Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bill Miller

JFK
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,732

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Bill Miller

  1. Bill Miller
    Jack - like I told you, we did not discuss my cancer or any part of my injury that lead to my not being able to work anymore. That's why you have no memory of it. As far as "the many" people who are concerned about who I am ... that would be you and David Healy. I have told you about our meeting in the Plaza which only you or I would have known about, unless you think I'm a spy who overheard you and the real Bill MIller talking through those water sprinklers that some of you believe are listening devices. I have put up my picture and given you several sources to email it to in order to see if it is me or not. Last year was the first year in the past five years that I didn't spend 11/22 with Robert Groden celebrating his birthday. The reason for that was because my sister "Pat" died of cancer just prior to the memorial. Now that's more information than what you need to know. Email Robert Groden, Debra Conway, or Gary Mack my photo and ask them to tell you who is the man in the photo. As a matter of fact - get a copy of the 2000 Lancer Conference video and look for the first speaker who presented on Saturday morning and you will see me in that same suit and looking just like the picture I posted on this forum. Just face it, your memory must not be what it use to be ... no one's is! As far as the possible alleged phonies you have encountered - if you used the same criteria and relied on your memory as you did with me, then some of them may not have really been phonies at all. You might also ask yourself why on earth would someone want to come on this forum and pretend to be Bill Miller? The postings are of real JFK assassination photos, real JFK assassination data, and they speak for themselves. It wouldn't matter if I was Bill Miller or Homer J. Simpson ... the facts are what they are no matter who is posting them. I fail to see what can be gained by you looking for conspiracy in places where there needs not be any.
  2. Bill Miller
    The man in the suit and hat that Hoffman claimed to have seen as seen in the Moorman #5 and Willis #5 photos. The figure is seen against the skyline in both and has some overhanging foliage blocking the facial area in the Willis photograph. This figure is not seen in that location in photos looking over the fence in a westernly direction after the assassination had taken place.
  3. Bill Miller
    Jack - There is no memory for you to test on the subject of where I was working at the time of my chemotherapy injury because I never gave you that information during our meeting in the Plaza. I should also add that if you think my hair was any different looking than it is in the photo, then you are mistaken. I always get a fresh haircut before taking a trip, especially when going to Dallas to deliver a presentation at a Lancer conference. I am fascinated by your interest in my hair and that it has somehow taken a front seat over Kennedy's assassination. I only wish that some of the young gals in Dallas would have found my hair half as interesting as you have. (smile~)
  4. Bill Miller
    To address John's question a little more specifically ... fellow photographer Bob Jackson seen a rifle sticking out over the window ledge of the eastmost 6th floor window and brought it to Dillard's attention. Dillard quickly tried to get a photo of the rifle, but before he could snap his picture - the rifle had been pulled back inside the TSBD. It might be fair to say that Dillard's wide angle photo was taken within seconds of the weapon being pulled back through the window. I hope this addresses the timing question for John.
  5. Bill Miller
    The alleged snipers window has a distinct shape and design feature above it.
  6. Bill Miller
    I was forced to stop working due to an injury I suffered while taking chemotherapy. The injury is irreversible. The scan of the window on the Dillard negative I gave you is shown below. If you look at the Studebaker photo taken from almost the same angle, but after the Crime Lab was now on the 6th floor - the man's head, facial features, and torso are completely gone from view. I see no other reason for this other than someone was standing back from the glass at the time Dillard took his photo and then left the area by the time the Studebaker photo was taken. Also, if you look at the large Powell photo copy on page 158 in Groden's book "TKOAP" you will see the man's face I am talking about in Dillard's photo, except you now see some of the left side of his face instead of just the right front. This along with the absence of the figure in the Studebaker photo has always led me to believe that this image is of a 3 demensional being in Dillard's negative.
  7. Bill Miller
    Only you would concern yourself with a photo of me when there are so many more important issues over the Kennedy assassination to be dealt with. You know Gary Mack and Robert Groden - email them the photo and ask them who it is. Show it to Ed Hoffman, Debra Conway, Mark Oakes, James Jim Fetzer or Mike Brown when you see one of them and see who they tell you the photo belongs to. Why you would remember me differently than I appear in this photo, which BTW was taken at the time of that Dallas trip where we met, is beyond me for there are not that many red heads around and certainly none that look anything like me. Confirmation: I believe it was in 2000 when I spoke at Lancer's conference. When we met I was in a suit out in the plaza - the crowd was very thin and as I recall Ernest Brandt was there telling what few people who were in the area how Oswald acted alone. You came through walking with a cane and I asked if you'd look at an 8 x 10 negative of the Dillard photograph which I said appears to show the shape of a man's head and shoulders in one of the windows. Both you and Groden had looked at the negative and remarked about some odd shading on the windows throughout the side of the building and both of you said the negative appeared to look as though it had been shot slightly out of focus. I had already given Robert a copy of that particular negative and I gave you a copy before departing your company. It was during that meeting that you told me about the research forum you posted belonged to and you'd invited me to join it. I recall that you were not in a suit or dress clothes. I may have told you that I had sent copies of that negative to Prouty and Weisberg, too. I cannot recall for sure, but I think I may have given you a 4 x 6 negative copy, as well. Bill Miller :sure: PS - The only other red headed researcher I know of is Dave Curbow - maybe it was he that you remembered. His pic is at ... http://wizard.hprtec.org/builder/worksheet.php3?ID=35508
  8. Bill Miller
    I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographical record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 20 years and last year I recieved the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case.
  9. Bill Miller
    You see - that is your interpretation, Paul. Gordon was relaying his imnpression of what it looked like to be looking down the barrel of a gun. Gordon never went any further than that and it is only you that is implying he must have been talking about a shotgun. I would suggest you going back and watching that interview again. I am starting to understand your confusion. In fact, Hoffman does describe the man seen in Moorman's photo. You will see the top of this man's hat just above the fence line near the tree behind Emmett Hudson. Lee Bowers described this man at the same location Hoffman places him at. I might also add that Ed Hoffman never saw the man actually shoot a weapon. Ed saw a flash of light or smoke and seen the man turn away from the fence holding a weapon. I think you are confusing the Hat Man Hoffman seen with the Badge Man and they are two different individuals altogther. Ed, nor Lee Bowers claimed to have seen the Badge Man, but there is a logical reason for this ... the overhanging tree branches that are seen in Moorman's photograph helped hide him from view. From Bowers elevated view the low tree branches would have hidden the Badge Man from Lee's view because of Bowers downward angle to that area. The same can be said for Hoffman because they would have hidden Badge Man's upper body while the cars parked in the lot hid Badge Man's lower body. I would show you the suited Hat Man as seen in the Willis photograph, but I cannot get this forum to take another image for some reason.
  10. Bill Miller
    I think the reason may be more tuned towards some people being languished over this case because it's too complexed for them to follow it. The fact that Larry has told you in one thread that he has been on Lancer's site and followed the threads should not surprise you that he would know something about Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman. By the way, I understood Larry to say that when he went back and reviewed the threads on Lancer that he noticed that it did look as though it was the researchers who were attributing their misinterpretations of the interviews to the witnesses stories, so I can see why you personally may have languished over the complexity of the JFK assassination case. I might also add that I do not "co-run" Lancer's forum. I am not an administrator, I don't have access to the adminstrator's codes nor do I make administrative decisions on that forum. I participate on Lancer along with its many other members. You have been told this on other occassions and yet you continue to misstate the facts.
  11. Bill Miller
    Paul - Nowhere have I ever heard on Arnold's MWKK interview that Gordon said the man with the gun had a shotgun. He gave an exaggerated visual interpretation as to how large the barrel looked and that was all. I believe that you are making a wrongful assuption that is of your own making. Try and keep in mind that Ed said nothing - an interpreter tried to relay to the FBI what Ed was trying to say. Those who know Ed understand that he has a poor understanding of the English language. One should alos consider the FBI's attempts to down play many of the witnesses statements. The FBI failed to mention the second man Arnold Rowland had told them about seeing on the 6th floor. The FBI said Mrs. Hartman saw where a bullet had hit the turf and how it lead mack to the TSBD when in fact Mrs. Hartman said it lead back to the knoll. Take Ed's alleged statement as told by the FBI - Ed's position from the RR tracks was about 300 feet. The statement that he was just a few feet south of the RR tracks is a good example of how the facts are quickly lost through interpretation. I have heard Ed's accounting several times and only the FBI version is different, now why do you think that is? I will also say this ... Ed Hoffman has then and still wants to take a polygraph. Someone had told him that such a test can not be given to someone with his disability and I have since discovered that this is false. At this time if the expense can be met and Ed can fit the testers criteria - a polygraph will be given to Ed Hoffman in the near furture. Now getting back to Gordon Arnold. The mentioning of a RR worker is something that occurred before he was shown the Badge Man images. It is a fact that there were RR workers out near the overpass by the tracks - not inclusing those on the overpass two other RR workers are seen near the RR boxes in the Bell film - that is a fact that cannot be disputed. No one said they were not conspirators. The issue was over whether or not Gordon Arnold believed one of them to have been the man in the Badge Man image. On the other hand they could have been real cops and sent the film along the proper lines and it disappeared just as other evidence seems to have done. There oibviously appears to have been someone filming the motorcade from above the walkway. Either the film was taken or Gordon wanted to hang onto it and never let anyone see it. The later option doesn't seem logical in light of Gordon thinking that there was never anything to show he was on the knoll during the assassination.
  12. Bill Miller
    Paul - you are making the classic mistake of not bothering to first find out what else Gordon Arnold said that wasn't in the article Golz had written. You see - Earl only printed a few senteces of what Arnold told him. About a year or so ago I reached Earl and we talked about how people are misusing what was stated in his article. They see a staged photo and think that's Gordon replicating where he stood - they read a couple of lines and think that's all Gordon said during the lenghty interview he had with Earl. Earl Golz was baffled by the fact that people should know better and to be honest - so am I. The article was not meant to be a blow by blow description of everything Gordon had said. An officer did approach Gordon and I believe it was said he had a revolver drawn like several other officers did at the time they were ordered to merge on the RR yard. Thinking shots were just fired from knoll - an officer would be a fool not to have their weapon drawn. The second officer who was right behind the first man had a shotgun with him. It's not a new account at all - Earl just didn't include it in his artical. Again, you just do not know the whole story and are assuming things based on what you don't know. There were RR workers out by the tracks. Ed Hoffman seen one of them take the rifle when the Hat Man tossed it over the steam pipe. The Bell film shows two such RR workers near the RR boxes at the west end of the fence as Kennedy's limo is heading towards Stemmons Freeway. Arnold never says the apparent RR worker in the Badge Man image is the man he saw - he only mentions seeing a RR worker out by the tracks when he tried to get to the overpass. And yes - he told Turner's people about the RR worker before seeing the Badge Man image. Turner's people editied out much of Arnold's interview and it is wrong IMO for someone like yourself to assume things without knowing what all was said during the interview before the editing took place. I cannot make this any clearer - Gordon Arnold never said that the hatless officer who approached him after the assassination was the assassin who fired from behind him. Gordon only questioned it possibly being the man he saw because the police unifomed man in the Badge Man image didn't appear to be wearing a hat either. What Gordon didn't know is that there were other officers in and around the RR yard who were not wearing their hats and they can be seen in some of the images of the RR yard taken after the assassination. You don't seem to fully appraciate Gordon Arnold's mindset. It took a lot of work for Earl Golz to get Arnold to tell his story back in 1978. Earl said that Gordon did not want to be known. Gordon had heard stories of what happened to people that saw or heard too much. When he saw the Badge Man image in the MWKK interview and had realized that he may have seen one of the assassins - he had one of his worst fears hit him all at once and this is why he said that had he of known about the this (the Badge Man image) that he would not have given the interview.
  13. Bill Miller
    dgh01: I do believe thats EXACTLY what your saying, Bill. "Now I'm not saying..." All that don't buy into your ideas of what the "evidence shows" are misleading - not only witnesses, but the public at large! Fill him in James - this isn't a sheeple forum. David - you would say that because you come across as about as bright as a road kill that didn't understand what the bright lights meant before he stepped out in front of them. What is there not to understand ... if a witness says they 'handed over their film' to Golz and said they 'handed over their film' to Turner's people in TMWKK - then how do you think Jim Marrs turned it into a camera that was handed over? This sort of thing happens all the time. A witness says one thing and then the interviewer then writes out later what they recalled the witness saying. One change of a word is all it takes. In the case with Marrs - he said 'camera' instead of 'film' and here we are now with someone wondering why Arnold changed his story and not considering that Marrs is the one who made the error. Below is what I said - I would like to know if anyone besides you could not follow the meaning of those few simple senetences. "Now I'm not saying that Jim purposely has mislead anyone over Gordon Arnold and other witnesses, but he and other interviewers will often times wait and write down what they recalled a witness saying after the interview is over and it allows for errors to be made over what a witness actually said."
  14. Bill Miller
    Paul - you have asked a good question and I can answer it. Gordon Arnold was a bit more specific than just saying 'when the shots first started'. Gordon Arnold said he hit the ground when a shot cae past his left ear. Moorman's photo shows such a shot doing just what Gordon had said. As far as what Marrs said ... Jim has a tendency to cite what he rcalls witnesses telling him and not actually what the witnesses later calimed to have said to him. I know for instance Mrs. Hartman was called and asked by Marrs to come to the school and talk to Jim's class - she turned him down. The next thing you know he is saying he interviewed her and she has denied that ever happened. Now I'm not saying that Jim purposely has mislead anyone over Gordon Arnold and other witnesses, but he and other interviewers will often times write down what they recall a witness saying after the interview is over and it allows for errors to be made over what a witness actually said. I noticed the other day in a medical report that a doctor I had once seen had said that my sister died of breast cancer. He took no notes during my examination. What I had told him was is that my sister had breast cancer which caused her to have a breast removed. My sister is still alive today. So this is how things happen and it is unfornuate that he comes back on the witness. I'm not sure what you are talking bout when you ask what happen to the first policeman in the MWKK? If you are talking about Gordon being approached over his film, then he was always talking about the first policeman. The whole purpose of that interview was for him to talk about that officer and that is why you don't hear him discussing the other officer. This is not uncommon either. You may recall what Arnold Rowland said to the Commission when asked why he didn't mention the second man on the 6th floor to the FBI. Rowland said words to the effect that 'they were not interested in hearing about that man they had told me. They only wanted to hear about the man with the rifle'. I suspect that this is what Turner's people had said to Gordon Arnold. I can assure you that not everything Gordon had said made it onto the program. I think Gary Mack said that they interviewed he and Jack quite a bit and only a small fraction of their interview made it onto the show. I hope this has offered you some more insight into the Gordon Arnold interview.
  15. Bill Miller
    dgh01: step up to the plate Bill, show us what you got. Dr. Costella stated, in HOAX the film is not only altered, its a FRAUD --That's a quote guy's, read it and weep. And yet after you read the book, you come on this forum and say that you have no proof the Zapruder film is a hoax. You are starting to remind me of Arlen Specter and how he referred to the President's back wound as "high back wound" one time and a "low neck wound" another time. dgh01: this is how REAL researchers and investigators debunk a theory.... well, he obviously wrong, we can't get ANYONE of near stature to say that, you'll just have to take my word for it.... roflmfao If you mean by "stature" that you are refering to someone who is nutty enough to think that rain sensors are listening devices and a cordless electric razor coming on in his night bag is some sort of CIA doing, then you may have a point. However, he can't find anyone to peer review his claims in order to validate them. Not because there aren't people who can and will do it, but rather because he has not bothered to seek any any of them out. About taking your word on something ... On one hand you say there is no proof of the Zfilm being altered and on the other hand you say Costella proved it's altered. It's this sort of double talk that keeps people from taking your word for anything. dgh01: we call this stateside "avoiding the obvious - with nonsense commentary. Your getting easier Bill and to think at one time you wanted to be competition Competition for what? I have no desire to take you peoples places as the laughing stocks of the JFK assassination research community. dgh01: should make it easier for you to find a PhD shill somewhere, lot better than the High School Grad's we been seeing the last 5 years or so. I believe Josiah Thompson has a Ph.D. But explain to me why one needs a Ph.D to point out that Costella based his observations on bad data. He talks about large windows of time for altering the Moorman photo when any 1st year researcher could have told him Moorman's photo was recorded on film within 30 minutes of the assassination. You may not be sharp enough to see this on your own, but a Ph.D doesn't help if you don't have a profound knowledge of the subject that you are trying to apply your skills in. dgh01: that's Dr. Costella to those in the peanut gallery --tap, tap, tap -- we're STILL waiting You mean like in Dr. Who, Dr. Frankenstein, or maybe of one of the 20th century's most famous real life mad doctors, Daniel Paul Schreber. A German jurist who went insane and recorded his experiences as a paranoid schizophrenic. I'd say paranoia would apply to thinking rain senors are tools of someone listening in on your conversations on the knoll or that a cordless electric razor coming on inside a bag at the airport may have been the work of the CIA. Call him 'Dr. Costella' if you like - most people call him 'Dr. Delusional'.
  16. Bill Miller
    Well, that explains a lot of the side stepping and not being specific with your answers as Larry Peters must have asked you not to do on numerous occassions. The claims were disproven. Larry Peters tried in vain to get you and Jack White to address the critique I did and neither one of you either would or could do it. I could not find one rebuttal that you gave in response to Larry's willingness to debate the alteration claims being made. Your evading the issues does not constitute being able to say someone falied to disprove a claim. I am also troubled by your general or abstract principles of a body of fact. I could say that there is a duplicate planet just like earth in another solar system ... would I be justified in telling people that it must be true because no one can disprove otherwise ... I certainly think not. I see that Larry Peters posted on the "Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall" thread yesterday. Maybe he stopped posting on this thread because no one was addressing anything specific about the alteration claims ... I certainly find that understandable and quite reasonable on his part.
  17. Bill Miller
    That's not an accurate stement at all. Everytime a claim of possible Zapruder film alteration comes up - we have tested the observation to see if it had merit. Each time we found that the claim was erroneous. And I agree with James - you should read what he says a little closer.
  18. Bill Miller
    Looking back over this thread before I joined the Forum it appears that you know the least of anyone about the subject. If you are well versed in it, then you have hidden it well. So far the issues concerning photo and film alteration seem to have been based on a lack of knowledge of the photos and films themselves. Photos being alleged to have been altered only to find they were in the public domain within 30 minutes of the shooting is just one example. Comparing differently shaped shadows on two different walls and thinking they were one in the same, thus you have photo and film alteration is another example. It's the erred interpretations that are being offered as proof of photo and film alteration. Until we are offered a lead that offers something of substance - there is nowhere to go from here.
  19. Bill Miller
    Thanks, Antti. There is one consideration that I would like to mention. If Moorman's photo is capturing the muzzle flash of Badge Man's gun/the shot that came by Gordon Arnold, then it could not have been the kill shot for JFK's head exploded between Z312 and Z313. Moorman's photo was exposed at Z316 basically ... Z315.6 to be more exact. Of course the kill shot and the Badge Man shot came over the top of one another and that was a description that many witnesses had given. I believe Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman who was sitting in the front passenger seat of the President's limo referred to it as sounding like a sonic boom where one hears two loud bangs one immediately following over the top of the other. While it may sound like I am splitting hairs - I didn't want to give the impression that Badge Man's shot was the bullet that hit JFK in the head. In fact, there was a furrow found in the grass by Mrs. Hartman (assassination witness) that led back to the Badge Man location. The FBI referenced her as saying the furrow led back to the TSBD, but Mrs. Hartman said that is not what she had told them.
  20. Bill Miller
    Sam Holland said there was a man in a suit on the overpass who he assumed was affiliated with the police. This could have been the man who confronted Arnold. I find that if one bothers to dig into a matter far enough - he or she usually can make sense out of what has occurred. In 1978, it was Yarborough who read about Gordon Arnold's story and Ralph contacted Earl Golz to tell him about seeing this man on the knoll who dove to the ground when the shooting took place. Again in the mid to late 80's Ralph Yarborough again confirmed for Nigel Turner what he had told Earl Golz back in 1978. Then in 1993 someone comes along and interviews the aging ex-Senator and asked him about what he'd seen an/or heard concerning the first shot and the man at the wall. If I'm not mistaken, the 1993 interview asked Yarborough about seeing Arnold when the shooting started. What appears to have happened was that Ralph and the interviewer were not on the same page. If you'll look at a blowup of Altgens number six photograph you will see that no less than two shots into the assassination the then Senator is still smiling and unaware that shots have been fired. So by the time his car has advanced forward to the moment that the head shot to Kennedy had taken place - Ralph Yarborough could then easily see over the corner of the wall. When he thought in 1993 about where his car was when the shooting started - Ralph knew that he could not have seen over the wall at that point. Neither he nor the interviewer separated where the VP car was when Ralph recognized what he took to be the first shot as compared to where the Senator's car was when officially the first shot was fired ... there is a big difference. So one has to consider this - did the younger Yarborough get it right in 78' and again in 86' only to be confused in 93' or did Yarborough make up this story about seeing Arnold and stuck with it for over a quarter of a century and then just forgot about it in 93'? There is only one logical answer to all of this IMO and it concerns the apparent mix-up that the rapidly aging and deteriorating ex-Senator experienced in 93.' I am willing to bet without looking that David Murph didn't try to distinguish between where Yarborough was when the first shot was fired Vs. where he was when he recognized what he thought was the first shot and I'd go even further to say that I bet Murph never considered what Yarborough was still doing two shots into the assassination or even considered turning to the photographical record for the answer. I hope you have found this information useful.
  21. Bill Miller
    Austin Miller verified a young man tried to get onto the overpass before Kennedy's arrival and was turned away. Is not the camera a witnesses to the event? The Betzner, Willis and Moorman photos show Arnold stahnding over the wall. Moorman's photo shows an apparent shot coming by Gordon's left ear as he had said years before anyone knew his image was captured in Mary's Polaroid. Ralph Yarborough confirmed Arnold hitting the ground. The Towner photo confirms two individuals in dark clothing at the very spot where Arnold would have been on the ground at that point in time. Two Bond photos show someone rising above the wall which is what would have happened when Arnold rose up to hand his film over to the officer. Some knoll footage shows someone in a uniform and an apparent overseas cap standing on the walkway as people are now moving up the knoll. I personally don't think people mentioned Arnold for the same reason they didn't mention the black couple sitting on the bench having lunch. They didn't mention the Hester's falling to ground or Bill Newman pounding his fist on the grass. They didn't mention the pop bottle sitting on the wall after the shooting. There is no doubt some people seen these things - they just were not something that was of great importance to anyone considering them witnessing the horror of the murder itself. One surely cannot fault Gordon Arnold for no one thinking his falling to the ground with a camera in his hands was of great importance or that an officer stopping at his position to mean anything. The same can be said that it is not Gordon's fault that each and every assassination witness was not asked if they seen him on the knoll.
  22. Bill Miller
    To know if someone noticed such an officer - there has to be a question put to the witnesses and there aren't any on record. Furthermore there are references to officers crying or being choked up. Mooney himself said on the MWKK that he cried. Yerborough cried. I would think that if an officer is looking you in the face with tears in his eyes or even coming down his cheeks - it might be too much to ask to think people standing behind him or off to the side would notice such a thing, but if they had - it wouldn't have been such an oddity under the circusmstances. On page 309 of Trask book "Pictures of the pain" there is a reference to Altgens trying to get onto the overpass and he was confronted and ran out of the area. Auatin Miller mentions someone about Gordon Arnold's age trying to get onto the overpass having come by way of the RR yard and he said this man was confronted and turned back. If this man in his early 20's was not Gordon Arnold - he certainly met the same fate that Arnold somehow had experienced. Austin Miller said this about the man trying to come into the area of the underpass ... Mr. BELIN - When was this? Mr. MILLER - Oh, before the President came along. Mr. BELIN - About how much before, do you know? Offhand? Mr. MILLER - I couldn't say. Mr. BELIN - Do you know anything about this man or boy that you described? About how old he was, or anything? Mr. MILLER - I can't think. I would say he was in his early twenties. Mr. BELIN - Tall or short? Mr. MILLER - I don't remember that much about him. I do recall him coming up and the man talking to him and turning him back. One possibility might be that if this man was affiliated with the assassination - he may have been concerned that Gordon got an image of him when Gordon was test panning the area before the motorcade arrived. He also could have been concerned that Gordon's camera was also recording the sound which would have been proof of a shot being fired from just behind him and very close to the camera. Your question is a valid one, but not one without possible options to consider. I'm not sure what you meant by the above statement. Hargis is hardly 8 feet or so from Moorman's camera lens and Arnold is about 90 feet away. Could you explain your statement a little more? I know people have mentioned Badge Man's size against that of Arnold's and there are a couple of reasons for this. One is that no one knows Badge Man's actual size. People of various sizes have different sized torsos and heads. There is also something called the "foreshortening effect' that makes things look larger than they really are. A google search under this term can offer a vast amount of information on the subject. The RR car seen in the NIx film is a good example of this. That car was across the RR parking lot, but yet in Nix's film it looks to be just behind the pergola. I think the answer to that lies in the fact that so much backlight was added to penetrate the shadows of the walkway. In doing this it causes such light objects like the wall to expand. A similar effect occurred when the man in the west window of the 6th floor was brought out. An example is shown below.
  23. Bill Miller
    Before Curry had made it to Stemmons Freeway he had already given the order to get all available men into the RR yard to see what had just happened up there. Towner's photo shows two such men in dark clothing standing over where Arnold was laying. Gordon Arnold said they were in dark uniforms like policemen. Just the fact he knew they were there above the knoll so quickly speaks volumes. Within minutes after Gordon's meeting with the policemen there was footage shot of the walkway area and there is yet another officer seen there. As far as witnesses goes ... they would not have seen a miltary man with a camera as an assassin. I think most everyone was looking for a gunman and paid little attention to anything else. Then there are those people who would have passed Arnold and would have seen him and the policemen, but unless someone finds the witnesses to ask them that specific question - we'll never know that they did or didn't recall seeing. The Towner photo on page 56 and 57 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" shows people moving by or standing close to the two figures near the tree and no one seems to be paying any attention to them. The man on the shelter steps is looking into the RR yard - apparently for a gunman.
  24. Bill Miller
    Gordon Arnold in his uniform and overseas hat can be seen in other photos and films if you know what to look for. Keep in mind that Gordon Arnold entered the walkway by means of the RR yard and left the way he came. One cannot expect there to be photos of him as he laid on the ground. The Towner photo captured the two Cops standing over him near the tree IMO. A couple of he Bond photos, when lightened show someone in light clothing rising up above the wall near the two cops. One halfway decent example of what appears to be Gordon is shown below. Note the wide "V" shape of the base of the hat - a classic characteristic of an overseas cap.
  25. Bill Miller
×
×
  • Create New...