Sitzman - Did She Shoot The Other Film ?

[Bill Miller]

I think you are thinking of the guy who wrote the music "American Pie" ...

Bill

Very good, but don't expect an Oscar for best comedian of the year, the again

What McLain is saying in this video is obviously not sinking in to your grey matter.

His testimony was suppressed with conditions that did not allow him to elaborate on the facts.

I suggest you watch again.

Duncan

What McLain wanted to do is have the HSCA play the audio for him and that he could let them know if that is the stuff he heard during the shooting. In fairness to the HSCA's, they didn't want McLain to be influenced by the audio tape, but merely wanted his recall without any outside influence.

Like I said earlier, someones mic was stuck on ... maybe even more than one mic - who knows. The point is that no Dallas Officer is taking the rap for that, so why is McLain exempt of all the rest. And regardless of who's mic was stuck on ... isn't it funny that one of the shots heard when tested from McClain's location just happened to match exactly where Holland took Mark Lane. Does that make you wonder how that happened ... it does me.

By the way, during your constant keeping in touch with Josiah Thompson ... did you ask him to examine one of his good clear Moorman prints to see if he could validate your elevated imposter in a cops uniform claim??? If so, how long ago was that??? And what was Josiah's response???

Thanks!

Bill

Edited June 10, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

What makes a mockery of this forum is you announcing to the whole JFK research community that Bowers could identify a man who he could not see lol!

Duncan

Your statement is false and misleading as usual. What was said was that the plaid Jacketed man was who Bowers was referring to when he told Ball that he could not see the other man. You seem to be the only person who can't keep that straight.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

" The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket "

Your infamous words, not mine[/b]

Duncan

That is correct. Bowers was asked if he could see the white shirted and plaid jacketed man that he had just described. Bowers said that he could still see the white shirted man, but not the other man who was darker dressed. Through your silliness in trying to make it appear that Bowers was maybe talking about someone dressed like a cop ... you have pretended to not understand who Bowers was telling Ball that he could no longer see. Bowers was asked a direct question about only the two me in which he gave a direct answer ... how tough is that line of questioning hard to follow. I'd be embarrassed to have people thinking that I couldn't grasp who Bowers was talking about not being able to see after the shooting ... but thats just me ... doesn't mean that you have to care whether people think your are inept when it comes to reading comprehension.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Yes, of course it does, but the acoustics evidence is dodgy to say the least.

The location of the shot and where the mic was was at the time of the shooting was discovered first ... who was responsible was then looked for.

I don't have constant communication with Josiah, what made you think that?

I was thinking of what you wrote below. So tell me the facts concerning Josiah's Moorman prints ... where are they and have you asked him to examine them to see if you are correct in your interpretation from a poorer quality print.

Duncan MacRae

Rating: 5

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Today, 12:17 AM

Post #162

I have had direct communication with Josiah, I know the facts concerning his photographs.

... did you ask him to examine one of his good clear Moorman prints to see if he could validate your elevated impostor in a cops uniform claim??? If so, how long ago was that??? And what was Josiah's response???

What elevated imposter cop?

That would be the elevated shooter that you have drawn the over-sized head of in the tree foliage at what you call the 33' mark.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Now, have you asked him about the floating Super Arnold Mini me in his better quality prints???

Duncan[/b]

Yes ... he thinks you are a nut! I am thinking that he will be out of town forever when it comes to you.

Now let me see if I have this correct ... you have been posting about this alleged shooter and when asked if you solicited Josiah to check his good prints ... your discussion with Josiah is top secret ... what a crock!!! There is absolutely no doubt that if Josiah supported your nonsense by examining a good print ... you'd have posted it.

Could it be that Josiah's prints are stored at the Museum and anyone there who looks at them can tell that you are way off base here. Hope I didn't divulge any big secret. LOL!!!

So lets try this another way, haved you contacted Jack and asked him what his good prints show at that location, if not, then why not ... is that a secret too???

Bill

Edited June 10, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Yes I did actually, maybe 5 or 6 years ago. You were actually taking part in the discussion when I asked him, so you should remember his opinion, I can, but then again, you, at times when it suits you, accuse Jack of being a lunatic, so I would not expect whatever Jack ever says to you to sink in, unless it ever supports any of your zany opinions like

"The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket."

Duncan

No I don't recall Jack's answer or you asking him. I am also sure that the many students who have joined this 'Education Forum' and are new to all this wouldn't know the answer that that question, so feel free to post it for all to see. I know what Gary Mack said about the best prints that both he and Jack carefully examined, so by all means let us be reminded what Jack said! Also feel free to ask Josiah about that location too ... don't hold back anything. Better yet ... ask Gary Mack to get one of them and tell you what it shows seeing how they have been with the Museum for years.

The Bowers talking about not seeing the plaid jacketed man .... I stand by that remark. I know of no other serious researcher that doesn't understand that the man Bowers could see was a direct response where Mr. Ball asked if Lee could still see the white shirted man and the plaid jacketed man after the shots had been fired. When Bowers says that only one was still visible and it was the white shirted man, then the other man that he couldn't see was a reference to the plaid jacketed man. Feel free to consult Josiah about this as well ... I look forward to hearing what he told you.

(smile~)

When are you going to produce the photographic evidence which you claimed you have. which shows your midget Hatman in Willis? LOL!!!

I didn't know you had asked me to produce an image of Hat Man in Willis photo .... its hard to be psychic when it comes to a psychotic. However, I am certain that I have posted that image on this forum, so you can do a forum search and find it. The difference will be of course is that because Willis was near the top of Elm Street - Phils LOS to the fence was on an even plane, thus Hat Man appears taller against the fence as he watched the approaching motorcade. Moorman on the other hand was looking uphill, so anyone like the height of Lane or Holland who were shifting away from the fence would only have the top of their head seen. The next time I visit the Plaza ... I will shoot someone at that location from an even plane and then from where Moorman stood without them moving so to put this stupidity to rest once and for all. It's not enough that anyone could test this for themselves anywhere if they were really serious about it, but I'll spend more time and money to show what even someone of a child's mentality should have been able to understand.

Bill

Edited June 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

That's not my problem. Why don't you ask him what his response was???

I haven't noticed anyone new asking, have you?

So the many students who read this forum so to research the assassination need to contact Jack White to find out an answer top a question concerning YOUR claim, which you say YOU know the answer to. I appreciate you making such a response because it shows your lack of desire to actually cooperate and a big lack of desire to share information that might be helpful to the readers. The funny thing is though ... you'd not hesitate to post things that were favorable to your position and thats not a big secret.

Yes, they came up with Gordon Arnold and Badgeman

Yes that is true ... they used a much clearer print than anything you have seen and had it studied. You on the other hand appear to hold onto the idea that using the worse images possible will offer more information. But as you pointed out earlier ... we are talking about the 33' location along the fence and whether there was anything there when Moorman took her photo. You have already claimed that you found nothing there in the other assassination images (presumably films like the Nix film) and Mack has told me that the better prints don't show what you claim them to. So rather than to seek another opinion from Josiah or Jack ... you cling onto a somewhat grainy UPI print that appears to me to only show some tree foliage hanging down at about a 45 degree angle, which you claim proves there was not a cop, but someone disguised as a cop seen up through in the tree foliage.

so by all means let us be reminded what Jack said!

Ask him yourself, I know the answer.

Its your claim ... is it your position that any questions pertaining to what you have and have not done and the results thereof are not going to be forthcoming when asked? If so, then why bother getting into a JFK assassination debate on an Education Forum ... sounds more like you should just post a web page where you won't be asked to answer questions pertaining to your claims.

Now when are you going to show to the world at large your image of Hatman in Willis?

Its been posted and can be quite easily found in the archives. I am not sure what Hat Man in Willis has to do with a photo from Moorman's location and looking upward ... hey wait a minute ... is this can-did camera and you're just pretending to be off your rocker, uncooperative, evasive, and so on .... Good one, you had me going for a minute there.

Bill

Edited June 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You are a propaganda pusher, Duncan. You ignore what was actually said and try to pretend that what you read is something totally different. Below is one example I found in the archives where Herb said why my study convinced him of Arnold was the BDM and then you reply making some dumb comment about Herb taking my words for it. It appears that Herb didn't take my word for anything, but rather reviewed the evidence I presented and made his own determination. Joan Mellen, William Law, John Simkin, Debra Conway, to name a few had done the same. As if to imply they are mindless twits that have only taken my word for anything ... your thinking is reflected below in your reply to Herb ...

Herb wrote:"Bill, I 've said it previously in an email to you, but thanks again for clearing up, what for me, was one of the knottiest problems with the photo evidence...BDM. It is obvious, as you say, if one believes Gordon Arnold's story, as I do, then BDM and Arnold have to be the same image. Your analysis of the sunspot, shadow and blurred movement have proven beyond doubt that BDM is Gordon, thereby adding even more credence to his story. " " " " " " " Thanks, Herb"

Duncan replied:"Don't take Bill's word for it Herb, when you meet these people ask them why the Arnold figure in Moorman5 looks absolutely nothing like the BDM figure.

Ask yourself too while your at it."

So it is your suggestion that you cannot see the evidence like Herb was able to do. I supposed that people need to be so intelligent as you about images so to call the disgraceful presentation below the best Black Dog Man enhancement ever. I will leave that call up to the readers ...

BDM IMAGE and on the right is DUNCAN'S ENHANCEMENT OF BDM

PS: Here is the link to the image you requested. It took a simple forum search under the name 'hatman' to find it.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10518&st=225

Post 235

Edited June 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You're a legend in your own lunchtime Bill.

The very researchers you ask me to validate my claim are researchers who have all made mistakes, no offence intended to them, but that's the fact of the matter. Badgeman, Arnold, Hatman, Shooter in a Pyracantha tree etc etc

Now which researchers who are experts and have not made mistakes have validated that your 33ft skyline is 100% foolproof.

I await your response in naming them.

Duncan

You do not get off this easy. Jack made a research mistake in not knowing that Moorman's Polaroid was filmed for TV while not yet being out of Mary's possession. Your mistake is in relying on poor quality images over the clearer prints. I don't know of any film or photo expert that would say that using fuzzy grainy prints are more reliable for photo interpretation over a clear sharp print. If you find one, then please post who it was, but expect that you already know that no one is dumb enough to support you on your methodology and research practice of thinking that a poor quality print is more reliable than a good sharp quality print.

Bill Miller

Edited June 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You do not get off this easy. Jack made a research mistake in not knowing that Moorman's Polaroid was filmed for TV while not yet being out of Mary's possession.

I don't believe Jack made a confession of his mistake. Please enlighten me and everyone to the source of this information. Did Jack tell you this? Personally I don't think he did. I believe you are just making this up, and as you say, future researchers will be reading this and will note your fantasy contributions.

Forum rules or no forum rules ... I have to ask if you are totally inept at reading or what!!! I pointed out a fact and said that Jack made a mistake. Next you come back asking me where did Jack 'confess' his mistake, which anyone with a 1st grade reading education would know that your question has nothing to do with what I said. Never have I seen so much space wasted by someone who continually makes the same stupid mistakes and never learns how to prevent making them.

I don't know of any film or photo expert that would say that using fuzzy grainy prints are more reliable for photo interpretation over a clear sharp print.

LOL!! That goes without saying. It's a pity you don't practice what you preach. The quality of the altered Moorman which you used in your recreation overlay was one of the best fuzzy blurred images i've ever seen on any forum LOL!!!

And as I have said over and over ... the animated gif I posted was not to make a claim of seeing something in a picture, but only to show that my recreation photo was taken so precisely from Moorman's location that it matched up even the larger limbs of the trees and other reference points from Moorman's photo that have basically gone unchanged over the years. Its only been your deplorable lack of reading comprehension skills that have tried to claim that it was something more. You left out the details of the thread in which you pulled that animated gif., which I find to be very misleading and the way you have presented its purpose as nothing short of dishonest. You obviously have no shame and I am tickled to death that researchers will see this exchange ... maybe even go find the thread and read it all so to know just what you have attempted to pull here. So it appears that you cannot correctly comprehend what is written - that you are not above pulling an unrelated image that was created for a totally different issue concerning another thread, and then are willing to withhold the data that explained the purpose of that test picture overlay (which it was always made clear when I used it) - so to mislead the readers who have followed this thread.

I am starting to wonder if your not talking to experts has been your choice or theirs!!!

Bill Miller

Edited June 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The whole point of my comment is that you have used an altered Moorman for your research. It doesn't matter what the topic is, the fact that you used an altered Moorman makes that particular study null and void.

Strangely enough, I do believe that your study is correct, but that's not the point, is it?

Duncan

The Moorman print was valid ... I stated repeatedly that each time it was ever displayed in my animation that it was a combination of Moorman's photo with my photo at different opacity settings. This point was made several times when part of Mike Brown was said to be seen in Mary's image. The faded outlines of the people from my picture seen in Moorman's photo should have been self-explanatory, but in any event ... I took the time to make it clear as to why that animation was created. I will make that clear once again .... The reason that my photo showing test subjects and how they looked in relation to one another was overlaid in part on the Moorman photo was to show the reader that my picture was taken precisely at Moorman's location so there could be no question as to its accuracy. I have never represented it as anything else, nor have you supplied any data to show otherwise. I personally believe that you purposely avoided linking the animation so the reader would not easily see that you were misrepresenting my presentation of it.

So once again ... The Moorman print I used to create that animation was one that you have posted. That animation was then and still is a combination of the Moorman print you posted with a transparency overlay of my photo showing through it. To date you are the only person that I know who has attempted to represent that animation to show a 'faked Moorman print'. This is the last time that I am going to attempt to explain this to you because I have become convinced that you are purposely not wanting to understand the animation.

Bill Miller

Edited June 12, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Yet you say the wall is a foot taller, explain that please, because I believe the wall is actually the exact same size today as it was in 1963, but the ground level is different.

That's almost what I have said, except I pointed out almost a foot more of the wall is seen in TMWKK and that any scaling done by overlaying that wall as its seen in Turner's documentary with how it appears in Moorman's photo would cause any scaling results to then be inaccurate ... would you not agree.

I have never represented it as anything else, nor have you supplied any data to show otherwise. I personally believe that you purposely avoided linking the animation so the reader would not easily see that you were misrepresenting my presentation of it.

I have never said that you have tried to represent it as anything else, what's wrong with you man, your losing the plot

The plot gets lost when you claim I used a 'Faked Moorman' because implying such means that I have represented an image to be "Moorman's print" rather than saying it is a composite of another image laid onto Moorman's print. I can go back and paste all instances you repeated that misrepresentation if you like.

So once again ... The Moorman print I used to create that animation was one that you have posted.

One which you say is not good enough for research purposes, yet you say you used it for your own research purposes. That just does not make sense.

Not an accurate representation of what I said ... already answered. Your print is not as reliable in my opinion for interpretation purposes Vs. a far superior clearer print. There is a difference in what you just said d what I have continually posted and I believe you are aware of it.

That animation was then and still is a combination of the Moorman print you posted with a transparency overlay of my photo showing through it.

I've never argued that it wasn't, what's the problem?

Do we need to post where you said that I attributed my "Fake Moorman" (as you called it) to you? It won't be hard to find your many references to it.

to date you are the only person that I know who has attempted to represent that animation to show a 'faked Moorman print'.

Well it does LOL!! That's obvious to anyone with a keen eye.

Duncan

Yes Duncan ... I doubt that another person would have ever guessed that the faded people (seen in color) were not part of the original Moorman print. Oh why didn't I have enough sense to make my recreation photo a black and white image before doing the overlay. Only a keen eye like yours gave me away. I hope you feel as ridiculous as that sounds.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Yet you say the wall is a foot taller, explain that please, because I believe the wall is actually the exact same size today as it was in 1963, but the ground level is different.

That's almost what I have said, except I pointed out almost a foot more of the wall is seen in TMWKK and that any scaling done by overlaying that wall as its seen in Turner's documentary with how it appears in Moorman's photo would cause any scaling results to then be inaccurate ... would you not agree.

I have never represented it as anything else, nor have you supplied any data to show otherwise. I personally believe that you purposely avoided linking the animation so the reader would not easily see that you were misrepresenting my presentation of it.

I have never said that you have tried to represent it as anything else, what's wrong with you man, your losing the plot

The plot gets lost when you claim I used a 'Faked Moorman' because implying such means that I have represented an image to be "Moorman's print" rather than saying it is a composite of another image laid onto Moorman's print. I can go back and paste all instances you repeated that misrepresentation if you like.

So once again ... The Moorman print I used to create that animation was one that you have posted.

One which you say is not good enough for research purposes, yet you say you used it for your own research purposes. That just does not make sense.

Not an accurate representation of what I said ... already answered. Your print is not as reliable in my opinion for interpretation purposes Vs. a far superior clearer print. There is a difference in what you just said d what I have continually posted and I believe you are aware of it.

That animation was then and still is a combination of the Moorman print you posted with a transparency overlay of my photo showing through it.

I've never argued that it wasn't, what's the problem?

Do we need to post where you said that I attributed my "Fake Moorman" (as you called it) to you? It won't be hard to find your many references to it.

to date you are the only person that I know who has attempted to represent that animation to show a 'faked Moorman print'.

Well it does LOL!! That's obvious to anyone with a keen eye.

Duncan

Yes Duncan ... I doubt that another person would have ever guessed that the faded people (seen in color) were not part of the original Moorman print. Oh why didn't I have enough sense to make my recreation photo a black and white image before doing the overlay. Only a keen eye like yours gave me away. I hope you feel as ridiculous as that sounds.

Bill Miller

speaking of being ridiculous -- do you need to post the same post three times? Playing the numbers game, AGAIN?

[Bill Miller]

speaking of being ridiculous -- do you need to post the same post three times? Playing the numbers game, AGAIN?

Yes David ... seems like others have had a similar problem whereas the post just runs and doesn't go through, so we give up and try again and again only to find they all finally got posted. You were probably not paying attention at the time and is why you didn't correlate that to my duplicate post ... no surprise to me.

Bill Miller

Edited June 12, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

to suggest that the Moorman you used in your overlay gif was my Moorman is ridiculous and dishonest, as it's not my Moorman, and I have never used it in any of my studies.

Am I missing something here??? I want clarification .... are you saying that you have never posted on any forum the Moorman print that I used thus making it impossible for me to have save that image to my computer ... or are you contending that you have never posted a Moorman print showing the faded image of Mike Brown overlaid on it. If it is the latter, then you are stating the obvious because I have explained several times over how that image was created and by whom.

Thanks in advance.

Bill Miller