Did the limo stop? Really?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Logically, if the limo stopped, the Z-film is certainly fake, so the issue is of paramount importance,

We have a conflict between the recollections of two groups who witnessed the same event (thank you Pat)

GROUP A SAYS THE LIMO STOPPED.

Group B says it only faltered, or "slowed abruptly"

Charles Sanders Peirce re-defined LOGIC to embrace all the special sciences and their procedures.

One of the special sciences is psychology, where experiments repeatedly show the FALLIBILITY of HUMAN MEMORY.

Bartlett became a major pioneer in the field.

Bartlett writes:

Remembering is not the re-excitation of innumerable fixed, lifeless and fragmentary traces. It is an imaginative reconstruction, or construction, built out of the relation of our attitude toward a whole active mass of organized past reactions or experience, and to a little outstanding detail which commonly appears in image or in language form. It is thus hardly ever really exact, even in the most rudimentary cases of role recapitulation, and it is not at all important that it should be so (1932, p. 213).

http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2009/08/reconstructive-memory-vs-storage-and.html

A common experiment for psychology teachers is to secretly videotape an event staged by pre-arrangement, which takes the class by surprise.

The real surprise comes later, when the students try to recall exactly what they had just witnessed.

One of our Dealey Plaza groups is mis-remembering, and in the logical world of science and common sense,

the next step is to inquire if we have any film or video of the event.

Turns out we have THREE FILMS (Nix, Muchmore & Z) all showing a slowdown but not a full stop.

THere was no opportunity to alter Nix or Muchmore, according to BIll Miller and Josiah THomson,

so we don't even need to look at the Z-film to resolve the question of the limo stop.

Based on Nix and Muchmore, and what we know about the psychology of memory,

any logical person will conclude that the limo did not come to a full stop.

SO maybe there are good reasons to suspect the Z-FIlm is fake (I havn't heard them yet)

but I submit the so-called LIMO STOP is not one of them.

[Robin Unger]

Did Greer really take off not knowing that Jackie was spread eagle acrosss rhe back of the Limo. ?

I don't know, we can only go by what he testified to, though we know he was a xxxx. I personally think he slowed down almost to a stop to make it easy for the shooters and not get hit himself. (Connally got hit and might just as well have said, "My God, you should have slowed down more!") Greer didn't give a damn about Jackie or Hill.

I just re-checked the Z - Frames

You are correct, i don't see any indication that Greer turned his head as Hill was making his run.

Throughout the motorcade kellerman had his eye on his passenger side mirror, he may have seen what was happening in the rear seat and informed Greer.

FWIW

I don't think the SS Agent's were complicite in the assassination planning.

just INCOMPETANT and poorly trained.

[Daniel Gallup]

Logically, if the limo stopped, the Z-film is certainly fake, so the issue is of paramount importance,

We have a conflict between the recollections of two groups who witnessed the same event (thank you Pat)

GROUP A SAYS THE LIMO STOPPED.

Group B says it only faltered, or "slowed abruptly"

Charles Sanders Peirce re-defined LOGIC to embrace all the special sciences and their procedures.

One of the special sciences is psychology, where experiments repeatedly show the FALLIBILITY of HUMAN MEMORY.

Bartlett became a major pioneer in the field.

Bartlett writes:

Remembering is not the re-excitation of innumerable fixed, lifeless and fragmentary traces. It is an imaginative reconstruction, or construction, built out of the relation of our attitude toward a whole active mass of organized past reactions or experience, and to a little outstanding detail which commonly appears in image or in language form. It is thus hardly ever really exact, even in the most rudimentary cases of role recapitulation, and it is not at all important that it should be so (1932, p. 213).

http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2009/08/reconstructive-memory-vs-storage-and.html

A common experiment for psychology teachers is to secretly videotape an event staged by pre-arrangement, which takes the class by surprise.

The real surprise comes later, when the students try to recall exactly what they had just witnessed.

One of our Dealey Plaza groups is mis-remembering, and in the logical world of science and common sense,

the next step is to inquire if we have any film or video of the event.

Turns out we have THREE FILMS (Nix, Muchmore & Z) all showing a slowdown but not a full stop.

THere was no opportunity to alter Nix or Muchmore, according to BIll Miller and Josiah THomson,

so we don't even need to look at the Z-film to resolve the question of the limo stop.

Based on Nix and Muchmore, and what we know about the psychology of memory,

any logical person will conclude that the limo did not come to a full stop.

SO maybe there are good reasons to suspect the Z-FIlm is fake (I havn't heard them yet)

but I submit the so-called LIMO STOP is not one of them.

JRC - I take no comfort that Bill and Josiah claim there was no opportunity to alter the other films. I don't think the provenance of those films is as clear as they think it is. Naturally, I would agree the other films hid the limo stop as well. Then the best evidence is no longer the films, but the eye-witnesses, whose testimony admittedly varies, but IMO,that 's the best we'll have, and what we have to work with. I know, I'm an incorrigable, irrational, smoke-blowing, hand-waving obstructionist. Nobody's perfect. Best, Daniel

[Bill Miller]

JRC - I take no comfort that Bill and Josiah claim there was no opportunity to alter the other films. I don't think the provenance of those films is as clear as they think it is. Naturally, I would agree the other films hid the limo stop as well. Then the best evidence is no longer the films, but the eye-witnesses, whose testimony admittedly varies, but IMO,that 's the best we'll have, and what we have to work with. I know, I'm an incorrigable, irrational, smoke-blowing, hand-waving obstructionist. Nobody's perfect. Best, Daniel

It's becoming obvious to me that some will bury their head in the sand to keep from seeing what they do not wish to see. Please read this which was posted on another thread.

"Additional powerful proof of the Z film's authenticity comes from the

Nix and Bronson films of the head shot. Nix kept his film in his camera

until the night of Saturday, November 30 before dropping it off at

Dynacolor in Dallas for processing. Alterationists never explain how or

why the Z and Muchmore films match Nix exactly, especially after

Muchmore's was shown on New York City TV on Tuesday, November 26.

The Bronson film was processed on Sunday evening or Monday morning and

was given to Bronson that afternoon after he and an FBI agent watched it

at Kodak in Dallas. From that moment, the film never left his hands

until late 1978 when Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz and I

delivered it to Robert Groden for viewing by the HSCA.

The Nix and Bronson films show the limo slowed but never stopped, and

all four films match each other perfectly."

Investigation 101 should tell a reasonable person that there was no time to alter these films. It's like Moorman's photo when some people were calling it's authenticity suspect because it showed a gap between two reference points that didn't match the 'Moorman in the Street' radicals. Knowing that Mary's photo was photographed and placed on television not 35 minutes after the assassination ... it drove a nail into the coffin of a poorly thought out alteration claim.

Unless Bronson is going to be called a co-conspirator in JFK's murder or the TV station that bought Mucmore's film - developed it - and put it on TV right away had some magic way to do all the dark-room altering what Jack once detailed as the only way to do this lengthy process ... then there is no damn possible way the Zapruder film was altered when it shows not only what Zapruder's other three copies show, but what other films that had no opportunity to have them altered show, then the show is over. Anything beyond this is just mindless grandstanding once such a dead has been discovered.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Bill Miller

[Daniel Gallup]

DG: Naturally, I would agree the other films hid the limo stop as well.

What is so "natural" about this?

When you make a statement like this, immediately the Sagan standard is applied.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

What Lifton offered at Fetzer's symposium--before they began savaging each other here over 9-11--was so paltry that is was barely worth mentioning.

What I have seen from others, like RIgby, is also weak orange pekoe tea. Coming nowhere near the standard necessary to prove such a thing.

As others have shown, especially Duke Lane, the number of witnesses who said they saw a complete stop is very much overdone and inflated. And when balanced out against those who did not see such a stop, or were not sure, then the eyewitness testimony becomes pretty much a wash.

Sometimes, I don't understand your approach to evidence Daniel.

Sometimes I don't either. But Jim, I also base my case not only on those who said it stopped, and that includes several of the motorcycle officers around the limo, but also on the lack of spray exiting the back of Kennedy's head at Z 313, which should have been one of the most prominent features of that frame. How else can one explain an avulsive wound in the back of Kennedy's head, if not for a high velocity exit of brain, bone and blood? Yet ITEK studies of the frame confirm that nothing exits the back of Kennedy's head. For the same reason, I do not buy Harris' explanation of a second shot to create the Parkland wound. Same problem: where is the ejecta? The problem is only put off for a second or so.

I also want to thank Pat Speer for the list of comments on the limo. Clearly there is some variance in perception, as would be expected under such intense circumstances. Where do the preponderance of the comments lie? (and not our interpretation of them) We would have to get all of the testimony; those on his list, and those on VP's list in MIDP, and anyone else whom we have not identified or deposed, if they are still alive.

Of course the biggest arugment put forth by our friend Bill Miller et al. is that the films show no such stop. Despite his protestations, and that of Gary Mack and others, I do not think the other films, if they show the period of the limo stop, which I take to be after the fatal shot to the head, have escaped unscathed. Did not Nix comment that he thought his film had been tampered with when he got it back? Someone who knows more than I on this please comment. It is my understanding that Muchmore's film stops short of what might be the time of a possible stop. I'm not sure. AS for Bronson, I have no intelligent response (OK, I have set myself up big time--guys, start piling on).

The other strong argument against my position would be those, like Altgens, who said the limo definitely did not stop. I'd like to get him no the stand, and ask him how long it took him to fuss with his camera in order to get ready to take the next picture.

I look forward to reading more commentary on this issue, as it comes. Best, Daniel

[Chris Davidson]

There are people who said the limo stopped.

chris

[Bernice Moore]

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdfwhat the witnesses saw....

[Chris Davidson]

Jim,

That's the same as Charles Brehm saying his son and him were on Commerce St in his interview, right after the assassination.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Jim,

Then change both of their street descriptions to Elm St.

Does that now put Alan Smith somewhere in front of the TSBD?

chris

[Daniel Gallup]

Jim,

Then change both of their street descriptions to Elm St.

Does that now put Alan Smith somewhere in front of the TSBD?

chris

I believe Ian Griggs inteviewed this guy a while back. He might be helpful. --Daniel

[Bill Miller]

But Chris, he then says he was standing right in front of the TSBD.

The kid was on Main Street, but only 10 feet (less than the width of one car lane) from the President when the bullet hit him in the car. Yes, that's far more believable than dealing with films that the government didn't have its hands on or even know about before they were shown supporting the other films. (sarcasm intended)

[Bill Miller]

Jim,

Then change both of their street descriptions to Elm St.

Does that now put Alan Smith somewhere in front of the TSBD?

chris

And how does that put him 10 feet from the car when JFK was hit in the head?

[Bill Miller]

If you read this carefully, this story makes no sense. How could he have seen what he saw, from the position he describes, while standing on Main street?

When does any of this nonsense make sense ... Let us keep in mind that making sense has been proven to have had little to nothing with the countless alteration claims, and that is why they were so easily debunked.

I might also add that most people standing behind a car rolling less than eight miles an hour from a half of a block away can very easily think its not moving. Who among us has not seen a slow moving farm tractor up ahead on a hard road and noticed that it didn't look like it was moving. If that's too deep to comprehend, does not a plane coming at as at several hundred miles an hour appear for a time to be suspended in air.

[Bill Miller]

name='Daniel Gallup' date='08 June 2011 - 04:50 AM' timestamp='1307501448' post='227999']

But Jim, I also base my case not only on those who said it stopped, and that includes several of the motorcycle officers around the limo, but also on the lack of spray exiting the back of Kennedy's head at Z 313, which should have been one of the most prominent features of that frame.

Please tell us why the spray should be seen coming out of the back of JFK's head??? I am certain that you have participated in threads where I posted how back spatter moves slower than the debris traveling in the direction of the bullet.

Zapruder's camera was only running at 18fps and unless his shutter opened almost at the exact moment that the bullet broke through the skull ... the spray moving near the speed of the projectile could not possibly be seen with Zapruder's camera.

Of course the biggest arugment put forth by our friend Bill Miller et al. is that the films show no such stop. Despite his protestations, and that of Gary Mack and others, I do not think the other films, if they show the period of the limo stop, which I take to be after the fatal shot to the head, have escaped unscathed.

The biggest argument for the limo not stopping is that at least two of the other films had no chance to be altered before being viewed by anyone ... Muchmore's by the public shortly after its developing. The films just happen to all show the same thing. It has been posted in the past that the Government didn't even know about Muchmore's film until after it aired on Television. Now how many more times must this be mentioned before its significance sinks in?

AS for Bronson, I have no intelligent response (OK, I have set myself up big time--guys, start piling on).

The same can be said about Muchmore's film as well.

The other strong argument against my position would be those, like Altgens, who said the limo definitely did not stop. I'd like to get him no the stand, and ask him how long it took him to fuss with his camera in order to get ready to take the next picture.

I look forward to reading more commentary on this issue, as it comes.

Fuss with his camera??? ... this comment should be in the 'start piling on' offer. Altgens camera wasn't like a lawn mower that needed pull started with every photo he took - he pulls the camera to his eye and presses the shutter. As the Zfilm brings him into view ... Altgens is looking at the car passing him with his camera held down below his line of sight.

Moorman's body continued twisting as she tracked the limo both before and after the kill shot. The same can be said of Bev Oliver.

The flags continue blowing from the moment of the car.

Does anyone not understand the amount of time it would take to alter all the frames needed to make the limo appear to continue in motion. The films not only show the car moving, but also the backgrounds - the people moving in the car - the flags moving, and etc., while remaining in sync with all the other films. I would like an alterationist to explain how all this was done in the short time spans mentioned? If never considered before, then please consider it now and explain it to me.

Thanks!

Edited June 8, 2011 by Bill Miller

[Don Jeffries]

This argument becomes a battle in semantics. Did the limo actually stop, or merely slow down? What does slow down mean, exactly? Are we going to get to the point where we adopt the Clintonian logic of "what is is?"

There was something so noticable about the speed of the motorcade, or limo specifically, that numerous witnesses volunteered their observations on it during their testimony. Whether the limo slowed down or actually stopped, the driver was not following normal procedures. At the sound of gunfire, William Greer didn't step on the gas, per his training. Instead, he hit the brakes and actually turned around to look at the President. Apparently, hands thrust up to his neck and a distressed look on his face weren't enough to motivate this professional to respond properly. Why?

This may all be just another part of the parlor game- did the limo stop or just slow down? However, those who argue that the witnesses who noticed this were mistaken become, in effect, defenders of the Secret Service detail that failed JFK so miserably. If there was something strange or improper about the limo's speed at the time of the shooting, then the Secret Service must be held accountable for that. This has all been debated numerous times, but I just don't see how anyone can defend what Greer did that day. It can't be standard procedure to slow down and look over your shoulder at the sound of gunfire.

Some want to excuse the negligence of the Secret Service in Dallas. I think that's absurd, given the indications we have all of them failed to do their job that day. Thus, I think this issue is a part of that whole debate regarding the performance of the Secret Service. How do those who think all those witnesses who reported the limo stopped/ significantly slowed down feel about the performance of JFK's Secret Service detail?