Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Pamela Brown

The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night

Recommended Posts

Pamela

I may be a simpleton on this so please bare with me.

If the rear seat is elevated it changes the height difference between the two, in this case, victims. If the "the jump seats were so much lower than the back seat" doesn't this do the exact same thing (i.e. make a greater height differencial perceived/real)?

I guess my real guestion is, and I believe this is part of what you were getting at, does anyone, in fact, know what the actual height differential was at the time of the shooting?

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 -- The tiny reflection of JBC is the first area we discussed.  As JFK's clenched fists are separated by about 5 inches at Z 255, that cannot be JFK's right fist, as you have tried to claim.

Pam - you may wish tor review my past replies for I have never said that JFK's right fist is seen in Altgens 6. I mearly said several times now that we see JFK's index finger, mouth and cheek in the area you had placed a box in the poor copy print you had initially used.

2 -- The back of the rear-view mirror area of the windshield, which contains reflections that have appeared to some to be part of JFK's face.  It seems that you are not one of those.

It is "impossible" for JFK to have cast a reflection to the windshield and onto the back of the plastic mirror.

It is Z 255 that is the equivalent of the Altgens 1-6.  You have published Z 254.

Pamela

The reason for my doing this is quite simple. There is less than 1/18th of a second between Z254 and Z255. Z255 is somewhat blurred, so I opted to use the better of the two frames considering that JFK did not change his his head and index finger position in less than 1/18th of a second. Between Z254 and Z256, I see Connally turn his head - the limo rotate - and JFK lower his right hand. (see attachments)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pamela

I may be a simpleton on this so please bare with me.

If the rear seat is elevated it changes the height difference between the two, in this case, victims.  If the "the jump seats were so much lower than the back seat" doesn't this do the exact same thing (i.e. make a greater height differencial perceived/real)?

I guess my real guestion is, and I believe this is part of what you were getting at, does anyone, in fact, know what the actual height differential was at the time of the shooting?

Jim Root

Jim...this Towner photo shows the height differential. I believe someone

figured it at about 8", but don't remember where to find the documentation.

The jump seats were close to the floor, while the back seat was elevated.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Miller,Dec 23 2004, 01:20 AM said:

I have never said that JFK's right fist is seen in Altgens 6. I mearly said several times now that we see JFK's index finger, mouth and cheek in the area you had placed a box in the poor copy print you had initially used.

You are saying that the area that shows a small reflection of JBC you believe to be JFK's finger, mouth and cheek? Have you bothered to check the shape and alignment of the 'finger' in Z255 with the Altgens 1-6? It is generally accepted that both of JFK's hands were clenched, yet you claim his 'finger' is pointing? But it's isn't doing any such thing in Z255 is it?

The reason for my [showing Z256 instead of Z255] doing this is quite simple.

Simple does not make it correct, does it?

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are saying that the area that shows  a small reflection of JBC you believe to be JFK's finger, mouth and cheek? Have you bothered to check the shape and alignment of the 'finger' in Z255 with the Altgens 1-6? It is generally accepted that both of JFK's hands were clenched, yet you claim his 'finger' is pointing?  But it's isn't doing any such thing in Z255 is it?

Pam - I don't know who generally accepts that both JFK's fist were still clinched in Z254, Z255, and Z256. As a matter of fact it is generally accepted that his index finger is extended in Altgens 6 which matches Z255 and this is how the experts arrived at that conclusion...

In figure one we see Z254 - Z255 - and Z256. Note how Z255 blurs out to the point that you cannot tell anything by looking at it. The frames immediately before and after Z255 are much clearer. So how did the experts choose frame (Z255) to match Altgens 6? They did it by seeing that in Z254, JFK has started to unfurl his index finger ... they noted that it is extended out into the sunlight making it visible over the others that are still bent inward and in shadow. By Z256, JFK's index finger is straightened passed the point where we see it in Altgens 6. That means that Z255 being the midpoint between Z254 and Z256 was the best frame in time and space to match how the finger looked in Altgens 6. (see attachment one)

In figure two I show Z254 and Z256 only. By eliminating the blurry frame (Z255) we can better track the index finger. Somewhere between those two positions Altgens took his #6 photograph. That equates Altgens 6 with Z255. (see attachment two)

In figure three we see Z254 - Z255 - and Z256 in motion. Z255 blurs and stretches, thus taking with it valuable interpretation information. (see attachment three)

The forum software seems to want to put the attachments in whatever order it wishes instead of the order I chose. I have since adjusted the text to match the order of the attachments.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Miller,Dec 24 2004, 03:00 AM

I don't know who generally accepts that both JFK's fist were still clinched in Z254, Z255, and Z256. As a matter of fact it is generally accepted that his index finger is extended in Altgens 6 which matches Z255 and this is how the experts arrived at that conclusion...

What is your cite for that statement? Even so, that still begs the question that the shape and angle of what you are referencing in the 1-6 is quite different from that in Z254.

In addition, as you can see in Z255, the angle of JFK's face is not the such that it would coordinate with the area in the 1-6 with the small reflection of JBC.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Miller,Dec 24 2004, 03:00 AM

I don't know who generally accepts that both JFK's fist were still clinched in Z254, Z255, and Z256. As a matter of fact it is generally accepted that his index finger is extended in Altgens 6 which matches Z255 and this is how the experts arrived at that conclusion...

What is your cite for that statement?  Even so, that still begs the question that the shape and angle of what you are referencing in the 1-6 is quite different from that in Z254.

In addition, as you can see in Z255, the angle of JFK's face is not the such that it would coordinate with the area in the 1-6 with the small reflection of JBC. 

Pamela

I have heard that information in several circles and presentatations thoughtout the JFK community. I have discussed with Robert Groden, Gary Mack, and others in the past. Had I of not spoken to anyone, I would have known what frame it matched by referencing the index finger position. Page 312 of Richard trask book "Pictures of the Pain" says that Z255 equates with Altgens 6.

I personally think you are making several mistakes. One is that you are not reading the perspective differences between Altgens and Zapruder's positions very well. Secondly you keep referring to what you see in Z255 and it's little more than blurred mud. You'll have to stand alone on your beliefs that Kennedy is not positioned correctly in Z255 to match Altgens #6 photo. Sometime if you have the chance - position someone as you see them from in front of your car as seen in Altgens 6 photo. Then have them remain like that while you get up on a tall ladder or a hill and look down at them from the same angle Zapruder did and you should find that both postures match A6 and Z255.

Attachment one shows the second frame (Z255) is mud. The face becomes blurred, the finger all but vanishes.

Attachment two shows the body change between Z254 and Z256 by removing the bad frame (Z255)

Attachment three shows the finger point - no closed left fist at that point.

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Study the index finger position carefully. Note when the top of the hand is almost even with the mouth and compare that to Altgens photograph.

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This in no way resembles what you say. Nor is anything analogous to the Altgens. In addition, the small reflection of JBC is clearly in front of whatever it is you think you're seeing. There is little to see other than reflections and Jackie's gloves.

Pamela ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As though DVP has made any sort of a cogent argument to refute my thesis that there is no "SBT", but instead merely different SB scenarios which the WC defenders lamely attempt to lump together...:-0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×