Bill Miller

Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)? David, once again you are playing with words as if citing a fact. You, yourself have said that you have not seen any signs of film or photo alteration. We know you are aware of splices in some of the film prints and that you were aware of such splices before making the statement I have referenced. So with that in mind, how can you justify the above question as if there is some sort of proof that alterations were done as 'part of a conspiracy for whatever reason?' I think a more accurate and responsible wording would have been that 'any planned alterations that can be proven' would have been done to cover-up a conspiracy in the murder of the President .... would you not agree?' Bill

Duncan...you are correct that I no longer believe the Moorman polaroid is entirely genuine. For years for various reasons I believed it escaped the govt dragnet. I now believe, for various reasons, that the Moorman is altered in the extreme right edge to make changes in the persons on the pedestal. Be wary in dealing with "Bill Miller/Larry Peters"; he is not necessarily all that he seems. Jack Jack, you appear to validate photos only on whether or not they seem to support one of your alteration claims. Let me remind you and Duncan that Mary Moorman's photogragh was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the assassination. At the time her photograph was filmed - it had never left her possession. That Mary Moorman's photo was broaqdcast on NBC television around 3:25PM on the afternoon of the assassination. Now considering it was YOU who used her photo to expose the fact that Gordon Arnold and Badge Man could be seen in her photograph (not to mention the RR worker) ... what sensible explanation could anyone have for altering her photo in non-important areas while leaving the Badge Man image showing him aiming a rifle at the President, thus supporting Arnold's statement? You are so oblivious of what Duncan is proposing that you are not aware that he is making an ass out of you and your interpretation skills back when they were much better than they are now. Duncan is taking a degraded image and saying that he see's another man a few feet or so to the left (our right) of the RR worker in Mary's Polaroid. What that implies is that YOU and Gary Mack had a much superior image to work with and you COULD NOT see what Duncan says is obvious in a poor degraded print of the same. Now rethink what you have said and see if you want to tell this forum that you and Mack missed this ridiculous Duncan figure created from a far less superior print than you used! The fact is .... YOU and Mack had the best image to work with and that there was no descernible figure of anyone on the knoll drinking a coke. I hope you were able to follow the point I have laid before you and I also hope that you will not side step it again and attempt to address it accordingly. My question to you is, "Do you believe that YOU and Mack, along with MIT, failed to see a man standing next to the RR worker when you had the best print to study and that Duncan has this magical power of seeing figures in degraded muddy prints that you could not see in good quality prints?" Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Also, to John Dolva - "My understanding is that a polaroid photo is about 7 cm square. Therefore the part that you have enlarged is very small indeed. I wonder what the grain of a polaroid from that era is. Also a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a photo that has figerprints on it and is poor to start with is bound to have blemishes of some sort on it. Therefore the issue of enlargement is real." John ... did you not understand what I have said about this matter? Taking a poor quality print that has limited color tones and trying to draw faces on the backgrounds is ludicrous. Once someone thinks they may have seen something on a poor muddy print, would not the next step be to go to the best print possible and see if the image is really there or not? I mentioned doing this to Duncan, but he pretends to be too dumb to know why this should be done. I have now addressed the same reasoning with Jack White and I await to see how Jack responds. I am betting that you must also see the significance of the points I have raised. Bill Duncan, just so you know this ahead of time ... It was at one time a known fact that this forum limited the amount of image space that members could post as attachments. That means that once you run yours up to the limit - you're done. You may wish in the future to possibly utilize your attachment space a little better and stick to the evidence being discussed instead of trying to amuse someone with your non-productive childish nonsense. Bill

As long as crap is being thrown at the wall without sensibly investigating the other assassination images ... how about it being a bottle of "IDIOT JUICE" and Duncan has drank the whole thing! Jack White had the best Moorman print when he and Gary Mack worked on the Badge Man images - why not ask him what his print shows instead of playing games with inferior images such as the one posted here? Also, how many men with pop bottles can be seen in the Willis and Betzner photos? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

One must put themselves in Greer's position at the time of the assassination. If this was a triangulation of fire which IMHO it obviously was, Greer would have first been caught off-guard in the scerene plaza and then confused as to the shot origin. In looking over his shoulder, he was checking on the commotion in the rear of the limo and when he observes the headshot, he ducks and then is delayed in his reaction as to where the shots are coming from. He eventually does the right thing and accelerates out of the plaza. It is not unreasonable to think that one would decelerate when they take their eyes off the road and look behind them. While it is true that Greer was supposed to be a trained professional and should have reacted quicker and per P&P, he was also human and real time/real life does not always accept training. Al I agree with Al. Greer had to decide whether to retreat or continue on and had only a brief instant to make that decision. Keeping in mind the direction the limo was traveling ... it may have been difficult for Greer to know if maybe someone on the underpass had fired shots at the limo. It appears to me that Greer did the only thing he could have done. Bill

Thanks Ed..I'm glad you can see him.All the best. Duncan Relax, Duncan ... in the shadows cast upon the stockade fence from the tree foliage as seen in Moorman's Polaroid ... Ed also saw the images of Cops with cameras. I found his posted image at the time and created an overlay showing where he had gotten it. (see below) That window was also only 14" off the floor and didn't a witness say that the assasin was standing off to the side of the window and out of sight? It seems to me that a person having only part of his head showing above the window ledge would need to be laying on his stomach. Bill Miller JFK assassination/researcher

"And just what are Costella's qualifications as a photo analyst, his career as a school teacher, his degrees in electrical engineering and particle physics or his grand total of zero published peer reviewed technical papers?" Costella's qualifications as a photo analyst is not good. He was one of the alteration supporters who also missed the obvious point about Moorman's camera height being shorter than the known height of the cycles windshields and what that meant when Mary's photo showed her camera above those same windshields and looking down. Costella also wrote a chapter on this imaginary window possibly being present where someone could have altered Moorman's photograph. Too bad Costella didn't consult the right people or he would have found out that Moorman had her photo filmed not more than 30 minutes after the shooting for an afternoon broadcast on the day of the assassination. Costella's window had just had a brick thrown through it! Robert Groden mentioned the process needed to alter a film such as Zapruder's. Robert told of the tell tale signs that would be present by transfering an 8mm film to 35mm and then back to 8mm again, especially when dealing with Kodachrome II film. Costella, nor anyone else in the 'Hoax' book mentioned this problem because none of them considred it ... WHY? The reason can only be that they were not qualified to take on the task they were claiming they had accomplished.

Ah, excuse me -- those that wish to debate/distract or just make noise, press on -- As for me; I debate/discuss with NO one unless I am fully aware of their **motion** media post production qualifications-- NO ONE I'm aware of, knows your media (film/video) post production qualifications, if in fact there are any. Debate Peters.... or of course Len -- better yet, how about Craig Lamson Feel free to post commercial broadcast 'productiuon' or film credits here? You asked for the opinions of those experts who could address your concerns. I believe that has been done. Groden details several flaws concerning your opinions and why you are not qualified to render such an opinion. This forum says in its heading that it is designed for debating the JFK assasination, so feel free to start at any time and save the dancing for the looney forum. For the lurkers out there, the only reason why this forum isn't beseiged with endless .gif animations re the Dealey plaza "seamless" films, is the 'well planned' upload limit restriction on Forum posters -- otherwise, the JFK anti alteration film crowd would have thousands, upon thousands of posts filling forum pages! A huge, non-sensical waste of time creating expensive bandwidth problems -- post animation to ftp sites, provide a url Really? I have no problem posting animations, so when you create one ... email it to me and I'll post it for you! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Is it a requirement, better yet; are you forced to post here? The defacto voice in support of the Zapruder film? Now THAT would be a interesting turn of events! What's TRULY amazing here, There are quite a few with the same questions as I, IF it was, WHY? So here's a little gem for you from a website a few years back: No, David ... I am sure this site was created for jerk-offs to run up threads with meaningless schoolyard banter that seldom, if ever, cites actual JFK related data ... give us a break! The difference between you and most everyone else who ask "why?" is that they do address the issues with facts and save the drama for the drama queens. Just like your mentioning Scott - why? You aren't up against LNrs here, but rather CT's wanting actual facts to be presented instead of you just making assertions without evidence to support what you're saying. We aren't looking to be right as much as we are wanting to be accurate. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Dave you asked me for my photo 3 times in 15 minutes then once again 2 days later. You also started a thread about it. What was that obsession about? Funny that you were so adamant that I comply with one of the forum’s rules but feel that you are under no obligation to comply with a similar one. If one goes back through the forum responses that David Healy has made to date ... it would appear that he is not on this forum to offer actual data concerning the JFK assassination, but rather to have a place to jack around for a more polite way of putting it. Somewhat like the Warren Commission did in the 26 volumes ... Healy runs up threads with a lot of meaningless nonsense replies which seldom, if never, address the issues in an apparent attempt to derail any actual research information from being shared. In other words, a reader has to wade through pages of meaningless responses like the ones you cited in order to see the relevant material to the topic being discussed. If what I have said here is not true, then let someone explain why Healy would post so many times in such a short time span over such nonsense as cited in your opening post. I am personally amazed that it has been allowed to go on. I am of the opinion that the next worst thing to doing what Healy appears to be doing is actually allowing it to continue. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Here are some interesting remarks made about the Mary Poppins movie of 1964 ... "To those who are skeptical that photographic techniques could have been equal to the task at the time, I am fond of pointing out that the film, Mary Poppins, with it's many special effects, was released in 1964."- James Fetzer, Assassination Science, 1998, p. 371. Note that the examples I posted, and many more, show that the special expertise Fetzer thinks existed were, in fact, not good enough to fool even the most novice viewer. "A classic use of the traveling matte, appeared in the movie, Mary Poppins, in which a similar process was used, frame by frame, to insert animated figures into live action scenes." - David Mantik, Assassination Science, 1998, p. 334. But all of the frames I posted show that in those days, the insertion of figures was easily detectable by even the most novice viewer. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

LOL! Whenever Jack White and his "boys" find their tit in a wringer they drag out the ...must be cia... routine. Its pretty sad really that a grown man like White has to run around like this with a tinfoil hat on his head! Grow up Jack! Jack is a babbling fool suffering from paranoia ... best to ignore him these days. On a more important matter ... I brought up David Healy and his optical printer claims to Groden today and needless to say Robert didn't have anything good to say about their alleged knowledge of the subject. Groden's main theme is that they don't know squat about film, which is the other half of the argument. Robert said that Kodachrome II film has very poor duplicating capabilities. Groden went on to say that these guys do not understand that the small 8mm Zapruder film frames would have first to be turned into 35mm film so to have a large enough image to work on it. Then that film would have to be turned back into 8mm film once again. Robert said that an expert would see the lost contrast in that type of film in just one transfer, he said two transfers would be even more noticeable and undeniable. Groden went on to say that in 1976, he and another guy was working for a company that went to Life to see the film. Robert said that he was allowed to look at the original Zapruder film. Robert said he held the film and examined it thoroughly under magnification. He mentioned the tell tale signs of that particular film being the camera original right down to the actual splices still being on the film where they mended it. Groden said that there was no question that he held the camera original Zapruder film and that it had not been transfered from another film in any way shape or form. Bill Miller JFK asassination researcher/investigator

Who questioned OR touted Walt Disney as leading the way in animation? They had a great facility, made great cartoons and fantasy musicals -- so WHAT? You young fellas think thats all there is to Optical film printing. circa 1963-64? ROFLMFAO EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects, even what you've reduced to foolishness posted here -- probably not a single person here can tell me the film compositing process used in these excellent examples -- Let me give you a hint Bill --- seeing that your grasping at straws, want to see some real work and for you film buffs: Orson Wells and ROSEBUD, Citizen Kane - 1940 -- the trot on over to Google and search Linwood Dunn better yet: David, I didn't mention Disney or their movies to show that optical printers were being used in 1963/64, but rather to show their limitations ... I used Disney Studios because they were the best of the best and when one takes a close look at their film edits - they can find the flaws - PERIOD! Sure, when a film is run at normal speed - the flaws are not detectable, but that is not what we have been talking about. You have shown a single image and made the claim that alteration could be achieved without detection by way of an optical printer. The Zapruder film is compilation of images that can be viewed in sequence. What I did was show that when one takes film frames, such as those in the Disney movies, and looks at them under magnification and/or by comparing the various border editings from frame to frame ... the differences and changes that take place are noticeable to even the untrained eye. Now if you actually have a piece of altered film that was created by an optical printer in 1963/64 that doesn't show any signs of flaws under close scrutiny when the frames are run in sequence, then by all means - PRESENT IT! Until then, IMO you are just making claims pertaining to the realm of possibilties that have no evidence to support them. Bill "as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me! You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO? If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign..... This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out" Someone should compile all of Healy's responses on this forum and put them all together to see if he ever actually addressed a single JFK asassination matter. I'm thinking that Ronald Reagan was making more sense in his last hours of life than what David has done in most of the responses he has made to this forum. Bill Miller JFK researcher/investigator

If you do respond try to keep it civil and arrogant free,but i doubt you have the mental capacity to restrain yourself in your quest for the ultimate supreme ego. Duncan Let's compare mental capacities - shall we? Here is a partial reply you gave to me when I had not even responded to you, but rather to another poster ... "Still talking crap i see Bill since i was kicked off Lancer for simply not agreeing with you. I've never known anyone to crawl like a wriggling worm and suck ass the way you do at Lancer,it's sickening..jesus..... " So speaking of Jesus ... wasn't it he who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." You are a blow-hard Duncan who is unwilling to take responsibility for his own doing and that includes your poor research practices. I will continue to respond to your faulty claims concerning the JFK assassination, but I will refrain from taking it to the level you did with Conway on Lancer and me here on this forum. Bill

More examples concerning 1963/64 optical printing in film ... can you detect the flaws?

In 1963/64, Disney Studios were leading the way in animation. They employed the best people in the field to utilize the latest tools available to create their animations. Below are some small examples taken from their 1964 movie release of "Mary Poppins". It appears that the best that Disney Studios had to offer could not do what David Healy has suggested as being possible at that time. Can you see the giveaways in their work ... Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

John...you got most of them! (but not completely). Congratulations! So let me see if I got this straight ... The possible alteration believers say that the Zapruder film could have been altered in a way that could not be detected by using 1963/64 tools. They attempt to show this by use of 2006 computer software. John, who admits that he is no expert, is able to find almost every change in Jack's example with little effort and somehow this is supposed to validate how easy the Zfilm could have been altered in 1963/64? Am I the only one who see's something wrong here! Bill

Jack, I think you are confusing 2006 with 1963/64. If you wish to make a point worthy of consideration, then show what you can do with 1963/64 technology. Bill

a prime example of shuck and jive -- Mr. Colby da dufus be back .... you might want to place your bonifides right below here -- we'd like to know you INexperience re motion picture film and processing and manipulation of same, if you have any experience please let us know... till you demonstrate your *expertise* just step over there and play in Bill Miller's sandbox.... David, now I'm confused ... was your remark about "shuck and jive" pertaining to John's reply or to the one you were writing back to him that I copied and pasted above? I mean, maybe someone can read your remarks above and tell me what part of your reply wasn't just "shuck and jive" as you call it. Bill

Ask Duncan to take a film frame the size of a fingernail and show us how he can put an extra cycle rider in the parade without it being detectable .... that is a whole other story. Bill

Still talking crap i see Bill since i was kicked off Lancer for simply not agreeing with you. I've never known anyone to crawl like a wriggling worm and suck ass the way you do at Lancer,it's sickening..jesus..... Anyway...David is correct.You are completely out of your depth here as his expertise and knowledge in this particular field is superior to anything you can offer.The fact is non deniable..The technology to fake films beyond detected fakery existed in 1963 and earlier..live with it.I have uploaded a faked Zapruder frame.I wonder how many people who have never had access to this frame could spot the fakery.99.9%plus i suspect. Duncan Duncan, anyone who wishes to see why you were canned at Lancer can go there and read the thread that led to your getting booted. Debra Conway doesn't confer with me about what she does, but looking at the remark you made to her about having people sucking on her asshole or however ignorant the way you had addressed her is what got your big mouth booted. You now seem to be carrying on here in the same way ... keep it up and I suspect you'll be on another forum soon saying things about John Simkin that you are now saying about Debra Conway and Lancer. Sooner or later you should start taking responsibility for your own actions and quit blaming everyone else for your short comings. Bill

Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years -- I haven't seen, touched or inspected the alleged camera original film much to my chagrin, why would I claim otherwise -- WAS it possible? Now THAT'S another story -- of course it was POSSIBLE.... makes one wonder what all the howlings' about whenever Z-film possible OR outright alteration is brought up.... $16 million dollars for a film no one can see or touch... So, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again? Your position is so idiotic that it is little wonder that you are the only person I ever hear carrying on about it. I don't see fraud in the some of the worlds most priceless art, so should I expect them to hand some pieces over to me for inspection so I can validate what I don't see - that's plain 'stupid talk' IMO. "Easy fix tools"? Why Bill, you haven't read the book HOAX have you? Very complicated tools and some, not so complicated tools, all to do easy fixes, if one knows how.... Hundreds of examples.... That book (The Great Zapruder Hoax) was crap! I wasted good money on a book claiming all this film and photo alteration when there was none there to be found. It appears that after reading the book - you also came to the same conclusion as well ... so why keep telling people to read something that didn't do what it claimed it would. It's very simple, Bill you're the expert in Dealey Plaza films .gif-.jpeg thumbnail animations....and all the compression artifacts that goes with it, -- post the official Z-film time line, we'll procede from there -- As for, "Wait for me?" Should I be impressed that you and Lamson wait for me? ROFLMFAO.... You actually think I'm doing you bidding -- get real man, you're defending the Z-film, AND why it wasn't altered, remember? If you want to know about the Zapruder film ... read Richard Trask's new book. As far as waiting for you ... I believe that is what you who asked us to do just that in a previous post ... should I go back and read it to you? so, for the last time: get someone with post film credits here that will tell me I'm talking the impossible -- post haste! You and Lamson have wasted enough LURKER time - there's a few around here that have caught on to the game... You have yet to show anyone anything - so what are we supposed to dispute? Your examples were so bad that a half blind chimp would have reasoned through the differences in just minutes. Now who has wasted who's time? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

David Healy is observaing and stating; yes, alteration could be done to the point of being non-detectable, and CERTAINLY not detectable (by the uninitiated) when a film is running at 10fps, 18.3 fps, 24 fps, 29.98fps and 30fps Thanks for recognizing the 15 minute achivements... imagine what would happen in todays timing with 45 minutes and a computer... we'd be arguing over the grass texture, that's a easy fix too! I think that most everyone is more interested in what "easy fix" tools they had in 1963/64. Besides, if you are going to promote how easy altering a film was in 1963/64, then you should do a half way good job in 2006 just to make what you are saying appear somewhat credible. Tell me, WHO praytell would be looking for motion blur in 63/64? WHO considered that the Zapruder film was altered, or hinted it was during the time period between 63/64 till 1967? No one I suspect.... But this is 2006 and still as you have said ... there is no proof that you've seen that the Zapruder film has been altered. All we have is someone claiming that it was possible 43 years ago and not showing a very good job of doing it himself with todays tools. You're premise is faulty, you assume, ASSUME the alledged Zapruder camera original is just that THE original, of course if you're a WC defender... And you assume that the Zapruder film is possibly altered though you cannot pinpoint any evidence to support your thinking. As for shakey Abe's camera work? Makes the job that much easier, not harder -- Yeh right ... it makes it so easy that you failed miserably at it. Post me and the rest of the lurkers; a clear and concise time line of ownership re: the Zapruder camera original film, the exact place it was stored, who handled it from 22 November 1963 thru TODAY (with affidavit) . Should be pretty simple, the most viewed film, in the history of FILM.... Make that job a little easier -- I'm more interested up Nov 22nd till LIFE turned the film back over to the Zapruder family... Ahhhh ... back to 'I think it is possible that the moon is made of cheese, so prove to me it is not' way of thinking. So it appears that we waited for you to do as you always do and that is to say you are going to show us something and it turns out being a joke. Bill

And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap? And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM? What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer..... Right! So it appears that David Healy is saying that film alteration could be done so well back in 63/64 that it basically put experts out of business ... that motion blur between frames could not be detected when spliced into one another ... that Zapruder's constant up and down tilting of the camera which bends the vertical lines between frames could be altered by mere splicing in such a way that no one could tell that it was ever done ... and that the cut lines such as those around Clint Hill which stick out like a sore thumb against Altgens clothing would go unnoticed - did I get that right? Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator