On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Miles Scull]

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.

Alan,

There is no smoke, swirls or otherwise, in these frames.

Miller cannot even point to any objects or even any features in these frames which Miller himself is seemingly suggesting are evidence of smoke.

Wonder what the reason is for this complete absence of specificity?

Ain't no smoke.

My hunch is that what is going on is this:

Miller thought, apparently for some years, that "C" was a smoke swirl.

Then, I pointed out the obvious lens patina.

Then, someone realised that "C" was only lens surface gunk grunge.

Then, it was time for someone to do this =

You know the drill.

[Alan Healy]

Everyone can see clearly the items we are talking about in those frames & that's all that matters. The rest of the image is irrelevant & you & anyone else who cares, can work with them themselves, if they want them to look prettier. The Costella frames were my source & they are in colour not B/W.

There are plenty of free picture software programs available on the net(try cnet or softpedia), download one & show us your version without removing the colour.

Btw, If you said something was dung, I wouldn't trust you in the first place because you can't tell the difference between your @$$ & your elbow from what I see.

I admire the original idea & effort of studying these frames for signs of the W "smoke" in the first place but the fudge & disguise are deplorable.

cnet.com or softpedia.com

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

[Bill Miller]

My hunch is that what is going on is this:

Miller thought, apparently for some years, that "C" was a smoke swirl.

Then, I pointed out the obvious lens patina.

Then, someone realised that "C" was only lens surface gunk grunge.

Then, it was time for someone to do this =

You know the drill.

Miles,

I do not believe that what you are seeing is what you call, "lens grunge". Anything on the lens would appear fuzzy when the image is sharp because the focus function on the camera will be forced to chose one or the other (the foreground or the background). Everything in the frame I have posted is all the same sharpness.

Now several times now I have alluded back to the Wiegman film and the swirls seen in the illustration I posted. They are stacked up just as they appear in the Zapruder frames. Even you haven't tried to pass them off on Wiegman's film as 'lens grunge' because to do so would mean explaining how their formation is not only to scale with the distance Wiegman was from the knoll, but the 'C' shaped swirls are stacked up the same in both films, as well. Nor have you tried to rebut why it is that we can see the south knoll though the lower two. In looking at Wiegman's film, the upper 'C' shaped swirl with Zapruder's camera panning towards the underpass would show a backdrop of foliage from the overhanging leaf clusters seen in Wiegman's film. You have produced nothing to the contrary IMO. In the legal field that is called ending up with a big doughnut (aka. zero, nadda, zilch)!

Is the top swirl seen with certainty in the Zframe I provided ... I cannot say 100% that it is. I do however, find their formation to be very striking to that seen in the Wiegman film ... right down to the way the swirls are laying in each.

Bill Miller

Edited October 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

You want more contrast? That's fine.

It makes no difference, the shapes remain the same.

Compare that to your bastardised version where you exaggerated the true appearance of the shapes by Christ knows how much.

Let the reader decide & then go check the film for themselves.

[Bill Miller]

You want more contrast? That's fine.

It makes no difference, the shapes remain the same.

The shapes are supposed to stay the same. You are so worked up that I don't think you even know what it is you are trying to argue about. Going from color to B&W does not change the shape of anything that I am aware of. I showed the B&W version of the Zframe so to compare it to the B&W Wiegman frame.

Compare that to your bastardised version where you exaggerated the true appearance of the shapes by Christ knows how much.

Let the reader decide & then go check the film for themselves.

No shapes were changed, Alan. Furthermore you have avoided my pointing out that the south knoll can be seen through at least one of them/possibly two. Is it your position that you cannot see the tree trunk on the south knoll through the bottom swirl? (see post 301 for the color version)

And I agree, let the reader decide for him or herself.

Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

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.

Alan,

There is no smoke, swirls or otherwise, in these frames.

Miller cannot even point to any objects or even any features in these frames which Miller himself is seemingly suggesting are evidence of smoke.

Wonder what the reason is for this complete absence of specificity?

Ain't no smoke.

My hunch is that what is going on is this:

Miller thought, apparently for some years, that "C" was a smoke swirl.

Then, I pointed out the obvious lens patina.

Then, someone realised that "C" was only lens surface gunk grunge.

Then, it was time for someone to do this =

You know the drill.

Alan and Miles:

If (that's the proverbial "big 'if'" you've heard so much about) you were dealing with anything but an inveterate xxxxx whose sole stock in trade is number of sabotaged forum pages, this wouldn't now have run to 21 forum pages, mostly of bold-faced useless effluvium.

Of course A and B are leaves, and A resolves every bit as sharply as does B:

And now, here is a heart-felt plea: please, please stop feeding the xxxxx. Please?

Just let him twist in the wind with his "smoke."

Ashton

[Miles Scull]

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.

Alan,

There is no smoke, swirls or otherwise, in these frames.

Miller cannot even point to any objects or even any features in these frames which Miller himself is seemingly suggesting are evidence of smoke.

Wonder what the reason is for this complete absence of specificity?

Ain't no smoke.

My hunch is that what is going on is this:

Miller thought, apparently for some years, that "C" was a smoke swirl.

Then, I pointed out the obvious lens patina.

Then, someone realised that "C" was only lens surface gunk grunge.

Then, it was time for someone to do this =

You know the drill.

Alan and Miles:

If (that's the proverbial "big 'if'" you've heard so much about) you were dealing with anything but an inveterate xxxxx whose sole stock in trade is number of sabotaged forum pages, this wouldn't now have run to 21 forum pages, mostly of bold-faced useless effluvium.

Of course A and B are leaves, and A resolves every bit as sharply as does B:

And now, here is a heart-felt plea: please, please stop feeding the xxxxx. Please?

Just let him twist in the wind with his "smoke."

Ashton

OK, Boss.

Stop feeding the xxxxx.

It's a deal.

[Bill Miller]

Alan and Miles:

If (that's the proverbial "big 'if'" you've heard so much about) you were dealing with anything but an inveterate xxxxx whose sole stock in trade is number of sabotaged forum pages, this wouldn't now have run to 21 forum pages, mostly of bold-faced useless effluvium.

Of course A and B are leaves, and A resolves every bit as sharply as does B:

And now, here is a heart-felt plea: please, please stop feeding the xxxxx. Please?

Just let him twist in the wind with his "smoke."

Ashton

Amazing ... Miles says its 'lens grunge' / Alan says its leaves, then comes 'Outback Jack' who somehow seems to be agreeing with both and/or neither. Maybe someone can confirm or deny .... Is the term 'lens grunge' code for 'leaves' or is the term 'leaves' code for 'lens grunge'???

The dark area in an around the swirls would be the shaded side of the foliage of the tree, but the lighter green area seen through the swirl is the south knoll. Does not any of you care to address the vertical line seen through the bottom swirl and the next time you go barking about trolls, please bark a little bit about their "C" shapes and they equate with the "C" shapes I pointed out in the Wiegman film.

"Ye shall know thee by the fruit they bare."

Bill Miller

Edited October 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

And now, here is a heart-felt plea: please, please stop feeding the xxxxx. Please?

Just let him twist in the wind with his "smoke."

Ashton

Okay Ashton I hear you, it's not a problem really but...... I was just getting into it.

"Even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose".

[Robin Unger]

A couple of questions.

Does this Bell frame roughly correspond with the wiegman SMOKE frame showing the limo just about to enter the underpass.

Is the tree on the right the same SMOKE tree as seen in Wiegman.

[Alan Healy]

A couple of questions.

Does this Bell frame roughly correspond with the wiegman SMOKE frame showing the limo just about to enter the underpass.

Is the tree on the right the same SMOKE tree as seen in Wiegman.

Yes Robin, that first frame has to be during the very second(give or take a few moments) that Wiegman get's his best shot of the "smoke".

Your second question is correct to an extent but in actual fact there were three trees that all line up(or rather some of their branches do) from the position Wiegman was in the street.

This crop of Willis6 gives you an idea what I mean.

Of course I'm not saying I know this for a fact but it is has just been my impression from all the pictures I have seen that show this scene.

***

Many thanks for the upload btw Robin.

Sadly I can't work with it because my software won't advance those type files, one frame at a time like I need it to do in order to capture those few scattered frames that show this cluster clearly.

I'lll just have to buy the DVD myself.

The assistance is appreciated though.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

A couple of questions.

Does this Bell frame roughly correspond with the wiegman SMOKE frame showing the limo just about to enter the underpass.

Is the tree on the right the same SMOKE tree as seen in Wiegman.

Robin,

The smoke came between the Hudson tree and the next one west from it. It is that second tree that the dense plume of smoke seems to block the tree trunk from view. That tree if you look closely has a limb that comes off of it at a right angle and points towards the street. The two trees in your Bell capture are further west and unrelated.

What we have if you look at some of the other assassination films and photos is the 'Hudson tree' near the corner of the fence. Then there are three more trees on the knoll between the Hudson tree and the underpass.

Bill

[Antti Hynonen]

How do you all see the testimonies pertaining to smelling gunpowder in and around the motorcade, and how that would fit in with the discussion of the smoke in some of the photos discussed here? I'm referring to Ralph Yarborough's testimony and as I recall there was at least one other person who mentioned this gp, could be wrong though.

What I'm getting at is, if someone smelled gunpowder at the street level, then the shots were also fired not far from that location. Take into account the direction of the wind.... you get the picture. The TSBD 6th floor doesn't quite fit in.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Robin Unger]

Thanks for the info Alan.

Bill i assume these are the two trees you were refferencing when you said between the Hudson tree and the next one west of it.

[Robin Unger]

Wiegman SMOKE frame: