On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Alan Healy]

Of course, what's the time for this puff, post Z-313?

Seems like the aftermath of a blunderbuss discharge.

Could have come from Duncan's sniper at 33 ft. from corner of fence, however.

But not from midget man as the puff from his popgun would have been blown to an entirely different position, more to the east, by the wind from the NW.

Fits Duncan's sniper.

Thank you Miles.

Yes I've seen the alleged smoke in Wiegman, I'm not totally convinced but I have to remain open minded about it, it's hard to prove it's not smoke, maybe..... maybe not.

But how can Weigman's camera capture a cloud of smoke from a smokeless weapon?

There is no smoke at the "hat" in Moorman5. Hopefully Bill will have another one of his thoroughly believable explainations for this....

If it was smoke(& I think we can agree Miles, that in a certain Weigman frame or two it does look like it is) then I would agree with you it's from another source.

The Limo is circled in one of those W frames you posted & just entering the underpass, that time stamps it at around 9secs after Z313, give or take a few 1/18ths.

Thank you Ashton too!

I will make sure to read the threads you linked to next.

[Ashton Gray]

Mr. Gray,

According to the way I read the thread, it was Mark Lane who 'added' the bracketed words, not Bill Miller.

Ms. Beckett,

If you would take issue with me, please quote me; don't alter my words to create a straw man. Do you think there is a shortage?

I said Miller had introduced the false bracketed words into this thread. That's exactly what he did.

Of course, I could be wrong. Could you please direct me to the post that shows Bill did it???

In this post, precisely as I stated. It is well established in that post that Lane was the author of the intellectual dishonesty; it is Miller who introduced it into this discussion and embraced and endorsed such intellectual dishonesty in amoral support of his insupportable spewings.

Perhaps Miles Scull will re-evaluate his standards for "excellent points."

Regards.

Ashton

Edited September 27, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

All we really know is that JFK was shot from more than one

direction...

Jack, I have the greatest respect for your work, but I don't stipulate for a moment that we "know" that JFK was shot "from more than one direction."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

Mr. Gray,

I apologize, sir. I wasn't trying to be difficult. I was just asking.

No apology at all necessary, but I accept your gracious acknowledgment of an innocent misunderstanding, which is all that occurred.

I shall, in the future, curtail my inquisitiveness with respect to your posts.

Oh, lordy, no—please don't do that!

If I can't stand scrutiny on the pertinent facts at issue, I will stand down.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

The excellent point is that if Bill himself did not insert or could not have inserted the parenthesis, Bill would have instructed Lane to do so.

Insertion by proxy.

A neat trick, in my view.

Perhaps Ashton Gray would agree?

No. Without censure, I'm sick to death of just such wildly speculative wanderings.

My position is that both the editorial insertion of such patently false statements and the irresponsible propagation of such falsehoods is thoroughly reprehensible and that it poisons the groundwater.

The only "excellent point" in my view is that Bowers never said any such thing. Period. That is a fact of record.

All who agree sing one chorus of "Kumbaya," and let's move on.

Ashton

[Jack White]

All we really know is that JFK was shot from more than one

direction...

Jack, I have the greatest respect for your work, but I don't stipulate for a moment that we "know" that JFK was shot "from more than one direction."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Ashton

Well we disagree on this. I think analysis of the wounds and the testimony

about them show bullet entrance and exit wounds both front and back. I

think most researchers agreed on that as a given years ago. I do not dismiss

the testimony of the Parkland doctors, for instance, who saw a gaping exit

wound in the occipital, and an entrance wound in the throat. Should we

dismiss ALL the evidence and start over from zero?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Thank you Miles.

Yes I've seen the alleged smoke in Wiegman, I'm not totally convinced but I have to remain open minded about it, it's hard to prove it's not smoke, maybe..... maybe not.

Alan, I am looking for some images that I showed at a Lancer conference showing not onl the smoke from the Wiegman film, but also the same swirls captured by Zapruder's camera as a well. I will post those images the minute I find them and then I will ask you to explain how two different cameras caught the same smoke swirls on film from two different angles. The answer of course will be that there was smoke there just as the witnesses had said and because of the sun's position to the camera - it allowed Zapruder and Wiegman to capture those images.

Also - when two frames are overlaid onto the other - does real smoke move and drift through the air???

Bill

But how can Weigman's camera capture a cloud of smoke from a smokeless weapon?

There is no smoke at the "hat" in Moorman5. Hopefully Bill will have another one of his thoroughly believable explainations for this....

So is it your position that witnesses saw smoke shot from a smokeless weapon ... did I get that right? And if it si your position that it was a smokeless weapon, then please tell me how you know what weapon was used for if you have that information, then maybe we are closer to knowing who fired the shot. And so you know ... rifles do smoke, especially the first few times they have been shot after being oiled. Also, when the HSCA tested shots that were fired into sand bags - those shots were filmed and those guns smoked, as well. This is why I am most interested in where you got information that guns do not smoke.

If it was smoke(& I think we can agree Miles, that in a certain Weigman frame or two it does look like it is) then I would agree with you it's from another source.

I take it that you mean by another source ... other than from Hudson or the men next to him.

Bill Miller

Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Thank you Miles.

Yes I've seen the alleged smoke in Wiegman, I'm not totally convinced but I have to remain open minded about it, it's hard to prove it's not smoke, maybe..... maybe not.

Alan, I am looking for some images that I showed at a Lancer conference showing not onl the smoke from the Wiegman film, but also the same swirls captured by Zapruder's camera as a well. I will post those images the minute I find them and then I will ask you to explain how two different cameras caught the same smoke swirls on film from two different angles. The answer of course will be that there was smoke there just as the witnesses had said and because of the sun's position to the camera - it allowed Zapruder and Wiegman to capture those images.

Also - when two frames are overlaid onto the other - does real smoke move and drift through the air???

Bill

But how can Weigman's camera capture a cloud of smoke from a smokeless weapon?

There is no smoke at the "hat" in Moorman5. Hopefully Bill will have another one of his thoroughly believable explainations for this....

So is it your position that witnesses saw smoke shot from a smokeless weapon ... did I get that right? And if it si your position that it was a smokeless weapon, then please tell me how you know what weapon was used for if you have that information, then maybe we are closer to knowing who fired the shot. And so you know ... rifles do smoke, especially the first few times they have been shot after being oiled. Also, when the HSCA tested shots that were fired into sand bags - those shots were filmed and those guns smoked, as well. This is why I am most interested in where you got information that guns do not smoke.

If it was smoke(& I think we can agree Miles, that in a certain Weigman frame or two it does look like it is) then I would agree with you it's from another source.

I take it that you mean by another source ... other than from Hudson or the men next to him.

Bill Miller

Break this down into a frames series for comparison:

[Bill Miller]

Where is all this smoke in Moorman that the hat produced btw?

I have always believed that smoke was seen by those men standing on the overpass but watching their statements to Lane again & having to sift through the garbage you write, I am now for the first time having doubts.

That's how convincing your words are.

Try producing some real hard photographical evidence for the smoke, verbal assurances from you farm hand types are not doing it for me anymore.

Alan,

You are saying in one breath that you believe there was smoke as seen by the men on the underpass and then in the next breath you are asking why Moorman's photo doesn't show it as if it never existed. Maybe we should stop and let you first make up your mind which position you want to take.

Now to answer your question ... Moorman's camera, like Nix's - is not at the right angle to see the smoke as it is up in the shadows of the tree foliage. Moorman's photo is B&W which limits color tone variance and Nix is simply too far away. The Nix camera cannot even allow us to see into the shade of the walkway. But Wiegman and Zapruder were at different angles to the sun than Moorman was and this allowed the smoke to be illuminated in their cameras by the position of the sun shining through it.

Below is an illustration I did a long time ago. While some areas of the distance tree foliage may be light in color ... the shadow separation of the foliage can be seen within some of the lighter areas. However, other areas are dense/solid and this would be the main smoke cloud which blocks out the Hudson tree completely.

Then there are the little swirls of smoke that occur when smoke drifts out into a wind current. It causes these little pockets to rotate. As Zapruder panned to the west, his camera captured the smoke swirls.

Bill Miller

Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

All we really know is that JFK was shot from more than one

direction...

Jack, I have the greatest respect for your work, but I don't stipulate for a moment that we "know" that JFK was shot "from more than one direction."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Ashton

Well we disagree on this.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to go to the back of the line of people who disagree with me on this.

I think analysis of the wounds and the testimony about them show bullet entrance and exit wounds both front and back.

Allow me just to say this and no more: the LNs and the CTs use the exact same body of wounds and projectile "evidence" (so-called) and "testimony" (so-called) to arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions. What does this tell one immediately about the evidence and testimony at issue?

I think most researchers agreed on that as a given years ago.

Well, I've been called many things, but nobody's ever accused me of being one of your basic "most researchers." (By "most researchers," you of course are only referring to the CT researchers, but see what I said above about the use of the so-called "evidence" and "testimony" re: projectile wounds.)

The "agreed on" part is exactly what I was referring to earlier about an idee fixé. Once one passes such a fork in the road of decision and conclusion, it determines the path from there on out. If it is the wrong path, it will lead nowhere. Where has it gotten anyone so far? As far as I can determine, it has gotten us into this very thicket where we stand, feeling around in the bushes for shooters that don't exist and never did.

It's just a snipe hunt, and we are the ones holding the bag.

There are no snipes.

I say it's time to stop hunting snipes and go back and look for the fork in the road. That's where we all got lost.

I've said before to great razzberries of raucous derision that the Warren Commission itself, run by the most vicious CIA madmen ever, seeded the CT poppy garden even while propping Oswald up in the center as the LN scarecrow. And I'll say it again.

I do not dismiss the testimony of the Parkland doctors, for instance, who saw a gaping exit wound in the occipital, and an entrance wound in the throat.

Okay. Then ask yourself this stinging question: what august body supplied that testimony for you?

Should we dismiss ALL the evidence and start over from zero?

Oh, my dear Jack! Heavens no! Its very contradiction proves conclusively that there was a conspiracy, that it extended to tainting and manipulation of the wounds evidence, and that such criminal cover-up could not possibly have been carried out by anyone who was not in or working on behalf of agencies of the United States government.

Anyone who steps back from the slaughter long enough to evaluate it against any other case in the annals of crime will see at once that 1/10th the evidence of evidence tampering that there is in this case would have had felony charges and indictments flying in all directions. Why is it not the case in this case?

The evidence is tainted and compromised beyond use. That is its own crime, and prosecution of it inevitably would lead to the perpetrators of the murder itself.

But we can't expect them to try themselves, can we? And that is the current state of affairs, and the sole reason why such damning evidence of conspiracy and evidence tampering has not resulted in criminal charges and trial.

Meanwhile, I've also said before that the only "rational" (no other word will do I'm afraid) scenario I can see for such a bold assassination and successful cover-up is that the conspirators would frame a patsy as a "lone nutter" who they had put in proximate location and position to where the actual shots came from. That's clearly why Ruth Hyde Paine set Oswald up at the book depository a month and a day after Buell Wesley Frazier started there on a Friday the 13th.

Damn shame she didn't get him a job on the Grassy Knoll.

Ashton

Edited September 27, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Bill Miller]

Break this down into a frames series for comparison:

This clip is made up of two of the clearer Wiegman frames taken at about 4 - 6 frames apart. The middle frame is a combination of the two for a fade-in effect. I do not have a gif. animator on the current laptop I am using. Someone else can remove the middle frame and just play two if they feel it will help. The first and last frames are actual Wiegman frames. By overlaying them ... it told me whether the smoke was in motion or not. My conclusion found that the smoke had moved.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Break this down into a frames series for comparison:

This clip is made up of two of the clearer Wiegman frames taken at about 4 - 6 frames apart. The middle frame is a combination of the two for a fade-in effect. I do not have a gif. animator on the current laptop I am using. Someone else can remove the middle frame and just play two if they feel it will help. The first and last frames are actual Wiegman frames. By overlaying them ... it told me whether the smoke was in motion or not. My conclusion found that the smoke had moved.

Bill Miller

Even if the frames, as totalities, move?

The smoke seems to move, yes, but the frames, as total frame images, move.

The frames move, so everything in the frames move, not the smoke moving across the frame.

The smoke moves because the whole frames move.

Explanation?

Edited September 27, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Break this down into a frames series for comparison:

This clip is made up of two of the clearer Wiegman frames taken at about 4 - 6 frames apart. The middle frame is a combination of the two for a fade-in effect. I do not have a gif. animator on the current laptop I am using. Someone else can remove the middle frame and just play two if they feel it will help. The first and last frames are actual Wiegman frames. By overlaying them ... it told me whether the smoke was in motion or not. My conclusion found that the smoke had moved.

Bill Miller

Even if the frames, as totalities, move?

The smoke seems to move, yes, but the frames, as total frame images, move.

The frames move, so everything in the frames move, not the smoke moving across the frame.

The smoke moves because the whole frames move.

Explanation?

Also, point out smoke swirls. Where are they?

Edited September 27, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Even if the frames, as totalities, move?

The smoke seems to move, yes, but the frames, as total frame images, move.

The frames move, so everything in the frames move, not the smoke moving across the frame.

The smoke moves because the whole frames move.

Explanation?

I am not sure how close you are looking at these images before responding, thus your response is so general that it is hard to know exactly what you are getting at. However, I will address what I think you might be saying ...

Wiegman's camera was jumping very badly as he ran, thus to align the background over the top of itself from frame to frame, then one must stagger the frames so to keep the background stationary. Place a mouse arrow on any part of the clip and both aimges should be aligned really close, if not exact.

If it is the light seen through the foliage that seems to move, then I ask that you find a spot that is visible in both and place your mouse on it and watch the frames interchange. Because one frame is more blurred than the other - these light areas tend to fade, but they are still stanilized and overlaid onto one another.

One red arrow is placed on the clip so to make the point that the images are stabilized.

In the post where you asked me to point out the smoke - look above the car directly across the street. You are using the MPI frames which are dark, thus you must lighten them slightly to better see the swirls.

Note that because the Zfilm is in color - those swirls are bluish gray - gun powder smoke color. Those swirls are also the same shape as seen in the Wiegman film as I marked with red arrows in my previous post. The only difference in their spacing is a result of them being seen from two different angles.

Bill Miller

Edited September 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Dawn Meredith]

All we really know is that JFK was shot from more than one

direction...

Jack, I have the greatest respect for your work, but I don't stipulate for a moment that we "know" that JFK was shot "from more than one direction."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Ashton

Well we disagree on this. I think analysis of the wounds and the testimony

about them show bullet entrance and exit wounds both front and back. I

think most researchers agreed on that as a given years ago. I do not dismiss

the testimony of the Parkland doctors, for instance, who saw a gaping exit

wound in the occipital, and an entrance wound in the throat. Should we

dismiss ALL the evidence and start over from zero?

Jack

Jack:

I completely agree. The Parkland Hospital doctors had to reason to fabricate the direction of the wounds.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was there and observed the wounds, when shown"autopsy photos" by Gary Shaw concluded that either these photo were fakes or that surgery had been performed on the president's body.

Of the 13 doctors and nurses in Dallas who witnessed the president's body all described the throat wound as one of entrance.

David Lifton in Best Evidence also made a compelling arguement for the body alteration scenerio.

Ashton's argument, that the killers would have the assassins placed only in a comparable position to the patsy is not without merit, but I disagree that the evidence supports this. Some of the doctors spoke very early: 11/22/63! Clark and Perry if I recall correctly, well before there was time to have the plotters compromise their statements.

Dawn