Bill Miller Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) Some of the names are in this thread - now contact MSNBC with your ground breaking finds! Cut the crap! Either put up or shut up! Post your lists! EBC EBC, Go read Jack's definition of the word "Provocateur" so to find out why I am not going to post such a list. I will address your use of the word "crap" though ... I will show you how Groden used it when speaking about the kind of nonsense you are trying to defend ... Robert Groden: I have been a close friend of Jack's for thirty years ...................... In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong ........ The record must remain straight ......... This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all ............ Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case. Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) Some of the names are in this thread - now contact MSNBC with your ground breaking finds! Cut the crap! Either put up or shut up! Post your lists! EBC EBC, Go read Jack's definition of the word "Provocateur" so to find out why I am not going to post such a list. I will address your use of the word "crap" though ... I will show you how Groden used it when speaking about the kind of nonsense you are trying to defend ... Robert Groden: I have been a close friend of Jack's for thirty years ...................... In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong ........ The record must remain straight ......... This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all ............ Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case. ************ dgh: perhaps the reason Robert Groden won't defend his JFK work [these days] is the drubbing he took during his appearence at the OJ trial, not to mention other on-camera appearences, eh? So, in order to keep a presence in the internet jfk assassination research arena he jerks ole Bill's chain on occasion. To the POINT: These folks (here and elsewhere) think no further research is need in the JFK assassination...it's: LHO ALONE, pure and simple! One needs to have compassion for Lone Nutter's in CT clothing these day's, with up to 90% of folks polled [over the years] believing something was amiss (how do you spell; C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y) with WCR/Evidence, the Nutter's have a daunting task. A huge uphill PR campaign to wage, and they're losing ground daily... Edited February 3, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) dgh: perhaps the reason Robert Groden won't defend his JFK work [these days] is the drubbing he took during his appearence at the OJ trial, not to mention other on-camera appearences, eh? So, in order to keep a presence in the internet jfk assassination research arena he jerks ole Bill's chain on occasion. Robert Groden doesn't jerk any chains - if contacted, he will take the time to address questions based on his knowledge and expertise. I have never seen or heard of Robert merly trolling a forum and giving the type of say nothing responses that I have seen you do, David. And so you know this from yet another time that I have had to respeat this to you ... Robert testified that the one photo offered into evidence had signs of tampering done to it. It was the other photographer who had published photos of OJ at a football game that convinced the jury that O.J. had once wore the Bruno Magli shoes. To the POINT: These folks (here and elsewhere) think no further research is need in the JFK assassination...it's: LHO ALONE, pure and simple! When is the using of the poorest quality images possible so to draw characters out of pixel distortion, film transfer artifacts, and light spots seen through trees and on shelter walls considered further research? One needs to have compassion for Lone Nutter's in CT clothing these day's, with up to 90% of folks polled [over the years]believing something was amiss (how do you spell; C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y) with WCR/Evidence, the Nutter's have a daunting task. A huge uphill PR campaign to wage, and they're losing ground daily... One would think that your definition of a "nutter" might be someone who takes ridiculously degraded images and draws distorted people onto them so to make CT's look like idiots. I would think that you'd be more concerned about the ground they are losing for CT's looking credible. Some of us who believe there was a conspiracy want to have it proven by way of hard credible evidence and not just by doing something short of pouring gasoline out on the sidewalk and trying to make assassins out of the swirls of light. So not only shame on those individuals who implement such practices, but also shame on the trolls who try and defend it. Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 dgh: perhaps the reason Robert Groden won't defend his JFK work [these days] is the drubbing he took during his appearence at the OJ trial, not to mention other on-camera appearences, eh? So, in order to keep a presence in the internet jfk assassination research arena he jerks ole Bill's chain on occasion. Robert Groden doesn't jerk any chains - if contacted, he will take the time to address questions based on his knowledge and expertise. I have never seen or heard of Robert merly trolling a forum and giving the type of say nothing responses that I have seen you do, David. And so you know this from yet another time that I have had to respeat this to you ... Robert testified that the one photo offered into evidence had signs of tampering done to it. It was the other photographer who had published photos of OJ at a football game that convinced the jury that O.J. had once wore the Bruno Magli shoes. To the POINT: These folks (here and elsewhere) think no further research is need in the JFK assassination...it's: LHO ALONE, pure and simple! When is the using of the poorest quality images possible so to draw characters out of pixel distortion, film transfer artifacts, and light spots seen through trees and on shelter walls considered further research? One needs to have compassion for Lone Nutter's in CT clothing these day's, with up to 90% of folks polled [over the years]believing something was amiss (how do you spell; C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y) with WCR/Evidence, the Nutter's have a daunting task. A huge uphill PR campaign to wage, and they're losing ground daily... One would think that your definition of a "nutter" might be someone who takes ridiculously degraded images and draws distorted people onto them so to make CT's look like idiots. I would think that you'd be more concerned about the ground they are losing for CT's looking credible. Some of us who believe there was a conspiracy want to have it proven by way of hard credible evidence and not just by doing something short of pouring gasoline out on the sidewalk and trying to make assassins out of the swirls of light. So not only shame on those individuals who implement such practices, but also shame on the trolls who try and defend it. dgh: yeah right, doesn't jerk any chains.... it's ALWAYS the other guy...LMAO... plain English Bill: your qualification interrupting JFK assassination related film or photo is? Such an easy question to clear up, especially if one wants a measure of credibility! We know through testimony (Mo Weitzman), and other first hand experience - Groden's film background, yours is suspect! Help clear this up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) We know through testimony (Mo Weitzman), and otherfirst hand experience - Groden's film background, yours is suspect! Help clear this up My experience has been in taking photography classes in school and learning from people like Groden, but I think you were talking about photo interrpetation skills which cannot be learned from a text book. It has been said to be an art form based on experience and an understanding of perspective ... not to mention the 100's of hours I have spent in the plaza studying all these filming locations. So I have something going for me and is why Groden wrote that Jack is always wrong on these matters whereas he believes that I have been consistently correct. I will allow the forum archives to be my resume. Bill Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I will allow the forum archives to be my resume.[/b] Good. You're fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 (edited) I will allow the forum archives to be my resume.[/b] Good. You're fired. Your response is just what I am talking about. How about you, Paul ... are you going to contact MSNBC, FOX NEWS, or any other news affiliate and share these ground breaking finds wih the world or are you satisfied with just making stupid add nothing remarks on what is supposed to be an education forum? Let us see just how serious this topic is to you! Bill Edited February 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I will allow the forum archives to be my resume.[/b] Good. You're fired. Your response is just what I am talking about. How about you, Paul ... are you going to contact MSNBC, FOX NEWS, or any other news affiliate and share these ground breaking finds wih the world or are you satisfied with just making stupid add nothing remarks on what is supposed to be an education forum? Let us see just how serious this topic is to you! Bill Bill, It's taken me too long, but I've finally worked out of whom - and what - you remind me: a Stalinist apparatchik of, say, anytime between the early 1920s and the early 1950s. The sort routinely called on by the Ossetian mountaineer to shout down dissent, and bully the meek. Incidentally, your masquerade as an impartial sceptic would be rather more convincing were you occasionally to show some - any -interest in the abundant evidence that the Z-film is a fake. That would be far cleverer. As to trotting off to MSNBC, Fox News, or any other news affiliate, I did, once, to a UK near-equivalent and a very interesting experience it was, too, if only for the opportunity to encounter first-hand executive paranoia. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) I will allow the forum archives to be my resume.[/b] Good. You're fired. Your response is just what I am talking about. How about you, Paul ... are you going to contact MSNBC, FOX NEWS, or any other news affiliate and share these ground breaking finds wih the world or are you satisfied with just making stupid add nothing remarks on what is supposed to be an education forum? Let us see just how serious this topic is to you! Bill Bill, It's taken me too long, but I've finally worked out of whom - and what - you remind me: a Stalinist apparatchik of, say, anytime between the early 1920s and the early 1950s. The sort routinely called on by the Ossetian mountaineer to shout down dissent, and bully the meek. Incidentally, your masquerade as an impartial sceptic would be rather more convincing were you occasionally to show some - any -interest in the abundant evidence that the Z-film is a fake. That would be far cleverer. As to trotting off to MSNBC, Fox News, or any other news affiliate, I did, once, to a UK near-equivalent and a very interesting experience it was, too, if only for the opportunity to encounter first-hand executive paranoia. Paul Paul: MSNBC nor Fox, would not show any interest imo... A Stalinist apparatchik.......now there's a new one... I had thought it was The Napoleonic Syndrome.. B.. Edited February 5, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Bill, It's taken me too long, but I've finally worked out of whom - and what - you remind me: a Stalinist apparatchik of, say, anytime between the early 1920s and the early 1950s. The sort routinely called on by the Ossetian mountaineer to shout down dissent, and bully the meek. Incidentally, your masquerade as an impartial sceptic would be rather more convincing were you occasionally to show some - any -interest in the abundant evidence that the Z-film is a fake. That would be far cleverer. As to trotting off to MSNBC, Fox News, or any other news affiliate, I did, once, to a UK near-equivalent and a very interesting experience it was, too, if only for the opportunity to encounter first-hand executive paranoia. Paul Paul, you have not offered any factual evidence that shows the Zapruder film to be a fake. Even now you aren't offering data, but merely working as a mouthpiece in a propaganda war. For instance, Moorman's photo is valid and can be proven to be so in the context that no one is seen on the shelter steps or wall. But in spite of this you chose to want to argue over a terribll degraded image whereas artifacts can be seen as twisted people. I don't know what you presented to any UK news outlets, but if it is the type of junk you offer here on this forum, then they probably threw your ass out of their office. Recently you have seen these latest allegations .... any plans on taking them back to the news media and presnt your case or are you to busy trolling this forum? As far as my showing any interest in the alleged abundance of evidence pertaining to alteration - I don't know anyone who has looked at each and every claim harder than I have. In the previous post I mentioned Jack failing to tell his supporters about Jean Hill saying that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot was fired. I also mentioned where Jack's bluff was called pertaining to showing a Moorman print that didn't show the gap ... to date Jack has not produced a single Moorman print to support what he said. I am getting the feeling that you don't mind being deceived as long as it promotes unfounded paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Paul: MSNBC nor Fox, would not show any interest imo... A Stalinist apparatchik.......now there's a new one... I had thought it was The Napoleonic Syndrome.. B.. What about the BBC - have they not been supportive of conspiracy documentaries? The Enquirer ran a piece once saying that JFK was living in the basement of the White House .... try selling those junk mages to them and see how far you get. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Post your lists! Bill, I can see I am not going to get any co-operation from you and that you are unwilling or unable to post 'your lists'. However,I should like to say how heartened and indeed delighted I was to see that one of my enhanced images had been of use to you in your research.(See image Below). However, I should prefer if you were to use your own enhancements in future. I may have to start watermarking my enhanced images in an effort to stop this type of intellectual property theft. I am, however, prepared to make allowances in your case since it is obvious your own enhancement techniques and abilities are minimal or even perhaps non-existent. So,Bill, please feel free to plagiarize my work. But ,please, I should prefer if you were not to vandalise and disfigure my enhanced images with all those ugly red marks.I know how you love colouring in. Which reminds me - have you finished colouring in your two copies of the Warren Commission yet? Also, Bill,could you at least give me credit when you steal from me? Just a little note attached to any qualifying posts with the words ' Stolen from EBC' would be enough. Thanks again,Bill, for using my enhanced images in your 'research'. If you can't beat them - steal from them. EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) However, I should prefer if you were to use your own enhancements in future. I may have to start watermarking my enhanced images in an effort to stop this type of intellectual property theft. Let me explain a few things to you, EBC. The image YOU used is copyrighted, thus YOU have no business using it, but we all break the copyright rules because of this being a research forum. If we didn't break the rule, then there would be no images to show at all because they are all copyrighted. So we are clear about this ... your pretending that you are a victim of property theft is a joke! The only person who has a right to complain is the true owner of the images that we use. Now if YOU have documentation that you were allowed to use the images that you have posted, then please feel free to post it and I'll retract my response that it is YOU who are stealing other peoples copyrighted images. Now to address the other part of your idiotic suggestion that I create my own images. Had I did my own capture and not achieved the poor level of quality that you presented, then it would have been like comparing apples to oranges. The point of my using your poor degraded image was to show that the conclusions you had drawn were based not on actual people over the wall, but rather on the artifacts found within the image that you presented. This practice of critiquing someone's interpretation of an image has been going on since these forums started and it is obvious that because I have let the air out of your wind bag concerning the "Zapruder and Sitzman stand-ins" that you have lettle else to bitch about other that someone stealing an image you posted that you don't own yourself. Now if you have anything else to add concerning the photographical record - I am willing to hear it. However, if you think you are going to get away with taking credit for other peoples copyrighted images, then you are only making yourself look foolish. Bill Edited February 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Bill, Thanks for replying while I am in forum. Let me explain a few things to you, EBC. The image YOU used is copyrighted, thus YOU have no business using it, but we all break the copyright rules because of this being a research forum. Bill, let me explain something to you. The enhanced image is my property - my intellectual property. I have copyrighted it - notionally and factually.You stole it! What sort of an ill-mannered uncouth individual are you,anyway? You have no right to post it or use it in your research without my express and written consent. I urge you to enhance your own images and do your research on them. Stop stealing from me and don't steal from me again! Have I made myself perfectly understood? If there is something - anything in this post which you find difficult to understand feel free to ask me about it and I shall do my best to help you over any language difficulties you may have. EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Duncan MacRae' date='Feb 5 2007, 02:06 PM' post='92746'] I can't see what your problem is Eugene, As far as I can see, Bill only used the image for illustration purposes. You posted the image on this Forum, therefore you must be prepared for them to be subject to scrutiny, or what's the point of you posting them? Respectfully...Duncan Aha! Reinforcements have arrived at last! Duncan, Bill should have the common decency to acknowlege the provenance of the enhanced image. He has been dissing me and my enhancement efforts for this last few weeks and then he has the damn nerve to misappropriate one of my enhanced images( One of the very same images he has been bitching about ) to put forward some dubious piece of his 'research'. Duncan, do you really think that is normal acceptable behaviour? This is not really about taking and using my images without a please or a thank you - which is bad enough. It is all about Bill's ill-mannered brutish behaviour towards me and others in this forum. Why doesn't Bill either enhance his own images or give credit to the person whose images he does use? I feel confident that you can understand this,Duncan. Below is the image - which I enhanced and which Bill misused. EBC EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly 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