Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Bill Miller]

I made the offer open to everyone on this Forum. Gary Mack is the only one who has ever had the decency to write to me and inform me that he can not supply me with the top images. Groden is a waste of time..He never replies. If you have them, or can provide a source, let me know, and also let me know why you don'thave or want them from these if available sources.

Duncan

Gary had seen the prints Jack used ... what did he say about the 'wash out' claim of yours or did you not care to ask him that question? Groden isn't a waste of time to those he doesn't believe is trying to waste it. Then there is Josiah - did you contact him? The fact is and always will be - if there is no image on the best prints - it won't be found on fuzzy copies of the same.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Your a twisted xxxx, and those who support you must also be twisted if they can read through this whole thread and not see that you are a xxxx when cornered, either that or they are just plain thick.....Anyway I did not use the drum scan for any of my enhancements.

What do you look for - blurrier prints?

Get back to school and learn to read. I sometimes use it for comparison issues only which I have told you on numerous occassion and which you deliberately choose to ignore. Perhaps it's because you're too busy with those people who come from miles around to see you. Reminds me of someone else who had the same kind of following..what was his name again?...oh yeah Jesus if I remember correctly....God help us all if you are the second coming.

Duncan

If one goes back to post 164 - they will see a reference you made to an image, but its not there. You referenced 2002. I bet I can find one somewhere. I will get back to this once I have done a little research.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

No problem..He told me it was the Dallas skyline, I have no problem telling you that, however everything Gary says is only his opinion, just as everything you and I say is only opinion.

Yes, but Gary's opinion is based on his observations from looking at the best prints and not the fuzzy ones that you embrace.

Here is a link to one of your "floating torso' threads off Lancer. Is that not the drum scan you used in your very first post and throughout the entire thread?

http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...=&mode=full

Bill

[Ed O'Hagan]

Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---

Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?

Holland has just described the third shot according to the Zfilm.

chris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over.

Try finding that being depicted in the Zapruder footage, and then below read what Jackie allegedly told the Warren Commission. It seems to me that as Chris observes above in the case of Holland, here once again an unsuccessful attempt was being made to shape and distort the evidence by means of 'doppelganging' Jackie's reactions to the second and third shots.

Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."

Mr. RANKIN. Did he turn toward you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. ( N.B. She had been looking at him well before that happened) I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. (N.B. Of course not, she is not referring to the third shot but the second) And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap. ( N.B. ... and once again Sam Holland's 'floor' observation is slyly undone)

And then I just remember falling on him and saying, "Oh, no, no, no," I mean, "Oh, my God, they have shot my husband." And "I love you, Jack," I remember I was shouting. And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity.

You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at all.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember Mr. Hill coming to try to help on the car?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I don't remember anything. I was just down like that. And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. Hill, "Get to the hospital,"or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the front seat. But someone yelling. I was just down and holding him.

Does Jackie's alleged evidence square with how she is depicted in the Zapruder footage ? I think not ! What we see following frame #313 which depicts JFK slumped leftward and with his head resting in Jackie's lap, is more appropriately descriptive of what actually occurred immediately following the second shot, not the third... and that would be entirely supportive of what Holland reported, but not what the WCR has recorded as being Jackie's so-called evidence. Watch the Z. film and compare what is being depicted with what Jackie supposedly told the WC

Take a look below at the enlarged area of Z. frame # 456 . It shows Jackie holding JFK with her arms around JFK's shoulders. Notice that she is then being depicted on the right side of the compartment and facing rearward. If JFK was thrown forward as Holland described , then it would explain (1) why also both the Connallys were thrown forward by the force of JFK's body impacting the jump seats, (2) since no longer being encumbered by the weight of JFK 's upper body resting on her lap, why Jackie could then stand up so quickly, and (3) why she had to stand up on the rear seat , lean foward over the trunk and then edge her way over to her left in order to be able to step over his legs and get to JFK as he lay on the floor. That's what appears to be the case as depicted in Z. frame # 456 :

The above frame has been only enlarged and brightened. It is recommended that Jackie's image be cropped, enlarged, and closely examined.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~eohagan/ goes into the 'flooring' aspect in much more detail

Edited July 6, 2007 by Ed O'Hagan

[Ed O'Hagan]

And here's the cropped and enlarged view from Z. frame # 456 of Jackie lifting JFK's upper body up off the floor. Both JFK and Jackie are depicted facing the camera , but now right in front of JFK's seat.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Ed O'Hagan

[Bill Miller]

Gary's opinion is based on his observations from looking at the best prints and not the fuzzy ones that you embrace.

I don't embrace fuzzy prints, what a joker lol

Here is a link to one of your "floating torso' threads off Lancer. Is that not the drum scan you used in your very first post and throughout the entire thread?

http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...=&mode=full

Ah Right, that thread from the Lancer Censor anyone who argues with Bill forum..Is that the thread where your weasel no input disciples campaigned successfully to get me banned from Lancer by Debra for simply say the words sucking ass? I still think Debra was wrong to ban me as she knows you have been know to use similar if not worse language on there. Maybe it was a different thread, I haven't been there for so long.

Oooops..got carried away for a moment...to answer your question. Noooooooo.....I didn't use the drum scan in the first post.

Duncan

I think that was a thread where you blew off your big mouth and said something inappropriate to her. Now what about the images that you used ... drum scan or not? Those were your post - were they not!

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

And here's the cropped and enlarged view from Z. frame # 456 of Jackie lifting JFK's upper body up off the floor. Both JFK and Jackie are depicted facing the camera , but now right in front of JFK's seat.

Ed,

Here is 452-456.

It looks as if Jackie is headbutting that taller person sitting next to her.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Ed,

Here is 452-456.

It looks as if Jackie is headbutting that taller person sitting next to her.

chris

The person that Jackie looks to be head butting on the 2D image is Connally who in reality is sitting to the right and in front of Jackie. It is the angle at which they are being seen that makes them look so close. For a good idea as to how the angle at which things are seen effects how the spacing between objects appears - compare the same people in the Willis or Betzner photo to those in the Bronson slide.

Bill

[Ed O'Hagan]

Ed,

Here is 452-456.

It looks as if Jackie is headbutting that taller person sitting next to her.

chris

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris,

The attached picture describes what I have concluded in regard to where everyone in the limousine was located as depicted in Z. frame #456. It would take several attachments to treat each of the extremely blurry images of the occupants individually. Improving one image simply resulted in making the remainder less distinct. In the overall , the only item of significance is the configuration of the blurs, and I submit that what we see is completely consistent with what Sam Holland reported concerning JFK being thrown forward onto the floor of the limousine. I am sure that anyone using high quality graphics software, would be able to produce far better results.

Thanks for your original observation re Sam Holland's evidence being 'shaped' preferentially , and also for your response to my posts

Ed O'Hagan

[/b]

[Bill Miller]

The attached picture describes what I have concluded in regard to where everyone in the limousine was located as depicted in Z. frame #456.

Ed,

Why would you pick a blurry frame to try and tell exactly where people were within the limo when you could choose another frame that is clearer? BTW, Jackie's head is between the camera and Connally's left shoulder in these frames.

Bill

Edited July 7, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Ed,

Here is 452-456.

It looks as if Jackie is headbutting that taller person sitting next to her.

chris

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris,

The attached picture describes what I have concluded in regard to where everyone in the limousine was located as depicted in Z. frame #456. It would take several attachments to treat each of the extremely blurry images of the occupants individually. Improving one image simply resulted in making the remainder less distinct. In the overall , the only item of significance is the configuration of the blurs, and I submit that what we see is completely consistent with what Sam Holland reported concerning JFK being thrown forward onto the floor of the limousine. I am sure that anyone using high quality graphics software, would be able to produce far better results.

Thanks for your original observation re Sam Holland's evidence being 'shaped' preferentially , and also for your response to my posts

Ed O'Hagan

[/b]

Ed,

I haven't drawn any conclusions, yet. Just trying to show movement leading up to 456.

Listening to eyewitness accounts of those close to the head-shot/s is very reliable. imo

Don't know if this helps but I worked a little on 456.

chris

[Alan Healy]

You are confused Bill.

Arnold never said he stood behind the wall, ever.

The only reason he was placed there by the producers of "TMWKK" was so that it would line up with the cartoon like figure above the wall in the Moorman5 blow-ups.

Great for a televisual story-line but not so good for truthseekers.

The above fact is well known now & it's a shame that you have to keep repeating these half-truths, you must realise that they mean nothing to people who have taken an interest in this alleged witness's story.

Alan,

I spoke to Gary Mack today to be sure about this and I can tell you that Gordon had told Gary 5 - 6 years before Turner's documentary was filmed that he (Gordon) stood between the wall and the fence. I believe more precisely that Gordon told Gary that he was between the fence and the wall ... the wall being in front of him. It was Gary who then showed Turner 5 to 6 years later where Gordon was standing. By that time Gary had done work on what has been called the 'Badge Man image', so Gary also knew from Moorman's photo where Gordon was standing. So I asked Gary if in 1982/83 when he spoke to Gordon Arnold and Gordon had told him the general spot on the knoll he was standing ... does that information conflict with what is seen in Moorman's photo? Gary Mack replied that he didn't feel that it conflicts at all.

Gary's claim is in direct conflict with all the recorded interviews though.

Golz has Arnold out in the open under the trees, as does Marrs & Arnold himself is even on tape pin-pointing his position for another interviewer & telling us that he was west of the steps.

You cannot be behind the wall & west of the steps.

Gary claims Arnold told him he was behind the wall after he had already found the phantasm in Moorman5. That is unfortunate because that means it isn't going to mean much to future historians & certainly not to people now who are still sceptical of Arnold & don't trust the strange looking phantom that you guys are so convinced is a real person(that's why I can't use it).

Did Gary even put pen to paper to record that alleged statement from Arnold or is this just something he has repeated verbally in recent years?

You take this hearsay over at least three recorded interviews, without questioning it? Why?

That is your right I suppose but I can't do the same since I do not trust the "Arnold" interpretation in the blow-ups.

It seems as though you cannot comprehend that point Bill(thankfully Gary does), the point that others are not convinced that these shapes & shadows are that of a real person.

"What is seen in Moorman's photo"(above the wall) is not realiable enough to put Arnold behind the wall & especially since he told everyone he was elsewhere.

Even a child could reason that Arnold mentioned nothing about a wall to either Golz nor Marrs.

They both told us that they thought, "Arnold may not be seen in photos because he was laying down under the trees on the knoll in shadow".

If he said anything about being behind the wall or even near it they would of choose the wall to hide him, not the shadows.

So that is a fact, the wall was not mentioned & that is why Golz has a picture of him out in the open with the words "where he saw the assassination", the photo matches the commentary, you expect people to believe that was just a coincidence?

They put him on the knoll close to where they all(including Arnold) thought he stood, it is no fluke that he just happens to be standing under the the large oak in shadow, just like what Golz writes in the article.

Next time you talk to Golz or Godwin ask them how they managed to include a picture of Arnold on the knoll in exactly the same position that is concluded by Golz in the written essay & without even trying. Under the shadows of the tree is what he says & that is what we see in the photo.

No. That is why he is seen standing "in the shadow of a tree" in the original Golz article because that was the only place Golz figured Arnold could of been if he was telling the truth, in the shadows & undetectable in the photos.

What factual basis do you claim to be able to make such a statement as the one above? Golz told me that the photo in the paper was not shot as a reenactment, but to show Arnold on the knoll. Even Jay Godwin, who took the photo for the newspaper has said the same thing as Golz concerning the photo not being taken to replicate anything. So I must ask what is your interest in posting what Golz thought or figured when you have not heard that nonsense come from Golz or Godwin? We've even been through Golz discussing Arnold behind the wall with Yarborough who then relays his story to Turner.

By the way, it was suggested to you years ago to contact Golz about this matter - I take it that you have not bothered to speak to Golz as of this date.

I answered this above, the photo matches what was written, it is no coincidence.

Golz said he was under the trees & he shows him under the trees there was never any mention of the wall.

The Yarborough confusion has been cleared up, he was never talking about seeing a man dive to the ground anywhere near where Arnold claimed he was standing. That there's one of them so-called "dead horse" topics.

Apparently, Golz was so exited to know that he had someone who was actually in the motorcade backing up this alleged witnesses story, that he never bothered to fully investigate it & that's how the myth started.

Yarborough never mentioned the man he saw being behind the wall neither, that is almost a scandalous statement(much like him being in uniform too ehh?), whoever told you that should be ashamed of himself, if it was Golz I can't say I'm surprised & it also doesn't surprise be your still bashing out these long dead rumours. That's all Arnold believers have & personally, I think you start most of them.

Why the hell would I want talk to Golz? The man has no scruples when it comes to a story, that's a documented fact.

Then we have the witnesses who claimed the limo stopped.

How many actually used the word "stopped"? Ten? Fifteen? More?

Yet you don't believe it.

I think it ws Roy Truly who mentioned that he thought the President's car had stopped. Most other descriptions were in reference to the 'motorcade' stopping.

So the limo was not part of the motorcade?

Don't be silly, anyway you got my point I am sure, just because Arnold says there was a mound of dirt on the knoll doesn't mean there was, repeatedly talking about it as fact is meaningless.

The truth is, it is highly unlikely that any "mounds of dirt" would be left lying around in full view since;

this area had at least one experienced & competent groundsman,

the pres' was coming to town so the area would be spotless,

there is lots of pictoral evidence that this whole area was very well look after & lastly,

the groundsman was standing within ten feet of this dirt & he never got rid of it, most unlikely.

Anyway, let me ask you something on a more interesting point.

I just went over what Marrs wrote in "Crossfire" the other day, like I mentioned above he puts Arnold under the trees like Golz did(no mention of the wall p.78-9 sb) but what I never realised before was, that despite being aware of the three figures above the wall in M5 first discovered by Gary & Jack, he makes no mention of the Arnold figure/phantom.

Why do you think that is Bill?

Do you think it might have anything to do with him not trusting it because Arnold never told him he was anywhere near a wall?

Somehow I doubt it but I never heard this discussed before, how Marrs, dispite being fully aware of the Arnold figure in M5 totally dismisses it & places Arnold out in the open lying down under the shadows of the trees.

Alan

The original article spells out in the first nine words(of this second page) where Golz thought Arnold was positioned & it wasn't luck that put Arnold where he is seen in the accompanying photo.

The word we are looking for is "continuity".

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5389.jpg

[Jack White]

This posting contains so much MISINFORMATION about Gordon Arnold, Gary Mack,

Earl Golz, Jim Marrs and the facts that it would take several hours to debunk it

point by point. I don't have the time for such a futile exercise. Things said about

the above people are untrue; I was there, I know these people; the above writers

do not.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Gary's claim is in direct conflict with all the recorded interviews though.

Golz has Arnold out in the open under the trees, as does Marrs & Arnold himself is even on tape pin-pointing his position for another interviewer & telling us that he was west of the steps.

You cannot be behind the wall & west of the steps.

Alan,

How many times has this needed to be said to you ... Golz and Godwin just had Arnold photographed in the plaza for the article. Both laughed at the idea that their photo was supposed to be a recreation. Stating the remarks you have made incorrectly once again will not change that fact.

Bill

"This posting contains so much MISINFORMATION about Gordon Arnold, Gary Mack,

Earl Golz, Jim Marrs and the facts that it would take several hours to debunk it

point by point. I don't have the time for such a futile exercise. Things said about

the above people are untrue; I was there, I know these people; the above writers

do not.

Jack"

And to Jack - Alan has willfully and intentionally misstated information in an attempt to discredit Arnold. The photo Godwin took of Arnold was never meant to be a re-enactment photo ... yet Alan gets some sort of kick out of misrepresenting it that way.

Bill

Edited July 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Hey Miller!

1)

Stop quoting me!

Apologies for impinging on Duncan's

research. I thought I could try

and get a closer look a the shooter in Moorman's photo.

Apologies again to Duncan.

2)

I am sorry that systematically (?) and logically (?) investigating a photograph is considered an old trick to you, EBC.

To paraphrase Josiah Thompson in Oswald's Ghost:

" Miller? Systematic? Logical?

In the JFK Forum?!! Well, maybe. but I'm gonna have to be shown!!!"

As for being a systematic and logical investigator you are

a chaotic, specious and unmethodical bungling clown!

Were you being systematic and logical when

you thought my "possible trajectory lines" were "perspective lines"?

EBC

Edited July 9, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly