Bill Miller ?........

[Tom Kiehl]

thanks for the responses.......BMiller I never knew from what I have read that you were a CT.....if you can continue......what happenned ?....do you agree on how small and inclined DP is?!! thank you...

[Bill Miller]

thanks for the responses.......BMiller I never knew from what I have read that you were a CT.....if you can continue......what happenned ?....do you agree on how small and inclined DP is?!! thank you...

In the future you may wish to read more than the responses made by David Healy. In fact, I'd be most curious to know just exactly what you ever read that would cause you to make such a gross misstatement of fact concerning me being a lone assassin supporter???

And yes, Dealey Plaza is a small area and a beautiful one for such a tragic event to have occurred there.

Bill Miller

[Tom Kiehl]

I have not read any Dh responses......I just wanted to ask you a few questions.....and the reason was you just seemed offensive on why I posted in the first place....are you just determined to be "right".....and please I am not getting into a pissing contest....and that is why I posted...thanks....tom

[Tom Kiehl]

To address your question as to why I thought you were a lt theorist....I never knew or cared....I'm just learning and I never read your posts....but I am glad as far as the evidence is that you are a ct....tom

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

[...] I have said that there was a conspiracy in my view more than any one else on these forums. This ranges from my belief that Badge Man is real - to Gordon Arnold being correct - to believing Ed Hoffman and what he witnessed - to Connally being wounded through the chest at a time that his right wrist was too high in the air to account for one bullet causing all of his wounds. I believe that a shot was fired from the location of the Hat Man location and have argued in support of that position more times than I can count. I believe the autopsy photos do not depict the truth about what the Dallas doctors described pertaining to the avulsion to the back of the President's head. [...}

Respectably,

Bill Miller

___________________________________________

Bill,

Thanks.

--Thomas

___________________________________________

bump

[Bill Miller]

To address your question as to why I thought you were a lt theorist....I never knew or cared....I'm just learning and I never read your posts....but I am glad as far as the evidence is that you are a ct....tom

You assumed that I supported the lone assassin conclusion ... presumably from reading my post. Your answer didn't seem to say why you assumed that I was a LN supporter. You say you never cared one way or the other, but yet you started a thread in my name. The evidence of the JFK assassination is clearer to me than your response, but what the heck ... maybe its just me.

Bill

[Don Bailey]

To address your question as to why I thought you were a lt theorist....I never knew or cared....I'm just learning and I never read your posts....but I am glad as far as the evidence is that you are a ct....tom

You assumed that I supported the lone assassin conclusion ... presumably from reading my post. Your answer didn't seem to say why you assumed that I was a LN supporter.

Bill

I agree with Tom, from your posts I’m convinced that you are a LN supporter. Instinct!! You have an answer to most all conspiracy theories to debunk them... that's why you received the MF award. When was the last time you started a thread? Why do you bully the men on this forum and are sweet as pie to the women members?

Do me a favor, next time you post the same thing over and over again about another member include the word "mmmrrrrraaappp" because you sound like a parrot!!!

Don

[Mike Williams]

Beetle,

Then your instincts are incorrect. Bill is no more a Lone Nut supporter than Jack, David or many others.

What does his starting a thread have to do with anything? Is he required by some law to begin new threads in order to be able to reply to threads begun by others?

As for bullying, you should read more of the existing threads, its pretty much a give and take around here.

What is wrong with debunking a conspiracy theory that does not work? It sounds as though you are saying that because Bill debunks some theory, he must be a lone nut, which is as irrational as your parrot comment.

I think Bill has done some excellent work. I may not agree with all of it in totem, but I believe much of the work is very good. I would say the same of Jack White. We do not all agree, that is why is is called debate.

Mike

[Bill Miller]

What does his starting a thread have to do with anything?

It doesn't have anything to do with the issue ... its a magicians trick to divert peoples attention away from a flawed proclamation.

It sounds as though you are saying that because Bill debunks some theory, he must be a lone nut, which is as irrational as your parrot comment.

I often times wonder if there are those here who post such foolish things like Don did so to make it appear they are CTs, when in reality their only goal is to make all CTs look like utter idiots so when a good CTs claim is made, then it can be brushed off by referring back to their cult-like mentality. I guess a simple way of saying it is that its a form of counter-intellgence at play by showing little to no intelligence to achieve a hidden agenda! (smile~)

Bill Miller

Edited May 12, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Beetle,

Then your instincts are incorrect. Bill is no more a Lone Nut supporter than Jack, David or many others.

What does his starting a thread have to do with anything? Is he required by some law to begin new threads in order to be able to reply to threads begun by others?

As for bullying, you should read more of the existing threads, its pretty much a give and take around here.

What is wrong with debunking a conspiracy theory that does not work? It sounds as though you are saying that because Bill debunks some theory, he must be a lone nut, which is as irrational as your parrot comment.

I think Bill has done some excellent work. I may not agree with all of it in totem, but I believe much of the work is very good. I would say the same of Jack White. We do not all agree, that is why is is called debate.

Mike

for a Lone Nut, Miller is not bad.... when he gets educated in film compositing (5-10 years down the line) we'll finally have something to talk about.... till then more of the same BS from BM

Edited May 12, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

for a Lone Nut, Miller is not bad.... when he gets educated in film compositing (5-10 years down the line) we'll finally have something to talk about.... till then more of the same BS from BM

"A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background or his or her level of intelligence. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary. Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real."

That's the beauty of talking with people like Groden who have even more experience than that. But as you know, there is also getting caught up on Kodachrome II film and its properties. Let us know when you get up to speed with Zavada. LOL!!!

Edited May 12, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

for a Lone Nut, Miller is not bad.... when he gets educated in film compositing (5-10 years down the line) we'll finally have something to talk about.... till then more of the same BS from BM

"A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background or his or her level of intelligence. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary. Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real."

That's the beauty of talking with people like Groden who have even more experience than that. But as you know, there is also getting caught up on Kodachrome II film and its properties. Let us know when you get up to speed with Zavada. LOL!!!

Old Bruno Maggli Groden? C'mon Miller don't go delusional on us, now.... Zavada, hell son, Zavada withdrew from the 2003 Univ of Minn Zapruder film symposium.... I showed up.... come to think of it, you HID too!

You're way out of your league son..... get Gary Mack some coffee or something - be useful for a change....

The word "foundation" trip you up, son?

Edited May 12, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Thomas Graves]

Beetle,

Then your instincts are incorrect. Bill is no more a Lone Nut supporter than Jack, David or many others.

What does his starting a thread have to do with anything? Is he required by some law to begin new threads in order to be able to reply to threads begun by others?

As for bullying, you should read more of the existing threads, its pretty much a give and take around here.

What is wrong with debunking a conspiracy theory that does not work? It sounds as though you are saying that because Bill debunks some theory, he must be a lone nut, which is as irrational as your parrot comment.

I think Bill has done some excellent work. I may not agree with all of it in totem, but I believe much of the work is very good. I would say the same of Jack White. We do not all agree, that is why is is called debate.

Mike

_________________________________________

Exactly.

Good post, Mike.

(Emphasis added by me.)

--Thomas

_________________________________________

Edited May 12, 2008 by Thomas Graves

[Bill Miller]

Old Bruno Maggli Groden? C'mon Miller don't go delusional on us, now.... Zavada, hell son, Zavada withdrew from the 2003 Univ of Minn Zapruder film symposium.... I showed up.... come to think of it, you HID too!

You're way out of your league son..... get Gary Mack some coffee or something - be useful for a change....

The word "foundation" trip you up, son?

Maybe Zavada heard that only a few boobs were going, so why waste his money and time on such a spectacle. After all ... that was the "Alteration crowds' event and had nothing of merit to offer ... and how do I know that you ask ... because you were there and years later were posting that you had seen no proof of alteration.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15

post #19

David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Feb 4 2007, 01:12 AM

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Old Bruno Maggli Groden? C'mon Miller don't go delusional on us, now.... Zavada, hell son, Zavada withdrew from the 2003 Univ of Minn Zapruder film symposium.... I showed up.... come to think of it, you HID too!

You're way out of your league son..... get Gary Mack some coffee or something - be useful for a change....

The word "foundation" trip you up, son?

Maybe Zavada heard that only a few boobs were going, so why waste his money and time on such a spectacle. After all ... that was the "Alteration crowds' event and had nothing of merit to offer ... and how do I know that you ask ... because you were there and years later were posting that you had seen no proof of alteration.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15

post #19

David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Feb 4 2007, 01:12 AM

David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...

Please feel free to add my name to this listing as well!

Which of course adds no validity to the statement of alteration, yet, when an absolute "LNer" is willing to climb out on this limb, then one just may want to give the statement due consideration.

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

I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years[/i

]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill, it is neither now much nor how long one has "studied" something that has relevance.

Primarily, it is what one has learned from such an endeavor.

With all of the considerably reliable witnesses who stated that it was the SECOND shot which struck JFK in the head (the Z313 impact), as well as that testimony regarding the third shot fired and the approximate location of the Presidential Limo when this shot was fired, to include the testimony of James Altgens regarding having observed the LAST shot fired striking JFK in the head, exactly why was it that you failed to resolve these simple issues, and apparantly believe the WC fairy tale in regards to THE SHOT THAT MISSED?

ESPECIALLY! When the WC also informed us that the Z313 imnpact was at survey stationing 4+65, as well as also informing us that the US Secret Service determined that the impact location for the LAST/THIRD/FINAL shot fired was at survey stationing 4+95, some 30 feet farther down Elm St. and directly in front of James Altgens position (as he so stated).

Can we assume that you have "studied" the witness testimonies, yet failed to understand the significance which these testimonies tell us?

As regard the photgraphic evidence, it took me all of 35 seconds or less to look at the Altgens/Z255 photo and the WC's re-enactment photo:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0054a.htm

To determine that this was a completely phony "re-enactment" photo which was taken from a totally different location than James Altgens was actually located when he took his photo.

Now, I must admit that it did take a little "extra effort" to ultimately determine the exact and true location of James Altgens, as well as piece together the pieces of the puzzle as to exactly why the WC attempted to not even call Altgens to testify; why the WC determined that there was nothing past Z-frame 334 worth publishing for us to see (which was prior to Altgens & the second yellow stripe coming into view in the film); why the "movement" of Altgens position in regards to the phony WC re-enactment photo; as well as why the WC "moved" Altgens position back up Elm St. past the location of Moorman/Hill, and far closer to the TSDB.

Now, just in case that you still have not figured it all out, it has to do with the impact location of the LAST/THIRD/FINAL shot fired and it's impact into the head of JFK as well.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.

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

I would suppose that it would be asking far too much for for one to expect of a "Researcher", that they not only read and understand the witness testimonies, but that they also be able to correlate this verbal evidence with the photographic evidence as well.

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

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

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence"

P.S. The "Blood Spatter" work which you apparantly fell for is refuse!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=4022

[i]It is very misleading, and borderline unethical to insinuate scientific work when there has been none. Even a casual read through forensic topics for high school students on the internet would disprove most of the erroneous claims on this page.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...id=17&page=

26. OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE BONE, BULLETS, BLOOD AND BRAIN THAT WERE FOUND IN FRONT OF KENNEDY THAT ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDED AND CONSISTENT WITH FORWARD HEAD SPATTER AND A REAR HEADSHOT.

Gutierrez response: I have not disregarded anything; I simply used the expertise and training I possess to interpret the evidence in the correct manner. Zimmerman and I both agree the bone, blood and tissue in front of Kennedy are forward spatter. We just disagree about how it got there. Remember I didn’t just read a book and do a few experiments; I am a Bloodstain Pattern analyst.

1. THEREFORE, SINCE ONLY TWO SPATTER PATTERNS ARE EVIDENT, ONLY ONE SHOT HIT PRESIDENT KENNEDY. THE ABOVE STATEMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS LOCATION OF THE ENTRANCE OR EXIT WOUNDS.

Gutierrez response: It has never been my objective to address the precise location of the entry or exit wounds. That area of expertise is best left to persons with the necessary knowledge of the medical evidence.

3. TWO BULLET FRAGMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE FRONT SEAT OF THE LIMOUSINE AND WEIGHED 44.6 AND 21.0 GRAINS. THE FBI FOUND THREE SMALL LEAD PARTICLES, WEIGHING EACH BETWEEN .7 AND .9 GRAINS, IN THE LEFT FRONT JUMP SEAT.

Gutierrez response: The location of lead fragments within a crime scene is not used in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis. As this is not an acceptable technique used in bloodstain pattern analysis, it is not appropriate for me to comment on them.

4. SMALL RESIDUE OF LEAD WAS FOUND ON THE INSIDE OF THE WINDSHIELD WITH SMALL CRACKS INDICATING THAT A BULLET FRAGMENT HIT THE WINDSHIELD ON THE INSIDE.

Gutierrez response: Using the location of lead residue within a scene is not they type of evidence used in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis since there may have been multiple shots from multiple directions. What is used is blood.

5. A DENT IN THE CHROME STRIP SURROUNDING THE WINDSHIELD WAS FOUND AND CONSISTENT WITH BEING HIT FROM A FRAGMENT OF THE FATAL SHOT.

Gutierrez response: Bloodstain Pattern Analysis does not include evaluation of vehicle damage. It simply evaluates the presence of physical evidence in the form of stains left from the physics of a traumatic event. This information is not the type of evidence used in this field. Additionally, in my opinion stating the dent is consistent with the fatal headshot is a huge assumption. More than one shot was fired, so it is inappropriate to make such a absolute statement and attribute all fragments or damage to the vehicle as having come from the fatal head shot.

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

Now, can we sufficiently state that in this "resolution", the researcher has basically stated that one is to ignore absolutely all other forms of physical evidence which is known to exist, and thereafter base this hypothetical theory on some "voodoo" method of looking at the Z-film.

Last time that I checked, that was referred to as the "Rectal Extraction" method of research!

Would everyone who fell for this please raise their hand, stand up, and then exit the classroom!