On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Alan Healy]

Btw, please tell me how Nix's camera was at the same height as Bowers' eyes.

You keep repeating it but I don't see any data that would substantuate this rather outlandish claim of yours.

Bowers was said to be elevated about 14 feet into the air.

14' high from what spot? The bottom of his tower?

Did this measurment mean from the ground to his feet or to his eyes?

Do you not quote references anymore?

The fence was 5' tall. If Nix was eye level with the fence, then he could not have seen over the top of it to see a car sitting behind it.

If we are assuming that the ground that that vehicle is resting on is at the same height as the bottom of the north side of the fence then I could see your point but why would you do that?

From across the plaza had Nix been able to see the side windows of a car it would have taken at least 3 more feet in elevation to allow him to see over the top of the fence. To see something as low as a car tire from that distance, Nix would need IMO to be elevated at least another 3 more feet, making that a total 11 feet in elevation to the fence. I think my estimate is conservative and that 11 to 14 feet in elevation may be closer to that Nix achieved as he stood up near the top of Main Street.

Are you basing this whole idea on the car seen behind the fence & you don't even know how far back it was or at what height it was?

Or do you actually have data that shows the height of inside(north) bottom of the fence was at the same level as the whole parking lot?

Why not show it to us?

[Alan Healy]

Thank you D

Edited October 1, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

Bill is pretty sure(or should I say totally convinced?) this is smoke too but I noticed his arrows on Z419(that he posted in B/W form a few pages back) only pointed to the general area of "the C shaped swirls".

General area??? Those swirls are not only seen in two films from different angles, but also laying with the opened end in the same direction. If I had a 10 year old son that couldn't see this, I'd disown him!

Go & look at your arrows, they don't point to the light area that you think are swirls but to that general direction.

They are in tree branches in moving footage from a camera that had a filthy lens(& "forget" the Wiegman cluster I am trying to talk about this film).

I don't doubt you on your last statement & for far less too I bet.

I want Bill to clarify that I finally found exactly what he was talking about.

I've marked A, B & C on the frame.

Is there anything of importance that I have not lettered?

The swirls are important. The angle at which Zapruder's camera is pointed cuts out the upper parts of the smoke, but the swirls are still visible. All three swirls are visible and because they are seen from two different angles - this means they are suspended in air and have nothing to do with the distant trees further west.

I'll try again because I don't think you even tried to answer my question.

Is there anything of importance that I have not pointed to?

Have I found the exact three swirls you are talking about (a b & c)?

[Bill Miller]

Bowers was said to be elevated about 14 feet into the air.

14' high from what spot? The bottom of his tower?

Did this measurment mean from the ground to his feet or to his eyes?

Do you not quote references anymore?

Alan, tell this forum what difference does it make whether Bowers was 12 feet, 14 feet, or 16 feet above the ground? Was he sitting down or standing up and who really gives a frogs fat-@$$!!! Bowers was elevated high above the fence ... the view Nix had was very similar or else he could not be seeing a wheel on a parked car directly behind the fence.

Mr. BOWERS - It is second story, it is 14 feet, 12 or 14 feet.

Mr. BALL - You worked about 14 feet above the ground?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes.

If we are assuming that the ground that that vehicle is resting on is at the same height as the bottom of the north side of the fence then I could see your point but why would you do that?

Well then why don't you get off your tail-bone and find out if the RR yard was flat or not. Isn't there surveyors maps made of the plaza! You spend about as much time trolling as Miles does. We have seen aerial photos of the RR yard posted from the very day of the assassination and nowhere has anyone ever said that the elevation of the ground along the fence was any different than that which the tower sits on. And lets us say the grader got one end a couple of inches different than the other ... are you prepared to make a fool out of yourself by trying to argue that would make all the difference in the world in allowing someone from where Nix stood to be able to see a wheel of a car parked along the fence - I would hope not!!!

Are you basing this whole idea on the car seen behind the fence & you don't even know how far back it was or at what height it was?

Or do you actually have data that shows the height of inside(north) bottom of the fence was at the same level as the whole parking lot?

If Nix was at eye level to the fence, then a car could be 100 feet from the fence and Orville would not be able to see any more of it than if it was parked right up against the fence. Based on the size of the car - it is directly behind the fence and not across the open lane to the next row. See aerial photo on page 350 of "Pictures of the Pain". Your question as to the height of the inside of the north side of the fence to the ground is so ridiculous when addressing this matter that I won't even go there. Check with the 6th Floor Museum for information of the RR yard and then if you don't like what they tell you - just call it 'hearsay'.

Bill Miller

Edited September 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I'll try again because I don't think you even tried to answer my question.

Is there anything of importance that I have not pointed to?

Have I found the exact three swirls you are talking about (a b & c)?

See post 244. The Zframe is inserted in the Wiegman image.

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

I'll try again because I don't think you even tried to answer my question.

Is there anything of importance that I have not pointed to?

Have I found the exact three swirls you are talking about (a b & c)?

See post 244. The Zframe is inserted in the Wiegman image.

Bill Miller

Again.

Is there anything of importance that I have not pointed to?

Have I found the exact three swirls you are talking about (a b & c)?

[Bill Miller]

Again.

Is there anything of importance that I have not pointed to?

Have I found the exact three swirls you are talking about (a b & c)?

And to think you were bitching about Dawn making a duplicate post. As far as your a, b, and c ... it appears that you put b and c on the same swirl, but thats probably not your fault because your frame is so poorly lit and contrasted - I can barely tell it from the JFK assassination ... let alone anything else. Someday, maybe you can explain how it is that you manage to come up with such poor images when wanting to discuss 'detail' when better ones have been posted in the past.

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Bowers was said to be elevated about 14 feet into the air.

14' high from what spot? The bottom of his tower?

Did this measurement mean from the ground to his feet or to his eyes?

Do you not quote references anymore?

Alan, tell this forum what difference does it make whether Bowers was 12 feet, 14 feet, or 16 feet above the ground? Was he sitting down or standing up and who really gives a frogs fat-@$$!!! Bowers was elevated high above the fence ... the view Nix had was very similar or else he could not be seeing a wheel on a parked car directly behind the fence.

Mr. BOWERS - It is second story, it is 14 feet, 12 or 14 feet.

Mr. BALL - You worked about 14 feet above the ground?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes.

So then, if the floor which Bowers was standing on was @14' then we add on another 5'.5" (est) to get his eye level, close to 20'.

Thanks.

Tell the forum why you keep saying "Nix's view was at the same angle as Bowers" & you now suddenly have no idea what I'm talking about. "xxxxx" did you say?

If we are assuming that the ground that that vehicle is resting on is at the same height as the bottom of the north side of the fence then I could see your point but why would you do that?

Well then why don't you get off your tail-bone and find out if the RR yard was flat or not. Isn't there surveyors maps made of the plaza! You spend about as much time trolling as Miles does. We have seen aerial photos of the RR yard posted from the very day of the assassination and nowhere has anyone ever said that the elevation of the ground along the fence was any different than that which the tower sits on. And lets us say the grader got one end a couple of inches different than the other ... are you prepared to make a fool out of yourself by trying to argue that would make all the difference in the world in allowing someone from where Nix stood to be able to see a wheel of a car parked along the fence - I would hope not!!!

Oh! Because you say this car is right next to the fence, we are to take that as "the final word"?

What planet are you from again?

Are you basing this whole idea on the car seen behind the fence & you don't even know how far back it was or at what height it was?

Or do you actually have data that shows the height of inside(north) bottom of the fence was at the same level as the whole parking lot?

If Nix was at eye level to the fence, then a car could be 100 feet from the fence and Orville would not be able to see any more of it than if it was parked right up against the fence. Based on the size of the car - it is directly behind the fence and not across the open lane to the next row. See aerial photo on page 350 of "Pictures of the Pain". Your question as to the height of the inside of the north side of the fence to the ground is so ridiculous when addressing this matter that I won't even go there. Check with the 6th Floor Museum for information of the RR yard and then if you don't like what they tell you - just call it 'hearsay'.

So you've already checked with Gary & you won't share the information or it's source?

This is like talking to a dismissed ten year old.

The car in Nix is not "directly behind the fence" your mistaken(again).

Next thing you know you'lll be telling us the them train carriages where right behind the pergola.

The level of the ground in the car lot got higher as you approached the tracks that head over the underpass.

That's where the car in Nix is.

Bowers' eyes were around 12' feet(at least) higher than Nix's camera & he would not see as much as Nix did through the gap between the fence top & the bushes.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

Again.

Is there anything of importance that I have not pointed to?

Have I found the exact three swirls you are talking about (a b & c)?

And to think you were bitching about Dawn making a duplicate post. As far as your a, b, and c ... it appears that you put b and c on the same swirl, but thats probably not your fault because your frame is so poorly lit and contrasted - I can barely tell it from the JFK assassination ... let alone anything else. Someday, maybe you can explain how it is that you manage to come up with such poor images when wanting to discuss 'detail' when better ones have been posted in the past.

The only one I see bitching is you, I was pointing it out to her, xxxxx.

Did you see the size of Dawn's post that you're comparing to mine?

Reality check, can I have it?

Okay finally we have an answer.

C is not a smoke swirl it's part of the tree, a cluster of green leaves.

As for A, see above.

B is part of the grunge on the lens.

Next!

Btw, that's what you have to do to see this garbage on the frames I have, add a lot of light, that's all I did. Perhaps one day you can walk us through how you got them to appear so bright in your B/W version & how crappy it made the rest of the frame look..

Edited September 30, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

Check out the early frames that show all the grunge on the lens & then decide how any one can claim A, B & C above are "smoke".

To quote him directly;

There is no damned way to deny that this isn't smoke seen in midair

Wrong again!

I'm telling you it's garbage & most of it is on the lens.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3674/st...nkygamessx6.gif

Edited September 30, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

So then, if the floor which Bowers was standing on was @14' then we add on another 5'.5" (est) to get his eye level, close to 20'.

Thanks.

Tell the forum why you keep saying "Nix's view was at the same angle as Bowers" & you now suddenly have no idea what I'm talking about. "xxxxx" did you say?

There is a saying in the midwest that goes something like this, "IF the dog hadn't stop to $##t, he would have caught the rabbit." If you want to play the "if" game, then 'if' the tower was 12' off the ground and Bowers was sitting at his desk when he made his observations, then his eye level would have been around 15' off the ground. The point being for the 3rd or 4th time now is that Bowers would have been elevated and able to see over the fence in much the same way Nix could see the car tire. The reason goes back to another saying they have here and it goes, "What's good for the goose is also good for the gander!"

Oh! Because you say this car is right next to the fence, we are to take that as "the final word"?

What planet are you from again?

I am saying that if the nose of the car cannot be seen because its hidden by the fence at such an elevation, then 'yes' it is one of the cars parked along the fence line. If you'd ever take the time to visit the plaza, you'd probably agree. If you wish not to believe what I am telling you, then solicit the advice of someone else who knows the plaza and RR yard who can answer that question.

So you've already checked with Gary & you won't share the information or it's source?

This is like talking to a dismissed ten year old.

The car in Nix is not "directly behind the fence" your mistaken(again).

The level of the ground in the car lot got higher as you approached the tracks that head over the underpass.

That's where the car in Nix is.

The heck you say ... please educate me on how you arrived at your conclusion from your armchair???

Bowers' eyes were around 12' feet(at least) higher than Nix's camera & he would not see as much as Nix did through the gap between the fence top & the bushes.

Really? Feel free to elaborate because just saying something in opposition of another point of view is just talk IMO.

Bill Miller

[Dawn Meredith]

dup deleted. Sorry.

[Bill Miller]

Alan, believe it or not - I have checked out the frames on both sides of the smoke swirls. Zapruder's camera panning west as he tracks the limo and not until he passes over the steps that he starts picking up the swirls. In your last sentence you say, "its garbage & most of its on the lens" ... so what part that isn't on the lens that makes it garbage. Alan???

If you go to the Wiegman film and draw a line from Zapruder's position to the white swirls - this will give you an idea of the same field of view Zapruder had. Abe's line of sight at the top of his film would pass right through those swirls which are at the base of the main body of smoke in Wiegman's film.

Now Miles has mentioned the word 'grunge' .... something by the way that you have never mentioned in the years that you have seen this stuff posted before. So let us assume that it is grunge. Why does this alleged grunge show those swirls only when the camera passes over the exact same spot that the same swirls are seen in Wiegman's camera? And what about the swirls in the Wiegman film ... maybe Miles can invent a new term called 'magical grunge that goes from camera to camera and manages to keep the same grunge patterns in the proper scaling'. That's right - you heard me correctly! Explain to this forum how it was that Wiegman captured the same shaped "C" swirls as Zapruder (which you claim to be lens grunge???). I assume that you cannot because there is no way to push this off as 'grunge' as you put it. Two different cameras filming the same location at the same point in time and capturing the same shaped swirls and you have given no more thought to this than to just say 'its garbage'. I'm not buying it, Alan. Your comment that 'most of its on the lens' speaks volumes because you never addressed what then is the rest of it from.

One more point you should go back and look at .... Much attention has been given to the distant tree foliage as if to say that it has been mistaken for 'smoke", but yet the dense body of smoke that one cannot see through is blocking out the tree trunk which would tell a reasonably intelligent person that what ever one wishes to say that dense white cloud is - its between the tree trunk and Wiegman's camera, which the distant tree foliage was not. Maybe call it the 'Wiegman lens grunge' if you like!

Bill Miller

Edited October 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

The garbage I marked B originally(which I referred to as C last night), isn't on the lens & neither is A.

Look at them again.

It took me at least four tries to get a straight answer out of you & as usual, I knew why, it's a fraud.

You say you checked out all frames surrounding the one above but then why(if you were being honest) would you decided not to use the one where what you spotted comes into focus?

B is obviously a small cluster of leaves & they are green.

A is the exact same colour but goes out of shot before it has a chance to come into focus like B does.

C is the grunge/garbage/crap pick any description you like.

If you want to discuss C go right ahead but don't refer me to B/W frames that detract from any analysis.

If you have a better Zframe to use then stop wineing like a xxxxx & post it.

Alan, believe it or not - I have checked out the frames on both sides of the smoke swirls. Zapruder's camera panning west as he tracks the limo and not until he passes over the steps that he starts picking up the swirls. In your last sentence you say, "its garbage & most of its on the lens" ... so what part that isn't on the lens that makes it garbage. Alan???

If you go to the Wiegman film and draw a line from Zapruder's position to the white swirls - this will give you an idea of the same field of view Zapruder had. Abe's line of sight at the top of his film would pass right through those swirls which are at the base of the main body of smoke in Wiegman's film.

Now Miles has mentioned the word 'grunge' .... something by the way that you have never mentioned in the years that you have seen this stuff posted before. So let us assume that it is grunge. Why does this alleged grunge show those swirls only when the camera passes over the exact same spot that the same swirls are seen in Wiegman's camera? And what about the swirls in the Wiegman film ... maybe Miles can invent a new term called 'magical grunge that goes from camera to camera and manages to keep the same grunge patterns in the proper scaling'. That's right - you heard me correctly! Explain to this forum how it was that Wiegman captured the same shaped "C" swirls as Zapruder (which you claim to be lens grunge???). I assume that you cannot because there is no way to push this off as 'grunge' as you put it. Two different cameras filming the same location at the same point in time and capturing the same shaped swirls and you have given no more thought to this than to just say 'its garbage'. I'm not buying it, Alan. Your comment that 'most of its on the lens' speaks volumes because you never addressed what then is the rest of it from.

One more point you should go back and look at .... Much attention has been given to the distant tree foliage as if to say that it has been mistaken for 'smoke", but yet the dense body of smoke that one cannot see through is blocking out the tree trunk which would tell a reasonably intelligent person that what ever one wishes to say that dense white cloud is - its between the tree trunk and Wiegman's camera, which the distant tree foliage was not. Maybe call it the 'Wiegman lens grunge' if you like!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

It took me at least four tries to get a straight answer out of you & as usual, I knew why, it's a fraud.

You say you checked out all frames surrounding the one above but then why(if you were being honest) would you decided not to use the one where what you spotted comes into focus?

Alan, you need to get another armchair for the one you have isn't working for you. I am not sure how you managed to get such faded Zframes because I know they are not seen that way on any of the Zapruder film copies I have, but if you go back to my Wiegman insert of frame Z419 - the south knoll can be seen through the smoke. As I recall, even a pole or a tree is visible in that example. If you are seeing green in these ridiculously faded images, then it is the green grass of the south knoll leading up to the parking lot in at least one of them and possibly tree foliage through the other.

Don't you ever get tired of going on these rants half-cocked and not having your facts straight! So now you want to sell the ol' transparent "C" shaped foliage clusters - GIVE ME A BREAK!!! I am beginning to think that if I said dung stinks - you'd say it smells good.

Bill Miller