Bill Miller Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Mr. Jack - Thank God we have had your questioning viewpoints to consider over these decades as opposed to the pablum offered up by your detractors. They serve up their gruel and claim that it is both delicious and nutritious. It is neither - as any nutrition-starved patriot knows. I have also been comparing Willis #5 to Zapruder frames and am wondering about the following... thanks for blazing the trails... JL, you are attempting to match up the images on the horizontal, but because one photographer is so much higher in the air than the other - it will not work. Below is the same images done on a vertical level and they do match. As far as your patriot remark ... in the movie, JFK - Garrison asked when is killing a US President considered an act of patriotism? Sloppy research leaning towards conspiracy is not an act of patriotism. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 You are right, Jack White, Mr. ALLEN has really hit a home run on this one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 (edited) You are right, Jack White, Mr. ALLEN has really hit a home run on this one!!! Shanet, you have a history of cheering on anything that looks fishy at a glance without so much as having an understanding why you think something is accurate, so let's wait to see if JL is able to understand the point I made by checking the images on a vertical plane rather than on a horizontal plane with one photogragher elevated so much higher in the air than the other. Bill Miller Edited August 23, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I witnessed the unfolding events of 11/22/63 live and know that they wreaked of conspiracy from the early outset. I have no question in my mind as to who the traitors were and who the patriots to this nations ideals are. In our nation we have other means and methods put in place to transfer power. John Kennedy was never so unworthy as to be deserving of such a horrendous murder. I do not have time to say more as I must be gone for the day - and, I am hindered by my lack of "global space" with which to post anymore pictures. I am well aware that Zapruder is higher than Willis (duh...) but his line of sight does not seem high enough to produce the film he is credited with. The angle he would shoot from to have the "blue-scarfed" woman's head so high up on the side of the Stemmons sign seems to indicate a much steeper angle than he is actually at. Must go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 I witnessed the unfolding events of 11/22/63 live and know that they wreaked of conspiracy from the early outset. I have no question in my mind as to who the traitors were and who the patriots to this nations ideals are. In our nation we have other means and methods put in place to transfer power. John Kennedy was never so unworthy as to be deserving of such a horrendous murder. I do not have time to say more as I must be gone for the day - and, I am hindered by my lack of "global space" with which to post anymore pictures. I am well aware that Zapruder is higher than Willis (duh...) but his line of sight does not seem high enough to produce the film he is credited with. The angle he would shoot from to have the "blue-scarfed" woman's head so high up on the side of the Stemmons sign seems to indicate a much steeper angle than he is actually at. Must go. "I witnessed the unfolding events of 11/22/63 live..." JL...please elaborate. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 You are right, Jack White, Mr. ALLEN has really hit a home run on this one!!! Shanet, you have a history of cheering on anything that looks fishy at a glance without so much as having an understanding why you think something is accurate, so let's wait to see if JL is able to understand the point I made by checking the images on a vertical plane rather than on a horizontal plane with one photogragher elevated so much higher in the air than the other. Bill Miller ".....with one photogragher elevated so much higher in the air than the other. " "Miller" needs to tell us, by his actual research which backs up this statement, just how many inches higher Zapruder's lens was than Willis's. I want to see if his figure corresponds with mine. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 "Miller" needs to tell us, by his actual research which backs up this statement,just how many inches higher Zapruder's lens was than Willis's. I want to see if his figure corresponds with mine. Jack Jack, there is nothing to compare to your figures because you have said over and over again that Zapruder was never on the pedestal and that the conspirators merely added him to the various assassination films and photos. Now you are stating that you have figures documenting the height of Zapruder's lens as he stood on the pedestal - these are two contradictory positions you are wishing to debate. Bill Miller I am well aware that Zapruder is higher than Willis (duh...) but his line of sight does not seem high enough to produce the film he is credited with. The angle he would shoot from to have the "blue-scarfed" woman's head so high up on the side of the Stemmons sign seems to indicate a much steeper angle than he is actually at. I totally agree with you on JFK not deserving to be shot down in the middle of the street, but the angle that Zapruder had not being what you think it should be - I disagree with. I say this because I have seen test films shot from the same pedestal and their angle matched that of Zapruder's within inches. Below is a test shot I took of Groden when I studied the man seen the pyracantha bush in the Zapruder film. My angle matches that of Zapruder's film angle. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Madness!!! Confusion and a big mess is all I see.......... "Miller" , like the ill fated GRATZ, always has to have the last word and it always the most conventional pablum, no chance of government manipulation EVER. It is clear to me that the Zapruder film was filmed from a higher point of view than the pedestal......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Madness!!! Confusion and a big mess is all I see.........."Miller" , like the ill fated GRATZ, always has to have the last word and it always the most conventional pablum, no chance of government manipulation EVER. It is clear to me that the Zapruder film was filmed from a higher point of view than the pedestal......... Wow Shanet, have any real evidence that the zap film was taken from a higher camera position or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn last night? Why do I ask? Because you have shown over and over again that you are a complete moron when it comes to photography.... ...and besides we can't allow YOU to have the last word now can we.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Jack - Sorry if I was misleading. I was not in Dallas. I had a great teacher who took our class immediately to the school television shortly after the shooting. We watched the live coverage unfold in the cafeteria until the end of the school day - then I stayed glued to the TV at home that Friday afternoon and through the weekend. JFK was a great hero to me and I was devastated by the killing. I was very attentive to the mis-statements and mistakes made in the early going. I identified with Oswald as being in a terrible predicament which was spiraling away from him and worsening by the hour. I rejected the LIFE magazine cover which came to our home in February as not being a true picture of the same young man I had seen in custody a few months earlier. I made a promise to JFK, Oswald and myself that when I was older I would find out why that picture bothered me so much. The promise came back to me when the computer age dawned and a person was actually provided the tools with which to tackle an assignment like that. I loved JFK. His speeches were an inspiration to me. I was the president of my class when he was murdered - all because of his constant and continual girding and prodding that we all attempt to do more with our lives. I was a wallflower turned activist - and I did it for him. My mother secretly defied my father's expectations that she would vote for Nixon in 1960 because of the passion I had for Kennedy and his "persona". I was just a little kid. I know many people felt many different ways about John Kennedy. But, that's the way I felt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) The depiction of the Cadillac limo in Willis 5, to me, seems to be a total monstrosity. Different sections of it seem to have been altered independently in order to achieve an overall agreement with other pictures from other angles. There is no way that the steering wheel of the car can move so far inwards to the center of the car. The driver's head needs to be beneath the appropriate sun-visor and in alignment with the head of the man behind him in the back seat with regards to the side of the limo. A line drawn along the top edge of the fenders shows that he has been repositioned to a place that is far inside of where he should be. Additionally, in the frame 202 of the Zapruder film - the agent behind Clint Hill appears "ghost-like" - giving the impression that Willis might actually be able to see through him to the back of the driver's head from his vantage. He could not. But I think this is just one of many examples of the conspirators wanting to have their cake and to eat it as well. This suggests manipulation of the Zapruder film - while the alteration of the Willis 5 photo seems obvious. The HSCA in the late 70's determined Frame 202 of the Zapruder film approximated the timing of the Willis 5 photograph. It is not even close. I think it is safe to say that NO frame of the Zapruder film will EVER match the Willis 5 photo. The extent of the alteration and manipulation is mind-blowing - worthy of Satan, himself. This was the biggest thing that ever happened to the world. Unfortunately, it was bad, bad, bad. Thanks, to Shanet. Saving Lamson the trouble: "You are clueless! ROTFLMAO!" Edited September 5, 2006 by JL Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) The depiction of the Cadillac limo in Willis 5, to me, seems to be a total monstrosity. Different sections of it seem to have been altered independently in order to achieve an overall agreement with other pictures from other angles. There is no way that the steering wheel of the car can move so far inwards to the center of the car. The driver's head needs to be beneath the appropriate sun-visor and in alignment with the head of the man behind him in the back seat with regards to the side of the limo. A line drawn along the top edge of the fenders shows that he has been repositioned to a place that is far inside of where he should be. Additionally, in the frame 202 of the Zapruder film - the agent behind Clint Hill appears "ghost-like" - giving the impression that Willis might actually be able to see through him to the back of the driver's head from his vantage. He could not. But I think this is just one of many examples of the conspirators wanting to have their cake and to eat it as well. This suggests manipulation of the Zapruder film - while the alteration of the Willis 5 photo seems obvious. The HSCA in the late 70's determined Frame 202 of the Zapruder film approximated the timing of the Willis 5 photograph. It is not even close. I think it is safe to say that NO frame of the Zapruder film will EVER match the Willis 5 photo. The extent of the alteration and manipulation is mind-blowing - worthy of Satan, himself. This was the biggest thing that ever happened to the world. Unfortunately, it was bad, bad, bad. Thanks, to Shanet.Saving Lamson the trouble: "You are clueless! ROTFLMAO!" You know Allen you really should take some photography courses or at least study how a simple change in camera angle can effect how things look in a photograph. There is NOTHING wrong with the placement of the Caddy driver between Willis and Zapruder,. They are absolutly consistant wit h one another. Period. End of story. You would not know an altered photo if it smacked you in the face. You might want to re-evaluate your #2 in Willis...you blew this one big time. BTW, where is your bio and photograph? Do you have any formal training in photography or are you just terminally ignorant like Shanet? If you did study photography you need to ask for a refund because the instruction was a complete failure. Use your refund to BUY A CLUE. Have a nice day. Edited August 30, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 The depiction of the Cadillac limo in Willis 5, to me, seems to be a total monstrosity. Different sections of it seem to have been altered independently in order to achieve an overall agreement with other pictures from other angles. There is no way that the steering wheel of the car can move so far inwards to the center of the car. The driver's head needs to be beneath the appropriate sun-visor and in alignment with the head of the man behind him in the back seat with regards to the side of the limo. A line drawn along the top edge of the fenders shows that he has been repositioned to a place that is far inside of where he should be. Additionally, in the frame 202 of the Zapruder film - the agent behind Clint Hill appears "ghost-like" - giving the impression that Willis might actually be able to see through him to the back of the driver's head from his vantage. He could not. But I think this is just one of many examples of the conspirators wanting to have their cake and to eat it as well. This suggests manipulation of the Zapruder film - while the alteration of the Willis 5 photo seems obvious. The HSCA in the late 70's determined Frame 202 of the Zapruder film approximated the timing of the Willis 5 photograph. It is not even close. I think it is safe to say that NO frame of the Zapruder film will EVER match the Willis 5 photo. The extent of the alteration and manipulation is mind-blowing - worthy of Satan, himself. This was the biggest thing that ever happened to the world. Unfortunately, it was bad, bad, bad. Thanks, to Shanet.Saving Lamson the trouble: "You are clueless! ROTFLMAO!" J.L....I think Greer's location is not wrong. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) J.L....I think Greer's location is not wrong.Jack How does one equate Greer with the SS follow-up car? Bill Miller Edited August 30, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Woods Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 J.L....I think Greer's location is not wrong. Jack How does one equate Greer with the SS follow-up car? Bill Miller I have to agree with Bill's assestment. The pyracantha bush aligment with Zapruder's camera was done way back in the 1970's by Cutler. Jack, you should recall this as Cutler sent his diagram out to researchers john w 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