Martin Hinrichs

Yes, I agree, Martin, it's just that I spent so much time with Frank and others looking at the Nix in Missing Nix Frames, reworking and reworking that then led on to other things, ultimately some speculations and then a divergence as I focused on Muchmore, which I DO think has been altered more than any other film and when used with Dons plat creates some irreconcilable problems, it was here I found three areas each correct, but not joined together as in a traversing equipment error until I found out that it's from three sections taped together by Jack and given to Don as its basis. So I'm sucpicious of Muchmore, and must be sucpicious of any past work on it using what I think are flawed fundaments...anyway, back at the ranch, it's a great gif, I see things I hadn't seen before, and we did encounter the same problem with interlaced frames (Solved by Frank with all the material we ended up using.) and there is also an alignment error, but it doesn't detract from the basic point you make, it's good enough, in fact, for the purpose, the best I've seen. Sorry, I can get picky.

Thanks John.

I see you've analyzed it carefully and your critic is well deserved.

Please be picky. It helps to get things better.

My next Gif will be without interlaced issues.

And thank you for your kind words.

best to you

Martin

Thanks for that,

I was wondering if that black slotch that appears in the last frame in front of Hill's face, is that debre from JFK's head or a splotch on the film?

BK

Thank you Bill.

This blotch is a damage of this frame and appeared in every Nix film i'am aware of.

I obtained this frames from Groden's "Case of conspiracy". Some of this frames are interlaced.

I recognized it first as the Gif was stabilzed. Thats the reason why this Gif shivers in some frames.

But i thought for this purpose (Chaney) it's good enough, John Dolva.

Duncan's forum is flooded with LN'er.

That's not true Martin.

I think it will become the first LN'er forum ever.

Hell will freeze over before I ever let that happen, and besides, the Poll below suggests otherwise

Duncan, flooded is maybe not the best word. Sorry.

But it is in comparison to other forums the one with most LN'er, which is not bad at all.

It cause motivation and traffic.

Let's see what the future will tell us.

best to you

Martin

Chaney stated that the shots came from over his right shoulder.

Yes, yes i know you believe Oswald did it. No problem.

Duncan's forum is flooded with LN'er. I think it will become the first LN'er forum ever.

I've talked daily based with LN'er over there and thats OK.

Some of them are even comrades. Talked to them in chattings.

What i recommend you is to get a bit more personal.

Talk to people. Get a bit off topic. Call them by their names.

No need to be emotional. Just talk to them.

Martin

Note that after the headshot Chaney turns his head to the right, and possibly even the right rear and upwards.

Sure, i know what you mean Todd.

Keep in mind he possibly turned to his right to make sure what his mate (Jackson) was doing.

Or he reacted to a shot from the rear. (thats what you mean) 1 out of four so far.

Martin

Even with the risk to get blamed but i don't know what the problem is.

Officer Chaney was riding the right flank of the presidential limousine.

He was the one next to Kennedy during the motorcade until Dealey Plaza, always slightely behind him.

On his right side was Officer Douglas Jackson riding.

Chaney had one thing in common with Officer Hargis...both wearing dark sunglasses.

Police Officer Martin riding on the left to Hargis did one thing that every Officer flanking the presidential limousine did....he slowed down after the headshot..

But instead of stopping, he accelerated to follow the SS-100-X.

Not so Officer Hargis. As we all know Hargis stopped his motorcycle to get onto the grassy knoll, examine this area briefly and went off.

Officer Martin pursuing the SS-100-X is obviously seen here in Bell:

In this McIntire photo he is again visible riding on the south side of Elm.

He is also recognizable in the Daniel film.

Whether it is Chaney or Jackson in this McIntire photo on the left is unknown to me.

The aftermath film and photos wont give an answer as far as i know.

All what i can say is that Chaney braked down a bit more after the fatal headshot than Jackson.

Who accelerated first to follow the president is speculative.

I would say Chaney because of his testimony.

Martin

Hi Craig,

I don't see Jackie actually put her hand on the back of his head and push the hair up. I see her start to place her hand on the back of his head, hesitate, then place her hand down lower ... on his neck. At the same time, she has that horrified look on her face as she seems to be looking right at the back of his head, where the hair is all frizzy and oddly ruffled. That is the area where Parkland reported seeing a gaping wound, and as McClelland noted, part of the parietal bone and part of the occipital bone were fractured and sprung open. Parkland reported a gaping wound that they could see into, not that some large part of the back of his head was sheared off. He had a lot of hair and I think that gaping wound was down in there in that frizzed up hair we see. I think Jackie saw that bones sprung open gaping wound as she was about to place her hand there .... and thus the "O" of her mouth and haunting look as she looks right at it.

Up close and personal like, as they saw it at Parkland, and with JFK then on his back and rescusitative actions taken place, they would have been able to see brain in and oozing out of the wound they described. As we see on the Z film, and as some witnesses reported at the time, the right side of his skull burst open and with that force came a good portion of the contents of his head.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Hi Barb.

Here is the relevant sequence of Jackies arm/hand movement.

Frames 327-339. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to stable the entire sequence smooth because there

is some horrible Camera motion blur in some frames.

Her hand lasted for 9 frames on his back. So, half of a second.

It appears to me that most parts of her hand (expect the thumb) moved on the upper part of his shoulder/neck area.

At the end of the sequence her hand glitched/moved slightely forward and then back.

BTW, fine descreption about the Parkland witnesses.

best to you

Martin

EDIT: Thank you Jack.

I see the shape of JFK's head. Thats what you asked for, correct?

And thats the problem C.Lamson.

Your shape has almost nothing to do with reality.

Well if my shape has nothing to do with reality , then yours is wrong as well since they are the same except for the area of the top of the head which YOU skip...M.H. FAIL

Here in this Gif below we can see the shape of JFK's head at Zapruder frame 337.

Let us compare this Gif with that what you have done to the image (ouch)

Lets see, exactly as mine except you missed the top of his head. OUCH indeed M.H. FAIL

In my outline is a part of Kennedy's forehead intentionelly not included.

This portions can be seen in particular in frames 326-330. Whether this is actually hair or brain tissue hanging out of the cranium

has to be further examined. I tend to say the latter.

Lets see, exactly as yours except you missed the top of his head. OUCH indeed M.H. FAIL

In this Zapruder frames below we can clearly see a damage at the top of Kennedy's head.

Portions of his cranium at this location was simply gone. You included this area to his head. C.L. Error

Sorry to burst your bubble there Martin, but the section of JFK's head you declined to outline in your lax drawing is actuallly there, regardless of the content (complete head or not) Its still PART of the shape of his head. Thats what you asked for, and I provided. Again Epic fail M.H.

It's pretty clear by now this is no longer about trying you trying to prove your point that the area in question is hair or a blowout, but rather your attempt (and epic fail) to disect my rough outline of JFK's head.

Fine, you draw better outlines than I do.

OH wait, you screwed yours up too. Sheesh you FAIL at that too!

We don't have to discuss the face of JFK in your work. Your lax outline is nowhere near to reality. C.L Error

Well good since the face had ZERO to do with the subject at hand. M.H EPIC FAIL

You guessed the lower back of JFK's head overpainting Jackies white glove. This part is not visible to the camera and therefore hidden.

Well you can guess. Let me use your words: Believe/feeling is no proof.

No I do not "guess at all. I simply did as you told and viewed the surrounding frames. Those frames show quite clearly the section of JFK's head under the gloved hand. You asked for the shape of JFK's head. I gave you the shape of the top and back of JFK's head..(the area under discussion if you recall). That shape INCLUDES the area under her glove. I don't have to guess his head is there, I can SEE it in the previous frames. M.H. MAJOR EPIC FAIL at his own directions. OUCH!

Step by step? Sheesh, lets just get on with it, no need to drag it out over a bunch of posts. Post it all and be done with it.

You want to dictate the tempo of my research and when i have to post???? Guess what the answer is.....

I don't know what you do the whole time. I have a company with serious work to do. You apparently not.

I can say what I please and you can respond as you please. However your "response" is a major failure.

I hope Ray has some patience, I have very little for you. Post your stuff and get on with it...

Well, when in China a rice sack topple or you made statements like this....has the same effect to me.

Nice analogy. You work here is worth about a sack of rice or less. Now you want to attempt to actually prove it's not hair.....

Now Martin, How can you discount the fact that the area in question slowly, with the passage of time and the forward movement of the head becomes more exposed to the direct rays of the sun?

Oh Craig my charming dear,

i made my standpoint clear, providing relevant evidence why i analyized the image as i did. Conclusive and rational.

Your answer appears to be rather an emotional reaction (i've seen your unedited version) than a constructive response.

Repeating special wordings is a good indicator for that.

I don't know whether you are unwilling to examine my work logical, you are limited to understand the photographic evidence,

you have problems with your glasses or can't admit mistakes. I don't know.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

From what i read on this forum, i don't think i exaggerate to say you have a good knowledge about the technique aspects

of cameras.

This is a standard routine of a professional photographer.

On the other hand (you as a professional photographer) it's sad to see how limited your understanding of the photographic evidence in the JFK assassination sometimes is.

If you don't got it yet (or unwilling to get it), i can't help you.

As i said, i made my standpoint clear (Post #93) and you have stated your point of view.

I'll let judge the forum members and all the frequent anonymous visitors who is right and who is wrong.

I'am not just for you here Craig and have zero interests in endless boring races (which have seen so often in the past on various forums).

**************************************

I'am open for any constructive discussion/study with all the other forum members for sure.

Martin

I see the shape of JFK's head. Thats what you asked for, correct?

And thats the problem C.Lamson.

Your shape has almost nothing to do with reality.

Here in this Gif below we can see the shape of JFK's head at Zapruder frame 337.

Let us compare this Gif with that what you have done to the image (ouch)

In my outline is a part of Kennedy's forehead intentionelly not included.

This portions can be seen in particular in frames 326-330. Whether this is actually hair or brain tissue hanging out of the cranium

has to be further examined. I tend to say the latter.

In this Zapruder frames below we can clearly see a damage at the top of Kennedy's head.

Portions of his cranium at this location was simply gone. You included this area to his head. C.L. Error

We don't have to discuss the face of JFK in your work. Your lax outline is nowhere near to reality. C.L Error

You guessed the lower back of JFK's head overpainting Jackies white glove. This part is not visible to the camera and therefore hidden.

Well you can guess. Let me use your words: Believe/feeling is no proof.

Step by step? Sheesh, lets just get on with it, no need to drag it out over a bunch of posts. Post it all and be done with it.

You want to dictate the tempo of my research and when i have to post???? Guess what the answer is.....

I don't know what you do the whole time. I have a company with serious work to do. You apparently not.

I hope Ray has some patience, I have very little for you. Post your stuff and get on with it...

Well, when in China a rice sack topple or you made statements like this....has the same effect to me.

Hi Raymond

Thank you Martin (I DO have more patience than Craig).

Thank you.

Earlier I asked: How come, if this is a blowout wound, we see NO SIGN of blood or brain tissue?

To be honest Ray, i never really understood why people believe that this damaged part of JFK's head

had to be red. It appears to me while studying particular frames that even in frame 314 (where we should see minimum portions of the brain) no sign of red blood is visible. It's looks rather brownish than redish even in frame 314. Please compare below the top of the head with the red roses we can see in Z#320.

Let me also add another question: If this is a REAL blowout wound, how come it is nowhere near where the Parkland witnesses remembered seeing a wound?

I gathered some WC testimonies from witnesses at Parkland for you.

I've included Clint Hill.

Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound?

Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput?

Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound ?

Dr. JONES. There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this

wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?

Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON. He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. Specter.

You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.

Mr. Specter.

And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. Specter.

How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON. I just saw one large hole.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume Arlen Specter getting blister while hearing this.

What all of them describe is the damage we can also see in this autopsie photographs.

Parts of JFK's face are visible and also the top (from front to back) of his head are visible.

Some parts are a mix of brain and hair.

What we see in the later Zapruder frames is this damage. The quality of this the Zapruder film in general is unfortunately too bad to see all that details.

best to you

Martin

I'm quite aware of what I have done Martin, I did as you asked.

So far so good.

I outlined the shape of JFK''s head (worrying about only the back since that is the area in question).

Ah, i see that you realize the problems.

So I take it you have a problem.

I don't have a problem, i see only errors in your sketch.

Why not just get on with it.

I do. Step by step.

You afraid for some reason? (that backyard thing would make me afraid if I was you...)

I can ensure you, i'am not afraid. Please stay on Topic.

There is another Topic where your last point belongs to. Ask over there.

So Craig, next step.

Pay attention to the red arrow.

What do we see in the area, where you see parts of JFK's head?

Raymond, i will come back to your questions.

The reason i did not yet, is Craig Lamson's divertion tactics (as we can see all over here).

I hope you understand.

Thanks for your patience.

Martin

At least the back of it, I've not attempted to fully define the face area.

You won't be wasting you time like you did with your failed backyard photo study. This time you are actually gonna learn how sunlight works in the real world, not a 3d model...

Craig, it's really hard to begin and i don't know how to start. /o\

Look what you have done to the image...../o\ /o\

I don't know whether you are joking or not.

I see you wear glasses in your avatar. How long is it ago you've visited your optician?

Your eyes may suffered over the time watching often on the screen.

This is no joke. I mean this serious.

Sorry, it's hard to take you serious anymore (just in case you are not joking)

I'am posting your image a bit larger again for everybody (incl. you) to see.

Martin

Thank you, Martin. The bottom image is excellent and clearly contradicts earlier frames in which the wound is painted over in black. I have asked Jack if he could post pages 357, 358, 359, and 360 from "Dealey Plaza Revisited", which place this image in perspective in relation to the witness reports and David Mantik's studies of the autopsy X-rays, which illustrate several points.

Thank you Jim.

Thank you Martin for your contributions this below also posted above was done by bill miller he came to your conclusion also..though i think yours is clearer but thanks also to his work...two heads and all that...best b..

Thank you Bernice. Bill has a good eye.

Martin

Sure Martin...And if you go back to say 325 and step forward you can see the highlight on JKF's head move up and around as his head goes forward and down...all in perfect sync with the position of sun...

Craig:

You say all what we see inside your orange outline represents the head shape of John F. Kennedy's head after the final bullet impact??

I got a bitter sense, i'am going to waste my time.....again.

Uh Martin I did and the Shape on his head behaves as it should for it to be a highlight....

Show you study Craig.

Please draw an outline of JFK's head.

Really?

Really.

And you rule out it being a rimlight of sunshine exactly how?

Follow the shapes of JFK's head and you will realize it.

I'll give you a hint: Study the frames before and after and pay attention to Jackies black collar.

Martin

What we see in Z#frame 337 is cleary a damage of the rear of JFK's head.

This is what Clint Hill described.

I outlined and tinted that shape.

What you see is postwork made by me.

Martin

''Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?''Please See pages 357 through 360 of chapter 30 here:for further studies...fyi b

http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf

Thank you Bernice for all that Pictures.

I found a good enlargement of frame 374 in the PDF file you have uploaded.

I copied it and attached it below. I hope thats OK with you and Jim Fetzer.

At last a crop from frame 359.

Credit: Robin Unger

Martin

Martin...thanks for the excellent frames, which I looked at one at a time.

Thank you for your kind words, Jack.

1. The exact frame can be seen when Mary Moorman removes the camera from her face.

Thats for sure. It's very obvious.

2. The wind was blowing strongly from the WEST, because both Mary's and Jean's coats

are flapping EASTward. This is contrary to previous reports saying the wind was from the

north.

True, there was a gusty wind in DP that day.

I noticed a while ago in Altgens 5 and other movies that the wind was coming from the opposite direction.

Take a look at the black flag on the SS-100-X please.

The only rational explanation i have is....the wind whirled between the tall buildings.

Martin

Hi Martin,

Process used:

Photoshop Layered

Used wall and steps for stabilization

Set for 0 delay between all frames.

Converted to gif in Photoshop.

chris

Thanks Chris.

We do almost the same.

But i use Ulead Gif Animator to create a Gif file.

There is an option to control the speed called Delay. You can apply it via 1/100th of a second.

The Muchmore film runs at 18.5 seconds per frame.

So, 1:18.5= 0.054 seconds between each frame.

This Gif is in realtime:

Unfortunately i used not all frames.

I shall do it to show what i mean.

Martin

Jerry and all,

Does the limo slowdown before the headshot?

http://98.155.2.255:8400/EC971/Muchmore2.gif

thanks

chris

Chris, it slowed down before the headshot. No doubt.

Are you sure all frames in your Gif running at same speed and in realtime?

Thank you

Martin

This is the best I can do on an image of a young Ron Lewis:

To me, Lewis's nose looks broader than the nose on the other man.

BTW, not to unduly influence anybody - I don't believe much, if any, of Lewis's account.

Thank you Stephen!

This is not too far away from the young man seen here.

I tweaked that image a bit if you don't mind.

Martin

Sure, Martin, I was going to post it but forgot to save it.

Meesofts Image Analyzer has a 3D plugin. If you take the original image and make a copy of it and transform it to a grayscale you then have a ''depth map'', also called Z buffer, where on the 2D image the Z axis is the 256 step gradations of the grayscale values. Use this grayscale as the Z map for the plugin with the original image as texture. Play around with scaling, rendering (gourade and points are good. You can zoom in and out to a very large degree, turn the 3D ''map'' and enable see back, change illumination, reflectivity, ambient light and direction from which illimination comes from. (It's only about 1.4 Mb and free, with some of the other plugins postcardware, donation, help ware.)

Yes, the shape's in the other frames too. The head lowers as if ducking down. I was hoping you'd use your skills in (oh, I forgot, image analyzer in the tools edit etc has some very useful features for changing, enhancing a wide range of image values, after each change, the settings remain till you change them, so you can apply a uniform gamma change for example) aligning and gif production (particularly like the way you smoothed movements with changing layer opacity, I hope you don't mind if I use the same method in the future) as my time is limited and I've done so much of that stuff I'm a bit sick of the whole process at the moment.

The Image isn't rotated, but well spotted. I judged the blur smear and assumed it to be camera movement, took one of the gif layers and (after zooming in with the 3D plugin, but set the scale to 0, switched off all lighting, reflection applied gouraud and snapshotted. Then cropped and fiddled with values.) and resized the width only, as the blurs seem nearly horizontal. (actually this brings to mind my blur analysis of a few years ago as a way of determining velocity ( but for some reason I kept coming up with values about twice what it should be, and without help shelved it for the future ). If the Limo is sharp then we have camera blur in the back ground which occurs over a fixed exposure time, so knowing that, one can attempt to work out how fast the camera was panning and knowing location of photographer, or using the as yet hypothesised universal formula (Nix Frame topic) for working out exactly how far from an object a photographer is, know the arc the camera went through based on the blur and then know the velocity of the Limo.) I roughly guessed it and stepped down the resizing to where, if it's a camera motion blurred object, it, to that extent, shapes it back to what it should be.

Naturally then the angle of the top of the retaining wall changes. (I suppose a uniform paralell vertical skew could be applied). Anyway, then with a batch of them a gif might be interesting to see.

EDIT : typos

Thank you for that detailed explanation John.

I heard from that tool and played with it many months ago. But i've never heard about that 3D Plugin.

So, i've downloaded the newest version (1.31?) and the 3D Plugin as well.

I tried to follow your instructions but was til now without success.

But to be honest i spend not very much time (which is always limited) yet.

I will play around with it the other day and see if i can achieve something.

If you have some time[anytime] (with your skills on this tool) i would be more than happy if you could do the same with

let's say 3-4 subsequent Nix frames. I can do a stable Gif out of it.

(particularly like the way you smoothed movements with changing layer opacity, I hope you don't mind if I use the same method in the future)

Absolutely no problem John.

best to you

Martin

Not quite, a 3D oblique image of a z-buffer with the image as texture clearly shows there are numerous gradients, hues, to the ''black''.

...

By deblurring and increasing gamma, a possible image of the back of a person appears...frame 6

Thank you John.

Can you probably describe it how you've done it (software)?

And are you able to locate that shape in another frame too?

(Your crop looks somehow rotated)

best to you

Martin

Any chance this thread will go back "On Topic" sometime in the near future.

Nix film frames 50-60 stable blowup

Thanks my friend.

A problem of the Nix film is, it shows all parts in shadow are literally invisible. Means black.

I see no other solution that this movement is human activity ore caused by it.

But most parts behind the cement wall (call it what ever you like....doesn't matter) are in shadow.

Here an illustration which parts are in shadow and therefore invisible in the Nix film.

This moving appears to me also very linear.

Martin