Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bill Miller ?........


Recommended Posts

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.

For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

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

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

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.

I agree with your statement. I had to write something about myself to shut Healy up. As far as the length of time ... there are reasons why there are levels of education that come along with degrees, so it seems that the more one has been taught ... the more they will know compared to someone who hasn't. For instance, I dwell in the photographic evidence and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do.

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.

I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph.

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.

I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor.

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

I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read.

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

Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

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

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

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.

I agree with your statement. I had to write something about myself to shut Healy up. As far as the length of time ... there are reasons why there are levels of education that come along with degrees, so it seems that the more one has been taught ... the more they will know compared to someone who hasn't. For instance, I dwell in the photographic evidence and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do.

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.

I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph.

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.

I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor.

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

I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read.

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

Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher????

For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right?

Actually! I have no idea as to whether or not the ORIGINAL Z-film has or has not been altered, and seriously doubt that any of us will ever see the ORIGINAL film in order to fully ascertain one way or another.

However, since all that we ever see are copies of copies, etc; then one can rest assured that what we are being fed is as phony as is the WC's THE SHOT THAT MISSED scenario. (which includes the SBT as well)

I dwell in the photographic evidence

You may "dwell" there, however, that I am aware, you most certainly have not added a great amount of knowledge and understanding to the manipulations of the photographic evidence.

Exactly why was it that I had to explain to the reading public about the manipulations of the Altgens/Z255 photo and re-enactment, while you profess some great amount of study of the photographic evidence?

and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do.

Perhaps you may be of the opinion that it is "foolish" to inform someone who professes some expertise that their research protocal is BS, but having conducted a few research programs as well written a paper or two, I certainly have no qualms in that regards.

Obviously, along with many other items, you do not understand the concept of "Complimentary Science" as applies to Blood Spatter analysis and how it must correspond with and correlate to the other known physical facts.

Which by the way your expert apparantly does not understand either.

So, when some purported "EXPERT" ignores all established physical facts and then makes a statement as assinine as has been made in regards to the Blood Spatter, then it don't bother me an iota to inform as to exactly how stupid such a statement is and exactly how stupid anyone who believes and promotes the concept also is.

I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph.

[b]I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record [/b]

Excuse me! I have obviously been operating under the misconception that the photographs taken by James Altgens were a critical part of the "photographic record"!

Why not just come out and state that in your 25 years (or whatever) of purported research, you do not even have sufficient experience and/or qualifications to look at the Altgens Z255 photo and the WC re-enactment photo and tell that the two photographs were taken from a completely different location and alignment.

And, the "photographic record" is a chemical/mechanical process of imposing an image onto film. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the person taking the photo may or may not think that he sees.

I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor.

"Stress" happens to be when you are the individual who is designated as the receiving end of the bullet.

Standing and watching an event transpire, without full understanding of exactly what is happening, is not normally a stressful event.

Just exactly how many of those witnesses is it that you think were so "stressed" out that they did not have sufficient memory recall to establish that it was the second shot which they observed strike JFK in the right rear high of the head?

"Occams Razor" , last time that I checked, had no references to the ability of an eyewitness to recall events, and were it that you were that knowledgeable in regards to Occam's Razor, then it most unlikely that you would have ever fallen for the WC's THE SHOT THAT MISSED scenario.

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

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

I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read.

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

And therein lies you primary problem! That being, as simple as it was stated, you can not seem to even read and comprehend what was stated in regards to the "Blood Spatter'.

Now! One last time! Blood Spatter is a "Complimentary Science", which, when utilized in conjunction with the other known and established physical facts, can aid in an understanding of the overall event.

To look at some vague film, ignore multitudes of various established physical and forensic facts which are contradictory to the blood spatter hypothesis, and then state that JFK was hit in the head by a single shot from the front, is pure BS Science.

That you apparantly fell for and believed it is your problem, not mine. Personally, I am not that stupid or ignorant of the aspects of blood spatter or the established physical and forensic facts.

Thusly, it would appear that, since you fell for this garbage, that you are the one who is somewhat lacking in the education field of blood spatter analysis as well as all of the other known physical and forensic facts which totally "debunk" what you and a few others are attempting to promote.

Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher????

Let's take inventory:

1. BM fell for, believed, and even promoted a completely BS hypothesis on Blood Spatter, which is contradicted by many of the cited references; contradicted by the established and known physical and pathological facts of the assassination;, and, does not even pass the simple test of the "common man" concept of rational thought.

2. BM has researched the "photographic record" for 25 years, yet has never taken the time and effort to look at the Altgens Z255 photo and compare it with the WC re-enactment photo, which would clearly demonstrate that these two photographs were not taken from the same location or alignment.

4. BM who is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, never bothered to find out that the WC established the position of James Altgens at a point between the TSDB and the Moorman/Hill position, when in fact James Altgens was well past the location of Moorman/Hill and farther down Elm St. closer towards the underpass.

3. BM is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, yet has never discovered that multitudes of highly reliable witnesses clearly informed and so stated that the Z313 impact to the head of JFK was the second shot fired in the shooting sequence.

4. BM is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, yet has never discovered that James Altgens physically observed the impact to the head of JFK of the LAST SHOT FIRED, and since James Altgens was some 40-feet farther down the street from the Moorman/Hill location, then it would have been impossible for Altgens to have observed the Z313 impact (second shot) and thusly what he observed is exactly what he stated.

The LAST/FINAL/THIRD shot impact to the head of JFK, directly in front of where he was standing.

Now! From this, one could easily determine that BM most assuredly has nothing to "teach us", unless of course we merely want to run around and chase our tail as many have done for the past 40+years.

And, although I may not necessarily be the designated tearcher, neither am I the "dunce" who claims to have conducted research into this subject matter, yet clearly known nothing and believes BS on BS (Bull S**t on Blood Spatter).

Almost forgot! You fell for Al Carrier's BS line also, did you not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

When are you going to come to the reality that Purvis is the only one who knows anything about anything. Professionals like Carrier and Sherry Feister are just mere idiots, although they managed to build a whole career around buffaloing folks.

Next time we talk Bill remind me to give you some info on the Son Tay raid as well as Jeffery McDonald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

When are you going to come to the reality that Purvis is the only one who knows anything about anything. Professionals like Carrier and Sherry Feister are just mere idiots, although they managed to build a whole career around buffaloing folks.

Next time we talk Bill remind me to give you some info on the Son Tay raid as well as Jeffery McDonald.

Suck it up Williams. I'll go with Tom Purvis, okay -- he's a proven entity, you on the other hand, aren't....

And what does Son Tay and Jeff McDonald have to do with Sherry Feister, Al "in every post I'll give you my resume" Carrier and Bill Miller? Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

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

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

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.

I agree with your statement. I had to write something about myself to shut Healy up. As far as the length of time ... there are reasons why there are levels of education that come along with degrees, so it seems that the more one has been taught ... the more they will know compared to someone who hasn't. For instance, I dwell in the photographic evidence and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do.

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.

I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph.

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.

I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor.

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

I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read.

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

Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher????

For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right?

Actually! I have no idea as to whether or not the ORIGINAL Z-film has or has not been altered, and seriously doubt that any of us will ever see the ORIGINAL film in order to fully ascertain one way or another.

However, since all that we ever see are copies of copies, etc; then one can rest assured that what we are being fed is as phony as is the WC's THE SHOT THAT MISSED scenario. (which includes the SBT as well)

I dwell in the photographic evidence

You may "dwell" there, however, that I am aware, you most certainly have not added a great amount of knowledge and understanding to the manipulations of the photographic evidence.

Exactly why was it that I had to explain to the reading public about the manipulations of the Altgens/Z255 photo and re-enactment, while you profess some great amount of study of the photographic evidence?

and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do.

Perhaps you may be of the opinion that it is "foolish" to inform someone who professes some expertise that their research protocal is BS, but having conducted a few research programs as well written a paper or two, I certainly have no qualms in that regards.

Obviously, along with many other items, you do not understand the concept of "Complimentary Science" as applies to Blood Spatter analysis and how it must correspond with and correlate to the other known physical facts.

Which by the way your expert apparantly does not understand either.

So, when some purported "EXPERT" ignores all established physical facts and then makes a statement as assinine as has been made in regards to the Blood Spatter, then it don't bother me an iota to inform as to exactly how stupid such a statement is and exactly how stupid anyone who believes and promotes the concept also is.

I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph.

[b]I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record [/b]

Excuse me! I have obviously been operating under the misconception that the photographs taken by James Altgens were a critical part of the "photographic record"!

Why not just come out and state that in your 25 years (or whatever) of purported research, you do not even have sufficient experience and/or qualifications to look at the Altgens Z255 photo and the WC re-enactment photo and tell that the two photographs were taken from a completely different location and alignment.

And, the "photographic record" is a chemical/mechanical process of imposing an image onto film. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the person taking the photo may or may not think that he sees.

I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor.

"Stress" happens to be when you are the individual who is designated as the receiving end of the bullet.

Standing and watching an event transpire, without full understanding of exactly what is happening, is not normally a stressful event.

Just exactly how many of those witnesses is it that you think were so "stressed" out that they did not have sufficient memory recall to establish that it was the second shot which they observed strike JFK in the right rear high of the head?

"Occams Razor" , last time that I checked, had no references to the ability of an eyewitness to recall events, and were it that you were that knowledgeable in regards to Occam's Razor, then it most unlikely that you would have ever fallen for the WC's THE SHOT THAT MISSED scenario.

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

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

I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read.

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

And therein lies you primary problem! That being, as simple as it was stated, you can not seem to even read and comprehend what was stated in regards to the "Blood Spatter'.

Now! One last time! Blood Spatter is a "Complimentary Science", which, when utilized in conjunction with the other known and established physical facts, can aid in an understanding of the overall event.

To look at some vague film, ignore multitudes of various established physical and forensic facts which are contradictory to the blood spatter hypothesis, and then state that JFK was hit in the head by a single shot from the front, is pure BS Science.

That you apparantly fell for and believed it is your problem, not mine. Personally, I am not that stupid or ignorant of the aspects of blood spatter or the established physical and forensic facts.

Thusly, it would appear that, since you fell for this garbage, that you are the one who is somewhat lacking in the education field of blood spatter analysis as well as all of the other known physical and forensic facts which totally "debunk" what you and a few others are attempting to promote.

Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher????

Let's take inventory:

1. BM fell for, believed, and even promoted a completely BS hypothesis on Blood Spatter, which is contradicted by many of the cited references; contradicted by the established and known physical and pathological facts of the assassination;, and, does not even pass the simple test of the "common man" concept of rational thought.

2. BM has researched the "photographic record" for 25 years, yet has never taken the time and effort to look at the Altgens Z255 photo and compare it with the WC re-enactment photo, which would clearly demonstrate that these two photographs were not taken from the same location or alignment.

4. BM who is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, never bothered to find out that the WC established the position of James Altgens at a point between the TSDB and the Moorman/Hill position, when in fact James Altgens was well past the location of Moorman/Hill and farther down Elm St. closer towards the underpass.

3. BM is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, yet has never discovered that multitudes of highly reliable witnesses clearly informed and so stated that the Z313 impact to the head of JFK was the second shot fired in the shooting sequence.

4. BM is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, yet has never discovered that James Altgens physically observed the impact to the head of JFK of the LAST SHOT FIRED, and since James Altgens was some 40-feet farther down the street from the Moorman/Hill location, then it would have been impossible for Altgens to have observed the Z313 impact (second shot) and thusly what he observed is exactly what he stated.

The LAST/FINAL/THIRD shot impact to the head of JFK, directly in front of where he was standing.

Now! From this, one could easily determine that BM most assuredly has nothing to "teach us", unless of course we merely want to run around and chase our tail as many have done for the past 40+years.

And, although I may not necessarily be the designated tearcher, neither am I the "dunce" who claims to have conducted research into this subject matter, yet clearly known nothing and believes BS on BS (Bull S**t on Blood Spatter).

Almost forgot! You fell for Al Carrier's BS line also, did you not?

appears we got us another Vietnam War historian with more inside scoop on Son Tay and Jeff McDonald -- methinks it's pen*s envy. You *sneaky petes* have ALL the charm... don't waste any on the peanut gallery, Tom....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I am certainly no historian. And you are certainly free to follow whomever you chose.

I am simply smart enough to gather posts and review information. I suggest you do the same.

Personally Ill put my hat on proven professionals like Al and Sherry.

Son Tay, and the whole McDonald mess lends to credibility. Im sure you can figure this out with a little effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

When are you going to come to the reality that Purvis is the only one who knows anything about anything. Professionals like Carrier and Sherry Feister are just mere idiots, although they managed to build a whole career around buffaloing folks.

Next time we talk Bill remind me to give you some info on the Son Tay raid as well as Jeffery McDonald.

When are you going to come to the reality that Purvis is the only one who knows anything about anything. Professionals like Carrier and Sherry Feister are just mere idiots, although they managed to build a whole career around buffaloing folks

Your first named "professional" fell for the BS of Dangerous Dan Marvin, LTC, United States Quartermaster Supply Corps (Retired), as well as having made an attempt to pass himself off as having attended some "Scout Sniper" school at some mythological "Marathon Station", when in fact he was an MP in the US Army.

Your second named "professional" is of record stating that the Z-film serves as some form of factual evidence that JFK was struck in the head only one time, by a bullet fired from the front.

When in fact, here own cited reference, of whom I have long ago communicated with at least one, directly contradict this BS hypothesis, and in determination of this BS, ALL forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence which clearly demonstrates to the contrary (of the stated hypothesis) has been completely ignored.

Now, in event that you are stupid enough to believe either of these sources, then yoiu most assuredly fit into the nomenclature

which is so readily attached to those members of your branch of service.

Might want to read the facts that even a "non-military" oriented Chiropracter has sufficient cerebral matter to recognize that the BS is BS (Blood Spatter is Bull S**t)

When the "big scheme" of things is sorted out, at least I will be able to state that OF RECORD, none of the above hypothesis (Marvin; Carrier: &/or Sherry's) even came close to passing the "smell test".

As an ole country boy, BS is easy to recognize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I am certainly no historian. And you are certainly free to follow whomever you chose.

I am simply smart enough to gather posts and review information. I suggest you do the same.

Personally Ill put my hat on proven professionals like Al and Sherry.

Son Tay, and the whole McDonald mess lends to credibility. Im sure you can figure this out with a little effort.

Son Tay, and the whole McDonald mess lends to credibility. Im sure you can figure this out with a little effort.

Well! For those who live in the Dallas area, they might want to give a call to George Petrie and/or Udo Walther who were in "D" Company, 6thSF when we interviewed for the event.*

Might also want to contact Perot's people and ask if one Cpt. Thomas Purvis declined an employment interview, since Udo not only accepted and went to work for Perot, but also married his private secretary.

As regards Dr. MacDonald, would you like for me to name most of those who were photographed carrying the body of Colette MacDonald into the JFK Chapel during the Memorial Service held for the family?

It includes myself; Cpt Tom Eggleston; Lt. Brown; Cpt. Williams; and a few others that I do not at this point in age recall.

In event that you knew much of anything then you would also know the direct linkage between the FBI's obfuscation of the JFK assassination evidence and the MacDonald evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

When are you going to come to the reality that Purvis is the only one who knows anything about anything. Professionals like Carrier and Sherry Feister are just mere idiots, although they managed to build a whole career around buffaloing folks.

Next time we talk Bill remind me to give you some info on the Son Tay raid as well as Jeffery McDonald.

Suck it up Williams. I'll go with Tom Purvis, okay -- he's a proven entity, you on the other hand, aren't....

And what does Son Tay and Jeff McDonald have to do with Sherry Feister, Al "in every post I'll give you my resume" Carrier and Bill Miller? Please.

Suck it up Williams. I'll go with Tom Purvis, okay -- he's a proven entity, you on the other hand, aren't....

Personally, my recommendation would be that one merely stick with the simple facts.

Of course, there exist that old time honored aspect that one must first research and understand these facts.

And as far as the "film alteration" aspect goes, there are those who possess capabilities which by far exceed anything that I would ever come close to, and they are of the opinion that there is something "funny & phony" with what we are being fed as representing the intact Z-film.

Lastlyl, despite all of this, there continues to be "teaching points" which come forth by all concerned parties.

And, if one reads between the "assault lines" (assuming that one accepts the qualifications stated), then they can always pick up an additional reinforcement item.

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...2726&st=225

Post #231

First off there is no range in the plaza that would require more than moderate skill to attain a hit.

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

P.S. The "range" was:

1. First shot/aka between Z206 to Z213:----------------------------------------------Approximately 184 feet.

2. 5.8 to 5.9 seconds later, Z313:(survey station 4+65)----------------------------Approximately 242 feet.

3. Approximately 1.9 to 2.0 seconds later: (Altgens impact @ station 4+95)-----Approximately 292 feet.*

*The "snap shot"/last shot was in reality the best/luckiest shot. However when one considers that the shooter had the entire back of JFK bent over and exposed, then it was not in reality that great of a shot either.

The Z-313 shot was a relatively poor shot as had it been 1-inch or so higher, it would have completely missed the head of JFK, as well as had the Presidential Limo slowed any more than it did, then the shot would have also gone over the head of JFK.

And, just as with the "Walker" shot, the first shot was an almost complete miss due to most probably the same inexperience of "scope shooting" at close ranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad and sad that I started this thread?.....

don't sweat it Tom Kiehl.... we FINALLY found out BMiller can spell my name correctly after 7 years.

Ya want "in-depth research" when it comes to events in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? Tom Purvis is your guy (and a lot of it is right here in this forums archive)... the remaining forum posts concerning same events? Simple opinion and commentary (a lot of it trying to impress the City of Dallas AND The Sixth Floor Museum, lest I forget Bob Groden who lurks here :))

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I think the last shot was insurance. It had to be. Up until that time there were no satisfactory hits attained. The shooters were running out of time, and running out of room. Once that limo reached the t.o.p it was game over.

I do not believe there was anything significantly difficult about any of the shots. Properly executed they should have all been significant strikes with no follow up needed.

I also wanted to ask you, from your Military Days, ever met a man named Arnold Murray?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I think the last shot was insurance. It had to be. Up until that time there were no satisfactory hits attained. The shooters were running out of time, and running out of room. Once that limo reached the t.o.p it was game over.

I do not believe there was anything significantly difficult about any of the shots. Properly executed they should have all been significant strikes with no follow up needed.

I also wanted to ask you, from your Military Days, ever met a man named Arnold Murray?

Mike

I think the last shot was insurance. It had to be. Up until that time there were no satisfactory hits attained.

The "last shot"/scheduled to be #4, was found chambered in the weapon and was never gotten off.

Most likely due to time constraints as well as the fact that Clint Hill was now blocking the line-of-sight to target.

The third shot impact was directly in front of James Altgens position, and IS NOT the Z313 impact which occurred some 30-feet back up Elm St. prior.

The second shot impact/aka Z313, tore the top off JFK's head and ripped the upper and frontal lobe of his brain to shreds, therefore I must disagree with the concept that this was not a "satisfactory hit", as it alone was more than sufficient to have killed JFK.

ever met a man named Arnold Murray?

Not that I would recall! However, when one has been the Commanding Officer of two (of the three) divisions of the Specialized Training Department of Special Forces Schools (SCUBA & Jumpmaster), as well as an Instructor with the HALO Committee (the third division), then literally hundreds of persons from all branches of the services as well as a variety of foreign countries have crossed my pathway.

I frequently have difficulties in even recollection of the names of all of the instructors who served with me in these schools!

Not to mention other assignments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

Interesting shooting sequence.

I was certainly referring to the 313 as the final shot, you contend there was one after that one?

I will drop you an email about Murray, I think that it is VERY likely you may have crossed his path.

Mike

I was certainly referring to the 313 as the final shot, you contend there was one after that one?

Hopefully, among other items, my epitath will read:

"He never believed the WC and/or THE SHOT THAT MISSED!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htm

Perhaps a few comments as to exactly why any "shooter' would fall for and believe this garbage, would be appropriate.

Especially from anyone who recognizes the true "difficulty rating" of the shots as explained!

P.S. You were aware that LHO, for the most part was an excellent shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...