Martin Hinrichs

Here is the sequence in slowmotion: I never noticed the lady walking behind Croft. She turned her head to the left in the last frame. Linda Willis also visible, still standing. best Martin

Thank you Robin. Rosemary turned her head pretty often during her run, but not at that time. best to you Martin Edit: Here a closeup of Hickey's head turn within a tenth of a second. Frames 196+198 (197 is too blurry)

Hi David. I second that what Bill have told above. Emmett Hudson was standing exactly on the same step as the younger man (as we can see in Nix, Muchmore&Moorman) and this steps are perfectly orthogonal at an 90° angle to Willis camera. It is more than likely that Hudson is simply hidden by the younger man. Also, imagine a scenario: Hudson, at the inner edge of the retaining wall (without his hat) decided to go down to the steps as the SS-100-X re-appeared behind the Stemmons freeway sign on Elm. There is no need to hurry. He has to take care of the steps and he don't want to miss the president. Hudson, almost 60 would need more than 10 seconds if you ask me. best to you Martin

Excellent question Robin. Hickey turned his head rapidly at the same time Zapruder shaked his arms at 197-198. Here you go: best Martin

I'am relieved everything is alright, John. We are just humans. Can happen. No problem. Thanks for you honesty and by the way a very nice Muchmore sequence. Yes, i understand the layer opacity technique. I use it for a quite a time too. I limit the number of layers to 3, cause when you create a GIF with 10 layer or even more for each picture.. the file size would explode. Here i stabled frames 223-238 using this technique. 33%/66%/100% for each layer melting with the previous. Crop concentrating on the windshield. I hope thats what you are looking for. It's 7.5MB in size. I can't use more layers cause 10MB is the Upload limit in Photobucket. best to you

Now you lost me John. I tell the truth about Myers. I'am not responsible that the truth is that shaby. The next time you ask for my opinion, i better say nothing. best Martin

John, it was not my intention to offend you in any way. I stated just my opinion because you've asked for. That's it. I do not know if i'am right. I always wondered why you and your senior partner Dale K. Myers leaves out the fact that John F. Kennedy made an ultra quick headsnap at Zapruder frame 158. Meanwhile i know it. A shot from the TSBD sniper nest before Z#158 is providing a clean view. Nothing in the way. No branch, no leafe. No obstacle to deflect any bullet whatsoever to the Tague position except the wind. What Myers and you do is cherry picking. Pick the good cherries in the basket, throw the rot cherries in the pit. That's not enough for Myers. In this video he let the first shot happen at ~Z170 to let the lemmings believe.....huh it might could hit the tree. What a fraud!

I propably misinterpret what you and David mean, John? Here is frame 232: Can you guide me to the point of interest? Thx Martin

John, there are a lot of cracks and little splices in this enhanced version. I tend to say that this are just film anomalies. Thank you for your kind words. Martin

John, here frame 224 a bit larger. Click for full size. Jim, thats interesting. I never heard from Mili Cranor.. Martin

Thanks Jim. Yes it must be, since we all know that the SBT (except from a few nuts) is a complete hogwash. Frames 223-225 I've read the silly theory that JFK's mouth, which is already wide open in Z#225, was closed as he was behind the sign. A kind of millisecond reaction cause at Z#223 has nothing occured. Also, i wonder if this SBT theorist's ever paid attention to JFK's hands and how their magic bullet CE399 has made it's way to Connally without injuring any hand? Strange world, some LN'er living in. best Martin

WTF? Translation please. You are somehow desperate.

I have no idea why you're saying this. http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers.html http://With--Malice.blogspot.com http://Single-Bullet-THeory.blogspot.com Hiding it in links is also a method. You don't want to see his betray here. Don't you? Edit: Checkmate!

That is a geometrical impossibility. It's really simple as that. I understand that you don't have the abilty to verify it by your own but you should consider that some people, except from Myers, can conclude it's absurdity. Talking about Myers. I see you stay away from your "I support Myers videos". Thats a good idea. Otherwise some may forced to uncover his betray here. Martin

Jim, while you are talking about a shot at Z#210, let me throw this in: I stabled the Zapruder frames 190-205 from "JFK, the Movie" lately. The motion is far from being smooth cause there are some aweful motion blur in many frames. I did the best i could. Important: This GIF is 5Mb large and needs a while to load. It depends on your connection speed. Here it needs 1 minute. Once it is loaded, it should run smooth. We can see clearly when Jackie began to turn her head towards JFK. That happend close before Z#198. Her attention remained on Jack until much later when she looked to John Connally. What's also noticeable is the rotation of Connally. His body is at an almost 90 degree angle to the right. Much more, than later in Z#224. In the process to stable other frames from the Zapruder film, i've discovered abrupt camera shaking from Zapruder......visible in motion blur. At around Z#224 did that happen. Here it happend again (at around Z#200). In particular 198-199 happend some unusual motions to Zapruders arms. Also worth to notice is that Phil Willis stated in his testimony that he clicked his camera trigger right at the moment as a shot rang out at Z#202. Millican, the man with the hart hat, seem to react in Willis 5 and Hickey (in the SS follow up car) flinched his head right before Z#202. best Martin

Hi, i remember watching Nigel Turner's Television series "The men who killed Kennedy" a few month ago on Youtube. The whole serie was uploaded and i digest all parts for the first time. Today i've tried to locate it again on Youtube. To my surprise it is taken down. What a pity, cause i wanted to download a couple of sequences with the intention to cut pieces together and to upload it on Youtube as a kind of "special". A "best of" Gary Mack from TMWKK. LOL. No, i'am just kidding. Ruth Paine is my target. I recalled while watching the series, that i've trapped Ruth Paine much earlier in various testimonies from the WCR evidently shameless lying. She expressed that lie not just before the WC but also on "The Men who killed Kennedy". Everybody who has seen TMWWK witnessed a very emotional Ruth Paine fighting with her tears in one moment, smiling the next instant. Her face expression are enormous within a few seconds. If i wouldn't be aware of her lie, i might believed her touchyness. But as she described her lie again on TMWKK, playing "face roller-coaster" i become aware she is surrounded by shabby dirtyness. So, i watched again the parts of her appearence in the series with the knowledge of her "acting". Oha, it seems she have trained herself before a mirror to appear relieable. I don't know anymore which of her statements is reliable or not. By the way, she is playing her act also in the mock trial in the UK 1986 before Bugliosi and Spence it appears. Same face expressions. But not nearly that much as in TMWKK. The contrary statements of her should become public. Public as it can be. It's important. Thats the reason why i tried to use Youtube as platform. It shed a dirty light on her but above all, it supports the idea that Ruth Paine has more to do with the framing of LHO as many thought. I'll buy the DVD "TMWKK" if somebody like to give me a hint how extract video parts from a DVD to Youtube. I wonder how long it will up until someone take it down. Martin

François first, my first name is Martin. Second, i gave a link to a german page cause i'am german. A quick look to my avatar should have give an answer. Do the bell ring? I will not neglect your french links and going to include it in my response: You've raised a good idea in my mind. A good book in german. But i mean "Good". From François: And these links will help you know me more (only for those who wish). http://francois-carlier.publibook.com/ http://zec-world.pagesperso-orange.fr/jfk.htm http://www.publibook.com/boutique2006/detail-3775-PB.html http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/2748340965/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=A1X6FK5RDHNB96&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=09DY0ZYFKRPNWV70GDQ4&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=463375513&pf_rd_i=405320 http://www.amazon.fr/Anglais-eacute-ricain-rences-conversation/dp/2700502922/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Just in case you want to know anything about the Single Bullet theory...please let me know.. Here a taster: http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=87998&mesg_id=87998&listing_type=search Martin

http://www.amazon.de/Elm-Street-Oswald-tu%C3%A9-Kennedy/dp/2748340965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books-intl-de&qid=1284097581&sr=8-1 Incredible Steve. Yes.

François, it may be good for your health to leave us alone. Just a thought.. You live in the land of belief when thinking anybody is jealous of you. In fact you've outed you now numerous times proven the opposite. You seem to be a very emotional person it appears. Your current flat insults and also your PM/email cannonade towards Forum members in the past exposing a mental issue on your side. What is that for a statement François? I repeat: Stop reading my posts I would expect such a comment from a teenager but not from a book writer. I believe professional hours might help you. Martin

Tink, Do you still have plans to publish an updated version of Six Seconds? I think it would be great to have an edition using actual Zapruder stills as well as seeing how newer evidence has affected your analysis and opinions. Martin Martin, Thanks for your interest. No there are no plans to reprint Six Seconds with an update section. That, in itself, would take a lot of work. If I'm going to do a book on this case it will be something new, something I'm playing with in the back of my mind, but also something that hasn't become quite clear yet. Thanks again. JT First of all sorry Otto for getting off topic. I hope you don't mind. To stay on Topic for a moment, i think you've asked reasonable questions and they were well deserved. Your attitude is excellent. Congrats. Dear Josiah, thank you for this insight about your thoughts to update Six Seconds. To be honest, in my journey the last 2 years on the JFK assassination research i've read a lot of books and neglected until the last 2 months almost every book of the first generation researchers. I thought that they were simply outdated but i was wrong. John Kelin's "Praise from a Future Generation" had changed my view and has drawn my attention to the work of Silvia Meagher, Vince Salandria, Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten and you. So i've bought the books "Oswald: The Truth", "Accessories After the Fact" and "Rush to Judgement". I was surprised how many new happenings i've discovered and how well and precise the research of this first generation researchers was even at that time. Sure, some aspects are simply outdated but we have to consider how little time after the assassination has passed by when these books were published. I have great respect what these persons worked out under pressure. And i believe it was not just time pressure. I was always suspicous about your Six Seconds in Dallas cause you've mentioned on the forum a couple of times that there were here and there mistakes in the book. Don't get me wrong, i admire your forward step and see it as a strenght and not as a weakness. It's more than reasonable to get the facts not always correct in 1967. I think the biggest mistake I made was measuring what appeared to be the forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and z313. It was pretty dumb of me not to recognize that the smearing in z313 could account for most or all of the apparent movement. The result of that mistake was that it opened the door for all sorts of mistaken speculations as to how a shot from the rear could cause the obvious left-backward movement of JFK's head and body. Obviously, JFK was hit in the back of the head but not then. It was a coincidence that a good friend has send me your book as a gift a few weeks ago. I've started a few days ago and just half way down (i'am currently at the stretcher chapter in Parkland) and your work captivating me. It's extremely interesting cause it covered my point of interest. The killing zone "Dealey Plaza" among the photographic evidence, you're take care of important witness reports, the ballistic evidence and trajectories. Many pictures, many diagrams and well researched it provided excellent footnotes to crosscheck where it all come from. If i would write a book, the design would be similar. (It's the reviewed version from 1976). You raised for the first time doubts in my mind that the current thinking of the shooting sequence of 8.3 seconds is accurate. You've provided relevant witness reports (and not less) to support your theory, that the first show occured not at around Z#160 but much more later- at Z#210-224. The current thinking that the first shot occured at around Z#160 is just supported by the fast head turns of Connally and Kennedy at this time. And of course Rosemary Willis interview in 1978 (your book was written ealier and you was not aware of it) which was at the Willis home where she said she stopped running after hearing the first sound. I was, to be frank, not aware of all the other witness reports supporting a later first shot happening. The number of this witnesses in your book trumps the Rosemary Willis report and the head turns of JFK and JBC. Is this part of your book still your current thinking or has it been updated? If not, if would have change the title from Six Seconds to Eight seconds in an updated version. Yeah, others have suggested that change in title to me. It seems clear now that shots were fired priot to Z210. You have put also eyewitness S.M Holland on a high level credible podest. I think the same. You have met him. You have known him. I found til today no mistake or flaw in his words. Everything fits the photographic evidence. An argument that a puff of smoke is not visible in the photos is obsolete. No camera at that time would be able to capture it. My question is: How much of your book would you update right now? 30, 50 or even 80 percent? Or propably just 15? Sorry, I never estimated what percentage of pages in the book would have to be changed. The basic idea was to put asterisks and a number in when I found something that was no longer true and these would key to an update chapter. But how much of the book would have to be changed? I really don't know. I'am asking just for a rough estimate. I have no evil intention. I will only know how you see it currently. Thanks a lot forward Martin Thank you Josiah.

Thats really interesting Pat. You also believe the first shot was fired after Z#160. That the last two were bunched together is supportet by so many witnesses. The LN'er say we are wrong but Lee Bowers and Robert McNeil sharing one thing: They were both behind close glasses. Lee Bowers behind his Tower glasses and McNeil inside the press bus couldn't hear echoes. Thats a fact. Thanks for your hint. I'am going to read your chapters. Most of them i've done. best Martin

Thanks Otto. Do post more times. It increases the level of the forum. Martin

Tink, Do you still have plans to publish an updated version of Six Seconds? I think it would be great to have an edition using actual Zapruder stills as well as seeing how newer evidence has affected your analysis and opinions. Martin Martin, Thanks for your interest. No there are no plans to reprint Six Seconds with an update section. That, in itself, would take a lot of work. If I'm going to do a book on this case it will be something new, something I'm playing with in the back of my mind, but also something that hasn't become quite clear yet. Thanks again. JT First of all sorry Otto for getting off topic. I hope you don't mind. To stay on Topic for a moment, i think you've asked reasonable questions and they were well deserved. Your attitude is excellent. Congrats. Dear Josiah, thank you for this insight about your thoughts to update Six Seconds. To be honest, in my journey the last 2 years on the JFK assassination research i've read a lot of books and neglected until the last 2 months almost every book of the first generation researchers. I thought that they were simply outdated but i was wrong. John Kelin's "Praise from a Future Generation" had changed my view and has drawn my attention to the work of Silvia Meagher, Vince Salandria, Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten and you. So i've bought the books "Oswald: The Truth", "Accessories After the Fact" and "Rush to Judgement". I was surprised how many new happenings i've discovered and how well and precise the research of this first generation researchers was even at that time. Sure, some aspects are simply outdated but we have to consider how little time after the assassination has passed by when these books were published. I have great respect what these persons worked out under pressure. And i believe it was not just time pressure. I was always suspicous about your Six Seconds in Dallas cause you've mentioned on the forum a couple of times that there were here and there mistakes in the book. Don't get me wrong, i admire your forward step and see it as a strenght and not as a weakness. It's more than reasonable to get the facts not always correct in 1967. It was a coincidence that a good friend has send me your book as a gift a few weeks ago. I've started a few days ago and just half way down (i'am currently at the stretcher chapter in Parkland) and your work captivating me. It's extremely interesting cause it covered my point of interest. The killing zone "Dealey Plaza" among the photographic evidence, you're take care of important witness reports, the ballistic evidence and trajectories. Many pictures, many diagrams and well researched it provided excellent footnotes to crosscheck where it all come from. If i would write a book, the design would be similar. (It's the reviewed version from 1976). You raised for the first time doubts in my mind that the current thinking of the shooting sequence of 8.3 seconds is accurate. You've provided relevant witness reports (and not less) to support your theory, that the first show occured not at around Z#160 but much more later- at Z#210-224. The current thinking that the first shot occured at around Z#160 is just supported by the fast head turns of Connally and Kennedy at this time. And of course Rosemary Willis interview in 1978 (your book was written ealier and you was not aware of it) which was at the Willis home where she said she stopped running after hearing the first sound. I was, to be frank, not aware of all the other witness reports supporting a later first shot happening. The number of this witnesses in your book trumps the Rosemary Willis report and the head turns of JFK and JBC. Is this part of your book still your current thinking or has it been updated? If not, if would have change the title from Six Seconds to Eight seconds in an updated version. You have put also eyewitness S.M Holland on a high level credible podest. I think the same. You have met him. You have known him. I found til today no mistake or flaw in his words. Everything fits the photographic evidence. An argument that a puff of smoke is not visible in the photos is obsolete. No camera at that time would be able to capture it. My question is: How much of your book would you update right now? 30, 50 or even 80 percent? Or propably just 15? I'am asking just for a rough estimate. I have no evil intention. I will only know how you see it currently. Thanks a lot forward Martin

Greg, i hope to use the right attitude and do not offend you when i say it's quite possible our eyes are trained to watch movies at 25fps than at 18 or 16 fps. The amateur movie cameras used that day were running mostly at 16 or 18 frames per second. There is a longer time gap between the frames taken than today. When motions getting quick, it's just natural that movements are missing in that captured frames on old standard cameras. I was suspicious as many others as i observered some fast turns. The photographic evidence is my hobby horse in the JFK assassination research. I'am online since almost 2 years on forums and until now i've never seen any contradiction of the Zapruder film with other Movies and still photographs taken that day. They are all in harmonic sync. I have great doubts of a Zapruder film alteration cause this film is in perfect harmony with all the other footages taken on november 22, 1963. Don't get me wrong. I'am not saying alteration supporter having an agenda or like to mislead. I know that you're a friend of the late Rich DellaRosa (god bless him) believed in the alteration of this fim too, but you should consider that (i hope so) that some of us see it otherwise. I believe the Zapruder film, as it is, is the key of the proof of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. This original film ( please allow me that statement) is the proof that John F. Kennedy was under cross fire in Dealey Plaza on november 22, 1963. My very best to you Martin Ps: Don't expect at any time that i might insult you or call you names. I believe in a friendly way of communication.

Great attitude and thinking, Otto. Its got nothing to do with the Museum, its because Larry Dunkel is SCARED I dare you to make a post Gary, come on out and shut me up Prove me wrong Gary, lets see if you have the guts to make 1 post Dean, have you ever asked Gary why he don't post on forums? May it be, that he follow strict rules? best Martin