Pat Speer Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) J. William King wrote: Pardon me, but who the heck cares if Hill's foot was inside, outside, or if it was retouched? What does this have to do with the assassination? Is it Hill's foot? Yes. He said so in his testimony. Was the photo retouched? Yes. The newspaper photo and article came out right after the assassination, and it was thought *at the time* that it was Kennedy's foot, so it was "punched up" a bit. So what????? 150 posts over something this trivial is why the LN community sees CT's as a bunch of nuts. Lets get onto something important for a change. *Rant mode over* JW Well, Mr. King -- If, the DP photographic record is impeached, WHY? And who cares how the Lone Neuter community reacts? If the photgraphic record is FALSE, simple, own up to it. What's the big deal? Well, for one, the cold war is over, American people can handle things done for their benefit... If the record and WC investigation are falsified, falsified to protect the American people and AVERT a nuclear disaster, I'm ALL for that falsification. So the question becomes, why continue the charade -- Personally, I can handle LHO's involvement in the assassination (intentional or UNintentional), and multiple shooters in DP, I'd expect that. If, the Z-film is altered, there is only one question: WHY? Till that question is answered (and I believe it can be answered through forensic testing of the Zapruder film) a shadow of doubt remains... Mr. Healy, If the truth is to ever come out, we had better care about how the LN community, the government, and the general public reacts to us. If we are to be taken seriously in our charges and evidence, we need to have some credibility. I've learned in life that the messenger is just as important as the message. I don't care how true the information/warning/evidence is, if the person(s) presenting it is perceived to be a "nut" or an "idiot", that information will not be taken seriously. I know, it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is. We have to live with it. Yes, photos have been altered, but not every alteration was for sinister reasons. I truly believe that the foot in the Miller photo was enhanced for publication right after the assassination, when the foot was thought to be Kennedy's. Lots of misinformation was going around in the first 24 hours, and while a good percentage of it was intentional, a certain amount of it were just simple mistakes. It would be nice to tell if there was blood on the side of the car from Kennedy's hand (assuming the foot is actually a hand), proving a through shot in the neck. Even if the photograph could be improved to the point where we could tell for sure, whos to say the blood wasn't from the head wound? We'll never know because the photo isn't good enough for that. I just hate to see everyone bouncing off the walls for days, and when we get done, be right back where we started from. Why doesn't someone find a Lincoln convertible, or other convertible, and try to replicate Hill's position, then post pictures? You could probably do it in the back of a small-bed pickup truck. Maybe we're just running out of things to investigate, or paths to go down. As for me, I fail to see the signifigance of this particular photo (the Miller photo) in the grand scheme of things. Flame away. JWK I pretty much agree with you. Part of my fascination with this particular photo comes from Gary Mack's insistence that the Dallas Morning News Miller photo was printed directly from the negative and was identical to the photo in the Saturday Evening Post photo. As revealed by your comparison, and James' subsequent post of the Dallas Morning News version of the photo, this is untrue. I was wondering if Bill and Craig would ever admit the photos were different and that the differences were not just printing anomalies. As they've admitted that, the point, as unimportant as it is, has been made: the Dallas Morning News and the AP made the shape in the photo look more like a foot without knowing for sure it was a foot. Big deal, I know. They were far from alone in mis-representing the photographic record. Edited July 12, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) Get up to date like all other researchers and use theCostella combined edit, which has all the frames numbered correctly and corrected for aspect ratio and pincushion distortion. Click on... Jack Yeh right, Jack ... you're saying that I should use a set of frames that are not as clear as the frame I posted which clearly showed a small tree trunk that you were claiming to be someone standing up in the limo .... If it is all the same to you, I'd rather use the clearer frames so I don't make the same ridiculous errors that you do. The difference in quality can be seen below. I will leave the researcher to decide which image choice is the most reliable. Billl Miller Edited July 12, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) Getting back to the D. Miller vs. Yarborough pictures - it seems that a great deal more was done than just repainting the boot. There was some major manipulation going on. These pictures are completely skewed from one another. Apparently, much needed to be done in order to make it appear - realistically and anatomically - that this was a foot that could indeed belong to Clint Hill. Also, if the contrast was so bright in Miller's photo that the black socks turned white - why does the white rear end of the car disappear into darkness? (Photo removed to recover posting space.) Edited August 14, 2006 by JL Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) Getting back to the D. Miller vs. Yarborough pictures - it seems that a great deal more was done than just repainting the boot. There was some major manipulation going on. These pictures are completely skewed from one another. Apparently, much needed to be done in order to make it appear - realistically and anatomically - that this was a foot that could indeed belong to Clint Hill. Also, if the contrast was so bright in Miller's photo that the black socks turned white - why does the white rear end of the car disappear into darkness? You should buy a clue, it appears the one you might have had is defective. Edited July 12, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Getting back to the D. Miller vs. Yarborough pictures - it seems that a great deal more was done than just repainting the boot. There was some major manipulation going on. These pictures are completely skewed from one another. Apparently, much needed to be done in order to make it appear - realistically and anatomically - that this was a foot that could indeed belong to Clint Hill. Have you attempted to obtain a print from the original negative? Also, if the contrast was so bright in Miller's photo that the black socks turned white - why does the white rear end of the car disappear into darkness? I thought we were talking about clothing items. Did I not point out white patches all over Hill's clothing, not to mention the officer riding next to the limo. The same thing happened to Jackie's clothing - what is the mystery? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: oh Bill, Jackie didn't sit down either, so you silly guy, below you say:"Jack, so it never dawned on you that the gray haired individual you call JFK sitting upright in the limo as it enters the underpass in the Zfilm was John Connally"... Maybe someone else can post something that better explains what on earth you are talking about. tell us Bill, is the grayhaired individual in the postphoto John Connally sitting up? Who ID the person as JC sitting up, and where might one find the cite? Let's see; Kennedy's dead on the seat. Connally's in Nellies lap based on Nellies testimony, regarding this threads photo and based on your above comment to Jack, we're to believe Connally [as opposed to Kennedy] is the one sitting up prior to entering under the Elm Street railroad overcrossing? ah Bill, whose the clown here? So is it your position that neither JFK or Connally was sitting up when the limo entered the underpass or is it your position that you agree with Jack and that it is Kennedy who sat up and his hair has turned gray? NEITHER, neither of the two sat up, include in that; "Connally heaved up", I thought we got past this dumber than a stump stuff a few years back, you reverting to old habits, AGAIN? Show us testimony where Connally satup, during the LIMO ride after Z350? Put us out of our misery, cite something for a change Edited July 12, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Getting back to the D. Miller vs. Yarborough pictures - it seems that a great deal more was done than just repainting the boot. There was some major manipulation going on. These pictures are completely skewed from one another. Apparently, much needed to be done in order to make it appear - realistically and anatomically - that this was a foot that could indeed belong to Clint Hill. Also, if the contrast was so bright in Miller's photo that the black socks turned white - why does the white rear end of the car disappear into darkness? JL, the one other major change I noticed, besides the drawing in of the boot, was that a quarter circle was added over the shape of Connally, to give the shape an outline. The Dallas Morning News caption, by the way, called this shape Governor Connally, the AP subscribers got a caption saying it was Mrs. Connally. In Bill's post he claims that it was in fact Governor Connally, and I suspect he's right. I'm still trying to nail down exactly when the photo got changed. The Dallas Morning News, which had signed only a one-time deal with Miller, obviously changed it right away. I'm not sure if the AP photos circulated world-wide on this same day featured the "boot" or not. My beat-up 11-24 NY Times has two white arrows, revealing that they didn't simply copy the Dallas Morning News version. It's hard to distinguish which version of the photo was used, however. Still, the toe section of the boot, which is white on the Dallas Morning News "drawn-in shoe" version, appears very dark. As a consequence, I believe the NY Times version matched the Saturday Evening Post version. While this would seem to get the AP off the hook, by the publication of The Torch is Passed, they were selling the drawn-in shoe version. The shoe in this version is slightly different than the shoe in the 11-24 Dallas Morning News, indicating that it wasn't just a copy, but another retouching. If anyone has any 1963 versions of this photo, beyond the ones already posted and discussed, it might prove interesting to take a look. As per James Richards' suggestion, I gave in and purchased an 11-29-63 Time mag from e-bay. I'll let you know what it shows when it arrives. I don't pretend this is a maor breakthrough but am including a section on the media's misrepresentations of the assassination in my presentation/book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Getting back to the D. Miller vs. Yarborough pictures - it seems that a great deal more was done than just repainting the boot. There was some major manipulation going on. These pictures are completely skewed from one another. Apparently, much needed to be done in order to make it appear - realistically and anatomically - that this was a foot that could indeed belong to Clint Hill. Also, if the contrast was so bright in Miller's photo that the black socks turned white - why does the white rear end of the car disappear into darkness? Thanks for the study of the DIFFERING TILTS! Very observant. Obviously from different prints, somehow distorted. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) tell us Bill, is the grayhaired individual in the postphoto John Connally sitting up? Who ID the person as JC sitting up, and where might one find the cite? I think that everyone who knew that Connally was the gray haired man between the choice of he and Kennedy has said it. To date, every researcher I know has seen the Zapruder film and Jack is the only person that I have heard say that it is JFK sitting up in the car. Maybe I should ask you, "Who said that JFK heaved himself up in the car?" Do you want to ask that question to Jack or should I??? Now if it is your contention that the Zapruder film is altered by showing Connally sitting up in the car because you think he couldn't do it, then the Miller photo must also have been altered to show Connally sitting up. The latter is ridiculous and has not been suggested for 43 years for a reason. NEITHER, neither of the two sat up, include in that; "Connally heaved up", I thought we got past this dumber than a stump stuff a few years back, you reverting to old habits, AGAIN? Show us testimony where Connally satup, during the LIMO ride after Z350? Put us out of our misery, cite something for a change David, I can play the idiot game as well as you. Cite where Nellie said that the Governor didn't sit up after Z350. Cite where Nellie said that the Governor wasn't raised up off her lap up when David Miller took his phtograph? Let me give you an example as to how ridiculous your line of questioning sounds .... 'Tell me where someone said that Mrs. Newman was laying on her right side after the shooting? Tell me where someone said Mrs. Newman raised her head up and looked over her left shoulder? Tell me where someone said that Bill Newman's son raised his head up and looked at the man with the camera?' Why do I ask ? ... I ask because their are films and photos showing her and Newman's son doing these things, but no one actually came out and said it! Does that mean the photos and films are altered? Bill Miller Edited July 12, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Stephens Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Bill I have a copy of the December 14, 1963 issue of the Saturday Evening Post and have scanned the Miller photo in full size. It appears that the foot of the secret service agent is caught on the anntena of the limo, you can clearly see it, but in looking at other photos the anntena apears to be on the other side (bloody limo seat photo) I don't understand. I would like to post it but the scan is too large to post, or even e-mail, I'm working on shrinking there size without losing quality. Has anyone noticed the anntena I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 That, my friends, is a shoe. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) Hoping to settle this issue I dug out my copy of SatEvePost and scanned the large Miller photo. It is CLEARLY BEFORE THE FOOT RETOUCHING WAS ADDED. However, the quality is not great enough to convince the diehards. But in my opinion it clearly shows JFK's right hand and arm. It definitely is not a shoe. If it is Hill's shoe, it is two-tone with a funny serrated high heel. The prosecution rests its case. Jack PS...what Miller has been calling Connally's gray hair appears to me to be Nellie's yellow roses, as seen in other photos. I cannot figure what the round thing is. Edited July 13, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Stephens Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I reviewed some other photos and now wish to retract my foot caught on the antenna comment. It is still a foot though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) PS...what Miller has been calling Connally's gray hair appears to meto be Nellie's yellow roses, as seen in other photos. Jack, it is your illustration that has a line pointed to Connally head while claiming it to be JFK's head. Are you now saying that you didn't mean to call that line "JFK" and instead meant to say "roses"??? Below is an enlarged insert of Connally's head as seen in the Miller photo. Jack, you certainly are not going to claim that we are looking at Nellie's roses? Bill Miller Edited July 13, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Hoping to settle this issue I dug out my copy of SatEvePost and scannedthe large Miller photo. It is CLEARLY BEFORE THE FOOT RETOUCHING WAS ADDED. However, the quality is not great enough to convince the diehards. But in my opinion it clearly shows JFK's right hand and arm. It definitely is not a shoe. If it is Hill's shoe, it is two-tone with a funny serrated high heel. The prosecution rests its case. Jack PS...what Miller has been calling Connally's gray hair appears to me to be Nellie's yellow roses, as seen in other photos. I cannot figure what the round thing is. So what is hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip? If you attempt to claim its is a shadow or even better a reflection of the seat then you must also show exactly HOW that would be possible. 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