Bill Miller

Pam - I am not talking about adding damage to the glass due to travel time, but rather damage that appeared in Dealey Plaza that is not seen in those WHG photos. I have a defect on my Buick windshield and also on my Jeep right now that's pretty close to what is seen in the White House Garage photos. The Jeep had one prior to the one it has now and I didn't get 400 miles down the road before it happened the second time. I've seen those defects from both sides of the glass in every kind of lighting conditions. Right around the actual defect in the glass there are 100s of small fractures and these cause the frosted look when traveling into the sun, but they are limited to just where the fractures are. The undamaged glass beyond those fractures does not appear frosted when traveling towards the sun. The area of fractures right around the impact point in the WHG photos isn't much larger than a nickel. The fractures that caused the frosted look in Altgens 7 covers a much larger area than what the WHG photo defect does and that is what I was talking about.

It should be in the alteration threads on this site for I am sure I referred to the station by name at that time. I'll have to ask Gary Mack the name of the station that did it again. It was aired on NBC at about 3:26 p.m. Dallas time. The show "As it happened" shows a view of it for a brief moment.

Jack, This might sound like a stupid question, but is there a possibility that something/someone was removed from the pedestal and then the Zapruder and Stitzman figures added? James <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to agree with you, James as to how the question sounds. Not long ago Jack had to admit during an exchange that we had that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV less than 30 minutes after the assassination. That photo had remained in her possession until that time. That means that her photo and any Moorman print showing the same things on it has not been tampered with in any way - shape - or form. Now having gotten that reminder out of the way, I will tell you what's wrong with Jack's observation about the windows allegedly missing. The first problem is he places Zapruder and Sitzman the same distance from the East side of the shelter which he should do. But then he uses his misrepresentation where the pedestal and distant windows should be and forgot to make his "gap" between the window and the pedestal the same as the ones seen in the Moorman photograph. Jack having moved the pedestal west has also pulled the distant pergola windows with it. Please take careful notice that I have overlaid part of Jack's lower background window over Moorman's lower background window so they'd match. Watch the pedestal shift west when those two windows are equally aligned. (see attachment one) The next thing Jack has done is misread Zapruder's posture and coat outline. To prove this point I offer three views. 1) Bronson slide image of Zapruder 2) Betzner image of Zapruder 3) Moorman image of Zapruder Note that in the middle image (#2) of attachment three (the Betzner view) that the sunlit part of Zapruder's clothing is marked with red arrows. The sunlit part of Zapruder's clothing is also well pronounced in the Bronson slide image, as well. But if you just look at the part that is in shade in the Betzner photo it looks just like the posture Zapruder appears to have in Moorman's photograph. That posture looks as if Zapruder's left hip is jutted outward to his left, but as the sunlit clothing outline Betzner's photo shows us, this simply is not the case. (see attachment three) If I take the Moorman pedestal and leave Jack's pedestal showing the same gap and run them in an overlay, then the part of Zapruder's clothing that is sunlit and hard to see in Mary's photo is extended out over the distant window openings. It's only because Mary's photo is of poor quality and being a B&W image that has allowed part of Zapruder's sunlit clothing to blend into the background of the shelter like it did. The dark area in Moorman's photo that looks like Zapruder has his shoulders tilted and his hip shoved outward to his left is only an illusion as seen in the Betzner view. Once we add the sunlit part of Zapruder's clothing to the picture, then the distant windows should not be seen after all.(see attachment two)

Altgens #7 shows all the weebing one would want to see. There were so many small fracture cracks around the spot where the projectile had hit the glass that they appeared as a large frosted area with the sun hitting it. The White House Garage photo show no such damage.

Here is one of the darnell frames showing the liquid on the sidewalk near the picket fence.

Jack is correct about what Couch said. Note the last line where he says how far from the corner of the TSBD the blood was. Mr. BELIN - That would be the west side of the Depository Building? Mr. COUCH - That's right; that's right. It's there that I saw blood on the sidewalk. Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you say you saw blood on the sidewalk, Mr. Couch? Mr. COUCH - That's right. Mr. BELIN - Where was that? Mr. COUCH - This was the little walkway - steps and walkway that leads up to the corner, the west corner, the southwest corner of the book Depository Building. Another little sidewalk, as I recall, turns west and forms that little parkway and archway right next to the Book Depository Building. Mr. BELIN - Did this appear to be freshly created blood? Mr. COUCH - Yes; right. Mr. BELIN - About how large was this spot of blood that you saw? Mr. COUCH - Uh - from 8 to 10 inches in diameter. Mr. BELIN - Did people around there say how it happened to get there, or not? Mr. COUCH - No; no one knew. People were watching it - that is watching it carefully and walking and pointing to it. Uh - just as I ran up, policemen ran around the west corner and ran - uh - northward on the side of the building. And my first impression was that - uh - that they had chased someone out of the building around that corner, or possibly they had wounded someone. All of those policemen had their pistols pulled. And people were pointing back around those shrubs and that west corner and - uh - you would think that there was a chase going on in that direction. Again, the reason that I didn't follow was because A.J. had come up, and my first concern was to get back with the President. Mr. BELIN - This pool of blood - about how far would it have been north of the curbline of Elm Street as Elm Street goes under the expressway? Mr. COUCH - I'd say - uh - well, from Elm Street, you mean, itself? Mr. BELIN - Yes. This is from that part of Elm Street that goes into the expressway? Mr. COUCH - I'd say - uh - 50 to 60 feet, and about 10 to 15 feet from the corner of the Texas Depository Building.

Denis - I emailed the frames to you just now. I cannot post images for some reason since this site has come back up after it's short break. Hopefully you can post them OK. I have serious doubts about that spot being blood. For one thing there was no one standing there when the shooting was going on. Anyone bleeding that profusely would had to of remained in that spot for some period of time to just leave one good sized pool of blood on the ground. Anyone bleeding that profusely and walking or running through there would not have left such a pool like that in one loaction and they would have left a blood trail as they moved along. However, there was a black couple sitting on the bench and drinking sodas before JFK came onto Elm Street and I suspect that one of them poured what was left of their drink onto the ground. One of them may have also thrown their bottle as Sitzman said she heard a bottle break around the time of the shooting. The film in question was shot by Jack Darnell as I recall.

Yes, it's Moorman. You can see her and Jean in the same position in Bond #4.

The entire street full of traffic was at a standstill. That's why Tague got out of his car to watch the parade.

These docs were posted at Wim's request.

Study the index finger position carefully. Note when the top of the hand is almost even with the mouth and compare that to Altgens photograph.

I have heard that information in several circles and presentatations thoughtout the JFK community. I have discussed with Robert Groden, Gary Mack, and others in the past. Had I of not spoken to anyone, I would have known what frame it matched by referencing the index finger position. Page 312 of Richard trask book "Pictures of the Pain" says that Z255 equates with Altgens 6. I personally think you are making several mistakes. One is that you are not reading the perspective differences between Altgens and Zapruder's positions very well. Secondly you keep referring to what you see in Z255 and it's little more than blurred mud. You'll have to stand alone on your beliefs that Kennedy is not positioned correctly in Z255 to match Altgens #6 photo. Sometime if you have the chance - position someone as you see them from in front of your car as seen in Altgens 6 photo. Then have them remain like that while you get up on a tall ladder or a hill and look down at them from the same angle Zapruder did and you should find that both postures match A6 and Z255. Attachment one shows the second frame (Z255) is mud. The face becomes blurred, the finger all but vanishes. Attachment two shows the body change between Z254 and Z256 by removing the bad frame (Z255) Attachment three shows the finger point - no closed left fist at that point.

Al apparently believes the concealment of the windshield to be sloppy but innocent police work, and that anyone who believes there are dirty cops is to be labeled "rediculous." I am troubled by some of you people having an 'all or nothing' mentality. While Al and I believe the windshield was damaged during the assassination - we differ as to when the windshield was actually struck by a projectile. Because of that difference I do not take it to extremes and say the things you researchers are saying about him. In other words his opinion about the handling of the limo and it's windshield doesn't mean that he doesn't think there aren't dirty cops in the world and that's just how it was implied above. Try and deal with this issue by presenting fact against fact and leave some of the emotions out of the mix and the forum will be better for it.

Pam - I don't know who generally accepts that both JFK's fist were still clinched in Z254, Z255, and Z256. As a matter of fact it is generally accepted that his index finger is extended in Altgens 6 which matches Z255 and this is how the experts arrived at that conclusion... In figure one we see Z254 - Z255 - and Z256. Note how Z255 blurs out to the point that you cannot tell anything by looking at it. The frames immediately before and after Z255 are much clearer. So how did the experts choose frame (Z255) to match Altgens 6? They did it by seeing that in Z254, JFK has started to unfurl his index finger ... they noted that it is extended out into the sunlight making it visible over the others that are still bent inward and in shadow. By Z256, JFK's index finger is straightened passed the point where we see it in Altgens 6. That means that Z255 being the midpoint between Z254 and Z256 was the best frame in time and space to match how the finger looked in Altgens 6. (see attachment one) In figure two I show Z254 and Z256 only. By eliminating the blurry frame (Z255) we can better track the index finger. Somewhere between those two positions Altgens took his #6 photograph. That equates Altgens 6 with Z255. (see attachment two) In figure three we see Z254 - Z255 - and Z256 in motion. Z255 blurs and stretches, thus taking with it valuable interpretation information. (see attachment three) The forum software seems to want to put the attachments in whatever order it wishes instead of the order I chose. I have since adjusted the text to match the order of the attachments. Bill

Sorry for the typo in my previous post. It should have read "2) Now if we take the Betzner BDM, which has a sharper image to work with than the Willis photo did," One other point to anyone trying to understand the shadow change on my BDM/Arnold overlay ... Don't forget that Kennedy was between the corner of the concrete wall (Arnold's position) and the camera in both the Betzner and Moorman photos (Phil Willis's, as well). This is why the figure in each photo is looking at the camera. If you use the overhead view where I show the LOS from Betzner and Moorman to the Arnold location, you can see just how far he turned his body between photos so to be looking towards each photographer when they took his photo. That turn is exactly what the overlay shows when in motion. Just keep in mind that Arnold is looking at Betzner in one image and has turned and is looking at Moorman in the other image. One more thing ... I took the same light patches from the street side of the subject/Arnold and compared them in both the Moorman and Betzner photos. I found them to be an identical match right down to the shadow spot in the middle of each one. The slight difference in lighting came from the body turning between photos and the way the sun hit it. I also took the liberty of creating that light spot in red so you can see how it matches each photograph. I am happy to answer any questions. If none are asked, then I assume that I presented these images in a way that was understood by all interested parties. Bill

Was this a confession?

It certainly doesn't take a photo expert to see the problem between these two photographs. When the camera moved away from Oswald - his body shrunk a considerable amount just as the background did. Howevere, the head remained the same size between the grid. (see the two frame overlay animation below)

David, Thanks for making me appear correct about your soon posting another say nothing moronic response. I could not have done it if you were not so predictable. As far as PhotoShop or any of the other software that I use goes - feel free to teach me a thing or two through your examples. So far it seems like incomplete sentences and thought patterns is about all you have brought to this site.

Jack - Let's not muddy the waters by referring to the HSCA which I thought you said earlier that they had a political agenda. Let's keep it simple for Arnold is the only reliable source at this time. Now lets be logical here and see if the following doesn't make sense to you ... Arnold said in the TMWKK that he was standing where we see him in Moorman's photo and he was test panning with his mother's camera waiting for the "parade" to come by ... follow me so far? That places him in position before Betzner and Willis took their photographs. Gordon Arnold never said that some other guy walked in front of his camera and blocked his view of the parade. That tells me that there is one man in a military uniform above the wall - not two. I say this for the reasons I just stated ... for if there was someone at the concrete wall, then they would have been blocking Arnold from seeing the parade and if they were leaning on the wall, then we would have seen Arnold just beyond that second man in a military uniform and we don't. Now there is the issue of the shadow passing over both men at the same points on their body. As someone who has studied shadows in the past you should know that if the same turn in the shadow passes over both figures at the same place on their body, then they are the same person or else one person moved from that location and the other walked in and took his exact place within those short 6 seconds and Arnold 'did not' say that he swapped locations with anyone during the shooting. Below is a new illustration (not drawn to scale) that will show that one man in one location accounts for what is seen between the Betzner and Moorman's photographs. 1) The first example shows how the shade line passed over Arnold as he stood at the West end of the walkway. Gordon's left shoulder is sticking out into the sunlight as seen in the red oval cirlce. As Arnold turned his body to the right so to track the limo to the point that it was between he and Moorman his left shoulder rolled into the path of that Hudson tree shadow as seen with the green oval cirlce. I have marked that shadow with a red "x". (see attachment 3) 2) Now if we take the Betzner BDM, shich has a sharper image to work with than the Willis photo did, and overlay him onto the Arnold figure from Moorman's photograph - we find that by allowing the two images to run back and forth that we can see that turning of Arnold's body and the rolling of his left shoulder into the shade line that I just described. (see attachment 2) 3) All three camera positions (Moorman, Willis, and Betzner) show the figure to be on a LOS that crosses over each other at the very spot Arnold placed himself. (see attachment 1) I cannot explain why the HSCA didn't see this other than I wonder sometimes that they didn't want to identify that person as Arnold because that would mean having to deal with Arnold's claim. If I remember right ... the HSCA didn't utilize the walkway footage or Moorman's photograph. In the final analysis the person in both images had to be Arnold doing just what he claimed to be doing during the assassination. If the BDM is not Arnold, then there was no Arnold because a second man in a military uniform is not seen in the Betzner or Willis photographs. And when you consider that Arnold never said a word about someone blocking his view and both individuals seem to be someone in a military uniform with a camera - common sense should tell us that the figure was Arnold all along. I ask that you think this through thoroughly and see if what I have not just laid out is not only logical and supports what Gordon Arnold said, but that it's the only alternative there can be without dismissing Arnold as not really being where he said he was during the assassination. Sorry about the examples not being in numerical order for the forum did not place them in the order that I loaded them. This is why I referenced them in the text as attachment 1, 2 or 3 accordingly.

Pam - you may wish tor review my past replies for I have never said that JFK's right fist is seen in Altgens 6. I mearly said several times now that we see JFK's index finger, mouth and cheek in the area you had placed a box in the poor copy print you had initially used. It is "impossible" for JFK to have cast a reflection to the windshield and onto the back of the plastic mirror. The reason for my doing this is quite simple. There is less than 1/18th of a second between Z254 and Z255. Z255 is somewhat blurred, so I opted to use the better of the two frames considering that JFK did not change his his head and index finger position in less than 1/18th of a second. Between Z254 and Z256, I see Connally turn his head - the limo rotate - and JFK lower his right hand. (see attachments)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> ___________________________---- David Healy: Could I trouble you to request that you respond in english. I have no idea what " (b)dgh01" means???? I know the words "hardly" and "period", but I am accustomed to seeing them used in a sentence, so your post makes no sense to me. Thank you, Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dawn - If you look at many of other replies David Healy has made on this forum you will find them no better than the one he gave you. Groden was critical of what Lifton wrote in the 'Hoax book' and Healy feels that if he cannot counter with something intelligent - then his one word moronic replies will do. Expect another one very from him very soon!

Jack - I ask that you reconsider what you have said in the above statements for they do not support each other. First you acknowledge a belief that Gordon Arnold is seen in Moorman's photograph filming the assassination and that he is wearing his miltary uniform. Then you say that you do not believe that Gordon Arnold is the Black Dog Man (or BDM) in the Willis and Betzner photos where you go on to say that BDM is a man in a military uniform taking photos (film) and has been retouched to obsecure him. Whether those photos are retouched or not isn't the issue, but rather there is only one man in a military uniform seen over the concrete wall in Moorman's photo, so any man in a military uniform in the Betzner or Willis photo at the same location has to be the same person. If Arnold is in Moorman's photo, then he is also in the Betzner and Willis photos as well. Those repective LOS's from each photographers filming locations all meet at the very spot where Gordon Arnold said he was standing when the assassination took place. There is only 6 seconds between the time that the Willis photo and Moorman's Polaroid was taken. Arnold said he was already in position and filming the President as the limo was coming down Elm Street, thus the individual in all three photos being dicussed here has to be Gordon Arnold. I think once you have thought about this you will find that there can be no other choice but it to be Arnold in all three photos. (see the attachment below) The next two images show what I discovered when overlaying the shadow crossing over the BDM into the Arnold figure in Moorman's photograph. Aside from Arnold turning his torso slightly as he tracked the limo down Elm Street from the time the Willis photo was taken to the point Moorman took her Polaroid - the shadows match. The third image shows the shadow that Arnold/BDM was standing in and it is because he stood in the same tree shadow is why the shade line crossing his body matches in each picture. The poor quality images combined with the greater distance to the subject in the Willis and Betzner photos makes Arnold's other features difficult to pick up on, but not impossible! I truly believe that those who think the BDM is up at the wall has done so because of a term called "the foreshortening effect". This makes objects look closer than they really are much like how the train car looked like in the Nix film. In that instance the train car looked to be right behind the fence when in reality it was across the RR yard.

If Arnold therefore knew of the image before it was shown to him in TMWKK, then the surprise he showed in that video was contrived, was it not? Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron - It's important that we separate Mack's time with Arnold from Turner's. Let me see if I can better explain what evolved over time ... My understanding from talking to Gary Mack is that Gary called Arnold in 1982 and 1983 and during their conversation - Gary told Gordon that he may have a photo showing Gordon in the plaza. No other information was given to Gordon about what photo it was that may contain Gordon's image. Gordon then remarked that he would be interested in seeing this photo and Gary replied that he wanted to wait to see if he could get a clearer image made of it before showing it to Gordon. To Mack's knowledge - no one had shown Arnold any version of the Badge Man photo until Turner showed it to Gordon in the MWKK series. It was Gary Mack who discussed with Turner beforehand how they should present the Badge Man images to Gordon Arnold. You see, Gordon was not made aware that Turner would be showing him the photo that Mack talked about years earlier - Gordon was just granting an interview for all he knew. The interview showing Arnold looking at the Badge Man enlargements was conducted in Gordon's back yard. Turner merely presented Gordon with the colorized enlargement of Badge Man with a white piece of paper blocking out Arnold’s part of the picture and asked Gordon what it was that he saw in that image. This is what we see in the MWKK interview with Gordon. It wasn't until Gordon flips over the piece of paper and reveals what looked to him to be himself in his military uniform that he put two and two together. Gordon had already told of the hatless cop taking his film immediately after the assassination and now he was staring at an enlargement showing just such an individual firing a shot over Gordon's left shoulder. This is when Gordon became upset and how upset you did not see on the filmed interview because Turner edited it out. Both Turner and his associate producer (Sue Winter) told Mack that Gordon actually got up from the table and walked away into the back yard so shaken and emotional that Gordon's wife had to go to him to console Gordon. Both Sue Winter and NigelTurner said that they were amazed at how much this still bothered Arnold and that he was clearly affected by his experience on 11/22/63 after all that time.

I believe it was your initial remark that Jack was addressing when you said, "I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK." There was no following remarks made by you in that post as I recall that let Jack think you were not up to speed. This is a true statement and a justifiable one. However, the identity of the person becomes clear when no one in the plaza but that person could have told of the things that occurred at that location just prior, during and after the assassination like Gordon Arnold was able to do. "Certainty" comes with being familiar and up to speed with the evidence ... in this case it was over Gordon Arnold.

Additional information aquired through Gary Mack concerning Gordon Arnold: Gary Mack writes: Bill,I interviewed Arnold by phone two or three times in late 1982 and early 1983, and I asked the questions that Earl either did not or that were left out of his Dallas Morning News story in 1978. He related things to me that I thought could only have come from someone who had really been there at the time. Six years later, as senior consultant to TMWKK series, I asked Arnold to appear in the show. He was reluctant to do so, but his family convinced him to do it so there would be a permanent record of his story. When Nigel Turner offered him the standard $100 everyone was given for their time and trouble, Arnold was so offended he canceled the planned interview. Again his family ultimately convinced him to go ahead.Gary Mack