Bill Miller Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Duncan, really, all kidding aside, if a figure is there in Nix, it must be there in Moorman. Don't you agree?Kathy Kathy ... Why do you think he likes to claim relevant things irrelevant ........ agreeing with the obvious point you make kills his case and he knows it. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Credit: Sean Murphy. Re: Establishing a date for the following image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) ...Groden made a 35MM copy directly from the Nix original. I have a duplicate of that film as it was created at the lab where I accompanied Robert Groden a few years ago. ... Bill Miller My gosh, you've made it to a film lab! So, correct me if I'm wrong, according to a NIX family member: The NIX in-camera original film is missing, eh? Did Robert tell you per-chance, if he (Groden) knows where the original NIX film is located these days? By your above statement Mr. Groden had it in his possession at one time, the "in-camera 8mm original" that is. You really should read David Lifton's, Pig on a Leash. Or, better yet, purchase a copy of the The Great Zapruder Film HOAX Symposium DVD-- Lifton's installment in particular. (no love lost between the two, that's for sure) Amazing history concerning Robert G. and JFK assassination related photos and films. Utterly amazing! And most telling? Robert's grilling during his ARRB congressional investigation testimony.... Yours in-research, DHealy p.s. How did Groden make a 35mm copy of an 8mm film? Dazzle me, er us! Edited October 15, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 [ name=David G. Healy' date='Oct 15 2008, 10:41 AM' post='156243]My gosh, you've made it to a film lab! So, correct me if I'm wrong, according to a NIX family member: The NIX in-camera original film is missing, eh? Thats right ... the original Nix film is missing, but it wasn't missing at the time when Groden worked on it. Aside from being a disgruntled double talker ... your memory must be shot as well for this stuff has been posted on several forums before .... forums that you participated on and made a fool out of yourself there too. As far as reading the 'Great Zapruder Hoax' ... I was one of the vfirst people who had read it. Don't you recall all those debates and critiques that I did of Jack's alteration claims ... you were on the same forums and still making a fool out of your self. You really should get your memory checked ... if you can remember to do it. And like you ... after reading Lifton's part in the book, I too had not seen any signs of alteration .... just like you had posted to this forum. Should I go back and post the link to you proclamation of not seeing any proof of alteration, as well??? Now down to business ... have you finally finished that all important letter asking that YOU be allowed to handle and examine those historical materials so we can finally find out if they are originals or not??? Maybe just show us what you have written so far and we can help you with the rest of it because we don't want people thinking that you merely run off at the mouth and never actually do anything when it comes to something as important as an American President's assassination. So lets see what you have done so far ... have you typed out anything ... maybe told them that you're on the varsity ... that you want to do this one for the gipper! Show how serious you are about all this stuff, David ... inquiring minds want to know. By the way, here is Groden's email address ... write him and ask him what ever questions you like just as I had to do. RobertG1@airmail.net Amazing history concerning Robert G. and JFK assassination related photos and films. Utterly amazing! And most telling? Robert's grilling during his ARRB congressional investigation testimony.... What's your history, David ... other than double talking that is. All you are known for is participating in the Hoax book only to post years later that you have seen no proof of alteration. In recent times we discovered that while you have bitched for years that these important historical materials were being kept from the great David Healy and how if only you could get your hands on them, then the debate of alteration or not would be over .... that you hadn't ever given a damn to even writ e a request asking for permission to examine those materials. How do you live with yourself having been exposed like you have! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 No, I don't agree Kathy...They are both from different elevations and different angles. What is seen in one doesn't mean it will show in the other.Duncan But Duncan ... you are always all to willing to create moronic illustrations of people on card-board signs - faces pasted onto dresses and over gopher holes - and so on .... why would you not create an illustration showing Kathy a visual that will allow her to see what it is that you are talking about??? I too, would just love to see it for myself, so please enlighten us. Thanks in advance, Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) My case is that Gordon Arnold is an illusion in his alleged location in Moorman. Your case is that Gordon Arnold is not an illusion in his alleged location in Moorman You have openly admitted that you can not prove that Arnold is real in Moorman and have moved from a 3ft 10" fence on to Nix...What's your next game other than trolling and clutching at straws? Duncan, you were specifically asked to detail just how I allegedly said what you have attributed to me. Is there a reason why you didn't do this in your last response??? Would it help if I started referencing post whereas I corrected you over and over again that my position was that the figure in Moorman was 'not too small to be real'. In fact, do you not recall my asking you if you believed Badge Man to be real whereas you wouldn't reply until after you were told why I was asking that question. Your merely misstating or mis-representing something I have said was something Miles would do, but he was smart enough to almost pull it off - you're not! The mentioning of the figure in the Nix film is legit and is a question that Kathy had asked you about. You offered no illustrations or data in support of that position, but had only just said something general in an effort to dismiss it. I don't believe that Kathy found your response any more adequate than I did, so please be specific if you can. Bill Miller Edited October 15, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Duncan, you were specifically asked to detail just how I allegedly said what you have attributed to me.than I did, so please be specific if you can.Bill Miller Ok "Arnold is on the higher ground in Moorman's photo, thus the immediate ground level at the top of the steps where Shaw is crouched has nothing to do with how Arnold is viewed in Moorman's photograph." Bill Miller So you were saying that Arnold is real in Moorman, and now you are saying that you can't prove that what you said is true? Duncan MacRae I have not a clue as to what you are implying. I believe that Arnold was on the knoll because of Jack White and Gary Mack's work and the vast amount of circumstantial evidence that supports things Arnold had said long before they were discovered. How a very short Gary Shaw standing in a low spot at the south dog leg of the wall has anything to do with a much taller Arnold standing on higher ground has anything to do with what you implied about me changing my position on Arnold not being too short to be human is beyond me. I remember at the time pointing out that the ground slopes downward dramatically where Shaw was standing. I must insist that you better explain yourself. This thread has been about your claim that Gordon Arnold is too short to be real. This has been a repeated theme of yours and Miles since the very beginning. Miles seems to have abandoned this thread. I pointed out several times that the figure in Jack's Badge Man images matched that of Tony Cummings body size. You then responded with your illustrations showing Arnold's feet not going far enough down on the concrete wall to suit you. I have claimed that you have not scaled Arnold correctly, nor represented the ground height correctly. This was made clear when I showed that the left side of the photo of Shaw showed a much shorter surface area of the wall to the ground than it does where Shaw was standing. So once again I must ask you how have I changed my position on Arnold being real. I still say he is real - I still say that the figure in your work is not illustrated properly - I still say that the figure in the Nix film beyond the wall should be seen in Moorman's photograph. What I have said in the past and still maintain is that even when it is shown that the image in Moorman is not too small to be real as you have claimed ... it still won't stop someone from claiming that it doesn't prove that it was indeed Arnold standing there. Unless you can show where I have said otherwise, then you are merely trying to divert attention away from the problem you have with the Nix film showing someone standing beyond the wall. Your attempt to do this while whining about my bio or pulling past post remarks by you didn't work then ... and ignoring the questions by making up this nonsense is not going to help you now. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I don't believe that Kathy found your response any more adequate than I did, so please be specific if you can.Bill Miller She hasn't said anything to me. Duncan MacRae She said it to me when we last spoke, so if for no other reason, then be more detailed and show me that what you said is accurate and not just being made up once again. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I've given you my analysis of Arnold in Moorman which I believe is accurate within tolerable levels. You distpute my analysis, so in effect it's your job to prove me wrong. You have said that the results from the forthcoming experiment will prove me wrong, so let's just wait until then as there's no point going round in circles. As you said, Nix is circumstantial. The offer is still there for me to pay for the Arnold blow up cut out if you really want to be accurate. Duncan MacRae You were asked to show me where I have changed my position that the alleged Arnold figure is not to small to be real. Also, you were asked to demonstrate how you arrived at the notion that the figure in Nix could not be seen in Moorman. This was presented to you numerous times and only the last time did you say that this person could not be seen in Moorman's field of view. Kathy and I would like you to explain how you derived at your conclusion other than just saying its so. Thanks again, Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 (edited) duplicate post deleted. Edited October 17, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I did reply. I can't see a figure in Nix + I can't see a figure in Moorman = I can't see the same figure in both Nix and Moorman When Kathy Beckett pointed out to you that there is someone seen beyond the wall in the Nix film ... you didn't deny anyone being there ..... you offered no evidence to the link she posted as being in error over what is seen in the Nix film. Instead you said the following in your response to Kathy Beckett .............. Kathy:Duncan, really, all kidding aside, if a figure is there in Nix, it must be there in Moorman. Don't you agree? Duncan:No, I don't agree Kathy...They are both from different elevations and different angles. What is seen in one doesn't mean it will show in the other. We have sayings back in the U.S. about people who play the games that you like to play, but what it boils down to is that these people end up appearing to be more interested in playing with themselves than anything else. Miles was one such person, but now seems to have seen the error of his ways and just dropped from the thread. Just like I believe you were not being honest when you claimed that you had flipped-flopped on the reality of the Badge Man ... you just did it here again once you considered the implications of admitting that the individual in the Nix film should be seen in Moorman. You first told us .............. (see below) Duncan: "The position of a potential Arnold in Nix has no relevance to the topic which is the existence or non-existence of Arnold in his location the Moorman's Polaroid" Then your position was that this figure couldn't be seen from Moorman's angle compared to that of Nix .............. (see below) Kathy:Duncan, really, all kidding aside, if a figure is there in Nix, it must be there in Moorman. Don't you agree? Duncan:No, I don't agree Kathy...They are both from different elevations and different angles. What is seen in one doesn't mean it will show in the other. Then once you was called on to show how you reached the new conclusion you laid on Kathy, you had no choice than to just say there is no one seen in Nix's film. I wonder if Kathy also feels that you're jerking her around and not being forthright? Next you say, "Would you care to submit YOUR Nix evidence and not the FAKE Groden 37 frames altered Nix which Kathy has posted on Lancer, probably being unaware of the faking speed of the motion when she posted it. Here is the fake Nix motion with duplicated frames for all to see. All anyone needs to do to detect the fakery is open up the gif in adobe image ready and look for the duplicated frames." "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999. Just once it would be nice to see where you first contacted someone who could at least validate your remarks, suppositions, and assumptions before coming out accusing people of things that have been more along your way of behaving. Here is some information that I obtained from Gary Mack .................. Bill, "Duplicated frames"? What Duncan thinks is a fake Nix film blowup is actually Groden's effort to show the Nix movement at the accurate, as-it-happened speed. The duplicate frames compensate for the different frame rate of film converted to video? In the US, it's called the 3:2 pull down, in which every third frame is repeated, which has the end effect of changing the 8mm film speed of 18 frames-per-second to 16mm film which runs at 24 frames-per-second. For US TV, the 24fps rate of 16mm film is then converted to 30fps for TV, resulting in more frame duplications. But it's entirely normal and is nothing more than simple, basic physics. Gary Mack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 (edited) ...For US TV, the 24fps rate of 16mm film is then converted to 30fps for TV, resulting in more frame duplications. But it's entirely normal and is nothing more than simple, basic physics. Gary Mack Yes indeed, Groden altered many JFK assassination related films for our viewing pleasure.... BTW, for television its 29.97fps, accuracy counts! Perhaps Gary Mack can tell you why.... Edited October 17, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Yes indeed, Groden altered many JFK assassination related films for our viewing pleasure....BTW, for television its 29.97fps, accuracy counts! Perhaps Gary Mack can tell you why.... Would you like to enlighten us about the film in question ... (other than your .03 fps disagreement that no human being could see) .... does the film accurately display what Nix captured on film in your opinion? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 The original flim may show an accurate as-it-happened speed, but we'll never know that unless it turns up again will we?....but tell me Bill....Did I mention anything about the film being posted on this forum or Lancer?...The gif which has 37 frames is not the film, and is not running at the same speed as the original Nix film...It can only show the correct direction of any motion, not the correct speed....That's A Fact!!! Duncan MacRae Duncan, your response is the same kind of nonsense that Miles used to post before he saw the light and stopped doing it. The gif that Kathy posted may have been a slowed down version of the Nix film just like many of our Zapruder film and other animations are slowed down for viewing on these forums. I didn't check its timing for its irrelevant because none of this has anything to do with the duplicate frame issue that you raise. None of this has anything to do with your latest attempt to not address the Nix film showing someone beyond the wall because the animation does show someone moving to their left and down. In other words, your claim that Kathy somehow posted a fake Nix film is utter horse-poo. The original Nix film could be shown on television and someone capturing it off the air would find it with the same duplicate frame count and nothing seen on Orville's film would be changed. Now if your complaint is that Kathy's gif doesn't show someone moving to their left and down because of the extra film frames you counted has created an illusion, then you have no valid argument. By the way, isn't it coincidental that Arnold (also supported by Yarborough) had said that he went down to the ground immediately upon having a shot come pass his left ear. It almost appears that you are trying to ignore this important observation, but that can't be because you claim to be honest and sincere in all your responses. I think Kathy has been more honest with you, so why not give her a straight answer for a change. As far as you not mentioning either forum ... Duncan: Would you care to submit YOUR Nix evidence and not the FAKE Groden 37 frames altered Nix which Kathy has posted on Lancer, probably being unaware of the faking speed of the motion when she posted it. As stated very clearly, Kathy is pointing out that your latest shift in position says that no one is between the wall and the stockade fence. She posted a link to an article that Mack wrote and has shown a clip from the Nix film showing someone in motion immediately after the kill shot to JFK. Now is it your honest and sincere opinion at this present time that no one was between the wall and the fence in the Nix film????????? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 The Nix gif posted by Kathy does not show a human in any way shape or form. You are deluded. It shows motion of an unknown object moving downwards and to the left and that same object is what makes the "flash" illusion when it reaches it's lowest spot in the gif animation. Duncan MacRae First you tell us that there is nothing between the wall and the fence during the assassination. Now you admit something is in motion ... care to speculate what is in motion? Have you seen Groden's best Nix print? Were you at the lab with Royce Beirma, myself, and Groden when that film was worked on? Of course you weren't - actually spending some real time and money researching something as important as the best images available isn't your style. As far as Miles goes and his being banned ... did you bother trying to find out why he was banned before making outlandish allegations? Of course you didn't - doing such a thing would be the responsible way to conduct yourself. Bill Miller 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