First Shot Impact

[Bill Miller]

So, since you and BM apparantly have some mystical and magical means of merely looking at the photo and automatically applying the correction factors, and since this is the EDUCATION FORUM, then I have been hoping that these "secrets" would be openly shared.

There is no secret to understanding how to read a photo. Willis #5 shows SS Agent Clint Hill just east of the direct line of sight from Willis to Zapruder. Z202 looking back at Willis shows Clint Hill just east of Zapruder's line of site to Willis. (THESE ARE FACTS!!!)

Z207 for instance shows SS Agent Clint Hill west of the direct line of sight from Zapruder to Phil Willis, thus Z207 was exposed after Willis #5.

The secret is out ... don't abuse the powers of the secret! If you are going to play 'super slueth' when it comes to the photographic record, then take up some beginner's art class so to help learn how perspective works. Jack White was correct ... I don't have 'Pictures of the Pain' in front of me, but I believe that Richard Trask wrote about the timing of the Willis #5 photo in relation to the Zapruder film and he was also right ... you are in error.

Bill Miller

Edited June 29, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

There is no secret to understanding how to read a photo.

Bill Miller

So Bill...Where did you go wrong in your understanding of how to read the existance or non existance of Gordon Arnold at the alleged location in Moorman?

You never did answer my question on how you compensated for the 1 foot lower ground level behind the wall in your recreation with Mike Brown to come up with your alleged accurate result.

How about it?

Duncan

Well Duncan, I have mentioned this before, but I will say it again even though I don't think you can comprehend the importance of it. I overlaid my photo onto Moorman's photo, but was unaware that over 1' of the front corner of the wall is visible in my photo than in Moorman's, thus any overlay of the two wall's (Moorman and Turner's) will be inaccurate when scaled to one another. You also took the ground line at the fence and merely drew it across the front of the wall and that too is probably not accurate because Moorman was looking uphill, thus Arnold was elevated in her field of view. To illustrate this point, I would tell someone to look at the fence which is 5' tall and look at the inside height of the wall against the people standing next to it in the Darnell film and relate how the two relate to one another in Moorman's photograph. The best and only real way to check this for accuracy is to reproduce it and when scaled from one photo to the other .... one should be sure to allow for the difference in heights of how the wall looked in 1963 Vs. today.

Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

So, since you and BM apparantly have some mystical and magical means of merely looking at the photo and automatically applying the correction factors, and since this is the EDUCATION FORUM, then I have been hoping that these "secrets" would be openly shared.

There is no secret to understanding how to read a photo. Willis #5 shows SS Agent Clint Hill just east of the direct line of sight from Willis to Zapruder. Z202 looking back at Willis shows Clint Hill just east of Zapruder's line of site to Willis. (THESE ARE FACTS!!!)

Z207 for instance shows SS Agent Clint Hill west of the direct line of sight from Zapruder to Phil Willis, thus Z207 was exposed after Willis #5.

The secret is out ... don't abuse the powers of the secret! If you are going to play 'super slueth' when it comes to the photographic record, then take up some beginner's art class so to help learn how perspective works. Jack White was correct ... I don't have 'Pictures of the Pain' in front of me, but I believe that Richard Trask wrote about the timing of the Willis #5 photo in relation to the Zapruder film and he was also right ... you are in error.

Bill Miller

Without even having to go to the Drommer elevation work, a prudent person could easily examine Willis#5 and demonstrate numerous reasons why it was not taken at Z202.

And as the old show once proclaimed: "The Shadow Knows".

And actually, the "shadow's" tell us a variety of things about Willis#5, when properly examined.

One of the most simple means to determine the Z-frame number would be to look closely at the motorcycle cop who is closest to the SS follow-up car.

In so doing, one will note that cop & motorcycle have fully cleared the shadow which is cast by the live oak tree, while the second (far outside) motorcycle cop is still partially within the shadow of the tree.

And, low and behold, the sunlight is reflecting off the radio antenna of the inside cop, making it perfectly clear, whereas the outside cop's radio antenna does not even reflect sufficient light that the camera picked it up.

Now, whatsay we look at Z202 for the sunlight reflecting off the inside cop's motorcycle antenna.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z202.jpg

Nope! Nothing there!

How about Z205???

Nope! Nothing there either!

How about Z206?

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z206.jpg

Now is that not amazing?

In fact!

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z204.jpg

One can see that the inside motorcycle cop is just approaching a full exit from the tree shadow, while the outside motorcycle cop has only reached the edge of the light with the front portion of his motorcycle.

I would also state that there are other means by which to confirm this information, when one goes back to the

Z103 and Z104 copies of the film.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z103.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z104.jpg

As well as what little of Z105 & Z106 can be seen. (highly suspicious I might add)

And in that regards, one must be aware that at Z207, JFK is in direct alignment with the left edge of the concrete column located by the reflecting pool in the background.

So, the simple reality is that one does not even require the Drommer (& West) survey information to determine relatively accurately (Z-frame numbering wise) exactly where JFK is at Willis#5.

And I might add, there are several other means which include Jackie as well as JFK's position in relationship to background items such as the ornamental wall, etc; which are easily available to determine that Willis#5 is well past Z202.

Willis#5 is taken at approximately Z206!

Edited June 30, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Bill Miller]

I understand and know your strategies well enough to know that you are trying to wriggle out of a hole.

Are you now telling me that not only the ground is 1 foot lower than in 1963, but that also the wall has sunk 1 foot lower?

Duncan

Duncan, you're a lost cause IMO. Gary Mack pointed out to me when he and I were discussing your once again ridiculous illustration of your Arnold scaling - that the ground at the time of Turner's interview had been redone on the knoll side of the concrete wall. That meant that anyone taking the wall from Moorman's photo and comparing it to the wall seen in TMWKK by making both walls the same height for scaling purposes was making a mistake. I know that I relayed this information at that time ... you will have to go back and read the thread again to see how you missed it. You are also welcome to contact Gary Mack and ask him to better explain this to you.

Your alleged discovery remains with you. You have not posted a single word about getting your claim validated by someone more skilled than yourself. It appears that you have not contacted Mack to confirm or deny what I posted about your mistake or how that applies to your claim. I guess that I should not be surprised after some of the shameful degrading of the assassination images that you like to refer to as some of the best enhancements ever. You make a stupid claim and never do a damned thing to validate your conclusion other than to arrogantly post how you don't need to consult experts and that is just why your claims never get any outside attention. I bet that you have not even so much as contacted Turner and told him that you have busted the Gordon Arnold hoax wide open in your mind and the reason can only be that even you know that you haven't done the research necessary to waste anyones time with this nonsense. If you aren't willing to take your allegations seriously, then why should anyone else!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Willis#5 is taken at approximately Z206!

Purvis, is there any author who has ever written that the Willis photo equates to anything other than Z202 ... I don't think there is. The reason for this is quite simple ... As Jack White pointed out so clearly - Willis could see that Clint Hill's left side had not passed onto the road sign when his picture was taken. However, if you go to Z206 and look back from Zapruder's view ... not only has Hill's left side passed over the edge of the road sign, but Willis is now seen over Hill's right shoulder.

Your attempt to make something like 4 + 4 out to look like it equalsl 44 just doesn't work. In order for you to be right and all the other people who say Z202 matches the Willis photo must be wrong ... one must ignore the point I just made. In fact, you are so far off that a straight edge placed along the east side of the road sign passes over Hill's left eye ... from Willis's view there is a gap between Hill's head and the east edge of the road sign.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Duncan ... contact someone skilled in photo interpretation or photogammetry and let them give you a second opinion.

Bill Miller

Edited June 30, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Miller dronned:

[...]

Your alleged discovery remains with you. You have not posted a single word about getting your claim validated by someone more skilled than yourself. It appears that you have not contacted Mack to confirm or deny what I posted about your mistake or how that applies to your claim.

[...]

Bill Miller

You're absolutely priceless, Miller..... PRICELESS Never leave this forum! LMFAO

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Willis#5 is taken at approximately Z206!

Purvis, is there any author who has ever written that the Willis photo equates to anything other than Z202 ... I don't think there is. The reason for this is quite simple ... As Jack White pointed out so clearly - Willis could see that Clint Hill's left side had not passed onto the road sign when his picture was taken. However, if you go to Z206 and look back from Zapruder's view ... not only has Hill's left side passed over the edge of the road sign, but Willis is now seen over Hill's right shoulder.

Your attempt to make something like 4 + 4 out to look like it equalsl 44 just doesn't work. In order for you to be right and all the other people who say Z202 matches the Willis photo must be wrong ... one must ignore the point I just made. In fact, you are so far off that a straight edge placed along the east side of the road sign passes over Hill's left eye ... from Willis's view there is a gap between Hill's head and the east edge of the road sign.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Duncan ... contact someone skilled in photo interpretation or photogammetry and let them give you a second opinion.

Bill Miller

Purvis, is there any author who has ever written that the Willis photo equates to anything other than Z202 ... I don't think there is. The reason for this is quite simple

The "simple" reason being that they are as gullible as apparantly, are you, and are thusly destined to have to follow the claims of Marathon Scout Snipers, etc;, as opposed to actually conducting your own research.

Had you done so, then you would know that Drommer located the alignment of Willis's position, as well as the location of JFK on Elm St. at Willis#5 slide, as well as verified this with the wall alignment in the background where the wall "steps" down, to include verification of both elevations of the wall in that location.

But then again, even without this knowledge, most persons are of sufficient intelligence to recognize that motorcycle antenna's (to include other items in and/or out of the shadows) only tend to reflect light when one comes out of the shadows.

So! My grandma raised me to be smart enough to NOT jump off the bridge, just because every other idiot decided to jump.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Duncan ... contact someone skilled in photo interpretation or photogammetry and let them give you a second opinion.

Well, even though slightly diminished by time, rest assured that the skills and training which I have had on the subject matter, quite obviously far exceed anything to which you have been exposed.

In "Targeting" for Nuclear Weapons, they frowned on us chosing Grandpa Russinsky's outhouse as a launch silo.

So, they went a little out of their way in attempt to teach us something.

Why not attempt to dispute the facts Miller??????

Are you of the impression that Drommer & Associates Survey Company are totally incompetent?

Are you of the opinion that motorcycle antenna's, while in the complete shadow of trees can have sunlight reflecting off them?

I won't bother to waste my time in attempting to explain all of the other problems with the "Z202"scenario, as it quite apparantly would be far too above your head to comprehend.

And you have the gaul and nerve to criticize Jack White for his looking at photographic evidence!

What a joke!

[David G. Healy]

Willis#5 is taken at approximately Z206!

Purvis, is there any author who has ever written that the Willis photo equates to anything other than Z202 ... I don't think there is. The reason for this is quite simple ... As Jack White pointed out so clearly - Willis could see that Clint Hill's left side had not passed onto the road sign when his picture was taken. However, if you go to Z206 and look back from Zapruder's view ... not only has Hill's left side passed over the edge of the road sign, but Willis is now seen over Hill's right shoulder.

Your attempt to make something like 4 + 4 out to look like it equalsl 44 just doesn't work. In order for you to be right and all the other people who say Z202 matches the Willis photo must be wrong ... one must ignore the point I just made. In fact, you are so far off that a straight edge placed along the east side of the road sign passes over Hill's left eye ... from Willis's view there is a gap between Hill's head and the east edge of the road sign.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Duncan ... contact someone skilled in photo interpretation or photogammetry and let them give you a second opinion.

Bill Miller

Purvis, is there any author who has ever written that the Willis photo equates to anything other than Z202 ... I don't think there is. The reason for this is quite simple

The "simple" reason being that they are as gullible as apparantly, are you, and are thusly destined to have to follow the claims of Marathon Scout Snipers, etc;, as opposed to actually conducting your own research.

Had you done so, then you would know that Drommer located the alignment of Willis's position, as well as the location of JFK on Elm St. at Willis#5 slide, as well as verified this with the wall alignment in the background where the wall "steps" down, to include verification of both elevations of the wall in that location.

But then again, even without this knowledge, most persons are of sufficient intelligence to recognize that motorcycle antenna's (to include other items in and/or out of the shadows) only tend to reflect light when one comes out of the shadows.

So! My grandma raised me to be smart enough to NOT jump off the bridge, just because every other idiot decided to jump.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Duncan ... contact someone skilled in photo interpretation or photogammetry and let them give you a second opinion.

Well, even though slightly diminished by time, rest assured that the skills and training which I have had on the subject matter, quite obviously far exceed anything to which you have been exposed.

In "Targeting" for Nuclear Weapons, they frowned on us chosing Grandpa Russinsky's outhouse as a launch silo.

So, they went a little out of their way in attempt to teach us something.

Why not attempt to dispute the facts Miller??????

Are you of the impression that Drommer & Associates Survey Company are totally incompetent?

Are you of the opinion that motorcycle antenna's, while in the complete shadow of trees can have sunlight reflecting off them?

I won't bother to waste my time in attempting to explain all of the other problems with the "Z202"scenario, as it quite apparantly would be far too above your head to comprehend.

And you have the gaul and nerve to criticize Jack White for his looking at photographic evidence!

What a joke!

O-U-C-H! Blissful ignorance is Miller's only rational excuse... and HIS is the *current* voice of the 6th Floor Museum...

[Bill Miller]

More elongated drivel to avoid answering the question.

Here it is again, as you were obviously having another of your Magoo days which are becoming more frequent.

Are you now telling me, and the whole world, that not only the ground is 1 foot lower than in 1963, but that also the wall has sunk 1 foot lower?

Duncan, don't waste my time with your idiocy. I have explained this several times ... could it be that you just are not able to comprehend certain things that are being said? Like I asked ... contact Mack and maybe he can explain it better than I.

The wall does not stop at the ground ... the knoll was filled with dirt and that dirt is against the wall. The knoll was landscaped since the time of the assassination ... re-sodding was done. In other words - the distance that the wall is visible from its top to where the soil is seen against it is different lengths, thus a precise overlaying the two will not give you an exact scaling.

I request that you contact Mack and get the facts before you make yet another ill-informed stupid reply.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I won't bother to waste my time in attempting to explain all of the other problems with the "Z202"scenario, as it quite apparantly would be far too above your head to comprehend.

And you have the gaul and nerve to criticize Jack White for his looking at photographic evidence!

What a joke!

You live in a make believe world that doesn't comprehend reality IMO. To start with ... I do not criticize Jack for looking at photos ... never have. I have criticized his conclusions. I hope you can remember this so not to misstate it again.

Are you of the opinion that motorcycle antenna's, while in the complete shadow of trees can have sunlight reflecting off them?

Yes Tom - I do believe the antenna can be illuminated at the time the shutter opened and closed because the rear of the cycle itself is even sunlit. The tree foliage is not a solid mass, but rather it has sunlight passing through the openings. A simple view of the street there after the cycles have passed by will show the sunlight hitting the asphalt. I am rather surprised that you missed this point.

Just as I have said before about these alteration claims ... just because you have not understood something about an image doesn't make it altered ... it just means that you have not thought it through well enough to understand it. Sometimes I find myself having to seek out those who have the expertise and knowledge to help me see what I have missed.

And I agree that you should stop wasting time on this ... at least until you have spoken to people better qualified to share their opinions as to what you see and why.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

O-U-C-H! Blissful ignorance is Miller's only rational excuse... and HIS is the *current* voice of the 6th Floor Museum...

One would think that your getting that detailed request off to Life Magazine asking for you to be able to examine their historical materials would prevent you from having time to post such stupid responses ... I guess that it depends on where your priorities lay. It certainly doesn't reflect well on you when you have been bitching for years that these materials are being kept from you.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Forget Gary, I'm conversing with you.

You are still refusing to answer the question for one of two reasons.

You are either too thick to understand what I am asking you, or you know you have made another monumental blunder by stating that the wall is now at a lower by one foot level than it was in 1963.

Forget the ground level...we're talking wall height here, and no matter how idiotic your replies are becoming, you're not escaping from my question so easily.

Here it is again in an easier form.

Is it your opinion gained from knowledge from a source, possibly Gary Mack, that the height of the wall is now lower by one foot than it was in 1963, and therefore an accurate overlay of the wall can not now be acheived because of this?

As usual, I am requesting a yes or no answer.

Go on, put yourself on the line oh wise one.

Duncan

The same old nonsense ... you won't check the facts so to keep asking the same silly non-relative questions over and over. A lot of people read this forum ... if someone else wishes to join in and explain to either of us what the other is saying, then I am all for it. Had you contacted Mack by email 'GMACK@JFK.ORG' so to see if he could explain to you what I have said and do it in a way that you could understand (possibly with sock puppets), then you could come right back and try and make me look bad with the correct version - BUT YOU DON'T and we both know why. You are supposed to be the great enhancement maker ... can you think of anything that you could do to test what I said about the front of the wall in relation to other reference points in Moorman's photo so to better understand what I have reported to you? If not, then maybe Gary Mack can tell you how to do it if nothing else.

Simply put .... The front of the wall that is seen in Moorman's photo (from the top to where it meets the ground at the corner) is a different height because of the landscaping that occurred in the plaza since the assassination. I cannot say it any better ... maybe sock puppets are necessary!

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

[...]

Simply put .... The front of the wall that is seen in Moorman's photo (from the top to where it meets the ground at the corner) is a different height because of the landscaping that occurred in the plaza since the assassination. I cannot say it any better ... maybe sock puppets are necessary!

Bill Miller

then a simple cite will be enough.... you do know what one of those are, right? Being a super researcher and all..... LMFAO!

You're doing a horrible job defending the alledged un-altered films/photos of Dealey Plaza....

Edited July 1, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I won't bother to waste my time in attempting to explain all of the other problems with the "Z202"scenario, as it quite apparantly would be far too above your head to comprehend.

And you have the gaul and nerve to criticize Jack White for his looking at photographic evidence!

What a joke!

You live in a make believe world that doesn't comprehend reality IMO. To start with ... I do not criticize Jack for looking at photos ... never have. I have criticized his conclusions. I hope you can remember this so not to misstate it again.

Are you of the opinion that motorcycle antenna's, while in the complete shadow of trees can have sunlight reflecting off them?

Yes Tom - I do believe the antenna can be illuminated at the time the shutter opened and closed because the rear of the cycle itself is even sunlit. The tree foliage is not a solid mass, but rather it has sunlight passing through the openings. A simple view of the street there after the cycles have passed by will show the sunlight hitting the asphalt. I am rather surprised that you missed this point.

Just as I have said before about these alteration claims ... just because you have not understood something about an image doesn't make it altered ... it just means that you have not thought it through well enough to understand it. Sometimes I find myself having to seek out those who have the expertise and knowledge to help me see what I have missed.

And I agree that you should stop wasting time on this ... at least until you have spoken to people better qualified to share their opinions as to what you see and why.

Bill Miller

Sometimes I find myself having to seek out those who have the expertise and knowledge to help me see what I have missed.

You missed the boat!

Along with all of the other factual evidence related to the assassination of JFK.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z206.jpg

See the motorcycle cop's antenna?

See the motorcycle cop's antenna shine with the reflected sunlight?

The motorcycle cop is out of the shadow of the tree.

The sun shines on the motorcycle cop and his radio antenna.

The sun shines on the motorcycle cop's antenna just as it can be seen in the Willis#5 slide.

See the light reflected on the motorcycle antenna in the Willis#5 slide?

The motorcycle antenna is fully reflecting light.

This means that the motorcycle antenna is fully in the sun.

(Which by the way any run of the mill idiot can observe by the light cast onto the motorcycle and it's shadow on the ground)

See BM demonstrate exactly how little he knows in regards to photograpic interpertation!

It rates right up there with his abilities in Blood Spatter understanding?

All of that simple enough for you to grasp Miller?

Willis#5 was taken at/or about exactly Z206.

Yes Tom - I do believe the antenna can be illuminated at the time the shutter opened and closed because the rear of the cycle itself is even sunlit. The tree foliage is not a solid mass, but rather it has sunlight passing through the openings. A simple view of the street there after the cycles have passed by will show the sunlight hitting the asphalt. I am rather surprised that you missed this point.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z106.jpg

Not too difficult to "miss" something which never was to begin with.

I most certainly am not suprised at all that you have missed!

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Bill Miller' post='148772' date='Jun 30 2008, 04:42 PM][...]

Simply put .... The front of the wall that is seen in Moorman's photo (from the top to where it meets the ground at the corner) is a different height because of the landscaping that occurred in the plaza since the assassination. I cannot say it any better ... maybe sock puppets are necessary!

Bill Miller

then a simple cite will be enough.... you do know what one of those are, right? Being a super researcher and all..... LMFAO!

You're doing a horrible job defending the alledged un-altered films/photos of Dealey Plaza....

If I want to defend the 'alleged un-altered films/photos of Dealey Plaza', then all I need to do is cite the village xxxxx (David Healy) who said 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. Only in the mind of someone who thrives on paranoia could they equate the re-sodding of a section of ground to photo and film alteration.

If you ever think of anything of substance to say that actually relates to the topic, then please feel free to post it. I personally would like to see it for I have heard that its as rare as coming across a unicorn.

Bill Miller