Bill Miller Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Gentlemen,the GIF in that link & the three frames from it was my own. The one I object to was posted last on pages 8+9 of the coke man thread. I've put it on an external link for convenience. Billsslighto'handgif That is the one where it's obvious to me that Bill has used a frame from the middle of an image transition GIF & made a new & quite different comparison by using that distorted frame with what we see above the wall in Moorman. Considering that the animation I used on that page has 5 noticeable frame changes ... I'd say you right on! Top left is what Bill is comparing to Moorman whilst saying "can't you see they are the same?". Top right is one of the best views of BDM we have, published by Groden in "TKOAP" &, at the bottom we have a tight shot from the area & shapes being compared to, from the blow-ups of Moorman5. I covered your remarks in post 2 and 11. You are not using the best image possible. That would be like me getting Jack's Badge Man image and comparing it to an inferior print and then complain why Jack's isn't the same as the print I chose. You will notice how Bill's frame & the Moorman have exactly the same shape in it but it is missing from the Groden Betzner3 figure. Need I say more? See post 2 and 11 ... I refuse to use an inferior print. You will also note how Bill has completely avoided talking about this one small frame which was the whole reason I started the topic. Everything else(& including Gordon Arnolds credibilty, despite the topic header) is irrelevant at this time. Again, see post 2 and 11 ... everything is covered. You pretending the information has not been posted is something I can do little about. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Alan, I see what you mean now. Naturally it's for Bill to comment. If I had done such a presentation I would have considered myself as having made a less than perfect presentation. I don't think it negates the point Bill is trying to illustrate however. Also, logic makes me say that it is not an attempt at deception as you were very able to spot it. Now that you have explained it thoroughly I see it clearly too. ...perhaps " touche' " and lets get on with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 B&W for Bill Miller - lightened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 B&W for Bill Miller - lightened. B&W for Lee Forman - lightened even more. Duncan That was my point, Duncan. You are taking a very blurred image and trying to compare it to other alike blurred images which is a joke. It's like pouring gas onto the ground and looking for all the cool shapes one can find from the sunlight hitting it. BTW, the white spot you see near the underside of the pyracantha bush is light hitting the bark of one of the branches ... had you cross referenced some other photos with the image you used, then you may have seen this. But by all means, don't do the logical thing and continue on with your game of "What does this blob look like". Bill So you are telling me that you can not see BDM in Willis because it is blurred?..That's the biggest load of HxxxxSxxx No - that is not what I said. As usual you have blown it! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 MoormantoBetznergif Okay, lets try to stay on topic here. Here are three frames from the above animation. If you are refering to my animation in this thread ... it was made up of only two frames - not three. Bill I beg your pardon? It says "three frames from the above animation". That one, the one in the link above & included in your quote, was made only as an example of a honest comparison. This is the one I want you to explain to me, the one below (see the link below) it's the deceptive one made by you. Billsslighto'hand gif I notice you still haven't commented on it. Where in goodness name did you get this frame from? Can you not see, like everyone else can, that is already mixed with elements of the Arnold figure in Moorman frame that comes before it? Will you not comment on the one thing I opened this new thread for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 Alan, I see what you mean now. Naturally it's for Bill to comment. If I had done such a presentation I would have considered myself as having made a less than perfect presentation. I don't think it negates the point Bill is trying to illustrate however. Also, logic makes me say that it is not an attempt at deception as you were very able to spot it. Now that you have explained it thoroughly I see it clearly too. ...perhaps " touche' " and lets get on with it? John, you cannot illustrate history honestly by using altered images. The frame Bill uses as as an example of the figure in Betzner3, has not only been manipulated for his animation but is one of the worst replications of Black Dog Man I have seen for a long time. This is deliberate & coming from a guy that constantly berates people for using bad images... well you know the word don't you. I spotted it only because it is my favourite subject & study these items more than anything else. So I've noticed it & now I've pulled him about it again(this makes three times) but he still keeps avoiding the issue & trying to change the subject. I'll move on when he comes clean about it. If you can get him to talk about it I'd be in your debt. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) John, you cannot illustrate history honestly by using altered images. The frame Bill uses as as an example of the figure in Betzner3, has not only been manipulated for his animation but is one of the worst replications of Black Dog Man I have seen for a long time. This is deliberate & coming from a guy that constantly berates people for using bad images... well you know the word don't you. I spotted it only because it is my favourite subject & study these items more than anything else. So I've noticed it & now I've pulled him about it again(this makes three times) but he still keeps avoiding the issue & trying to change the subject. Now that Alan has had his say, let me tell you what he didn't say and why ... First of all, I invite anyone reading this forum to go over to Lancer's forum and do a search under the topic of "Black Dog Man/Gordon Arnold" to read the things that Alan failed to tell the members of this forum. If one does this, then they'll find a history of Alan doing everything that he could to try and debunk Gordon Arnold and his story. In your topic search you will see where I went around and around with Alan and in nearly, if not every instance, Arnold came out on top. Alan would just have prefered to show that Arnold never existed at all, but too much work has been done to show that a man in an overseas uniform was indeed seen in Moorman's photograph. You see ... it has always been Alan's position that a man in black clothing stood at the corner of the concrete wall above the knoll and shot the President of the United States without anyone seeing it happen. It is Alan's position that what I call a sunspot on the BDM's right shoulder is in his mind a gun flash or smoke coming from a shot having just been fired. I will state flat-out that the idea that the sunspot is a gun flash is ridiculous on the grounds that there is almost 1 second that elapsed between Betzner taking his photo and Willis taking his picture. That is equivilant to 16 Zapruder film frames and as one can see in the Ruby/Oswald shooting clip ... a gun flash is so quick that it would come and go in less than 1/18th of a second/one film frame. I also want to point out that Hugh Betzner stated that he took his photograph "BEFORE" the first shot was fired. This not only eliminates the possibility that the BDM was demonstrating a muzzle flash from a rifle, but it also certainly destroys the notion Alan has that what we see is smoke covering part of the BDM image because one cannot have smoke from a rifle occuring if one hasn't had a gunshot fired yet, but none of this matters to Alan because in his mind he has always seen a sinister looking man in black clothing at the wall and come hell or high water that is all he is going to accept. Now having been shown how the BDM could not be someone firing a shot from the corner of the concrete wall, Alan's only option left is to try and divert attention away from the evidence that destroys his past beliefs and to make it appear that the evidence in support of Gordon Arnold is not correct either. I'll add that Senator Ralph Yarborough didn't contact Earl Golz in 1978 to tell him that he witnessed a sinister looking individual in black clothing dive to the ground following the shooting, but rather to confirm that he had seen the service man mentioned in Earl's 'DMN' article. (Dallas Morning News) So now you all may recall my saying in another posted response that there are only two choices left now ... 1) There was a BDM who was at the corner of the concrete wall who ran off at some point after Willis took his photograph and Arnold ran in and took BDM's place before Moorman took her photograph or ... 2) Arnold was always where he said he was and his figure is in fact the BDM in the Betzner and Willis photos. NOW WHAT ALAN LEFT OUT OF HIS POST THAT HE DIDN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ... When I first starting examing the possibility of there being a connection between the figure seen in the Moorman photograph and the BDM, I had noticed a dark shade line passing over both individuals. It was this shade line that promted me to make the transparency overlay that Alan is bitching about. You see, the fact that Betzer is so far away from the subject and his photograph is very limited in color tones being it is a B&W photo which makes separating outlines against a background difficult to do ... I wanted to see how that shade line played out on the subject in both Betzner and Moorman's photos. So what I did was to draw attention to the odd turn in the shade line that passed over the Moorman figure - see below. (Oh yeh, did I forget to mention how Alan left that part of the equation out of his complaint concerning that animation ... I invite anyone to go to Lancer and see how many times I had explained that shade line to Alan and others and then you can determine whether or not Alan simply forgot about it or purposely withheld that information from this forum) SHADE LINE ON THE MOORMAN FIGURE And while over at the Lancer archives, you may come across this next fade-in animation which was a stepping stone to the animation that Alan is so concerned over - see below. Once I saw that the shade lines seemed to match ... it lead to the creation of this next transparency overlay ... the one Alan feels is so sinister and misleading. There is a saying that goes, "Let justice be done though the Heaven's fall" and that was my approach when I started looking into the Gordon Arnold story and then the Arnold/BDM connection. Despite Alan's selective memory and his withholding some of the facts surrounding the transparency overlays I created ... my work was archived at Lancer and it's progress can be tracked as I checked and double checked the evidence as I was finding it. Before I close out this response, one may ask themselves why Alan left out some of the details concerning my past animations and why did he not address the two frame animation I made where I offered the two sunspots from both the Moorman and Betzner photos as I found them? I disagree with Alan that creating a transparency overlay is somehow distorting the evidence for such a technique is used all the time in this type of an investigation. It is my opinion that Alan had failed so miserably in every turn at discrediting Gordon Arnold that he only had the evidence in support of Arnold that he could ridicule ... and that evidence only seems to be narrowed down to the transparency overlay I created. Alan tells you that "he only spotted it" while referring to the BDM/Arnold animation because that is his area of interest. Not only did I refer to my animation as a transparency overlay, but anyone could have merely compared my animation to the actual Betzner photograph and seen what I had done and any idiot could have understood why I created such an overlay, especially when I had given that reason in my responses many times over the past two years. So now I have had my say in response to the BS Alan brought to the table. A little more of the facts concerning my transparency animation and its purpose have now been presented. While I don't know if Lancer's images can be seen in their archives at this time ... the text should still be there. I welcome researches to go read it and then apply it to Alan's remarks on this forum. I leave off by saying that it is my opinion that the evidence points to Arnold being the BDM. That Arnold and BDM did not swap positions between the Willis and Moorman photos. That BDM did not stand at the south corner of the wall and shoot at the President with Zapruder and Sitzman not 17 feet or so away. That the BDM did not go unnoticed while shooting a rifle with SS Agents looking right at him. That the light area on BDM's right shoulder is not the result of a shot being fired and causing a flash or smoke, but rather a sunspot shining off Arnold's right shoulder. (Remember that Betzner took his photograph before the first shot sounded). That because of the limited color tones in the Betzner photo - Alan only sees the shaded area as the entire outline of the BDM. That the BDM is not wearing black clothes, but rather is wearing lighter colored clothing as pointed out by Robert Groden in "TKOAP". That Ralph Yarborough validated Arnold to Earl Golz as being the individual standing above the south end of the concrete wall. That while the two sunspots in question may have changed in shape ever so slightly as Arnold turned his body to track the limo with his camera as he said he did ... they are so similar that it is obvious to me that they are one in the same in both the Betzner and Moorman photographs. There is another dozen or so reasons that I can give as well, but when is there enough been said to make a point! Bill Miller JFK asasination researcher/investigator Edited February 14, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hackett II Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) Duncan and Alan, and all: You do know how I feel about the issue of insults and "allowed" less than civil conduct at other forums - Don't You? Though to me this is a matter for private email IF further discussion were ever desired. Some should just NOT ever "ask what I think of you...you might not get the answer that you want me to...." except in private email. Than I'll call a spade a spade and an abusive person a punk. I might even use the word (heaven forbid) EXTANT if I want to do so. Some people's research is weak so bluster and abusive behavior are used to cover deficiencies in that work and to avoid REAL PEER REVIEW of said work. Jim Edited February 14, 2006 by Jim Hackett II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) I wouldn't advise anyone joining Lancer as it is a Forum which practices CENSORSHIP.Alteration views are not tolerated there,nor are argumentative discussions with Bill Miller.To those who do not know,i am BANNED from Lancer.I made a comment on Lancer directed at Bill,something like "You are sucking ass with Debs", and Bill someohow conned Debs into believing the remark was directed at her,IT WAS NOT,but because they are as thick as thieves i was banned.The comment i made was nothing unusual,and exactly the same kind of comment that Bill continually directs at members of ANY forum,this one included,who do not agree with his point of view. Lancer was a good forum at one time,but Debs has applied a "Be polite to Miller policy,but he can be as rude as he wishes to you policy."as well as her censorship policy on alteration to those she choses to censor simply for their beliefs. Duncan, you are not only a poor hipocrette, but as damned xxxx as well! Lancer's archives have similar heated discussions that go back for years. You say that Debra and I are thick ... she has posted responses to me that can be found in Lancer's archives where she had gotten after me for remarks I had made in some of my responses over heated issues. The difference between you and I is that I had enough brains to back off instead of posting to the forum that she has someone with their mouth to her ass and sucking on it. You crossed the line, not by your senseless arguing with me, but for bringing Debra into the middle of it and then making such a stupid remark about her. Several times leading up to her banning you she had warned you of such things, so what did you expect her to do? Debra wrote, "Duncan, Don't even think you will start up that bizarre and false claim here. Zapruder is standing in front of his secretary. Period. She is behind him. Period." "I will not tolerate the study of the assassination of President Kennedy to be reduced to such idiocy on this forum." Duncan remarks, "Ok Debs,it's your forum,and what you say must go, ......... and just because i agree with Jack White on the apparent content of this ONE particular image shouldn't mean i get censored yet again,and i believe many on here would agree with that,but as i said,it's your forum and what you say goes. Miller remarks, "Duncan, Debra has a portion of the forum set aside for such silliness and its under "New Weird Stuff". Here is a link to a web page that offers poor photo interpretations in the spirit of promoting photo and film alteration ... http://www.rejectz.com/jfk.htm ... feel free to post your observations there if you like ... I am sure that Debra wouldn't mind your doing that although your claim would probably fall under "Old Weird Stuff". Once you do post there, I will post a good image from the Nix film showing that Sitzman is behind Zapruder and is being shaded by his body just as we see in the Bronson slide. See ya there!" Duncan (aka: Mr Civil) replies, "Bill..You can suck ass as much as you like with Debs,it wont distract me from my point." It wasn't your remarks about me that got you banned, but rather your making them and now including Debra in them. Instead of being smart enough to take the topic to a designated area so we could continue, you had to direct a nasty remark at Debra ... now how smart was that! I might also add that I had not talked to Debra in the better part of a year and only after she asked on the forum if I would present at the 2005 Lancer conference concerning some things I was posting on at the time. So once again you are blowing off your big mouth as usual and it is worse when you do not acept responsibility for your own doing. I could fill up an entire thread on this forum with snotty-assed replies you made on Lancer where Debra never said a word to you about it. Here are some examples: "I noticed that you avoided mentioning this,and instead waffle a lot of horse #### about fish and so on....lol" "Personally i think they are just sad nondescript ass suckin turkeys with no friends who are desperate for a Christmas card from even you...lol" "What a stupid statement to make even for you.If a person or persons is at an open window in sunlight,they will appear light as can also bee seen by looking at the people at the open windows in the lower windows." "HA HA HA HA HA..I can't stop laughing here,what a ludicrous beyond belief piece of crap that statement was.42 years after the event,and the window is clean,astounding discovery Bill,this really puts new light on the issue,but then again,they wouldn't clean any evidence would they,like the Limo...nah..that would be silly." "You are talking crap Bill.I've just had a relook at my copy of "The Killing of a President", ...." "No kiddin Einstein......" A forum member that I have also had heated debates with wrote this in the very thread I pulled a fraction of you remarks from ... "I have to say Bill, You've done a real nice job here of presenting >your case, using the actual photo and location on the photo Duncan >was referring to, and not completely insulting him in the process." That's the beauty of there being archives because when someone like you tries misleading others, all one has to do is go back and pull your past post to show your dishonesty. I conned Debra about nothing concerning that stupid remark you made towards her. In fact, I'd have to check the archives there to be 100% sure, but I am confident that I laid off responding when I read your reply to Debra because I knew you had gone somewhere that I did not want to be. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited February 14, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Bill, quite frankly, I must say that ((IMO) while I'm not convinced that there is a figure there at all), your presentation is comprehensive, and not deceptive. I understand it and I see what you mean. If there is a figure there it seems to me that the shadows and size are as one would expect. (The 'opposition' seems to ultimately descend to abuse of some sort, abandoning credibility for personal attack. Personally I don't that's good. It's probably understandable (particularly as I regard humanity largely as a bunch of out of control bulls in a china shop anyway) given how hard it is in our society to admit one is wrong. Everything has to be right, particularly 'honest johns' wrecks in the local auto shop. While of course it ultimately reflects on the abuser and not the abused, it stifles research.) _______________ (once things cool I'd like to voice some concerns about there being a figure there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Debra is quoted: Debra wrote, "Duncan, Don't even think you will start up that bizarre and false claim here. Zapruder is standing in front of his secretary. Period. She is behind him. Period." "I will not tolerate the study of the assassination of President Kennedy to be reduced to such idiocy on this forum." Apparently Deb is not aware of the Bronson slide showing "Sitzman" standing IN FRONT OF "ZAPRUDER". See attachment. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 How tall is Marilyn Sitzman? How tall was Mr. Zapruder? Not to be rude, but she looks, well, amazonian if the lines outlining her are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Jim Hackett wrote: [...] Some people's research is weak so bluster and abusive behavior are used to cover deficiencies in that work and to avoid REAL PEER REVIEW of said work. Jim __________ REAL peer review? Interesting post to a internet forum... just how do you determine who the peers are and what makes them peers -- I suspect the one and only primary qualification is, breathing the same air as others? You been around this stuff as long as a few here have, you'll understand why CT's don't stand for Lone Neuter BS, PERIOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 (edited) Apparently Deb is not aware of the Bronson slide showing "Sitzman" standing IN FRONT OF "ZAPRUDER". Jack Actually Jack, Debra was aware of your claim and she was also aware that you totally misread the Bronson slide and didn't apply much in the way of sound reasoning to what you thought you were seeing. I say this for the following reasons ... 1) Betzner takes a photo showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. That photo shows Sitzman with her right arm behind Zapruder and her left arm bent with her left hand on her hip. (see the far lower left insert) 2) Willis took a photo showing the exact same thing .5 seconds later. Bronson took his photo/slide 1.5 seconds after Willis took his photo and Sitzman's left arm is still bent and her left hand is still on her hip. 3) The white of Sitzman's left hand can be seen along the outer edge of Zapruder's back in the Bronson slide. Sitzman wore a black scarf and the white of her face can be seen as she is still looking eastward. (see middle lower insert) 4) Both the Nix film and the Moorman photograph shows Sitzman still in the same posture. (see the lower right insert) To think that Sitzman turned around in less than 1.5 seconds is a bit much to start with, but to not consider all the other pictures and films so to reach the reasonable conclusion that you merely misread the picture in the first place is mind boggling. Bill Jim Hackett wrote: [...] Some people's research is weak so bluster and abusive behavior are used to cover deficiencies in that work and to avoid REAL PEER REVIEW of said work. Jim __________ REAL peer review? Interesting post to a internet forum... just how do you determine who the peers are and what makes them peers -- I suspect the one and only primary qualification is, breathing the same air as others? You been around this stuff as long as a few here have, you'll understand why CT's don't stand for Lone Neuter BS, David, What Jim said applies to both LNrs and CTs alike and whether you like it or not ... your response has just made his point for him. Bill She is VERY aware of the Bronson slide Jack.The Bronson slide is the REAL reason i was booted from Lancer.I supported your analysis,she objected to my opinion,and hey presto she flicks her censor wand and silences me from ever posting on Lancer again. Lancer=Censorship=Disinfo Duncan Duncan, Had Debra wanted to do so, she could have banned you when you first mentioned the Zapruder Waltz claim. Maybe the street walkers you must know don't mind your talking to them the way you did to Debra, but any moron should have known she would not tolerate your disrespecting her personally, especially on her own forum. Grow up and start taking responisbilty for your own actions and quit blaming otherts for your short-comings. Bill Edited February 15, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 There is a saying that goes, "Let justice be done though the Heaven's fall" and that was my approach when I started looking into the Gordon Arnold story and then the Arnold/BDM connection. Is this an admission Bill? Are you saying that it doesn't matter that you have manipulated the image you presented as long as you get your point across? Sounds like it to me. It's a little cryptic but I'll except it. FWIW, you don't have to interfere with the images to persuade your audience, you just present them side by side & let the people make up they're own minds. Here's just a quick example I made, no manipulation(well, not the deliberate kind), just honest to goodness comparisons of the most prominent shapes that I see with my eyes, in front of these two "figures". On-topicgif Now, do you see how these shapes I've highlighted have absolutely nothing in common? I disagree with Alan that creating a transparency overlay is somehow distorting the evidence for such a technique is used all the time in this type of an investigation. I actually begun here with a compliment on your comparison work & these overlays. Your work inspired me to learn how to use the tool for myself & I never said they are all a distortion of the evidence, that's just a mis-read on your part, am I right? I'm only complaining about the one bad apple & if you keep using it as an example of how the shapes above the wall in Betzner & Moorman are the same, then I'll keep complaining. The shape in that GIF is not seen in the Betzner photo & you know it, it's a distorted image. So why do you keep using it? Because it's convenient? Wouldn't you rather show us a full zoomed-in overlay of the best examples of these figures you have available to you, from both Moorman & Betzner? Maybe the shapes don't match when you use good images? Well they match when you look at them from Betzners position/POV on Elm don't they? http://www.imageshack.us/ allow gifs to be hosted & anything up to 1000kb is allowed. You can then insert the link into your post via the icon at the top of your reply box window so it won't clog up the thread. anyone could have merely compared my animation to the actual Betzner photograph and seen what I had done and any idiot This is exactly what I did. I compared it to the figures in Betzner3 & Moorman5 & I could tell instantly that the frame you are using as an example of Betzner is a frame from a GIF where the "image transition effect" has been used. I know because I have done the same exact thing myself. The only difference is I would never edit the GIF down to just two frames & then present that in public in the way you do, as if it actually held any value. could have understood why I created such an overlay, especially when I had given that reason in my responses many times over the past two years. No you still haven't explained why you did this butcher job, I just got the exact same response as before, a non-denial denial & now a quote from Garrison, which I have to guess at is meaning since I can't see the relevance between justice & what you have done with that image. ***** Ok, this is for who raised concerns over the direction/content of this thread & I'm only going off-topic this once. This is about one thing & one thing only, the figures seen above the wall in the photos Moorman5, Betzner3 & Willis5(& the Nix film). If it appears that my only purpose is to attack Bill then you are mistaken, there is no other I've come across that has has talked, researched & studied BDM more than he has, he actually thinks it's an important figure & I'm of the same opinion...... only that's where we part. He's sure he knows who it is & I disagree with his conclusion. If I've said anything out of order or used any words that you find offensive & unfitting to this well thought of forum, then please wrap it in a quote & pull me about it. Once more, it is not about me or Bill, it's about the photographic evidence that we have access to & are trying to make the best of. Just sit back & give it a chance to develope, Gordon Arnold/BDM, is a long & extreemly interesting subject, I apologise for not starting at the very beginning but I just natural assume you are all familiar with these images/discussions. Jfklancer Searchpage Alan 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