On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Alan Healy]

Miles,

I hear what your saying about the wind & I see it in the bushes in those later Zframes, I just think if I or you or whoever was convinced it was smoke in the Wfilm, we would not rule it out just because of it's position & the evidence of that healthy breeze.

What you seem to be saying here anyway, is that it's not smoke because of the just reasons you stated(blunderbuss, wind etc) but, if it was, it came from the "Dman".

That doesn't sound fair to me Miles sorry.

(FYI Miles I wasn't confusing Hatman with the Dman, I've been aware of Duncan's observation for quite a while, I think there might be someone there I just don't see what you guys see, well yes I do but I don't find it convincing but that's just me, nothing to worry about).

The bottom line Miles is that a group of us here a cutting through the established rumours of GK assassins & we still all have the firm belief(I hope) that there was someone behind the fence somewhere up to no good( to say the least).

[Bill Miller]

It's near Duncan's sniper's trajectory & far from Midget's!

Miles,

I don't think anyone here believes that you don't know the effects of how things look when looking uphill and how that relates to objects that are back from a structure such as a fence. If that is the position you wish to hold on to, then you are only making yourself look inept when it comes to understanding perspective.

And from I recall, the term 'midget' is considered politically incorrect these days. Even the Indians these days do not like to be referred to as 'redskins' any more than obese people like to be referred to as 'fat cows'. So seeing how we all know how someone will sink over the horizon as the distance he or she moves back from a structure like a fence when being viewed at an upward angle ... you've just about run your childish 'I need attention' game into the ground. If you aren't interested in thinking about others, then at least think about what's left after 'permanent moderation' status.

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

I may of made a light error I'll go & double check

Edited October 7, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...FunkyGames7.jpg

Alan, I can see why you have so much trouble analyzing these films ... is that the best quality image that you can get your hands on or did you start with the MPI frame and worked with it until you got it looking that faded? (Just curious)

Bill

I kept them like that on purpose so we could all see the gunk on the lense.

I also chose a frame where your alleged "swirl of smoke" is in focus & it's clear as day it's foilage in the tree.

If you keep telling people it's smoke in a blurred frame, I'll keep posting the in focus frame & calling it BS.

[Robin Unger]

Short film,Zapruder underpass.

I have downloaded Quicktime on this borrowed laptop and I'm using Windows XP .... when I click on the link I get the Quicktime symbol, but intstead of opening a clip - it switches to a "?" on the Quicktime icon .... what else does it take to open the link?

Bill

To my knowledge quicktime is only for films with .MOV ext.

This is .MWV ext which opens up directly using "WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER"

[Robin Unger]

Short film,Zapruder underpass.

I have downloaded Quicktime on this borrowed laptop and I'm using Windows XP .... when I click on the link I get the Quicktime symbol, but intstead of opening a clip - it switches to a "?" on the Quicktime icon .... what else does it take to open the link?

Bill

To my knowledge quicktime is only for films with .MOV ext.

This is .MWV ext which opens up directly using "WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER"

Sample frame:

[Bill Miller]

Sample frame:

I have the latest Windows Media Player on this laptop I am using and it still tried to play it as a Quicktime clip ... I'll have to play with it.

Also, are there any sample frames that can be posted where the letters on the road sign are sharp? Motion blur only hides information - not offers it.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...FunkyGames7.jpg

Alan, I can see why you have so much trouble analyzing these films ... is that the best quality image that you can get your hands on or did you start with the MPI frame and worked with it until you got it looking that faded? (Just curious)

Bill

I kept them like that on purpose so we could all see the gunk on the lense.

I also chose a frame where your alleged "swirl of smoke" is in focus & it's clear as day it's foilage in the tree.

If you keep telling people it's smoke in a blurred frame, I'll keep posting the in focus frame & calling it BS.

Alan,

Here ya go:

Hey! Whose the dude in the yellow oval? Arnie?

[Chris Davidson]

Thanks, Chris. It would be a bit more helpful if we could see two frames how ever man frames apart with the camera pointed in the same direction. The reason for this is because each time the camera rises and falls below a certain plane ... it causes stationary objects to appear to move when in reality they do not. The knots on the fence slats would be one example ... is the wind moving them around or is the camera movement the cause? And if a particular branch did seem to move while others around it do not move, then a cause for that movement should be sought. And if the wind did move a particular branch or branches, but not others ... it may give one more insight as to how the wind was working at that particular moment and possibly it could be applied to some of the other assassination images thought to show smoke and its location in relation to where a shooter may have been.

May I suggest that you look at the MPI version of the Zapruder film at the same point in time and see if you see the same things. I would like to know?

Bill

Bill,

MPI's version looping back and forth. Unstabilized.

chris

[Ashton Gray]

Tosh Plumlee ALSO smelled "gunsmoke."

Tosh Plumlee was there on a mission for and acting on orders of CIA.

So, just to correct the record: Tosh Plumlee—who has admitted working for CIA—has said that he smelled "gunsmoke."

Ashton

P.S. For trivia fans: Plumlee has claimed that he was called "Zapata" because it's Spanish for "shoe," and he had lost a shoe while on "a mission." More precisely, though, "zapata" means "boot;" "zapato" means "shoe." Why split hairs? Why indeed. I certainly wouldn't. But I will observe in passing that there's a slang term that doesn't get too much currency: "bootless errand." Its synonyms include: fool's errand, merry chase, red herring, snipe hunt. CIA and its minions would never just shove it right in your face like that, though. Y'all have fun.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

MPI's version looping back and forth. Unstabilized.

chris

Thanks' Chris. Your clip played for me .. Robin's does not. Now I would love to have a crack at this using my programs for stabilizing these frames because I am seeing something going on that I have recognized many times in films where the camera is rising above and falling below a level plane ... it causes the background and foreground to shift because it bends the shapes of things from frame to frame. As the fence rises and falls - the light spots through the tree foliage seem to fade in and out, thus causing the illusion of movement. The lower strip of the underpass thats visible also seems to thin and thicken through the small tree trunks. This camera movement can also make one tree seem to shift towards another which gives off the illusion of movement. A good overlay of the best frames could help make things clearer. I don't have access to those programs at the moment.

One cool thing that can be said here for those who have heard me say how motion blur effects what is and is not seen in an image can be observed in the blemishes on the fence itself. When the camera is at its steadiest - the blemishes are dark and quite visible. When motion blur is apparent - the same blemishes all but vanish. This is precisely why Zapruder and Sitzman are not seen on the pedestal in Dave Wiegman's film.

Bill

Edited October 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Bill,

MPI's version looping back and forth. Unstabilized.

chris

Thanks' Chris. Your clip played for me .. Robin's does not. Now I would love to have a crack at this using my programs for stabilizing these frames because I am seeing something going on that I have recognized many times in films where the camera is rising above and falling below a level plane ... it causes the background and foreground to shift because it bends the shapes of things from frame to frame. As the fence rises and falls - the light spots through the tree foliage seem to fade in and out, thus causing the illusion of movement. The lower strip of the underpass thats visible also seems to thin and thicken through the small tree trunks. This camera movement can also make one tree seem to shift towards another which gives off the illusion of movement. A good overlay of the best frames could help make things clearer. I don't have access to those programs at the moment.

One cool thing that can be said here for those who have heard me say how motion blur effects what is and is not seen in an image can be observed in the blemishes on the fence itself. When the camera is at its steadiest - the blemishes are dark and quite visible. When motion blur is apparent - the same blemishes all but vanish. This is precisely why Zapruder and Sitzman are not seen on the pedestal in Dave Wiegman's film.

Bill

Fence stabilized from MPI version.

I don't think there's any illusion's involved.

It's just plain wind blowing through the branches/leaves.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Fence stabilized from MPI version.

I don't think there's any illusion's involved.

It's just plain wind blowing through the branches/leaves.

chris

Zapruder's camera even causes the light on the lamppost to fluctuate as if its moving. What we have to work with isn't helping to decide whats moving and from which direction is the source coming from so to apply it to what's believed to be seen on the Wiegman film.

Bill

Edited October 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

You see a cloud drifting towards the street in the space of 6 frames in a film that is shooting around twenty four frames a second & that does not strike you as odd?

I see a woman rise out of her seat in 4 frames running at 18 fps and I don't see that as odd, so why should anything seem odd about the Wiegman film. It might also be worth commenting that I don't recall exactly how many frames are between the two clearest ones I used. It would take getting the film on DVD and advancing forward and counting them. Also, watch Wiegman's film and see how far Marion Baker ran in 6 frames .... does the distance he traveled seem odd too??

Bill

Okay I deleted my first reponse to this, to give me a chance to go back & triple check.

First of all, like I said, only you would compare the speed of a human's movement to that of a drifting cloud.

Anyway, forget that, here is your gif.

The frame you overlayed onto the "limo one" is hard to find on my copy of Groden's AF DVD.

So I want to ask Robin, Chris or anyone else here to check for me incase I've somehow missed it.

All I can find before the famous limo frame are these two & you can see they are not that great to use in an animation & neither do they match the one you found.

There is one frame that comes close but that is 56 frames after the limo frame, not 6 before.

So gents if you could help me find it & maybe even post it & tell us at which point on the fim it is from the sharp "limo frame" I'd be grateful.

[Alan Healy]

Hey! Whose the dude in the yellow oval? Arnie?

Miles,

I think it's possible that there's someone behind the fence at that spot but there isn't anyone infront of it IMO.

If you look at the bottom of the fence there you can see the impression of the short thick greenery that grew along the fence bottom.

You can make the destinction between it & the fence in that crop cleary & there is nothing up there blocking it from our view.

It's good to know you still give Arnold the benefit of the doubt for actually being there Miles, I too try to do this on the odd occasion.

That's why I put him on the steps in the red shirt.

Not because it matches his story, it doesn't of course.

It's just the only possible explaination IMO.

He was there & then he his tale grew taller over the years.

LOL can you imagine if he left his mother's camera indoors after she done told him to get some shots of the parade?

Wouldn't you of made an excuse for coming back with nothing too?