Miles Scull Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 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. Good thinking Antti! Remember, Tosh Plumlee ALSO smelled "gunsmoke." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Good thinking Antti!Remember, Tosh Plumlee ALSO smelled "gunsmoke." Good point, Miles. The only thing about Plumlee is that the photographic record doesn't show him where he first said he was, or in the location that he changed his location to. Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's coats being blown to the southeast is very telling. It means that once the smoke got out past the protection of the tree foliage - the wind would have picked it up and dissipated it in very short order. The odor would have been carried up Elm Street where witnesses in the motorcade caught wind of it. Mr. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot", and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a "the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder. I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that. Mr. HUBERT. Let me ask you, after the first shot and your observation of this object in that window as you have described it, you turned your attention from that window? Mr. CABELL. That is right. Mr. HUBERT. So that you were not looking in the direction of that window when the second and third shots were fired? Mr. CABELL. No. Mr. HUBERT. Did you look in that direction thereafter? Mr. CABELL. If I did, I don't recall. I am completely aware of the people running up that hill. I saw the man throw the child on the ground and throw himself. I saw a woman in a bright green dress throw herself on the ground. I saw the policeman running up the grassy slope. Mr. HUBERT. You also mentioned that you were acutely aware of the smell of gunpowder? Mr. CABELL. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. When was that relative to the shots? I mean how soon after? Mr. CABELL. I cannot say for sure, because as I told you, the motorcade was stopped. And somewhere in there, Congressman Roberts said, "That is a .30-06." I didn't know what a .30-06 was. Mr. HUBERT. Did he say that after all the shots were fired? Mr. CABELL. I believe so. There was much confusion. Mr. HUBERT. And it was about that time that you observed the odor? Mr. CABELL. Of gunpowder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Wiegman SMOKE frame: Not bad Robin. Couch SMOKE frames: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3995/couchcomparexh6.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 Wiegman SMOKE frame: Not bad Robin. Couch SMOKE frames: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3995/couchcomparexh6.gif Alan, There is no smoke left to be seen in the Couch frames and while both show the outer sunlit leaves of one of the more distant trees, the white area blocking the tree trunk in the Wiegman film/along with the swirls (also seen on the Zapruder film) cannot be so easily passed off as such. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) Wiegman SMOKE frame: Not bad Robin. Couch SMOKE frames: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3995/couchcomparexh6.gif Alan, There is no smoke left to be seen in the Couch frames and while both show the outer sunlit leaves of one of the more distant trees, the white area blocking the tree trunk in the Wiegman film/along with the swirls (also seen on the Zapruder film) cannot be so easily passed off as such. Bill I've already shown how your Z C swirls are nothing but leaves & a dirty lens. If you want to show me what white area in Wiegman is blocking which tree trunk I will comment on it. There's no need to tell me what I'm seeing or throw arrows at it, just post the image & I'll make my own mind up. Show everyone here what white area in Wiegman is blocking a tree trunk & please use an original image, not one you've "worked on". Edited October 4, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) Alan, There is no smoke left to be seen in the Couch frames and while both show the outer sunlit leaves of one of the more distant trees, the white area blocking the tree trunk in the Wiegman film/along with the swirls (also seen on the Zapruder film) cannot be so easily passed off as such. Bill Alan, I'll tell you what ... I will leave you with your 'dirty lens' theory for I have decided that trying to teach you something is a waste of time. Honestly, I don't know anyone who knows less about the photographic record and the effects of a camera than you do. A few post ago you called the swirls leaves - now you call them the result of a dirty lens and it is pure double talk. Zapruder was facing the sun at least from the kill shot on and you don't see those swirls anywhere. In fact, nowhere on his film do you see anything that would show that he had a dirty lens. I have had dirt and/or water spots on my camera lens before and it will show up no matter where I point my camera. The dirt or spots will also effect the focus of my camera because it will get confused as to whether it should be focusing on the background or the foreground and at least the part of the picture that was taken through any dust or dirt on my lens will not appear as sharp as the rest of the image that was captured through the clean part of the lens. If dirt and/or water spots - they will not only be visible on the film, but when the angle of reflectivity is just right ... the sun will cause a glare that washed out part, if not all, of the image and this does not happen in Zapruder's film. The reason this doesn't happen is because Zapruder's camera lens was clean. And to demonstrate how much faith you have in those "C" shapes being the result of leaves and/or a dirty lens - I specifically have asked several times then how do you explain them same "C" shapes being seen in the Dave Wiegman film and turned in the same direction and you have not even touched that question. Instead, you respond only about the Zapruder film and have continued to just call them leaves and/or dirt (leaves BTW that I have pointed out several times now that one can see the south pasture through). I asked you how Wiegman's camera was not only able to see the same shapes at the same location as Zapruder, but also see them in the correct perspective, thus the artifacts being dirt on Zapruder's camera doesn't wash. In the best frames the swirls are just as sharp as the rest of the frame which should not occur if any one of those swirls are the result of a mere dirty lens. There is no glare that shows up on the lens showing that the suns reflective angle is a factor at any point. All you have done is choose a quick solution of saying, 'dah' ... must be leaves and dirt'. It seems apparent to me like so many other things you have said about other areas of the photographic record that you just sit in your armchair and don't take the extra effort to even test your claims whether it be to actually visit Dealey Plaza or make a simple phone call to a witness for clarification. So yes, Alan ... its magical dirt on a camera lens that just happen to be on another camera lens as well in the same shape and only smaller so to fit the greater distance Wiegman was from the knoll. And yes - it was also leaves ... the kind that you can see through ... we'll call them the magical transparent leaves of Dealey Plaza ... see how easy it is to explain away! If you want to show me what white area in Wiegman is blocking which tree trunk I will comment on it.There's no need to tell me what I'm seeing or throw arrows at it, just post the image & I'll make my own mind up. You've been reading this stuff here and on Lancer for a couple of years now and all of a sudden you need someone to point out the main body of alleged smoke that is so dense that it is blocking out part of the tree trunk - GIVE ME A BREAK! If nothing else, such a remark only strengthens my point in the top half of this response. I demonstrated this stuff to people like Simkin to Law to Mellen (just to name a few) and no one came off as not being able to follow what I said. Certainly not a one of them at the conference said anything like, 'Dah ... what smoke - what tree ???'. Play that game with someone else. I cannot make someone intelligent enough to follow what has been said ... I can only explain these observations to the best of my ability in hopes they have enough reasoning ability to follow along, ask themselves how those swirls got on two independent films, and to certainly know what tree trunk is being blocked from view in Wiegman's film. (End of story) You've participated on this particular thread for a year or so here and elsewhere ... you just stated you don't even know what tree trunk I am talking about. I am curious as to how much longer it will take for you to figure that one out ... with anyone else it would take a stop-watch ... if you are being serious (which I do not believe) we'll continue needing a calendar. Bill Miller Edited October 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Wiegman SMOKE frame: Not bad Robin. Couch SMOKE frames: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3995/couchcomparexh6.gif Alan, There is no smoke left to be seen in the Couch frames and while both show the outer sunlit leaves of one of the more distant trees, the white area blocking the tree trunk in the Wiegman film/along with the swirls (also seen on the Zapruder film) cannot be so easily passed off as such. Bill I've already shown how your Z C swirls are nothing but leaves & a dirty lens. If you want to show me what white area in Wiegman is blocking which tree trunk I will comment on it. There's no need to tell me what I'm seeing or throw arrows at it, just post the image & I'll make my own mind up. Show everyone here what white area in Wiegman is blocking a tree trunk & please use an original image, not one you've "worked on". Alan, There is no white area in Wiegman that is blocking a tree trunk. In fairness, can anyone demonstrate this? Perhaps so? However, if you or anyone else cannot demonstrate such an area, it must be concluded that there is no smoke evident in Wiegman, as I have proved. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) Alan,There is no white area in Wiegman that is blocking a tree trunk. In fairness, can anyone demonstrate this? Perhaps so? However, if you or anyone else cannot demonstrate such an area, it must be concluded that there is no smoke evident in Wiegman, as I have proved. Yes? Well Miles, if you actually looked at this stuff before rendering an opinion, then maybe you would have noticed the following .... The illuminated/lighter colored foliage of the trees are marked with circles. Note the tree trunk in the tree just west of the Hudson tree. There is no illuminated tree foliage blocking any portion of the trunk where the dense white cloud is seen in the Wiegman film. Now look at the same tree trunk in the Wiegman film and tell this forum how the distant foliage clusters got between the tree trunk and Wiegman's camera? Note that the lighter colored foliage marked in the Wiegman film can be seen in part just over the white dense cloud ... some of the tree trunk can be seen with them, as well. At some point even you will have to admit that there is a point here that cannot be denied. And that point is that the white dense looking area is blocking out the tree trunk from view - t the right of it there appears to be some foliage seen, but not through the dense cloud that I speak off. Edited October 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Alan,There is no white area in Wiegman that is blocking a tree trunk. In fairness, can anyone demonstrate this? Perhaps so? However, if you or anyone else cannot demonstrate such an area, it must be concluded that there is no smoke evident in Wiegman, as I have proved. Yes? Well Miles, if you actually looked at this stuff before rendering an opinion, then maybe you would have noticed the following .... The illuminated/lighter colored foliage of the trees are marked with circles. Note the tree trunk in the tree just west of the Hudson tree. There is no illuminated tree foliage blocking any portion of the trunk where the dense white cloud is seen in the Wiegman film. Now look at the same tree trunk in the Wiegman film and tell this forum how the distant foliage clusters got between the tree trunk and Wiegman's camera? Note that the lighter colored foliage marked in the Wiegman film can be seen in part just over the white dense cloud ... some of the tree trunk can be seen with them, as well. At some point even you will have to admit that there is a point here that cannot be denied. And that point is that the white dense looking area is blocking out the tree trunk from view - t the right of it there appears to be some foliage seen, but not through the dense cloud that I speak off. Please explain your meaning using this photo. I do not see smoke or your point. Use this photo in multiples as necessary: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I don't read this crap anymore. If you have evidence post it if not, xxxxx on, your opinions are worthless & 9 times out of 10 they're deceptions. Alan, There is no smoke left to be seen in the Couch frames and while both show the outer sunlit leaves of one of the more distant trees, the white area blocking the tree trunk in the Wiegman film/along with the swirls (also seen on the Zapruder film) cannot be so easily passed off as such. Bill Alan, I'll tell you what ... I will leave you with your 'dirty lens' theory for I have decided that trying to teach you something is a waste of time. Honestly, I don't know anyone who knows less about the photographic record and the effects of a camera than you do. A few post ago you called the swirls leaves - now you call them the result of a dirty lens and it is pure double talk. Zapruder was facing the sun at least from the kill shot on and you don't see those swirls anywhere. In fact, nowhere on his film do you see anything that would show that he had a dirty lens. I have had dirt and/or water spots on my camera lens before and it will show up no matter where I point my camera. The dirt or spots will also effect the focus of my camera because it will get confused as to whether it should be focusing on the background or the foreground and at least the part of the picture that was taken through any dust or dirt on my lens will not appear as sharp as the rest of the image that was captured through the clean part of the lens. If dirt and/or water spots - they will not only be visible on the film, but when the angle of reflectivity is just right ... the sun will cause a glare that washed out part, if not all, of the image and this does not happen in Zapruder's film. The reason this doesn't happen is because Zapruder's camera lens was clean. And to demonstrate how much faith you have in those "C" shapes being the result of leaves and/or a dirty lens - I specifically have asked several times then how do you explain them same "C" shapes being seen in the Dave Wiegman film and turned in the same direction and you have not even touched that question. Instead, you respond only about the Zapruder film and have continued to just call them leaves and/or dirt (leaves BTW that I have pointed out several times now that one can see the south pasture through). I asked you how Wiegman's camera was not only able to see the same shapes at the same location as Zapruder, but also see them in the correct perspective, thus the artifacts being dirt on Zapruder's camera doesn't wash. In the best frames the swirls are just as sharp as the rest of the frame which should not occur if any one of those swirls are the result of a mere dirty lens. There is no glare that shows up on the lens showing that the suns reflective angle is a factor at any point. All you have done is choose a quick solution of saying, 'dah' ... must be leaves and dirt'. It seems apparent to me like so many other things you have said about other areas of the photographic record that you just sit in your armchair and don't take the extra effort to even test your claims whether it be to actually visit Dealey Plaza or make a simple phone call to a witness for clarification. So yes, Alan ... its magical dirt on a camera lens that just happen to be on another camera lens as well in the same shape and only smaller so to fit the greater distance Wiegman was from the knoll. And yes - it was also leaves ... the kind that you can see through ... we'll call them the magical transparent leaves of Dealey Plaza ... see how easy it is to explain away! If you want to show me what white area in Wiegman is blocking which tree trunk I will comment on it.There's no need to tell me what I'm seeing or throw arrows at it, just post the image & I'll make my own mind up. You've been reading this stuff here and on Lancer for a couple of years now and all of a sudden you need someone to point out the main body of alleged smoke that is so dense that it is blocking out part of the tree trunk - GIVE ME A BREAK! If nothing else, such a remark only strengthens my point in the top half of this response. I demonstrated this stuff to people like Simkin to Law to Mellen (just to name a few) and no one came off as not being able to follow what I said. Certainly not a one of them at the conference said anything like, 'Dah ... what smoke - what tree ???'. Play that game with someone else. I cannot make someone intelligent enough to follow what has been said ... I can only explain these observations to the best of my ability in hopes they have enough reasoning ability to follow along, ask themselves how those swirls got on two independent films, and to certainly know what tree trunk is being blocked from view in Wiegman's film. (End of story) You've participated on this particular thread for a year or so here and elsewhere ... you just stated you don't even know what tree trunk I am talking about. I am curious as to how much longer it will take for you to figure that one out ... with anyone else it would take a stop-watch ... if you are being serious (which I do not believe) we'll continue needing a calendar. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Wiegman SMOKE frame: Not bad Robin. Couch SMOKE frames: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3995/couchcomparexh6.gif Alan, There is no smoke left to be seen in the Couch frames and while both show the outer sunlit leaves of one of the more distant trees, the white area blocking the tree trunk in the Wiegman film/along with the swirls (also seen on the Zapruder film) cannot be so easily passed off as such. Bill I've already shown how your Z C swirls are nothing but leaves & a dirty lens. If you want to show me what white area in Wiegman is blocking which tree trunk I will comment on it. There's no need to tell me what I'm seeing or throw arrows at it, just post the image & I'll make my own mind up. Show everyone here what white area in Wiegman is blocking a tree trunk & please use an original image, not one you've "worked on". Alan, There is no white area in Wiegman that is blocking a tree trunk. In fairness, can anyone demonstrate this? Perhaps so? However, if you or anyone else cannot demonstrate such an area, it must be concluded that there is no smoke evident in Wiegman, as I have proved. Yes? I'm not really sure Miles. Anyway if you find out exactly which tree trunk he is trolling on about please let me know. I read about three lines of his BS & quit. Just point it to me. That's all I wanted to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Please explain your meaning using this photo.I do not see smoke or your point. Use this photo in multiples as necessary: Don't feed the xxxxx better images Miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Please explain your meaning using this photo.I do not see smoke or your point. Use this photo in multiples as necessary: Don't feed the xxxxx better images Miles. Alan, I sympathise. I, too, do not understand what is being argued. Does anyone? I see Robin on this thread. Wonder what he thinks? The way I demonstrate photo evidence is by posting the same photo several times, each time adding additional arrows & lines & text, until the meaning is clear. Of course, the problem may be that there is no smoke. It's about time to move on, the case having been proved, as I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Wiegman SMOKE frame: Not bad Robin. Couch SMOKE frames: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3995/couchcomparexh6.gif If you look closely at Couch at the point where the branches of these two trees meet, you will notice the lighter coloured branches hanging under the darker moving, they are swaying in the wind, easy to see if you look closely & luckily for us Couch keeps his camera as still as he can for a couple seconds. Study the frames for yourself in the slowed down clip above or use your own copy. Wiegman captured the exact spot from a very similar angle, if he had kept his camera still for more than one accident frame he would of no doubt captured the same movement on his film. If the only movement you've seen in Wiegman so far, is from this gif; then you have not seen anything. You may think you have but you were being fooled & it is my opinion deliberately so. Wiegman's film is hard to work with. It is almost impossible for an amateur like me to make a decent animation showing the same small area to check for movement amongst these trees. The three or four moments he did capture a decent shot of these branches he was at a different angle to them &it is hard to line up. Having said that.. the "effort" above is atrocious & because I've recently been trying to make my own, I've only just noticed how bad it really is. Eveytime the topic of this smoke comes up someone either refers to it, posts it or links to it. It's a farce & easy to see if you just ignore what the author of it wants you to look at & concentrate on everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 (1) The so called smoke in my opinion is inconclusive, it could be anything. If it wasn't for the wittness testimony about smelling gunpowder i would ignore it all together. (2) swirls of smoke, i think thats a stretch to make the Z-frames fit the smoke scenario. (3) Tree trunk, i have no idea what he is on about. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now