On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Miles Scull]

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 an 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

Alan,

These little frames & gifs are not showing anything.

The frames move, yes, but the smoke does not.

Is that because Holland's smoke is NOT actually seen in Wiegman?

Just red leaves?

See:

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...;topic_id=22018

[Bill Miller]

'Miles Scull' post='120224' date='Sep 27 2007, 01:39 PM']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...........

Thanks for letting Miles Scull know where he stands because what you said goes for many of us on this forum. Miles has gotten the idea from somewhere that his outlandish remarks and assertions like the one above is impressing someone, but he has been badly mistaken. We may not always agree, but even if don't - we at least do so based on the evidence of the case as we see it and not by purposely running up threads with his childish behavior and lack of regard for why this forum was established in the first place.

Bill

Edited October 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Alan,

These little frames & gifs are not showing anything.

The frames move, yes, but the smoke does not.

Is that because Holland's smoke is NOT actually seen in Wiegman?

Just red leaves?

Miles,

I expected you to say the gif frames don't show anything - because to understand them is to have the knowledge to read them, unless of course someone made an outrageous claim about seeing an assassin elevated up in the trees and then you'd be falling all over yourself in an effort to make CT's (as a whole) look like morons.

For instance: You referenced all those other Wiegman frames and question where the smoke is. Do you not know enough about motion blur and what it does to losing details within an image ... if you don't, then you should have learned something from all the times I have posted on it with examples of how you can make an entire person disappear against a like colored backdrop. Sitzman and Zapruder on the pedestal in the B&W Betzner photo was one such example. It was that same sort of thing that caused Jack to think Sitzman and Zapruder were not on the pedestal in the Wiegman film. This is why I used two of the clearer Wiegman frames to create the gif because I knew if it was indeed smoke, then I should see that it moved between those two frames. And the smoke not only moved, but it moved towards the street just as it was supposed to do.

Then you ask where the smoke is in the color images ... that was a joke - right??? You have seen many times the reference to Moorman and Hill's coats and the direction the wind was blowing during the shooting. In fact, you posted on that very same thing in the Duncan shooter thread as you were marking on the knoll where you believed the smoke came over the fence. The wind came from the Northwest and was blowing to the southeast. The fence and the tree foliage (working as a wind break) would help hold the smoke pattern together as it was propelled out the end of the rifle barrel. Once the smoke drifted out from the confines and protection of the foliage - it would then be quickly broken up and dissipated once it hit the open air. So to believe that the smoke would still be seen after the limo has already left the plaza and with cars stopped on Elm Street and people walking around ... maybe a minute after Wiegman has filmed what he could ... is ridiculous and it reflects that you know little of the photographic record in both knowing how to read it and understanding its time-line. But I'm not even buying the idea that you are that inept about this stuff just from your past postings alone. I believe that you are purposely trying to disrupt the flow of information going into the thread and confuse others who you feel might not know better ... and thats Ok, because I am going to explain this stuff so they see both sides of the debate and let them decide for themselves based on the facts.

You are the author of how your own reputation as a serious researcher will be viewed by your peers.

Bill Miller

Edited September 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

I assume this is the correct position that Bill wanted us to look at in Nix.

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/3903/hatmannixzoomdw5.gif

Will take about a minute & half to fully load if your on 56k.

Personally, I can see neither a hat or any obvious movement other than that which we would expect from a panning camera.

There is one small black blob above the fence but it seems stationary & to me.

IMO it's source is the wheel arch of the white vehicle in the backround.

[Alan Healy]

I most likely got this from Lancer & it looks like one of Bill's.

I just cropped it a little bit to save loading times.

Might take 4mins if your on 56k but it's worth it.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2028/zapruderfencegr6.gif

Anyone see any sign of smoke?

I so wish I could & I mean that.

[Bill Miller]

I assume this is the correct position that Bill wanted us to look at in Nix.

Personally, I can see neither a hat or any obvious movement other than that which we would expect from a panning camera.

There is one small black blob above the fence but it seems stationary & to me.

IMO it's source is the wheel arch of the white vehicle in the backround.

Alan,

The gif you may want to look at was created by researcher Rick Needham. The one you posted is not Ricks.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I most likely got this from Lancer & it looks like one of Bill's.

I just cropped it a little bit to save loading times.

Might take 4mins if your on 56k but it's worth it.

Anyone see any sign of smoke?

I so wish I could & I mean that.

I would be surprised if that was a gif I created for I most always use MPI frames and not Costella's version.

I also think you really need to visit the plaza one day so to better understand the geography better. Zapruder panned passed the smoke at around Z419 if my memory is correct. You have chosen the tail end of the Zapruder film that doesn't have the smoke in it because as Wiegman's film shows - its no longer near the fence, but rather out past the Hudson tree.

Bill Miller

Edited September 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

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

With all due respect Bill, we should have a better animation than that by todays standards.

Okay, we only have the three good frames to work with but it should at least be bigger so everyone can see the smoke easier(notice how I called it "smoke"?).

I will give it a try tommorow.

[Alan Healy]

I assume this is the correct position that Bill wanted us to look at in Nix.

Personally, I can see neither a hat or any obvious movement other than that which we would expect from a panning camera.

There is one small black blob above the fence but it seems stationary & to me.

IMO it's source is the wheel arch of the white vehicle in the backround.

Alan,

The gif you may want to look at was created by researcher Rick Needham. The one you posted is not Ricks.

Bill

Our source was the same. Groden's "Assassination Films".

Our black blob was the same too, only mine is clearer & you can see now that it's nothing.

No?

I remember taking a long look at Rick's quite a few times but I was never able to make my mind up about what I was seeing.

Now I have.

Maybe someone can find Rick's anyway, just for comparison.

[Alan Healy]

I most likely got this from Lancer & it looks like one of Bill's.

I just cropped it a little bit to save loading times.

Might take 4mins if your on 56k but it's worth it.

Anyone see any sign of smoke?

I so wish I could & I mean that.

I would be surprised if that was a gif I created for I most always use MPI frames and not Costella's version.

I also think you really need to visit the plaza one day so to better understand the geography better. Zapruder panned passed the smoke at around Z419 if my memory is correct. You have chosen the tail end of the Zapruder film that doesn't have the smoke in it because as Wiegman's film shows - its no longer near the fence, but rather out past the Hudson tree.

Bill Miller

Thanks for the feed back, I'll see if I can make one focusing on the H tree.

[Ashton Gray]

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

Your statement is false on its face and uncharacteristically irresponsible.

Here are the actual facts in this summary of the medical testimony to the Warren Commission on the subject of the throat wound:

As is demonstrated above clearly and inarguably, 9 of 12 Parkland medical personnel who were in any position at all to put forward an opinion testified that they were uncertain or could not determine whether the wound might have been an entrance or an exit wound. A significant number of them didn't see the throat at all until after any "wound" had been obliterated by Perry's creative carving on the throat.

Two doctors said it appeared to be an exit wound. Zero doctors said it was an entrance wound.

One and only one relevant medical witness—one nurse—said she initially thought it looked like an entrance wound, and she has been counted in the "Entrance Wound" column only, even though the fact is she flip-flopped in testimony and said she had since gotten more information, and that it possibly could have been an exit wound.

Although I'm frankly surprised, Dawn, that you so bombastically and emphatically would state as "fact" such a gross misrepresenation of the real facts in evidence, at least it demonstrates spectacularly the very point I was making before about the lamentable zealotry in people I otherwise respect when it comes to their ironbound faith in the Mythology of the Outdoor Shooter.

It is more than merely lamentable, though, when such zeal reaches to material misrepresentations of important facts.

At least you've got lots of company: there's plenty of smoke to peer at in this thread.

Ashton

Edited September 28, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Bill Miller]

[/uote]

Our source was the same. Groden's "Assassination Films".

Our black blob was the same too, only mine is clearer & you can see now that it's nothing.

No?

I remember taking a long look at Rick's quite a few times but I was never able to make my mind up about what I was seeing.

Now I have.

Maybe someone can find Rick's anyway, just for comparison.

Your animation didn't look as sharp as Rick's. And while I do not know what it is I am seeing in Rick's - it is a solid object just over the fence that is not there in later film pans of the same fence line. I believe it to be something, but what other choices can there be???

Bill

Edited September 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I most likely got this from Lancer & it looks like one of Bill's.

I just cropped it a little bit to save loading times.

Might take 4mins if your on 56k but it's worth it.

Anyone see any sign of smoke?

I so wish I could & I mean that.

I would be surprised if that was a gif I created for I most always use MPI frames and not Costella's version.

I also think you really need to visit the plaza one day so to better understand the geography better. Zapruder panned passed the smoke at around Z419 if my memory is correct. You have chosen the tail end of the Zapruder film that doesn't have the smoke in it because as Wiegman's film shows - its no longer near the fence, but rather out past the Hudson tree.

Bill Miller

Thanks for the feed back, I'll see if I can make one focusing on the H tree.

Alan,

Question:

Do you notice an identity of "shape" between the alleged smoke & the red leaf cluster?

Is the smoke only a red leaf cluster?

In the smoke gif the whole frames are moved to move the smoke & the angle also changes.

This, in such a small gif, gives an illusion of smoke movement.

But, there is no smoke.

[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

I have suspected for a long time from watching trap shoots that once the smoke drifted out from the confines from the trees - that the wind that had been blowing during the shooting had quickly dismantled the puff of smoke and pushed the smell of burnt gunpowder down into the street and towards Houston Street.

In the Lane interview with Sam Holland, Sam states that 'the smoke came out through the trees and hung there for just a couple of seconds, long enough to have seen it'. This is supportive of the wind quickly breaking up the original puff of smoke and is why later images do not show the event. It appears to me that by the time JFK had entered the underpass and while Wiegman was sill running ... the smoke was quickly broken up by the air current, thus not allowing further chances to capture it on film to exist.

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Our source was the same. Groden's "Assassination Films".

Our black blob was the same too, only mine is clearer & you can see now that it's nothing.

No?

I remember taking a long look at Rick's quite a few times but I was never able to make my mind up about what I was seeing.

Now I have.

Maybe someone can find Rick's anyway, just for comparison.

Your animation didn't look as sharp as Rick's. And while I do not know what it is I am seeing in Rick's - it is a solid object just over the fence that is not there in later film pans of the same fence line. I believe it to be something, but what other choices can there be???

Bill

No, my frames are not as sharp but they are a lot clearer.

I found no reason to do anything with the frames I captured other than to lighten them a little.

Rick most likely had a different capture program & may of tried to "enhance" his frames before making his GIF. I don't really know.

One version of Rick's from '05.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3825.gif

My animation is clearer & it's zoomed into the fence. I've concluded it's not a hat but the shape of the wheel arch on the white vehicle in the background.

So IMO "if you want to know where "Hatman" was positioned", don't look at Nix because "it" is not seen it that film.

Next!

Edited September 28, 2007 by Alan Healy