy not mine.My figure is clearly behind the wall and in front of the fence,nowhere near railroad man...Nice try..but your attempted disruptive moves are too predictable these days.get some oil in your gears man you're getting rustier by the day. Duncan So we are clear ... I DID NOT imply that your alleged figure existed at all. What I said is that on Moorman's photograph his alleged image is less than a 16th of an inch from the RR man, thus White and Mack HAD INDEED studied his area and not seen such a figure when looking at a much better print. Bill

After closely studying the Moorman Photo in the course of an exchange about Classic Gunman, I began to feel that I was seeing more images behind the wall. I sought Jack's help with getting "the best quality Moorman photo obtainable." I was surprised to realize that I couldn't intelligently answer his questions: "Which version? There are several. The early Zippo print without the thumbprint? Early wire service prints with pedestal cropped out? Later wire service prints? My copies made from the original? Gordon Smith copy from original, etc. etc. etc.? All are different." So I'm seizing this opportunity for clarification and/or an assist from Bill Miller regarding which version is the purest (perhaps "rawest" would be better, knowing Jack's position about tampering). I also question the thumbprint: how can there be versions without it? Tim, I think I can answer your questions. Some of what I am about to tell you has been passed on to me via Robert Groden. If I remember it correctly ... Robert said that the clearest Moorman print that he had ever seen was an 8 x 10 print that Josiah Thompson had. Josiah's 1st genration print was made from a 'copy negative' made right from the original Moorman photograph. Robert then made a copy negative from the 1st generation print that Josiah had at the time. It was that copy negative that Robert made that was passed on to Jack White which was then used to retrieve the Badge Man images. Sometime down the road someone had placed their thumb on the original Moorman photograph and their thumb lifted some of the coating off the photo, thus leaving behind a thumb print. So prints and copy negatives made before this time would not show a thumb print on the photo and copy negatives and prints made after the fact do show the damage. FWIW ... Groden also has told me that he made several copy negatives from various prints. However, the best print he tells me was one in particular that was owned by Josiah Thompson, who also has had several diferent levels of quality prints in his possession over time. The 'Drum Scan' is one such example which shows an inferior image compared to the copy negative Jack used in the Badge Man work. Bill

Bill (Miller) wasn't very diplomatic about it but he has a point that more than one person might have been drinking Coke (or Pepsi or RC etc) in DP around the time of the assassination. If I misstated any ones views it was unintentional, let me know. Len, that is not what I said at all! I said that Duncan has taken a poor muddy Moorman print and attempted to draw in a figure without first bothering to check a good quality print or at least check with Jack to see if his superior print shows anything there at all. As far as a fued with Duncan ... there is no fued. I merely want the questions and points addressed. If this forum is merely a 'take the poorest prints available and play where's Waldo' with them, then let me know for there can be no real research being done here by using such an approach. The points are simple. Why does one clean their windshield when it gets dirty ... is it not so they can see clearly? Is it not common sense to set a poor quality questionable print aside and look at a superior print to achieve the highest level of accuracy possible? What is there to not understand! Bill What i am saying is that Gary and Jack did not study closely,if at all,the area which i studied.Their time was limited as far as i know,and the Badgeman area was top priority.If i am wrong then i'm sure Jack will say so. Duncan Anyone who has ever heard Jack talk about the work he and Gary did on the Badge Man study could not make such a ridiculous remark as' they were limited on time'. Why would anyone even make such a remark when a simple email to Jack or Gary Mack could answer that question? Instead, you just make an inference when there is no foundation for doing it other than to avoid admitting that no such figure was present in the good print that Gary and Jack used. Their study was complete and quite extensive. They initially looked very closely at Moorman's photo for TWO YEARS in an effort to look for anyone standing above the wall. Your remark about them 'not studying closely, if not at all, the area you are talking about' is in error. Below is the area in question. The only reason that their Badge Man images stop with the RR worker and didn't continue north is because there was no one else visible for them to see. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Bill...You are three thirds crazy and more by implying to Jack,in the hope that he will turn against me,that my figure is beside the Railroad man.I SAID NO SUCH THING MORON.This is YOUR fantasy not mine.My figure is clearly behind the wall and in front of the fence,nowhere near railroad man...Nice try..but your attempted disruptive moves are too predictable these days.get some oil in your gears man you're getting rustier by the day. Duncan Duncan, there is a saying that says, "Your actions speak louder than your words." You have made a claim once again by way of using a poor degraded Moorman print and I have asked why would you not use a good print or ask someone who has access to a good print to verify your observation. There are only two alternatives to White, Mack, and MIT not seeing the alleged soda drinker and they are ... 1) They didn't want to bring attention to this person, or ... 2) This alleged soda drinker is not visible in the best and clearest print of the same, which means he never existed in the first place. So while you can dance all you want - you have put forth a post that basically says that you were able to see something in a poor muddy print that Jack White, Gary Mack, and MIT were not qualified or able to see in a print far more superior in quality than the image that you used. The two alternatives are listed above ... pick which ever alternative you wish to apply to this matter ... Jack can do the same. So you people can jerk around and act all insulted and pissed-off or you can get to business and do as I did and go right to the heart of the matter and ask Jack to either acknowledge the alleged soda drinker and explain how he, Mack and MIT missed it in the good quality print or Jack can tell you that they missed NOTHING and that you have only taken artifacts created by using a poor muddy print and mistook them for a figure drinking soda! To do anything short of this by not utilizing the best images possible is making a mockery out of JFK's murder IMO. Bill

Are you asking what my qualifications are for stating something that a five your old should know? David ... is it your position that a poor degraded print offers more accurate information than a good one? How much expertise does one need to see that the Badge Man in Jack's print is visible, while the Badge Man in Duncan's print is not visible. The point I made is common sense and doesn't need a genuis to tell why it is important to use the better print over the poorer one. Bill