Zfilm Revisited

[Bill Miller]

Miller has no idea what I believe.

Jack

You are right, Jack. When you talk one way and then another ... its very confusing ... I guess with you it depends on which way the wind is blowing at any given time. For instance you have said that Altgens #6 was genuine in your opinion and could be used against the other photographic evidence. That was a good call because Altgens had his photos developed immediately after the assassination and they went out on the news-wire. But only after you found out that Moorman's and Hill's shadows were seen in the lower right hand corner of that photo and coming from the grass - you flipped 180 degrees and claimed the image altered. So yes, I have no idea what your position is at any given time any more than you seem to know.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

The 2' by 3' muddy area where many footprints were found impressed into the mud was located between the car & the picket fence: NOT between the cars.

Miles, can you not follow this bloody elephant in the fresh fallen snow??? You have simply been asked if you had evidence as to when the prints in the mud were made - before - during - or after the shooting ... I am still waiting for a direct reply. I hope you are not implying that the person who made those prints didn't parachute into that location, thus can we assume that he walked up to that location between two cars. And if we can assume that this person walked up to that location and didn't leave prints on the ground, then could it be that just the area behind the car was the only place that prints could be made, which again doesn't tell us if a shot was fired from the muddy spot or a few feet away between the parked cars. So it seems that this is just another situation where you are going to do all you can to avoid a direct question for reasons other than the purpose by which the forum was created.

If the sniper is standing in the muddy area & if he attempts to rest his rifle barrel between the slats, then he finds that because of the length of the rifle he does not have room or enough space between the car & the fence to remain standing within the locus of the 2' by 3' muddy area observed by Holland.

We have a saying back home that goes like this ... 'If the dog hadn't stopped to do his business, then he would have caught the rabbit.' There were muddy foot prints on the bumper ... maybe the shooter sat back on the trunk with one muddy foot on the bumper ... no one knows ... especially you. You are constantly claiming things can or cannot be done when the opposite is true if just an ounce of thought was put into the possibilities.

If the sniper is standing between the cars (outside of the muddy trampled area observed by Holland) & waiting for the appearance of the limo for some time, then why were no foot prints found between the cars?

I have to ask again ... do you know if any shots were fired from that location were the footprints were seen behind the car??? If not, then justt say so rather than to try and make another 'Duncan has been consulting Mack and Groden' claim that you know not to be so.

The answer is: Because no one stood between the cars. No one stood for any length of time there, pacing, stamping there as he waited for the pot-shot at the flash target. And, of course, he would have had to have stood there for a length of time because he did not know in advance when the target would flash into view, i.e. his view. So, he would have had to have left a second little muddy trampled area beside the area Holland saw. But Holland only saw one such area.

I think a five year old could have compiled a more rational and sensible answer than you have. You first argued that Hat Man never existed. Then you reference Holland going to the spot where the foot-prints were seen so to imply someone was there. In an effort to argue at all cost - you have contradicted your past response. You post nothing from your own personal experience being at the fence and checking this stuff out for yourself, but rather you use poorly detailed cartoons with the limo in the wrong place - red plaid jackets drawn in for no other reason than to xxxxx a response. (By the way ... wasn't it your position that the red plaid jacketed man was on the knoll and not in the RR yard ... and if so, is it your contention that others wore red plaid jackets as well. If that is the case, then maybe you might want to research whether or not there was a big sale on red-plaid jackets prior to the assassination so maybe you can run these culprits down) Oh never mind ... I remember Kathy calling you on the red-plaid garbage and you were forced to admit that no one described the word 'red' when referring to the two men Bowers spoke about. Carry on with your trolling! LOL!!!

If Hatman was a shooter, then he did not rest his barrel between the slats. And if he he did not rest his barrel between the slats, then his hat is too low on the fence top to show someone firing OVER the fence. Thus, Hatman is not a shooter.

We have been through the timing of Moorman's photo - the uphill view - and the distance someone could move in 4 Zframes of time. Ignoring it to make your remarks seem correct is what you must do, then OK ... it doesn't work for me.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

You have simply been asked if you had evidence as to when the prints in the mud were made - before - during - or after the shooting ... I am still waiting for a direct reply.

Bill Miller

Sometimes - usually once in about 300 posts - you actually get something right. As Duncan will tell you, it's always a cause for delighted wonderment.

In this case you have really hit the nail neatly & squarely on its head.

You have said: "You have simply been asked..."

Correct! Your question is indeed simple, so simple indeed as to be almost simple minded in its sweep & scope & profundity.

The evidence is the prints in the mud.

The prints were made relative the shooting:

1.) before

2.) during

3.) after

4.) before & during

5.) before & after, but not during

6.) during & after

7.) before, during & after

I think that covers everything.

I think I have guessed your next question. It would be:

Do you have any evidence that the prints were made with a right foot shoe, a left foot shoe or both a right & left shoe?

When I answer: Gosh, I really don't know.

Then you will say:

AH HA !! I thought so! Can you say, then, that these were not the prints seen by Holland ???

Edited May 26, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Here she is.

Duncan

Tina and her dad are seen just under the word 'image' in the size heading. Tina looks to have on a blue sweater ... her bare legs and socks are seen just over the curb. Move the white arrow over to the right an inch in the cropping and you'd be correct IMO.

Bill

Edited May 27, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Sometimes - usually once in about 300 posts - you actually get something right. As Duncan will tell you, it's always a cause for delighted wonderment.

In this case you have really hit the nail neatly & squarely on its head.

You have said: "You have simply been asked..."

Correct! your question is indeed simple, so simple indeed as to be almost simple minded in its sweep & scope & profundity.

Can someone point out the answer to my question in the response you just gave?

The evidence is the prints in the mud.

The prints were made relative the shooting:

1.) before

2.) during

3.) after

4.) before & during

5.) before & after, but not during

6.) during & after

7.) before, during & after

I think that covers everything.

Can we assume that your response translates into your not knowing when the prints were made in relation to the shooting.

I think I have guessed your next question. It would be:

Do you have any evidence that the prints made with a right foot shoe, a left foot shoe or both a right & left shoe?

No ... my question has and still goes to the timing of them being made in relation to the shooting. You have made some comments that do not support one another, so I am trying to break it down so your logic or lack thereof can be better understood.

When I answer: Gosh, I really don't know.

Then you will say:

AH HA !! I thought so! Can you say that these were not the prints seen by Holland ???

Are you now debating with yourself.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Are you now debating with yourself.

So, you really think that someone hiding in the trunk of the car used a shoe attached to severed mop handle to place 100 shoe prints in mud produced by spilling water from a canteen onto the dirt near the fence?

And that this was done to deflect attention away from these telltale prints overlooked between the cars?

Edit: format error

Edited May 26, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

name='Miles Scull' date='May 26 2008, 09:49 PM' post='146282'

So, you really think that someone hiding in the trunk of the car used a shoe attached to severed mop handle to place 100 shoe prints in mud produced by spilling water from a canteen onto the dirt near the fence?

And that this was done to deflect attention away from these telltale prints overlooked between the cars?[/color][/b]

Diverting attention through idiocy will not win a debate or even help make your position seem more clear. Its obvious that anyone leaving tracks behind the car and in this small space had done so by walking up the side between the cars and up to the fence ... much the same way Holland took Mark Lane to that location.

You were asked if the prints in the mud were made during the shooting and your inability to offer a straight answer tells me that you don't know. When asked if someone could have been standing between the cars when shooting - your position was that the prints in the mud were behind the car in a 2' x 3' space ... as if to imply that there was no evidence of anyone ever being between the cars.

I asked why footprints would only be there ... I wanted to see if you'd acknowledge that maybe there was a reason why prints were not reported between the cars. I wondered if you would consider that maybe the lot wasn't muddy like it may have been up near the fence. I then sarcastically asked if maybe someone parachuted down to that spot to see what you'd say because you stressed the footprints being said to be 'behind' the car.

Now for some seemingly silly reason you are currently talking about people hiding in trunks and making fake footprints on the ground. Do you feel that others see you as a serious researcher when you continue with such responses as these ... I don't think they do!

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

[name=Bill Miller' date='May 27 2008, 03:14 AM' post='146312]

[name=Miles Scull' date='May 26 2008, 09:49 PM' post='146282]

So, you really think that someone hiding in the trunk of the car used a shoe attached to severed mop handle to place 100 shoe prints in mud produced by spilling water from a canteen onto the dirt near the fence?

And that this was done to deflect attention away from these telltale prints overlooked between the cars?

I wondered if you would consider that maybe the lot wasn't muddy like it may have been up near the fence.

Bill Miller

Right. I considered that, as well as considering that the cloud burst was confined to selectively dropping a downpour only over the small 2' by 3' muddy area observed by Holland. A micro-burst from a passing very small cell at low altitude.

I also considered that what Duncan calls "The Magic BILLet Theory" & which I call "the barrel between the slats theory" is now officially exploded & is now consigned to the dust heap of history, the eternal abode of obvious nonsense.

[Bill Miller]

Right. I considered that, as well as considering that the cloud burst was confined to selectively dropping a downpour only over the small 2' by 3' muddy area observed by Holland. A micro-burst from a passing very small cell at low altitude.

I also considered that what Duncan calls "The Magic BILLet Theory" & which I call "the barrel between the slats theory" is now officially exploded & is now consigned to the dust heap of history, the eternal abode of obvious nonsense.

And let us consider the Miles Skull is trolling for attention theory.

[David G. Healy]

Right. I considered that, as well as considering that the cloud burst was confined to selectively dropping a downpour only over the small 2' by 3' muddy area observed by Holland. A micro-burst from a passing very small cell at low altitude.

I also considered that what Duncan calls "The Magic BILLet Theory" & which I call "the barrel between the slats theory" is now officially exploded & is now consigned to the dust heap of history, the eternal abode of obvious nonsense.

And let us consider the Miles Skull is trolling for attention theory.

Miles,

When BMiller runs out of gas he trots out the "xxxxx" card, he has no alternative...... just to keep a thread going way beyond the norm. Loves to see those thousand+ views. Guy is a living cartoon....

[David G. Healy]

Right. I considered that, as well as considering that the cloud burst was confined to selectively dropping a downpour only over the small 2' by 3' muddy area observed by Holland. A micro-burst from a passing very small cell at low altitude.

I also considered that what Duncan calls "The Magic BILLet Theory" & which I call "the barrel between the slats theory" is now officially exploded & is now consigned to the dust heap of history, the eternal abode of obvious nonsense.

And let us consider the Miles Skull is trolling for attention theory.

Miles,

When BMiller runs out of gas he trots out the "xxxxx" card, he has no alternative...... just to keep a thread going way beyond the norm. Loves to see those thousand+ views. Guy is a living cartoon....

Do you mean Looney Tunes David?.... surely not

Duncan

none other....

[Bill Miller]

Miles,

When BMiller runs out of gas he trots out the "xxxxx" card, he has no alternative...... just to keep a thread going way beyond the norm. Loves to see those thousand+ views. Guy is a living cartoon....

What is your solution, David ... to call everyone who doesn't agree with you a lone-nutter! (LOL!!!) Just like now ... you just replied to a thread that you have not posted any data to one way or the other. Do we need to post the definition of a 'forum xxxxx' again to see if you also fall into that category. (smile~)

Anytime you feel like you have something sensible to add to the discussion, then by all means bring it on. And keep in mind that it was this 'cartoon' that caused you to have to admit years after the great 'Hoax' book was written that you had not seen any proof of alteration ... that it was something you had said all along. Your being a part of that book tells me that the information contained within it didn't impress you at all. So any time you wish to dance again ... please join in. However, you may wish to have someone proof-read your responses before posting them so you don't have to eat your words again.

By the way, I see you got Duncan to smile ... do you enjoy those 'enhancements' that Duncan has been posting ... ??????

Edited May 27, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Miles,

When BMiller runs out of gas he trots out the "xxxxx" card, he has no alternative...... just to keep a thread going way beyond the norm. Loves to see those thousand+ views. Guy is a living cartoon....

What is your solution, David ... to call everyone who doesn't agree with you a lone-nutter! (LOL!!!) Just like now ... you just replied to a thread that you have not posted any data to one way or the other. Do we need to post the definition of a 'forum xxxxx' again to see if you also fall into that category. (smile~)

Anytime you feel like you have something sensible to add to the discussion, then by all means bring it on. And keep in mind that it was this 'cartoon' that caused you to have to admit years after the great 'Hoax' book was written that you had not seen any proof of alteration ... that it was something you had said all along. Your being a part of that book tells me that the information contained within it didn't impress you at all. So any time you wish to dance again ... please join in. However, you may wish to have someone proof-read your responses before posting them so you don't have to eat your words again.

By the way, I see you got Duncan to smile ... do you enjoy those 'enhancements' that Duncan has been posting ... ??????

very simple solution, make the original 35mm slides (Life magazine) of the alledged, in-camera, Z-film available to researchers... The first result of such a gesture would be that of, YOU Bill Miller falling back into the crowd and simply FADING away towards a new alias...... we can't have that though, can we? Might interrupt your career path climb at the 6th Floor Museum, eh? Help us out here GaryM......

We're not fooled, BM! So, Maestro, the music, up another 10db... there's a Lone Nutter thinking he knows the Z-film.... time to dance.....

[Bill Miller]

very simple solution, make the original 35mm slides (Life magazine) of the alledged, in-camera, Z-film available to researchers... The first result of such a gesture would be that of, YOU Bill Miller falling back into the crowd and simply FADING away towards a new alias...... we can't have that though, can we? Might interrupt your career path climb at the 6th Floor Museum, eh? Help us out here GaryM......

We're not fooled, BM! So, Maestro, the music, up another 10db... there's a Lone Nutter thinking he knows the Z-film.... time to dance.....

And who would you recommend that those slides be turned over to for inspection, David??? You - Duncan - who??? The first thing would be to study the camera original as you always say ... slides are mere copies, so it seems odd that you would now want to study copies. (Is this more double-talk on your part)

Then you would submit this researchers qualifications and the reasons you have come up with as to why the Zapruder camera original has come into question, but don't let it be someone who is on record saying that they have seen no proof of alteration or you won't get far. LOL!!!

[Alan Healy]

I see it only in ONE frame; in the other frames it appears to be "a leaf"; and besides, those frames are misnumbered.

Jack

Jack, somewhere back on the forum (maybe Miles can help for a change, there was a four frame gif that I posted showing Hudson turning his head with the movement of the car. So whether the frames are 1 - 4 or 16 - 20 - or 100 - 104 ... its not their numbers that was an issue here, but whether the person's head is seen in more than one frame.

Bill

Zapruder actually shows the peak of Hudson "Baseball" type cap turning left & then dropping sharply.

Watching it again now it's even more obvious than before.

I thought this observation of Chris's was also worthy of futher study.

Is there a something dark on the wall behind the Willis girl or does she "really" lose her head?

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...oseheadWill.gif

Anyway, ignore me I'm just catching up on some of these threads.