Bill Miller Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 (edited) This perfect top and side of the wall alignment study by me shows clearly that the 1963 Arnold is nothing more than an illusion.Game....Set....Match! Duncan MacRae I hate to have to point this out to you while you are off in la-la land believing that you have created the perfect overlay, but it cannot be perfect when the fence in the background drops considerably between the image transfers. So while Adolph Hitler may have thought that if one tells an untruth enough times that it will somehow become the truth ... posting poorly done images and merely calling them 'perfect' or 'the greatest enhancements to date' will only impress those who have your mindset. I find it appalling that you spend so much time trying to push a point with such flawed data while seemingly not spending a single ounce of energy searching out someone more skilled than yourself to either point out your errors so they can be corrected ... or validate your conclusion. And if you think that I am the only one who sees this, then read a portion of what a student of the forum said in a message to me .... "They feel strong and dominant as long as there are people who read their nonsense." Bill Miller Edited July 1, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 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? Yes Tom ... the whole world is wrong about what Zapruder frame corresponds with Willis #5 ... only you know better. I guess that explains why you don't take your concerns about blood spatter to any experts in that field either because you knopw better. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z106.jpgNot too difficult to "miss" something which never was to begin with. Is this a joke or what??? What are you trying to say by showing a tree shadow on the asphalt in a badly blurred Zapruder frame taken from a half a block away ... that somehow the sunlight coming through the trees and hitting the asphalt didn't happen??? Does not distance and blurring show less detail and not more - really Tom!!! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 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! Miller: Like to take a guess as to exactly where the alignment of the "step-down" portion of the wall, back to the Phill Willis#5 location, places one on Elm St? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post #11 For those who are actually researchers, they would be aware that other survey work was also done in Dealey Plaza. 94.2 on your "Drommer" dial! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post #14 94.2 on your "Drommer Dial"---+ 329.68 (correction factor) = West Survey Street elevation 423.88 for JFK's position at Willis#5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post #15 Z207: Street Elevation 423.77 Position of JFK at Willis#5: (Drommer elevation 94.2 + West Correction Factor of 329.68) = Street Elevation 423.88 Now Miller! In recognition that actual research, as well as apparantly ninth grade math, exceed much of your abilities, thus making you have to believe the "Al Carrier/I are a Marathon Scout Snipe", as well as the Blood Spatter BS" of others. Perhaps someone will explain to you the 3-degree and 8-minute slope of Elm St., the Z207 accurately surveyed in position of JFK at street elevation 423.75, and exactly how far back up Elm St. one would be were they located at street elevation 423.88, which happens to be 0.13 feet in elevation change (1.5 inches) higher back up Elm St. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now! In recognition that you are THE "Bill Miller", winner of the Mary Ferrell Award (whatever in hell that is), and that you quite obviously have calibrated eyeballs which by far exceed the capabilities of a theodolite and/or transit, as well as also exceeding all of those abilities of an Engineering Company and it's qualified personnel utilizing said equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodolite Added to that would of course be the ability to "see light" shining through a tree onto a motorcycle radio antenna, (which no one else that I am aware of can see) Then, regretfully, I must accept the qualifications and works of those other than yourself in this matter. Especially since with all of your expertise, it took poor ole "know-nothing" me to inform you that the WC Altgens photo was not even taken from the same alignment and position as James Altgens took his original photo from. Sorry Miller, but your "track record" is somewhat lacking for me to actually take anything you have to say that serious. P.S. Since no one else has apparantly taken the time to explain it to you, and you quite obviously do not know enough about the subject matter to have figured it out for yourself, had Phil Willis been a few feet closer to Clint Hill, on the same exact line-of-sight alignment, then Clint Hill's image (head) would have easily blocked a portion of the road sign in the background. Would that mean that Clint Hill was actually behind the road sign? Nope! It would merely mean that Clint Hill was closer to the camera lense and therefore "blocked" from view of the lense a proportionally greater amount of background view than do similar items at a greater range from the camera. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z202.jpg P.P.S. It would be remiss to not again point out that at Z202, there is no light reflection off of the motorcycle cop's radio antenna. I eagerly await the explanation of this "light phenomen" which is shining from a forward position, and which also purportedly shined through some hypothetical gap in the trees to fully illuminate to the camera eye the entire backside of the radio antenna, as seen in the Willis#5 slide, yet did not sufficiently provide illumination of the antenna for Zapruder to have caught this light reflection. Especially since Willis#5 also clearly demonstrates that the inside motorcycle cop is completely out of the shadow of the tree. You know! I fully understand the reflective principle of the Northern Lights (having personally observed them, yet this mysterious concept of "non-reflection" of light on the radio antenna, completely baffles me. But then again! I am not BILL MILLER, winner of the illustrious Mary Ferrell Award! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 It is supposed that one could be accused of negligence for having not provided ALL of the factual information. Please take into consideration that I did not wish to further confuse BM with the facts. Thank You, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 (edited) It is supposed that one could be accused of negligence for having not provided ALL of the factual information.Please take into consideration that I did not wish to further confuse BM with the facts. Thank You, Not just me, Purvis ... but also every known researcher who has studied both the Willis photo and the Zapruder film who put Phil's photo at Z202. Like I said ... you must be smarter than the rest of the world. You first take a later Zapruder frame that shows the edge of the road sign cutting through Clint Hill's right eye and then try and pass that off as an exact match of the Willis #5 image which shows the edge of the road sign east of Hill's body. Next you cannot understand how an antenna can be sunlit when it is obvious that the sun is shining off the side of the bike. Not a single photo expert in the 45 years since the assassination has made this observation and 'WHY?' ... because they are all either not as qualified as you are to see it or they all know what you cannot seem to understand. So now let us wait in baited breath for the day that you post where you found one single expert in photography to agree that the antenna should not be sunlit. And by all means ... show them that ridiculous blurry Zapruder frame you posted in your defense. Let us examine the Zapruder film and see what's happening ... Zapruder frame 175 shows the flanking cycles passing through the shade of the tree. At this precise moment their helmets are brightly sunlit, but how can that be ... what sinister forces allowed those helmets to be so bright because we all know that sunlight cannot pass through tree branches - right? Let us now look at Z189 and see if anything has changed ... Oh My God!!! Martin's helmet seems to have lost its bright luminescent glow, while the Hargis helmet is still brightly lit. What magical powers can be going on here because we know that tree foliage doesn't allow sunlight to pass through its openings - right?? But wait ... why is it that part of Rosemary Willis's white coat looks to be in shadow and other parts are sunlit?? Man ol' man ... this is starting to get freaky!!! I am almost afraid to go on, but in the name of truth ... we must be brave. So let us look at Z202 and see what it shows ... Wow ... this is simply mind boggling to say the least. The sun is shining off of Hargis's helmet and windscreen. In fact even parts of the SS follow-up car shows the sun glaring off the chrome at various points on that car. Could it be that the antenna of a flanking cycle could also be sunlit??? This is certainly one for the books and it may take an expert in photography or possibly a small child to explain away. Yes, Tom ... you know something that no other person on the planet has ever seen. Great work!!! Bill Miller Edited July 2, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 [...]Yes, Tom ... you know something that no other person on the planet has ever seen. Great work!!! Bill Miller well hell, Tom isn't the ONLY one.... it was 12:30PM on Elm Street the sun just past its zenith.... yepper'ero amazing, white helmets looking white.... btw, can you tell all of us, if the include Z-frames are blown-out (you're aware of that that means, right?)? And of course your professional film-photo opinion as to how they got that way.... Can you also attest that you didn't add brightness and contrast to these frames prior to posting? Thanks, David Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 (edited) well hell, Tom isn't the ONLY one.... it was 12:30PM on Elm Street the sun just past its zenith.... yepper'ero amazing, white helmets looking white.... btw, can you tell all of us, if the include Z-frames are blown-out (you're aware of that that means, right?)? And of course your professional film-photo opinion as to how they got that way.... Can you also attest that you didn't add brightness and contrast to these frames prior to posting? Thanks, David Healy I can attest to the fact that the frames were taken directly off of the Costella site that you are always alluding to for peoples research. I can attest to the fact that I did not change the image in any way and had you of lifted a finger to have gone to that site, then you could have 'attested' to that fact as well. I can attest to the fact that while both helmets are white ... in some instances one would be sunlit and the other would be darker because of it being in shade. It appears that you have not properly addressed the issues that I was discussing with Tom, so until you get it right and ask a relevant question, I will try and reply to you at that time. You see, I don't want to waste the time that you need to get that request put together for you to get to examine those historical materials ... that is important - right! Bill Miller Edited July 2, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 It is supposed that one could be accused of negligence for having not provided ALL of the factual information.Please take into consideration that I did not wish to further confuse BM with the facts. Thank You, Not just me, Purvis ... but also every known researcher who has studied both the Willis photo and the Zapruder film who put Phil's photo at Z202. Like I said ... you must be smarter than the rest of the world. You first take a later Zapruder frame that shows the edge of the road sign cutting through Clint Hill's right eye and then try and pass that off as an exact match of the Willis #5 image which shows the edge of the road sign east of Hill's body. Next you cannot understand how an antenna can be sunlit when it is obvious that the sun is shining off the side of the bike. Not a single photo expert in the 45 years since the assassination has made this observation and 'WHY?' ... because they are all either not as qualified as you are to see it or they all know what you cannot seem to understand. So now let us wait in baited breath for the day that you post where you found one single expert in photography to agree that the antenna should not be sunlit. And by all means ... show them that ridiculous blurry Zapruder frame you posted in your defense. Let us examine the Zapruder film and see what's happening ... Zapruder frame 175 shows the flanking cycles passing through the shade of the tree. At this precise moment their helmets are brightly sunlit, but how can that be ... what sinister forces allowed those helmets to be so bright because we all know that sunlight cannot pass through tree branches - right? Let us now look at Z189 and see if anything has changed ... Oh My God!!! Martin's helmet seems to have lost its bright luminescent glow, while the Hargis helmet is still brightly lit. What magical powers can be going on here because we know that tree foliage doesn't allow sunlight to pass through its openings - right?? But wait ... why is it that part of Rosemary Willis's white coat looks to be in shadow and other parts are sunlit?? Man ol' man ... this is starting to get freaky!!! I am almost afraid to go on, but in the name of truth ... we must be brave. So let us look at Z202 and see what it shows ... Wow ... this is simply mind boggling to say the least. The sun is shining off of Hargis's helmet and windscreen. In fact even parts of the SS follow-up car shows the sun glaring off the chrome at various points on that car. Could it be that the antenna of a flanking cycle could also be sunlit??? This is certainly one for the books and it may take an expert in photography or possibly a small child to explain away. Yes, Tom ... you know something that no other person on the planet has ever seen. Great work!!! Bill Miller Like I said ... you must be smarter than the rest of the world. Miller: Lets take inventory, shall we? (1). Smart enough to show the "world" the Altgens photo re-enactment manipulations! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0054a.htm (2). Smart enough to show the "world" the impact location for the third shot which was some 29.7 feet farther down Elm St. than theZ313/aka second shot impact. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm (3). Smart enough to locate and acquire all of the known Survey data. (4). Smart enough to identify the first irrefutable proof of altered WC evidence. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm (5). Smart enough to resolve how the WC pulled this wool over your eyes. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883. (6). Smart enough to know where James Altgens was physically standing Elm St. and how the WC pulled the wool over your eyes in regards to his true position. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you. Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0487a.htm (7). Smart enough to know that unless the Presidential Limo completely stopped for the shooter to take the first shot, that the Z207 as well as Z210 "Re-enactment" photo's can not be at the exact same place. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0051b.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0052a.htm (8). Smart enough to have caught on to the manipulative "Adjusted Position" in which the WC quite obviously confused you. Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207. ---------------------------------------------- Mr. FRAZIER - On Commission Exhibit No. 892, also marked frame No. 207, the car was moved forward under the tree to the point where the spot on the Presidential stand-in's back just became visible beyond the foliage of the tree. I had the car stopped at that point so that this photograph could be made there. On Commission Exhibit No. 893, also marked frame 210, we have the photograph made at the adjusted position to accommodate the 10-inch difference in height between the stand-in and the actual position of the wound above the street and on the President's body. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine. Mr. DULLES - Would you explain to us simply how you made those adjustments? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. DULLES - I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical matter. Mr. FRAZIER - They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures. They then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back of the Presidential stand-in- and the back of the Governor's stand-in, and looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance down on the automobile. You could not actually see it on the President's back. But could locate that 10-inch distance as a point which we marked with tape on the automobile itself, both for the Presidential and the Governor's stand-in. (9). Smart enough to recognize the manipulation of the WC in only showing us up to frame# Z334 of the Zapruder film, and how that was also slipped by you. Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed? Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z334.jpg (10). As well as being smart enough to recognize exactly why the WC pulled this wool over your eyes also. Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z347.jpg (11). Smart enough to be able to read and comprehend the witness testimonies which have not only informed us that the Z313 impact was the SECOND SHOT fired, but also informed us of the approximate location of the third/last/final shot. Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot. Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear. Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side? Mr. HUDSON - Right hand. Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was. Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Note for BM: I will attempt to not further embarass you by listing all of the other witnesses who accurately reported the Z313 impact as being the SECOND SHOT FIRED. Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now! We could most probably go on like this for some time, considering that I have yet to "strike out"! However, in all fairness, I will now allow you up to bat and let you present your batting average as well as all of the information which you have discovered in your 25 plus years of evaluation of the photographic evidence and witness testimonies. Which should take all of about five seconds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 Miller; In event that you actually knew, or even understood anything, then this (coupled with the Willis#5 slide), would have told you virtually all that you needed to know to resolve much of the issue. I might add however, that there is no photographic interpretation measure which can compare in accuracy with actual survey on the ground. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z098.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z099.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z202.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z206.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Miller;In event that you actually knew, or even understood anything, then this (coupled with the Willis#5 slide), would have told you virtually all that you needed to know to resolve much of the issue. I might add however, that there is no photographic interpretation measure which can compare in accuracy with actual survey on the ground. [...] I suspect Miller, etal., wishes this thread would just go away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 (edited) Miller:Lets take inventory, shall we? (1). Smart enough to show the "world" the Altgens photo re-enactment manipulations! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0054a.htm (2). Smart enough to show the "world" the impact location for the third shot which was some 29.7 feet farther down Elm St. than theZ313/aka second shot impact. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm (3). Smart enough to locate and acquire all of the known Survey data. (4). Smart enough to identify the first irrefutable proof of altered WC evidence. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm (5). Smart enough to resolve how the WC pulled this wool over your eyes. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883. (6). Smart enough to know where James Altgens was physically standing Elm St. and how the WC pulled the wool over your eyes in regards to his true position. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you. Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0487a.htm (7). Smart enough to know that unless the Presidential Limo completely stopped for the shooter to take the first shot, that the Z207 as well as Z210 "Re-enactment" photo's can not be at the exact same place. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0051b.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0052a.htm (8). Smart enough to have caught on to the manipulative "Adjusted Position" in which the WC quite obviously confused you. Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207. ---------------------------------------------- Mr. FRAZIER - On Commission Exhibit No. 892, also marked frame No. 207, the car was moved forward under the tree to the point where the spot on the Presidential stand-in's back just became visible beyond the foliage of the tree. I had the car stopped at that point so that this photograph could be made there. On Commission Exhibit No. 893, also marked frame 210, we have the photograph made at the adjusted position to accommodate the 10-inch difference in height between the stand-in and the actual position of the wound above the street and on the President's body. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine. Mr. DULLES - Would you explain to us simply how you made those adjustments? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. DULLES - I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical matter. Mr. FRAZIER - They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures. They then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back of the Presidential stand-in- and the back of the Governor's stand-in, and looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance down on the automobile. You could not actually see it on the President's back. But could locate that 10-inch distance as a point which we marked with tape on the automobile itself, both for the Presidential and the Governor's stand-in. (9). Smart enough to recognize the manipulation of the WC in only showing us up to frame# Z334 of the Zapruder film, and how that was also slipped by you. Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed? Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z334.jpg (10). As well as being smart enough to recognize exactly why the WC pulled this wool over your eyes also. Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z347.jpg (11). Smart enough to be able to read and comprehend the witness testimonies which have not only informed us that the Z313 impact was the SECOND SHOT fired, but also informed us of the approximate location of the third/last/final shot. Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot. Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear. Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side? Mr. HUDSON - Right hand. Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was. Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Note for BM: I will attempt to not further embarass you by listing all of the other witnesses who accurately reported the Z313 impact as being the SECOND SHOT FIRED. Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now! We could most probably go on like this for some time, considering that I have yet to "strike out"! However, in all fairness, I will now allow you up to bat and let you present your batting average as well as all of the information which you have discovered in your 25 plus years of evaluation of the photographic evidence and witness testimonies. Which should take all of about five seconds! Tom, I have to smile at your arrogance. I am going to attempt to explain some things that I have noticed in some of the things you have said and apply it to what I seem to recall and maybe the truth can become more clearer to at least those reading this stuff. The first thing I smiled at was your telling this forum how 'YOU' are smart enough to have shown the world these photo re-enactment manipulations. I have read about the errors made by the early studies as far as position and alignment concerning the staging of the re-enactment Altgens #6 photo and in none of them do they mention that it was 'YOU' who brought them to their attention. If I am wrong about that, then I am sure you can correct me, but if I am not wrong, then 'YOU' are taking credit for something you never played a part in. Next you say that it was 'YOU' who was smart enough to show the world that the head shot was 29.7' further down the street than Z313 shows it to have occurred at. You rely on heavily on the West survey and the statements of a few witnesses who said that the second shot hit JFK in the head. Let us look at these two things ... Surveys are subject to error. Robert Cutler did a survey and I seem to recall that his did not match everything that West came up with. Don Roberdeau's map is another example. It should also be noted that no one used any assassination films, other than possibly Zapruders which doesn't show enough of the background of the plaza to be certain that errors were not made due to the lack of reference points that would be helpful in achieving accuracy. The next time West did a survey ... it was left up to the FBI to look at the assassination films to determine where the President was when he was fatally hit. Again, I don't recall, so maybe you can help me here ... but the West survey was done separately from the FBI's usage of the assassination films ... those would be (Zapruder's, Muchmore's, and the Nix film). The one film that was known to the FBI, but dismissed could have offered the most exact location for the President at the time he was fatally shot in the head. The location where Bronson stood is indisputable and it shows several landmarks beyond the limo and President so to align JFK's true position at the time of the head shot. As you probably know ... Bronson had his film developed and the FBI was invited to come and view it as Bronson was present, but because of the distance to the President ... the FBI wasn't interested in the film and Bronson hung on to it. So Bronson's film was never out of his possession except during the time it took to develop it. Each one of those assassination films that I have mentioned could be used against background reference points to know exactly where the limo was at the time JFK was killed. If someone wants to claim alteration to the other films ... they are at least hard pressed to make the same allegation concerning Bronson's film and Bronson's film does not show the President to be 29.7 feet further west at the time JFK was hit in the head as you have alleged. You mentioned some witnesses who claimed that they thought the second shot hit JFK in the head ... you don't rely on the far more many witnesses who said that the 3rd shot hit JFK in the head, including witnesses who said they heard more than three shots fired in total. Brehm first said on the afternoon of the assassination that he had only heard two shots - period! Brehm obviously missed hearing one of the shots and maybe that it why he was still clapping his hands when Altgens took his #6 photo. Kennedy friend Senator Ralph Yarborough is also oblivious to the first shot(s) being fired for Altgens #6 shows him still smiling. The same can be said about Hudson for he was just standing there with his hands in his pockets and didn't seem to even be startled until AFTER JFK's head exploded. I also seem to recall that Moorman didn't know any shots had been fired until the President was hit in the head. It has been posted many times now that when the movie 'JFK' was being made ... that over 32/33 test firings were done with 7 shots in each interval being blasted off that depending on where witnesses stood in the plaza had an effect on what shots they heard and didn't here ... and from where. So the point I am making is that your use of the witnesses and what they heard and when in accordance to what you call the 'aka. second shot impact' is terribly flawed in my view. I'll touch on Altgens again soon, but he seemed pretty clear that the limo was 15 east of his location when the fatal shot hit JFK ... you have to know that this does not support the car being another 29.7' beyond Z313. You certainly don't expect me to not mention this - do you. I could not help but to notice that you claim to have been smart enough to 'locate and acquire all of the known Survey data' ... Are these the original data or copies? Your next two points mention how you were smart enough to have seen how the WC manipulated the evidence and somehow pulled the wool over my eyes. To start with ... Mark Lane did an excellent job in making a case for how the WC made a lot of mistakes and some of them seemed to be intentional. I have read Lane's books, as well as many others who point this stuff out, so you are again taking credit for something you didn't do at all in my view. And if any part of your remark goes to the President being 29.7' further west than where the assassination films show him to, then I disagree with your conclusion and I won't allow 'YOU' to pull the wool over my eyes. As far as Altgens true position in the plaza ... a simple alignment of the tree beyond the limo against the TSBD can put someone reasonably close. Is the re-enactment photo in the 26 Volumes dead on ... of course not for a mere layman can see it. No one needed you to tell us this and it certainly is not new to the seasoned researchers on this forum. The reason the WC stopped at Z334 in my view is that there was no proof that anyone had been shot after that point. The Commission seemed to be more focused on the actual wounding of the victims. As far as your taking credit for mentioning this 10" adjustment for the car height difference between the limo and the re-enactment car ... it means little to me for the Betner and Willis time stamped the moment of the first shot ... Woodward corroborating independently what Betzner and Willis had said. I also have to smile at you using Altgens to try and support your position. Did you not catch where James Altgens said that he was roughly 15' west of the limo when the President was shot in the head, which puts the limo at the Z313 location ... yet you claim the car went another 29.7' before JFK was shot in the head, which by the way places the limo 'WEST' of James Altgens. You are so trying to be right that the very witness you cited elsewhere says something different than what you claim to have happened. In other words ... you see what some witnesses saw as the fatal shot being the second shot because they obviously didn't hear one of the earlier shots, thus anyone who did hear all the shots and said that last shot impacted JFK's head as being two different things. My position is that they are talking about the same shot to the head of the President and depending on whether they heard all the shots is why some say the second shot and others the third shot. You seem to be doing what the Commission did and that is to start with a conclusion and then try and work your way backwards to try and make yourself appear correct. So in my opinion ... it is you who has struck out and Altgens was the pitcher! (grin) Bill Miller Edited July 2, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I suspect Miller, etal., wishes this thread would just go away... David ... its said to be best to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. This was just another 'David Healy' response that didn't offer any data or any sign that you even understand what is being discussed ... now is that what you believe John Simkin invited you here to do ... be honest! (LOL!!!) How about instead of just saying something foolish .... tell us how Altgens said that the President was hit in the head while the limo was approximately 15 feet east of his location and yet Tom says that the fatal shot impacted 29.7' beyond Z313 which would then put the car west of Altgens. Do you have any thoughts about that??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 (edited) I suspect Miller, etal., wishes this thread would just go away... David ... its said to be best to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. This was just another 'David Healy' response that didn't offer any data or any sign that you even understand what is being discussed ... now is that what you believe John Simkin invited you here to do ... be honest! (LOL!!!) How about instead of just saying something foolish .... tell us how Altgens said that the President was hit in the head while the limo was approximately 15 feet east of his location and yet Tom says that the fatal shot impacted 29.7' beyond Z313 which would then put the car west of Altgens. Do you have any thoughts about that??? Bill Miller can't duck, son...... you know who you have to discuss this with.... then I'll bring up Z-film alteration, ya said you wanted to dance. I'm waiting and watching Edited July 2, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 can't duck, son...... you know who you have to discuss this with.... You remind me of a baby animal when it thinks that because its eyes are hidden behind a small object - that the rest of its body must also be hidden from anyones view. (smile) By the way, how is that very important request for the historical films to be given to you for examination coming along ... have you started it yet or are you still trying to decide if it should be written in pen or pencil??? (sigh) Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 can't duck, son...... you know who you have to discuss this with.... You remind me of a baby animal when it thinks that because its eyes are hidden behind a small object - that the rest of its body must also be hidden from anyones view. (smile) By the way, how is that very important request for the historical films to be given to you for examination coming along ... have you started it yet or are you still trying to decide if it should be written in pen or pencil??? (sigh) Bill Miller Is it two-step time? Ya need a partner, son...... can't buy time courting me..... seeya round the hood! LMFAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now