Jump to content
The Education Forum

First Shot Impact


Recommended Posts

Is it two-step time? Ya need a partner, son...... can't buy time courting me..... seeya round the hood! LMFAO!

Someone suggested to me that if I watched and kept track of your post that you would spend countless hours trolling and never spend a second actually doing any research. You have played this and other forums to the hilt by pretending that you were the man who needed to examine those historical materials so we all could start getting somewhere and instead you have posted over 800 words in just two threads that never dealt with anything to advance the case or the discussion that you interrupted.

It appears with every response that you make unnecessarily instead of sitting down and writing out that request so to let you examine the assassination films and photos only shows that you were never serious about that issue at all. That you are just a delinquent trying to get attention that you somehow feel is lacking. The following are your brilliant post from those two threads ...

DAVID HEALY/THE THINKER

"read: I need some time to figure this out AND *Gary Mack, I need your help, AGAIN*

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

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

opinions are opinions, get with the program son...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

o•pin•ion Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

so if YOU want to dance, then get off the stool..... however before you enter the dance floor, let us see your credentials in photo and film compositing, after all why should I or anyone else for that matter want to waste time with a self-proclaimed film-photo wannbe? Doesn't make sense, son.....

this is dancing? ROTFLMFAO! Ya need Arthur Murray.... and, the WCR, and the volumes This keeps up, I'm gonna start ignoring you....

I suspect Miller, etal., wishes this thread would just go away...

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

Is it two-step time? Ya need a partner, son...... can't buy time courting me..... seeya round the hood! LMFAO!

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....

Funny I see NO response from the 6th Floor Museum here or in any other thread for that matter, unless of course you're claiming to represent them. Is that true, are YOU representing the 6th Floor Museum? Just pass the message on, son -- and regarding this thread topic, it appears Mr. Rigby has you all spun up, again.....

Have you, by-the-way, contacted Mark Lane? There is no foul language allowed here, son... If you can't control yourself, I'll request Ms. Beckett throw your rear-end out of here for breaking forum rules. So, straighten up and fly right, we don't want Gary losing his mouthpiece here, now would we?

good, I'm glad you've cleaned up your language... the mod's on this board can be aggressive ya know.... and by all means, forward these posts to LIFE. I have a ferw questions for them too, if any of them are still alive....

Now, you still haven't answered the question do you represent the 6th Floor Museum these days?

Further, looks like old Tom Purvis and Paul Rigby have you all tied up in knots there son.... we're all waiting for something intelligent from you, so don't run and hide behind me... carry on.... (tap-tap-tap)

son, you're not a star here.... it's all about the JFK assassination, this is not a job interview.... You've got to come to grips with a few simple facts, Miller... one, you haven't laid hands or eyes on the original Zapruder film... so all this nonsense you post is opinion, O-P-I-N-I-O-N. Therefore, two, until you post something concrete with evidence to support your opinions, you're just another Lone Nut spouting off on any forum that will put up with your arrogance [or a forum you buy into]....

Gary Mack can hold your hand till the cows come home, you won't get the job.... pssst, and forget the grand ideas.... won't happen!

I think we'll call you Bill "this is the same old nonsense" Miller from now on.....

Speaking of "alteration pushers", interviewer-coaching and creative/manipulative documentary editing.... I direct attention to David Lifton's article: "Pig on a Leash", The Great Zapruder Film HOAX (3rd printing-2005), pg.421-22 concerning Mary Moorman's stepping off the curb-onto the street controversy (recorded during the videotaping of a much heralded Dealey Plaza films and photos documentary aired on one of the cable channel networks a few years ago).

Has GMack's comments as detailed in Lifton's article, concerning coaching during the Mary Moorman's segment, have those coaching comments been denied by the 6th Floor Museum? If not, why not? What kind of excuse, er, citation, do YOU have (apparently you're the current 6th Floor Museum spokesperson on this board) for this?

I'm under the impression, this entire Morman Dealey Plaza videotape sequence (complete with outtakes) is documented and preserved. Now back to Mark Lane...."

The only half sensible thing you wrote was addressed in an email I requested from Gary Mack. To answer the question about you asserting that Moorman was coached ...

Mack: "I replied to David Lifton privately on August 3, 2004 regarding his absurd “Pig” article. Although we have been acquainted since 1980, David never bothered to ask me about any of the issues he raised. In fact, David still seeks my opinion and insight from time to time – we last corresponded in April of this year.

As for Moorman being “coached,” I was asked by the Discovery Channel’s producer to guide her where we were to stand for the camera angle he wanted, and I did so."

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Miller:

I was not asking you to show us all of the "home runs" you have hit on the subject matter. (since there are none).

Most would be satisfied merely to see if you have even achieved any "base hits"!

(1). Smart enough to show the "world" the Altgens photo re-enactment manipulations!

In full recognition that the written word quite obviously far exceeds you ability, why not try again?

Since you have clearly demonstrated your inability to properly conduct research, why not ask around as to exactly where (here to be exact), the manipulations (reasons for such) were explained, as well as by whom.

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 ...

Again clearly demonstrating you complete inability to read and comprehend the english language.

Z313/aka stationing 4+65.3 was the impact to the head of JFK of the SECOND SHOT FIRED!

Stationing 4+95 was the impact to the head of JFK of the THIRD/LAST/FINAL SHOT FIRED!

JFK was struck in the head by two of the three shot fired. Shot#2 as well as Shot#3.

Now, in event that you can not grasp that, send me your mailing address as I do believe that there is an old "First Grade Reader" around here somewhere and I will mail it to you and we can begin at a level at which perhaps you can grasp things.

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.

It would appear that you fell for and believed "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"!

It would appear that you fell for and believed that Z313 was the last shot fired?

It wouold appear that you fell for and believed the presented survey data in the WC.

It would appear that you fell for and believed that James Altgens was somewhere back up Elm St. between the Moorman/Hill location and the TSDB.

It would appear that you believed the WC when they so informed that there was nothing past Z334 worth observing.

Shall I go on, or would that be sufficient?

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.

1. A frame of the Z-film showing James Altgens holding his camera to his eye appeared in newspapers all over the country just a few days after the assassination.

2. James Altgens was standing just a few feet from the second yellow curb mark on Elm St, which curb mark I might add was fully surveyed in during the initial SS survey work, as well as being included in with the FBI work, and again surveyed in during the WC re-enactment.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z349.jpg

I would go so far as to daresay that even with your lack of photographic imagery interperetation, that even you could most probably locate James Altgens position on Elm St. relatively accurately, provided that the yellow curb marks were still present.

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).

Garbage "doubletalk"!

You do not even know enough about the survey work in Dealey Plaza to speak coherently on the subject matter.

The reason the WC stopped at Z334 in my view is that there was no proof that anyone had been shot after that point.

More Garbage from someone who clearly has not even bothered to review the witness testimonies and statements.

1. Why not read the report of SS Agent Glen Bennett who clearly stated: "a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head"!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

Exactly why do you think that it was relatively simple for the SS to accurately determine the impact point for each of the three shots fired, when they did their assassination re-enactment work on December 2, 3, & 4th of 1963?

Which by the way, placed the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot impact directly in front of James Altgens position.

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 ..

Simple stated: The WC's considerably phony "adjusted position" exceeds your ability to understand and grasp what purpose it served. Would that be a fair appraisal of the situation?

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 .

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.

Apparantly, you did not do that well in math either.

Elm St. is approximately 40-feet in width, which places each lane approximately 13.3333 feet in width.

JfK's position was in approximately the center of the middle land (+ an additional 6.666666 feet)

Which places JFK when directly in front of James Altgens position, approximately 20-feet exactly from Altgens.

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

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, [b]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.[/b]

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,

Might I recommend that you find someone who can read and comprehend, and thereafter have them explain this to you Miller.

It most certainly appears to far exceed your ability to grasp and understand the photographic evidence as well as the witness testimonies.

Guess that was some 25+ years wasted, huh?

P.S. Stationing 4+95 is directly in front of James Altgens position! Makes on wonder exactly how it was that the SS as well as the FBI could be so inept to think that Z313 at stationing 4+65.3 WAS NOT the last shot fired.

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

P.P.S. You still have not even figured out the location of JFK at the time of the first shot, and are now attempting to graduate to the "big league" and understand the entire realm of facts related to the three shots fired?

First graders are not allowed to "jump" right into high school!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller:

I was not asking you to show us all of the "home runs" you have hit on the subject matter. (since there are none).

Most would be satisfied merely to see if you have even achieved any "base hits"!

Your remarks are just what I would expect from someone who won't admit they are wrong even in the face of the evidence. You have become blinded through your arrogance and inability to read an image showing gaps and lines of sights in reverse. If I am wrong about my opinion of this, then how is that you would make the following statement to Jack White when what Jack said should be obvious to anyone who has ever stood in front of a mirror. You said, "NOPE! Perhaps, even at this advanced stage in life, it may serve a purpose were you to take a course in survey as well as photographic imagery interpretation." This time it is Jack who is right, as well as the rest of the noted researchers who have claimed Z202 (not Z206) mirrored the Phil Willis photo.

I will explain it once again, not because I feel that you will own up to your mistake in reading the images, but so others can see just how far some will go to appear right .... rather than accurate.

Willis Photo

The Willis photo shows Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman standing atop of the pedestal in the background beyond Clint Hill. A more exact description would be that from Willis stood, Zapruder's body is in the gap between the east edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign and Agent Hill's head. Had Zapruder of been holding a large mirror instead of a camera, then Phil Willis would see himself from Zapruder's line of sight and I think we can all agree that a mirror shows us everything in reverse if we were looking back at ourselves. This is indisputable!!!

Zapruder frame #202

Zapruder frame #202 shows Phil Willis between the east edge of the road sign and Agent Clint Hill's head ... this is exactly what is indisputably seen in the Willis photo. (Take special notice of the man and the woman standing just west of Phil Willis)

Jack White illustration

Jack White took the liberty to demonstrate this detail by placing a vertical white line through Zapruder's body as seen in the Willis photo so to show that Zapruder is seen in the gap/space between the east edge of the road sign and Agent Clint Hill's head.

Zapruder frame #206

Zapruder frame #206 is the frame that YOU (Tom Purvis) says that it mirrors the Phil Willis photo. When I read this frame there are several major problems with your claim. They are indiputable in my opinion and are as follows ..

1) There no longer is a gap/space between the east edge of the Stemmons Road sign and Clint Hill's head as Jack White pointed out in his illustration.

2) The man standing next to the woman that I referenced in the Z202 frame now has Agent Clint Hill in Zframe #206 passing between that man and Zapruder's camera. This is not what the Phil Willis photo shows. The Willis photo shows that Clint Hill's head was not far enough west at that time Phil Willis took his photo to even be directly between Zapruder and the Willis camera ... let alone to be far enough down Elm Street to be passing by the man who stood several feet west of Willis.

3) In Zframe #206 - Phil Willis isn't seen just to the west of Agent Clint Hill's head, but is behind it and to the east of Hill's head. (Remember the mirror effect that I mentioned pertaining to Z202 ... the Willis doesn't have Abraham Zapruder being seen directly above Agent Hill's head, nor does it show Zapruder over Agent Hill's right shoulder, which is what it must show to mirror Z206.

This isn't a matter of relying on numbers in a survey or interpretation of what a witness may or may not have meant to say. This is a matter of understanding a simple line of sight between two people (Zapruder and Willis). All the game playing and guesses as to who heard what shot from where and when isn't going to change this FACT. I think that before anymore time is wasted on this nonsense, I must ask that you run this response by someone skilled in reading photos so to get their opinion. Until then, I must assume that you are not going to see something that you do not wish to believe and there is nothing that can be done for you at that point.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller:

I was not asking you to show us all of the "home runs" you have hit on the subject matter. (since there are none).

Most would be satisfied merely to see if you have even achieved any "base hits"!

Your remarks are just what I would expect from someone who won't admit they are wrong even in the face of the evidence. You have become blinded through your arrogance and inability to read an image showing gaps and lines of sights in reverse. If I am wrong about my opinion of this, then how is that you would make the following statement to Jack White when what Jack said should be obvious to anyone who has ever stood in front of a mirror. You said, "NOPE! Perhaps, even at this advanced stage in life, it may serve a purpose were you to take a course in survey as well as photographic imagery interpretation." This time it is Jack who is right, as well as the rest of the noted researchers who have claimed Z202 (not Z206) mirrored the Phil Willis photo.

I will explain it once again, not because I feel that you will own up to your mistake in reading the images, but so others can see just how far some will go to appear right .... rather than accurate.

Willis Photo

The Willis photo shows Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman standing atop of the pedestal in the background beyond Clint Hill. A more exact description would be that from Willis stood, Zapruder's body is in the gap between the east edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign and Agent Hill's head. Had Zapruder of been holding a large mirror instead of a camera, then Phil Willis would see himself from Zapruder's line of sight and I think we can all agree that a mirror shows us everything in reverse if we were looking back at ourselves. This is indisputable!!!

Zapruder frame #202

Zapruder frame #202 shows Phil Willis between the east edge of the road sign and Agent Clint Hill's head ... this is exactly what is indisputably seen in the Willis photo. (Take special notice of the man and the woman standing just west of Phil Willis)

Jack White illustration

Jack White took the liberty to demonstrate this detail by placing a vertical white line through Zapruder's body as seen in the Willis photo so to show that Zapruder is seen in the gap/space between the east edge of the road sign and Agent Clint Hill's head.

Zapruder frame #206

Zapruder frame #206 is the frame that YOU (Tom Purvis) says that it mirrors the Phil Willis photo. When I read this frame there are several major problems with your claim. They are indiputable in my opinion and are as follows ..

1) There no longer is a gap/space between the east edge of the Stemmons Road sign and Clint Hill's head as Jack White pointed out in his illustration.

2) The man standing next to the woman that I referenced in the Z202 frame now has Agent Clint Hill in Zframe #206 passing between that man and Zapruder's camera. This is not what the Phil Willis photo shows. The Willis photo shows that Clint Hill's head was not far enough west at that time Phil Willis took his photo to even be directly between Zapruder and the Willis camera ... let alone to be far enough down Elm Street to be passing by the man who stood several feet west of Willis.

3) In Zframe #206 - Phil Willis isn't seen just to the west of Agent Clint Hill's head, but is behind it and to the east of Hill's head. (Remember the mirror effect that I mentioned pertaining to Z202 ... the Willis doesn't have Abraham Zapruder being seen directly above Agent Hill's head, nor does it show Zapruder over Agent Hill's right shoulder, which is what it must show to mirror Z206.

This isn't a matter of relying on numbers in a survey or interpretation of what a witness may or may not have meant to say. This is a matter of understanding a simple line of sight between two people (Zapruder and Willis). All the game playing and guesses as to who heard what shot from where and when isn't going to change this FACT. I think that before anymore time is wasted on this nonsense, I must ask that you run this response by someone skilled in reading photos so to get their opinion. Until then, I must assume that you are not going to see something that you do not wish to believe and there is nothing that can be done for you at that point.

Bill Miller

while you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time on "this nonsense", I'll remind [/b]YOU[/b], and one-n-all, that if, IF the Zapruder film is altered certainly doesn't say much for your benchmark, does it? Hate to remind you of that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time on "this nonsense", I'll remind [/b]YOU[/b], and one-n-all, that if, IF the Zapruder film is altered certainly doesn't say much for your benchmark, does it? Hate to remind you of that....

David, is the "nonsense" my having to point out to Purvis the obvious pertaining to when the Wills photo was taken in relation to the Zapruder film or in you once again not adding a lick of relevant

data to the subject being discussed???

Your other remark wasn't important either for I could easily say that if the Zapruder film isn't altered, then it doesn't say much for your benchmark - does it! But why should we play the fools game ... I am sure you'll have that request done shortly so to get to examine the historical films and photos so to have them authenticated. By the way ... how is that request coming so far ... can you show us what you have so far??????

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your remarks are just what I would expect from someone who won't admit they are wrong even in the face of the evidence. You have become blinded through your arrogance and inability to read an image showing gaps and lines of sights in reverse

Your remarks are just what I would expect from someone who knows virtually nothing in regards to photographic imagery interpretation.

You continue to demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge regarding photography.

Zapruder frame #206 is the frame that YOU (Tom Purvis) says that it mirrors the Phil Willis photo.

Now exactly why would you want to go around telling lies such as that?

In the event that it "mirrored" the Willis photo, then it would not have been taken at the exact same time.

You are the one who knows so little about photographic imagery that you are of the complete foolish persuasion that because some photo's appear to "mirror", that they are taken at the same time and instant.

So, please, for the record, show us all exactly where I even utilized the wording "mirror".

That happens to be your general lack of knowledge!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

[edit] Parallax error in photography

Parallax error can be seen when taking photos with many types of cameras, such as twin-lens reflex cameras and those including viewfinders (such as rangefinder cameras). In such cameras, the eye sees the subject through different optics (the viewfinder, or a second lens) than the one through which the photo is taken. As the viewfinder is often found above the lens of the camera, photos with parallax error are often slightly lower than intended, the classic example being the image of person with his or her head cropped off. This problem is addressed in single-lens reflex cameras, in which the viewfinder sees through the same lens through which the photo is taken (with the aid of a movable mirror), thus avoiding parallax error.

Now, for those who actually have an interest in this.

http://www.copweb.be/Zapruder%20Camera.htm

Zapruder's camera had:

Non-reflex viewfinder (parallax corrected and coupled with zoom.)

Which meant that this camera automaticallly (within/through the viewfinder sight) corrected for parallax.

Which pretty well meant that what you saw through the Zapruder camera, was what you got on the film.

However!

http://www.copweb.be/Phil%20Willis%20Camera.htm

The Phil Willis Argus camera does not have a "parallax correction" through the viewfinder.

Therefore, what you see is not exactly what one gets.

Therefore, if the camera "gets" Clint Hill directly in alignment with Zapruder on the pedestal, Clint Hill could not have been in that exact and direct alignment as the camera has a "parallax shift" as a result of binocular disparity.

http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/view.pl?letter=p

Parallax.

Also “parallax shift.” Apparent shifts of an object when viewed from different positions.

The classic example involves holding a finger in front of your face, slightly off-centre, and looking at it first from the left eye and then the right. The finger appears to shift, since the finger-eye distance and angles are different for each eye.

Binocular disparity caused by parallax is one of the most important ingredients in human visual depth perception. Parallax shift is also exploited by 3D viewing systems, such as anaglyphs. Parallax error, on the other hand, is a problem when shooting VR images.

Parallax error is also a problem when you’re using any camera system in which the viewfinder is a separate optical system from the actual taking lens. In an SLR, parallax is not a problem because when you look through the viewfinder you’re looking through the same lens which takes the photo. But with a TLR camera the viewfinder and taking lenses are separate. Closeup photography is thus a real problem with TLRs, because you have to compensate manually for parallax shift. However, parallax becomes less and less of a problem as the subject to camera distance increases. (this is why the moon seems to stand still when you’re driving along a road at night

Which happens to demonstrate exactly how little some people know about photographic imagery interpretation.

Along with an apparant inability to even research the subject matter.

http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/photographic%20...20glossaryP.htm

Parallax

The difference in point of view that occurs when the lens (or other device) through which the eye views a scene is separate from the lens that exposes the film. With a lens-shutter camera, parallax is the difference between what the viewfinder sees and what the camera records, especially at close distances. This is caused by the separation between the viewfinder and the picture-taking lens. There is no parallax with single-lens-reflex cameras because when you look through the viewfinder, you are viewing the subject through the picture-taking lens.

http://photographytips.com/page.cfm/2062

PARALLAX - The difference between what is seen through the viewfinder and what the camera records on film, caused by the viewfinder being separate from the camera lens.

PARALLAX ERROR - Also known as “Parallax effect” - the viewfinder camera’s main disadvantage, making it almost useless for careful composition of close-up subjects. The scene viewed by the photographer through the camera’s viewing frame is different from the scene the lens will capture because the viewing frame is offset from the lens.

So, is that not plumb amazine??

What you see is not what you get!

Therefore, if you "got" something on film, it truly was not in that exact same alignment as you "saw" it.

Therefore, any photographs which happen to exactly "mirror" one another, and in which either and/or both of the camera's do not have a corrected viewing lense to correct for "parallax error", can not have been taken at the exact same time, as what is shown on the camera is not what was seen through the eye.

The "Parallax Shift" may make the object appear in direct alignment with some background item, however, all background items also "shift" to some degree as well, based on the distance involved and the actuall error.

Reckon that is why surveyors have known for years that one must utilize an exact telescopic type sighting instrument, as well as always sighting through the same eye when achieving alignment. (pre-laser days)

Quite simple in photography which has parallax error!

If it is there in the photograph, it aint' exactly there when one is taking the photograph. It is actually somewhere else, and merely "shifted" over there through the photographic lense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you see is not what you get!

Therefore, if you "got" something on film, it truly was not in that exact same alignment as you "saw" it.

Tom - take two different cameras and have two people point them at each other and both take a photo ... it makes no difference in this matter by what you are saying. I will ask you once again to name one expert you have spoken to who says that Z202 doesn't not equate with the Willis photo, but rather the later frame that you have chosen. Your failure to comply only supports what I believe to be true IMO. I personally know of no expert who has ever said differently that what Jack, Groden, the many photo experts that Mack has consulted, not to mention those Trask had contact with, the experts with the HSCA ... not anyone who has come up with your conclusion. I simply do not buy the idea that you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong. I don't think that it is too much to ask for you to produce one person who is an expert in photography to validate your conclusion.

Bill miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you see is not what you get!

Therefore, if you "got" something on film, it truly was not in that exact same alignment as you "saw" it.

Tom - take two different cameras and have two people point them at each other and both take a photo ... it makes no difference in this matter by what you are saying. I will ask you once again to name one expert you have spoken to who says that Z202 doesn't not equate with the Willis photo, but rather the later frame that you have chosen. You failure to comply only supports what I believe to be true IMO. I personally know of no expert who has ev er said differently that what Jack, Groden, the many photo experts that Mack has consulted, not to mention those Trask had contact with, the experts with the HSCA ... not anyone who has come up with your conclusion. I simply do not buy the idea that you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong. I don't think that it is too much to ask for you to produce one person who is an expert in photography to validate your conclusion.

Bill miller

might be nice if YOU have your alleged "photo experts" provide a quote regarding Mr. Purvis's work.... For some reason, YOU saying it's so, simply doesn't cut it.

What YOU, Bill Miller buy is irrelevant, as you've been told countless times. Either get official comments from these alleged experts or cease and desist the endless name dropping... We all notice none of these experts have run to your aid and support here ,or for that matter, anywhere else.... Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

might be nice if YOU have your alleged "photo experts" provide a quote regarding Mr. Purvis's work.... For some reason, YOU saying it's so, simply doesn't cut it.

What YOU, Bill Miller buy is irrelevant, as you've been told countless times. Either get official comments from these alleged experts or cease and desist the endless name dropping... We all notice none of these experts have run to your aid and support here ,or for that matter, anywhere else.... Why is that?

Ah, still no time to get that all important request for you to examine the historical images so to put all that alteration stuff to rest ... hey David! In all fairness, most of us already knew that you were blowing smoke and would never actually do anything to advance the case.

Now about what Tom says ... should I go pull up a past David Healy response telling the forum that one needs to cite sources/experts to support their claims, thus just spouting opinions don't get the job done ... always glad to show where you are merely trolling with more double talk.

There would be some validity in Tom's argument if we were in fact comparing what Willis saw in the viewfinder, to what the film actually recorded. However since we are comparing Willis’s photo to Zapruder's film, the difference in the Willis view finder is meaningless. We are comparing what both cameras ACTUALLY recorded and whether they reflect the same moment in time.

The bottom line here is ofcourse that the Willis photo would have recorded HILL where he actually was, as did Zapruder's camera, so what Willis viewed through the view finder and that parallax difference means nothing. To say otherwise means that every book and study done on the timing of the Willis photo showing it to correlate to Z202 is wrong and only Purvis is correct. Do you care to go on record as saying that Tom has it right and everyone else is wrong or are you just wanting to remain the village xxxxx who never actually post anything of substance ... something that Simkin surely hoped you'd do when he invited you here.

Sure am looking forward to you actually posting something of value ... it should look like a baby calf trying to stand up for the first time! By the way, here is what your photo expert in "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" had to say about Tom's claim ...

Jack White

Rating: 4

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Jun 23 2008, 04:39 AM

Post #10

Super Member

****

Group: Members

Posts: 4778

Joined: 26-April 04

Member No.: 667

Z202 is the corresponding moment to Willis 5.

Willis said he pressed the shutter on hearing a shot.

But Z202 is BEFORE the official WC first shot.

Jack

Do you agree with Jack or not David ??????????

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/wi...Map/Bennett.htm

SECRET SERVICE AGENT'S NOTES: November 22, 1963. 24H542

I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. Immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

"The significance of the attached notes is that they were prepared by SA Bennett on the President's plane during its return flight to Washington on November 22, before the details of President Kennedy's wounds became general knowledge."

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

There are those who have attempted to discredit the handwritten observations of SS Agent Glen Bennett.

The means employed has basically been to state the complete improbability that he could see a bullet strike JFK in the back*, and therefore this non-credible statement tended to cast dis-credibility on his statement that it was the second shot which struck JFK in the "right rear high of the Boss's head"!

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

*It is of course highly unlikely that SS Agent Glen Bennett observed an 1,800 to 2,200 fps 6.5mm Carcano bullet strike JFK in the back.

But then again, CE399 was not travelling at this speed as it's velocity had been tremendously impared due to the impact with and penetration of the live oak tree limb through which it passed prior to it's tumbling impact into JFK's back.

Therefore, Glen Bennett observed a tumbling bullet, which in all probability was reduced to only approximately one-third of it's initial velocity, strike JFK in the back.

Which I might add is easily observable.

Therefore, I will again repeat:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...