Bill Miller

The limo came to a near stop according to the photographical record - a crawl if for no better word. White House Press reporter Merriman Smith said that while the car he was in had stopped for a few seconds ... he could see the President's car and that it had only faltered (slowed) before speeding away. Moorman's #5 photo shows the rear hubcap still turning for the star emblem in the center of the wheel is blurred. Those witnesses that were more behind the car probably did get the impression that the car had stopped. I know of no witness who saw the limo in profile ever make such a claim as seeing the limo completely stop.

Most researchers think that rule is there so people won't embarrass the site by letting the rest of the JFK community see the ridiculous things posted there. I mean ... what other purpose can there be for if this stuff was really ground breaking - would they not want it shared with the public. Think about it!

Go to frame 461 and look at the ghost image - it is part of a shrub that has branches and foliage on it.

Bill Newman said to the FBI that there was a man on the pedestal behind him taking movies. Can we assume that Bill Newman knew the difference between a movie camera and a thermos bottle? I might also add that if Zapruder was drinking from a thermos, then he must have really been thirsty for he had it to his face in every film and photo taken of him during the shooting. One would think that he would have stopped drinking long enough to have at least watched the President pass by.

Stephen, Unless David Healy has come up with one since the last time he addressed that question - his response has been that he has 'no proof' that the film is a fake. His position is that it has not been proven to be the real film either. This is why many of us stand back and shake our heads at people quickly accepting the idea that the Zapruder film has been altered in ways other than just being spliced. I recall Jack White using the Muchmore film one time to make a case for Moorman and Hill being in the street and when someone showed a better enhancement that proved otherwise, then the Muchmore film was being called suspect. Now this was before it was presented to White and company that Muchmore had her undeveloped film until at least Monday when it was sold to UPI in Dallas who then flew it to NY where it was shown on TV. I want to make it clear and David can correct me if I am wrong, but his position has stayed focused on the not being able to say the existing Zapruder film is the camera original. That is not to be confused with him jumping on a band wagon that erroneously thought they were seeing things on the Zapruder film that proved it was a fake. As far as I recall - David has maintained that he has not seen anything convincing that proves the Zapruder film is altered other than the splices that he mentioned in another post. BIll

I bet - your replies do seem to involve a lot of wind.

Well, you're consistent even if it is being consistently wrong.

It's really the only choice because when one guy says his "other film" showed a limo stopped for as much as 4 seconds and another guy says his "other film" showed the limo only pausing for a half of a second or one guy says the limo in his "other film" ran over the north curb of Elm Street or another guys says his "other film" showed JFK being shot all to hell as the car rounds the corner onto Elm Street, they obviously are seeing different films and at the very least they all are recreations for there can be only "ONE" other film if one ever existed. Run that by the Bay Area Video people and see if they do not agree. BTW - do you have any JFK assassination related facts you'd like to share with this forum or are you still keeping them all to yourself?

Why would one waste time on an irrelevant point? The Nix, Muchmore, and Zapruder films all show that the limo is not all the way to the steps when the head shot occurred. Moorman's photo supports the assassination films 100% on where the limo was located at the time of the head shot. If her photo did nothing else when it was filmed 30 minutes after the assassintion - It showed where the limo was when she took her photo. If anyone cannot find the steps in her photo - look for the three men standing on the hill. If you still cannot find the steps, I will be happy to place an arrow on Moorman's photo showing where they are. Then if need be ... we can have Duncan make the steps disappear with one of his enhancements only to then draw them in somewhere else. Here are some links to a 1975 re-creation. Such films were made as far back as the mid-60's: http://www.icp.org/exhibitions/ant_farm/introduction.html http://www.bavc.org/meet/news/articles/restoring.htm Those who claim to have seen a "different" film saw only a fake version of the assassination and couldn't tell the difference. It can be the only logical reason for their describing different events in each. "Heather Weaver and Kirsten Menger-Anderson Restoring The Eternal Frame [Reprinted from DV.com Feature Story, 06.18.03] On November 22, 1963, millions of people watched footage of John Fitzgerald Kennedy's assassination on television. The 8 mm film captured by Abraham Zapruder was endlessly examined for clues, evidence, and explanation by authorities and the media. In 1975, inspired by television's portrayal of reality and how people construct recollections, members of the art collective Ant Farm (Cadillac Ranch, Media Burn) and the multimedia performance group T.R. Uthco decided to re-create the footage. The resulting piece, The Eternal Frame, contains reenactment footage, interviews with the artists and tourists, and commentary on the re-creation. Ultimately, the work is not about the reenactment, but about examining the power and significance of visual representation. "

Duncan - I am not going to waste a lot of time trying to help someone who doesn't want it or someone who appears to be stoned and unable to follow the conversation. In post #31 you said and I quote, "Plus with Sitzman being behind Zapruder,she would be incospicuous." I assume you meant "inconspicuous", but regardless ... I then pointed out how she is seen in the Willis and Betzner photos by anyone standing at the top of Elm Street and looking towards the knoll. Who cares about how poor the quality of the Betzner and Willis photos is - they still had clean views through their camera lenses, not to mention all those people who were not using cameras. To those people Sitzman would not be hidden from view and that is why I addressed those two filming locations. Then if Sitzman is filming something other than the approaching limo, then her film would be of no use in altering the Zapruder film. No matter how one approaches Sitzman shooting another film - it is not being supported by rational thinking. I am not really sure why if Zapruder and Sitzman were conspirators as you have implied, then why even take a film that may be used to debunk the sole assassin plan that's been laid since Miami. There is nothing positive that could be gained by filming the crime in the first place if you were part of the murder plot. This talk about Sitzman shooting a film of the limo or filming some hunk acrosss the plaza makes no sense and is lacking foundation for ever bringing it up in the first place. I thought Sitzman was supposed to be shooting the so-called "other film" so to help somehow conspire to alter Zapruder's film that shouldn't even being taken in the first place if either of them two were in on the murder of JFK. Are we going to hear that Sitzman shot a film on an earlier date?I ask because if you take her out of the equation for the other film, then there is no reason for her to deny shooting a film in the first place which is what you need to have to envolve her into your conspiracy frame of mind. You have laid out a claim that is nothing more than a bunch of square pegs that have been forced into round holes. Yes - and if he was a conspirator, then there is no need to film JFK's assassination in the first place. that presumably some actors stood in their place while they remained out of sight.I don't believe David thinks they were actors...lol Actors - imposters - stand-ins - I think the point was made clear and you have chosen to dance around it. I don't think Baghdad Bob could have sounded any more convincing. That's what I thought you'd say for I know the facts of which we speak quite well. No need to sign it. Anyone looking at it will know it was one of yours. Email it to Groden ... RobertG1@airmail.net ... but let me know when you do it so I can have someone there to get a picture of the expression on his face when he first sees it! Oh him...what door? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How many doorways are directly behind Zapruder in the Moorman photo ... I only have one on my copy.

'Ways to say things'? ... I have heard the alterationist on that site use the "F" word in their replies. Believe what you want - I denied it when others told me what to expect from that forum and I was proven wrong. Larry Peters was on that forum through one thread and he was booted and not once did he say anything near the tone that a few people who are still there was using. In support of Jack's Hill being in the street in the Muchmore film - DelleRosa I think it was had pplaced a clip of Jean Hill pointing at the street and saying 'I stepped into the street'. The clip was edited to repeat just that line and leave out the rest of what Jean had said. Larry posted Jean's interview on Black Op radio and the line where Jean was asked about that specific thing. Jean said she did step in the street when the limo turned the corner, but had STEPPED BACK OVER THE CURB BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED. That's all it took for Larry and he was gone and was being called a provocateur. Imagine that ... citing Jean Hill's intired unedited interview got him labeled a provocateur, but somoeone posting a carefully edit clip misrepresenting the facts was not considered a provocateur. I also believe John Simkin is banned from there, as well. Josiah Thompson upheld a much higher level of professionalism on that cite than most of those who are still there, but he voiced an opinion that the alteration claims were garbage. So say what you like ... maybe you will find someone on this cite who won't know any better and go along with you. The fact is that you are living in a make believe world, Duncan. I work with the same images and sources as you do.

No one has to explain why those who debunked the ridiculous alteration claims of Jack White and Jim Fetzer were banned from the looney forum. Just prior to my standing up to White about Moorman not being in the street I was asked by Jim Fetzer to present at the 2000 Lancer conference which at that time Jim was a part of. Mike Hogan archived the sites post and once in a while shows me the posted praises I got from Jim and Jack just prior to my not agreeing with their alteration crap. It is no secret among those in the JFK community how that site views those who do not go along with their views. This alone should tell a sensible person something ... Limo stopped on the other film - limo didn't stop on the other film ... either these people are making up seeing this so-called other film or they have seen a recreation in their early years and thought it was the real deal. Keep in mind that the Zfilm had not been shown publicly until 1975. Before then there were only dramatizations. One guy on the looney forum said that the limo ran over the curb during its wide turn on the 'other film' that he seen, yet the Towner and Hughs films show us differently. Another person said his 'other film' showed JFK being shot up as the limo was making the turn onto Elm and that is just plain bunk! Not a single witness ever said that they saw such a thing. Croft took a photo of JFK's limo as it already was on Elm Street and there is no one shot at that time. Betzner and Willis have the first shot locked into a timeline between Z186 and Z202, so this person cannot berecalling an actual viewing of the Zapruder film. I recall my posting on the alteration forum one time that Marie Muchmore kept her film in her purse until Monday 11/25/63 which at that time she sold her film sight unseen to UPI in Dallas. (I believe this sale occurred after 1 p.m. CST and was shown on television several hours later ... simply no time to alter a film or to even know what to alter.) I think someone asked why Muchmore films doesn't pick up the limo on Elm Street until a certain point ... they have not figured out where Muchmore was as she filmed the limo coming off of Main Street. They haven't reasoned out that it took Muchmore some time to get to where she started her camera again when the shooting was already underway. I invite anyone to go look at her film and they will see that Kennedy's limo was going into it's Elm Street turn when Muchmore stopped filming at the corner of Main and Houston Streets. That left her just a few short seconds to sprint over to where she started filming the actual assassination taking place. That is not a mystery to anyone who bothers to think through her movements and the time allowance she had to get from point A to point B. Then there is this limo stop issue. Like I said to some of the 'other film' believers - Muchmore's film was shown on TV before the Feds ever knew she had taken a film. As a matter of fact - that is how they were said to learn about Muchmore's film because it was shown on television. That caused one prominant alteration supporter to back track from a 3 - 4 second limo stop to a less than 1/4 to 1/2 of a limo stop. I might add that this revelation and new data didn't sit well with that sites administrator. White House Press reporter Merriman Smith said that back in the motorcade that his car stopped for several seconds, but he could see the President's car on Elm Street and that it had only faltered. People seeing JFK's car in profile were able to see that it only slowed to a crawl - people directly behind the limo were given the impression that it was stopped for a moment. This observation is quite common when people are driving up on an object moving directly away from them. Not a single witness standing to the side of that limo has ever said that it came to a copmplete stop for several seconds like the so-called 'other film' is said to show. Jean Hill beat no bones about a conspiracy and a cover-up - does anyone think she would not have told us that all the assassination films have had the limo stop removed from them if it were true! How does one black out an area that was never panned by Zapruder's camera? You are saying things that do not apply to the film in question. His camera was zoomed over the wall and Yarborough tells us that the man at the wall had dove to the ground. I cannot understand why you would imply someone has been removed from a film that it never captured in the first place. I believe the Muchmore film shown on TV hours after her selling it to UPI was not spliced at that point. I also believe Groden has a complete undamage Muchmore print. Duncan - what are you saying ... that the 72dpi rule only applies to you and not everyone else? Did I not post an extreme blowup from Moorman's photo where you could practically count the emulsion grains on her photo and yet not one pixel is seen anywhere. If you had the experience that you are trying to let on to have, then you could also post enlargements without pixeling.

Sitzman is only behind Zapruder if you are directly across from them. Does she look behind Zapruder from where Phil Willis or Betzner stood? If Sitzman is standing behind Zapruder and filming the same limo passing by as Zapruder saw, then explain how you are able to say "NO" to the last comment about them seeing the same things? That's where your brain has shorted out for if Sitzman is looking over Zapruder's shoulder, then they both are filming the same event, so there is nothing she filmed that Zapruder didn't film. With that being the case there is nothing from her film that would not be on Zapruders. That's right - you have just struck down the nutty idea that a film was shot at another time so to be placed into the Zapruder film. Now if you could just apply that much logic to what Sitzman could possibly have filmed that isn't already on the Zapruder film, then we can get somewhere. So now Zapruder and Sitzman were involved in a conspiracy ... is that what you are implying? First we have D.Healy saying that Zapruder and Sitzman may not have even been on the pedestal - that presumably some actors stood in their place while they remained out of sight. You on the other hand claim that Sitzman may have been a conspirator who helped the assassination succeed by taking a duplicate film looking over Zapruder's shoulder. It's this kind of stuff that caused a certain cite to gain the name "the looney forum". Really - a date - a witness who was also there and saw the same film at the same time? Please tell me more about this revelation? Just let me know if anyone ever uses your enhancement. Show what you did to any reputable analyst and see if they don't tell you the same thing as I did. I'm talking about the outline of a man you placed in the doorway. (See post #1 - picture one)

For claiming to have been around the block you have not posted a signle lick of JFK assassination evidence on this forum that I recall. There are two kinds of people on these forums it seems. Those who cite the evidence and those who cannot and usually just rattle off non-related comments. Are you asking about the last one I recievded ... it was the Mary ferrell award. I have not a clue what the last half of your disjointed comment is about. The comment I made about photos of people filming with their glasses on goes against the seasoned researchers you were praising for them nitwitts went on and on about because Zapruder wore glasses that he could not have been the guy on the pedestal. Those photos show the lack of logic and knowledge of the photographical record that these great researchers you speak of have. It shows they didn't even make any inquiries before drawing such an erroneous conclusion. Well - I have heard Bill Newman talking about seeing Zapruder on the pedestal and so has Jean Hill. I guess the next comment you will make is that Jean and Bill were somehow involved in a conspiracy to make it look like Zapruder really took the film that has his family's home movies on it just prior to the assassination taking place. David - you are not even competent enough to not make a double post and you do not know enough about the JFK assassination to be able to ask pertinent questions. A LNr is someone who believes the assassination was carried out by one man. I assume you are talking about something you know little of because about all of my work has pointed to there being a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. This is another reason you could not be intrusted to conduct an interview because you cannot keep the facts straight. Your disjointed reply does not make sense. I doubt that anyone has asked you about who's who in the JFK research field ... especially if they have read through all your say nothing replies. But if they did, I doubt that they got too far before drawing their own conclusions.

But only one has its main alteration supporters banned from speaking at future Dallas conferences such as that put on by Copa and Lancer. Also, only one has its supporters telling people that Moorman and Hill stood in the street when Mary took her photo. Only one forum would praise O'Hagen for spotting cops with cameras and not be sharp enough to know he is enlarging sun and shadow spots on the wooden fence. And some wonder why a particular forum was gievn the name "looney forum". In the lower right hand corner of the image below there is a fade-in that is Ed O'Hagens enhancement of the alleged cops with cameras. Of course Ed would only show that image in an extreme cropped blow-up. It's obvious from looking at the clip as to why Ed didn't want to show a wider verion for then everyone would know what he had done. So yes - there certainly is a difference in forums.

Witnesses said they saw a man filming on the pedestal, but not one witness saw a woman doing the same. Try and stay focused, Duncan. We are not talking about films taken at other times. You are inferring that Sitzman stood looking over Zapruder's shoulder and took a film from where he stood - at the exact same spot - and at the exact same time - watching the exact same things. So tell us what could she have filmed that could be spliced into the Zapruder film that Zapruder didn't already see with his camera? That's the whole point - any film taken next to Zapruder and shot at the same instant has no purpose for later editing and that is why some alteration supporters at least had the sense to see why a film would need to be taken at a different time than Zapruder's film was taken. So here we are asking the same question as before - why would Sitzman not come forward about taking a film that serves no purpose in denying it? Duncan - those who have claimed to see this other film cannot tell us where or when or with who they saw it with. Furthermore, they have all told of events within their 'other film' that do not match each others story. The looney forum had a list of people who had claimed to see this 'other film' and some say the limo stopped for several seconds - some say it only slowed. One guy said the other film showed JFK and Connally reacting to being shot as they were rounding the corner onto Elm ... some said later. Another said his 'other film' showed the limo runnibng up over the curb as it came onto Elm. Tina Towner's film shows this to be false. So how many so-called "other films" and various versions can there be? The odd thing and somewhat deceitful thing is they are all being lumped together as support in numbers for seeing this 'other film'. It doesn't seem to matter that they have various versions within their testimonials. Your theory is about as sound as a canoe in a huricane. I don't even think Fetzer would lower the bar another notch to let that ridiculous image and claim get into one of his books. I am still puzzled as to how you can rationalize degrading an image to the point of making Sitzman and Zapruder unrecognizable and yet feel that you made another image next to them much cleaner. That is simply mind boggling to me. Here is another one ... the difference between a stupid man and an intelligent man is that the stupid man doesn't have the sense to know when he is wrong.

That's like saying one could suggest that it was a dirty bomb she was carrying in her bag or maybe it was her lunch, or maybe it was her .... ? If you go back to the Zapruder film and watch Sitzman turn around to look at Abraham as she stood near the Hesters - you will see her purse and it's strap over her left arm. Before one jumps to the notion that Sitzman would have been filming the motorcade - ask yourself what would her motive be for not admitting it? The so-called "other film" has been alleged to have been shot at a different time other than during the assassination ... so how could Sitzman filming at the same moment as Zapruder accomplish anything when they would both be seeing the same things from the same location? I mean, you do have the throwing the crap on the wall to see if it sticks down pretty good and that image in post #1 is a hoot - no body could do what you did and think they had bettered the image. When I look at that alleged enhancement in post #1 and what you said, it reminds me of someone who thinks that they can take a photo and set it on fire and then expect the ashes to bring out details never before seen. Here is a rule of thumb that you might find useful in the future ... Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz- Function: noun Etymology: William of Occam Date: circa 1837 : a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

dgh02: looney? Their ID has been questioned for years and years, particularly ole Abe, -- only newbies are in that state of denial... Course you could clarify a lot right here, have you ever seen a un-slit, alledged Z-film camera original optical print? If you haven't, gonna be pretty tough to make a case that the Sitzman "A" side your referring too, came from the 11/22/63 AZap film. Who questioned Zapruder and Sitzman's ID other than those select few who think every photo and film is altered in some way when it doesn't show what they want it too. Those same individuals were posting on the looney forum one time about how Zapruder could not have shot his film because he had on glasses and their thinking was that no one films with a movie camera with glasses on. I have seen several photos showing people filming through a camera lens while wearing glasses. Kennedy Aide Dave Powers is one of them. A photo of him filming with his camera while wearing glasses can be seen in Trask book "The Pictures of the Pain". Isn't it interesting that not one single witness who was in and around the knoll has ever said that the man who was all over the TV Networks talking about a film he shot from atop of the pedestal during the assassination was not the man they saw. I believe the Hester's are still alive - see if they will tell you if it was Zapruder and Sitzman they saw that day and spent about 10 minutes with them immediately following the assassination or would that not be productive for you to do at this time. That's the one thing about a hoaxers argument is that they depend on 'not gathering' all the facts so they can make their suspicions seem valid. It is so important to them that they will purposely avoid seeking out the right people and asking the right questions so to keep fueling their position on a particular matter.

Fact is Bill that the image you posted does contain what you say isn't there.You just can't see it,that's all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well that was quite a detailed reply you offered up. Do you care to be more specific or is that it?

Sure I can and so could you if you did your homework. Not only is Sitzman in the clip I posted, but her footage is on the tail end of Zapruder's home movies. Now how many people do you were in that area wearing a dress like Sitzman's and a black scarf? Better yet, when did you or anyone else from the looney forum ever try and contact either of the Hester's to varify that it was Sitzman and Zapruder they had seen on the pedestal and/or talked to in the shelter immediately following the assassination? I'm guessing that no one from the looney forum has ever done it because it would crush their dreams of being able to raise doubts about it actually being Zapruder and Sitzman. BTW - I never knew that a film or a photo is copnsidered hearsay. I just got out of a two week trial that was full of hearsay if that was the case. Also, I have a bumb leg as well. I just wanted to see if you were silly enough to confirm who I thought it was. Thanks!

You're right, Duncan - I said Betzner when I should have referenced Moorman's photo. The mentioning of the other photos goes towards Sitzman not holding a camera to her face and how that goes against your mentioning this so-called other film that some people have invented. If Sitzman is not holding a camera to her face as the limo approaches her, then she is not the source fro the alleged "other film". In your initial post you say Sitzman has a camera in front of her face that is being held in her right hand. Can you explain why the Moorman photo that I posted with the "60'" marked on it shows Sitzman's face with nothing blocking it out? Can you explain why we do not see a light colored arm passing over Sitzman's black scarf - I mean, we can assume that your Moorman enhancement represents the same moment in time as the Moorman print I used - right!

David - If you just spent a fraction of the time cross referencing the assassination images as you do trolling this site in hopes of showing everyone how little you know about the assassination, then you could have prevented making such a silly comment. Before Zapruder filmed the lead cycles coming onto Elm Street he had filmed Sitzman standing next to the Hester's. Sitzman is wearing a dress and a black scarf over her head. That scarf is visible in Moorman's photo. Patsy Pascall filmed Sitzman and Zapruder getting off the pedestal. That black scarf and dress are also visible in the Willis photo. I believe Altgens 8 shows both Sitzman and Zapruder from the rear as they are next to pedestal after having just dismounted from it. On page 47 of Groden's book "TKOAP" we can see where Sitzman in her black scarf with purse in hand is just starting to turn to go into the shelter where she, Zapruder and both Hester's conversed after the shooting. Was this enough or do you need to hear more! Yeh - I think that I know who the gimp is that continues to misstate what I said so many years ago.

OK, Duncan - let's talk timing as to when these images were taken. You make this ridiculous degraded image from Betzner's photo and claim Sitzman is filming the motorcade. Betzner's photo was taken at Z186. Willis took his photo less than one second later. (That is almost at the same instant that Betzner took his photograph) In the Willis photo we can at least see the dark scarf outlining Sitzman's face, so please tell this forum where Sitzman's right arm crosses that scarf in order to hold a camera in front of her face??? Take your time and look hard and long because it isn't happening. The reason it isn't happening is because in the next 1.5 seconds Bronson took his photo showing Sitzman's light colored hand on Zapruder's back in order to help steady Abraham just as she said she had done. The Nix film tracks the limo past Zapruder and Sitzman's position and at no time does she ever have anything blocking out her face. Moorman's photo falls within that time frame. The reason I didn't post large files on the forum is because they have little space left to work with. I had hoped that those seeing the images I had put up would go to the sources I cited and see them in larger form. I just deleted a handful of past posted images of mine to make room for these. It would help if people would be careful about repeating the previous posting's images because it just uses up badly needed forum space so new images can be posted.

Never in my life have I seen where so many people in one place thought that by degrading an image to the point of erasing the known data within it that it somehow would bring out more details of unknown things. The light color of Sitzman's hand can be seen on Zapruder's back in the Bronson slide. Also on page 190 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" is a copy of the Willis photo and Sitzman has nothing in front of her face. The same can be said about Sitzman in the Moorman photo. Also the Nix film shows the same thing. Yet rather than to check these things out first - people start applauding Duncan for creating an image that is so bad that one can imply it shows about anything and who could dispute it. Maybe someone should stop and think why no one over the past 40 years has said Sitzman was filming the motorcade as it drove by her position until Duncan came up with such a ridiculous image.

Emmett Hudson was a grounds keeper for the plaza. While anything is possible - the two men on the steps with Emmett may have just walked off into history as did the majority of people in and around Dealey Pplaza that day who were never heard of again. Unlike the dark complected man next to the umbrella man, which seemed to be on a radio soon after the shooting, the men on the steps didn't seem to be trying to communicate with anyone following the shooting. As for spotters ... with their backs to the knoll and the alleged assassins up over the hill and behind the fence - how could they have been spotting for anyone? It appears that Hat Man and Badge Man already had lookouts near them and one carrying a fake Secret Service badge. The man in red sat down with Hudson after the shooting. The man who ran off when the shooting began does not seem all that suspicious to me because of what he did. If associated with the assassins, then he would have drawn attention to himself and the assassins by running back into the RR yard during the shooting. This doesn't seem like a good move. He also would have known where to stand so not to be in the line of fire and if part of the pplot, then why would he have to run off when he could have just remained looking innocent and stayed put for a little while. So anyway, I just wanted to point out another view as to what may or may not have happened concerning the three men on the steps.