Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) Again, Miller is not paying attention. The photo of Groden on top of the pedestal WAS taken with a normal lens (not telephoto), from the alleged location of Moorman ON THE GRASS across Elm. That is why the quality is not very good. I have stated this numerous times over the past five years. Miller's speculation that I shot Groden from some OTHER location is...well, bullxxxx. Jack Jack, your statement is not only incorrect about you being at Moorman's location when you took the Groden photo, but a mere glance at your photo in comparison to Moorman's can see that your pedestal in relation to the fixed points on the colonnade are way off. There is a downhill slope to the south pasture and if you are off by 3 - 6 feet east or west of Mary's true location, then how tall people will look compared to the fixed points on the background of the colonnade with vary considerably. So once you go back and look at what I am talking about, please tell me again who is not paying attention. I might also add that Costella may be good in math, but he is not that sharp in other areas. Costella once agreed with you that Moorman was in the street, while totally blowing the gap difference between your photo and Mary's. He then changed his mind and said that you got it wrong. Not once did he notice that Mary was looking over the tops of those cycles windshields, even when he thought you were correct at first. Somehow Costella didn't notice that a 54.5" camera height cannot be looking over the top of a 58" windshield height. Part of the reason for his error was that he never bothered to get all the facts and one of them was knowing hoiw tall a DPD cycle was in the first place. So as I said ... Costella can be sharp in some things and not so sharp in others which can lead to erroneous conclusions. You also said in one reply that only the Nix film shows Zapruder with his hat on ... Altgens took a photo of Zapruder just as he got off the pedestal and he clearly is wearing his hat. The Bell film shows Zapruder wearing his hat. The Moorman photo, while not clear, also shows Zapruder with his hat on ... I offer proof by way of an animated clip. Also, before you get too happy over Duncan's placement of Zapruder and Sitzman in front of the pedestal ... you might want to consider that he has taken an image of them further back from the camera and merely moved them forward without computing the increase in size they should have been given to compensate the change in distance from the camera. This is a valid point here and is why you need to seek peer review for you tend to make little mistakes that effect the outcome and accuracy of your claims and many times people like Duncan are not going to see it right off. Surely you of all people can understand the dangers of these little mistakes and lead to a false conclusion. Something else I noticed ... because Moorman was looking uphill, we cannot see Zapruder and Sitzman all the way to the bottom of their feet ... we only see what we can of them over the horizon line which is the front top of the pedestal .... how much of their true height is lost from that angle and where did you copute that into your equation? Bill Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 'Bill Miller' Jack, your statement is not only incorrect about you being at Moorman's location when you took the Groden photo, but a mere glance at your photo in comparison to Moorman's can see that your pedestal in relation to the fixed points on the colonnade are way off. There is a downhill slope to the south p[asture and if you are off by 3 - 6 feet east or west of Mary's true location, then how tall people will look compared to the fixed points on the background of the colonnade with vary considerably. So once you go back and look at what I am talking about, please tell me again who is not paying attention. [...] Why don't you put us all out of our misery and go out and shoot from where you think the correct spot is and where Jack shot from, do the comparison and get back to us.. btw, what court cases did you win and where? What capacity? -- If your a photo consultant I hope you didn't consultant Groden in the OJ fiasco... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) Why don't you put us all out of our misery and go out and shoot from where you think the correct spot is and where Jack shot from, do the comparison and get back to us.. David, I am glad to help show you what you must not have been able to see on your own. In the example below I have placed a blue cirlce over the west corner of the pedestal in Moorman's photo showing the colonnade window in the background and its relationship to that corner - I did the same in Jack's photo. I also did the same with a yellow circle and the colonnade window that matches Moorman's photo is all the way to the east side (left) of Groden. Now can you see how far off Jack was stationed in order to have these reference points be so different between photographs? Jack was not only aligned inccorectly left to right, but because of the elevation change in the south pasture as it slopes downhill, his vertical view was also incorrect to try and match what was seen in Moorman's photo. Below is a Moorman recreation photo that I shot with the naked eye. The overlay not only lets you see the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window that I obtained in relation to Moorman's photograph, but you can also see that I had gotten the major tree trunks and branches aligned to near perfection. btw, what court cases did you win and where? What capacity? -- If your a photo consultant I hope you didn't consultant Groden in the OJ fiasco... I did all the investigational work in my 1997 case where I was awarded $750,000.00 - Robert Silberstein presented the case to a jury. In 2005, I won another verdict where I played a major role in the collection of evidence and a jury awarded me $565,000.00 in that case. James Carter presented that case on my behlf and both cases are a matter of public record. I had also assisted Silberstein on several criminal cases that he represented. Groden did not participate in any of the cases I participated in. Thanks for your interest! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited February 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) "Bill completely contradicts himself in his analysis of your study. Bill Says "Also, before you get too happy over Duncan's placement of Zapruder and Sitzman in front of the pedestal ... you might want to consider that he has taken an image of them further back from the camera and merely moved them forward without computing the increase in size they should have been given to compensate the change in distance from the camera." Now look at this....He is in effect saying that moving objects in photographs can not prove an objects size,yet he used that method to prove his "verdict"on my study. Here is his analysis,(it's his animation,not mine,forget the topic or your opinion of the topic) using the exact same size measurement method to discredit my Hoffman shooter. As you can see there is no difference in our methods.The only difference it seems is that he uses his method to both support HIS claims and then does a complete about turn to discredit the claims of others,in this case to discredit your claims on the size of Zapruder and Sitzman.His evidense is completely contradictory. Duncan" And to think that people wonder why I am so hard on you for the replies you make. Once again, before asking any questions for validation of what you are about to say or to attempt to get a better understanding of the topic matter before making accusations - you just come out with another dumb comment - one that I am sure you'll later say that it was someone else's fault or that you were just set-up. You are a prime example of what I meant when I said that many of these claims can be dealt with by applying things that should have been learned in a beginners art class. I will attempt to explain why what you said above is completely in error - AS USUAL! The same principals here are going to apply to the point I made about your 'floating Cop torso' and you not adjusting for size concerning a field of depth. The above illustration shows what every beginner is taught in art class. That rule says that alike objects should get smaller the further from the camera they are ... just like the bigger they should get the closer to the camera they become. My illustration has 5 boxes of all the same size laid out in a way to make this point. The further from the camera they are - the smaller they should appear. In art class, the size is determined by using a vanishing point on the horizon. This technique is how we keep things like fence post scaled properly when drawing them in a way to show them running in a direction away from the viewer. Now having said this ... it would be wrong for someone to take box 3 in my example and merely move it up to box 1 and not adjust its size accordingly. To do this would misrepresent box 3's accurate size in relation to its new location. This is the point I made about you and Jack not considering this when thinking all you needed to do was merely copy Zapruder and Sitzman and paste them in front of the pedestal in order to make a point. To do what you guys were suggesting would be no different than someone taking the people on the north side of Elm Street in the Willis photo and moving them without asjusting their sizes and putting them next to the agents riding on the follow-up car and claiming that these people are too short to be real. In the claim concerning the 'floating Cop torso', I merely pointed out that your alleged figure (#4) was so large behind the fence and while being so far away from the camera that he was no different in size compared to those individuals on the steps (#1) who were only half the distance to the camera. What I did was show that your alleged floating torso was the same size as people half the distance to the camera, thus he was far too large to be real. It is these sorts of little mistakes that continually cause many of the alteration claims to fall on their own weight. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited February 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: dgh01: well thanks for the supreme effort... Below is a Moorman recreation photo that I shot with the naked eye. The overlay not only lets you see the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window that I obtained in relation to Moorman's photograph, but you can also see that I had gotten the major tree trunks and branches aligned to near perfection. dgh01: I can just hear the other sides attorney if something like this is presented in court -- "your honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury; what we have here in Dealey Plaza, a tree and its branches that has NOT grown in circumfrence in 40+ years..." that in and of itself makes your photo overlay suspect. [...] btw, what court cases did you win and where? What capacity? -- If your a photo consultant I hope you didn't consultant Groden in the OJ fiasco... I did all the investigational work in my 1997 case where I was awarded $750,000.00 - Robert Silberstein presented the case to a jury. In 2005, I won another verdict where I played a major role in the collection of evidence and a jury awarded me $565,000.00 in that case. James Carter presented that case on my behlf and both cases are a matter of public record. I had also assisted Silberstein on several criminal cases that he represented. dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field? Groden did not participate in any of the cases I participated in. dgh01: I suspect not, if you won money. Not bad for a cel animator, that a hobby, yet, still - ever was? [...] Edited February 17, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) dgh01: I can just hear the other sides attorney if something like this is presented in court -- "your honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury; what we have here in Dealey Plaza, a tree and its branches that has NOT grown in circumfrence in 40+ years..." that in and of itself makes your photo overlay suspect. David, these trees were mature at the time of the assassination ... I simply shot a recreation photo 40 years later. There are only two alternatives here ... one is that you don't know squat about tree growth after one reaches maturity or the distance at which the photo was taken does not allow one to see small detail changes in size ... the latter going towards what Jack White is wanting to do with the subjects on the pedestal. dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field? The first suit was filed on my behalf after I investigated the matter for over a year and had sought my own experts after researching the subject matter in great detail. One of the things that I was most proud of was when my attorney told me one day that the experts in my case were surprized when he told them I was the client. I guess they had thought from my questioning them and citing information to them that I too was an expert in the case. So the moral is that one doesn't have to be an expert to discuss issues that experts have an interest in. Stu Wexler is a prime example as he did a remarkable job on CPAN when he discussed the lead test conducted in JFK's assasination. Groden did not participate in any of the cases I participated in. dgh01: I suspect not, if you won money. Not bad for a cel animator, that a hobby, yet, still - ever was? I'm not sure what you are saying, but I am sure that it has nothiong to do with the JFK assassination case. Bill Duncan writes: Here we can see proof of Bill's "Whatever suits his claim" hipocracy. By simply replacing Bill's lowest animated figure of his animation back to the original position of the "Hoffman Shooter"in Moorman,guess what?,(and it's no surprise to me),it's an EXACT fit,proving that he made NO compensation for size in this particular analysis,thus proving that he is dancing around with Jack in Jack's study with his reference to compensation for size. Duncan Duncan, I am not going to waste time trying to explain something to you that you are not smart enough to comprehend. I didn't need to make your floating Cop torso any larger - all I had to do is show that it was the same size in the photo as people who were half the distance to the camera. Once doing this, you can do the math. If you still do not get it, then maybe someone else on this forum can better explain it to you. Bill Edited February 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) Bill Miller wrote: David, these trees were mature at the time of the assassination ... I simply shot a recreation photo 40 years later. There are only two alternatives here ... one is that you don't know squat about tree growth after one reaches maturity or the distance at which the photo was taken does not allow one to see small detail changes in size ... the latter going towards what Jack White is wanting to do with the subjects on the pedestal. many, Many more alternatives than 2, so how long has the tree been there? -- as for what Jack did/does to his pedestal imagery is his business -- EVERYBODY measure from the same base, THEN begin the debate. -- apples to oranges, AGAIN -- dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field? The first suit was filed on my behalf after I investigated the matter for over a year and had sought my own experts after researching the subject matter in great detail. One of the things that I was most proud of was when my attorney told me one day that the experts in my case were surprized when he told them I was the client. I guess they had thought from my questioning them and citing information to them that I too was an expert in the case. So the moral is that one doesn't have to be an expert to discuss issues that experts have an interest in. well, I think thats great -- to bad the attorney's get such a 25%+ cut, heh....anyway, your expertise is in photography? Or are you dependent on "other" experts in the field? Stu Wexler is a prime example as he did a remarkable job on CPAN when he discussed the lead test conducted in JFK's assasination. whatever Wexler discussed if it neutralize Rahn arrogance, I applaud Groden did not participate in any of the cases I participated in. dgh01: I suspect not, if you won money. Not bad for a cel animator, that a hobby, yet, still - ever was? I'm not sure what you are saying, but I am sure that it has nothiong to do with the JFK assassination case. Bill ah yes it does -- pretty simple actually. A Bill Miller posting to a certain JFK board told me a few years back, he was a cel animator, cartooning in fact... Your not that guy? That being the case, it should not surprise lurkers who view JFK internet boards; film compositing discussion is beyond even those considering themselves JFK evidence "experts", film-photo or otherwise... We're your cases civil or criminal and are you yourself an attorney, licensed in what US state? [...] Edited February 17, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) Bill says"all I had to do is show that it was the same size in the photo as people who were half the distance to the camera." Oh Yeah?..That's EXACTLY what you DIDN'T DO. As before,anyone looking at your analysis animation can see that the figure is nowhere close to the same size as those half the distance from the camera as you wrongly claim I bet not one person on this forum would agree with you that they are the same size by simply looking at your poorly flawed analysis.Here it is again for those who have not seen the topic of this conversation. Duncan Can someone on this forum explain to me what Duncan is talking about? He draws in a cop head and torso a good distance down the fence line that is roughly the same size as Emmett Hudson .... Duncan doesn't seem to get it that a person that far from the camera could not be anywhere close to the size Hudson is as he stands on the steps. I had thought that by showing how the boxes in my illustration grew in size the closer to the camera they had gotten that somehow he would get the point, but it seems to be too complicated for Duncan to understand. Can anyone explain it to him on a level that he can understand? Let me try this example ... I have referenced how one shrinks in size the further from the camera they get. This time I use the Willis photo to illustrate this. I have used the SS agent on the follow-up car in relation to Mrs. Hester to make my point. Now if Duncan saw a shape in trees halfway down the fence line that was the same size as one of the agents standing on the running board of the follow-up car when the two shapes are placed side by side on the same photo ... then how difficult would it be for anyone to realize that what Duncan thinks he see's cannot possibly be what he thinks it is! This is what occurred in the illustration that Duncan is complaining about. The figure he drew in the tree foliage was the same general size as Emmett Hudson who was half the distance to the camera ... Duncan either is unable to reason through this matter or he is purposely playing ignorant on the facts before him - either way I cannot make it any simplier to understand. Bill Edited February 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) many, Many more alternatives than 2, so how long has the tree been there? The trees have been there long enough for me to take their picture 40 years later and have their main trunks and branches still match. Are you going to try and make a case for them being replaced by trees that looked like those back in 1963? dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field? I can see why you only post off-topic remarks because you can't seem to follow a bloody elephant through a freshly fallen snow. I believe I made it clear that I did the investigational work on the first case. Both cases involved medical experts, reconstruction investigation experts, and legal experts testifying. well, I think thats great -- to bad the attorney's get such a 25%+ cut, heh....anyway, your expertise is in photography? Or are you dependent on "other" experts in the field? Attorneys can get as much as %50 in such cases. And would you not agree that from the answers I have presented to you many times that I sought outside experts like Groden ... that should have answered your question before you ever asked it. whatever Wexler discussed if it neutralize Rahn arrogance, I applaud But yet you compain when the same investigational processes Wexler used are implemented in debunking the alteration claims - Interesting! We're your cases civil or criminal and are you yourself an attorney, licensed in what US state? When was the last time a crimial case was awarded money - try using your head, David. I am not an attorney and the cases were tried in Illinois. Bill Edited February 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 'Bill Miller' many, Many more alternatives than 2, so how long has the tree been there? The trees have been there long enough for me to take their picture 40 years later and have their main trunks and branches still match. Are you going to try and make a case for them being replaced by trees that looked like those back in 1963? dgh01: were these case suits filed by you, or were you a expert witness? Expert witness in what field? I can see why you only post off-topic remarks because you can't seem to follow a bloody elephant through a freshly fallen snow. I believe I made it clear that I did the investigational work on the first case. Both cases involved medical experts, reconstruction investigation experts, and legal experts testifying. oh.... don't be so sure of that, pretty tough to miss a elephant sitting in the middle of a room. well, I think thats great -- to bad the attorney's get such a 25%+ cut, heh....anyway, your expertise is in photography? Or are you dependent on "other" experts in the field? Attorneys can get as much as %50 in such cases. And would you not agree that from the answers I have presented to you many times that I sought outside experts like Groden ... that should have answered your question before you ever asked it. I think thats great and yes, 50%, if they get to court... whatever Wexler discussed if it neutralize Rahn arrogance, I applaud But yet you compain when the same investigation processes Wexler used are implemented in debunking the alteration claims - Interesting! ah, who is complaining? interesting? Is Stu Wexler a expert in film? Balckburst, eh? ROFL I don't need no stink'in experts on film We're your cases civil or criminal and are you yourself an attorney, licensed in what US state? When was the last time a crimial case was awared money - try using your head, David. I am not an attorney and the cases were tried in Illinois. Bill, if the Z-film gets to court, ANY court, I suspect it'll be a criminal case! Ask Groden about those kind of cases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) I think thats great and yes, 50%, if they get to court... Actually they can contract up to 40% and seek 50% if there is an appeal. ah, who is complaining? interesting? Is Stu Wexler a expert in film? Balckburst, eh? ROFL I don't need no stink'in experts on film Sure you need film experts for that was obvious when you were talking possible Zfilm alteraion by way of an optical printer, while not knowing the obvious signs that would be present in the transfering of Kodachrome II film. That's the problem with you guys - you only get one aspect of the equation addressed and leave out the rest. Bill, if the Z-film gets to court, ANY court, I suspect it'll be a criminal case! Ask Groden about those kind of cases Well, David ... if the Zfilm gets to court - I hope the evidence will be presented by better qualified people than I have seen on these forums. Bill Can someone on this forum explain to me what Duncan is talking about? He draws in a cop head and torso a good distance down the fence line that is roughly the same size as Emmett Hudson Bill is a second class xxxx. FIRSTLY...I did not draw anything other than an outline to make the figure clearer for those who have the same eye condition that Bill has,ie MrMagooitis. SECONDLY,I did not place the "torso" a good distance as he quotes down the line...HE DID...IT'S HIS ANIMATION. The man is an out and out xxxx and once again is trying to get this thread away from the main topic which is Jack's study of the size of Zapruder and Sitzman.As Allan said Bill,you are the master of distraction,but personally i think he over rated you. Duncan Good to see you promoting being civil again, Duncan. In 4 decades no one had ever seen anyone where you claimed hism to be. So the image wasn't clear at all and is why you felt the need to outline him as you called it. It is your outline that I used against the size of Emmett Hudson. I might also add that the floating head was placed exatly as you have him in one of your examples ... I'll be more than happy to go find your image and show you to be in error once again. Now getting back to the size of Sitzman and Zapruder ... are you still taking the position that you can merely cut and paste someone out of a picture and stand them in front of another object and make a rational and reliable size comparison without adjusting their sizes accordingly? Don't you think that if what I am saying is wrong that Jack would be telling us this ... he doesn't argue what I said because he is aware that I was correct. There is a saying that says that the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man never see's when he is wrong. Bill Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 "Yes you used my accurate outline containing the accurate Hoffman shooter" You're just here to jerk us off, Duncan .... Ed Hoffman said that the Hat Man seen near the Hudson tree is the man he saw. Of course, I will let Ed know that he was wrong. "What Jack says is up to Jack.I have a tongue of my own" I saw that when he had to tell you that you got it wrong about he and Mack being rushed with the Badge Man images. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] Sure you need film experts for that was obvious when you were talking possible Zfilm alteraion by way of an optical printer, while not knowing the obvious signs that would be present in the transfering of Kodachrome II film. That's the problem with you guys - you only get one aspect of the equation addressed and leave out the rest. Well hell, Bill tell ya what I'll do -- get Roland and Raymond here, we'll see who needs "experts" -- I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this board could tell the difference between a camera original Kodachrome or KodacolorII, or dupes of either. Us guy's have never hidden, where's your guy's - that's the real question The silence is deafening! [...] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 "I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this board could tell the difference between a camera original Kodachrome or KodacolorII, or dupes of either. Us guy's have never hidden, where's your guy's - that's the real question The silence is deafening!" I assume that this includes you in the list of people who "could not" tell the difference in the camera original and a duplicate film. However, Groden says it can be done, he claims he has done it, and he listed reasons that none of you guys had ever posted about because you never thought of it. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 "I am here to present my opinion as i see it.On reading many articles about Ed Hoffman,i have to come to the conclusion that he is telling the truth,but that he cannot locate the exact area to a degree within a few feet,which is understandable. Ed Hoffman does not have a pinpoint location for hatman,only as you say, "near the tree "which includes my figure and Hatman." Duncan, would you like to tell everyone what your reading source was that said that Hoffman didn't know where along the fence the man was standing that he seen? I have to ask because Tony Cummings and I filmed Ed walking us through the RR yard and showing us EXACTLY where the man was standing. I might also add that Ed approached me at a Lancer Conference that he attended a few years before and he said that the blow-up of the Hat Man seen in Moorman's photograph that I showed during a presentation was the same man at the same place along the fence that he had seen. So while opinions are nice to hear ... they are only as good as the facts they relied on. So can we have the source where you got your information so to be sure you read it correctly? "I didn't say that they were rushed,i said that their time was limited.There is a difference,but understanding that requires a good understanding of the English language." Duncan Yes, it is good to have an understanding of the English language. Did not your remarks about Mack and White not getting to study the Moorman photo in more detail due to limited time factors apply to the definition below ... keep in mind before saying something else stupid ... I'm not responsible for the writing of the definitions in the dictionary. Like I said - you're playing games and jerking us around ......... rush 1 (rsh) v. rushed, rush·ing, rush·es 1. To cause to move or act with unusual haste lim·it (lmt) n. 3. A confining or restricting object, agent, or influence. 1. To confine or restrict within a boundary or bounds. limit·a·ble adj. Synonyms: limit, restrict, confine, circumscribe To restrict is to keep within prescribed limits, as of choice or action: Circumscribe connotes an encircling or surrounding line that confines, especially narrowly: "A man . . . should not circumscribe his activity by any inflexible fence of rigid rules" John Stuart Blackie. 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