Bill Miller

Bill Cheslock reminds me of something Stewart Galanor wrote in his book "Cover-Up" ... On page 26, he points out the sizes of the holes in the clothing and body of JFK. The throat wound was 5mm, back wound was 7mm, shirt was 10mm, and jacket was 15mm. These measurements would indicate the bullet tumbled as it penetrated from front to back, and made larger holes as it traversed JFK's body and clothing. What Dr. Baxter said and what Galanor points out about the bullet holes go hand in hand when so many other things do not.

Another overhead view from a different building ...

Here is what Dr. Baxter sai about the wound and what one should expect ... Dr. Baxter - Although it would be unusual for a high velocity missile of this type to cause a wound as you have described, the passage through tissue planes of this density could have well resulted in the sequence which you outline; namely, that the anterior wound does represent a wound of exit. Mr. Specter - What would be the considerations which, in your mind, would make it, as you characterized it, unlikely? Dr. Baxter - It would be unlikely because the damage that the bullet would create would be---first its speed would create a shock wave which would damage a larger number of tissues, as in its path, it would tend to strike, or usually would strike, tissues of greater density than this particular missile did and would then begin to tumble and would create larger jagged--the further it went, the more jagged would be the damage that it created; so that ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit.

There are two things at play with some individuals when it comes to conspiracy ... One is they look not for conspiracy, but rather ways to make things look conspiritorial. The other is because some people think that if they cannot see why something looks like it does, then it also must be be part of the conspiracy. Below are the clips I wanted to post earlier. The last two deal with post 18 that Jack made. There the camera had the latter in the middle of the photo and in the next shot the cmarea was pointed off to the right slightly. The first clip deals with post 19 that Jack made. The shadows all point in the same direction. The photographer moved off to the side between photos and was later looking down atop of the rocks and this is why they didn't align the same way as before. To free up space to post these clips - I had to delete the attachments I have made in the past in other threads. Without those attachments those past threads don't serve much of a purpose IMO. The classic gunman thread was one such place where I deleted my attachments. I notice many replies had repeated embedded attachments and all this does is eat up double the photo space. Others might keep this in mind in the future and also go back and start deleting their past attachments as well. Bill

Jack - Let me start by saying I have no interest one way or the other if we went to the moon. I will address this only in a photographical sense and how it pertains to perspective. In post 18 - the reason the crosshairs on the camera is not at the same place on the horizon in both photos is because the camera is not pointed in the exact same direction in each photo. By this I mean it doesn't have the same objects in the center of its view-finder. If we pretend the limo is standing still on Elm Street ... it would be like Moorman pointing her camera over the limo's trunk for one photo and then more towards Zapruder in a second photo. She would still capture JFK in her picture, but slight differences in the way things line up would be noticeable in an overlay. I personally suspect that the images were cropped for sizing display. Also, my overlay showed me that the camera obviously had moved slightly between pictures. In post 19 you mention the rocks not aligning correctly. I took the two images and rolled one photo over to match the tripod in the other. The shadows all aligned the same when this was done. The rock alignment isn't the same because not only did the photographer shift sideways, but also moved closer to the rocks and is looking downward at them. This changes how they align in his field of view. These observations can be duplicated quite easily here on earth. The forum says there is 64 MB left, but I cannot get the thread to accept a 243kb gif or I would display it. Maybe it will work later for I will keep trying. Here is the message I am getting at this time: Bill

You seem to have lots of time on your hands and aren't going to waste any of it talking to people who go to the plaza on a regular basis, so why not take a moment to draw in the face over the Arnold figure that yopu claim to see. That way maybe we can all try and see what you are talking about. BTW - IN post 153 you did make some sort of an outline on the figure seen in the Moorman photo - you wrote "eyes, nose, mouth and ears equals face." Does this mean that you are agreeing that the figure in the Moorman photo and the figure in the Betzner photo is one in the same individual? Bill

I started to reply to each and every remark you made, but then I came across a reply you made that really sums up this whole notion of yours. When you asked for names of people who could affirm what I have said and I complied - you replied by saying ... "Like I said, "you have shown no proof" only smoke & mirrors." So I must be the David Copperfield of Dealey Plaza. You ask for names and then instead of following through ... you post such a meaningless reply. The bottom line is that you do not want to know any different even if that means "not" asking others who are always going to the plaza to confirm or deny the observation.

Denis - don't forget me and some of the fella's - we get a chuckle out of your post most of the time, as well.

I'm not sure what time table you are looking for, but as I said before - Zapruder filmed the limo going into the underpass, so the Wiegman film showing the same thing means he is filming as Zapruder is on the pedestal. In the best images the 6th floor Museum has - Sitzman's legs can be seen over the pedestal as she is getting off of it. The Paschal film shows the pedestal immedately after Sitzman's dismount and capture's Zapruder hopping down. The Bell film picks up immediately after that moment with them both walking away from the pedestal momentarily. You got it exactly right. The same thing happened to their image in the Wiegman film as it did to their image in the Betzner and Moorman photo after I added motion blur. Bernice, I think you will find that Woegman said he started filming as the shooting was going on. He didn't go over the door panel until the car had just about made it's complete turn. It is true that a motorcycle stopped and it can be seen in several photos. I think Jack is in error for thinking the press car stopped because in the Couch film around the 20 second mark I can see it rolling slowly along with its door open while the car behind it pulls into the wouth lane to overtake it. Play Groden's copy of the Couch film and see if that is not the case. You are welcome. As I showed with the Moorman Bronson and Betzner photos - Sitzman was not in bright sunlight because Zapruder was casting a shadow over her. Jack's misreading of Zapruder and Sitzman's body positions probably caused some of your confusion. Look at Sitzman's leags and left arm in Moorman or Betzner and not how that applies to Bronson's slide. Her elbow is bent and her hand appears to be on or near her hip. Her right hand is on Zapruder's back as she is holding him steady because of his Vertigo. I didn't know anyone had noticed the smoke in the Zapruder film before now. Mark Oakes has some blowup work on the Pachall frames on his DVD. I believe it is being sold through James Tague's web page. In another thread, Denis has put up some Paschall frames and maybe he will post the ones of Zapruder getting off the pedestal there. Once again ... it is the pedestal that is in bright sunlight. Zapruder is in dark clothing and Sitzman has Zapruder keeping the sun from reaching her. There should be nothing seen in the Wiegman frame that is not seen in the Betzner or Moorman photo after I added motion blur. I think the better you learn the photographs/films and the times at which they were taken - things will make a lot more sense to you. Good Luck!

In the next few frames you should see Abraham Zapruder getting down off the pedestal.

Jack, I agree that Sitzman, when standing over near the Hesters was in direct sunlight, but on the pedestal she stood in Zapruder's shadow. Please look at her in this Bronson image and explain to everyone why her light dress is so dark if she is in direct sunlight. The same can be said of her in the Moorman photograph. Sitzman's dress is in the shade being cast by Abraham Zapruder. Her right shoulder near the neck and her face does look light where the sun is shining on it, but when motion blur equal to that of the Wiegman film is applied to her in the Moorman image, then she dissappears with Zapruder. You may also notice that I made the image of Sitzman near the Hester's into a B&W print like that of the Wiegman film and added the motion blur ... does she not fade out! Next I show Sitzman's dress in Zapruder's shadow as seen from the Betzner photograph. I show it both in a light version and again in a contrasted version much like Wiegman's film. I then add the motion blur - do you not see what happens? You simply cannot take a clear image and compare it to a contrasted image that is blurred and think that the two images should show the same things. I cannot see how to make these illustrations any simplier for you. (please remember to click onto the images for a larger view) Bill

Jack - No one is saying that Zapruder is not on the pedestal at that point. What has been repeatedly said here is that the Weigman film is heavily contrasted and shows motion blur, which has made Zapruder and Sitzman blend into the background. If you cannot understand the technical reasons for this - then just watching what happens to them in the Betzner photo when put under the same conditions as the Wiegman film should make the point clear to you. You seem to keep raising issues as if something is wrong here, but motion blur in a B&W image is not conspiracy, but rather a normal occurence that does to people in the diatance who are seen against a dark background. In the Betzner photo below I simply show Hugh's photo with blur added, which made Zapruder and Sitzman disappear and then I contrasted the image to match Wiegman's film. The sequence can be seen in the animation and the result is self explanitory.

Jack - If you watch the Wiegman film carefully you will see that Dave Weigman is still in the center lane of traffic and has not started running anywhere at that time. It is because of this that the frame you posted looks so good. Just prior to that frame, Wiegman had his camera pointed at the ground over the cars door panel - then he shifts to a position outside of the car. The center stripe dividing the missdle of the street and the North lane is visible near the front fender of the car. The first frames when the camera rises to look down Elm Street is the frame you posted.

Like I have said before - I have been in the plaza and walked people through this. I also detailed this finding before the last memorial and made flyers for Hancock to distribute so the 100's of people there could see it for themselves. So much for pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. As far as you not seeing the pathway - how hard are you trying to see it? The photo is on page 17 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President". (see attachment below) You may want to consider his size if you think he is up to the wall for that would make him about the size of a Roswell alien. You have taken a shadow passing over an individual and built an image that you can't seem to let go of and it has caused you to not understand the other points I have presented. Until you do that shadow better - you will be chasing your tail forever. That's one way out of admitting you made a mistake. I mentioned Tony Cummings to you once before and offered his email address. Tony helped shoot all the digital photo recreation shots with me. You may remember Tony for he is the one that said I shouldn't waste time with someone who has never been to the plaza to know what they are talking about. I have also posted an email from Robert Groden who practically lives in the plaza and he stated that he could not find anything wrong with the observations I had made. jack White is on this forum - ask him to look it over when visiting the plaza next time. Gary Mack is there every day - let him report the LOS back to you. You see, you have missed the big picture and it is one that Jack must have realized for he said nothing else after I shared it with him and that is ... For a second individual to be leaning against the wall would mean that the person seen in Moorman's photo would be visble in the background. That alsone should tell you it was one individual in each photo. Then when you consider the overlays of the sunspot on the tight shoulder - the turning Arnold said he did to track the limo with his camera - Ralph Yarborough seeing the service man dive to the ground, then the evidence starts getting stronger for it being the same person in each instance. I promise that I will take a photo of his feet. How you will know if he has moved or not might be another problem for you. And to repeat something I have said dozens of times that you keep misstating - the recreation field of depth photo of Mike Brown and Tony Cummings was done to see how real people looked against one another when seen as I saw them against Moorman's photo. I have to smile when reading this. Do you know how many photos I have backlit because someone took a dark image and imagined they saw something that ended up not being there. Cops with cameras, assassins, tripods with cameras mounted on them just to name a few. Even Duncan had someone on top of the shelter once with a camera or rifle (I forget which) by using a dark Betzner image, so saying a face is there in the poorer darker version when it is not seen in the better lighter version is a bit silly. It's like a little kid yelling out to his parents that there is a man in his bedroom, but when they come in and turn on his light they find it is only a coat rack with a hat hung over it. Then the kid says, "yeh, but when the light is out, I do see a man with a hat on." Think about that! Groden took that photo and he still cannot find fault in my observations, now how can that be? Just the other day a fellow posted on Lancer that some buildings were not seen like they should be in Dealey Plaza and people who go there have said they look today just like they did then. You have bet the farm on one photo that you have misread. Also, the reason I have not shot the photos again or proof as you call it is because I have not been back to Dallas in the past 2 years. I hope to make it this next year.

You are assuming that Tim Carroll repeated accurately what Groden had said to him. There were several post on Lancer where Tim misstated things, especially pertaining to the HSCA findings on the Classic Gunman figure. Furthermore, it is no secret that Robert Groden thought at one time that the BDM may have been an assassin. His reason for this, as I have said many times now over the past year or so, is that Robert thought the guy seen through the pyracantha bush was the same man. That man was suspected by Robert to be holding a gun. I believe Robert explains this in his book "High Treason". Once I recreated the pyracantha bush image from atop of the pedestal and showed Robert that he was seeing the back of Emmett Hudson's head, then Robert realized he made a mistake. So it isn't a matter of Robert telling different stories, but rather his opinion envolving with added information being brought to light. An investigator needs to understand and reason out these simple transitions if he or she is going to try and look deeper in the JFK assassination for it is much more complexed.

Bernice - I am not sure which frame you refer to, but let me cover the ones I recall from this thread if I may. The frame from the Wiegman film showing the smoke comes at the very end of the Zapruder film as the limo is entering the underpass. Jack did a composite made up of more than one Wiegman frame to show the pedestal. I don't recall if he posted a single Wiegman frame of the pedestal, but he may have. About 17 seconds passes from the time Betzner took his photo to the moment Zapruder stops filming. Zapruder stops filming about 9 - 10 seconds after the head shot to JFK. These time frames may not be all that relevant, but I thought I'd share them as I go. Once Zapruder and Sitzman go out of view on the Nix film I do not know how they moved around on the pedestal. I know the Bell film pans back towards them after the limo passes through the underpass and it catches Sitzman and Zapruder off the pedestal by that time. The Paschall film shows Zapruder hoping off the pedestal behind Sitzman as I recall. The smoke in the Wiegman film would be in the air during Zapruder's filming, but his camera pans just below the smoke, thus not allowing us to see it. However, there may be a small part of the smoke seen in the Zapruder film around Z419/420, but I cannot be for certain. (see attachment one) Look at Zapruder and Sitzman in the Betzner image and you will see his coat is dark and he is casting a shadow over most of Sitzman's body, thus making her somewhat dark as well. I have shown these two individuals as they would appear in the Bronson slide in B&W. Notice how dark Sitzman appears in Zapruder's shadow. (see image two) The difference between what is seen in the Bezner photo and the Wiegman film can be best taught by allowing you to see first hand how the Betzner image changes to the point of being lit, contrasted, and blurred to match the same type of circumstances attributed to the Wiegman film. By doing so you can see that two people you started out seeing have now all but vanished just like we see in Dave Wiegman's film. The background behind Zapruder and Stzmen, the exposure of the film, and the motion blur were the factors that made Zapruder and Sitzman seem to vanish. (see animation in attachment three) Sorry I could not post this information last night, but the site wouldn't take an attachment and then it seemed to have gone down altogether. Bill

That is a fair question. If you look at the enlargement of the Betzner photo I posted earlier you will see that Sitzman is in the shadow that's being cast from Zapruder. The people out in the direct sunlight are much brighter and have a light background behind them. Then you saw what happen when I applied some motion blur to the Betzner image - they vanished. There is also the issue of whether she is behind Zapruder or not in the Wiegman film. We know how they were standing When Nix last saw them, but we don't know if she has stepped behind Mr. Z by the time Wiegman started running towards them.

How Z&S should look in Wiegman (from Betzner)... IF THEY WERE THERE. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack, Please allow me to explain two things that you are not considering. One that is we are dealing with a B&W film with limited color tones so anything dark like Zapruder's clothing will blend into the foliage behind him. Secondly, the crop that you placed on the Weigman frame comes from a sharper image without the radical motion bluring taking place. To show these points to you, I have taken the Betzner photo (seen below) and cropped part of Zapruder and Sitzman and movedd them into the darker tree foliage where you can see that Zapruder's clothing cannot be made out against the color of the tree foliage. White arrows point to those crops that I speak of. This shows the color tone blending problem. Next I copy and pasted the image of both Zapruder and Sitzman and placed them in the lower left hand side of the image. I then added motion bluring that would equal the Weigman film and as you will note ... Zapruder and Sitzman have vanished. It is the combination of those two things that is the reason that you do not see those two individuals in the Dave Wiegman film. Bill

I thought that some have thought that the sunlit shoulder of Arnold may be what they were mistaking for a head, but it seems that with Groden at one time that it was the whole width of Gordon Arnold's body that he thought was a head. Clarification came to me today through Gary Mack in which he writes: Alan is misremembering or misunderstood what I said. The "Gordon Arnold" figure, from both shoulders down, was thought by Groden to be a face. That's silly, of course, for it's much too big to be a person. Anyone who has been to the Plaza can figure that out. Gary

My friend Robert Groden also sees the Arnold figure as a face. (although a gigantic one). Gary Mack refers to Robert's man as Balloonhead. I have to agree with Gary on this. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack - Maybe that is what Groden said long ago, but that is not what he was saying last year since I showed him the work I have done on these images. Groden believes the individual in Moorman is the same person in the Betzner and Willis photos. Bill

The face is in the superior print too. Try to stay focused, I was talking about the face in Moorman. I think I now have a better idea as to what you are possibly talking about. If you are referring to the light spot with the dot in the middle of it and thinking it is a face - I can see why Gary Mack said that it is too big. Maybe if you saw your print next to the Badge Man print image it might help you. (see attachment one) The photo is not detailed enough for people to see the details behind the wall, which is perfect for you since it cannot be used to show how the Betzner & Mooorman LOS do not line up! I show an overhead photo with intersecting lines on it to show that they cross where Gordon Arnold said he was and now you are faulting the image because it doesn't show anything different than I said it did. I've shown that image to many researchers and no one but you seems to have trouble understanding it. I guess in this case I have to go with something Spock once said in "The Wrath of Kahn" ... 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.' Once again you have proved that when it comes to Arnold you are ruled by Uranus & I'll show you why tomorrow. What you have drawn here is wrong(again). Anyone leaning against the wall would be to the right of the South corner when seen from where Mary was standing. Remember to address the size of the figure for to be so small next to the wall and closer to the camera will need an explanation. I'll look forward to your explanation. You told me around 18 months ago on Lancer, that BDM in Betzner doesn't have to match the Arnold figure in Moorman exactly because Arnold wasn't filming the motorcade yet! Feel free to find that post for I have always believed Gordon Arnold as he told of his actions in Turner's interview. Anyone can go to the Plaza & see that the BDM LOS to Betzner doesn't line up with someone standing on the pathway but they have to know what they're doing. You claim to be familiar with all the details, so you really have no excuse for not knowing this. Gary Mack, Robert Groden, Jack White, Debra Conway, Mark Oakes, and the list goes on and they go to the plaza on a regular basis and not one person has come back saying that I am incorrect on that observation. When one finally does do it, then I'll take notice. IF(& that is a big IF) BDM has not scarpered & what we are seeing in Moorman is the same fella, then he is most probably still on the grassy area near the corner of the wall You really need to go to Dealey Plaza and see it for yourself for you are way off on this one. But as I have said, yourself & Gary have gone with the Arnold figure, which is wrong IMO, there is a face on "Arnolds'" right shoulder, this dude is right up near the wall. Congratulations - I think you are the only person to have ever seen a face on Arnold's right shoulder. Is the face still there when the shadow is removed? (see attachment two) I don't need your photos to see that the figures in Betzner & Moorman do not line up. However, I will be interested to see what trick you will use to back this fantasy up. In other words you do not want to know the truth about the plaza and how things look. You seem to have a lot to learn, but no willingness to learn it.

James, I cropped part of your post because I wanted to point out an observation I have made several times over the last few years. Jack will take a dark blury film or photo and claim because he doesn't see Zapruder on the pedestal that the other better quality images showing him there must be retouched. I am most curious as to why Jack in this case didn't consider that maybe all the other films and photos showing Zapruder on the pedestal are genuine and that it was this poor dark Wiegman film that was altered? Bill

It was a transparency overlay image that I used to reference the shade line. If you look closely you will see differences in the two images. Here are the two images in their raw form at both ends of the scale. You have seen it before, but you constantly need to be reminded of them for some reason. (see attachment below)

They used the best possible print in their possession. The quality of the print you are posting is substandard. Too big? In what ... the Betzner photo? Mack has thought that the individual in the Betzner photo was Emmett Hudson, so I would be puzzled as to why he would say the head is too big. I have used the best overhead photos that I can find and not one person who is familiar with the Plaza has discounted my use of that overhead photo. As far as what Moorman's photo would look like had the person of been standing up at the wall - here is what it would look like. (see attachment one) I do not recall ever saying any such thing. My position has always been that Arnold was test panning with his camera and started filming when he seen JFK come onto Elm Street. As I have said many times - it is because I have been there and seen these things for myself that I say what I do about them. You have not been there, so your opinion is of no value as to what these views look like with the naked eye. There have been 100's of researchers who have seen what I have stated and who have been to the plaza. To date not a one of them has reported anything different than what I observed. As I said before - if BDM is leaning against the wall, then where is the guy seen in Moorman's photograph? Furthermore, there has been a recreation photo done from what Mack tells me and they ended up with Arnold back a bit further than I have him. I have also told you that when I get to the plaza again that I will take the photos that you requested. If you are in a hurry and anyone can merely go there and do the job, then why have you not done so?

Once we have concluded that Mary Moorman's photo is genuine and was photographed not 30 minutes after the assassination, then there should no longer be any question as to whether anyone was standing on the pedestal or not. Jack - you should know better than to be trying to make a case out of the Wiegman film for not showing anyone on the pedestal. The combination of Zapruder's dark clothing against the dark background and the poor quality of the image says it all. A similar exposed version of the Betzner photo all but makes Zapruder and Sitzman disappear as well. (see attachment one) Are you not aware that there is one frame in that film where one can just barely make out Sitzman's legs as she is getting off of the pedestal. Are you not aware that Patsy Paschall's film shows Zapruder dismounting off the pedestal? Are you not aware that Zapruder's film was shot at the end of the roll that has his family home movies on it and that all one has to do is stand on the pedestal to see where Zapruder was filming from? Does it not interest you why not a single Elm Street witness who has either seen or heard of the Zapruder film has not come forward and said that there was no one on the pedestal? You are aware aren't you that not only did Sitzman talk to the Hester's before she and Mr. Z got on the pedestal, but when they dismounted and went into the shelter, the Hester's followed them in there and talked with Zapruder and Sitzman some more. You have got to quit taking the things that you do not understand and immediately claim they are signs of film and photo alteration for it is killing the good work you have done in the past. Below is a photo I took from Zapruder's pedestal of Groden standing on the same step as Emmett Hudson. The only way that I could get the backgrounds to match would be to be standing right where Zapruder was when he shot his film. (see attachment two)