Zfilm Revisited

[Bill Miller]

This is also the sequence in which Clint Hill floats in air above the trunk.

The curb is seen underneath him.

Jack

Seems like this was address before in another thread when members said that Hill was standing on the rear of the car and leaning forward over the trunk.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

It is NOT a known fact how sounds "bounce around" in DP, except in the reports of Barger, Weiss and Ashkenazy.

I was present when guns were fired in the plaza. There were no separate echoes...only a booming reverberation.

Anyone who says they distinguish separate echos from separate locations is lying...the echoes all blend together

forming a "boom" coming from all directions.

Jack

I was there with Bev Oliver when the recreation motorcade came through on one of the anniversaries and their backfires echoed around us. Groden was present throughout the test firings in the JFK movie and he has heard them. I asked Gary Mack if he has heard them and he said the following ...

"I was there when the HSCA fired test shots in Dealey Plaza and we heard all sorts of echoes of different patterns and intensity. I recorded the shots and echoes, too.

The HSCA had a team of trained observers who were part of a test to learn what they could hear and identify. This is their report:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca..._Vol8_0066b.htm

Gary Mack"

Sorry you missed hearing them, Jack ... next time it happens and I am around ... I'll be sure to wake you up before it happens.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Sure thing, Mike. I'll address your question. But first a little preliminary data is necessary in order to make my answer clear. BM (Bill Miller) described how he would have effected a sniper shot from Hatman's position behind the picket fence. The problem is that since Hatman's hat is seen in Moorman's photo just barely above the top of the fence, then how can Hatman fire a rifle just then (the fatal head shot)?

Miles ... a good xxxxx will hold the same position and not argue against himself. I could swear that you have argued that there is no Hat seen over the fence in Moorman's photo ... now you argue that it is a hat seen over the fence. You leave out the data that Moorman's photo was taken 4/18s of a second after the kill shot to JFK ... do we need another lesson on how far someone could move in 4 Zframes. And not to hurt your false pride, but it was same Holland who said that when he saw the Hat Man figure that Sam felt like he was looking right down the barrel of a gun. The figure is in silhouette ... I cannot see what is between his head and Moorman's camera.

Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done.

You offered no data ... just an opinion like anyone else which may or may not be accurate. Its funny - I thought of you not that long ago right after a 'Tim Horton's' commercial when the show about sharp shooters came back on. These guys were shooting things with a rifle by leading objects hurled into the air. Hunters do the same with game where they pick a point in front of the animal and time it when it comes across the end of the barrel sights. So I don't know where you got your experience and as far as I know this may just be another instance of you claiming something that you know to be false like when you claimed Duncan was consulting Groden and Mack.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Yes, that is correct. I have never been in Dealey Plaza when gun shots were being fired. But, neither have you.

One person, among many, was in Dealey Plaza when gun shots were being fired:

Miles, you have been caught in the past saying things that you knew not to be true, so don't start talking for me. I have been in the plaza when we did some sound test by lighting off some firecrackers ... black cat and M-80. I was also next to Bev Oliver and heard the incredible volume of some DPD cycles coming down Elm and their backfires. I have also consulted people who were in Dealey Plaza when test shots were fired, so seeing how you admit having not done any of this ... please don't mind if I ignore your opinion.

And as far as me saying what Hudson heard ... you have misstated the facts once again. What I said was a bit different from what you have said, "BM thought that Hudson heard a motorcycle backfire & confusedly assumed that the backfire was a shot." What I said was, "Maybe Hudson heard a backfire from a cycle that he took to be a shot".

Bill Miller

Past remarks that I made on the subject:

Suspect ... that can be said about many of your post. Maybe Hudson heard a backfire from a cycle that he took to be a shot ... there were some witnesses who heard shots and thought they were cycle backfires. Some people heard shots at different moments than others depending on what they were doing and where they were located in the plaza. For example ... Two shots or so into the assassination, Kennedy supporter Ralph Yarborough appears to still be smiling in Altgens 6. Charles Brehm is still clapping his hands as JFK passes by him.

And before you go on telling people what Emmett Hudson thought ... you may want to get some more information from his son (William Hudson).

And I believe that Emmett in his mind had only heard two shots fired at the time of the head shot, but I also believe those witnesses who said the third shot hit the President in the head. The reason for this has been said many times in the past and its because that first of all someone has to recognize a noise as a shot. Then depending on where someone is located in the Plaza will determine what shots can be heard from different locations. This occurred during the 33 takes of 7 shots being fired during the making of the movie JFK.

Even Altgens who was across the street from Hudson had said that no shots were fired after the shot that hit JFK in the head ... Hudson says differently. Location and recognizing a noise as a shot or not were obviously determining factors ... neither of which one can reliably hang their hat on in my opinion.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

" What I said was, "Maybe Hudson heard a backfire from a cycle that he took to be a shot".

Bill Miller

Mike,

Here's an additional illustration of BM's idea of a sniper resting his rifle barrel between the picket fence slats. The red circle represents a rifle barrel. Note that when sighting for a shot any view of the approaching limo is blocked by the fence.

This method insures failure. See recap comments below:

Sure thing, Mike. I'll address your question. But first a little preliminary data is necessary in order to make my answer clear. BM (Bill Miller) described how he would have effected a sniper shot from Hatman's position behind the picket fence. The problem is that since Hatman's hat is seen in Moorman's photo just barely above the top of the fence, then how can Hatman fire a rifle just then (the fatal head shot)? This is what BM said:

(Bill Miller @ Mar 16 2007, 04:37 PM)

I would have then rested my gun barrel between the fence slats so to get a steady shot off. Then all I would need to do is pull my gun back as I started to turn away from the scene which is what Ed Hoffman claims to have witnessed. - MILLER

Reply:

Bill, a sniper or a hunter never rests his barrel on anything if his target is moving. (If the target is stationary or has very little movement, then such supporting of the barrel becomes a possibility.) Placing the barrel between the fence slats guarantees a miss. Why? Because a stationary rifle limits the field of fire to a single point. Also, the slats would obscure sight & sighting of the approaching target making anticipation & timing virtually impossible. The option would be that the shooter would have to shuttle his body from right to left to swing the rifle in a rotation on the fulcrum point of the fence. Again never done.

Miles

Then this exchange occurred:

The "resting the barrel theory" is a guess & a bad one. The experienced sniper, cautiously & on fundamental operating procedure grounds, holding his rifle free from contact with any limiting obstructions is the reality. Remember, the sniper does not know how the car & the target within the car will move. He must give himself optimum chances to succeed. The sniper is not an amateur. -- Scull

Miller says: "I disagree... Anyone behind and/or in front of the limo had virtually a motionless target to hit IMO."

Again, to repeat, you miss the point. The point is simple. The movement of the limo as it actually did occur is irrelevant & immaterial to the question of how a sniper at hatman's locus would have handled his rifle. To repeat, the sniper did not know & could not have known in advance how the limo would move & how the target within the limo would move. Therefore, the sniper allows for & prepares for any & every possibility of movement. Resting the rifle barrel on anything (the fence) is a nonsense. More dogs not hunting. -- Scull

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Mar 31 2007, 02:05 AM

[Mike Williams]

Miles,

First off there is no range in the plaza that would require more than moderate skill to attain a hit. We are not talking a thousand yard shot here. Basic shooting skills, and a small amount of practice would have sufficed. Bill is correct from the aspect that the target would require very little lead.

To address the rifle resting on the fence issue. It would just be a matter of preference for the shooter. I would say there is no absolute answer for this question, at least none that could be given to the exclusion of all others.

Now for my own opinion, and this is just my opinion mind you.

It was a lousy position to chose to shoot from, and certainly not one I would have chosen.

It was not the origin on the head shot, and if any shot at all, a missed shot.

It would be ridiculous to back a shot with a handgun from this location, as some have claimed.

With JFK facing left at the time of the head shot, and the angle given from the knoll area, I would think we would see a transiting shot exiting the right side of the head, very likely wounding Jackie.

Nothing about that shooting location adds up.

As a note there are ways to stabilize a rifle on that fence without sticking the barrel between the slats.

Best,

Mike

[Bernie Laverick]

Miles,

First off there is no range in the plaza that would require more than moderate skill to attain a hit. We are not talking a thousand yard shot here. Basic shooting skills, and a small amount of practice would have sufficed. Bill is correct from the aspect that the target would require very little lead.

To address the rifle resting on the fence issue. It would just be a matter of preference for the shooter. I would say there is no absolute answer for this question, at least none that could be given to the exclusion of all others.

Now for my own opinion, and this is just my opinion mind you.

It was a lousy position to chose to shoot from, and certainly not one I would have chosen.

It was not the origin on the head shot, and if any shot at all, a missed shot.

It would be ridiculous to back a shot with a handgun from this location, as some have claimed.

With JFK facing left at the time of the head shot, and the angle given from the knoll area, I would think we would see a transiting shot exiting the right side of the head, very likely wounding Jackie.

Nothing about that shooting location adds up.

As a note there are ways to stabilize a rifle on that fence without sticking the barrel between the slats.

Best,

Mike

It was a lousy position to chose to shoot from, and certainly not one I would have chosen.

Mike as an ex military man where would you have chosen? Let me guess...from an open window high up in an adjacent building?

I really haven't a clue as to what anyone did with this Z film. I am neither pro nor anti 'alterationist' because, despite avidly reading these forums I still don't know enough. But a pattern is definitely emerging. Whenever a post is made by Jack there is a deluge of counter posts (some quite insulting) and all desperately trying to pour cold water over it. Given that those who don't believe in alteration and who view the very idea as being la la fantasy land and too ridiculous for words... WHY REPLY?!

If I were to repeatedly post a theory that OJ Simpson is really a hamster no one (other than a pyschiatrist) would bother even talking to me and quite rightly too. I feel sure that it would be treated with the contempt such a 'theory' would deserve. Would you make repeated counter posts to that Bill? No, of course not. Because why waste time on something so ridiculous.

Yet that is what you do every day. You counter claims and theories that you deem to be too ridiculous for words. So why not let them go unpassed? If they are that ridiculous people reading these forums (and not everyone is stupid Bill) will see that.

On the evidence produced so far I'm not 100% convinvced re the alteration claims, but what is tipping me over is the relentless amount of flak it generates from the usual suspects. Like it's a real raw nerve and MUST be refuted at every occasion.

Just an observation.

Bernie

[Mike Williams]

Bernie,

In reality the comparison to Oj as a hamster is a little more far fetched than many of the z film alteration claims, this could be one reason it receives so many replies.

I myself have not read one conclusive piece that has given me pause to suspect a forgery of the film, and so the bunk, and debunk continues.

As to where I would have chosen, if the operation were put to me, and given the fact that we have to have someone in the 6th floor my positions would be as follows.

1) 6th floor, banging away with the Carcano.

2) Dal-Tex Roof, for the straight away shot, and an excellent field of fire.

3) South triple overpass area, good field of fire, decent firing angle, excellent to effect an escape.

None of these positions interfere with one another, it is a safe cross fire situation.

The south op shooter should have held to a given mark. Say If JFK had not received a solid head shot before reaching the Stemmons sign, an insurance shooter if you will.

Don Roberdeau has done some excellent map work, and the shot from the south was possible, in my opinion.

I will contact Don and seek his permission to post his map of this angle here, so you can see it, and relate it to the over all geography.

Best to you Bernie,

Mike

[Bernie Laverick]

Bernie,

In reality the comparison to Oj as a hamster is a little more far fetched than many of the z film alteration claims, this could be one reason it receives so many replies.

I myself have not read one conclusive piece that has given me pause to suspect a forgery of the film, and so the bunk, and debunk continues.

As to where I would have chosen, if the operation were put to me, and given the fact that we have to have someone in the 6th floor my positions would be as follows.

1) 6th floor, banging away with the Carcano.

2) Dal-Tex Roof, for the straight away shot, and an excellent field of fire.

3) South triple overpass area, good field of fire, decent firing angle, excellent to effect an escape.

None of these positions interfere with one another, it is a safe cross fire situation.

The south op shooter should have held to a given mark. Say If JFK had not received a solid head shot before reaching the Stemmons sign, an insurance shooter if you will.

Don Roberdeau has done some excellent map work, and the shot from the south was possible, in my opinion.

I will contact Don and seek his permission to post his map of this angle here, so you can see it, and relate it to the over all geography.

Best to you Bernie,

Mike

Hi Mike

"I myself have not read one conclusive piece that has given me pause to suspect a forgery of the film, and so the bunk, and debunk continues".

But Mike it is a universally accepted fact that some frames are missing and some were inverted. Whilst that doesn’t prove “forgery”, it DOES prove alteration. Because the excuse for the missing frames is just laughable and ludicrously beyond belief. "It was given to a junior lab technician to splice and he accidentally damaged it!"

That’s like the Queen’s cardiologist allowing a hospital porter to do her triple bypass operation!

But I’d like to ask everyone the following and in particular to those who fervently believe in a conspiracy but don’t believe in any alteration of the Z film.

If a film did exist that refuted the official line of a lone gunman would the conspirators attempt to alter it in their favour if they had the opportunity?

Surely they would go to, have gone to, any lengths to avoid possible exposure and criminal charges. If a film existed that proved their guilt are we saying that their ‘morals’ would prevent them from committing forgery?

Note I am not asking “Is the Z film altered?” I’m asking “If they needed to alter a ‘problem’ film – any film - and could do…would they?”

Or would they simply put their hands in the air, shout “it’s a fair cop Guv’!” and resign themselves to their personal fate and the possible downfall of the American political system?

I’m fascinated to know what those who regularly attack the alteration claims think.

Bernie

PS Hey Mike thanks for chasing that map, appreciate that. Take care!

[Bill Miller]

Note I am not asking “Is the Z film altered?” I’m asking “If they needed to alter a ‘problem’ film – any film - and could do…would they?”

I personally cannot see anyone trying to alter the Zapruder film before frames were going into print. The film was shot with Kodachrome II film that according to CTs Robert Groden ... its properties could not have allowed someone to merely make prints and put them back into the film without color shifts and sharpness irregularities being present.

Another problem for an alteration would be to risk one of the actual witnesses spotting the change as being something that did not match what they witnessed at the time of the assassination. There also would have been the problem that the Feds did not know who all was filming at the time of the shooting and to keep an alteration hidden ... it would had to have been done to each and every assassination film that was running at the time of the shooting.

As far as frames being reversed ... that didn't occur to the actual film, but rather to the prints placed into the 26 volumes of the WCR.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

"It was given to a junior lab technician to splice and he accidentally damaged it!"

Can someone tell me what this quote was about? I know of no records that say that the camera original Zapruder film was ever sent out to be spliced. In fact, Life Magazine didn't deal in film/movies, but rather did still photos. The film was damaged by a lab tech and spliced back together ... not merely spliced without it being damaged first.

Bill

[Bernie Laverick]

"It was given to a junior lab technician to splice and he accidentally damaged it!"

Can someone tell me what this quote was about? I know of no records that say that the camera original Zapruder film was ever sent out to be spliced. In fact, Life Magazine didn't deal in film/movies, but rather did still photos. The film was damaged by a lab tech and spliced back together ... not merely spliced without it being damaged first.

Bill

Fair point Bill, it wasn't spliced by a lab technician...just damaged by one. The salient point being, why was he entrusted with it in the first place? And doesn't it have a ring of "The dog ate my homework Sir" about it? I'm inspired by your accepting view of humanity - I just wish you'd been my school teacher!

Bill I asked earlier what folk like yourself (CT but anti alterationist) felt about the principle of film alteration. Given you believe that there was a conspiracy you must therefore acknowledge that there must have been conspirators. You'd agree then that as this would be the crime of the century (and then some) and the ramifications of being caught so horrendous that those conspirators would go to the ends of the earth to conceal it.

Bill if a film existed (any film) that proved beyond doubt that there were multiple shooters would the conspirators try and alter it if they had the opportunity?

Even if that just meant ‘damaging’ a couple of problem frames Bill, would they do it if they could?

[David G. Healy]

Note I am not asking “Is the Z film altered?” I’m asking “If they needed to alter a ‘problem’ film – any film - and could do…would they?”

I personally cannot see anyone trying to alter the Zapruder film before frames were going into print. The film was shot with Kodachrome II film that according to CTs Robert Groden ... its properties could not have allowed someone to merely make prints and put them back into the film without color shifts and sharpness irregularities being present.

Another problem for an alteration would be to risk one of the actual witnesses spotting the change as being something that did not match what they witnessed at the time of the assassination. There also would have been the problem that the Feds did not know who all was filming at the time of the shooting and to keep an alteration hidden ... it would had to have been done to each and every assassination film that was running at the time of the shooting.

As far as frames being reversed ... that didn't occur to the actual film, but rather to the prints placed into the 26 volumes of the WCR.

Bill

bull-puckey, unadultrated Lone Nut nonsense...

[Bernie Laverick]

Note I am not asking “Is the Z film altered?” I’m asking “If they needed to alter a ‘problem’ film – any film - and could do…would they?”

I personally cannot see anyone trying to alter the Zapruder film before frames were going into print. The film was shot with Kodachrome II film that according to CTs Robert Groden ... its properties could not have allowed someone to merely make prints and put them back into the film without color shifts and sharpness irregularities being present.

Another problem for an alteration would be to risk one of the actual witnesses spotting the change as being something that did not match what they witnessed at the time of the assassination. There also would have been the problem that the Feds did not know who all was filming at the time of the shooting and to keep an alteration hidden ... it would had to have been done to each and every assassination film that was running at the time of the shooting.

As far as frames being reversed ... that didn't occur to the actual film, but rather to the prints placed into the 26 volumes of the WCR.

Bill

Another problem for an alteration would be to risk one of the actual witnesses spotting the change as being something that did not match what they witnessed at the time of the assassination

Didn't Jean Hill say she wasn't stood where the film shows her to be standing? But that problem is chicken feed. A good old fashioned car crash or suicide normally sorts that kind of trifling problem.

A much worse scenario surely would be definitive PROOF of a conspiracy catured on film! If you were a conspirator which would you risk? A problem witness or 200 or definitive proof of your culpability?

But in fairness Bill you still haven't addressed my question. I asked would they do it if they could? Not DID they.

[Bill Miller]

Sure thing, Mike. I'll address your question. But first a little preliminary data is necessary in order to make my answer clear. BM (Bill Miller) described how he would have effected a sniper shot from Hatman's position behind the picket fence. The problem is that since Hatman's hat is seen in Moorman's photo just barely above the top of the fence, then how can Hatman fire a rifle just then (the fatal head shot)?

Miles, in case you have not figured it out by now ... Mike is not an idiot, so you are not going to be able to tell him that Moorman's photo was taken at the same moment as the head shot. Mike is also smart enough to understand Moorman's uphill perspective - the lack of the two trees in Mary's photo that appear in yours - and Mike is not one to cave to someone thinking that all they have to do is misstate something enough times and it will become the truth. I know this much just from he and I corresponding away from the forum and from his responses to you and Duncan.

Bill Miller

Edited May 14, 2008 by Bill Miller