Tripple Underpass

[Bill Miller]

deleted for space

Edited November 4, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Shanet Clark]

Respected Members----------

I've been following this closely.

Bill's counter arguments make no sense whatsoever.

I have no idea what he's trying to prove,

(I mean I do know ...but he's totally and completely ineffective)

and the photos Bill posted are all cropped, marked up and confusing ---

conversely, Tim's all tie together and pretty much prove his point.

I've been reading over on the Lancer, and I must say

Beedee-bedee

beedee-bedee

(I'm singing the Twilight Zone theme)

Tim's argument for taking seriously these images is overdue.

He's obviously a sane refugee from weirdo-ville (Lancer)

and has (or is developing!) a credible theory to explain the photo evidence.

Others have come over, too, and its pretty easy to evaluate

them by going over some recent Lancer posts. (Bill, for instance, is quite rude.)

Lancer is quite entertaining,

{For instance one gentleman believes he was recruited by the Taliban to do extermination work in the caves and was then asked to go to flight school, etc.}

Overall Lancer is pretty useless as any kind of evidentiary roundtable.........

I hope the Education Forum doesn't go down that road.

Shanet

[Bill Miller]

deleted for space

Edited November 4, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

Bill

Thanks for four more photos of the classic gunman.

You believe in the magic bullet also, I believe,

and are a big defender of Gary Mack.

Rude and impatient on Lancer, now you're condescending in tone with me.

Nothing you've said or shown in these posts

a) makes any sense

B would hold up in court, or

c) would sway an open minded individual

shanet

Edited October 25, 2004 by Shanet Clark

[Bill Miller]

Bill

Thanks for four more photos of the classic gunman.

You believe in the magic bullet also, I believe,

and are a big defender of Gary Mack.

I do not believe in the SBT - if you are reading all those amusing post of mine on Lancer as you claim - there is no way to have missed that point. I am a defender of Gary Mack's position at the 6th floor Museum. We both believe there was a conspiracy, but disagree on how solid the proof is in certain areas that shows there was a conspiracy.

Nothing you've said or shown in these posts

a) makes any sense

B would hold up in court, or

c) would sway an open minded individual

shanet

It would be foolish of me to believe that I can show someone something they do not have the ability to understand. There are however many other researchers on these forums who are familiar with the geography of the Plaza and especially of the walkway. It is for those people that such detailed descriptions may be of some value. If someone can look at a dark image and think they see a classic gunman and not understand what it means when the same area is seen in another photo taken at the same moment in time and of better quality lighting only to find no one is really there, then there is nothing more than can be done to help educate that person.

[Ron Ecker]

Bill,

I think you're right. There's nothing else you can do. Your argument makes sense to me, but I guess I'm not "an open minded individual."

Ron

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

Bill says, "I am a defender of Gary Mack's position at the 6th floor Museum. We both believe there was a conspiracy, but disagree on how solid the proof is in certain areas that shows there was a conspiracy."

So Gary Mack doesn't agree with Bill's certainty that Badgeman and Hatman are provenly visible in the Moorman Polaroid or that Badgeman was inexplicably shooting 4/18s after the headshot?  Bill sees assassins at the locations of the yellow circles, but denies the possibility with absolute certainty that there is one located at the red circle. 

That is not what I said, Tim ... and that is why you can't follow the HSCA findings or anything I have posted. I said there are some aspects of the assassination evidence that point to a conspiracy that Gary Mack and I do not agree on. I never said we do not agree on the existence of the Badge Man or the Hat Man. The Hat Man is a simple issue - Both Bowers and Hoffman saw him at the fence. The accoustic evidence that Gary believes in says a shot was fired from that exact spot. The RR workers on the overpass that I believe in said they heard a shot from the Hat Man location and saw smoke drift out through the tree foliage immediately aftwards. I have posted both the Hat Man figure and the drifting smoke on this forum in another thread, so why are you saying that Gary and I disagree on the Hat Man's existence? The Hat Man's fedora can be seen sticking up over the fence in Moorman's photo and is nowhere to be seen in assassination photos taken after that period, thus he turned away and moved off just as Hoffman said. When Bowers looked over there again - he didn't see the Hat Man any longer, but said he saw the man in plaid still in the area, which was met by a police officer. See the attachments below.

If Bill's certainty is based upon evidence, why can't he show it with anything other than blustering put-downs? Moreover, why haven't the history books been rewritten?

I spent considerable time walking you through all this stuff and more on Lancer. Your inability to use common sense has been the put down, but it's of your making - not because I didn't spend more time than I should have helping you see the best images possible.

So what is this image in Moorman?

It's the doorway opening where someone has just picked up artifacts on the photo and drawn some ridiculous shape on it. It's not even at the same location where the 'classic gunman' was always said to be.

What can the logic be for Bill's assertion that "the same area is seen in another photo taken at the same moment in time and of better quality lighting"?  Absent a flashbulb, how can the same location at the same moment have different lighting?

There are a couple of reasons that come to mind right off. Nix's film was dark in this area because of him not using the correct filter on his camera. The Nix image doesn't allow us to see the fence, the tree trunk, the fence where it meets the ground in the shaded area, nor the ground itself above the walkway. The man next to Emmett Hudson turns and runs into a dark abyss of the shadows and just vanishes because of it being so dark along the walkway in the Nix film. Moorman's photo allows us to see the fence, see the fence where it meets the ground, the ground itself, and the tree trunk. Flash bulbs have nothing to do with anything.

Bill's assertion that the Bell photo is at least 30 seconds after the headshot is wildly exaggerative.

There is a little problem here that you have missed. For one thing ... Zapruder filmed for another 10 seconds after the head shot. It was another 11+ seconds before he and Sitzman started getting off the pedestal. Your Bell frame shows the two after they have gotten off and Zapruder starts to walk away momentarily. What you have missed is that the Bell film was turned off and started again, which is hard to see and no fault of your own. Remember that Zapruder also remained on the pedestal and kept filming until the car was entering the underpass, so it is impossible for Bell to have panned back right and immediately caught Zapruder and Sitzman already on the ground. It was Bell's stopping of the camera that allowed this to happen the way we see it.

One last thing - as the crowd has finally gone across the street and are walking up the walkway to the RR yard there are two of the three original 'classic gunman' spots still on the shelter wall at the 1:22 mark. The limo enters the overpass at the :42 mark. Add 18 and 22 and you get 40 seconds. then add 10 more seconds to account for the limo getting to the underpass as Zapruder kept filming from the time of the fatal head shot. Now we are at 50 seconds. We still have not added the time gone by that Bell had the camera off, but what's the difference because we are well over the 30 second mark now.

I have included a photo taken from the Nix location and aligned the scene up with the darkened Nix frame. I ran a red line down the west side of the shelter's outer wall so you could see how the 'classic gunman' figure overlaps that line, thus if he is real, then he is standing between the shelter wall and the Nix camera. Moorman is looking at the same shelter wall from just a few degrees to the right of Niz's line of sight. Both can see the doorway and the shelter wall, but Moorman's photo isn't shrouded in deep shadow and allows us to see that no one is standing there shooting at anyone.

Edited October 25, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

So now Bill is even blaming his abusive language on me. He claims my "inability to use common sense has been the put down," rather than the abusive and quoted language that many have noted. It is obstructive in that it makes any debate he seeks to derail too personally distasteful to maintain. Is it really just that anyone who disagrees with him has brought such abuse upon themselves? He's an abusive obstructionist seeking to block debate rather than allow it.

Tim

Tim - all I can say is that you are a nut! I know you probably think that is just me talking, but you have no idea how many other researchers who followed this topic on Lancer had either by email or by phone wondered what you could possibly be thinking of. Many reminded me that this was a dead issue years ago and all I could say back was "It's obviously not a dead issue in Tim's mind."

PS As I wrote this he edited his former post with a rather constructive photo analysis of the Nix angle showing the perspective and proportionality of people to that location, and the fact that those people near the steps wouldn't have to nearly be the 9' height stated by the HSCA.

I have not a clue as to what you are talking about. Can you cite the 9' statement by the HSCA so we can be assured that you have stated it in the correct context?

I especially think his red vertical line at the pergola edge is helpful in that it shows the point at which no car could be seen to the right of. Then, with the classic gunman image's hypothetical elbow crossing that line is consistent with the gunman figure being forward of the pergola wall.

I have been saying each time I asked where the alleged figure was in Moorman that it was in front of the wall if a real person in the Nix film. You have yet to point him out in Moorman's photograph.

I'm assuming that Bill is not disputing the presence of the car, which was strangely missing for decades from diagrams and reconstructions, and now clearly added to Don Roberdeau's diagrams. It's not an enhancement, which I wish someone would perform, but it advances understanding of perspective, angle and scale.

The car was not on any map or diagram because it has no landmark significance. Don maybe placed it on his map, I assume, because of the HSCA talking about it as a location for a possible gunman.

Now if he would do the same with Moorman and enhance the critical location with the same methodology he applies to Hatman and Badgeman, I would consider that an eminently reasonable post. And if a comparative analysis with comparative methodologies showed the certain presence of Badgeman and Hatman, but not Classic Gunman, I would hope I would be persuaded.

Are you just thick in the head or what? You were told repeatedly that the Hat Man and Badge Man images were taken from an early copy negative of the Moorman photo. I have said several times to you that I do not have access to that photo. Jack White, Robert Groden or Josiah Thompson may still have it and they will have to post it. I cannot post files that I do not have any longer.

I have never claimed any certainty that Classic Gunman is an assassin as Bill has claimed about Hatman and Badgeman; I have claimed it is worthy of modern photoanalysis. I still await an answer to what Badgeman was doing firing "4/18s" (Bill's stated figure) after JFK's head exploded.

Tim

Badge Man apparently fired at the limo - more exactly - Kennedy! You talk like 4/18s of a second is a long time and that there would be no reason for Badge Man to have fired at that point ... that is crazy talk! There seems to have been a pattern where shots were fired in sequence during the motorcade for how else would one get a damaged chrome strip, a broken windshield, a curb strike next to James tague, or bullets sparking off the street in only three shots if we believe JFK and Connally were hit by three separate bullets. I believe it was the mistiming of those shots that allowed Kellerman to say that a volley of shots came into the car when he went for the mic. Only the Badge Man can say why he didn't time the shot perfectly to match the Hat Man's shot. Maybe someone was blocking his view for an instant - who knows? The fact is that Moorman's photo captured what appears to be someone behind the fence and a bright spot that could be a muzzle flash. Mrs. Hartman seen a furrow in the grass after the shooting that led back to the Badge Man location. One officer told her it looked like a missed shot had hit the ground. There is a witness who said at that moment a shot came past his left ear and the witnesses position is just to the right front of the Badge Man figure. That witness told his story no less than 4 years before anyone ever knew an image at the fence was found in the Moorman photo. How did the witness know to say a shot came passed his left ear if it didn't happen that way? Kellerman said two shots came over the top of the other - BOOM - BOOM. The shots were close enough together that some people heard them as one shot, while others heard them as two. The timing of those shots can be heard at a link that WIM placed on Lancer where I placed gunshots in sinc with Z313 and Moorman's photo. So I ask you this ... if so many witnesses heard the last two shots as one shot, then how was Badge Man supposed to have enough time to have known JFK had already been hit in the head? All he would have done was react to the noise and try to shoot at the same time. I can only suggest that you play the Zapruder film at normal speed and watch how fast four frames rifle off on the screen.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Tim Carroll]

LOL

Bill wrote: "Tim - all I can say is that you are a nut! I know you probably think that is just me talking, but you have no idea how many other researchers who followed this topic on Lancer had either by email or by phone wondered what you could possibly be thinking of. Many reminded me that this was a dead issue years ago and all I could say back was 'It's obviously not a dead issue in Tim's mind.'"

Bill can have all the FATuous unnamed sources to my dementia he wants to imply, but first he ought to put down those twinkies and stop attacking people by claiming to speak for "many other researchers."

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Light and Shadow, which comprise the essential existence of all and everything in the universe IMO, physically, philosophically and spiritually, do not explain why the same figure can be seen by Nix, Muchmore and Bell. And while I know that such interpretation can be a Rorschach test of one's own projections, I will still go ahead and admit that in the bottom of these two HSCA enhancements of Nix, taken as the limo fled the Plaza, I see what looks like the profile of a human face in profile.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you say the two bottom images from Nix are "HSCA enhancements". This is not

correct. I made these comparisons about 30 years ago. See attachment from one of

my slides produced about 30 years ago. This image is one of several dozen variations

I did to show the retouching in the area of the Cartop Gunman.

Jack White

[Jack White]

Light and Shadow, which comprise the essential existence of all and everything in the universe IMO, physically, philosophically and spiritually, do not explain why the same figure can be seen by Nix, Muchmore and Bell. And while I know that such interpretation can be a Rorschach test of one's own projections, I will still go ahead and admit that in the bottom of these two HSCA enhancements of Nix, taken as the limo fled the Plaza, I see what looks like the profile of a human face in profile.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you say the two bottom images from Nix are "HSCA enhancements". This is not

correct. I made these comparisons about 30 years ago. See attachment from one of

my slides produced about 30 years ago. This image is one of several dozen variations

I did to show the retouching in the area of the Cartop Gunman.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Several references in this thread referred to my original

"enhancements" of the Badgeman image in Moorman.

Technically I did not do an "enhancement" but an

OPTIMAL EXPOSURE when copying the "original"

furnished to us by Groden. I copied it at exposures

ranging from f4.5 to f22 in half-stop increments.

You can judge for yourself which exposure was the

optimal one which best showed Badgeman.

Jack White

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll