Bill Miller
-
Posts
5,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bill Miller
-
-
The detectives are obviously not all local
and they carry the extra raincoats over their arms to
cover things they might happen to pick up..........
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 made no such admission.I stated CLEARLY that i had to reduce the quality for uploading the image on to THIS forum because of the upload restrictions,and you know it....
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.
-
I don't know if you meant to imply that these men are from the Homicde Bureau, but when I showed this picture to two former Dallas Policemen, one of them told me that these men would not be Detectives, precisely because they are carrying coats. To paraphrase, one of them said no Homicide Detective worth his salt would be investigating a crime scene carrying a coat.
Steve Thomas
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.
-
I don't see you arguing against my enhancement of Black Dog Man which i think,without sounding arrogant,is probably the clearest enhancement ever produced,and not just a blob as most enhancements of BDM seem to show.The shape,the angle...it's all there to see....strange Bill..Is he too just a washed up image?
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!
-
Everyone look up at the photos Bill Miller has posted.
In the close up of the right hand photo, there is an arrow pointing
to a man in white standing at the break in the retaining wall.
This is where the blood was spilled.
This is the exact spot where the NIX home movie film shows
the CLASSIC GUNMAN in a white shirt tracking the limousine
with a gun barrel.
Thanks Bill for posting this pivotal clinching image of the White
Shirt Classic Gunman......
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 still shows what a badgeman would have seen,
a big concrete wall between him and the limousine.
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.
Note the small break in the wall, and the absolute superiority of the3'6" wall to a pop up sniper...
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.
Anyone who doubts blood could be shed between the fence and the wall should look again at that photo from the fence top, it shows the sniper's nest,behind the wall, inside the secured sidewalk area...where the blood is shown
in the Couch video....friendly fire of some sort....
The liquid on the sidewalk was North of the bench. The video is the Darnell film - not the Couch film.
-
Almost totally blind with an inability to see what is staring one in the face,even though those around him can see clearly what those who sadly suffer from Magooismitis fail to see"
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.
-
Okay.
I just realised this morning that Badgeman was first thought to be behind the wall & not the fence.
By the time they filmed The Men who Killed Kennedy" however, he was pushed back behind the fence.
I'd like to know from Jack or Gary what made them do this.
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.
Here is the "look back" scene from Badgeman to the Moorman position taken from TMWKK.Can anyone spot the mistake?
Alan
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.
-
An enhancement i did way back in 2002 which appears to show another man to the right of Black Dog Man holding something in front of him as we look at him in Betzner.I have outlined the images (Not Cartooned)) to make it easier to see for those who have difficulty seeing both figures.He is nicknamed "Bigears"
Duncan
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
-
If you look at the Mal Couch WC testimony again, he also mentions "the steps & the pathway" when trying to explain where he saw this blood.
It isn't clear he was talking about this area in the filmed sequence above but it is a real possibility.
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.
The man with the coat, a detective, looks back at the policeman who has just told the girl to move away, ignores him & continues to walk towards the dark patch on the path for a closer look & almost bumps heads with another detective(older guy in black, who resembles the CSI scene on the sixth floor) who also wants a closer look.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.
The patch could be blood but it could also just be a spilt drink, plenty of kids ran up there behind the wall too.If you want to rule out this as being blood then I guess you could show the scene to a pathologist or someone.
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.
It is theorised that Gordon Arnold laid on the ground for a minute by his supporters(I am not one of them), I am of the opinion that even as late as Bond6(well over a minute) there is still no sign of anyone getting up from behind the wall.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.
-
BM penned mightly:
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.
_________________
wow -- with that kind of response, maybe I was wrong passing the rumor. Then again, maybe not!
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.
-
When are you going to work for the 6th Floor Mausoleum? Enquiring minds are asking that question... Apparently, your 'heir apparent' - there are vacancies you know!
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.
-
Bill...Read my post again....Jesus....You are jumping the gun my old friend.At no point did i say this was a gunman.I merely stated that the shape in Stoughton also showed the classic gunman shape which i personally believe has a more than very high percentage of being false.The same anomoly can also be found in the same area when analysed in Rickerby.As for lack of cross reference,i believe Nix,Staughton and Rickerby are a much closer cross references than the Towner crop which you have posted as they are all closer together in the time scale of events.
Duncan
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.
-
You defend yourself well.
I guess you are pretty independent and thorough,
but some of us think you might be prone to seeing things
that really arent' there, this applied material,
and maybe missing things intrinsic...
like the blood and Classic Gunman and fully halted limousine.
The puffs of smoke and deeply veiled figures are not as pressing, to me...
Remember Missing the Forest for the Trees...?
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.
-
Duncan
Great post, very helpful, welcome aboard, etc...
While I always put forward the unexplained NIX film gunman,
these figures you present are not compelling support for me...
This figure is at the break (6 inch disjuncture) in the retaining wall, the visual
landmark for the NIX CLASSIC GUNMAN, but this has the break as seen from far to NIX's right..
Also the figure is smaller in scale than the Classic Gunman should be.
This could be a figure back closer to the fence, and slightly forward of NIX Gunman,
a spotter or source of the blood. Also, this individual you point out has
a variegated shirt or jacket, the NIX figure washes out because of his white shirt...
they say he had no skin tone, just white, and many deform and push him back
to the pergola wall, as a field of sunlight among foliage shadows......
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.
-
Bill,
No wonder people suspect you of putting forth the GARY MACK line straight
from the Dallas authorities at the TSBD....
Please ignore this, that, and the other evidence too,
that seems to be your angle....
You remind me of McAdams sometimes....
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.
-
Alan Healy Posted Yesterday, 05:33 PM
Rather "on topic" footage I think.
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?
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.
-
So the only shadow we see is what is on Arnold, it is the same width as Arnold, and IMO this shadow is too wide to be Arnold or any normal-sized person.
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.
-
It could be just the woman, and the man stayed on the bench, as if he didn't care. I don't know.
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 haven't seen Rosemary Willis's statement. Can you tell me where it's found?I believe it was Don Roberdeau who shared that information on Lancer when the topic came up over what Yarborough had seen.
Yarborough later said that the man he saw dive to the ground could not have been up on the knoll. There is thus confusion about whom Yarborough saw. Several people hit the ground in the plaza.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.
This was previously discussed on Lancer. I am simply unable to see what you see in the overlay/shadow, which is certainly not to say that it isn't there. I just can't see it. But it certainly seems to me that no young soldier such as Arnold would be so wide around the middle as to produce a shadow as wide as the BDM shadow at its base (which would be Arnold's middle) in Betzner or Willis. The shadow is simply too wide, or else Arnold got out of shape in a hurry, IMO.Ron
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.
-
My feeling is that the most likely explanation of BDM is the simplest. (Imagine that.) We know from interviews of Zapruder's secretary Elizabeth Sitzman that a young black couple who had been eating lunch was behind the wall at the time of the shooting. I see no reason for Sitzman to invent this couple. And a paper bag and food wrappers were indeed found on the bench where Sitzman said the couple sat, and one of their bottles was found on the wall.
It makes sense that this couple would have moved to the front end of the wall as the president approached. What we see in BDM is probably both of them, perhaps the woman leaning forward on the wall and the man standing above and behind her, blended together in the blur of the photo. And they ran away when shots were fired, very possibly when a shot from the knoll came right past them from behind.
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.
-
Oh, btw, a few other things are missing to make your theory complete. How about the names of those who "fabricated" the film? Where was it done? On what equipment exactly? On what family of film stocks? When? You do that that stuff posted, Right? How about your samples made on the same equipment to provide proof of concept? Surely you must have those...right? After all you guys "proved the film is a fake"....right?
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.
-
It IS sad that ~ 2/3 of the action we never DO see because it's when the shutter and/or protective gate is closed as the film travels unexposed between frames.
And, yes, I will read further and track down the f stop involved, if I can.
My working conclusion still is that's it's an artifact - that the only fit is coincidence. Unfortunately! ;-(
Dave
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
-
Show me a November 22, 1963 television film of MOORMANs Polaroid
that clearly shows the break in the wall area, or the Black Dog figure....
it doesn't exist....
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.
She lost control of that photo while in illegal custody, remember?Jean Hill and Mary Moorman both talk about the man who took away the picture...
in that little ad hoc debriefing area near the DAL-TEX....?
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.
You can blow up a doctored image and take a fresh Polaroid of it in seconds...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.
-
Hi, Dave.
You may not be aware that the Z film is not genuine, so anything seen in it
may or may not be genuine. For the latest information go to:
Hello, Dave. Jack likes to claim that anything he doesn't understand is then not genuine in his view. If you come across something that common sense didn't tell you otherwise, then feel free to bring it up on this forum and there are some of us who will try and explain why Jack is in error over the Zapruder film not being genuine. John Kennedy once said that a mistake is not a mistake unless you refuse to correct it. So much of what is written on the site Jack gave you has been shown to be in error, yet they don't change anything.
As far as the streak on a single film frame ... it can only be an artifact on a particular copy for a bullet moving at 2000fps will not be captured on a film running at 18fps. I would also question the reflective capabilities of lead.
Bill Miller
JFK assassination researcher/investigator
Frames of the Couch film
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.