Jump to content
The Education Forum

Reflections of the Limos


Recommended Posts

I HAVE NOTICED REFLECTIONS ON THE LIMOS IN THE MOTORCADE AS THEY PASS BY AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS ALONG THE ROUTE.

THESE WOULD BE ON THE FENDERS AND DOORS OF THE POLISHED VEHICLES.

SOME OF THE MOST INTERESTING { OR POSSIBLY INTERESTING } IMAGES THE REFLECTIONS MIGHT SHOW US IMO WOULD BE ON HOUSTON ST. AND OF COURSE ELM.

I THINK ALOT OF ENHANCEMENT WORK WOULD BE REQUIRED, WHICH I AM NOT EQUIPPED TO DO, BUT I KNOW I SEE IMAGES ON STILLS AND FILMS { INCLUDING " ZAP " } ON THE LIMOS' SIDES.

ANY BODY HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO ENHANCE TO THIS DEGREE? MAYBE JACK WHITE?

RESPECTFULLY,

JIM FEMSTER

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

this one in photo posted in another thread may be one

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
I HAVE NOTICED REFLECTIONS ON THE LIMOS IN THE MOTORCADE AS THEY PASS BY AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS ALONG THE ROUTE.

THESE WOULD BE ON THE FENDERS AND DOORS OF THE POLISHED VEHICLES.

SOME OF THE MOST INTERESTING { OR POSSIBLY INTERESTING } IMAGES THE REFLECTIONS MIGHT SHOW US IMO WOULD BE ON HOUSTON ST. AND OF COURSE ELM.

I THINK ALOT OF ENHANCEMENT WORK WOULD BE REQUIRED, WHICH I AM NOT EQUIPPED TO DO, BUT I KNOW I SEE IMAGES ON STILLS AND FILMS { INCLUDING " ZAP " } ON THE LIMOS' SIDES.

ANY BODY HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO ENHANCE TO THIS DEGREE? MAYBE JACK WHITE?

RESPECTFULLY,

JIM FEMSTER

I'm no photo analist, but I would have thought that images of this nature would be so degraded as to be virtually worthless as evidence, and will simply result in us chasing yet another set of ghosts around the Plaza. BTW Jim, are your caps locked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim...I looked at reflections for years, but found little.

I theorize that one reason for altering the Z film was

that THE REFLECTIONS OF THE NEWMAN FAMILY HAD

TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SIDE OF THE LIMO. In fact,

the Newmans should have been in the film!

Jack

Jack ... Do you not find it odd that of all the photographic analyst who ever studied the assassination that you are the only one who seems to think Newman should be seen in the Zapruder film? You show a photo of an unknown man of unknown height - you take a photo of a passing car in the inside north lane and not in the center lane the Prsident's limo was traveling - and your illustration is cropped so not to show anything that can be tested for scale. I don't think anyone could have purposely set this up so not to have their claim checked ... was that your intention because it seems to be a consistent behavior pattern in your nearly all your illustrations. I mean how hard would it have been to have asked someone to stand in Newman's place and take on his posture as seen in the Nix, Muchmore, and Moorman images so to test what should be seen with a car in the middle lane and with the camera on zoom as Zapruder's was. This type of criticism is nothing new to you for it dates back to the looney forum days. One would think that when a shotty way of illustrating a point is brought to light that you would want to do everything possible in the future to keep that from being said about your work ever again, but not you! You continually make the same shooty mistakes over and over and then act like you're being picked on. As a seasoned researcher - you have an obligation to be more thorough and to set an example for others by promoting responsible investigative research practices.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

This type of criticism is nothing new to you for it dates back to the looney forum days. One would think that when a shotty way of illustrating a point is b rought to light that you would want to do everything possible to keep that from being said about your work, but not you! You continually make the same shooty mistakes over and over and hen act like you're being picked on. As a seasoned researcher - don't you feel an obligation to be more thorough and set an example for others by promoting responsible research practices.

____________

what's NOT new is about 10 individuals have followed Jack White all over the internet the past few years, actually i think a few have made Jack a fulltime career... but, we know that, don't we? I think lurkers have figured it out...

When one needs to post a signature block with "researcher" below ones name, ehh, speaks volumes --

David Healy

Driver - I own a car

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's NOT new is about 10 individuals have followed Jack White all over the internet the past few years, actually i think a few have made Jack a fulltime career... but, we know that, don't we? I think lurkers have figured it out...

When one needs to post a signature block with "researcher" below ones name, ehh, speaks volumes --

David Healy

Driver - I own a car

David 'Baghdad Bob' Healy doing what he does best ...

post-1084-1145942537_thumb.gif

I don't know about following Jack all over the Internet, but when have you ever said anything that was accurate. I went to the looney forum because Jack asked me to. Up to the point where I was forced to leave there ... Jack had praised my work and Fetzer had asked me to speak at his conference. It was only at the 11th hour when I spoke up about the mistakes in Jack's claims is when all that changed.

This is the second and only forum I have belonged to where Jack post and I am here at John Simkin's invitation, so once again you do not know the facts, but what is new!

And what about Jack's critics .... you are the new poster boy for being critical of Jack's claims. You have heard all he has said, you certainly read the book "The Great Zapruder film Hoax" and yet you have posted on this forum that you have not seen anything that proves there was alteration. The only difference in your position and mine is that I go the extra mile to show what mistakes Jack made. Doesn't President Kennedy's murder investigation deserve a thorough and indepth study of the evidence - I think so even if you do not.

Bill - I own three cars - so what!

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Miller wrote:

I don't know about following Jack all over the Internet, but when have you ever said anything that was accurate.

well, we know all about who follows jack all over the internet, appears to a lot of us, you lead the pack, why is that?

I went to the looney forum because Jack asked me to. Up to the point where I was forced to leave there ... Jack had praised my work and Fetzer had asked me to speak at his conference. It was only at the 11th hour when I spoke up about the mistakes in Jack's claims is when all that changed.

well, that's not quite the way more than a few of us remember it -- but I'll leave that up to you to explain

This is the second and only forum I have belonged to where Jack post and I am here at John Simkin's invitation, so once again you do not know the facts, but what is new!

Where's what? You and Jack post? I could careless whether JSimkin invited you here, he did me too, so what? The issue is attacking Jack, this thread is a prime example, you weren't addressed. Nevertheless you start right in on him... There a fixxation complex going on here?

And what about Jack's critics .... you are the new poster boy for being critical of Jack's claims.

Jesus, Miller. You forget who got you started on these boards? We haven't!

You have heard all he has said, you certainly read the book "The Great Zapruder film Hoax" and yet you have posted on this forum that you have not seen anything that proves there was alteration.

Proves alteration? Certainly, the film could of been altered. Need to see and test the alledged in-camera Zapruder original. Unless you've had someone holding your hand, you sure haven't had the Z-film tested... So how would you know it wasn't altered? Gary tell you so? .gif animations prove nothing -- then of course, there's a little thing called film/photo provenance -- hell of a stumbling block for what you post -- but if you post-by-the-ton, I guess you can convince others it wasn't altered.... BTW, what's taking Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding so long? I think I know

The only difference in your position and mine is that I go the extra mile to show what mistakes Jack made.

You paid buy the mile, or gross internet post tonnage?

Doesn't President Kennedy's murder investigation deserve a thorough and indepth study of the evidence - I think so even if you do not.

pretty quick now only a few will be paying attention to the photo side of the investigation -- the JFKennedy assassination certainly has been studied, the problem as I see it, its been a longtime since the evidence was studied, all the way back to pre-Warren Commission day's (it was studied then, too)

Bill - I own three cars - so what!

you got the point, finally. Thanks

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bill Miller" wrote:

"I went to the looney forum because Jack asked me to. Up to the point where I was forced to leave there ... Jack had praised my work and Fetzer had asked me to speak at his conference. It was only at the 11th hour when I spoke up about the mistakes in Jack's claims is when all that changed."

I do not recall any of the above, so I checked with Jim Fetzer. He

replied:

"This is nonsense. I have an extremely low opinion of Bill Miller and

his approach to the study of the case. I would never have considered

inviting him and most certainly did not! You may say so on my behalf

on the forum. This is a false and fabricated claim."

Another lie of "Miller/Peters" exposed.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bill Miller" wrote:

"I went to the looney forum because Jack asked me to. Up to the point where I was forced to leave there ... Jack had praised my work and Fetzer had asked me to speak at his conference. It was only at the 11th hour when I spoke up about the mistakes in Jack's claims is when all that changed."

I do not recall any of the above, so I checked with Jim Fetzer. He

replied:

"This is nonsense. I have an extremely low opinion of Bill Miller and

his approach to the study of the case. I would never have considered

inviting him and most certainly did not! You may say so on my behalf

on the forum. This is a false and fabricated claim."

Another lie of "Miller/Peters" exposed.

Jack

Jack, you can't even recall if you have your pants on without looking down to see if you do. The day I met you in the plaza and gave you the Dillard negative was when you asked me if I had ever heard of the JFK Research Forum and invited me to come and check it out. But of course, how would you remember that .... you have said I was someone else in one iof your paranoid 'Miller must be CIA' type of rants. Your memory is as piss-poor as your alteration claims.

By the way, it was Fetzer who invited me to speak at a conference in Dallas the following year. We spoke several times on the phone and he mentioned your praises of my work more than once ... maybe his memory is better than yours. Of course, all this took pplace before I spoke out about the alteration fiasco that you people created ... maybe he'll have selected memory loss as well, but for now I will give hinm the benefit of the doubt.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"well, we know all about who follows jack all over the internet, appears to a lot of us, you lead the pack, why is that?"

David, I was not aware that two JFK forums represented "all over the Internet" ... and you wonder why you now have the name "David 'Baghdad Bob' Healy".[/b\

"well, that's not quite the way more than a few of us remember it -- but I'll leave that up to you to explain"

How could you remember anything for you were not present in the Plaza when Jack told me about the forum he post on and gave me the invitation to come and check it out.

"Where's what? You and Jack post? I could careless whether JSimkin invited you here, he did me too, so what? The issue is attacking Jack, this thread is a prime example, you weren't addressed. Nevertheless you start right in on him... There a fixxation complex going on here? "

David ... without going back and looking ... I am sure that I did not respond to this thread until Jack mentioned alteration once again - I have the right to respond to such claims - don't I? And my mentioning Jack and I posting on only two forums together goes to the propaganda that you threw out there by say that I chase Jack all over the Internet. And I am sure that if Simkin goes back and reviews all your responses as a whole and see's that you never actually post real data ... that John probably regrets giving you that invitation.

"Miller. You forget who got you started on these boards? We haven't!"

I don't know who 'started on' these boards ... what I do know is that Jack has presented claims of photo and film alteration and I have rebutted his claims ... and that after doing so you said to this forum in one of your responses that YOU have not seen any proof of alteration. Now Jack may be too dense to know what you have said in a nutshell, but many of the rest of us do. So you can whine and groan all you like ... you basically have agreed with me that Jack has not proven anything as far as his recent film alteration claims go. You have heard all he has said, you certainly read the book "The Great Zapruder film Hoax" and yet you have posted on this forum that you have not seen anything that proves there was alteration ... end of the story as far as you go.

"Proves alteration? Certainly, the film could of been altered. Need to see and test the alledged in-camera Zapruder original. Unless you've had someone holding your hand, you sure haven't had the Z-film tested... So how would you know it wasn't altered? Gary tell you so? .gif animations prove nothing -- then of course, there's a little thing called film/photo provenance -- hell of a stumbling block for what you post -- but if you post-by-the-ton, I guess you can convince others it wasn't altered.... BTW, what's taking Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding so long? I think I know."

You talk in circles, David, but I guess that is all one can expect from someone who has never really studied the case. And so you know ... I hear Zavada has not been well, but hopefully he will be better soon. Maybe if you didn't run your mouth so much and listened more ... you would have known that.

"You paid buy the mile, or gross internet post tonnage?"

Well, considering that I usually answer Jack's claims ... I guess I get the same rate he gets.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not recall any of the above, so I checked with Jim Fetzer. He

replied:

"This is nonsense. I have an extremely low opinion of Bill Miller and

his approach to the study of the case. I would never have considered

inviting him and most certainly did not! You may say so on my behalf

on the forum. This is a false and fabricated claim."

Another lie of "Miller/Peters" exposed.

Jack

Jack, just so to remind you old timers who cannot seem to keep their history straight ... Fetzer was still affilated with Lancer's conference when he contacted me about presenting and it was before you two got banned from ever presenting there again ... so just so you know ... I wasn't talking about that 'Mickey Mouse' conference that Jim had in Minnesota that took place much later.

One more thing ... I'll challenge you two con-men to polygraphs that not only did Fetzer invite me to speak at a conference, but that you invited me to come to JFK research the day we met in the plaza and I gave you that Dillard negative. I'll add that I was the same man, wearing the same suit, and having the same haircut as my forum pictures shows despite you trying to tell people I was someone else that you met that day. I'll state that you praised my work once I had been on the JFK Research forum and that it wasn't until I challenged your Moorman in the street claim did your praise for my work stop. The wager: I pass the test - you two forked tongued dumbasses leave the JFK research community for good - I fail, then I'll leave the JFK Research community and even pay for the polygraph. So let's set it up ... I'm ready to take it right now!

If the above wager seems to steep for you, then I'll offer the same whereas that when I pass the test - you and Fetzer stop those ridiculous alteration claims - if I fail the test, then I never show another mistake you've made. Either way we go - I'll pass the test and the JFK assassination research community will be better off for it.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...