Bill Miller

I am willing to bet that Shanet has never been to Dealey Plaza and seen the possible views for himself. Cyril Wecht has! Many people look at the view Zapruder had and they don't realize that the Hat Man who fired before Badge Man had a steeper forward angle to Kennedy. They also do not consider that a tangental strike to the head will cause a missile to change course as it plows throw the head. (see The Parkland Neurosurgeon Kemp Clark's testimony to the WC) Dr. CLARK - The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow. Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding. James Tague is less than 60 feet away and he doesn't hear any shots coming from the South side of the plaza and the same can be said about the men on the overpass. Tosh Plumless says he was on the South Knoll somewhere when the assassination took place. I hope I don't cite him wrong, but I believe he said there were 7 men on the underpass over Elm Street during the shooting. The Altgens #7 photo shows 11 men over Elm Street if I remember correctly. The Frank Cancellare shows no one on the South knoll and his also photo shows how open that location on the Underpass was to anyone along the North side of Elm Street. The Couch film also shows more of the South knoll and I still do not see two guys standing over there at the time of the post shooting.

I guess we have something in common for I don't know what you are talking about either. If you have something to offer concerning the JFK assassination and quoting me will help, then by all means ... quote me anytime that you like.

Some additional information that you may not know ... The closest out of town detectives were in Fort Worth over 30 minutes away. The Darnell film was taken about 10 minutes following the assassination and well before anyone could have come from Fort Worth. I might add that the Fort Worth detectives had no jurisdiction in Dallas. The Jim Murray photo above shows six local detectives with Oswald - one being Elmer Boyd on Oswald's immediate left. These were the local "white hats" so-to-speak.

I must have misunderstood you about the quality of your enhancement when you said, "The pixelisation is caused by me having to save the image in very low quaility jpeg format for posting on this forum as i appear have a limit to the amount of images i can upload, therefore quility of images uploaded by me on this forum suffers badly." The upload restrictions have nothing to do with getting enlargements posted without vast pixeling and distortion.

Yes - I implied that these men may be detectives from the Homicide division. They certainly seem to be buying their hats at the same store. Many people in the plaza that day had on coats or were carrying them, especially rain coats. Most professionals don't like to get their suit's wet, so they carry a light coat to put on in the event it starts to rain. That is not to say that this is the case here, but I would bet that even Homicide detectives wore coats/rain coats at times. So considering that it was raining earlier and it had just started to clear before the motorcade started, I imagine that it is possible that some of these men still had their coats with them at the time of the shooting.

Duncan, Some things are not worthy of argument. I offered you the definition of the word enhancement and you ignored it. You admit yourself as to how badly the image pixeled out which in itself distorts any image when this occurs, thus the information within that image is unreliable. I guess the only question I have that might be worth being considered an 'argument' over what you have done is to argue just how much acid you had dropped before thinking you had created the best enhancement of the BDM to date!

Shanet - you are making some really big errors in perspective as to your location of the liquid on the sidewalk and the alleged 'classic gunman' figure. When using the Nix film - the liguid would be due West of the notch in the wall, thus placing it to the left of the white car seen in the RR yard. Your alleged 'classic gunman' is on a line between the notch right at the wall the the South shelter wall. Of course, we have already danced over Moorman's photograph being genuine, thus there is no one seen between the notch in the wall and the South shelter wall. I should also tell you that there is another Bond photo that shows just the head of someone in light clothing rising over the wall. Then came the upper body in the latter photo. The classic gunman figure is still seen in the Bell film well after the fact. I contend that it is because the light and shadows are still hitting the South shelter wall. Never-the-less ... at no time does the alleged classic gunman figure get down onto the ground so just his head can be seen rising above the wall. As I said - the alleged shape never moves at anytime. Take note that there are two "white hats" on the walkway with their coats over their arm.

The video shows what someone standing on the ground would have seen. Badge Man was elevated in the air to the point that his chest area was well above a 5' tall fence. Kennedy was visible from the elevation Badge Man stood at. Here is Groden standing near the wall. The photo was taken from the Zapruder pedestal. I might also add that the men on the overpass would have had an unobstructed view of the wall between the bench and the South corner. I know this because I have stood there and looked at it. I have a photo somewhere of Groden and Mike Brown there (Groden sitting on the wall). Then there was the Frazens and another guy across the street from the steps. Behind them and to the West was another couple and even further West were two other men on the South knoll. The liquid on the sidewalk was North of the bench. The video is the Darnell film - not the Couch film.

I am curious as to why on the better quality image you placed a cartoon character over the alleged second man you alluded too in the smaller faded print? One would think you would have blown up the cleaner print instead of using it for nonsense. It appears that you did nothing more than wash out the image by expanding the light areas which in turn has created something that was never there to begin with. The pixelization only adds to the problem.

Gary Mack has written you and said that Badge Man was always thought to be behind the fence. I have never heard it said in the research comminuity that he was anywhere else but behind the fence until you said it. The most obious problem is that the MWKK camera man was not elevated high enough to have Badge Man's view over the wall. That is a common mistake made by those who go to that location and have failed to study the Badge Man more carefully from the direction that Moorman saw him. I also believe the camera man is a step or two too far South towards the street to be spot on. The camera is also in front of the fence. Gary Mack has said that he tried to tell Nigel Turner of the mistake and that Turner ignored him.

I'm not going to comment on this thread, but I will share the definition of the word "enhancement" with everyone. Enhancement: HEIGHTEN, INCREASE; especially : to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness - en·hance·ment /-'han(t)-sm&nt/ noun

It is odd that Couch would mention 'steps' unless there were steps near the loading dock of the TSBD or something he was referring to. I say this because he has spoken to Gary Mack on a few occassions and has always placed the blood stain near the corner of the TSBD on the sidewalk/pathway. There were groves of people who went up that walkway and many of them could not have helped see the liguid on the sidewalk, but they would have seen it in color and not B&W. There has to be a reason so many people ignored it and moved on and I suspect that it was because they were able to quickly see that it was not blood, but rather something else. A CSI investigator saw the liquid in a frame I showed him and he said as I expected that the liquid was not spilled in one direction as if knocked over. He pointed out the uniformed pooling as if someone merely poured a liquid onto the sidewalk and it equally pooled outward. I have already shared what was said about what would be expected if it had been someone bleeded that profusely. I do not agree, for there is a sign of someone in light clothing in Moorman's photo and the same can be said about someone rising above the wall in a sitting or kneeling stance in the Bond. This would be compatible with rising up and removing the film from one's camera and handing it to one of the individuals in dark clothing as Arnold had described. So while not proven beyond all doubt, this is another instance where circumstantial evidence was found to support Arnold's story well after he had committed himself to it.

You should do whatever you feel that you are qualified to do and so far that has been to only make silly random replies that never deal with any of the facts pertaining to the JFK assassination.

Another typical reply from someone who has nothing else to offer. You are another one who has little knowledge of the photographical record and from the past postings you have made on this forum - you know little else about the assassination as well.

Sorry Duncan - I didn't mean to make it sound as if the issue was whether it was a gunman or not, but rather the fact that no one is there. There is little more than sunlit tree foliage and a Dallas Skyline being seen in the spot you think a person is visible. I should tell you that I have a first generation slide made from the original photo and when seen under extreme magnification there simply is no one there. If someone has the actual print and can scan a high-resolution image of it - I will prove it even further. The two men near the tree fill up the Dallas sky in the background. The area you point to shows no one blocking out the skyline.

The 'some of us' you speak of are of little importance for they are not that knowledgeable about the photographical record IMO. I post the things I do for their benefit - how they use it is their business. As far as the limo being fully halted - we must be talking about two completely different assassinations.

If you guys do not learn to cross reference photos, then you are going to keep chasing your tails and end up looking silly for not being thorough. On page 57 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" is a really good enlargement of the Towner photo showing the notch in the wall and there simply is no one where Duncan had pointed to in the example that impressed Shanet so much. How one can be posting about a 'variegated shirt or jacket' when another photo shows no one there is simply mind boggling and it all goes back to not cross referencing photos and films before doing anything else. The Towner photo offers another important piece of data that was grossly overlooked here. It shows the two cops Gordon Arnold told about (or at least two individuals in dark clothing). Compare their size to what Duncan pointed to to make a size comparison. I am afraid that what Duncan has drawn attention to is tree foliage combined with a train tower sitting back in the RR yard. What has happened is that the photo Duncan used was taken from a higher elvation, thus the fence and the foliage is pushed together. The Towner photo was taken closer to street level and the fence and the foliage are pushed apart and doesn't allow the two to combine light and shadow in order to create possible images. Combine this with the size comparison of the guys near the tree and see what you get.

Shanet - you are welcome to address how such a large pool of liquid got on the sidewalk in less than a couple of seconds if you like. Your general statement about me talking for Gary Mack is asinine IMO. Your approach to the evidence seems to always be based on emotion and not common sense. If you think otherwise, then be prepared to explain in detail how you reached your conclusions as I have for debate is how we weight the evidence amongst ourselves. The area where the liquid is seen is visible in the Willis and Moorman photos and no one is standing there. Keep in mind that Willis took his photo about 1/4 of a second at the first shot. You may note that a close up was taken by Flynn of the sack lunch on the bench and he didn't see anything about the liquid on the sidewalk that he felt was worth wasting a picture over - that should be just one hint that it wasn't blood in Flynn's opinion. Anyone taking a hit by gunfire and having blood run down onto the ground to leave a puddle that large would had to of stayed standing there for a considerable time and that is not supported by the evidence at all. And as I said before - anyone who ran off immediately and left a pool of blood that large in a matter of a second or two would have left more blood on the ground as then moved along ... there is no evidence of this either. So believe that Flynn didn't think taking a photo of a large pool of blood was as important as taking a photo of a bag of buns if you like. Think that someone doesn't have to be seen at that location during the assassination to bleed a large pool of blood out on the ground if it pleases you. All I am doing is pointing out the common sense side of the equation as I see it and then leaving it up to others to decide for themselves based on their ability to think logically.

Has the gentleman, holding his jacket conveniently over his right hand, ever been identified? Looks like another "agent". Covering ones hand with a coat completely seems a little suspicous, like one is trying to hide something. A gun? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The film footage was taken by Jimmy Darnell - not Couch. The man's fingers are clearly visible in some of the frames and he appears to have them in a normal posture for carrying his coat. The white hat was common among Dallas detectives in the Homicide diviision. I believe they were given the nickname "The White Hats". Considering the amount of liquid on the sidewalk and it's proximity to the bench it appears more likely than not that someone had poured out the rest of their soft drink once it had gotten warm. Had someone of been shot at that location, then to leave that amount of blood on the ground would mean they stood at that spot for a considerable amount of time. And if someone was bleeding that profusely, then they would have left a trail behind them as they left the area. I believe this walkway location often times gets confused with the blood that was said to be found over near the corner of the TSBD. At that location (TSBD) someone did claim to have tested the liquid by tasting it and determined that it was blood.

The Arnold/BDM is what the shadow is being cast upon, so the person is as wide as the shadow because there is nothing else for the shadow to be hitting. In the BDM image the left shoulder is extended out past the shadow and into the light. It was only when Arnold turned to his right to face Moorman that his left shoulder rolled into the shade. The shade line that I referred to is marked below.

If Alan Healy is correct - there is no man or woman on the bench when Betzner or Willis took their photos and surely not when Moorman took hers. I believe it was Don Roberdeau who shared that information on Lancer when the topic came up over what Yarborough had seen. You are partially correct, but you have not told the whole story. In 1978, Ralph Yarborough contacted Earl Golz about the sevice man above the knoll that dove to the ground as told in Golz article. Yarborough had several discussions with Earl Golz and had no doubt as to what he saw at the time. In the mid 80's when Ralph was interviewed by Turner's people he again had no doubt as to what he had seen and where. In 1993 the failing Yarborough became confused suring a conversation an interviewer had with him over what he saw when the "FIRST" shot was fired. In 1993 Ralph W. Yarborough was interviewed at his Austin home by historian David Murph of Texas Christian University. Murph reminded Yarborough that he had been quoted as saying he had witnessed a man on the grassy knoll throw himself down on the ground, and that the man had impressed him as a combat veteran. Yarborough seemed puzzled to hear that his words had been applied to someone standing on the grassy knoll. That couldn’t possibly be correct, he insisted repeatedly. “Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons,” he cautioned Murph, “too far back to have been able to see anyone [on the knoll] drop to the ground when firing began.” What confused Yarborough was when he was asked about what he saw when the firing began. You see, when you look at Altgens #6 you will see that Ralph is unaware that a shooting is underway. At least two shots had been fired by Z255 when Altgens #6 was taken. In Altgens #6, Ralph is smiling and happy. The first shot Yarborough recognized was when JFK's head exploded and that is when he saw the figure above the wall dive to the ground. In 1993 when his health was failing he got confused over the "FIRST" shot scenario because he knew by that time that his car was not in position to see the knoll when the actual shooting had began. The interviewer missed this point and the rest is history. If for some reason that you doubt what I have just stated, then go look at Altgens #6 and look at Ralph at that moment in time. Either Ralph isn't aware that a shooting has already taken place or he is happy that JFK is being shot at. Arnold is not casting a shadow - he is standing in a shadow being cast by a tree on the knoll. The BDM looks so wide because of the lens Betzner was using.

When would a black couple move to the South wall because Betzner took his photo before the first shot rang out and the BDM is already in position. Willis has a slightly different angle to the BDM and there are no two people being seen. Has anyone ever considered that an overseas cap that looks like a puptent sitting on someones head would show two points that look like 'dog ears' when viewed at a particular angle? Once again is an overlay transparency where the BDM shade line has been overlaid onto the figure in the Moorman photo. Keep in mind that Rosemary Willis has said that she saw a figure standing beyond the wall and she took her attention away from a ferw seconds only to look back and he was now gone. Yarborough happened to be looking at the guy when the individual dove to the ground and went behind the wall. This explains why Rosemary did not see him when she looked back again and why she didn't know where he had gone. The overlay shows the shadow outline closes to the street remaining the same on both individuals. Keeping in mind that if this is the same person, then he has turned his body to his right between photos as he tracked the limo and in doing so he would have rolled his left shoulder out of the sun and into the shade line of the tree passing over him. As I have said before - I have seen images of people wash out of a photo when the image is lightened, but I have never seen where lightening a photo actually invented one out of nothing.

If by making some of the most ridiculous mistakes ever observed by anyone that led to them thinking they had discovered photo and film fakery, then yes, they did prove the film was fake ... in their own minds! I recall early on when I pointed out that Moorman's camera was looking down over the top of the passing cycles windshields, which was impossible if White's claim was accurate and Mary Moorman had actually been standing in the street, White ignored it. To this day I am not sure if any of them ever grasped the significance of that observation. Then there was the gap recreation where Fetzer and White said they had the exact spot where Mary Moorman stood when she took her photograph. I believe Costella supported White's claim at that time, but I have since heard John has said privately that they were in error. So it becomes obvious to some why others do not show their work in full so it can be properly peer reviewed. It's little different than showing a cropped version of a photo where one claims they were deep in the forest of a vast wilderness because they know if you saw the entire photo that you would learn they were standing in the middle of Central Park. So give them a break, Craig - the other times they showed their work they were made to look pretty silly ... so one has to expect them to keep some secrets and not risk more embarrassment.

Dave - Look in Richard Trask's book "Pictures of the Pain" for there is some detailed information there that you may be looking for. Also, email Gary Mack at GMack@JFK.Org and he might have that information on hand. As far as seeing a bullet passing though Zapruder's film - I say it is impossible to do. One could take silver bullets and fire them from a rifle and Zapruder's camera would never catch a glimpse of one IMO. A google search on high speed films may be of some help. Bill

I assume we are still talking about the classic gunman figure? There is no Black Dog Figure standing between the step in the wall and the South shelter wall. We probably need to get some things straight here. I am aware that Jean Hill said someone took some photos from her that she had in her pocket, but I do not recall one of them being Moorman #5 which I believe was still in the camera. Mary had that photo in her possession when the local news interviewed her not 35 minutes following the assassination. That photo was also filmed and shown on NBC three hours later. As far as altering Mary's Polaroid in a matter of seconds ... please explain how that was done on 11/22/63? One would have to remove the underlying image without disturbing the emulsion grains, so please tell me how this was done so quickly and easily. Below is a blowup of Moorman's photo showing the dark specs that are the emulsion grains. There are many sites that explain what emulsion grain is. Feel free to browse some of them.