James R Gordon Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Robert, The angle is a bit of a guesstimate. The fact the body turns to the left, that is not. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 There seems to be a lot of very rapid movements in that film, such as Greer turning his head at super human speeds, and Connaly ending up in his wife's lap in a fraction of a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs of JBC being in distress in Z225-Z230.It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging", James? Get real.And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth? Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim? Edited May 14, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Now, one more time, Dave. How does the lapel flip out from debris hitting the inside of Connally's jacket, WELL away from the lapel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 Bob, The wind probably caught ahold of the lapel after the bullet passed through Connally's jacket, causing it to flip up more dramatically. Is that not at least POSSIBLE, Robert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Or, the wind caught the lapel as Connally was turning to the left. Either way, you have to agree, though, that the lapel flip likely had nothing to do with a bullet, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 that left shoulder thing isn't connally. It's a shadow on jackie caused by movements by jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 Of course the large lapel movement at precisely Z224 had something to do with the bullet hitting JBC. It would be an incredible coincidence if that were not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) that left shoulder thing isn't connally. It's a shadow on jackie caused by movements by jackie It's not just Connally's left shoulder that's flinching. His right shoulder is rising too. But I suppose that's just a "shadow" too, right? Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 "The wind probably caught ahold of the lapel after the bullet passed through Connally's jacket, causing it to flip up more dramatically." Sounds like you are contradicting your own argument, Dave. You are describing two independent events. P.S. What flavour of whupping do you prefer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) "The wind probably caught ahold of the lapel after the bullet passed through Connally's jacket, causing it to flip up more dramatically." Sounds like you are contradicting your own argument, Dave. You are describing two independent events. They're very likely connected, though.... 1.) Bullet hits Connally's coat. 2.) Coat moves a little bit after being hit by bullet. 3.) The brisk breeze catches ahold of the moving coat and causes lapel to flip up. Tell me how that's not possible. P.S. What flavour of whupping do you prefer? Raspberry. Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 If the coat was bulging out, it would be pushing itself against the lapel, making it more difficult for the wind to catch the lapel. Exactly the opposite of what you think occurred. No, I believe James is correct in surmising that Connally was turning to his left. There was a stiff breeze blowing through Dealey Plaza that day. At some point in his turn, the underside of the lapel was likely caught by the wind. Some things are simpler than we make them out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 David, You clearly have no idea what you are talking about!! It is perfectly evident to me that you have no IT skills. You have made no attempt to discover whether the gif, you are using yet again, has corrupt frames…….which indeed it has. To morrow I will show you the quality of the frames you are basing this nonsense on. You have made no attempt to determine whether the gif’s you are showing to this forum actually show what you say they show. I have not seriously looked at this gif that you use on post 93. I will do so tomorrow. I need to point out that your poor research of the gifs you are presenting on this forum really angers me. This tie evidence is only part of this present gif, but until I look at it tomorrow I will not be able to say why the tie does what it is doing. Go back to the movie I described earlier and you will see the tie’s movement does not happen there. Whatever is making you think the tie is moving or what, is only part of this very poor gif. That should bother you that one gif shows this tie movement, whereas the other one does not. If the tie is doing what you suggest, then both movies should show it. In addition, the actual slides do not support this point about the tie. the only evidence that shows this tie movement is a gif that has corrupt frames. How you are able to tell expression of such poor - and indeed even distorted frames - is beyond me! Some of these frames are really distorted yet you can tell expression. I note you are now saying that Connally’s right shoulder is rising. It is turning to its left as Connally turns his body. That is what you are seeing. It is clear to me that you are basing everything on a very poor gif and are not verifying your findings with the frames themselves. I find it of some interest that you are clearly are not interested that the frames - on which this gif is based - do not agree with what the gif is suggesting to you. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) James R. Gordon said: David, You clearly have no idea what you are talking about!! It is perfectly evident to me that you have no IT skills. You have made no attempt to discover whether the gif, you are using yet again, has corrupt frames…….which indeed it has. Tomorrow I will show you the quality of the frames you are basing this nonsense on. You have made no attempt to determine whether the gif’s you are showing to this forum actually show what you say they show. Incredible. What a pack of deniers we've got here. You guys win the 2015 prize in the category of.... "Failure To See The Obvious". Congratulations. For the record, I have several other versions of the Z-Film (collected from various online sources, that is), and I just checked each one, and every single version I have shows exactly the same reactions on the part of John Connally. I'll post them all again below. So, I guess James Gordon's next move is to tell me that ALL of these clips (which have come from different Internet sources over the years) are filled with nothing but "corrupt" frames too. .... Shoulders rising (and tie bulging outward): Different version---with the shoulders also rising and the tie moving in the exact same manner as in the clip above this one (just an illusion, Jim?): And here's another, again showing the very distinct riseof Connally's shoulders, plus the hat flip, plus the tie movement: And here's yet another source for the same Z-Film scene, again showing JBC's shoulders hiking up at Z225 (also "corrupt", James?): If James Gordon comes up with more lame excuses to deny what his eyes are seeing in all of the above versions of the Z-Film, he'll win a new trophy --- the "Robert Groden Award" --- in memory of Mr. Groden's fiasco at the O.J. Simpson civil trial, where Groden was shown 30 different pictures of Simpson wearing the very same shoes, but Groden still insisted one of the photos showing the same shoes was a fake. Edited July 3, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) And here are two more versions for good measure. The top one is a slow-motion version that I created using all 486 "Costella" frames (at Jim Fetzer's site). And those Costella frames are quite clear too. And, sure enough, all of Connally's flinching and arm-raising activities are visible here too. It's a little more difficult to see Connally's reactions in this version, but that's only because the size of the image is smaller than the other versions above. But I can still quite easily see the flinching and hat-raising.... And then there's the 1998 MPI version, which also very clearly shows the exact same JBC reactions.... Edited May 14, 2015 by David Von Pein 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