On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

Alan,

Of course you're quite right.

The detail-loss image has been "smoked," so to speak.

So, where is the smoke, since it ain't in Wiegman?

Must be rapidly dissipating in the shadows in Nix.

The smoke I've "?" marked looks like it has blocked out some of the tree boughs behind it. Odd. Doesn't seem to move much. I wonder. Your opinion?

Sniper Miles, no offense, but you just do not know enough about the low grade and timing of these films so to know how to correlate them to other films or to know what should and should not be seen on them, the angle of reflectivity, nor do you have a basic understanding of the properties of gun-smoke and how it reacts to air flow.

For instance: How many times did you post silly photos of cannon and musket smoke ... all the while telling everyone how modern rifles didn't smoke? It would be interesting to go back and post all that wasted forum space once again in one post and remind everyone not only of the smoke seen in the HSCA test firings, but also show them this clip of a modern rifle doing just what you repeatedly posted they would not do. (Go to the 3:50 time mark and watch the shooting at the 4:02/03 mark) Someone must not have told the sniper that his modern day rifle wasn't supposed to smoke!

Bill Miller

Charles Whitman on August 1, 1966.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Gene Kelly]

I am not the visual/image expert that you folks represent, but I follow these discussions with interest. Didn't more than witness testify to seeing or experiencing smoke in the vicinity of the Knoll? - gene kelly

[Miles Scull]

Alan,

Of course you're quite right.

The detail-loss image has been "smoked," so to speak.

So, where is the smoke, since it ain't in Wiegman?

Must be rapidly dissipating in the shadows in Nix.

The smoke I've "?" marked looks like it has blocked out some of the tree boughs behind it. Odd. Doesn't seem to move much. I wonder. Your opinion?

For instance: How many times did you post silly photos of cannon and musket smoke ... all the while telling everyone how modern rifles didn't smoke?

I've said all along that there was smoke from a single cartridge discharge from a modern rifle. I pointed out that the alleged Wiegman smoke was too great in size & volume to be from a modern rifle. I never said modern rifles do not smoke. So, you are completely incorrect. I just now said IN THE POST YOU ARE REPLYING TO:

So, where is the smoke, since it ain't in Wiegman?

Must be rapidly dissipating in the shadows in Nix.

Obviously, this can obviously be seen: I think there IS smoke.

It would be interesting to go back and post all that wasted forum space once again in one post and remind everyone not only of the smoke seen in the HSCA test firings, but also show them this clip of a modern rifle doing just what you repeatedly posted they would not do. (Go to the 3:50 time mark and watch the shooting at the 4:02/03 mark) Someone must not have told the sniper that his modern day rifle wasn't supposed to smoke!

You apparently do not know that Whitman had & shot a variety of weapons from the tower.

(Whitman) he packed guns—a 35 caliber Remington rifle, a 6mm Remington rifle with a scope, a 357 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver, a 9mm Luger pistol, and a Galesi-Brescia pistol. Later that morning he would buy two more weapons, a 30 caliber M-1 carbine and a 12-gauge shotgun.

Bill Miller

Very good!

The YouTube clip shows that the smoky discharge occurs at 4:03 & is dispersed & dissipated & invisible at 4:06.

That's 3 seconds.

The limo took 10 seconds to reach the underpass after Z-313.

The wind in Dealey Plaza was strong & high, even IF it was actually (marginally) slower than that at the Texas Tower.

Therefore, the sniper's smoke from the fence could have & did rapidly dissipate in the Nix shadows (which area was not in Wiegman's camera view range) within several seconds (3 to 6 sec.) after Z-313, just as I said in my post that you are replying to, post # 404:

So, where is the smoke, since it ain't in Wiegman?

Must be rapidly dissipating in the shadows in Nix.

Thus, this further proves that there is zero smoke in Wiegman, despite the mistaken research that has gone down that wrong turn.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I am not the visual/image expert that you folks represent, but I follow these discussions with interest. Didn't more than witness testify to seeing or experiencing smoke in the vicinity of the Knoll? - gene kelly

Witnesses on both ends of the knoll reported seeing the smoke come through the trees.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

I agree Robin & there is no drifting towards the street either, that's another myth.

56 frames(2secs est) after the limo frame this cluster of leaves & this proposed small "swirl"are very near the same size, same shape & in exactly the same postion.

The only thing that's changed is Wiegman's view of them.

Alan,

Thanks for that all too brief and general description. I would like to know a little more about what you are talking about if you wouldn't mind being a little more specific. I assume we are looking at the same Wiegman film and I painstakingly looked at each Wiegman frame in an effort to find the clearest of frames so to do an overlay. The reason for wanting the clearest frames, as has been said numerous times on this matter and others, is that the effects of motion blur can be deceiving. So if you will, I would like to see what other frame(s) did you view to make the above statement.

Thanks in advance and I look forward to seeing the images that lead to your above statement.

Bill

I've checked around ten times now.

There are only two frames before the sharp "limo frame" that show the leaf cluster.

Both of them are blurred & unusable & neither do they match the frame you used in your gif that you claim was around six frames before the limo frame.

Anyone who has a copy of Groden's AF DVD or "MIDP" can check(PLEASE DO).

I've already posted these two blurry frames on a previous page & with it I also posted a frame marked "+56"(see below), that is the second best frame that shows the cluster & I now think it's what you used too.

There are two(or maybe three at a push) other usable frames but the problem is, since Wiegman was moving fast toward the knoll, the tree(& everything else) get's bigger, so the only way to make a credible gif to check for cluster movement using the best frames, is to resize one frame so that the tree & cluster remain the same.

My attempts to do this using the transparecy method have been unsuccessful, I can get most of the tree to line up no problem but, I'm just not happy enough with the end results to post them.

I think it's something a professional should do because they would take things into consideration when resizing a frame that don't occur to me.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...an/fudged56.png

I think you used the +56 frame in your gif because it has similarities I can't find elsewhere. Of course you would of had to have resized it & I can't see how that could of slipped your mind but, your free to set me straight, in fact I welcome the chance to know at exactly which part of the film it comes from because I sure as hell can't find it & I know for a fact it doesn't come from before the "limo frame"(not on Grodens' DVD it doesn't).

I'll post an unsized gif later, 56 frames apart.

[Bill Miller]

Very good!

The YouTube clip shows that the smoky discharge occurs at 4:03 & is dispersed & dissipated & invisible at 4:06.

That's 3 seconds.

The limo took 10 seconds to reach the underpass after Z-313.

The wind in Dealey Plaza was strong & high, even IF it was actually (marginally) slower than that at the Texas Tower.

Therefore, the sniper's smoke from the fence could have & did rapidly dissipate in the Nix shadows (which area was not of Wiegman's camera view range) within several seconds (3 to 6 sec.) after Z-313, just as I said in my post that you are replying to, post # 404:

Miles,

You probably should not quit your day time job if you think you may have a future in propaganda. Do you think that people are not intelligent enough to know that the tower clip obviously showed not only a strong stiff wind blowing, but the shot was fired from the top of a tower with nothing to help as a wind break, thus the smoke was carried away at remarkable speed. In the Zapruder film clip that Chris was good enough to post - there seems to be some branches higher elevated off the ground that are being effected by the wind while those on the knoll don't seem to be doing little to nothing at all. As we saw with Moorman's coat as the limo passed by her - her coat blew open and then closed shortly thereafter as one would expect when dealing with wind gust. Even Chris's Zapruder clip doesn't tell us what the trees were doing in the few seconds after the limo passed through the underpass. Much like with Moorman's coat and Connally's lapel flipping up and down for a brief moment ... you seem to grab onto to these things and attempt to make them out as some sort of 'proof positive' point when in reality they are not. As has been pointed out already and more than once I might add, the fence and the tree foliage would have played some part in how the smoke would have been effected. In fact, Holland was quite clear about seeing the smoke drift out through the trees, just as were several other witnesses on both sides of it, thus the tower clip is like comparing apples to oranges (except to you of course.)

I find it interesting however that the one thing that the tower clip did show was that you spent a considerable amount of time blessing this forum with responses showing repeated images of musket fire, cannon fire, and etc., and repetitive text claiming how modern rifles don't smoke and when confronted with the tower film - you have nothing to say. In your response, I don't even detect the slightest remorse for the wasted forum space you used or the fact that it is apparent that the things you were citing as factual was indeed not factual at all. Instead you quickly try to shift attention to how quickly the smoke dissipated from being let off so high up in the air and in a steady stiff wind as if the members of this forum would not be sharp enough to even consider the variances in effects the two locations would have had on a puff of smoke emitted from a not musket shot - not from a cannon shot - but from an actual rifle shot taken in 1966. Yes indeed, I find this very interesting.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

My attempts to do this using the transparecy method have been unsuccessful, I can get most of the tree to line up no problem but, I'm just not happy enough with the end results to post them.

I think it's something a professional should do because they would take things into consideration when resizing a frame that don't occur to me.

Alan,

While it has been a long time ago ... I am thinking that I didn't use Groden's copy of the Wiegman film, but I can't swear to that either. The program that has worked really well for me is called "Imagestyler 1.0". This program will allow you to lay one frame over the other and adjust the transparency so you can see both frames at the same time. This will allow you to pull and stretch the top image until what is seen in that image is matched up with the other. Normally this happens with just a few landmarks aligned to match both vertically and horizontally.

I hope this helps.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Very good!

The YouTube clip shows that the smoky discharge occurs at 4:03 & is dispersed & dissipated & invisible at 4:06.

That's 3 seconds.

The limo took 10 seconds to reach the underpass after Z-313.

The wind in Dealey Plaza was strong & high, even IF it was actually (marginally) slower than that at the Texas Tower.

Therefore, the sniper's smoke from the fence could have & did rapidly dissipate in the Nix shadows (which area was not in Wiegman's camera view range) within several seconds (3 to 6 sec.) after Z-313, just as I said in my post that you are replying to, post # 404:

Miles,

Yes indeed, I find this very interesting.

Bill Miller

Robin & Chris & Alan

Excellent work.

I'm just catching up here, but is the argument now that foliage movement subsided as the limo reached the underpass & that means that the wind stopped blowing between Holland's two trees: thus, the shooter's smoke, instead of being blown continuously to the SE, was actually drifting out to the south so that it might appear in a line perpendicular south of the fence & seen, miraculously, in Wiegman after all?

If so, then, of course, this is a instance of reverse engineering. The case of the strong wind is proved:

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, in the Plaza at the time of the shooting: "The wind was blowing pretty high."

Tom Dillard, same time & place: There was a "a very brisk north wind."

James Algens, ditto: re Jackie, " ...the north wind caught her hat & almost blew it off."

DP Officer Marrion Baker, asked if the wind almost blew him off his bike, replied: "That is correct."

So, AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, there was a strong wind blowing, as all the photographic evidence clearly shows.

Question: What needs to happen to validate smoke in Wiegman?

Question: Why is smoke not in Wiegman?

Answer: Wind.

Question: Why not stop the wind?

So, by this reasoning, it is seen that if the wind can be made to miraculously & suddenly stop at the underpass as the limo enters it, then the alleged smoke back between Holland's two trees can be understood to be drifting & floating & meandering into Wiegman.

But, the photographic evidence shows continuous turbulence of foliage seen as the limo enters the underpass.

Other ways to stop the wind's effect are to suggest that wind was blocked by the fence, or that the general trend of the wind flow was distorted by twisting whirling vortex swirls or micro tornado's, or that the wash & wake of the passing motorcade pushed against the prevailing wind.

Of course, these attempts to stop the wind are refuted by the reality of the mastering action of the PREVAILING wind, which carries all & over comes all.

Also, there was no blocking of tall buildings in the packing lot, the RR yard or at points away to the NW out to the Trinity river.

This line of reasoning demonstrates that the smoke generated by a single cartridge discharge from a modern rifle could have & in actuality was dissipated in under 6 seconds & was at 6 seconds post Z-313 invisible.

This explains why NO SMOKE is seen in Wiegman & Nix.

It should be remembered that a fence sniper would have been aiming in the direction of the SE, IN THE DIRECTION OF THE HUDSON TREE, when he fired his single shot. In other words, the sniper is shooting WITH the wind. Thus, the propulsion of the discharge would have accelerated the smoke into an already briskly moving airflow in the direction of the Hudson tree, which area was outside of Wiegman's camera's field of view.

What smoke there was was, indeed, seen by Holland & others & not by Wiegman's camera.

That there is zero smoke in Wiegman is the conclusion, I believe , of Robin, Alan, Chris, Ashton, Duncan & myself. Have I left out anyone?

Edited October 10, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

That's 3 seconds.

The limo took 10 seconds to reach the underpass after Z-313.

The wind in Dealey Plaza was strong & high, even IF it was actually (marginally) slower than that at the Texas Tower.

Therefore, the sniper's smoke from the fence could have & did rapidly dissipate in the Nix shadows (which area was not in Wiegman's camera view range) within several seconds (3 to 6 sec.) after Z-313, just as I said in my post that you are replying to, post # 404:[/b]

This is more propaganda IMO. And knowing you, Miles ... I'd almost bet that you would whine to the moderators that ol' Miller accused you of such even after I laid out the evidence that this is exactly what you have done in the past and present. I lost track of how many times you continued saying Holland ran immediately off the underpass when in fact it had already been said that Dillard's #3 photo showed him still at his position.

Now you make the following comment as if fact, "the sniper's smoke from the fence could have & did rapidly dissipate in the Nix shadows", which you have no way of substantiating that comment other than to use a film that is so far from the scene and so degraded that you can't make out things like the fence slats, the faces on the witnesses, or the writing on the signs on the knoll near where the smoke was reported to be. In fact, by using such a poor film, you are trying to dispute what Holland and other witnesses had said and that was that they saw smoke drift out from under the trees. They said nothing about the smoke dissipating in the shadows of the trees. In fact, in an earlier post on this forum you were attempting to blame the smoke Bowers spoke of on a motorcycle that allegedly went halfway up the knoll, which you knew to be false to start with. But assuming the motorcycle had gone halfway up the knoll like you were trying to sell at that given moment ... the bike would still be out in the open and knowing the direction the wind was blowing ... that smoke would not have ever been up in the shadows of the trees.

Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)

There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees.

Mr. HOLLAND - ...................... I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.

In 1966, Simmons told Mark Lane it "came from the left and in front of us, toward the wooden fence, and there was a puff of smoke that came underneath the trees on the embankment."

Railroad workers Nolan Potter and Richard Dodd also saw smoke off to their left, i.e., near the fence on the knoll (Marrs 58)

And so there is no confusion as to what is meant by the term propaganda ... I have supplied the definition.

Proaganda definition: Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. ...

Now apply that to the statement that modern rifles don't smoke and that because the Nix film doesn't show smoke ... it must have dissipated before leaving the confines of the tree branches that were in shadow. While you're at it ... it appears the fence slats, the writing on the knoll road sign, and the faces on the witnesses also dissipated as well - not to mention parts of the witnesses on the south pasture.

I'm just catching up here, but is the argument now that foliage movement subsided as the limo reached the underpass & that means that the wind stopped blowing between Holland's two trees: thus, the shooter's smoke, instead of being blown continuously to the SE, was actually drifting out to the south so that it might appear in a line perpendicular south of the fence & seen, miraculously, in Wiegman after all?

I think the witnesses, while not being the expert on the properties of gun-smoke - whether modern day rifles smoke or not, - or have an understanding why certain known details are missing from the Nix film, pretty much stated that a miracle did indeed occur as the winds that be did allow the smoke to drift out from under the trees without first dissipating so it could be seen by witnesses on both ends of the knoll.

If so, then, of course, this is a instance of reverse engineering. The case of the strong wind is proved:

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, in the Plaza at the time of the shooting: "The wind was blowing pretty high."

Tom Dillard, same time & place: There was a "a very brisk north wind."

James Algens, ditto: re Jackie, " ...the north wind caught her hat & almost blew it off."

DP Officer Marrion Baker, asked if the wind almost blew him off his bike, replied: "That is correct."

So, AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, there was a strong wind blowing, as all the photographic evidence clearly shows.

At the time of the shooting - the wind gust were high for a few brief moments and then they lessened, then they get high again and then they lessen - thats why they are called 'gust'. In Marie Muchmore's film just as the limo approaches Hill and Moorman, the two womens coats are hanging down and then all at once a wind gust pushes their coat tails dramatically to the east. At one point Jackie holds her hand on her hat to keep it in place ... other times she didn't seem concerned about losing it. Baker said as he came around the corner off Main and onto Houston that a gust of wind about blew him over. This is the only time I recall Baker mentioning it.

Mr. BAKER - As we approached the corner there of Main and Houston we were making a right turn, and as I came out behind that building there, which is the county courthouse, the sheriff building, well, there was a strong wind hit me and I almost lost my balance.

Question: Why not stop the wind?

So, by this reasoning, it is seen that if the wind can be made to miraculously & suddenly stop at the underpass as the limo enters it, then the alleged smoke back between Holland's two trees can be understood to be drifting & floating & meandering into Wiegman.

Muchmore's film showing Hill and Moorman's coats suddenly and without warning being blown dramatically to the east as the limo approached pretty much explains how wind gust work ... hardly considered a miracle.

But, the photographic evidence shows continuous turbulence of foliage seen as the limo enters the underpass.

Other ways to stop the wind's effect are to suggest that wind was blocked by the fence, or that the general trend of the wind flow was distorted by twisting whirling vortex swirls or micro tornado's, or that the wash & wake of the passing motorcade pushed against the prevailing wind.

Of course, these attempts to stop the wind are refuted by the reality of the mastering action of the PREVAILING wind, which carries all & over comes all.

At times Jackie and JFK's hair is blown wildly - other times it is in place. At times Connally's lapel was down - another time it flipped up and down more than once due to wind gust. Tree branches seen up high over the fence appear to move - tree foliage on the knoll seems to be basically motionless. A statement like that cited about which reads, "the general trend of the wind flow was distorted by twisting whirling vortex swirls or micro tornado's, or that the wash & wake of the passing motorcade pushed against the prevailing wind" is designed for no other reason than to distort the evidence that has previously been provided by way of film and witness testimony would fall under the following description IMO .....

"Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid"

This line of reasoning demonstrates that the smoke generated by a single cartridge discharge from a modern rifle could have & in actuality was dissipated in under 6 seconds & was at 6 seconds post Z-313 invisible.

Addressed in previous response.

This explains why NO SMOKE is seen in Wiegman & Nix.

Addressed in previous response.

It should be remembered that a fence sniper would have been aiming in the direction of the SE, IN THE DIRECTION OF THE HUDSON TREE, when he fired his single shot. In other words, the sniper is shooting WITH the wind. Thus, the propulsion of the discharge would have accelerated the smoke into an already briskly moving airflow in the direction of the Hudson tree, which area was outside of Wiegman's camera's field of view.

Addressed in previous response. (Holland was quite clear as to which trees the smoke drifted out between)

It's comical when reading back over your past responses. You first came out saying that modern day rifles DO NOT smoke and now you have tweaked your position to the modern day rifled smoked, but the direction of the aim and the brisk airflow dissipated the smoke while still in the shadows of the trees. For a similar position orchestrated by Posner and the rebuttal - http://www.assassinationweb.com/Gal.htm

Bill Miller

Edited October 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide. I have seen larger puffs of smoke floating across a shooting range. As one also knows if they have been on shooting range and/or at trap shoots ...

Trap shoots? As in shooting with shotguns? Are we confusing rifles (little smoke) with shotguns (big smoke)? Why?

Bill Miller

"The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide." -- Miller

Was the alleged smoke cloud 2 dimensional only? A wafer?

Whatever happened to DEPTH? Was the smoke cloud 3' in depth?

An amazingly vast cloud, indeed, to have escaped Nix.

It would have been bigger, in bulk & volume, than Hudson.

Are you backing off from your original shape assessment?- Why? No, not to reduce the cloud's size & volume, true, I grant you... But why, then?

Here's your depiction of the alleged smoke shape. Notice the 3 lines:----

The shape here is WIDER than TALL.

Yes, I pointed to the swirls and the dense body of what looks to be smoke. And as far as 'wider than tall' ... supposed you take two seconds and tell this forum all you know about smoke, its dimensions concerning height, width, and depth, and the factors that would determine this.

Bill Miller

"The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide." -- Miller

You said 36" tall & maybe 24" wide.

But your own depiction & delineation is 36" tall & 48" wide. Why did you alter & reduce the size & volume of the alleged smoke?

That's 3 feet by 4 feet !!! (with a depth of probably 3 feet) = a huge dense cloud, bigger in space volume than Hudson (!) which Nix could NOT have missed.

But it's NOT in Nix. Zippo.

Why?

Because the alleged smoke is in reality bright red leaves?----

Quoting Miller:

Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)

There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees.

Mr. HOLLAND - ...................... I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.

In 1966, Simmons told Mark Lane it "came from the left and in front of us, toward the wooden fence, and there was a puff of smoke that came underneath the trees on the embankment."

Railroad workers Nolan Potter and Richard Dodd also saw smoke off to their left, i.e., near the fence on the knoll (Marrs 58)

And so there is no confusion as to what is meant by the term propaganda ... I have supplied the definition.

Proaganda definition: Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. ...

Quoting Miller:

Addressed in previous response. (Holland was quite clear as to which trees the smoke drifted out between)

Here you insert your own word "DRIFTED" which word was never used by Holland or any other witness to describe the movement of the smoke.

You have tried to alter & change the meaning of key witness' testimony as a propaganda effort.

Just exactly as you also tried to reduce the size of the smoke cloud from 48 " wide to 24" wide. See prefixed post above as citation & proof of this.

That there is zero smoke in Wiegman is the conclusion, I believe , of Robin, Alan, Chris, Ashton, Duncan & myself.

Please cite one forum member, who has posted on this long thread, who agrees with your position that there is smoke in Wiegman.

Edited as agreed with Miles Scull. Antti Hynonen.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Alan Healy]

My attempts to do this using the transparecy method have been unsuccessful, I can get most of the tree to line up no problem but, I'm just not happy enough with the end results to post them.

I think it's something a professional should do because they would take things into consideration when resizing a frame that don't occur to me.

Alan,

While it has been a long time ago ... I am thinking that I didn't use Groden's copy of the Wiegman film, but I can't swear to that either. The program that has worked really well for me is called "Imagestyler 1.0". This program will allow you to lay one frame over the other and adjust the transparency so you can see both frames at the same time. This will allow you to pull and stretch the top image until what is seen in that image is matched up with the other. Normally this happens with just a few landmarks aligned to match both vertically and horizontally.

I hope this helps.

Bill

It's settled.

You cannot have used the Groden copy because there is no frame before the "limo frame" that shows a sharp image of the cluster.

I am using Groden's so I think the discussion ends there unless someone can find the frame you used from a copy of Wiegman in the Death in Dealey Plaza DVD.

If they do & post it I will try to make a bigger gif from it.

I did not recall until I went & checked yesterday that one of the splices in Groden's copy was during the rush to the knoll.

http://www.copweb.be/Dave%20Wiegman%20film.htm

How frustrating.

Adding to the confusion is a clear sign of editing in the frame you overlayed.

At the very least you should update your gif next chance you get & mark & source the frames.

I have a program that sets transparency levels & it is very easy to do, that is not the problem, the problem is that by resizing a much later frame(+56 which was the best one to use in the G DVD)) & having only the tree & with it the cluster as a guide, let's just say, it is not scientific enough to prove or disprove movement.

If someone else can find the sharp frame of the cluster before the limo frame in the unedited version then we should not have to resize anything, only line them up, that I am happy to do if someone can find it.

You can see why I thought you may of used the +56 frame since it's the only one that even comes close to yours in groden's DVD, same angled camera view & the black/red warehouse at the same distance from edge of frame.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...similarity1.gif

[Alan Healy]

Must be rapidly dissipating in the shadows in Nix.

The smoke I've "?" marked looks like it has blocked out some of the tree boughs behind it. Odd. Doesn't seem to move much. I wonder. Your opinion?

I just focused on that one small tree for us Miles.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...ixfenceslow.gif

There is not much to see & that's all one can say.

[Bill Miller]

It's settled.

You cannot have used the Groden copy because there is no frame before the "limo frame" that shows a sharp image of the cluster.

I am using Groden's so I think the discussion ends there unless someone can find the frame you used from a copy of Wiegman in the Death in Dealey Plaza DVD.

If they do & post it I will try to make a bigger gif from it.

Ah ... the ol' bigger gif theory. if you want a bigger gif, then put a magnifying glass up to you screen - its quicker! (smile)

I did not recall until I went & checked yesterday that one of the splices in Groden's copy was during the rush to the knoll.

http://www.copweb.be/Dave%20Wiegman%20film.htm

How frustrating.

Adding to the confusion is a clear sign of editing in the frame you overlayed.

At the very least you should update your gif next chance you get & mark & source the frames.

Alan, if you mean that I edited a frame by cropping off part of the frame so to bring the two together for alignment purposes, then that might be a fair observation. If you are saying that I edited any part of the trees in question and/or the alleged smoke, then you are dead wrong.

I have a program that sets transparency levels & it is very easy to do, that is not the problem, the problem is that by resizing a much later frame(+56 which was the best one to use in the G DVD)) & having only the tree & with it the cluster as a guide, let's just say, it is not scientific enough to prove or disprove movement.

Scientific as what, Alan ... telling people that modern rifles don't smoke ... that leaf clusters are transparent ... what??? I have shown several ways that I approached this matter and how I tested them to draw my conclusion, thus my approach was scientific. Yes, it would be nicer to have had the original images to work with or they have been crystal clear, but that does not have anything to do with being scientific IMO.

You can see why I thought you may of used the +56 frame since it's the only one that even comes close to yours in groden's DVD, same angled camera view & the black/red warehouse at the same distance from edge of frame.

Wiegman was far enough away from the knoll that had he of went a few paces perpendicular to the knoll it wouldn't have meant much. But the fact is that Wiegman was running towards the knoll, thus there was no notable shifting of the background that could account for what I saw when I tested the two frames for movement.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Miles Scull' post='121994' date='Oct 9 2007, 07:12 PM']Must be rapidly dissipating in the shadows in Nix.

The smoke I've "?" marked looks like it has blocked out some of the tree boughs behind it. Odd. Doesn't seem to move much. I wonder. Your opinion?

I just focused on that one small tree for us Miles.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...ixfenceslow.gif

There is not much to see & that's all one can say.

If one cross references what Miles sees as possible smoke, then they will find that its the shadows being cast onto the fence. The tree branch looks transparent for the same reason the fence slats are missing and why parts of the witnesses bodies are faded out, not to mention the print on the road signs - its the poor quality of the film.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Miles Scull' post='121994' date='Oct 9 2007, 07:12 PM']Must be rapidly dissipating in the shadows in Nix.

The smoke I've "?" marked looks like it has blocked out some of the tree boughs behind it. Odd. Doesn't seem to move much. I wonder. Your opinion?

I just focused on that one small tree for us Miles.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...ixfenceslow.gif

There is not much to see & that's all one can say.

If one cross references what Miles sees as possible smoke, then they will find that its the shadows being cast onto the fence. The tree branch looks transparent for the same reason the fence slats are missing and why parts of the witnesses bodies are faded out, not to mention the print on the road signs - its the poor quality of the film.

Bill

Show exactly from what (tree?) that specific "shadow" is cast. Not from the tree to the west.

Alan,

Do you see a source for this shadow?