Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bill Miller

JFK
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,732

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Bill Miller

  1. Bill Miller
    Frank - you just mentioned a part of the process that makes up photo interpretation an art. Your observation is justified and well taken. Bill
  2. Bill Miller
    I had never heard that from anyone before, but I guess that if the barrel of a gun was sticking over the fence that technically the flash would be between the wall and the fence. Yet you posted that you saw the same face in the figure in Moorman's photo as you do in the figure in Betzner's, so how can one be real in your mind and not the other? I guess what has messed you up is seeing that light spot on the guys right shoulder and thinking it was a muzzle flash. I referenced two post of yours by number. One of your old replies looks to have been edited, but my following response should have some of what you said pasted in it. I don't know what can and cannot happen in your office over in another country ... I can only tell you what happens in Dealey Plaza.
  3. Bill Miller
    That doesn't deserve an answer. If you are talking to Robert Groden, Mark Oakes, myself, Tony Cummings, Jack White or most everyone who is familiar with the knoll and how it relates to the assassination films, then they would tell you the flash occurs at the fence, which technically is behind the wall. I would like for you to step back and look at the replies you have been making. You mention the muzzle flash in Nix as if it is the BDM (Black Dog Man) who fired it, yet in your last reply you said and I quote, "There is no "person" behind the wall in Moorman, only shapes & shadows that can have different interpritations. So if it is your opinion now that there is no one behind the wall in Moorman, then how do you justify implying that BDM is still being seen at the wall firing a gun? You seem to be trying to make a case for something that is an impossibility from the things that you have been saying. Adressed above. Yes, I remember you saying that. I also remember you saying that you see the same face in the figure in Moorman's photo as you do the BDM. Then I remember you saying there is no one there in Moorman and that the image is nothing more than "shadows that can have different interpritations." (interpretations) Then I recall you saying that at the time of the head shot that a flash occurred at the wall as if to apply that more than shadows are still there, unless you meant that shadows can fire weapons and cause flashes. This is what I mean about you talking yourself into circles that have no possible way to connect the ends. You should step back and reevaluate your position. No, I see the same thing Jack White and the rest of the world saw when the Badge Man blowups were shown on the MWKK. You have said the image shows the same face as BDM - then you say it's not there but rather it is merely shadows - then you say it was the source of the flash in the Nix film that occurred at the time of the kill shot - now you say whatever it is ... it was not Arnold. If you say so, but that is not what happens in Dealey Plaza. Someone else can explain what you are saying to me for you do not make any sense. If I lean someone against the wall - they will not match what is seen in Moorman's photograph. If I place someone where Arnold is in Moorman's photograph, then he will match the Willis and Betzner photo. That is the point I have made all along. As I recall, I posted in the beginning that I took a lot of photos - some of which were from the Betzner and Willis location looking back towards the wall with Mike still in position. I emptied the card into my hard drive and then soon afterwards my computer crashed and Tony saved what images he could before rebuilding my system. I paid Tony's motel and meal ticket to come from several states away to help with my studies and at the time he was the tech guy who knew all about digital images and such. Losing those pictures before saving them to a CD meant that my money spent in having Tony come to Dallas was wasted for the most part. I look forward to redoing the images and seeing what you have to say about them then.
  4. Bill Miller
    We have the Darnell footage taken about 5 minutes after the assassination. Of course, actually being there is the best approach.
  5. Bill Miller
    I have not a clue as to what you have said here.
  6. Bill Miller
    We seem to share one thing in common and that is neither one of us knows what you are talking about. There is only one person in question beyond the wall between the time Betzner took his photo and Moorman too hers. That question pertains to whether the individual in each photo (Betzner/Willis/Moorman) is the same person. I believe you have admitted that you see the same face in each photo ... or do I need to post it for you so to refresh your memory? Whether or not the individual took a step one way or another between that 7+ second time span is of no value to me. The fact that we both have seen the same things in both photos that tells us it is the same idividual has awlays been the issue IMO. Your admission as to seeing the same thing in Moorman as in Betzner can be read in post #162 and I repeated what you said in post # 163. I asked that they do what I did and that is to place someone where Gordon Arnold said he was in the Turner documentary and have them seen from both where Moorman and Betzner photographed the assassination and tell me what they found. I think it has everything to do with this issue for it is merely repeating what I had already observed and what you say is impossible. To show that the same figure seen in Moorman/Willis/ and Betzner is one in the same indiviual - one needs to place a person where Arnold said he stood and take replica photos from each filming location. What is needed is for you to go to Dealey Plaza and see it for yourself. I guess that is how you look at it. When Groden looked at what I presented to him and said that he aggreed with my presentation, he is basically saying that he does not agree with you. When Mack says that Arnold in Moorman's photo is not standing at the South wall, then he is not agreeing with you either. Without using the same specific words as you did, they still implied that you were in error. BTW - Tony Cummings has been there when I walked through this stuff while in the plaza and I gave you his contact information. Avoiding Tony does not constitute avoiding the fact that there are those who don't agree with you.
  7. Bill Miller
    John - I think a lot of unecessary replies could be avoided if you had just addressed the issues being raised in the beginning. To your credit you did quickly raise the level of posting capabilities for some of us, but never addressed whether or not non-related JFK assassination photos were going to be premitted. I personally feel this section of the forum should remain dedicated to the Kennedy assassination. Bill
  8. Bill Miller
    I have to agree with a response that Richard Smith posted only briefly before it turned up missing for some odd reason ... and it said words to the effect that 'posting those ridiculous Apollo observations is a waste of forum space, especially one that deals with the assassination of JFK.' John Simkin also invited me here as well if I am not mistaken and I am sure he wouldn't want me running up photographic space by posting images of Bigfoot and UFO's which happen to be subjects outside of the JFK assassination that I have an interest in. Bill Miller <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My response was that White's statement was one of the most arrogant obnoxious posts I've read on any forum. I said he was on the moon, his poorly done DP work was crap anyway, and you blow him out of the water. I also said something like "aren't you the guy who found Badgeman?? What a letdown since then". Then I said many researchers, including me, were invited by John to join his forum. I concluded by saying he should poke a hole in his swelled head. My post was deleted without notice. RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Richard, I certainly understand where you are coming from. I'm sure Jack has his reasons for being interested in the Apollo images - for a man who worked with photographs for as many years as he has tends to take his interest with him into other areas and topics. I just think, as you probably do, that regardless whether Jack is right or wrong in his observations, he is posting on a topic such as "Apollo" that doesn't belong in this section of the forum. Bill
  9. Bill Miller
    Denis, You'll need to go to a forum that deals with that subject to make that determination.
  10. Bill Miller
    I have to agree with a response that Richard Smith posted only briefly before it turned up missing for some odd reason ... and it said words to the effect that 'posting those ridiculous Apollo observations is a waste of forum space, especially one that deals with the assassination of JFK.' John Simkin also invited me here as well if I am not mistaken and I am sure he wouldn't want me running up photographic space by posting images of Bigfoot and UFO's which happen to be subjects outside of the JFK assassination that I have an interest in. Bill Miller
  11. Bill Miller
    I personally believe that Castro had every reason to keep Kennedy alive and in office. Kennedy had assured the world that the U.S. would not invade Cuba. Castro could not be assured that the next President would feel the same way. That doesn't mean Casto didn't have people doing things behind his back as Kennedy was experiencing, but the question deals with Casto's involvement, so I have to say Castro would not have wanted Kennedy assassinated in 1963.
  12. Bill Miller
    I may build the photo examples I post from my office, but understanding them and relating them to the real world was done through several hundred hours of work in Dealey Plaza. I thought I had said this once before. Are you not able to copy and paste a quote and email it back to them to verify it? I already know what you think but you have shown nothing to support it. Documented replication is always the best evidence as far as showing how things should look in the plaza compared to an assassintion photo or photos. If I rent a helicopter and document the LOS from directly above it as well ... would that suffice you? There are 100's of researchers who have followed this topic and many of them have probably been to Dealey Plaza even after this issue started over a year or more ago. Isn't it odd that no one has said they went there and couldn't see what I was talking about?
  13. Bill Miller
    I think the lack of interest in your Apollo anomilies derives from people thinking that you are simply making mistakes within your interpretations. You posted asking what the odds were that the LEM would land facing a certaing direction and I find one possible answer to be that it landed in the manner that NASA planned it to. Your post offered no data stating that you atemempted to find out if there was a just cause for the LEM to be facing the way it was. NASA usually has a purpose for everything they do. Us not knowing what that purpose is doesn't constitute a conspiracy IMO. Your example should have read "Coincidence or Impossibility or Planned Positioning." I notice that a lot of your examples are always designed to look like there is a conspiracy afoot and seldom, if at all, leaves one with a common sense alternative.
  14. Bill Miller
    Arm chair research doesn't hold a candle to actually being on site in my view. The term "we" you use basically applies to yourself. I gathered from an earlier post you made that you wouldn't even believe a photo because you felt it would have been shaded against your favor. I think what was misleading for you is that groden was over the side of the slope slightly which gives a false impressions as to what should be seen looking back the other way. Of course the distance back from the Arnold location was another factor. My intention will be to shoot the Moorman photo and Betzner and Willis photos at the same time with one standing in place. I will also try and replicate groden's Shaw view as well. Now I am confused. Just prior to this post you had said that you saw a face in the Moorman figure just like you did the BDM. Now you go as far as to say you saw his beltline above the wall. These observations appear to be contradictory to what you are saying now. Furthermore, go back and look at the Shaw photo and explain how someone standing in the low area would have their belt above the wall if they were right against the south side of it. I also wish you'd address how the figure in Moorman can look so small and still be right at the South wall when you have a good photo showing how wide someone looks who is actually touching it. It has been said by researchers that the Badge Man and the Arnold figure are similar in size, however people come in all various sizes. Now with that said ... if Arnold is about the same size as Badge Man and Badge Man is on the RR yard side of the fence, then imagine how small that would make Arnold if he were really against the South wall. To simplify - the south wall is about 3' long - 4' at the most. Moorman is seeing it at an angle, the figure is looking directly towards Moorman's camera and he isn't hardly 1/3 as wide as the South wall. Now how men men are only 1' to 1.5' in width?
  15. Bill Miller
    Below is why that statement is inaccurate ... compare the width of the figure in Moorman's photo to that of a man actually at the South wall. The man in the color photo would have to back across the sidewalk to bring his body size down to that like is seen of the figure in the Moorman photo.
  16. Bill Miller
    Alan is correct. The diagram was drawn to show that anyone standing in the tree shadow and facing Betzner would then be turned slightly to face Moorman when she took her Ploarioid at the time of the fatal shot to JFK. A cursory glance at the illustration would tell someone that I did not attempt to draw the layout to scale, nor would I have insulted someones intelligence by claiming I had. I would like to say something about the shadow marked with an "X" at the grass and sidewalks edge. If one wants to do the math they can calculate where Arnold would have been exactly to have that tree shadow make the turn on his chest. That turn seen on the ground does not mean that Gordon Arnold stood on the "X" for if he had the turn in that shadow would have been cast on his back. Gordon was about 5'10" and would had to have backed up to a point that the turn in that shadow crossed over his chest. That places him in the grass somewhere between the sidewalk and the fence. Below is a general example as to what I am talking about. So there is no confusion ... it was not drawn to any particular scale. What it demonstrates is that anyone with that turn of the tree shadow on the ground passing over their chest would have to be back from the grass's edge, which is just where Gordon Arnold said he was in his Turner interview. In the past I have said Gordon would have to be on that shadow and what I mean by that is Gordon Arnold/BDM has to be on that shadow line and at a point where it would cross his chest as I have shown in the Moorman and Betzner photos. What we see in the Darnell film is where that turn of the shadow meets the ground.
  17. Bill Miller
    Do you know that Shaw is around 5' tall? Gordon Arnold was just under 6'. Mike Brown is 6' tall and he was standing west of the steps and in the grass when I took this photograph. Mike was not standing at the South wall. Those who look at this photo can compare it to the figure seen in Moorman's photograph. Don mentioned once that Mike was a little too close to the LOS over the corner of the wall. That means if Mike was to move towards the street to get on the exact LOS - his right shoulder would be even closer to the top of the steps and the LOS over the wall from the Betzner location. When I walked up to the top of Elm Street and looked back - Mike did not appear to be off a half of a step from being over the wall on a LOS to the BDM. I have recently asked Groden and Mack to each look at the LOS's with someone standing where Arnold said he was in the MWKK and report back to me their findings. When I asked Mack what he thought about anyone thinking the Arnold figure in Moorman's photo was standing at the South wall, Gary said in so many words that they are wrong. Of course that is what I knew he would say because he has been to the plaza and seen it for himself.
  18. Bill Miller
    Arnold is right, especially as he was tracking the limo to the point when the kill shot occurred. As he is facing Moorman - he certainly is askew to the steps. Anywhere on the grass west of the sidewalk would fit that description. Anyone standing on the grass between the walkway and the fence would be west of the steps, thus Arnold is correct. ....Good Day.... The above claims detail quoted by ARNOLD in the SFM'89 interview are very specific. It seems like we have crossed this path before and the above answers were given. I have seen a couple versions of your map posted in the past. When you say "an accurate map" ... are you saying the map is "DRAWN" to scale? If a map is not drawn to scale, then trying to cross trajectories will not be correct and is why I try to use overhead photos when ever possible. I personally have not said much about "shooters glasses" because Arnold never knew if the hatless cop as shown to him in the MWKK was the man that fired over his shoulder or not. Gordon only considered the idea that he may have been face to face with the man who shot at President Kennedy because he did see an officer without a had soon after the assassination. I do think that Jack White has posted concerning someone claiming the man in the Moorman enhancement did look to have on shooters glasses. I don't know if it is in this thread, but Jack has posted that information on this forum for I have read it in the past. That still doesn't tell us if the man in Moorman's photo really had on shooters glasses and it doesn't tell us if Badge Man was one of the officers who met Gordon after the assassination. I agree. Using actual photographs and maps that are drawn to scale would be a step in the right direction when ever possible. It is however, unfortunate that the interviews were not always filmed so to eliminate much of the speculation that has arisen in some cases pertaining to what the witness meant by something he or she said or did.
  19. Bill Miller
    Part of it is because the "X" covers about 8" of space and the BDM was much wider. You can walk the transparent figure towards Shaw and you will have BDM just where he is seen in the Willis and Moorman photo. (The figure seen at the top of Elm Street is at the Willis location) See what I mean!
  20. Bill Miller
    Jack - It's those Apollo pictures you have been posting - they have broken the forum.
  21. Bill Miller
    In the Willis and Betzner photos the Badge Man is hidden behind the pyracantha bush. I believe the Hat Man is looking in the direction of the limo as Bowers had stated. Whether he is shooting at that time I do not know. See below. I believe this to be the Hat Man seen looking towards the motorcade as Bowers had stated.
  22. Bill Miller
    Sam Holland said that he thought the first shot came from the same area over by the fence somewhere. I think Hudson didn't mention the third man because he wasn't the focus of the discussion at the time. If you look at the Willis photo you will see the man in the red shirt on the lower steps and the man next to Hudson already in place with the BDM still at the wall.
  23. Bill Miller
    I don't know what the bullet did - other than possibly break into several pieces upon impact by the way the brain was shredded. Of Course once a missile is split into sections, then the bullet's original path is altered by new projectiles going off in different directions. I do defer to what Dr. Clark had said to the Commision ... Dr. CLARK - Yes. I graduated from the University of Texas in Austin, 1944. I graduated from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston in 1948. I interned at Indiana University Medical Center and was a resident in surgery there from 1948 to 1950. I spent 2 years in the Air Force and then took my residency in neurological surgery at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. This was from 1953 to 1956, at which time I came to the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, as chairman of the division of neurological surgery. Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound. Mr. SPECTER - Which wound did you refer to at this time? Dr. CLARK - The wound in the head. Mr. SPECTER - Did you describe at that time what you meant by "tangential"? Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER - What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time? Dr. CLARK - As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being---striking an object obliquely, not squarely or head on. 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. Loose pieces of shredded brain seems to be seen falling out of the President's head on the Zapruder film. Click attachment to animate.
  24. Bill Miller
    Two things that make it an impossibility to ever know. MR. GUNN: One of the things in the -- during the autopsy, they did not link the wound in the back to the neck. That did not come until after they spoke with Dr. Perry, so there was no tracing. There was an attempt to use the probe, and they found that the probe went in a short degree and then they could not find that it connected anywhere. I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but one of the doctors testified that an bullet could have entered the body and changed path for several reasons and that it was impossible to now know the path the missile took. We often think about a LOS from Zapruder to JFK, but a view from the RR yard to JFK when he was first shot would be much more on a level field of view. Kennedy's head was turned to his extreme right by Z193 - Z195, but his sitting posture above the back seat was the same as seen in the Croft photo. Any deflection of the bullet could have caused it to leave the body in a way that it would not have hit the trunk or the follow-up car.
  25. Bill Miller
    If one goes around saying that everything he or she sees and doesn't understand for whatever reason is an anomily, then we all could be doing it. Because one doesn't have the education or skills to know how something was done does not give them the right to claim that a cover-up is afoot or refer to it as propaganda.
×
×
  • Create New...