Bill Miller
-
Posts
5,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bill Miller
-
-
deleted for space
-
Here is the rendition of the photo that presents Bills position, with assassins visible in both yellow circles and the classic gunman dismissed in the red. When you aske him for a "better" photo, his response is that he doesn't have the whole photo enhanced to his liking. My question back would be why does he need to resort to a cropped version to make his point.
For the benefit of those who have not been on Lancer and seen the images presented to Tim - here are three of them below.
The first image is of the classic gunman figure as dealt with by the HSCA. The HSCA looked at three light spots that took the shape that has been called "the classic gunman" posture. Those light spots are marked on the Nix frame in example one. The second attachment shows the view of the parking lot as seen from where Moorman stood. I pointed out to Tim that the suspected car area the HSCA dealt with was not even visible to Mary Moorman, thus no shooter could have been firing at JFK because Kennedy was at an even lower elevation that Moorman was. In other words - if Moorman cannot see the shooter over the wall, then the shooter cannot see her. More importantly is the fact that the shooter could not see the lower elevated Kennedy.
The third attachment - During the same time the Nix film was alleged to have captured the 'classic gunman' figure - Moorman took her photograph looking over the wall at the same area. The same light spots can be seen in part over the top of the concrete wall because of Moorman's upward angle to the walkway. Moorman's photo is light enough to see that no one is at the shelter wall, yet Tim cannot accept this and would rather go back to the poorer dark Nix image and try to make a case for a gunman out of light reflections being cast against a shelter wall. My position was then as it is now ... it is that I find it reckless, foolish, and some other terms Tim posted for someone who would use a poor dark image to make a case for something when a lighter better image shows no one is there.
As far as the Hat Man and Badge Man images - I have already posted Hat Man's image on this forum and I know Jack White has shared the Badge Man image in it's raw form. Tim's complaint has been that he wants the entire Moorman photo posted and that is what I do not have access to any longer. All I have are the scans of certain key areas. Maybe Jack White still has his full Moorman photo negative that was used for the Badge Man work ... that will be up to Jack to post it if he desires to. What makes no sense to me is that there are only three key locations being discussed here for a a possible assassin and as long as we have good scans of those areas - what difference does it make if we have the whole Moorman photograph. That arguement makes as little sense as wanting to use a poorer dark image to show a classic gunman figure over a lighter clearer Moorman photo.
-
Second, I believe it was pointed out some time ago on another forum that if this person was where you say he was, he couldn't even see the limo over the retaining wall. Whether this is true or not you can check out for yourself when you get to Dallas. Take a photo for us of what he could see from where you say he was.
Ron
I'm the person who told Tim that the HSCA classic gunman couldn't even see the President from where he was said to be located. Then Tim gave a location at the shelter wall and not back into the parking lot as the HSCA had thought the alleged individual was supposed to be. So then I showed him Moorman's photo of that spot near the shelter and there is no one there, yet he now comes to another forum to make a case for it. Why on earth would one want to use a dark degraded image to make a case for a gunman and not consider the better photo showing the same location quite well?
-
Gary Mack and I have emailed each other on many occasions, and I hope to get to Dallas someday to meet him in person. He has been most helpful to me, and IMO is is the only person who is aware of and stands by the absolute facts in the JFK case. He doesn't guess, he doesn't suppose, and he rarely voices his own opinion. If you are wrong about the established facts, he will tell you so. I know for a fact that Gary believes in a conspiracy, and thinks the key evidence is the DPD dictabelt recording and the acoustic tests. It is very unfair to lump him in with the likes of Blakey and Anderson.
Richard
I agree with Richard. It's utter nonsense to be critical of Gary Mack for the reasons I have read in this thread. Who says someone cannot be a member here and not post? The Sixth Floor Museum does not want it's people to be out expressing their personal opinions concerning JFK's assassination. I know of one man who was released from giving tours for the Museum for doing this. Mack is a valuable resource for the history of the case and the Plaza in general. He offers information for the researcher to use and being critical of him for not going beyond that is ridiculous IMO.
-
Is this the consensus over time, Lovelady is the man in the photo?
Shanet
Yes - Lovelady had on a red plaid shirt - the white squares with black borders can be seen in a good Altgens 6 print. Also in the Hughes film - his red shirt can be seen in the doorway of the TSBD. Oswald is seen with a brown grainy looking shirt design.
-
Courtesy of Mark Oakes:
If the attachment is too small - a larger version can be seen at -
-
This photo also suggest he'd have to be looking real hard too, maybe he was!
I would be.
Mike Brown has said that Bowers brother has said in the past that Lee saw more than he told, but kept much of it to himself out of fear. That would not surprise me because I never thought that some of what Bowers had said made much sense. Here is why ...
Bowers said he heard shots fired and he knew Kennedy was passing by. He had seen a flash of light or some unusual occurrence at the Hat Man location (according to Lee in his own words). So what does Bowers tell us he did next - lost track of what was happening as he went back to his duties. This goes against all human nature. You hear gun shots - see something odd take place at the fence and then tell us you went back to your duties and lost track of what happened right out in front of you ... something wasn't right IMO with Bowers statements. What duties was so important? The train yard was at a standstill during the passing of the motorcade was it not. Lee stopped a train car at some point, but what did that take - a simple throwing of a switch? It is unimaginable to me that Lee would not have kept watching the fence area to see what the two individuals who were unknown to him were doing. A shot was heard at the Hat Man location and smoke immediately drifted out in front of the fence - Bowers hints to seeing this when speaking to Mark Lane. If what Hoffman says is correct, then Bowers could not have missed the hatted man turning away from the fence with his gun in tow. It's almost as if Lee gave a little bit of information to let us know something occurred at the fence on the RR yard side, but not enough to make him the start witness, which would make him be in fear of his life. According to Brown when talking about Lee Bowers brother - Lee was paranoid and thought he might be in danger. Danger of what if Oswald was the lone assassin? I believe that Bowers was afraid because the conspirators knew he had to have seen something. And even if Lee had not seen something - any RR yard assassin(s) would not have risked finding out. It makes sense to me to hear that Lee down played what he had seen, but I think in the end that it didn't do him much good.
-
Bill,
Thanks. That's an interesting image. But it looks like he's wearing some kind of flat-top hat, unlike what he's wearing in Moorman.
It's pretty simple really. There was only one man seen in a suit and hat near that location. The shape of the top part of the hat is seen quite clearly in a good print of Moorman's photo. With the foliage between the man and the camera in the Willis photo and not knowing exactly how his head is positioned ... the exact shape can be easily lost under those circumstances. What isn't lost IMO is his being image seen through the leaves against the Dallas sky.
-
Well, this is the first I have heard of Hat Man being photographed by Willis.
Are you talking about Willis #7, taken just before the first shot? Willis #5 was taken while JFK was still on Houston Street.
Can you post Willis #7 (or whichever it is) and point out exactly where this man's image is found in it?
Let me explain ... I used the term Willis #7 once before and Jack White replied saying that it was Willis #5 that showed the limo as Willis took a photo of the President from behind at Z202. I think I used the number 7 because Trask had it that way in his book. In the original slide order as Willis took photos - the Elm Street photo showing the Black Dog Man was the 7th slide. Later on Willis sold a set of slides and in that set - the Elm Street photo was the 5th image of that particular set. So the photo Willis took at Z202 then became widely known as Willis #5.
I believe Lee Bowers said that when the President came onto Elm Street that the man in the suit was up near the fence looking towards the approaching motorcade. I noticed one day the shape of a man's shoulders and head/hat through the foliage near the corner of the fence. This image is missing in post assassination photos. This is why I assumed it had to be the same man that both Bowers and Hoffman had seen and is the man who's hat is seen near the tree in Moorman's #5 Polaroid.
-
I didnt notice if it had been mentioned in this post before but didnt ralph yarborough see a military man in arnolds position
John
John - Earl Golz told me that Yarborough had read the article about the man in uniform (Gordon Arnold) above the wall and that Ralph then contacted Golz to tell him that he had seen that man. Yarborough touched on thinking that the man had his military training to know how to take cover the way he did, but the Yarborough interview wasn't specific as to whether Ralph saw him in the uniform or not. Earl could no longer recall and didn't have his notes any longer, as I recall. The impression I have always had was that Yarborough saw that it was an infantry man and came to the conclusion by the man's actions that the service man had already completed his training over what to do when having live ammunition being fired in hsi direction. In my mind - for Ralph to have said this about anyone doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. He could have thought the man had police training. Newman hit the ground soon after the shots were fired as well as Malcolm Summers. It just seems to me that Yarborough saw this man as a military man who was trained in combat and it makes me believe he saw the man's uniform. It's a shame that we don't have anything more specific to go on at the present time. That doesn't mean that Ralph didn't make it clear at some point - I just don't know when that was and to whom it was said.
Bill
-
dgh:02: seeing that my interest is in the Z-film and attendant DPlaza photos, I find it needless to comment on anything related to the assassination other than generalities. There's no need to enter a arena with so many SELF-DECLARED experts mudding up the waters. Till the holders of the Assassination Film announce said films are available for forensic testing, ALL discussion about the films, any of them, as "evidence" used to legitimize the findings of the Warren Commission, regarding the single bullet theory and the guilt of LHO is pure Dallas fantasy.
WHAT are they hiding?
David - I cannot see anyone taking on such a task at the request of someone who only talks in general terms. If you had witness who were saying that something wasn't as they saw it when they took their photos and films it would be one thing, but that has not been the case. That's why many of us were against the idea of placing a ton of off-the-wall alteration claims in Fetzer's book for if and when they were shown to be the product of poor research/and or lack of understanding of the photographical record, then it makes it harder for the CT's to be taken seriously enough to request what you proposed doing with the films and photos. The need for accuracy and being certain about such claims was thoroughly explained over 5 years ago on DellaRosa's site and the alteration crowd refused to listen and I'm not sure that the JFK research community distancing themselves from the alteration crowd will ever get it's credibility back to where it once was. I'm all for testing any film or photo if there is a justifiable cause for doing so. Who do we get to layout such justifiable cause for doing this ... White - Fetzer - Costella? I take no pride is saying that the hoax book has harmed their credibility, as well as others for no other reason than guilt by association. I'm certainly saddened by the fact that it lumped us all together as crackpots in many peoples minds. On the other hand even if we could make a justifiable case to test the camera originals, the risk however is immeasurable for look what happened to the Dillard negatives - they were ruined! So there is going to have to be something really solid concerning photo and film alteration to be discovered to justify getting the original photographical record tested and until then I cannot fault the National Archives for not just turning them over based on the claims of alteration I have seen so far.
-
dgh01: If there are legitimate questions, OF COURSE they [films-photos]should be authenticated. You doubt this?
If there are legitimate questions - yes. However, misunderstanding what's seen on an a film or a photo hardly represents legitimacy. I noted two places in hoax where the book cited a photograph legit in one area of the book and questioned its authenticity in another.
dgh01: Wonder away... better yet, read HOAX. Hangout? ROFLMAO! ! ! hey guy, I'm not the one with multiple thousands of posts concerning JFK Assassination related matter all over the internet...
No - you seem to be the guy with countless replies that never address any specifics about the assassination.
dgh01: I answer those that have curiosity regarding the Z-film. Who says the research is going nowhere?
You answered the question as to where the alteration research has went by saying you have seen no proof of it.
dgh01: I suspect DLifton forgot more than most of us will EVER know/understand regarding the backroom dealings with JFK Assassination related films and photos... that includes Groden. Groden's credibility went right out the window with the OJ case and the Bruno Magli shoes... Anything for a buck!
David Healy
I didn't agree with Groden's opinion in the O.J. Simpson case, but many issues were raised with the faulty claims being raised years ago over photo and film alteration and yet they made it into the hoax book after all. Yup - anything for a buck, I guess!
-
No James - he is not the stocky Bob Barret I posted in reply #8. The guy I posted in #8 is the FBI Agent Bob Barrett.
-
If this is Barrett, then the obvious question is what did MacDonald tell him? If it is not Barrett then why are the DPD checking luggage when they supposedly already had their man?
James
I wish I had the frontal images of this man in the DPD photo, but he is not the Bob Barrett of the FBI according to these images below. First I show the DPD photo and then the Bob Barrett photos from College and then later in his life. His ears sit higher - nose is not pointed among some other features that do not seem to match. The man in the DPD photo seems to have some thinning hair on top of his head while the Oakes Bob Barrett had thick hair. Barrett photos are courtesy of Mark Oakes/JFK assassination researcher and producer of a fine video pertaining to this mysterious FBI man.
Bill
In an update - Gary Mack shared this information with me ... " ... the man is Dallas Morning News
reporter Jim Ewell, whom I know personally.
The picture was taken shortly after 2pm on Friday, 11/22, as Ewell
interviewed Nick McDonald in the DPD hallway about his capture of Oswald.
It appears on page 201 of Dale Myers' Tippit book with a photo credit for
The Sixth Floor Museum. I identified the reporter for Dale.
The man in the middle is also a reporter, though I do not know his name."
-
No, I don't think you altered this image it's just kinda hard to tell where the jacket he is holding stops & his shirt sleeve begins from BELL alone.
NIX says the shirt ends at the elbow(whether its rolled up or not) whatcha gonna do?
If you go to post #80 and look at the blue color on the man's forearm you should see that the shirt goes further down the arm than the elbow.
Anyway, when I refer to "BELL man" I am/was talking about the fella seen walking across the grass towards the wall.I realise the geeza on Houston St is seen in NIX, BELL, MUCHMORE & HUGHES but
the "BELL man" does not have any forearm showing & IMO is not the same dude.
The inability to see the forearm is the only variance I can detect in the Bell film. What we do not know is if he has put on his jacket or merely had his sleeve slide down since in the Nix film he has his arms bent at a right angle while holding his jacket close to his body? What I have said and have checked with Mack is that we cannot find anyone else in the area who wore such baggy clothing that fits the description of the man in the Bell film. That's why I pointed to the dark ban over the lower stomach area as seen on the individual in both the Bell and Nix film. Regardless if this person was anyone of the Negro's in and around the knoll area - their caps do not match that of the man on the walkway in the overseas cap.
-
I can't be 100% on the rolled up or short sleeves point but the NIX footage is the best quality & it seems to be telling me his sleeves are cut off at the elbow but it's not that important as long as we agree that the majority of his forearms are exposed & this is not the case on the BELL man).
So I take it that you think I colored the man's forearms blue in the Bell film capture. I can assure you that I did not alter that image in a way that extended the blue sleeves down onto the Negro's forearm. The reason that part of his forearms are exposed while on Houston Street may have something to do with his shirt being so baggy.
Fwiw, there are no long feet/boots to be seen on the man in BELL, the man in NIX has not got "extremely" baggy pants on, there just baggy & they don't narrow at the bottom like the BELL mans' do.Baggy - extremely baggy ... I guess that is a matter of opinion. I also guess the pants in the Bell film would appear too narrow to be the man in the Nix film if you only view the sunlit portion as the pant legs. The capture you used leaves a little bit to be desired. See the images below.
-
Now you told me that one of the reasons the BELL man cannot be the same guy in the b/w DARNELL footage is because the guy on the walkway doesn't have his sleeves rolled up (IMO it's a short sleeved shirt in NIX btw), so am I missing something?
To start with - the guy in the Nix film can be seen quite easily at the 26 second mark in the Bell film. His shirt sleeves stop between his elbow and his wrist. They appear to be rolled back somewhat. See below.
Do you see anything on the man in BELL that suggests a black forearm?If not, why doesn't this rule him out as the NIX man to you?
I would yield to the original film that Gary Mack has access to. The same long feet, extremely baggy pants and shirt and the fact that both men are dark skinned is a start. What I don't recall asking Gary is if the man in the original Bell film is still holding onto his jacket?
-
What a bizarre thing to say. You might disagree with Jack but there is no mistaking who he is? Nor has he ever made any attempt to disguise his activities as a JFK researcher (nor should he).
John - I believe Nancy was being a bit sarcastic ... so don't try to read too much into what she said.
I have no reason to doubt that Bill Miller is Bill Miller. The only thing I would say that his writing style is very similar to that of Gary Mack (although he never posts he sends me a lot of emails).Well, John - Gary Mack cannot use my email address and I too, email you from time to time and you me.
Subject: Kilgallen
Date: 9/14/2004 10:03:09 AM Central Daylight Time
From: John Simkin
Reply To:
To: IMSJLE@aol.com
As far as writing style goes - I use words and phrases that Gary Mack does not. For instance, I use the term "Negro" because of the fact it is used that way throughout the assassination books. Gary has reminded me more than once that it is not the politically correct term, but rather "African-American" is the name of choice by todays standards. You'll probably also find that Gary will not make the grammer and misspelling mistakes that I do from time to time, but he is a stickler for accuracy whereas I spend too much time writing on forums and researching to feel it necessary to have everything just right.
I have also said this before on other forums and I will repeat it here as I understand the case to be. Gary Mack will not post his opinions or participate on public forums because his employer wants him to remain neutral due to his position with the 6th Floor Museum. However, JFK researchers can and do contact Gary from time to time to seek JFK assassination or Dealey Plaza related information and he has been more than willing to help in those areas. So while the 6th floor Museum is available to researchers concerning the history of the assassination, they leave it up to the individual researcher to apply that information to their own personal beliefs as to whether there was any evidence of a conspiracy or not. That takes us back to the Museum's policy of trying to remain neutral towards the conspiracy minded and nonconspiracy minded public. Gary Mack has been criticized at times for his not particpating on forums and not making his beliefs publicly known, but I can say this without hesitation ... If I had the opportunity to be in Gary Mack's shoes by being surrounded by such a wealth of information that interest me in the way it does him, then I'd do exactly as he has done regardless of what anyone thinks and I wouldn't think twice about it.
-
You can't see his arm in that sleeve, so you must be referring to his glove, which is seen dangling from his cuff as he turns.
He or his spouse must of threaded his gloves into his jacket to stop him misplacing them.
Gary Mack tells me that it is not a glove, nor a forearm, but rather a shadow being cast upon the man's leg.
You should of noticed that the jacket is more of a pinkish colour in some frames, compared to that of his shirt.It certainly does stand out more in your copy. I would have to agree and yield to the better colorization and say that he is holding a jacket or rain coat.
You did what? You see a forehead & nose on the BELL man?No - I said the hat would at least slide over the forehead and I could see grass beneath it, thus it extended over the man's chest area. I believe his head is tilted forward and slightly to the right, thus exposing the top of the hat to the sun and camera.
The man's rolled up sleeves are seen below.
-
Ron, you're probably right about that perjury stuff. Although I'm guessing national security overrules perjury. Also under the protection of national security it may well be that the doings and statements by individuals such as McCone may be out of the reach of the law.
I have to agree with you, Antti. Was it not Dulles who said that members of the CIA would lie under oath if necessary? I recall a denial that Clay Shaw had any CIA ties and I believe it was later found that he seemingly purjured himself on that point, if not others. When does an alleged loner/nobody as Lee was said to be have his income tax records locked away. When does someone claim to have committed high treason against his country in the height of the Cold War no less and then be able to come back to that country without so much as a slap on the wrist .... when you are working for your government - that's when!
-
The fellow in NIX does not have a big black belt, that's his left arm folded in front of him, draped over which, is his jacket.
His long "arms" is just the sleeve of this jacket, he has it folded in an unconventional manner.
Then that must be an extra arm he keeps in the sleeve of his jacket so to tug at the back of his pant leg - see 20/21 second mark on the Nix film.
If this is the only source of your rolled up sleeves observation then could the reason that we see no rolled up sleeves in BELL & DARNELL be because he put his jacket on?The man on Houston Street is not holding a jacket. I have not a clue where you come up wuth these observations.
Anyway I thought the BELL mans' hat protruded in front of his body, you change your mind on this?I said the man's hat extended out over his chest - not in front of his body. I believe I used the forehead and nose as reference points.
-
Gary Mack was right IMO. The same baggy clothes - the same big wide dark belt - the same long black shoes - long arms with sleves rolled back, etc. See below.
-
dgh01: ....... till you post ANYTHING regarding the DP films and photos with proven provenance, your opinion are just that, opinions.
I have never understood your thinking process, but that's probably a good thing. You act like all the photos and films have to be authenticated or they are not reliable enough to even bother with. Many of us have wondered if that is really your position and seeing how you have no way of doing what you believe must be done, then why bother hanging out on JFK assassination forums such as this one in the first place. If nothing that you research can be validated, then by your standards it is all a waste of time anyway and yet you continue to make replies on a topic that can't go anywhere. That doesn't seem to make any sense.
Closest we've got is David Lifton's material, which sheds all sorts of light, on the Groden's way of handling DP films, photos and negatives...Here is a point maybe worth mentioning - I believe you are on record as saying, 'I have no proof that any of the assassination photos and films are faked', so what vast amount of light was shed by Lifton to lead you to make that statement when you have to know Lifton is pro-film and photo alteration ... it seems that Lifton only took you back to where you started from.
-
"seen in ALTGENS@255-"dark raincoat man" Elm + Houston at south end of curve
of people near northeast corner of Elm & Houston seen in ALTGENS Zf-255 just
below BREHM's clapping hands and he seems to be looking towards TSBD; ….TSBD
intersection
"seen in ALTGENS@255-"intersection boy" Elm + Houston at south end of curve of
people near northeast corner of Elm & Houston seen in ALTGENS Zf-255 just below
BREHM's clapping hands and he seems to be looking towards TSBD; just behind
the rear of the SS-VP car ….TSBD intersection
"seen in ALTGENS@255-"intersection woman" Elm + Houston at south end of curve
of people near northeast corner of Elm & Houston seen in ALTGENS Zf-255 just
below BREHM's clapping hands and he seems to be looking towards TSBD ….TSBD
intersection
Tripple Underpass
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Bill Miller
deleted for space