Coka Cola Man

[Bill Miller]

Bill.

I was not in misery.i was merely seeking an aswer as to my assertion was being correct.I now have part of that answer.

Duncan, Maybe sometime you can explain why you always seem to make the assertions first and then have to be forced to ask the appropriate questions after the fact. It seems that most anyone would learn from their mistakes, but you seem to continually repeat them - why? It is that repetitive mistake that you make that I feel causes the most damage to the CT's efforts in this case. If you would only investigate first and then reach your conclusions, what ever they may be, I would not have a problem with your assessments of the evidence.

Bill

Bill,I don't think you read what i said.I said ...."I now have part of that answer."....I'll leave that as it is for now.

I would counteract to your response by saying that i think it is people like you who cause damage to CT's efforts in this case by your rigid non movement and everything must stay as it is policy.Do you know there are still people who believe the Earth is flat no matter how much evidence for the world being round is pushed at them?.I place you in this bracket,but i also suspect that if Gary said the Earth was flat only on Sundays you'd probably find a way to agree with him.That's how i see it.

Duncan

Duncan, I read your reply in full. The problem is that you are side stepping the fact that you should have sought the answers before making the asserted claim. As far as what Gary Mack said ... I challenge Gary every now and then on his interpretation of the evidence, so your remarks are as unfounded on that matter as they were throughout this thread. You could have easily emailed Gary Mack and obtained his statement and then did the same for Jack, but you didn't. Here is a recap of just some of the things that transpired in this thread that for some reason you seem to not take any responisibilty for ...

" I was wondering when you would appear from your darkened cave.

Once more you are spewing out unprovoked insults and ignorant crappy assertions based on your "Miller knows it all" theory which is as accurate as Oswalds Carcano."

"What i am saying is that Gary and Jack did not study closely,if at all,the area which i studied.Their time was limited as far as i know,and the Badgeman area was top priority."

Jack White writes: "I congratulate Miller on the complete accuracy** of what he says above."

In yet another reply, Jack writes, "I verify that Gary's statement is correct. We studied the Moorman image for at least two years, with NO limitations on time. The statement is correct

that the three people identified are the ONLY ones we found, and despite years of analysis, found nothing more of significance within the print."

So it seems that you (Duncan) was wrong, thus your insults and remarks were also wrong ... so who was just wasting forum space and who was merely stating the facts that they had sought?

In a response to Lee I had written, "I understand what you are saying, Lee and this is just the point I have been making concerning people using such poor prints to make claims of seeing assassins, photographers, and soda drinkers when they should be seeking to find out what was visible on the more superior prints." Duncan then replies, "What does all or any of this, interesting as it is, have to do with the topic of this thread other than disrupting the main issue of discussion.?" Duncan goes on to say in another response, "I was talking to Bill Lee. I should have made that clearer...Give him a chance to get away from the main topic in any of my posts,and he'll sieze the opportunity to redirect the thread as far from the topic as possible." Duncan, you refuse to see that the use of poor muddy images in making false claims without seeking better images and factal data is part of what this thread was about because it goes to the validity of your claim.

You went on to say in another response, "It appears to me from this thread that the majority in general are in favour of the Coke Bottle man although some say it appears he may be holding a camera or binoculars......live with it and go have a Coke to let that overactive hot wind blowing mouth of yours cool down.....unless you're still on the Jack Daniels of course.....hic" You offer no stats in support of your remarks, but you merely just spouted them off. It was Lee who did what you should have done as he replied to your remarks, "Duncan, By my count 15 people have responded to this thread. Of them only two say they can see a bottle of Coke, two see a camera and the rest either aren't sure or don't say. That comes out to about 13%." It appears that you in great error once again, yet rather than to calculate the numbers - you merely spouted off with your response without regard to checking the facts first.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

[Terry Mauro]

With out taking a position on who is right on this matter, I don't think Craig was saying computers were used but rather that if you examine a multiple generation copy of a low resolution image and then blow up a small portion of it several times it's original size analyzing a small blob is of dubious value.

BTW where is the original? Why can't a high quality scan be made of it?

Craig when you say "manipulation" do you mean that you think "badgeman" was intentionally introduced into the image?

**************************************************************************8

"if you examine a multiple generation copy of a low resolution image and then blow up a small portion of it several times it's original size analyzing a small blob is of dubious value.

BTW where is the original? Why can't a high quality scan be made of it?"

This is similar to what used to happen to a sound mix [back in the 60's] when attempting to add another instrumental track, or when over-dubbing too many vocal tracks to the original basic track. Something known as "losing generations" occurred which resulted in the form of a hissing noise blanketing the overall track. This becomes readily apparent when attempting to make a tape copy of another tape copy. Each time you attempt to reproduce the sound from the original copy to a tape, then attempt to make another copy from the second tape copy, the more generations are being lost, resulting in an unmistakeable "tinny" hiss sound enveloping the entire track.

I believe this same analogy can be applied when discussing loss of resolution each time a picture is copied from the original, creating a second generational, or third generational copy. Therefore, I would imagine that each generation causes a loss of the lines of resolution in a photographic image resulting in less sharpness and definition to the images. It would appear that there would be less data to manipulate with the loss of resolution. Could someone elaborate on that? This is, of course, in reference to the older technology that was available, yet still considered state of the art for that time period.

Today, it has all but been replaced by CD, DVD, and other forms of optical disk transfer mediums, resulting in cleaner and clearer definition. When it comes to cinematography, I still hold fast to the idea of originals being filmed with millimeter canned reel, for quality reproductions purposes. Although, I could be blowing smoke out my ass, as well.

[Lee Forman]

It's amazing how this debate has gone - it's disheartening, really. I don't know what to make of Badgeman - honestly. I can only do what I can with what is available to me - and I have searched, and spent money trying to acquire the best possible reference material.

I would like to make a few observations, and then I hope not to post again on this thread.

1. The quality of the source of the image, 4 Dark Days, is one of the best Moorman's I have seen personally. It is superior to Groden's print in TKOAP, the DrumScan, any of the internet jpeg images, etc. You can see that in the comparison I posted. You can see it in the comparison attached. That being said, indeed, it is not a scan from an original source. Where is the original source someone asked - that is a good question. Can we scan it and make it available to all and sundry?

2. Since the man on the steps is not visible in all versions of the Moorman polaroid, I believe that you can assume without risk that the image has been altered - at a minimum, the man on the steps has been concealed. He is visible to the naked eye, depending upon which 'version' of the image you are viewing - but more so in the earliest possible publishing of the photo. As a rule, I have always sought out the earliest possible reproduction of any of these images - before anyone had a chance to work out the fine tuning and air brush away the errors or oversights.

3. I made contact with Jack White initially more than 2 years ago. I was attempting to demonstrate that there was indeed a man on the stairs. I then sought out and found the best possible images from Muchmore, Nix, etc., to demonstrate that these also were altered, and that things depicted were not reality. I do not really care what anyone else thinks or believes - I was personally satisfied that this was the case. And I sought out different contacts etc., to figure out what this man's role may have been.

4. In regards to the area behind the retaining wall, I made multiple studies of the Nix frames, Muchmore, Bond photos, Betzner, Moorman, etc. It is my unshaken opinion that there are somewhere between 5 - 7 men behind the wall during the shooting.

5. Gary Mack and Jack White are respected JFK Researchers. Knowledgeable, experienced, etc. However, for them to assert that there are only 3 individuals present, especially using Moorman as the frame of reference, is absurd - isn't it? Can there be a monopoly on the truth using altered images? The bogus backyard photos set a stage which demonstrates a precedence for photographic manipulation. There is plenty to demonstrate that the Warren Report was horribly 'crooked' - and that is of course an understatement. I could go on here forever, but I won't: Zapruder's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial, Jim Featherstone's comments about the 'snowy' image, his placement near the Main street 'Power corner,' the fact he quickly approached Moorman and hill, and that others, including weeks after the assassination, routinely rounded up and seized the images, etc. Croft was a new one for me - relative to how they found him and how they even knew he had been there and taken any photos. It's not worth harping on - but it's amazing that anyone would accept the truth at face value, and attempt to maintain a monopoly on the truth, only on the basis of a single photograph - which again, I do not believe is genuine / original. And, okay, that is just my opinion...

6. We have all of these terrific resources here from many different backgrounds, and levels of experience - why not put it all together and work together to figure it all out? For example - I'd like to know where the rest of Altgens [73 total] photos can be sourced - HIGH quality. Remember, it was Altgens who told David Lifton in a telephone interview that indeed, there were people - PLURAL, behind the retaining wall, including even what may have been Cops [or men dressed as Cops]. Many questions - but I can't answer them all myself.

The fact remains that the area behind the retaining wall was one of the locations used for a camera crew - I don't have any doubts on that. The fact that I know this has nothing to do with eye witness accounts, the Warren Report, the examination of bs photos, etc. It has nothing to do with my 'level of expertise' or credentials.

- lee

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Lee:

Yes, I agree it is disheartening....This is what I referred to and noted in my earlier post, why are the high quality photos, as you call them not available to those..who have an interest in this area....it seems that those that perhaps have them ,hold them over others heads, and then accuse them of using inferior copies , why are they not available...?

I can back you up, as being correct, re the men behind the retaining wall.....when I found the Altgens information, it was a surprise about him seeing several men, and that one or two were policemen behind there...Altgens, did see them and did refer to them....to David Lifton..

As I said in my earlier post it is a great idea, that possibley this could be worked on together, but it seems that some guard what they have and will not share..

and that is the way it is.....but we carry on...

Thanks..B

Edited February 12, 2006 by Bernice Moore

[Bill Miller]

5. Gary Mack and Jack White are respected JFK Researchers. Knowledgeable, experienced, etc. However, for them to assert that there are only 3 individuals present, especially using Moorman as the frame of reference, is absurd - isn't it? Can there be a monopoly on the truth using altered images?

Lee, you are leaving out so much information that I hardly know where to start. It is granted that the Moorman photo is a black and white photograph with limited color tones. However, the images seen within her photo, while subject to visual interpretation, can be further investigated. Jack and Gary Mack made detailed measurements on location and correlated them to what was seen on the photograph. A few years ago I had taken real subjects and placed them in the same locations as Arnold, Badge Man, and the RR worker and I took a photograph. I discovered that the shapes seen in Moorman's photograph were within the realm of size and shapes of real people standing at the same locations. This means that if one is to believe these images are just a fluke, then they are a fluke that mimicked the correct size and shapes of real people standing in their place above the knoll and it also mimicked the fields of depth needed to fit Arnold's statements. It should also be noted that before Gordon Arnold ever saw the shapes discovered in the Moorman photo, he had told of his experience on the knoll. Gordon said that a shot came past his left ear and that it was so close to him that it felt like it pushed his eardrum out the other side of his head. So we are on the same page here ... make believe objects do not cause loud gunshots to go off next to peoples ears. By the way, did you notice that the RR worker shows sunlight passing over his person as well as shade from his head being cast onto his torso ... make believe objects don't do that either. That single fact alone tells me that someone real was standing there. That following the assassination this object or person is now gone and that also tends to support that the RR worker was someone who was able to move out of the area after the assasination for a stationary object at that location would be still visible in post assassination photos and films. So these are just a few things that are considered when doing photographic interpretations. I just wanted you to know that more went into the study of the Badge Man images than just staring at a photo and making up images out of thin air.

Bill

Edited February 12, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

As I said in my earlier post it is a great idea, that possibley this could be worked on together, but it seems that some guard what they have and will not share..

and that is the way it is.....but we carry on...

Thanks..B

Bernice, I am curious to know just how many request have you made to Jack White to give you duplicates of his Badge Man slides to work on? How many request have you made to have duplicates of his collection of Moorman photographs?

If you say you've aked him for them and he refused, then your complaint is justified. However, if you have never asked him for them, then your complaint is not justified.

Bill

Edited February 12, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

5. Gary Mack and Jack White are respected JFK Researchers. Knowledgeable, experienced, etc. However, for them to assert that there are only 3 individuals present, especially using Moorman as the frame of reference, is absurd - isn't it? Can there be a monopoly on the truth using altered images?

Lee, you are leaving out so much information that I hardly know where to start. It is granted that the Moorman photo is a black and white photograph with limited color tones. However, the images seen within her photo, while subject to visual interpretation, can be further investigated. Jack and Gary Mack made detailed measurements on location and correlated them to what was seen on the photograph. A few years ago I had taken real subjects and placed them in the same locations as Arnold, Badge Man, and the RR worker and I took a photograph. I discovered that the shapes seen in Moorman's photograph were within the realm of size and shapes of real people standing at the same locations. This means that if one is to believe these images are just a fluke, then they are a fluke that mimicked the correct size and shapes of real people standing in their place above the knoll and it also mimicked the fields of depth needed to fit Arnold's statements. It should also be noted that before Gordon Arnold ever saw the shapes discovered in the Moorman photo, he had told of his experience on the knoll. Gordon said that a shot came past his left ear and that it was so close to him that it felt like it pushed his eardrum out the other side of his head. So we are on the same page here ... make believe objects do not cause loud gunshots to go off next to peoples ears. By the way, did you notice that the RR worker shows sunlight passing over his person as well as shade from his head being cast onto his torso ... make believe objects don't do that either. That single fact alone tells me that someone real was standing there. That following the assassination this object or person is now gone and that also tends to support that the RR worker was someone who was able to move out of the area after the assasination for a stationary object at that location would be still visible in post assassination photos and films. So these are just a few things that are considered when doing photographic interpretations. I just wanted you to know that more went into the study of the Badge Man images than just staring at a photo and making up images out of thin air.

Bill

I found nothing incorrect in Miller's text above. But so that everyone

can see what he is referring to, I am attaching the HAND-TINTED

original showing the only three persons that Gary Mack and found

in multiple copies of Moorman. The coloring was added only so that

lay people could see the images more easily.

Jack

[Jack White]

Several days ago someone requested a LARGE image of the Badgeman group.

I found a fairly good scan and made it large as possible to meet forum's max

size. This is entirely unmanipulated...just an enlargement with good tonal values

directly from a copy negative. (of course Lamson contends that merely making

a good print constitutes "manipulation".)

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

5. Gary Mack and Jack White are respected JFK Researchers. Knowledgeable, experienced, etc. However, for them to assert that there are only 3 individuals present, especially using Moorman as the frame of reference, is absurd - isn't it? Can there be a monopoly on the truth using altered images?

Lee, you are leaving out so much information that I hardly know where to start. It is granted that the Moorman photo is a black and white photograph with limited color tones. However, the images seen within her photo, while subject to visual interpretation, can be further investigated. Jack and Gary Mack made detailed measurements on location and correlated them to what was seen on the photograph. A few years ago I had taken real subjects and placed them in the same locations as Arnold, Badge Man, and the RR worker and I took a photograph. I discovered that the shapes seen in Moorman's photograph were within the realm of size and shapes of real people standing at the same locations. This means that if one is to believe these images are just a fluke, then they are a fluke that mimicked the correct size and shapes of real people standing in their place above the knoll and it also mimicked the fields of depth needed to fit Arnold's statements. It should also be noted that before Gordon Arnold ever saw the shapes discovered in the Moorman photo, he had told of his experience on the knoll. Gordon said that a shot came past his left ear and that it was so close to him that it felt like it pushed his eardrum out the other side of his head. So we are on the same page here ... make believe objects do not cause loud gunshots to go off next to peoples ears. By the way, did you notice that the RR worker shows sunlight passing over his person as well as shade from his head being cast onto his torso ... make believe objects don't do that either. That single fact alone tells me that someone real was standing there. That following the assassination this object or person is now gone and that also tends to support that the RR worker was someone who was able to move out of the area after the assasination for a stationary object at that location would be still visible in post assassination photos and films. So these are just a few things that are considered when doing photographic interpretations. I just wanted you to know that more went into the study of the Badge Man images than just staring at a photo and making up images out of thin air.

Bill

I found nothing incorrect in Miller's text above. But so that everyone

can see what he is referring to, I am attaching the HAND-TINTED

original showing the only three persons that Gary Mack and found

in multiple copies of Moorman. The coloring was added only so that

lay people could see the images more easily.

Jack

Thanks Jack, for posting these again, for those that may not have them...

I do, have copies of yours, as you have seen to in the past..on the big pc..

Am not able to access anything from here...

The badgeman is there....imo..

B..

Edited February 12, 2006 by Bernice Moore

[Lee Forman]

Thanks to Jack White for posting that image.

I believe that Gordon Arnold very well may have been telling the truth...however, I see no reason why Gordon Arnold has to be the shape defined as what appears to be an individual to the right [our left] of White and Mack's Badgeman, in the image Jack posted. As stated previously - it's very much my belief that there was a camera 'team' in this position. To be honest, when we compare the Moorman to other photos and films taken that day [see enhanced Nix frame], I thought I found what I believed was a man closer to the edge of the wall, in the same position of the White/Mack 'Gordon Arnold' - and that is what I see in Moorman.

Further, and perhaps we could get Ryan Crowe or Thomas Purvis to chime in - I also don't know that the light seen in the Badgeman bit has to be muzzle burst - I don't see why this could not have been the reflection from the lens of a camera. How about the HSCA Nix frame and the circle of light seen? The GKS location is more compatible with the Ed Hoffman account for the shot, as well as the smoke seen. I also disagree that there are only 3 individuals behind the retaining wall. This doesn't mean for a moment that I have any clue as to whether a shot came from behind the retaining wall, in addition to the other shots fired.

Gordon Arnold could have been the man on the stairs for all we know. Unless someone has a very good view of the area, taken that day, to indicate the location of a mound of dirt - it may have to remain a mystery for now. I wonder if the supressed photo showing the 'rush to the knoll' from the knoll, credited to Cancellare, may have been taken from that same mound of dirt - which would place Arnold closer to the fence and the tree - where he claims to have started filming - not relevant, except as a point to be considered - Arnold may have felt that he was right at home among a bunch of folks filming.

Additionally, in terms of the depth of the photo - are we looking at individuals both behind the retaining wall, in which case, closer to the lens, in addition to individuals behind the fence? I think we may well be looking at both here.

All that said, I do think that Duncan has created a very good thread for some positive thinking and some further research. It would be great if we started from a position that there is much that we do not know - and much that can still be known. Contributions and progress is what is needed.

- lee

[Robin Unger]

QUOTE:

Several days ago someone requested a LARGE image of the Badgeman group.

I found a fairly good scan and made it large as possible to meet forum's max

size. This is entirely unmanipulated...just an enlargement with good tonal values

directly from a copy negative. (of course Lamson contends that merely making

a good print constitutes "manipulation".)

Jack

Thanks for posting that Jack, i have been looking for a good copy of that image for some time.

[Bill Miller]

I believe that Gordon Arnold very well may have been telling the truth...however, I see no reason why Gordon Arnold has to be the shape defined as what appears to be an individual to the right [our left] of White and Mack's Badgeman, in the image Jack posted. .

Gordon Arnold could have been the man on the stairs for all we know. Unless someone has a very good view of the area, taken that day, to indicate the location of a mound of dirt - it may have to remain a mystery for now.

One deosn't need to have a photo of a mound of dirt to verify anything for that still would not prove the figure is Arnold. Maybe if I share some additional infromation with you ... you will be better able to reach a reasonable conclusion based the evidence.

Are you aware that Arnold was telling his family of his experience on the knoll immediately after the assassination? That information came in part by remarks Gordon's then girlfriend and later wife made to Nigel Turner. Let me show you a little better enhancement of the figure in the Moorman photograph and you tell me what the odds are that Arnold would have worn a uniform that matches that of the figure in Moorman's photograph and the subject seen in the example I am furnishing below.

Gordon Arnold said that he was located beyond the wall as the President was coming towards him. Gordon said he was tracking the President with his movie camera. That means that if Arnold is telling the truth, then he must be in the Willis and Betzner photos - correct?

Look at the sunspot on the uniformed man in Moorman's photo ... it is inside the white box.

Now let's overlay the sunspot on the figure in Moorman's photo with the sunspot seen on Black Dog Man from Betzner's photo and see how they compare. See below ...

It appears that the two sunspots are an match right down to the centered dark spot that is visible in each. There is no doubt in my mind that Gordon Arnold in his overseas uniform and cap was standing beyond the wall and is the individual seen in the Betzner and Willis photographs.

One more thing ... Gordon said he tracked the limo with his camera as it approached him. In both the Betzner and Moorman photos the individual over the wall is basically facing the camera. That means that we should see a right body turn between those two photographs by way of the sun and shadow changes as this individual (Arnold) pivoted while tracking the limo. The next overlay is a partial insert of the two figures, one from the Betzner photo and the other from Moorman's Polaroid. Note that as this individual faces Betzner, his left shoulder is in a sunspot, but as he rotates towards Moorman his left shoulder rolls into the shade. This evidence also tends to support what Gordon Arnold had said about tracking the limo with his camera.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited February 12, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Duncan...I did not respond to your questions about the

"CokaColaMan" because frankly I cannot make out a

man in the area you point to, so I cannot intelligently

discuss "him". Sorry.

Jack

THESE WERE MADE AS TWO SEPARATE POSTINGS ABOUT TEN MINUTES

APART, BUT FOR SOME REASON THE FORUM SOFTWARE ADDED THE

SECOND ONE TO THE FIRST. ?????

Miller presents an interesting animation of Betzners "blackdogman" and Moorman's Gordon Arnold.

BUT...A BIG BUT...Betzner was at the top of Elm, pointing his camera WEST.

Moorman was on the grass infield south of Elm, pointing her camera NORTH.

Therefore the two images cannot be made to coincide.

Sorry, no cigar.

Jack

PS...I think it possible that blackdogman is a red herring introduced by retouching

Edited February 12, 2006 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

Miller presents an interesting animation of Betzners "blackdogman" and Moorman's Gordon Arnold.

BUT...A BIG BUT...Betzner was at the top of Elm, pointing his camera WEST.

Moorman was on the grass infield south of Elm, pointing her camera NORTH.

Therefore the two images cannot be made to coincide.

Sorry, no cigar.

Jack

PS...I think it possible that blackdogman is a red herring introduced by retouching

Jack - you seemngly missed the points that were made. It doesn't matter if the camera in each instance was pointed in different directions as long as the subject was LOOKING TOWARDS THE CAMERA at the time the picture was taken. What you stated about the direction the camera was pointed between Betzner's and Moorman's photographs made absoutely no sense at all. In each case the President was between the figure over the wall and the camera, thus the subject was facing the camera! If you are interested in this subject, then I suggest that you rethink it through for Gary Mack, Robert Groden, and a list of other seasoned researchers had no problem following this presentation and the trail of evidence it offers.

By the way, what part of the sunspot on the right shoulder of this person did you not understand for they were identical. The south shade line passing over each was a match. Pay very close attention to the two sunspots below ... one is from Arnold as he is facing Moorman and the other is from the BDM (black dog man) as he is facing Betzner. For anyone to have taken a step in any direction would have caused that sunspot to hit a diferent point on their body, if still at all. Yet in both images the sunspot is the same and the cenetered dark patch on their clothing in the sunlit area is present on both - thus we are looking at the same person regardless of who you believe this person was - PERIOD!!! Below is some of what I presented at last years Lancer Conference ...

You believe Gordon Arnold as I do - RIGHT? Gordon didn't say that someone was standing between he and the approaching President and blocking his view - did he? Gordon Arnold didn't say that some black dog man ran off and he (Gordon) quickly ran over to his location and started filming at the last second ... now did he? No, in fact ... Gordon said that he took up a position near the south end of the walkway and was doing some test pans when he saw the President coming down the street. This means that anyone seen at the south end of the walkway in the Betzner, Willis, and Moorman photographs is Gordon Arnold if you believe Gordon told the truth. The matching sunspots show that this person was one in the same. The enhancement of the Moorman individual shows a man in what appears to be a overseas uniform and "garrison cap". Forget the retouch nonsense for a moment and just follow the evidence and you'll have little choice but to see that the BDM and Gordon Arnold are one in the same person.

Below is the 'line of sight' from each photographer in question to the individual that we are discussing. These lines of sight all meet at the same location that Gordon Arnold said he stood and where the BDM is seen.

Here is some more food for thought. I saw a video presentation done once that mentioned how the BDM got his name. The video mentioned the slope of the shade line resembling that of a sitting dogs back and it also mentioned the two points on the top of the head that resembled 'dog ears'. Are you aware that when someone is seen wearing a 'garrison cap' and that cap is slightly turned ... that it makes two points that match those seen on the BDM shape? See the example below.

Sometimes it would pay you to actually look at the available evidence before you and not be so quick to think that everything that you fail to immediately understand must be a result of photos that have been altered and retouched.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited February 12, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

So much is in the eye of the beholder in this stuff.

In that last Betzer BDM photo Bill posted, does anyone see, as I do, the distinct face of a lion under the left side of the Stemmons sign? Does anyone see, as I do, the face of a man wearing sunglasses right over the bush behind the Stemmons sign? (He looks a lot like Duke from Doonesbury.)

I've seen faces of people and animals like this in photos all over the knoll, but I don't take them seriously. However, sometime when I have nothing better to do, I might put together a photo collection of the grassy knoll menagerie.