Bill Miller

Your picture:  Wrong place. Wrong location on picture. Sloppy research on your part.  If my credibility is nill , then you have just proven yours is less than nill. Get it together and re read other peoples post as to where I and Sergio were standing.  Get your facts right before you go spouting off on things you know nothing about... Done deal..  Tosh

I thought I made it clear what the picture was about. If you had read the post more carefully ... I had said that this example showed that even though some people had thought this man to be sitting in the bed of a truck - he is actually standing beind it. The enhamcement makes that quite clear and nowhere did I say it represented where you claimed to have been positioned because I do not know for certain where that is at this time. Please try to follow the questions and postings with more attention being given to the details and with less emotion.

deleted for space

deleted for space

deleted for space

deleted for space

Badge Man exposures: Notice how when light is added to the Badge Man figure that the foliage in the background fades away and his body line does not. If Badge Man was just the foliage and an illusion of light passing through the trees, then he should fade away equally with his surroundings, but as you can see - this does not happen.

I understand that B&W images are hard for some people to pick shapes out of. Had Moorman of used color film, then we would see color differences in Badge Man's appearance against the foilage behind him. This is why Jack White colored the image so the average person could make out the outline features. But there are things like lighting contrasting that can show separation between he and his background and all I can tell you is this is something that supports his being a real live being standing behind the wooden fence.

deleted for space

deleted for space

Well...uh, Bill, uh Larry, uh Tim...thanks for taking my bait in the latest

of your multiple personalities. Your flood of postings in this latest trivial

subject fits right in. Whatever name you use, you are always identifiable by

your attack writing style in whichever forum you assail me.  """""""   You really should UPDATE your ACT.

You are really getting tiresome in your same old "Get Jack" campaign. It

is very transparent.

Jack - you are such a paranoid fool. So Now Tim, Myself and Larry Peters are all the same person in your shorted out brain. Yeh, Jack - Tim and I are just the multiple personalities of one person who have been arguing with each other for a month on the classic gunman issue - first on Lancer and then here. You need to quit thinking that you are that important that anyone needs to go after you because in reality you have become your own worst enemy. People may disagree with your observation(s) and not be attacking you the person. You need to learn how to spearate the two.

"Larry" quit the forum after being exposed. Will "Tim"? Or maybe his

handlers will retrain him to do his job better.

Jack

Larry never quit this forum or Lancer's. Once in a while he can be seen logged in when some of the rest of us are Online. From reading the past threads it looks like Larry was posting on film alteration, which that thread has been dead for quite some time. He probably feels there is nothing here that he can add that hasn't been said. You need to find something else to occupy your time besides sitting around and trying to play 'MASTER SPY'!

Why does everyone IGNORE THE EMPTY PEDESTAL in Wiegman

but claim the other pedestal images are genuine? The pedestal

was (and is) in bright open sunlight, and Wiegman's camera

would have filmed anybody on top of the pedestal as well

as any other camera.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack - as you know - the Wiegman film is a B&W image and is limited on color tone. If you take the dark image of some of the people along Elm Street and move them up into the tree line - they too will disappear by blending into the tree foliage. There is one Wiegman film frame where Sitzman's legs can be made out as she is getting off the pedestal. Trying to use a poor film as this to make a case that all the other films and photos must be altered is nonsense IMO.

Do you really consider it balanced to keep hassling me over your your same old Moorman polaroid certainty (including the certainty of the visibility of Badgeman and Hatman) while not taking issue with the outrageousness of your tag team partner Jack's assertions?  You aren't trying to add to the discussion, you're repetitiously trying to shut it down.  I don't see you stalking Nancy Eldreth, and since you've gone on record as placing me in a category with her, go pick on some other "nut."  You can't find one reasonable point I've made on this thread, as I have sought to do with regard to you?

Tim

Tim - I have said that your observation that the light spots were visible in the Bell film were correct ... it was just your not understanding that a photo was taken of the same area between the Nix film and the Bell film and no one is seen standing there. Only the light spots on the shelter wall are seen. Moorman just happens to be the person who took that photograph and is why she is mentioned so much. The discussion does not have to stop. What needs to stop is the assertion that the light spots you speak of are the image of a gunman because the Moorman photo shows no one at the wall. This is common sense 101. There are only two alternatives - Moorman's photo was altered to hide the gunman or her photo is genuine and the image you see in the Nix film is an illusion.

Regardless of Hat Man or Badge Man - they are moot points and can be discussed on their own. The fact is there is absolutely no one at the shelter wall in Moorman's photo. I assume that even Nancy has realized this.

deleted for space

I don't anything about Zapruder and Sitzman being on the pedestal - off the pedestal - and back on the pedestal. The Zapruder film is a countinula pan of Elm Street - the location can be substantiated through recreation vies - Zapruder and Sitzman are seen on the pedestal in Betzner's photo - Willis's photo - Bronson's slide - the Nix film ... all supportive of where we see both these people in the Zapruder film.

Zapruder and Sitzman stood inside the shelter for a while after the shooting while talking to the Hester's. They can be seen together in one of Altgens photographs taken post assassination.

While I can see why you (Tim) see a face in the sun spot on the wall - I do not see how you could have thought it to be a real person once you were presented with Moorman's photograph. You have mentioned occams razor a few times, so let me share the definition with everyone ...

Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor

Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz-

Function: noun

Etymology: William of Occam

Date: circa 1837

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

It seems to me that once Moorman's photograph was shown to you - you had stopped applying occams razor.

The autopsy photos and x-rays are another matter. That's a complete mess. At least one autopsy photo, showing the back of JFK's head intact, is obviously faked. I'm referring to the films and photos from Dealey Plaza when I say that alteration of that material, even if it were feasible, didn't accomplish anything, so what would be the point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, Ron.

Here is an example of what different cameras can do when it comes to making alike objects look different. There was a set of light spots on the shelter wall that I put a box around. One of those shadows looks like the letter "C". I located it with an arrow. Note the difference in the light patterns all around it on the shelter wall when viewed between Moorman's camera image and Nix's. (Hopefully the enlargement box will appear when the attachment is opened ... it sometimes take a moment to come up)

If you go back to the photo that you referred me to, the one that shows the woman in red, and you look at the light and shadow on the shelter wall to her left (our right), to me that basically says it all. That to me looks exactly like the kind of light and shadow, in exactly that spot, that produced the gunman image. Why is it more complicated than that?

As for this alteration business, even assuming that the conspirators somehow were able to gather up all these films and photos and alter them, what was the point? Allegedly people's shoes change color etc. in Zapruder. What's the point? How do any of the alterations claimed by the alterationists help to establish the lone nut theory and frame Lee Harvey Oswald? They don't as far as I know. It makes no sense to me that all this alteration was done to accomplish absolutely nothing.

But that's just my humble opinion.

Ron

Ron - I agree, too many times there are film and photo alteration claims being made because someone has missread an image. In this case - Jack says that the Nix film was altered, but was it really? Jack doesn't seem to ever look for the most non-conspiratorial answer first, but rather goes right to the conspiracy claim. If one wants to know if there was a shooter removed from the shelter wall or not - simply use a photo that shows that location that has been shown to be unaltered. Moorman's photo can be shown to have been unaltered because it was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination. No opportunity is there for alteration of her photo to have occurred. That alsone shows us that if no one is on the sidewalk near the shelter wall in the unaltered Moorman photo, then they cannot be there in the dark Nix film, nor were they retouched out of the Nix film. That's just common sense!

To address something Tim said concerning how a movie screen is viewed in a theater and about the shapes at the wall looking a bit different in Nix than in Bell ... let me say this ... Different cameras see objects differently because their lenses are not the same. The light spots in Moorman are still on the wall, but compare them to how they look in the Nix film and they will appear slightly different. Also, the angle at which an image appears will change from location to location. For instance if you see the fence from down low - it may appear to run on a slant whereas if you see it from staight on it may appear to look flat and horizontal. All these sorts of things come into play and are not always considered, which can lead to unnecessary alteration claims being made.

Response to 3: In Nix, the entire area has been blacked-in, including the sky. (see attached)

Jack - I have to question this observation of yours for a couple of reasons. Even in the Bond and other photos there is a certain amount of darke area seen over the fence because of the foliage. The elevation and direction the camera is pointed is also a factor IMO. Willis and Bond are looking more in a westward direction whereas Niz is looking in a more Northwestern direction which carries with it a slightly different background and clustering the of foliage. Nix also has his camera zoomed in and I bet if he had panned back - the sky above the dence foliage would have been visible. There is also the filter factor that Nix failed to use on his lens that made these areas so dark. Groden also told me that the film we see today is a copy he had made where he did a process called "blocking" which made the shaded area so black looking, too.

Response to 4: Look at the second part of Nix IN MOTION. The train windows move. I discovered

this in the 70s using a 16mm copy of the film provided by Penn Jones. I am relying on memory

from 30+ years ago, and have not checked the film lately.

I just looked at Groden's copy of the Nix film and I cannot see the train windows move one inch from the shelter wall which I used for a reference point. Nix pans his camera around and the windows stretch and change shape slightly which makes them look as if they moved, but when the next clear frame comes up - the windows are just as they were before from what I can see.

There IS A CAR in the parking lot, and many thought a gunman

was leaning on top of it. For a couple of years, I considered that to

be a possibility...but after much study concluded it was part

illusion and part retouching.

Jack - why on earth would anyone retouch someone to make them appear to be an assassin? I mean if you admit that part of the illusion were sun spots, then something else made up the rest, so why retouch it at all, especially to make people think they see an assassin. What am I missing here?

1. Itek was correct...part of the image is sunlight spots on the pergola.

That's correct. The alleged head and left arm shape are sun spots on the wall. The horizontal left arm shape is light showing from under the RR car across the parking lot.

2. If part of the "man" was sunlight spots, "he" did not exist, despite opinions.

That's correct, as well. The fact that the exact same spot is seen in Moorman's photo proves no one was standing in front of that shelter wall near the steps leading into the doorway.

3. The Nix film is radically retouched in this area and others.

I have not a clue as to what is supposed to be retouched or how such a claim is justified.

4. The image of the MOVING TRAIN WINDOWS was added. There was no moving train.

Where are their moving train windows? The train is standing still - the same train is seen in the Bond photos. The only thing that was moving was Nix.

I have made my opinion VERY CLEAR! There was NO "classic" nor "cartop" gunman. It

is a combination of light spots on the pergola and clever red herring retouching. Here

is a good color copy.

Since there was NO GUNMAN (classic or cartop), it is pointless to discuss "him". "He"

did not exist.

Very simple.

Jack

Jack - you are correct about the car issue.

Now about those light spots you called "retouched". You know Moorman's photo was an instant photo and it was filmed for TV less than 30 minutes following the assassination. The photo at that time had not been out of Moorman and Hill's control. With that being said and with the idea that the light spots are still visible in later Nix frames and in Bell's film as Tim pointed out - why do you say it is 'retouching' seen on the Nix film when Moorman's genuine unaltered photo shows no one standing there?

Bill

Jack,

If the HSCA did not include these enhancements in its report then I am mistaken.  I'm pretty sure you don't mean that, but if you assert that you do, I will go to the HSCA exhibits and produce the relevant page/number/whatever.  I have never represented their original source, but I understand they were incorporated as HSCA exhibits.  Are you really contesting that?  Let's be clear.  And what was the motive of this work of yours, in terms of what you were seeking to demonstrate?  Please explain what you mean by "retouching" and why you refer to what the HSCA referred to as the "classic gunman" as the "cartop gunman" (this is the first I have heard of that terminology).  As I have made clear about my examination, there is no way the gunman could have been atop the car and be in front of the pergola wall.

Tim

Just so we are all on the same page here - here is the link to the HSCA hearings showing the source for the Nix enhancements we have been using. Jack may have done his own at some point, but they are not the ones I have been posting. Page 128 says and I quote: "Computer enhancement work was carried out at both the Aerospace Corps. and the Los Alamos Scientific Labratory.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0067b.htm

I have said in the past that I do not understand why anyone would think someone was at the car in the parking lot with a rifle. I could see them being there if they were wanting to shoot Orville Nix because they could see him, but not Kennedy. I say this because the car, nor the Parking lot can be seen from where Mary is standing because she is too far over the wall to be seen from the alleged shooters location in the parking lot. All Mary can see in her photo is the top of a tree that was even further back in the parking lot. So if she is too low to be seen, then JFK surely cannot be seen either because he is lower to the street and closer to the wall than Moorman was.

Bill can have all the FATuous unnamed sources to my dementia he wants to imply.  I have specifically communicated about the classic gunman issue directly with Gary Mack and Josiah Thompson.  They did not express themselves as Bill's unnamed critics supposedly did (with a junior high school level of attackism). 

Tim - I too, communicate with both of those men from time to time and I hate to burst your bubble, but one of them is on the list of those who said just what I had stated. They are professionals, so I won't put anyone on the spot.

I think you missed the point here. I didn't fault you for thinking there may be someone at the wall and I believe I can go over to Lancer and find the post I said that in if you like. What should have became the dead issue here was when you were presented with the Moorman photo and saw there was no one standing in front of the shelter wall.

So now Bill is even blaming his abusive language on me. He claims my "inability to use common sense has been the put down," rather than the abusive and quoted language that many have noted. It is obstructive in that it makes any debate he seeks to derail too personally distasteful to maintain. Is it really just that anyone who disagrees with him has brought such abuse upon themselves? He's an abusive obstructionist seeking to block debate rather than allow it.

Tim

Tim - all I can say is that you are a nut! I know you probably think that is just me talking, but you have no idea how many other researchers who followed this topic on Lancer had either by email or by phone wondered what you could possibly be thinking of. Many reminded me that this was a dead issue years ago and all I could say back was "It's obviously not a dead issue in Tim's mind."

PS As I wrote this he edited his former post with a rather constructive photo analysis of the Nix angle showing the perspective and proportionality of people to that location, and the fact that those people near the steps wouldn't have to nearly be the 9' height stated by the HSCA.

I have not a clue as to what you are talking about. Can you cite the 9' statement by the HSCA so we can be assured that you have stated it in the correct context?

I especially think his red vertical line at the pergola edge is helpful in that it shows the point at which no car could be seen to the right of. Then, with the classic gunman image's hypothetical elbow crossing that line is consistent with the gunman figure being forward of the pergola wall.

I have been saying each time I asked where the alleged figure was in Moorman that it was in front of the wall if a real person in the Nix film. You have yet to point him out in Moorman's photograph.

I'm assuming that Bill is not disputing the presence of the car, which was strangely missing for decades from diagrams and reconstructions, and now clearly added to Don Roberdeau's diagrams. It's not an enhancement, which I wish someone would perform, but it advances understanding of perspective, angle and scale.

The car was not on any map or diagram because it has no landmark significance. Don maybe placed it on his map, I assume, because of the HSCA talking about it as a location for a possible gunman.

Now if he would do the same with Moorman and enhance the critical location with the same methodology he applies to Hatman and Badgeman, I would consider that an eminently reasonable post. And if a comparative analysis with comparative methodologies showed the certain presence of Badgeman and Hatman, but not Classic Gunman, I would hope I would be persuaded.

Are you just thick in the head or what? You were told repeatedly that the Hat Man and Badge Man images were taken from an early copy negative of the Moorman photo. I have said several times to you that I do not have access to that photo. Jack White, Robert Groden or Josiah Thompson may still have it and they will have to post it. I cannot post files that I do not have any longer.

I have never claimed any certainty that Classic Gunman is an assassin as Bill has claimed about Hatman and Badgeman; I have claimed it is worthy of modern photoanalysis. I still await an answer to what Badgeman was doing firing "4/18s" (Bill's stated figure) after JFK's head exploded.

Tim

Badge Man apparently fired at the limo - more exactly - Kennedy! You talk like 4/18s of a second is a long time and that there would be no reason for Badge Man to have fired at that point ... that is crazy talk! There seems to have been a pattern where shots were fired in sequence during the motorcade for how else would one get a damaged chrome strip, a broken windshield, a curb strike next to James tague, or bullets sparking off the street in only three shots if we believe JFK and Connally were hit by three separate bullets. I believe it was the mistiming of those shots that allowed Kellerman to say that a volley of shots came into the car when he went for the mic. Only the Badge Man can say why he didn't time the shot perfectly to match the Hat Man's shot. Maybe someone was blocking his view for an instant - who knows? The fact is that Moorman's photo captured what appears to be someone behind the fence and a bright spot that could be a muzzle flash. Mrs. Hartman seen a furrow in the grass after the shooting that led back to the Badge Man location. One officer told her it looked like a missed shot had hit the ground. There is a witness who said at that moment a shot came past his left ear and the witnesses position is just to the right front of the Badge Man figure. That witness told his story no less than 4 years before anyone ever knew an image at the fence was found in the Moorman photo. How did the witness know to say a shot came passed his left ear if it didn't happen that way? Kellerman said two shots came over the top of the other - BOOM - BOOM. The shots were close enough together that some people heard them as one shot, while others heard them as two. The timing of those shots can be heard at a link that WIM placed on Lancer where I placed gunshots in sinc with Z313 and Moorman's photo. So I ask you this ... if so many witnesses heard the last two shots as one shot, then how was Badge Man supposed to have enough time to have known JFK had already been hit in the head? All he would have done was react to the noise and try to shoot at the same time. I can only suggest that you play the Zapruder film at normal speed and watch how fast four frames rifle off on the screen.

Bill says, "I am a defender of Gary Mack's position at the 6th floor Museum. We both believe there was a conspiracy, but disagree on how solid the proof is in certain areas that shows there was a conspiracy."

So Gary Mack doesn't agree with Bill's certainty that Badgeman and Hatman are provenly visible in the Moorman Polaroid or that Badgeman was inexplicably shooting 4/18s after the headshot?  Bill sees assassins at the locations of the yellow circles, but denies the possibility with absolute certainty that there is one located at the red circle. 

That is not what I said, Tim ... and that is why you can't follow the HSCA findings or anything I have posted. I said there are some aspects of the assassination evidence that point to a conspiracy that Gary Mack and I do not agree on. I never said we do not agree on the existence of the Badge Man or the Hat Man. The Hat Man is a simple issue - Both Bowers and Hoffman saw him at the fence. The accoustic evidence that Gary believes in says a shot was fired from that exact spot. The RR workers on the overpass that I believe in said they heard a shot from the Hat Man location and saw smoke drift out through the tree foliage immediately aftwards. I have posted both the Hat Man figure and the drifting smoke on this forum in another thread, so why are you saying that Gary and I disagree on the Hat Man's existence? The Hat Man's fedora can be seen sticking up over the fence in Moorman's photo and is nowhere to be seen in assassination photos taken after that period, thus he turned away and moved off just as Hoffman said. When Bowers looked over there again - he didn't see the Hat Man any longer, but said he saw the man in plaid still in the area, which was met by a police officer. See the attachments below.

If Bill's certainty is based upon evidence, why can't he show it with anything other than blustering put-downs? Moreover, why haven't the history books been rewritten?

I spent considerable time walking you through all this stuff and more on Lancer. Your inability to use common sense has been the put down, but it's of your making - not because I didn't spend more time than I should have helping you see the best images possible.

So what is this image in Moorman?

It's the doorway opening where someone has just picked up artifacts on the photo and drawn some ridiculous shape on it. It's not even at the same location where the 'classic gunman' was always said to be.

What can the logic be for Bill's assertion that "the same area is seen in another photo taken at the same moment in time and of better quality lighting"?  Absent a flashbulb, how can the same location at the same moment have different lighting?

There are a couple of reasons that come to mind right off. Nix's film was dark in this area because of him not using the correct filter on his camera. The Nix image doesn't allow us to see the fence, the tree trunk, the fence where it meets the ground in the shaded area, nor the ground itself above the walkway. The man next to Emmett Hudson turns and runs into a dark abyss of the shadows and just vanishes because of it being so dark along the walkway in the Nix film. Moorman's photo allows us to see the fence, see the fence where it meets the ground, the ground itself, and the tree trunk. Flash bulbs have nothing to do with anything.

Bill's assertion that the Bell photo is at least 30 seconds after the headshot is wildly exaggerative.

There is a little problem here that you have missed. For one thing ... Zapruder filmed for another 10 seconds after the head shot. It was another 11+ seconds before he and Sitzman started getting off the pedestal. Your Bell frame shows the two after they have gotten off and Zapruder starts to walk away momentarily. What you have missed is that the Bell film was turned off and started again, which is hard to see and no fault of your own. Remember that Zapruder also remained on the pedestal and kept filming until the car was entering the underpass, so it is impossible for Bell to have panned back right and immediately caught Zapruder and Sitzman already on the ground. It was Bell's stopping of the camera that allowed this to happen the way we see it.

One last thing - as the crowd has finally gone across the street and are walking up the walkway to the RR yard there are two of the three original 'classic gunman' spots still on the shelter wall at the 1:22 mark. The limo enters the overpass at the :42 mark. Add 18 and 22 and you get 40 seconds. then add 10 more seconds to account for the limo getting to the underpass as Zapruder kept filming from the time of the fatal head shot. Now we are at 50 seconds. We still have not added the time gone by that Bell had the camera off, but what's the difference because we are well over the 30 second mark now.

I have included a photo taken from the Nix location and aligned the scene up with the darkened Nix frame. I ran a red line down the west side of the shelter's outer wall so you could see how the 'classic gunman' figure overlaps that line, thus if he is real, then he is standing between the shelter wall and the Nix camera. Moorman is looking at the same shelter wall from just a few degrees to the right of Niz's line of sight. Both can see the doorway and the shelter wall, but Moorman's photo isn't shrouded in deep shadow and allows us to see that no one is standing there shooting at anyone.

Bill

Thanks for four more photos of the classic gunman.

You believe in the magic bullet also, I believe,

and are a big defender of Gary Mack.

I do not believe in the SBT - if you are reading all those amusing post of mine on Lancer as you claim - there is no way to have missed that point. I am a defender of Gary Mack's position at the 6th floor Museum. We both believe there was a conspiracy, but disagree on how solid the proof is in certain areas that shows there was a conspiracy.

Nothing you've said or shown in these posts

a) makes any sense

B would hold up in court, or

c) would sway an open minded individual

shanet

It would be foolish of me to believe that I can show someone something they do not have the ability to understand. There are however many other researchers on these forums who are familiar with the geography of the Plaza and especially of the walkway. It is for those people that such detailed descriptions may be of some value. If someone can look at a dark image and think they see a classic gunman and not understand what it means when the same area is seen in another photo taken at the same moment in time and of better quality lighting only to find no one is really there, then there is nothing more than can be done to help educate that person.

Gary Mack is a friendly and very helpful guy, but keep in mind his primary role these days is with the Sixth Floor Museum, which promotes the lone-assassin nonsense. Gary still says he believes in conspiracy, but defends virtually every ridiculous aspect of the official story.

John try to remember that the 6th floor is a "historical" Museum. Their job is to keep the history straight. When that history is ever changed - they will share that information accordingly.