Bill Miller
-
Posts
5,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bill Miller
-
-
Sorry, but I and Bill live in the real world and understand how to challenge through cross examination. Many of you just spout off findings as you are used the workings of the WC and HSCA that did not allow cross challenging of evidence.
Healy has made enough replies on this forum to equal the text of one Commission volume, but has not cited enough evidence to fill one side of a packet of 'sweet n' low'. He tells people to buy a book claiming the Zapruder film is a hoax when he has read it himself and has since said that he has not seen anything that would prove the Zapruder film to be a hoax. His only position it seems is that while he has seen nothing to show the Zapruder film to be altered - he has not seen anything that proves it is the camera original, thus it's not been proven to be unaltered. That argument can be made for every photo or film taken in history and is a silly position to take.
-
There are two reasons for this rule. (1) Some members have accused others of not being the people they say they are. A photograph helps to provide evidence that they are really that person.
Those members continued doing that even after the pictures were put up.
(2) I have found that people with photographs as avatars are less likely to make or receive personal attacks on the forum. I suspect that the reason for this is that the photograph helps to humanize the member. I might be wrong about this, but I thought it was worth a try.That is a possibility. What I don't understand is unless you know someone and have seen them - how would you know the photo is really of them?
-
David..."Miller" has never grasped our position. ZAPRUDER
DID NOT TAKE THE ZAPRUDER FILM. It is doubtful that
he and Sitzman were even on the pedestal (see the
Zapruder Waltz). The entire film is a fabrication of unknown
origin.
Jack
So Jack - let me see if I understand you correctly ... are you saying that Zapruder and Sitzman were part of some plot to come in after the assassination and just say that they were on the pedestal filming the motorcade? Let me divide your only alternatives into two possibilities. One scenario is that no one was ever on the pedestal at all and the other scenario is that the two people on the pedestal were not Zapruder and Sitzman.
For no one to be on the pedestal at all during the assassination ... that would mean that Bronson's film is doctored - Nix's film is doctored - The Willis photo is doctored - the Betzner photo is doctored - the Paschall film is doctored - and that the Moorman photo is doctored. Now you and I have already talked about Moorman's photo being genuine because she kept it in her possession for the 30 minutes after the assassination when a film crew talked to her and taped her photo. Moorman's photo shows two people on the pedestal. If Moorman's photo is genuine like you have said in the past, then this means that the Wiegman film has been doctored to the point of removing Zapruder and Sitzman, while leaving them in all the remaining photos and films or there is another set of circumstances at play here that you have failed to consider. I believe it is the latter. I believe that Zapruder is blocking out Sitzman in the frames you have chosen and that his dark clothing is blended into the background. If this is not the case, then the Wiegman film has been altered and it makes no sense to have altered a poor blurry film to start with and not correct all the others. If you look at the Mark Oakes work on the Paschall film you will see Zapruder actually getting off of the pedestal.
If your position was that someone filmed from atop of the pedestal, but it was not Zapruder, then who was on the pedestal dressed like Zapruder and Sitzman? Also, tell me how did these alleged impostors get Zapruder's home movies on the same roll of film that that the assassination was recorded on? How did these alleged impostors get Sitzman to turn around and face the camera as she spoke with the Hester's? How did the impostors get the film to Zapruder to take back to his office? These are questions that should be considered when considering the plausibility of your observation. One other thing also worth mentioning here ... are you not aware that the Hester's followed Zapruder and Sitzman into the shelter and spoke to them for a while after the assassination? Have the Hester's ever once said that the man and woman they seen before, during or after the assassination was anyone other than Zapruder and Sitzman? If they did, then I am not aware of it.
Below in the first attachment is Sitzman and Zapruder walking away from the pedestal as seen in the Bell film. I also have attached a clip showing Sitzman that Abraham Zapruder took of her as she stood next to the Hester's talking to them before the arrival of the motorcade. Note the same dress and black scarf she is seen wearing on and around the pedestal in the other assassination images of them. I might also add that in the clip of Sitzman near the Hester's that her dark scarf blends into the shade of the pergola. From the distance Wiegman was from them and the film being blurred the way it is - it's no wonder Zapruder's dark clothing hid the two of them against the background of the tree foliage.
You consider what I have stated here and see if it doesn't explain the Wiegman film not showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal to your satisfaction.
-
dgh01: you went ahead an edited your original post -- so hear we go again--
Nothing of substance has been changed in my replies.
dgh01: push? Never collected a dime...
"Pushing a book" does not mean you are the one profitting from it. Please stay focused.
dgh01: evidence of alteration? Why would I post that? A simple scenario and explanation elludes you: IF the film was altered, here's how it COULD of been altered, that was the thesis for the HOAX chapter, right in the first page -- Have you actually READ the article? tsk-tsk! All other claims as to my pushing the alteration scenario, from your side of the fence are, quite simply BOGUS...
I realize that one can sit around and think up ways that a film could have been altered, that's the easy part. Finding evidence for such an idea is the hard part! I can tell everyone how Nellie and Jackie can be switched out so to make it appear Jackie was riding with Connally and Nellie with Kennedy - so what good does it do if the other films and photos don't support what I'm suggesting? I cannot realistically just tell everyone that the other films and photos are a sideshow and should be ignored because that's taking information away from the researcher in order to make a suggested scenario look plausible.
dgh01: tell people to buy HOAX? no young Bill -- READ Hoax! Scientic evidence of chicanry, 2nd class propogandist have tried to debunk it, Dr. Costella's work stands.
Let me say this again ... Costella wrote about how Moorman's photo could have been altered because of an imaginary 27 hour window of opportunity he came up with. Jack White has already acknowledged that Moorman's photo was still in her possession when it was shown to the TV people for filming not more than 30 minutes after the assassination. Costella must not have known this when he wasted all that book space, but even worse is someone now knowing the facts and then still talking about Costella's work still standing.
About your saying just "READ THE BOOK" ... you need to find a site that doesn't archive your post. Let me share something you said just recently ------
David G. Healy Nov 5 2004, 03:46 AM Post #9
Experienced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 13-May 04
Member No.: 712
Buy the book, HOAX -- it's all in there....
David Healy
dgh01: and the attacks on Jack White continue, thank you Mr. Peter's!
I believe it was you who called all the other photo and film evidence a sideshow. It just so happens that Jack White put on the so-called 'sideshow' evidence in the Hoax book. If you don't want Jack mentioned, then I'd give a little more thought to your replies in the future before posting them. This is just what this thread was about. So try to cite facts and not just opinions that have nothing to support them and more importantly ... keep it straight as to what you have previously said in the past.
One word of advice - I would also appreciate you keeping it straight as to who you are posting to. If you can't keep the simple things straight, then you aren't going to find a lot of people taking you serious over the more complex issues like the need for scientific testing on the Zapruder film.
-
Forensic testing of the film, verifying [very simple process] the authenticity of any of these pieces of film, would move mountains for the non-alteration Z-film camp. But all we get is reguritated Dale Myers 3D version of 2D imagery, nonesense. Of which we'll be blessed with more in a few weeks time, AGAIN! Must be another anniversary...
When testing was done to the original Dillard negatives - they ended up be damaged. People, like yourself, have complained bitterly how the Zapruder film was allowed to be spliced in two separate places and now without offering any valid observation of something on the film not representing what actually occurred ... you want to risk destroying what's left of the camera original. You must be joking! What's worse is that you don't see why anyone would be hesitant to risk further damage to that film. It's like with a missing person's case - you first have to show that someone is missing. You certainly don't just send the authorities out looking for someone without establishing a basis for the need to do so in the first place. That can be done by comparing the Zapruder film to the existing 'sideshow' images from other films and photos taken during the assassination. Many of us have done this and we cannot find any differences between them all. If you can find one, then let us know ... then I'll be pushing for an investigation, as well.
Below is what can happen when a photo or film has been scientifically tested.
-
Quite frankly a few of us think the majority of debates regarding DP imagery, other than the Z-film and the Moorman5 photo is diversion - the only Nov 22nd '63 film of consequence is the Zapruder Film -- all the rest is *sideshow* fodder...
David Healy
Film/Video Special Effects
Compositing Specialist
Broadcast Consultant
David - As I recall ... the last time you offered an opinion about the Zapruder film you had said that you have not seen any proof that the Zfilm has been altered. Has that opinion changed lately?
I also find it somewhat odd that you mention the other film and photo evidence as a "sideshow". If one goes back into the alteration thread on this forum or looks at the Fetzer book that you like to push so often - it dealt with mostly "sideshow" material as you now call it. While you never offered any data or evidence in the alteration thread on this forum, you certainly participated in it more times than one cares to count. So apparently being a part of what you call a sideshow has not concerned you. I might also add that not once in your section of the 'Hoax' book did you mention that the other related materials in that book was part of any sideshow, yet on this forum that is how you refer to them. I might also add that two other films {the Nix and Muchmore films) captured the point in time that Moorman's #5 photo was taken, so are they not important as well. So please try to take one position or the other because things are starting to sound a bit confusing ... on one hand all the other photo and film evidence is a side show not worthy of consideration IYO, yet you tell people to buy 'Hoax" which is mostly nothing but claims using film captures and photos that you now say is nothing more than a sideshow. That cannot make any sense to someone following what you've said on this site.
I will say this ... In the event that you fall back on the side of thinking the Zapruder film is altered and you wish to address the evidence concerning the Zapruder film, please feel free to do so and do so specifically. If one only replies to such issues on a constant basis without offering any evidence in support of their position, then that only makes them a "Sideshow Bob" who is better known as being 'Crusty the Clowns' sidekick!
-
I agree that there are a number of factors coming into play here. By using the full frame as illustration you are showing us another one -- the Stemmons Freeway sign, which may also have been a factor in these frames.
Your answer seems a bit generic, so forgive me if I misunderstood you, but if you are saying the road sign had cast a shadow onto Connally, then that is in error. All the shadows ran northeast from their source. (see Z140 below)
I don't see any actual movement in these frames of JBC's jacket.Again, I am not sure if I am understanding what you have said. When you say that you do not see any actual movement of Connally's coat, I assume you are not talking about the lapel flap in my earlier clips. If you are talking about the shoulder movement of Connally, then that is why I placed a white line through the crossbar and another across the tops of Connally's shoulders so everyone could see the sudden forward and downward pitch his upper torso took as the bullet passed through his body.
Maybe my showing the vast pitch in line change between Z223 and Z226 will help. Note how the pitch of Connally's shoulders changes from the crossbar in those 4 short frames, which equates to less than 1/4 of a second in time. If you look to the left of the screen (Connally's right) where the two white lines start and watch the lower line move - it swings forward. The same line as seen at the right of the screen (Connally's left) swings upward. That's how we can judge the momentum of the impact that hit Connally in the right shoulder for it spun him much faster than the limo is rotating as it passes through Zapruder's field of view.
-
Bill Miller said:
The bullet that exited Connally never came close to the lapel flap.
Agreed. My thinking is that the 'flip' was in fact a shadow caused by the small side window in the center partition of the limousine. JBC's position changes because he is rotating forward, perhaps in reaction to the sound of the shot that hit JFK in the throat.
Pamela
It seems that if a window on the car was casting a shadow that it would have been doing so the entire time Connally was coming down Elm Street just prior top the flip and immediately afterwards. Connally placed the moment he was hit when he grimaces at Z224. A careful study of his right shoulder dropping and coming forward while the left shoulder rises is supportive of a bullet just being driven through the Governor. (see above)
Something I pointed out on Lancer about the shadows being cast in the plaza ...
If one also looks closely at the film clips they will find that the solid dark area moves from left to right when covering the shirt and right to left when exposing it. As I pointed out before - the shadows are being cast from the south side of Elm Street to the north side. It is virtually impossible for a shadow to retract across Connally, thus exposing his shirt when moving from south to north. If a shadow is going to retract, then it has to go back towards it's source. The Zapruder film frame #140 in my prior response shows the direction that all the shadows are being cast in relation to their source. (see below)
-
For many years some have viewed the flipping up of Connally's lapel at Z224 as meaning that a bullet had struck it as it passed througn the Governor. Wind gust were appearent by looking at the Muchmore and Zapruder films as Hill, Moorman and Oliver's coats flipped around in the wind. Just the other day a researcher named 'Moriarty' had pointed out something I had never noticed before. Moriarty saw that Connally's lapel was flipping around as he came out from behind the road sign. What was seen at Z224 (known as "the lapel flip") was the lapel flipping back upwards again. I offer some slow motion clips of the lapel falling down and going back up as Connally emerges from behind the road sign.
The first clip is the lapel falling back down from having already been flipped up while behind the road sign.
The second clip will show the lapel come down and go back up.
A photo of Connally's coat can be seen on Lancer at ...
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p..._id=21048&page=
The bullet that exited Connally never came close to the lapel flap.
-
Why are you both using this forum for this stupid argument anyway? We can all read the book on this subject and decide for ourselves. This is what spreaders of disinformation always do: promote silly arguments to keep peoples' minds of the real issues. I don't know if this is the case with you and Bill, but it is really annoying, nonetheless.
Dawn
Dawn - I take it you have not followed many JFK assassination forums. What happens is there are a select few who never have any evidence to present in support of their opinions - they just make silly say-nothing-post because in their minds they think that makes up for what they don't know about the case. I mean ... who in their right mind would keep telling people to go buy a book that declares Zfilm alteration that they have already said how it didn't offer them anything that would prove the Zapruder film to be altered? How far would you get as an attorney if you only told the jury what you were going to show concerning someone's guilt or innocence, but actually never did it. I don't go back and forth with Healy as if to be arguing with him because he offers no evidence to argue about. I do it so to let people see the mindset of some so-called researchers who promote a conclusion when in reality they have little to no knowledge of the case and to show how far they'll go without ever really trying to learn the evidence surrounding Kennedy's murder.
-
don't know -- all expenses were paid! Just the way they do it in the big leagues...
There wasn't said to be 25 to 30 people there in total - If you and others didn't pay, then the one poor sap that did pay must have been stuck good!
Lisen Missah Bill, I suh-do has the English language purfected, use need better ears, ya'all heah'a...that's 'youse' tsk-tsk
David Healy
If you talked at Fetzerfest like you do on this forum, then I have to wonder if there was anyone there who was capable of noticing your vocabulary mistakes. I know that where I went to school - even the kids who rode the little bus knew better than to use a word like "use" for the word "you's" ... yet you continue to do it even after you've been told about it. Maybe Fetzer was happy to just get whoever he could - I only know that in Dallas they seem to frown on speakers who haven't at least mastered the English language better than what you've done.
-
It is interesting that purportedly Alan Sweatt identified Braden from that photograph. How and Why? Was it because he had seen Braden that day coming in for questioning and recognised his hat and glasses?
Wim
I've never followed the Braden stuff much, but the sunglasses on these two men may be the same style which hardly makes them the same person. In them days there was not a big selection of sunglasses like there is today. I recall seeing some photos where even JFK was wearing a pair just like them. The two hats and the clothing doesn't match exactly either.
In the clip attached below is supposed to be a man named Ernest Brandt. Ernest said he didn't wear sunglasses on the day of the assassination, nor did he admit to ever smoking a pipe. The man in the clip seems to be wearing dark glasses and I bet that if we could have seen a good clear image of this man up close that he, too would have glasses on just like the two men in the Braden comparison. That horned rimmed style was worn by about everyone in 63'.
-
There were lots of mystery men in and around the plaza possibly, but the two men in these images are not one and the same person from what I can see. When their noses are sized to match in height and width - other dimensions pertaining to the face and head do not match. While they appear similar at a glance - distances from certain reference points on their head are completely different from one another.
-
Wim,
It is interesting that you down me and I am offering a suggestion.
Maybe there isn't anything to the Files story and so often all that Jimmy did state to me was Well they are in it for the money and hey nothing wrong with that.
Nancy - are you talking about Jimmy Files or Jimmy Stewart the actor this time?
-
dgh01: Well, you responded, eh? And, I was invited to speak one year, unfornately, I was called out of the country for a bit of work, sigh.
Yeh - I think anyone can speak the first time ... it's only after you've been heard is how they decide if they ever want you back.
C'mon Larry Peter's -- you had plenty of time to check out what you needed to, shall I post the URL's, AGAIN? Where did this Larry Peters guy disappear to?I will tell you what I told Jack White - Larry seemed to be responding to the photo and film alteration thread that has been dead for some time now. He has been seen looking in at various times. I believe one of those times can be witnessed in a recent thread where a capture of the board showed several users who were on at the same time. Larry was one of them.
Then again if The Tinkster; Josiah Thompson and all the rest of the junior varsity [including you] couldn't overcome the burden showing Dr. John Costella and the rest of us regarding the Z-film wrong -- Hey.... roflmfao...You sound like Baghdad Bob telling everyone how Saddam had the US on the run. You can say it, but none of it is true.
Buy the book, HOAX -- it's all in there.... Ever get that "seamless' DP film comparison done yet? What's it been now 3 years.....? What a farce the other side of this question is. Preservers of history, H O W L .... I think not!None of the assassination films start and stop at the same times, so seemless is just talk by someone who knows little about the films. Anyone can use the head shot to Kennedy as a reference point and advance the films forwards or backwards and not see a single descrepency between any of the films. Instead of asking someone to do a lot of work for nothing - why don't you just point out a particular point in time on the films where you don't think they match and we'll all take a look at it. (Oh that's right ... you've posted before that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration)
What's a matter with "all use guys?" When use guys are charging $200 bucks a head for a little get together in Dallas, rehashing the same-o, same-o... Give us guys a break, use guys! rofl...
David Healy
How much did it cost everyone to go to 'Fetzerfest' in Minnesota? Besides, I think Conway will discount your ticket if you can show her you have successfully mastered the use of the English language and stop saying words like "use" in place of "you's".
-
John
Maybe you should first give me your list of what you consider to be experienced JFK researchers.
are Posner, Mack, Perry, Vernon, Zack Shelton, Joe West, Blakey, Dale Meyers on it?
Marrs, Groden, Dale-Scott, Fetzer, Epstein?
I have been studying the case myself since 1988. Do I qualify?
Also, would anyone of the Warren Commission qualify as experienced JFK researcher?
Wim
I find it interesting how many CT's do not even believe James Files. Wim and I touched on Files story on Lancer and I could not find a shred of evidence between the two witnesses who saw the area behind the fence and the photographical evidence that would help substantiate Files claims. We can see Badge Man and he doesn't fit Files claim. Then there are two men seen along the westward stretch of fence and only one was up by it that had a gun. That man was described as heavy-set ... something Files was not. That man's actions post assassination were witnessed by Hoffman and this individual didn't do what Files claim to have done.
-
dgh01: Come on Bill.... 4 or 5 folks will show up in Dallas this year, someone will lay down a bit of video to tape, Debra will declare a great turnout -- all the re-pugnicans down 'thar' will pat each other on the back and say what a great public service the 6th floor performs and all use guys will climb back under the rocks whence you came for ANOTHER year.
Your foolish reply is not worthy of a response, but maybe you'd be invited to a Lancer conference if you could show that you have learned the English language correctly. "all use guys" LOL!
Still need help in getting that interview with ADOBE, PHOTOSHOP software groupknow lots of folks at their world headquarters there in downtown San Jose, you are familiar with Silicon Valley aren't ya?David
I don't think I need anything from you. However, you are welcome to show your expertise by sharing your JFK enhancements and clips for I cannot recall ever seeing one before. Maybe seeing something from the Master will inspire me to do better.
-
$200.- dollars, a head? I'm in the wrong business... LOL
David - people probably have been saying that you are in the wrong business everytime they see your work ... I know they say it when they have read one of your replies on a JFK forum ... ROTFLMAO!
-
I think the location that Arce is talking about is in the area of the red "X".
-
Great post, Bill
The avulsed (shot out) skull parts on the back of JFK's
head is the key evidence in the whole conspiracy.
Shot from the front.
(and other directions)
Shanet
Here is part of what I said about the avulsion on Lancer and peoples misunderstanding as to why the hole is not seen on the Zapruder film. I am attaching some of the cleanest images of the Zapruder film showing this avulsion. Particular interest should be given to Z321, Z335, and Z337. (Allow the enlargement function to come up for a closer inspection)
We see the bone plate and from where it came because it was so large and the sun illuminated the inner area of the skull. The avulsion is a different matter. The bones being sprung outward is what allowed an opening to be viewed through the hair when seen from behind. Some people forget that the hole seen at Parkland was a result of the opening from these fractured bones being avulsed outward. By the time the body had gotten to Bethesda it appears that some of these fractured bones had either been removed or had fallen off because then it is referred to as a large hole without the mentioning of the avulsed bones. When we view some of the cleanest images of the Zapruder film we cannot even see facial detail, so to expect to see the individual avulsed bones on the back of the head with any clarity is not a reasonable expectation. To use such an argument for there not being a large wound to the back of the skull is even more unreasonable under these conditions. It's the conical shape of the back of the President's head that tells the story and supports the rear head wound. There is no doubt in my mind that this is why Arlen Specter avoided any indepth discussion by the Dallas doctors concerning the wound each time a Physician brought it up. It is also fair to assume why the HSCA was given a false report that said that no Bethesda personnel had seen such a wound.
-
Wrone believes the Z film is genuine. His book has been
discredited by Jim Fetzer, I believe.
Jack
Jack - this may appear to be a zinger and maybe it is, but Fetzer's book didn't do anything but make Wrone's book look good despite Wrone making some silly suppositions like it maybe being Oswald in the doorway of the TSBD in Altgens number 6 photograph. And as far as DelleRosa's site and it being too hot - CT's also got the hell off it because it was getting to be a rabid photo and film alteration site. Just like the train window post you put on this site ... had that of been made on the DelleRosa site, then there would have been a handful of half-wits joined in and started harping about someone being a disinformationist who disagreed with your observation without ever looking to see if what was being said was true or not. On this forum - someone like Tim who has leaned towards the classic gunman figure at least considered the scaling and foreshortening effect between the Murry photo and the Nix film before being so quick to think there was some alteration at play.
As far as Rahn goes - there is an argument that he, nor any LN's can make in their favor and that is over the avulsed bones on the back of Kennedy's head. It's a simple rule of physics that says that when applied force is given to an object that it will avulse the exiting surface in the direction the penetrating force was moving. If we stick our finger through a piece of paper - the paper avulses/pushes outward in the direction that the penetrating force is being applied. The bones on the back of JFK's head were avulsed to the rear, thus the bullet was traveling front to back. The Government dealt with this by ignoring the large hole on the back of JFK's head altogether. Doctor after Doctor mentioned this avulsion to Arlen Specter and Specter quickly moved on as if he had no interest in talking about this wound. The reason was quite simple - the more detail that is given to it - the more one has top address why such a wound is not seen on the autopsy photographs. When the HSCA took up their investigation - they were given a falsified report saying that no Bethesda personnel claimed to have seen this large hole in the back of the President's head. It was only after the HSCA had finished their work that it was discovered that in fact each and every person at Bethesda who saw Kennedy's head wound had described the large hole as being there. Tanenbaum talked about this on one of the most recent MWKK series. By someone offering that falsified report to the HSCA - they were able to make it appear as if all the Dallas medical personnel and witnesses had merely been mistaken about this large avulsed wound on the back of JFK's head. That sentiment of everyone being mistaken about the wound still lives on today even though the mortician who prepared Kennedy's body said that he had to place a rubber pad over the large hole in the back of Kennedy's skull so the head would look right as it laid on the coffin's pillow. Most LNr's don't even know these things and some do, but have an agenda for pretending they don't know them or dismissing them altogether. People can argue most of the evidence on the JFK assassination and come up with some kind of spin in their favor, but the one area that takes nothing but faith to make the lone assassin scenario look plausible is over the ignoring the large avulsed wound to the back of JFK's head. Now to do this they have to assume that all those at JFK's autopsy and the mortician that prepared the body for burial were also mistaken. Mass mistakeness is what they must call it. Taken such a position only makes them look foolish to about everyone but themselves.
-
I believe this effect relates to focal length. A telephoto lense brings objects proportionately closer than a shorter focal length lense.
Tim
Tim is right in part - there is a varying foreshortening effect going on with one camera over the other. The more zoom on the lens - the greater the foreshortening effect.
But there is more to it than this. The scaling of the two photos against one another is also a factor. One photo taken far away - the other taken close up. All Jack has done was scale the two train windows to about the same size and has ignored the vast differrences in size of everything else within the photo. Had he of done it the other way by scaling something else to match the size of something in the RR yard - then the train windows would no longer match in size. Here is an example ...
Below is Moorman's photo of the limo and a Muchmore film frame of the limo. Muchmore was basically looking over Moorman's shoulder when JFK was fatally shot. Two different cameras seeing the same thing from different distances. I have placed Moorman's photo over the Muchmore frame and made the rear wheel on the limo the same size in both. Notice how much different in size the wall, the pedestal, Hudson on the steps and other things are between the two images even though the limo is to scale in both images. (see attachment 1)
-
deleted for space
-
I have said that nobody was on the bridge at the time the President came into the zone. I do remember that there were people above the President on the north side on the underpass, on the bridge, about six or seven as the Limo passed under. I remember Sergio and I questioned that.
Mr. STERN - Yes. Can you estimate the number of people that were on the overpass immediately as the motorcade came into view?
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, I would estimate that there was between 14 to 18 people.
Mr. STERN - So, that it is fair to say that at the time the President's motorcade turned into this area, there was no one on the overpass that you didn't know either as Terminal Co. employees, or railroad employees, or as a policeman?
Mr. HOLLAND - Wouldn't be fair to say that, because there was quite a few came up there right in the last moments.
The Bell film shows two or three RR employees where the overpass slants towards the picket fence and the Altgens 7 photo shows 11 witness from the column south of the south side curb to the north side of the street. (See images 1 and 2.}
I remember a man leaning over the back of the Limo and notice that people were on the bridge above the limo as it past under. That was just before we reached the man in the pickup truck.There was a man standing on the south side of a pickup truck.
note: It has been said that a south knoll shot would put Jackie and the Texas Gov. in the path and a shot could not have come from the south side of the Plaza. I might point out the slight curve to the southwest at the point of impact about four or five degrees just before it makes a more of a turn, about ten or twenty degrees) before reaching the underpass. If you draw a line and the Limo is even with Main, then the line would rule out a south shot, but turn the limo five degrees to the left (south) and what do you have? A second or two and.., "An open window for a clean shot"...: Check it out.I assume we are not talking about a first shot being there was no damage to the windshield as late as Altgens 6. The trajectory to JFK and the occupants positions would depend on where the limo was between Z312 and Z313.
JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I don't think I saw where the pic has to be a recent one, so maybe a baby photo will suffice.