The five wildly waving women...

[Bill Miller]

ALSO....On the Z-film it's VERY CLEAR that the woman in blue is clapping her hands as the limo approaches. How can we see this while her back is turned??

It's easy if you live in the real world.

Jack has been shown stabilized slips showng these women moving after he has falsely claimed that they didn't move ... he waits awhile (presumeably hoping people will forget) and then makes the claim all over again.

Bill,

For what it's worth, here's a small close-up of the "Negro" woman as JW refers to her (under the red square). To me, she seems neither black nor white but kind of...tan.

MV

The woman's face (F) and arm (H) has the exact same tone as other light skinned women, but I think that because she wore her hair like an afro .. Jack decides that is enough evidence for him to say she was a black woman. Welcome again to the 'world of Jack'. Jack has not got it together enough to understand how different film stocks can show colors differently. Look at the women Jack labeled #5 .... her lower body and legs are very dark/black like the woman #3's brown coat. Another example is Jack's woman #2 ... her dress is gray in the Zapruder film and a mixture of deep blue and black in the Bronson slide. Jack's trademark is to take poor quality images to try and make unsubstantiated claims from them. Jack should have stopped with that 'tall office workers like Sitzman do not wear high heels' nonsense.

Of course one could make the opposite argument over the woman being black and because there is glare from the sun shining off her face in the Zapruder film that she may only appear light skinned. Jack never considers these things before immediately going overboard.

Bill Miller

Edited July 29, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

ALSO....On the Z-film it's VERY CLEAR that the woman in blue is clapping her hands as the limo approaches. How can we see this while her back is turned??

It's easy if you live in the real world.

Jack has been shown stabilized slips showng these women moving after he has falsely claimed that they didn't move ... he waits awhile (presumeably hoping people will forget) and then makes the claim all over again.

Bill,

For what it's worth, here's a small close-up of the "Negro" woman as JW refers to her (under the red square). To me, she seems neither black nor white but kind of...tan.

MV

The woman's face (F) and arm (H) has the exact same tone as other light skinned women, but I think that because she wore her hair like an afro .. Jack decides that is enough evidence for him to say she was a black woman. Welcome again to the 'world of Jack'. Jack has not got it together enough to understand how different film stocks can show colors differently. Jack should have stopped with that 'tall office workers like Sitzman do not wear high heels' nonsense.

Bill Miller

Keep digging deeper, Miller. You hole is nearly deep enough.

You better join Valenti at the opthalmologist. You are colorblind.

Jack

Keep digging, Miller...it is almost deep enough now.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Just look at the right shoulder of "woman number three" - and you will see the shadows cast from the hands of "woman number two" as she claps for JFK.

You are right. clapping hand shadows can be seen on two of the womens backs.

Bill Miller

Keep digging deeper, Miller. You hole is nearly deep enough.

You better join Valenti at the opthalmologist. You are colorblind.

Jack

Keep digging, Miller...it is almost deep enough now.

Jack

Jack, you are really lousy at investigating a photo. Look at both women's arms and tell us how they are different in skin tone??? Maybe the woman was half white and half black ... whether she looks white in Z's film or black in Bronson's film - who really cares. Different films from different film stock, plus lighting differences can make alike colors appear different from one another.

Bill Miller

Edited July 29, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Richard J. Smith]

..

When I ask for SENSIBLE ANSWERS. I get back NONSENSE. If you cannot

distinguish between a black woman and four white women, you have eye

problems. If you cannot tell a topcoat from a jacket, or a sweater from a

dress, see your eye doctor. Don't blame your visual impairment on me!

(a typical tactic...blame the messenger when you don't understand the

message)

If those photos are "sinister" THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS IN TROUBLE.

Jack

You didn't get back nonsense, pal. You got back an answer. One that you didn't like or one that didn't genuflect before you but an answer nevertheless.

You say the ethnicity of the woman changed. I say you're wrong. And there's nothing wrong with my eyes, they're perfectly fine.

If you don't take my word for it, just poll the members -- how many people here think the woman changed from white to black? Then you can insult all of them as well.

This is a typical tactic of people like you. Put forth an idea and when people comment on it, insult them and claim that they're merely provocateurs.

You've been doing this for years. You see spies under the bed. They're not there. Really they're not.

You suggest I go to an opthamologist? I think you need psychotherapy in all honesty. You have been living on the Paranoid Side for so long I don't think you can any longer tell the difference between a sinister plot and a simple photo difference.

If you're not merely paranoid, I'd like to put forth a theory of my own.

I think YOU may be the disinformation agent. The CIA could easily put someone like you out there to come up with so many crackpot theories that NOBODY in the doubting community has any credibility.

I'm done with you.

I was "done" with Mr White long ago.

"If you cannot see that woman 5 has on a white cardigan, get your eyes checked."

White cardigan?!?! Who needs their eyes checked?

"If you don't take my word for it, just poll the members -- how many people here think the woman changed from white to black?"

Not I.

RJS

[Jack White]

Just look at the right shoulder of "woman number three" - and you will see the shadows cast from the hands of "woman number two" as she claps for JFK.

You are right. clapping hand shadows can be seen on two of the womens backs.

Bill Miller

Keep digging deeper, Miller. You hole is nearly deep enough.

You better join Valenti at the opthalmologist. You are colorblind.

Jack

Keep digging, Miller...it is almost deep enough now.

Jack

Jack, you are really lousy at investigating a photo. Look at both women's arms and tell us how they are different in skin tone??? Maybe the woman was half white and half black ... whether she looks white in Z's film or black in Bronson's film - who really cares. Different films from different film stock, plus lighting differences can make alike colors appear different from one another.

Bill Miller

Why did you crop out the "clapping" Stemmons sign? Its clapping

hands can be seen on the shoulders of the blue scarf lady. A clapping

sign...that is sinister.

Jack

[John Dolva]

"different in skin tone???"

[Bill Miller]

Why did you crop out the "clapping" Stemmons sign? Its clapping

hands can be seen on the shoulders of the blue scarf lady. A clapping

sign...that is sinister.

Jack

Jack, I guess that I felt that you could tell the difference between a moving shadow and the tail end of a scarf being blown by the wind.

What I said about the fisherman is still true.

Bill Miller

Edited July 29, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Keep digging deeper, Miller. You hole is nearly deep enough.

You better join Valenti at the opthalmologist. You are colorblind.

Jack

Keep digging, Miller...it is almost deep enough now.

Jack

Jack, I am going to put an end to this ridiculous claim you have made about the woman being black. You asked for my credentials at photo analysis and I am going to let the woman you say is black do the talking for me ....

The woman in question was the late Gloria J. Calvery, a white, 21-year-old employee of Southwestern Publishing Company in the TSBD. Her March 1964 statement appears in Warren Commission exhibit 1381, which is reproduced on page 631 of volume 22. Note where she said, "I am of the Caucasian race" :

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0334b.htm

Take a look at Don Roberdeau's Dealey Plaza map and you'll see where she was standing:

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

About 8 or 9 years ago, Gary Mack, after speaking at a University of Texas at Dallas JFK class, met her son, who was in the audience. He knew what his mother was wearing and where she stood because they had seen her in the Zapruder film. Calvery's son was white. Unfortunately, Gloria died before Gary had a chance to speak with her.

So once again, Jack - you have relied on a poor image and your poor interpretation skills to make yet another false claim. You could have checked the facts first and then posted your thoughts, but as usual you had chosen not to do so. So I am wrong, Mark is wrong, Richard is wrong, the alleged black woman is wrong, and her son is wrong and only you are correct about her skin color ... least ways in your world!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Jack White 1

BS 0

Good one Jack!....right on topic...and makes the point to a tee!

Any stats on Jack's alteration claims or is your only interest here the foolishness between he and Slattery? (Just curious)

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Whenever one of his crazy claims gets pummeled into dust, the Rah Rah Jack Genuflectors remain suspiciously silent. Maybe they don't want the rain sensors to know what they're really thinking.

I do wonder sometimes what Jack and his cronies think when after we saw response after response telling us how photographically challeneged we are only to have to show them what the actually witness said about her ethnic race. I am guessing that if history repeats itself, then instead of learning anything about the causes of shadow. light, and film stock effecting how someone looks on fa photograph ... they will just look for yet another blurry photo or film capture and start all over again with yet another poorly researched claim, while chanting how we are on the run or that it is our credibility to interpret photographs that is what's in question.

Bill Miller

Edited July 29, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Whenever one of his crazy claims gets pummeled into dust, the Rah Rah Jack Genuflectors remain suspiciously silent. Maybe they don't want the rain sensors to know what they're really thinking.

I do wonder sometimes what Jack and his cronies think when after we saw response after response telling us how photographically challeneged we are only to have to show them what the actually witness said about her ethnic race. I am guessing that if history repeats itself, then instead of learning anything about the causes of shadow. light, and film stock effecting how someone looks on fa photograph ... they will just look for yet another blurry photo or film capture and start all over again with yet another poorly researched claim, while chanting how we are on the run or that it is our credibility to interpret photographs that is what's in question.

Bill Miller

still waiting for those photo credentials, tsk-tsk...

blurry photos have had you bouncing all over the internet for a few years now... Dodging, weaving and changing the subject away from the new and improved upcoming Zavada/Fielding report has been duly noted... LOL! We, at least I don't want or need the new and improved [Monaco] Z-film frames, nor the MPI frames, access to the LIFE 35mm Z-frames would be nice though....

[David G. Healy]

'Mark Valenti' wrote:

Whenever one of his crazy claims gets pummeled into dust, the Rah Rah Jack Genuflectors remain suspiciously silent. Maybe they don't want the rain sensors to know what they're really thinking.

*****************

Mr. Valenti, trying to impress BMiller earns you two steps *backward*, and hide your face in shame -- also, when you post about rainsensors, and post rainsensor photo, please give the proper credit, use the correct DP rainsensor photo --

Now, JackW didn't publish about rainsensors. If you wish to discuss rainsensors drop JCostella a line, be forewarned, he doesn't have much time these day's for wannabe JFK researchers and neophytes trying to impress those that have been around for a few years....

I hear CLamson is retiring from JFK issues soon, maybe you can spend 3 years or so learning the ropes from him, well, two weeks anyway!

Always there for you, champ!

David Healy

Edited July 30, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

Mr. Valenti, trying to impress BMiller earns you two steps *backward*, and hide your face in shame -- also, when you post about rainsensors, and post rainsensor photo, please give the proper credit, use the correct DP rainsensor photo --

Now, JackW didn't publish about rainsensors. If you wish to discuss rainsensors drop JCostella a line, be forewarned, he doesn't have much time these day's for wannabe JFK researchers and neophytes trying to impress those that have been around for a few years....

David, if trolling and playing the role of the non-educated JFK research idiot was a crime - you'd get a death sentence. Jack has posted about those rain sensors as much as anyone, in fact ... was Jack not the one who was with Costella when they first came up with that paranoid delusion.

To make my point about your trolling - you don't comment on the actual evidence Mark had discussed in this thread, instead you attempt to make it appear that he is trying to impress me somehow, yet one could easily say the same thing about you trying to impress Jack. However, Mark has one thing on his side that Jack does not - Mark has the statement from the actual witness herself and the validation of her son that they are caucasian, thus Jack was dead wrong over his position concerning the proper interpretation of Bronson's slide.

To further prove what I am saying about your trolling efforts - you said that you'd post what ever respeonse Gary Mack would give you concerning Monaco and the work they did, but instead of delivering that information, you sit back and xxxxx the forum and make such post as the two previous to this response. You even go as far as to ask for my qualifications to discuss what is seen in the assassination images as if I should try and match what Jack had posted on his behalf ... and after I had already addressed Jack's request by saying that I was not going to get suckered into being provoked. Jack offered two statements by individuals who for all practical purposes may or may not even be qualified to interpret photos or have a profound knowledge of the JFK assassination case. Costella, as you are trying to make clear that he is the father of the ridiculous rain sensor notion, was Jack's other source for praise. Now would it make a difference if I cited the praises I've reciecved from people like Debra Conway, William Law, Joan Mellon, Dennis David, Robert Groden, John Simkin, and a list of others who have spoken to me about the work I have done? Personally, I don't think it would matter to those who xxxxx forums and post the types of responses that you do on a consistent basis.

Now if you have any evidence to discuss, feel free to post it and we can all discuss it accordingly. As far as my credentials, I'll let people like the late Gloria J. Calvery speak of my accuracy when it comes to photo interpretation, a caucasion woman who Jack wrongly claimed to be a black woman by way of a poor quality photo taken from clear across the plaza.

Also, when you get a break from trolling this forum, please post the Gary Mack information to the questions you had for him if he has already sent it to you.

Bill Miller

Edited July 30, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Are these four ( five? ) of the five ladies as seen in Zapruder and Bronson frames?

Numbers 5, 4 and 3 are good matches IMO.

Numbers 1 and 2 are debatable.

In my view none of them are Afro-Americans.

Lady Number Three is not Black as can be seen from colour of her legs (?).

Is Lady One the Blue Scarf Lady? Note the blow up.

Woman One - see pic - is facing camera seems to be wearing

some sort of headgear - a scarf?

Is the "?" Lady actually Number 2 Lady? Unlikely - IMO - since the dress she

is wearing is - IMO - not blue. However this is a black and white picture.

What colour does blue or bright blue appear as in BW film?

Or perhaps Lady Number 2 ( Jack's Numbering) has long gone from the scene

at time this picture was taken.

Unable to say with certainty that Lady Number One is in fact Blue Scarf Lady.

Can't someone colourise this picture using the grey tone values as a guide

to the colour - just like they

do with old BW films?

Also, does anyone know the identities of the these women ie - who are they?

Surely somebody somewhere must know them?

Also see attached Zapruder frame 176. What colour is the woman's scarf in this frame IYO?

Is it greyish blue,greyish white, whitish blue,white or blue?

EBC

[Bill Miller]

Ladies 3,4,5 are all lined in a row in the Zfilm. One was the lady in the red plaid shirt ... the other the woman (Gloria Calvery, a white woman) Jack mistook as black by way of the poor quality Bronson slide ... and lady number 5 was one woman east of the lady in the red plaid shirt in the Zfilm.

In the Zfilm, the woman nearest the road sign seems to have on a bluish color scarf as the woman just east of her appears to be wearing a grayish colored dress. All this of course, may vary from monitor to monitor.

I have not enough information from this one single photo to say who is next to woman number three in your blow-up. The other woman in heels ??? There had been enough time passed before that picture was taken for people to have moved around considerably. The Hester's, Zapruder and Sitzman are already in the shelter by that time.

Bill Miller

Edited July 31, 2006 by Bill Miller