Bill Miller

Your question is a good one for it touches on the common sense aspect of the equation that a few seem to overlook. People who have never been to the plaza are mislead sometimes by the field of depth that a photo brings to the table. Elm Street is wider (40 ft.) than the distance from Zapruder to the BDM or from BDM to the street below. Brehm, Jean Hill, Mary Moorman were all about the same distance from home plate to second base on a baseball diamond as they were from the concrete wall. So at the time the shooting occurred, it has been suggested that someone could have stood out in plain view in less the distance across a baseball diamond and took a shot(s) at the motorcade and not had anyone take notice. The alternative to that is Gordon Arnold who had a movie camera in his hand that would not have been of any concern to anyone when they would be more inclined to be looking for someone with a gun. The BDM would not have appeared dark and distorted by shadow in real life. So what we see in the Willis and Betzner photos is not what the witnesses would have seen.

Duncan - If you find Bronson's slide of Sitzman and Zapruder on the pedestal you will see that she has her right hand on Zapruder's back and her left hand on her hip. Unless she had three arms there is no way she was filming the motorcade. I will give you credit for one thing - you can post images when the rest of us cannot. Bill

Once the forum gets to where we can put pics on it again I'll show you some views of what you are wanting to know. The RR yard had some gravel where the cars drove in, but where they parked was dirt as I recall. I know along the fence where suspected shooters had been was dirt because of their footprints left in the mud.

Sure I'll explain it - try and take a photo from atop the pedestal and another photo standing next to it and attempt to create an overlay. Every photo or artist drawing works from a vanishing point. Once you choose another film location - the angles to the vanishing point changes and the things within the field of view do as well. Take Moorman's photo #5 of the knoll for instance. The crossbar of the limo - the seat tops - the hand holds all are in line with a vanishing point that keeps everything in perspective. Draw lines through each and they should all intersect at a certain point off the photo. If you took another photo at a higher elevation, then those angles across the car would change and this would be detectable if you placed a photo/film of the limo taken at one location into a film that was taken at a different location. You may recall my being critical of one of Dale Myers replica 3D images of the limo coming out from behind the road sign. Every one of those locations on the car ran parallel to one another when they should have all had a different pitch that would lead to a vanishing point. While you may understand optical printers - you do not seem to grasp the physics involving perspective. And the reason that you don't recall what serious researchers have been saying is probably because you do not associate with any. And FWIW - there have been people on the site you call home bring up the possibly that Gordon Arnold's film was used in conjunction with the Zapruder film. The reasons why that could not ever be done goes to what I said in the above paragraph.

Lee - I have seen it and it is irresponsible IMO. You are the one responsible for proving such claims and obtaining clear prints to work with. You used a shaking "BLACK and WHITE" clip of the shrubs along the concrete wall to imply that we are seeing camera men swaying back and forth as if you be singing "We are the World". You didn't even consider the movement of the rest of the background in correlation to the shrubs so to understand why you though you saw movement. Here is a link to all those frames and some are clear enough to see the red foliage. Red foliage does not equate to camera men. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z202.jpg Only when you remove the color could you possibly make a leap from foliage to hidden camera men - shame on you!

I have to tell you that when I read over this post that I just shook my head in disbelief. There are some of the most poorly thought out claims being made that I have ever heard. Why in God's name would someone want to sit in the bushes and film the motorcade when they could stand along the street or along the wall next to the reflection pool? You mention "Occams Razor" ... do you know what it says ... 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 The link allegedly showing men with cameras in the bushes was done in B&W - why was that? The only reason I can see for this is because B&W images lose information, thus one can take the shrubs and say they are men with cameras. However, when one looks at the images in color - what was suggested to be a man with a camera is seen as a red cluster of foliage. By removing the color factor and going with a B&W image does one then provide themself with an image that can be used to mislead someone into thinking they are seeing heads and not foliage clusters. Elsie Dorman's film also looks down on the same area from above and there is no one in the bushes. I see that Ed Ohagen was mentioned. Ed likes to enlarge an image beyond recognition and then claim he sees things in it. He once posted an enlarged cluster of light and shadows off the stockade fence and claimed that these were cops with cameras. Ed was asked to not post such enlargements, but rather the source of the enlargement so everyone could see what exact photo he was using, but he never cooperated by obliging the forum. I later recognized the shadows and found them in Moorman's photograph. Ed had taken the shade spots on the stockade fence and claimed them to be cops with cameras. Then he enlarged the shade and sun spots to offer a false image so to make people think they might be seeing hidden cops. Because of the location of these sun and shade spots and because Ed had been unwilling to share the source for his claim, his credibility was shaken and his motives for carrying out such deceit became highly suspect. Then there is this talk about films being shot from other locations and then bled into the Zapruder film. Doing such a project is an impossible task. The ability to line up obstacles becomes nonexistant. Anyone who says that someone could film at one spot in the plaza and somehow think they get all the things in their photo to match with a film from another location have not actually tried to do it. The change in perspective between locations would be quite noticible even to the untrained eye.

Let me share what someone said who is in the plaza on a daily basis and knows Moorman's position probably better than anyone else ... "Your recent picture is so close to the Polaroid that it's almost scary! Gary" As far as the South wall goes - place your mouse on the edges anywhere you like and let it run back and forth between photos. If there are any differences, then it is in the difference between camera lenses which I could do little about. The recreation images will not be created for you, but will be done with you in mind. I will position someone where Gordon Arnold stood and photograph him from each photographers view so they can be compared to the assassination record. I will even present the view that witnesses across the street and from the overpass had to this individual. I will present a photograph of what he would have looked like from in the street where the SS agents would have seen him from. I will eliminate the distance to the subject that the camera falsely shows us and use the zoom to match the distance that the naked eye sees. I will also get Robert to shoot that Shaw photo he took so long ago and photograph it looking back the other way from the Betzner location. I also plan on shooting a photo from the Badge Man location as he is aiming towards the President as seen in Moorman's photograph. This will be done by aligning him precisely to where he is seen in Moorman's photo both left to right and up and down. Once that position is obtained - a photo will be taken looking back the other way. A stand will be placed in the street showing the elevation of Kennedy's head at the time Badge Man would have fired his shot. This will demonstrate to others what many of us already know from testing these views while spending countless hours in the plaza. If you or anyone else have any other concerns or things you'd like to see, feel free to state what they are and we'll try and accomodate everyone. Bill

Taken from the wrong place on Elm Street ???

If it is any consolation to anyone - Denis has also quit Lancer before if I'm not mistaken ... but he eventually ends up coming back. I suspect that you have not heard the last from him.

Yes - I have that same image on hand. I can also say with confidence that I can post any image onto the forum and not lose any of its details. Often times improving the image. I have not yet learned the knack of taking otherwise clean photos and causing them to become blurry and pixeled when enlarging them.

I am not sure what you are talking about in this instant for no "character" was more than a half of a step out of position left or right and the photo was taken from where Mary Moorman stood. (see below) As has been repeatedly said over and over again is that we were looking to see how real people would stack up to one another in our field of depth. We accomplished that! I will post the dates that I will be in Dallas and those who are really interested can try and be there to particpate if they like. Of course, if the 16mm Nix print I have turned over to another party happens to allow us to see into the dark area, then it may answer a lot of questions once and for all.

I'm sorry, Duncan. I seemed to recall the Betzner BDM image and an inserted second image that was a pixeled mess that showed less than 1/3 of the BDM. I guess I foolishly looked at it as two images. Now you're dancing around because if you were serious ... you would help everyone know exactly where he should be placed. All you have done is leave yourself some wiggle room so to be able continually claim that I didn't get the overlay right no matter where I place the two images on top of each other. No - I have never charged anyone to help them with a JFK related project. I just wanted to see the expression on his face when I tried presenting your alleged enhancement to him while trying to keep a straight face.

I admit that one having to realize that what looks like the right arm of a shooter was in fact an object back in the RR yard would put a damper on the classic gunman nonsense. If one wishes to continue to say that those light spots on the shelter wall is a gunman aiming a rifle at the motorcade, presumeably well after the shooting as well, then maybe explaining how so many witnesses across the street and the cycle riders and the SS didn't care to stop and address this villian? Are they all not looking in that direction where such a man with a rifle would at least arouse their curiosity? Or is it that those actually there saw the sun spots on the wall and didn't find them to be all that sinister.

Duncan - You must be so stoned that you cannot comprehend what I have been saying. I took the two images "YOU" posted and put them over the top of one another and that's it. It was the BDM image you chose and your alleged enhanement. I looked at the timeline because your excuse that you seened time to examine the images that you already had worked with didn't make sense to me. A cursory glance should have told you if they were aligned correctly. The offer still stands - mark a spot on each image where you think they should be overlaid and I'll make it for you. I look forward to seeing how sharp Sitzman and Zapruder will be if you do them like you did the BDM. If they turn out anything like the BDM did - would you mind my offering them to Groden to put in his new book?

Aside from Emmett Hudson's testimony and statements to his friends, family, and to the Press ... there is more proof that Hudson was standing with the man we see in the Willis photograph. Here is a photo example that I will go on to explain ... If we look at the stance of both Hudson and unknown man in the Muchmore, Nix or Moorman images we will see that they are almost identical except Hudson's seat of his pants were baggier and his arms extended further back behind him. The man on the steps looks like he may have his hands in his pants pockets. Regardless, Hudson's arms extend much further back than the unknown man's arms do. When we look at the unknown man's arms in the Willis photograph we don't see how Hudson plays a role in what we are looking at because of the lack of sharpness of the photo. Take a measure of the unknowns man's arms from his shoulder out to the elbow and then back to his hips and then see how long those arms would be if hanging down to his side. As Groden once said to me - they'd be far too long to be a human's arms. This is because part of Hudson's dark jacket has bled into the unknown man's coat and because their posture was so much the same in about every way, it looks like one dark jacket. Another giveaway is that Hudson's pants were baggier in the seat. Look at the unknown man's pants on the left from the Willis photo. Do you see the bulge sticking out just behind and above his knees? Now look at Hudson in the Moorman photo and you will see that the dark shade area of his baggy pants starts just above the unknown man's knees. So we have two choices. The unknown man has a raccoon or something in his pants just above and behind his knees or we are seeing Hudson's baggy pants sticking out behind the unknown man. The location in conjunction with what we see of Hudson in the other films and photos makes me believe it to be the latter. I am certain that if the Willis photo was sharp and clean that we would see the separation line between Hudson and the unknown man. There is a slight hint of such a line even in the poor blurry image we have left to work with. I have marked these possible lines with white arrows. Bill

There were 14 people on the Underpass at the time of the shooting. I think Holland said 11 RR workers - 2 policemen - and one guy in a suit and hat that he thought was with the police.

I guess I should ask Andy and Debra to place a permenant reply of mine on these sites so you can read it daily so not to forget what I have said about this photograph. People come in all different shapes and sizes - Mike Brown is a husky man - Gordon Arnold was not. Tony is a very thin individual - Badge Man probably was stocky. As I have stated numerous times to you - the photograph was taken to see how people would stack up to one another (one where Arnold stood and the other behind the fence) and to see how that applied to the Badge Man images of Mack and White. I believe Arnold was about 5'10" and Badge Man was elevated above a 5' high fence. The photo told us what we needed to know at the time. We saw that actual people standing at a certain place above the knoll would produce the type of images we were seeing in Moorman's photograph. Your constantly complaining about a photo that doesn't give you the data you need when it was shot for another purpose altogether is ridiculous. I have recently talked with Dennis David about accompanying me to Dallas to see Groden and at that time I will conduct some experiments for you. I have also been told that another researcher may be joining me and it should be a productive trip. I will share the results with you when I get back.

That is not only an accurate observation you have made, Alan, but the classic gunman figure is still seen in the same place in the Bell film well after the assassination. I do not understand why some people do not see the significance in this. Bill

Duncan - it was your work ... how long should it take for "YOU" to see if it looked right or not? I first posted the overlay at 4:38 forum time. You replied to it an 1hr and 12 mins later - then 20hrs and 11 mins later - then 25hrs and 7 minutes later. Are you saying that it took you that long to tell if I had your own alleged enhancement overlaid right? Bill PS: I'm curious about something. If you think you bettered the BDM image, then how about doing the same process to Zapruder and Sitzman in the Betzner photo so we can see how much better they look?

Thanks for the link, Alan. Having a link to click onto can be a nice option rather than just looking at it embedded in the actual post. It is the same photo as seen in post # 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12 of this thread. Bill

That's odd, Duncan ... for I placed that overlay in post #10 - you repeated it in post #12 and didn't say a word about it not being accurate. It's obvious that from what information that I had to work with from your limited explanation of your work that I aligned the sloping "dogs back" for a better term so they'd be over the top of one another. Moving that slope so the two images do not match would only mean that you washed out even more of the image than I first suspected. If you care to point out on each figure where you think they should match ... I'll create another overlay and posted it for you.

It was Gary Mack who first told me that he didn't understand why Couch mentioned the steps because he had spoken with Couch a few times and the description of the blood on the sidewalk was just off the corner of the TSBD. The Darnell film shows more people South of the stain than next to it, so one can assume they all probably saw it and yet no one appears to be concerned about it, nor did anyone seem to draw attention to it or give statements concerning it. That in itself is somewhat telling IMO as to anyone really thinking it was a pool of blood or not. Yes, unless being spurted outward by an artery. As you may recall - I mentioned that if someone was loosing that much blood (I believe someone said that maybe a hand was shot off), then from what I thought and the information I obtained it seems that someone whould have noticed this victim and had the victim been able to get up and stagger away after losing so much blood, then he or she certainly would have left a trail heading in the direction they had went. There is no such evidence that I am aware of that supports anyone walking away while bleeding profusely. I can understand your saying that considering the poor quality of the prints you posted. Really ... only one man? You know - I never considered siamese twins. I guess that could make what I see technically one person by having two people joined at the hips. But then Gordon Arnold said there were two men at his location immediately after the shooting, so I prefer to stick with what I observed. Wow, I have a first generation slide and I cannot tell if the guy is looking over the fence or towards the ground. My print and the one in Groden's book shows two dark shapes blocking out the Dallas skyline from what I can see, but keep in mind that I could not see that one of the men was 'looking over the fence' as you were able to do. Blood is thinker than water, so I doubt that you or I really know how much blood it would take to make a pool that size. Furthermore, what about the amount of blood that never made it onto the sidewalk (if it was to be considered blood at all)? In the Towner photo - the custodian looking fella was on the shelter steps - Zapruder, Sitzman, and Mr. Hester was a few feet away in the shelter - there are two men walking up the walkway in Towner's photo (one said to possibly be Buddy Walthers - you suggested it may be Lt. Day) and none of these people ever mentions a man laying on the ground bleeding out a pool of blood onto the sidewalk. Now does that seem logical to any reasonable person that they all would walk over a gunshot victim bleeding profusely and not report it? Just think about this and see if it helps you to better understand why all those people in the Darnell film didn't seem to be to concerned about what was on the sidewalk.

Shanet - you posted in this thread a total of 7 times before this last remark about the thread being lame. I am wondering when did the thread become lame IYO? If nothing else - it was a good topic to show how people can get off on the wrong trail by not thinking the evidence through or checking their facts before hand. For instance ... I am sure that you didn't know how long after the assassination that the Darnell footage was shot, nor did you know where the closest outside detectives would have come from and how long it would have taken them to arrive in Dallas after hearing about the shooting. Those two pieces of information would be important in determining whether any outside detectives would be seen in Darnell's film. So IMO the thread wasn't totally lame for it should have taught some people a lesson in investigation techniques by way of example. This way that information can be applied to future questions that arise and the same mistakes won't have to be repeated.

Another problem I have had with the South knoll shot possibility besides the ones I have already mentioned is that not only was the parkinglot in plain view to anyone standing along the North side of Elm Street, but also to those on the Underpass. On top of the old Post Office building was JC Price if I remember correctly. He had a birds eye view of the parkinglot below and saw nothing. The same might be said about enyone at the terminal who would have been looking towards the motorcade from the Southwest. Below is a stabilized clip showing the head rocking forward while the shoulders are being driven backwards. I discussed this with a couple of doctors in the past and also asked Al Carrier to look into it and it seemed what we were told was the same. Because of Kennedy's posture at the time - a bullet traveling downward and striking the skull on the front half would indeed cause it to rock forward as the engery passed down through the trunk which would push the body in the direction the shot was traveling. The whole thing fit into place with the large avulsion seen on the back of JFK's head because as you know - a projectile passing through an object will push the surface open in the direction the projectile is traveling. The bones on the back of JFK's head were avulsed outward according to those who saw them. This certainly could be one reason the autopsy phoptos of the back of Kennedy's head had to be altered to hide this point.

I thought my posting an enlargement from Moorman's photo that allows one to see the emulsion grain without pixeling would have told you something, but I guess it didn't. Maybe my uploads are magical - you think?