Martin Hinrichs

View the image I posted and learn to become a more intelligent human being Martin. Then perhaps you will understand what is wrong with your gif above is the person who created it.

You already dropped to my shadowing of "to take serious persons" Craig.

Sorry, i will publish my work when it's done exactly when i think it's done and follow

zero rule of any request.

Let it say that way, you have to thank my clients thats it's not already done.

I know what you did with your camera, your lenses and your applications. The public deservers the answers too.

Meanwhile i will try to give an inspiraton.

It's not your music taste but the words are important:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTfZXh427B0

Martin

Martin,

I agree that Connally was taller than JFK, and I absolutely agree that Myers plays "fast and loose" with his data but in this case his representation of the different heights of the two me in the car appear correct.

Hi James

When see the whole turnaround in 3D in the shows you will face that Connally is always a midget and JFK has a shoulder blade like Schwarzenegger.

This is not a mistake.

The croft image, taken a couple of seconds before the assassination began, has them both positioned similar to how Myers also has. Even when you take into account the 3.9º degree slope of Elm Street

Connally is still siting lower than JFK.

The slope on Elm differs from 3.3 to 3.5° degree on Elm. The more towards the triple underpass, the lower at some point.

Well, Croft is taken at an angle and not orthogonal like the Screenshot i provided from Myers.

I'am 3D artist since 1992 and know what i'am talking about.

Myers is free to join this forum and is able to answer. He did not.

But he should be aware that i'am going to publish his work on all well known international 3D Forums

with a Poll.

Although Myers is wrong about many aspects of what takes place in the car, maybe he has the relative heights correct.

Realtive, very relative. In most cases incorrcet.

Connally was sitting lower but his body was taller a bit. There is no room to neglect it.

And JFK was not a hunchback as Myers illustrated.

The sidewiew i showed was not the only "mistake".

In German: Wir können es aufdröseln bis ins kleinste, er hat betrogen. Das steht fest.

My best to you

Martin

Sigh.....

Read this and learn to become a better human, Craig.

http://skdesigns.com/internet/articles/quotes/williamson/our_deepest_fear/

Martin

What is wrong? Watching a Dale Meyers' animation of the JFK assassination is like watching NORAD track Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Interesting and colorful but don't necessarily believe the lone nutter baloney/cartoon propaganda that Meyers always pushes.

It is pretty clear: what Meyers is doing in this little example is depicting John Connally, a 6'4" man, who was taller and physically bigger than John Kennedy, as cartoon character who is smaller and shorter than John Kennedy. I think this example speaks to the broader non-quality of Meyers's work and theories.

Not just this. It's not a non-quality (I dislike it to it call work) obfcuscation.

It is betraying with full intention which makes it clear that Myers is not hesitate to betray without any morality.

Not hesitate to receive an Emmy award for "that".

It tells a lot about this person.

Martin

Pat,

Thanks for your answer. Let me ask you: where are your main concerns with Dale Mayers computer recreations?

I'am not talking for Pat, but i believe were are on eye to eye to that.

John Connally was a bit taller then JFK.

Now look at this Myers illustration

What is wrong here?

Martin

Let's stay with this one bullet, OK. Is it possible that the trajectory was not a straight line, downwards?

Thanks for your responce Glenn.

To your question: a simple "no". Not in a straight downwards line.

best

Martin

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

No Glenn, the SBT is already history like Big foot or Nessie to go the extreme comparisons.

To me the whole discussion about it is meanwhile boring.

best

Martin

Sometimes it's boring to observe the old odd disscussion over here.

Game play as it can be.

But this Research from you Mark, Lee and Greg is educating.

Thank you very much for taken the time.

Neely Street 214 is very important

Martin

As distasteful as it is for me to support Craig Lamson, we cannot honestly compare the images

But Lamson's correct...until we take perspective into consideration, ANY comparison is moot.

You are correct Mark.

Perspective is your friend...IF you understand it.

I take a sword for you Craig.

Perspective is important to understand the photographic evidence.

Martin

Hi Martin.

I was never intending to try to overlay exactly one image onto the other, as you say, that would be nearly inpossible as the two images were not taken from the same angle, height etc:

The two NARA images have not been resized, or angle adjusted in any way.

What i did do, is move one image layer across the top of the other, until the two bullit holes aligned

the GIF above was the result.

Cheers.

Robin

I know Robin.

As i said, the whole idea to overlay the two images is great.

best to you my friend

Martin

Edit: After re-reading some passages again i'am a bit confused.

It is my understanding that Pat meant the backwound of the "head".

I believe it's Pat's theory the JFK was hit once in the head from behind.

Surely, i believe the vast majority of blood on the clothes does come from the head wound

and not the wound in the back of JFK.

Martin

I am sure that Jim Garrison made a few enemies among all sorts of folk .But how many of his convictions were overturned due to his "crookedness"?. Perhaps we could compare it to other DA"s like............Wade .Which one had the scruples?.

I always thought Garrison was depicted as a hero before he became a D.A?.

what was the perception of Garrison before the trial?.

If you cannot refute his evidence attack him .Thats innovative and still works today !

Ian

Hi Ian, sure Jim Garrison was pretty much alone during the trial.

Almost ervery CT'er left him after that. Even Mark Lane laughed after it.

I don't know that much about this fellow Clay Shaw and what is fiction or not.

I was informed by Gary Mack that Clay Shaw's life was ruined after that trial.

If that is true, i have trouble with Garrison.

Do i know the truth: Certainly not. I was not there.

Mhh, i have the Garrison tapes here on video and can say that i raised may eyebrow more then once.

He exaggerated i believe but in the end he was right. It was a conspiracy.

Too much victims he stepped over. But as you said perfect:

Compare him with Henry Wade.

How many death convictions? How many were wrong? How many people died because of his character.

I make it simple: A world without Wade would be have been a better one.

best to you

Martin

Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF )

Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat

Now, thats interesting Robin.

To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but

it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great.

I would never have this idea i believe.

The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures)

You raise (again) interesting questions.

best to you

Martin

A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap.

Possible Pat.

I'am no expert in blood traces in clothes.

Was just a thought.

best to you

Martin

I have no control over what he posts, or the time it takes him to do it.

Sometimes i believe you have no control over your postings, Mike. Mhh

Why is that Martin?

I simply wanted others take on Garrison.

Let me try to explain Mike.

Excuse me to take a swing.

Some but few researchers here know each other in person from meetings in DP or elsewhere

but the vast majority is anonymous.

As an anonymous Poster on the Internet, your Reputation is all you have.

In particular here some threads were read 1000'es times from many people. I believe more then

on any other Forum.

As a neutral observer i see often the same negative empty and heartless platitude from you.

Here a little taster from this thread:

• Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long
  
• Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that
  
• Garrison was nothing more than a corrupt DA. He appears quite unstable mentally, and in fact if I were to be one to believe in reincarnation, he does seem a bit like Jimmy D himself in this regard.
  
• The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.
  

I don't want copy tasters from Duncan's forum over here. You know.....

Quantity is not quality. Ok, that was flat but true.

I mean at some point, when people have read enough from a person, they take him/she not serious anymore.

I hope you take this not as offense but as a hint from me.

Martin

Martin,

No offense taken my friend. I only post what I find and have interest in. I simply offer my view and ask others for theirs.

Not completely true, my friend. If you take a good look in a mirror I suspect you'll realize that you used to enjoy sharing ideas, but now mostly enjoy insulting people. Why does it have to be "Garrison's a nutcase, who built his case on nothing!" Which you KNOW isn't true. Why can't it be "I beg to differ with Jim DiEugenio; I'm just not convinced Garrison was rational or sincere"?

In my diagnosis, you've been bitten by the LN bug. Once bitten, the victim has a hard time accepting new ideas, and promoting fresh arguments, but delights instead in cutting and pasting bits of info from scared LN texts, many of which are completely out of date, or have since been discredited. Once bitten by this bug one's demeanor becomes nasty; often, in extreme cases, the victim froths at the moth and spews bile. Of course, Bugliosi is just a foreign word for bug.

There's a CT bug, too, of course. But that's another matter.

Surely you've explained it better then me Pat.

I wish i would have a better english.

Martin

Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF )

Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat

Now, thats interesting Robin.

To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but

it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great.

I would never have this idea i believe.

The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures)

You raise (again) interesting questions.

best to you

Martin

I have no control over what he posts, or the time it takes him to do it.

Sometimes i believe you have no control over your postings, Mike. Mhh

Why is that Martin?

I simply wanted others take on Garrison.

Let me try to explain Mike.

Excuse me to take a swing.

Some but few researchers here know each other in person from meetings in DP or elsewhere

but the vast majority is anonymous.

As an anonymous Poster on the Internet, your Reputation is all you have.

In particular here some threads were read 1000'es times from many people. I believe more then

on any other Forum.

As a neutral observer i see often the same negative empty and heartless platitude from you.

Here a little taster from this thread:

• Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long
  
• Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that
  
• Garrison was nothing more than a corrupt DA. He appears quite unstable mentally, and in fact if I were to be one to believe in reincarnation, he does seem a bit like Jimmy D himself in this regard.
  
• The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.
  

I don't want copy tasters from Duncan's forum over here. You know.....

Quantity is not quality. Ok, that was flat but true.

I mean at some point, when people have read enough from a person, they take him/she not serious anymore.

I hope you take this not as offense but as a hint from me.

Martin

I have no control over what he posts, or the time it takes him to do it.

Sometimes i believe you have no control over your postings, Mike. Mhh

Thank you, Martin. You should know that I always appreciate the acuteness of your posts. Anything further on your work concerning the damage to the limo's windshield?

JT

Thank you Josiah!

The windshield...yes i do recall it.

In Altgens 6. Wasn't it?

Til today i have no logical explanation for this image irritation but i can be wrong with my guess that this

is a bullet damage. I've spend a lot of time and found no solution.

It's still in the same place as in Altgens 7 (the bullet damage) but thats not enough.

It can have another logical solution (in the background).

I don't know.

Thank you for adding me as as friend.

best to you

Martin

Dear Josiah,

i've seen the posting's you made and discover integrity and honesty.

To admit a few errors is to me a great strenght an not a flaw.

That happen not often in the JFK research.

I think it's important for you to know that some little younger reseacher notice this very well.

By the way: "Six seconds in Dallas" was for me (i'am having mostly interest's in the photographic evidence)

one of the most captivating books i've read. For the record, i've read just some 30 books.

Please go on your own way. We are following your words.

My respect and my very best to you

Martin

I have posted on many forums over the years that i consider the HSCA back of the head photo as bogus.

It doesn't align with any of the other autopsy photo's.

Sometimes it's frightening how close we both are when it goes to the photograhic evidence, Robin.

I come many many months ago independent to exact the same conclusion.

I don't know when exactly this Bogus photos appeared for the first time and i don't like to talk

about alteration but:

i don't know who this person is with the serious damage at the right front of his head.

I can't see his face.

They are contradicting strictly the photographic evidence. I'am certain of it.

best to you

Martin

Martin""We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted."" Martin;; AGREED; the uploading of photos continues to fail.for moi....Martin could you perhaps, if it will take for you, post the photo of the witnesses from parkland, doctors nurses etc, placing their hands where they saw the head wound, they show their hands on the Back right hand side...many thanks, take care best b

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.......thanks best b

Thanks Bernice.

We have unfortunately to rely on the overwhelming witness reports from Parkland.

I'am not aware of any existant photo showing the devastating wounds of JFKs's head at Parkland.

They may never been shot or been covered.

Dr. Boswell's drawings at a real comparable skull at Bethesda-Marine-Hospital fo the NARA is maybe the best source

to see what happend to JFK's head.

It confirms the photographic evidence.

Credit to John Hunt. Great guy.

My very best to you

Martin

thanks Martin, how come you can post photos??, i cannot neither can Jack, darn and i have zillions of space left for doing so,but all fail, anyway, thank you, there are no photos showing wounds from parkland, though there is the old story that some were taken, but never have appeared, the photo, is the very old one, posted a zillion times, showing the witnesses from parkland, placng theirs hands on the back of their heads, where the hole was that they saw, it shows small photos of all, compiled into one photo, i thought you would have it, anyway it does show them holding their hands on the back right hand side of their heads, as you posted......i will try one more time to upload a photo, but that and that's a big but.. .carry on, thanks...b;) no good, it did not upload.so ..for now...

Bernice, i use http://photobucket.com/ or Imageshack for posting images: http://imageshack.us/

I prefer Photobucket.

I understand because of the bandwith that internal upload of images is still too complex for the hosters of a forum.

Give Photobucket a try. It's worthwhile. I can assisting you.

best to you

Martin

Martin""We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted."" Martin;; AGREED; the uploading of photos continues to fail.for moi....Martin could you perhaps, if it will take for you, post the photo of the witnesses from parkland, doctors nurses etc, placing their hands where they saw the head wound, they show their hands on the Back right hand side...many thanks, take care best b

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.......thanks best b

Thanks Bernice.

We have unfortunately to rely on the overwhelming witness reports from Parkland.

I'am not aware of any existant photo showing the devastating wounds of JFKs's head at Parkland.

They may never been shot or been covered.

Dr. Boswell's drawings at a real comparable skull at Bethesda-Marine-Hospital fo the NARA is maybe the best source

to see what happend to JFK's head.

It confirms the photographic evidence.

Credit to John Hunt. Great guy.

My very best to you

Martin

No problem, Martin.

Do you mean this long thread where I claimed that Rick's shooter behind the fence is probably a car?

The Nix Parking Lot

Cheers

Duncan

Sure, that was it, Duncan.

Blame me for what, Martin?

Refresh my memory please, as I don't remember ever having a conversation with you about the greyish area that can be seen in these frames.

I mean the Nix film conversation, Duncan.

I blamed you for that somehow i admit.

Martin

the side of the head not the back of the head that shows red.

I'am wondering why so many professional reseachers got it wrong.

I'am not picking you in particular Josiah but Duncan was for enough time my target and will not blame him again.

JFK's head is not a cube.

What we see in the unaltered Zapruder film is a human rounded head which is captured slightely from behind at Z372-375.

We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted.

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.

No offense but it's very obvious.

My very best to you

Martin