On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

Onward. If we size/composite Towner and Wiegman, this is what we get.

chris

Yes Chris ... that is a splended view of the north curb now being in the center of the street ... not sure how that helps, but what do I know!

Bill

Edited October 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

It would appear the wind was blowing in the same direction, at least in the general area of Hill,Moorman,Babushka and blue scarf lady across the street.

Babushka animation by John Dolva, I believe.

Stabilized Zapruder frames 165-206.

chris

That's quite interesting in that is shows both direction of wind and that it seemed quite strong and gusty!

Yet as Zapruder starts to get Hill and Moorman in his viewfinder - their coats are hanging dead in the air until just before Moorman snaps her photo, then by the time Abe pans west to Altgens and the man just east and behind him - those photographers coats have all but stopped moving. As typical in the plaza ... the gust come and go intermittently.

It might be worth a look at the last frames Zapruder shot of the limo as it went into the shade of the underpass. (I believe those frames equate pretty well with the Wiegman frames in question) In those frames are some pretty good looks at the larger trees foliage on the knoll and the smaller trees along the fence. One would be hard pressed to see so much as a leaf twitching on any of them at that point in time. I guess they were not aware of the 'stiff breeze' claim posted in this thread. It was that apparent drop off in the wind gust that must have allowed the puff of smoke to come out through the trees so the witnesses could see it.

Bill

Edited October 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Thanks for your input Chris.

I just cropped & lightened the frames a little bit to help myself more than anything.

I've already ruled out this main stationary "cloud" in Wiegman as being gunsmoke but the comparison of yours was helpful.

[Alan Healy]

(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. ?

Robin & Alan,

If the wind is moving this way:

Therefore, the smoke is in reality a cluster of bright red leaves. QED

Robin & Alan & Duncan,

Where would you say the alleged Wiegman smoke cloud/puff is?

Considering the brisk wind & using Bond.

I say the red balloon over Elm (blue arrow) makes sense.

(That is, on the absurd assumption that the smoke in Wiegman is real. - )

Alan?

Okay let's assume that some smoke from a weapon merged with the image of a tree's lower branches & that formed the main "cloud" what we see in Wiegman.

Here's my estimate for it's position, anywhere along the short dotted line.

I can't comment on how the direction of the wind on the day would effect any such gunsmoke travelling from the picket fence top. I thought naturally sourced wind flow was kind of random & not as uniform as your images would suggest Miles.

Whatever the case, I'd rather not enter into that for now especially since I'm already convinced it's the same branches we see in Couch & other images & after studying Wiegman closer its' told me it hardy moves & certainly not towards the street.

Molehills & Montains.

[Miles Scull]

It would appear the wind was blowing in the same direction, at least in the general area of Hill,Moorman,Babushka and blue scarf lady across the street.

Babushka animation by John Dolva, I believe.

Stabilized Zapruder frames 165-206.

chris

Chris,

Yes, indeed, there was a strong wind ablowin'.

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, in the Plaza at the time of the shooting: "The wind was blowing pretty high."

Tom Dillard, same time & place: There was a "a very brisk north wind."

James Algens, ditto: re Jackie, " ...the north wind caught her hat & almost blew it off."

DP Officer Marrion Baker, asked if the wind almost blew him off his bike, replied: "That is correct."

So, AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, there was a strong wind blowing, as all the photographic evidence clearly shows.

[Miles Scull]

(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. ?

Robin & Alan,

If the wind is moving this way:

Therefore, the smoke is in reality a cluster of bright red leaves. QED

Robin & Alan & Duncan,

Where would you say the alleged Wiegman smoke cloud/puff is?

Considering the brisk wind & using Bond.

I say the red balloon over Elm (blue arrow) makes sense.

(That is, on the absurd assumption that the smoke in Wiegman is real. - )

Alan?

Okay let's assume that some smoke from a weapon merged with the image of a tree's lower branches & that formed the main "cloud" what we see in Wiegman.

Here's my estimate for it's position, anywhere along the short dotted line.

I can't comment on how the direction of the wind on the day would effect any such gunsmoke travelling from the picket fence top. I thought naturally sourced wind flow was kind of random & not as uniform as your images would suggest Miles.

Whatever the case, I'd rather not enter into that for now especially since I'm already convinced it's the same branches we see in Couch & other images & after studying Wiegman closer its' told me it hardy moves & certainly not towards the street.

Molehills & Montains.

Alan,

Right you are.

There can be NO DOUBT, now, (as I originally argued, based on the huge size & volume of the alleged Wiegman smoke cloud & its shape as identical to the leaf cluster) that there is no smoke in Wiegman.

AT the time of the shooting the wind was strong & very gusty, its base rate flow steady at about 15 mph.

Thus, Moorman, showing the aim & direction of the rifle barrel, eliminates Midget Man because his smoke, after his bullet penetrated through the wooden pickets, would have traveled to the north side of of the Hudson tree to proceed east of the Hudson tree & would not have been seen by Holland under the trees TO THE WEST OF THE HUDSON TREE.

However, Duncan's sniper's "smoke" WOULD have spurted out & drifted into exactly the area Holland spoke of: between the two tress.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

If it wasn't for the wittness testimony about smelling gunpowder i would ignore it all together.

Why is there no mention of the witnesses on both ends of the knoll who also saw the smoke ... is not what a witness saw just as important as what they smelled???

Okay let's assume that some smoke from a weapon merged with the image of a tree's lower branches & that formed the main "cloud" what we see in Wiegman.

Here's my estimate for it's position, anywhere along the short dotted line.

No offense, but someone's estimate has little value over what occurred at that time in the real world. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you base your conclusion on certain criteria that can and has been shown to be false. This is another 'Holland ran immediately behind the fence' within the first 20 seconds of the final shot when the Dillard #3 photo showed that to be as wrong as wrong could be. Yes, a wind gust occurred a few frames just prior to the limo passing Moorman, but it also passed within a split second. The foliage of the trees seen in Zapruder's film don't show a single leaf flickering in this alleged stiff breeze as JFK's car is entering the underpass ... what no comment about that???

Instead you show still images of the knoll from the air and not even taken at the time in question and without them even showing a tree swayed or a single thing being blown in any one direction - yet you lay claim that there is a stiff breeze being seen. I would think that even Baghdad Bob wouldn't have been so brazen as try and pull that one off. As someone once said to me .... independent witnesses saw the smoke come through the trees within seconds after the shooting, thus it has to be seen somewhere on someone's film. Zapruder and Wiegman caught similar shapes in their independent films from one another and I have yet to read one sensible word in rebuttal as to how that happened on two cameras - at the same location - and from two different angles when tree foliage or lens grunge could not be the cause because of the reasons previously stated.

And the one thing I find most amazing is that by not addressing these points in a responsible and systematic way mirrors IMO the same type of mistakes that the Warren Commission was accused of doing. Bowers said ''south' - you claim he meant north. If you claim the wind is stiff at the time the limo reached the underpass and the assassination films show otherwise - you ignore the information they have to offer. How do you try and make it appear that you have support for your claim - you word your response as if someone is actually following your train of thought. Why not cut through the chase and ask Alan, Duncan, or Robin if they see any foliage blowing anywhere in the latter frames of Zapruder's film that correlate with the timing of the Wiegman film. For the wind to still be a factor like you have made it out to be, then is it not reasonable (because you ignored the windbreak factor that I mentioned) that the foliage in any of those large or small trees seen in Zapruder's film should at least be flipping around in the so-called stiff breeze ... sure they should if you truly believed what you are saying to be solid and factual.

Bill Miller

Edited October 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Onward. If we size/composite Towner and Wiegman, this is what we get.

chris

Yes Chris ... that is a splended view of the north curb now being in the center of the street ... not sure how that helps, but what do I know!

Bill

It's rather amazing how that curbline( from the North curb in the center of the street) lines up in both pictures, along with the many other common elements. Even with Parallax involved.

Bill, why don't you take both photos and line them up as you see fit, then let us know where the smoke lands.

chris

[Bill Miller]

It's rather amazing how that curbline( from the North curb in the center of the street) lines up in both pictures, along with the many other common elements. Even with Parallax involved.

Bill, why don't you take both photos and line them up as you see fit, then let us know where the smoke lands.

chris

Chris - remove the fade in process and just show the two images coming over the top of one another. This will allow even someone who is usually inept at reading images to see that the curb ends up in the center of the street near the rear wheel of the white car in one image and part of the lighter color leaves on the trees vanish altogether. This is because you cannot take two photos taken from two different angles, at least by the huge difference between these two, and use them to detect movement and to what degree it occurs.

Bill

Edited October 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Onward. If we size/composite Towner and Wiegman, this is what we get.

chris

Yes Chris ... that is a splended view of the north curb now being in the center of the street ... not sure how that helps, but what do I know!

Bill

It's rather amazing how that curbline( from the North curb in the center of the street) lines up in both pictures, along with the many other common elements. Even with Parallax involved.

Bill, why don't you take both photos and line them up as you see fit, then let us know where the smoke lands.

chris

Just a thought.

Has Miller overlooked that the curb curves along this stretch of Elm St.?

That would explain it.

[Chris Davidson]

It's rather amazing how that curbline( from the North curb in the center of the street) lines up in both pictures, along with the many other common elements. Even with Parallax involved.

Bill, why don't you take both photos and line them up as you see fit, then let us know where the smoke lands.

chris

Chris - remove the fade in process and just show the two images coming over the top of one another. This will allow even someone who is usually inept at reading images to see that the curb ends up in the center of the street near the rear wheel of the white car in one image and part of the lighter color leaves on the trees vanish altogether. This is because you cannot take two photos taken from two different angles, at least by the huge difference between these two, and use them to detect movement and to what degree it occurs.

Bill

Bill,

There is no reason to do this. If someone wants to see the beginning of the curb out in the road, put your cursor on it, and let the animation play a few times. Parallax

We are dealing with the elements closer to the underpass.

There is a common point among both photos, which is the light pole I have the red arrow pointing to.

That light pole is on the opposite side of the SIDEWALK I have the red line attached to.

In other words, that (curb in the street) eventually aligns itself the closer to the underpass you get.

The Distance between the light pole and tree leaves appears to be consistent in both photos, when Wiegman is scaled.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

There is no reason to do this. If someone wants to see the beginning of the curb out in the road, put your cursor on it, and let the animation play a few times. Parallax

We are dealing with the elements closer to the underpass.

Chris - there is a reason for anything I ask someone to do. I regret that I do not have a gif animator on this borrowed laptop where I am currently visiting or else I would do it for you. As for Miles remark about the street curving ... where the curb meets the street isn't even close further down the street between the two images and is just why the middle frames need to be removed so those more challenged in reading these images can better understand the points being made. It takes less than one minute to load a gif like this and delete the frames between the first and last and save them as a gif file. It takes less than 30 seconds to upload it to a post. So don't waste so much of your valuable time ... when I get back to my place eventually - I'll do it and make my point crystal clear.

There is a common point among both photos, which is the light pole I have the red arrow pointing to.

That light pole is on the opposite side of the SIDEWALK I have the red line attached to.

That is as meaningless as saying that the north curb seen in the Nix film and in Altgens #6 both run west towards the underpass and thats important when doing a transparency overlay. That point has no relevancy at all.

The Distance between the light pole and tree leaves appears to be consistent in both photos, when Wiegman is scaled.

Possibly, but because they are seeing those trees from different angles - an overlay would not be exact and that is a point that I made as to why I used two Wiegman frames taken less than a quarter of a second apart and with Wiegman running towards the knoll and not at an angle away from it. In the clip I created one could put their mouse on the outer edge of any given part of the tree foliage and they would come in over the top of one another between frames .... this does not happen with your animation because of the acute angle differences to the trees from the two photographers locations.

Bill

Edited October 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Your opinions are worthless, I don't read your crap anymore.

If it wasn't for the wittness testimony about smelling gunpowder i would ignore it all together.

Why is there no mention of the witnesses on both ends of the knoll who also saw the smoke ... is not what a witness saw just as important as what they smelled???

Okay let's assume that some smoke from a weapon merged with the image of a tree's lower branches & that formed the main "cloud" what we see in Wiegman.

Here's my estimate for it's position, anywhere along the short dotted line.

No offense, but someone's estimate has little value over what occurred at that time in the real world. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you base your conclusion on certain criteria that can and has been shown to be false. This is another 'Holland ran immediately behind the fence' within the first 20 seconds of the final shot when the Dillard #3 photo showed that to be as wrong as wrong could be. Yes, a wind gust occurred a few frames just prior to the limo passing Moorman, but it also passed within a split second. The foliage of the trees seen in Zapruder's film don't show a single leaf flickering in this alleged stiff breeze as JFK's car is entering the underpass ... what no comment about that???

Instead you show still images of the knoll from the air and not even taken at the time in question and without them even showing a tree swayed or a single thing being blown in any one direction - yet you lay claim that there is a stiff breeze being seen. I would think that even Baghdad Bob wouldn't have been so brazen as try and pull that one off. As someone once said to me .... independent witnesses saw the smoke come through the trees within seconds after the shooting, thus it has to be seen somewhere on someone's film. Zapruder and Wiegman caught similar shapes in their independent films from one another and I have yet to read one sensible word in rebuttal as to how that happened on two cameras - at the same location - and from two different angles when tree foliage or lens grunge could not be the cause because of the reasons previously stated.

And the one thing I find most amazing is that by not addressing these points in a responsible and systematic way mirrors IMO the same type of mistakes that the Warren Commission was accused of doing. Bowers said ''south' - you claim he meant north. If you claim the wind is stiff at the time the limo reached the underpass and the assassination films show otherwise - you ignore the information they have to offer. How do you try and make it appear that you have support for your claim - you word your response as if someone is actually following your train of thought. Why not cut through the chase and ask Alan, Duncan, or Robin if they see any foliage blowing anywhere in the latter frames of Zapruder's film that correlate with the timing of the Wiegman film. For the wind to still be a factor like you have made it out to be, then is it not reasonable (because you ignored the windbreak factor that I mentioned) that the foliage in any of those large or small trees seen in Zapruder's film should at least be flipping around in the so-called stiff breeze ... sure they should if you truly believed what you are saying to be solid and factual.

Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Okay let's assume that some smoke from a weapon merged with the image of a tree's lower branches & that formed the main "cloud" what we see in Wiegman.

Here's my estimate for it's position, anywhere along the short dotted line.

I can't comment on how the direction of the wind on the day would effect any such gunsmoke travelling from the picket fence top. I thought naturally sourced wind flow was kind of random & not as uniform as your images would suggest Miles.

Whatever the case, I'd rather not enter into that for now especially since I'm already convinced it's the same branches we see in Couch & other images & after studying Wiegman closer its' told me it hardy moves & certainly not towards the street.

Molehills & Montains.

Alan,

Right you are.

There can be NO DOUBT, now, (as I originally argued, based on the huge size & volume of the alleged Wiegman smoke cloud & its shape as identical to the leaf cluster) that there is no smoke in Wiegman.

AT the time of the shooting the wind was strong & very gusty, its base rate flow steady at about 15 mph.

Thus, Moorman, showing the aim & direction of the rifle barrel, eliminates Midget Man because his smoke, after his bullet penetrated through the wooden pickets, would have traveled to the north side of of the Hudson tree to proceed east of the Hudson tree & would not have been seen by Holland under the trees TO THE WEST OF THE HUDSON TREE.

However, Duncan's sniper's "smoke" WOULD have spurted out & drifted into exactly the area Holland spoke of: between the two tress.

I would understand anyone having doubts after seeing the flimsy evidence we are discussing.

If I had a choice to make between choosing either the smoke in Wiegman or D's shooter however, I would choose the former.

I have NO DOUBT that that figure is an illusion & not a very convincing one but that is my opinion only.

I was trying to study the photographic evidence for signs of movement & it does not show any to me, if it did I would of reported it. I'm convinced it's the trees but I wouldn't use my opinion to influence anyone.

That's the trolls job after all.

[Robin Unger]

I agree Alan.

No SMOKE in wiegman.

As for Millers rantings, he appears to be talking to himself at this point, as no one else could even be bothered to read it.