Miles Scull Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 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 travelled 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. Alan, I believe there may be a misunderstanding. The movement along the fence, which I recall you studied, is not what is referred to as Duncan's sniper. That movement, alleged movement, occurs at a point along the fence which is not Duncan's sniper's spot. That's the trolls job after all. I don't envy anyone with such a ponderous, woeful burden. The matter seems inexplicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 Your opinions are worthless, I don't read your crap anymore. And yet you copied and pasted my words and then responded to my remarks ... Am I to assume that are having someone read my opinions to you so to make the above statement you made be actually true and factual? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) 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. Robin, I don't recall you explaining what the 'C' shaped swirls are on the two independent films referenced in this thread. The lower 'C' shape on the right in the Zframe I used is transparent, thus allowing the south knoll to be seen through it. We should know that leaves are not transparent and we should also know that dirt/grunge does not transfer from one man's camera to another so to hold the same shape and keep it in the proper perspective so to be correct for the distance the photographer was from the knoll - so what is it or is it just your position to not address it ??? Is your new approach this ... If you don't understand a particular problem, then just pretend it doesn't exist? That is certainly not the approach I choose to take. Bill Miller Edited October 7, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Tree stabilizied. I believe that's a pretty stiff breeze blowing the tree leaves/branches above the corner of the fence. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) Tree stabilizied.I believe that's a pretty stiff breeze blowing the tree leaves/branches above the corner of the fence. chris Chris, I appreciate your effort, but you have that fence moving all over the place. And think about this ... is it your real honest opinion that all the other leaves would be standing still while only one set of leaves appear to be moving, if that is what they really are and if that is what is really happening? I would think that would tell someone like yourself something. I'll leave you to ponder that thought and see what you have to say next. Bill Edited October 7, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Tree stabilizied.I believe that's a pretty stiff breeze blowing the tree leaves/branches above the corner of the fence. chris Chris, I appreciate your effort, but you have that fence moving all over the place. And think about this ... is it your real honest opinion that all the other leaves would be standing still while only one set of leaves appear to be moving, if that is what they really are and if that is what is really happening? I would think that would tell someone like yourself something. I'll leave you to ponder that thought and see what you have to say next. Bill Bill, The fence edge in the previous animation was somewhat blurry, that's why I stabilized the tree trunks. No problem. Here's an UNSTABILIZED version created to loop back and forth, in case there is any doubt that there is a strong wind blowing up there. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) Thanks, Chris. It would be a bit more helpful if we could see two frames how ever man frames apart with the camera pointed in the same direction. The reason for this is because each time the camera rises and falls below a certain plane ... it causes stationary objects to appear to move when in reality they do not. The knots on the fence slats would be one example ... is the wind moving them around or is the camera movement the cause? And if a particular branch did seem to move while others around it do not move, then a cause for that movement should be sought. And if the wind did move a particular branch or branches, but not others ... it may give one more insight as to how the wind was working at that particular moment and possibly it could be applied to some of the other assassination images thought to show smoke and its location in relation to where a shooter may have been. May I suggest that you look at the MPI version of the Zapruder film at the same point in time and see if you see the same things. I would like to know? Bill Edited October 7, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Short film,Zapruder underpass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Short film,Zapruder underpass. Robin & Chris & Alan Excellent work. I'm just catching up here, but is the argument now that foliage movement subsided as the limo reached the underpass & that means that the wind stopped blowing between Holland's two trees: thus, the shooter's smoke, instead of being blown continuously to the SE, was actually drifting out to the south so that it might appear in a line perpendicular south of the fence & seen, miraculously, in Wiegman after all? If so, then, of course, this is a instance of reverse engineering. The case of the strong wind is proved: 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. Question: What needs to happen to validate smoke in Wiegman? Question: Why is smoke not in Wiegman? Answer: Wind. Question: Why not stop the wind? So, by this reasoning, it is seen that if the wind can be made to miraculously & suddenly stop at the underpass as the limo enters it, then the alleged smoke back between Holland's two trees can be understood to be drifting & floating & meandering into Wiegman. But, the photographic evidence shows continuous turbulence of foliage seen as the limo enters the underpass. Other ways to stop the wind's effect are to suggest that wind was blocked by the fence, or that the general trend of the wind flow was distorted by twisting whirling vortex swirls or micro tornado's, or that the wash & wake of the passing motorcade pushed against the prevailing wind. Of course, these attempts to stop the wind are refuted by the reality of the mastering action of the PREVAILING wind, which carries all & over comes all. Also, there was no blocking of tall buildings in the packing lot, the RR yard or at points away to the NW out to the Trinity river. Although Don Roberdeau mistook the leaf cluster for smoke, it is interesting , nevertheless, to note where he places the smoke. It's near Duncan's sniper's trajectory & far from Midget's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 But I still wanted to see if I could test what I was seeing so I went back to the Wiegman film and I picked two of the best frames that I could find so to do a transparent overlay to see if this smoke had moved at all between frames. My goal was to use as many frames that seemed clear enough to use, but I found most of the others to be very poor to say the least, so I used the two best ones that I had found. Those frames as I recall were about 6 frames apart. Wiegman had barely taken a few steps, if that, in that 1/2 of a second between those frames and he was running towards the knoll. I knew that at such a distance as he was from the knoll that virtually any tree shifting should not have occurred. I then carefully aligned the outer edge of the sunlit tree foliage in both frames by using a red arrow as a reference point in each. I found that when set in motion - the smoke cloud drifted towards the street as it should have if it was indeed smoke. I also noticed that the light seen through the foliage seemed to move as well, but in closer inspection by placing an arrow on the white spots - they merely had faded in and out due to one frame being more blurry than the other. You see a cloud drifting towards the street in the space of 6 frames in a film that is shooting around twenty four frames a second & that does not strike you as odd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...FunkyGames7.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Miles, you can't keep labelling Duncan's shooter as "Duncan" on your photo's & maps! Aside from the obvious possibilty of confusion, all GK shooters have to have the tag "man" on the end of them don't they? Anything spring to mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 Short film,Zapruder underpass. I have downloaded Quicktime on this borrowed laptop and I'm using Windows XP .... when I click on the link I get the Quicktime symbol, but intstead of opening a clip - it switches to a "?" on the Quicktime icon .... what else does it take to open the link? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 You see a cloud drifting towards the street in the space of 6 frames in a film that is shooting around twenty four frames a second & that does not strike you as odd? I see a woman rise out of her seat in 4 frames running at 18 fps and I don't see that as odd, so why should anything seem odd about the Wiegman film. It might also be worth commenting that I don't recall exactly how many frames are between the two clearest ones I used. It would take getting the film on DVD and advancing forward and counting them. Also, watch Wiegman's film and see how far Marion Baker ran in 6 frames .... does the distance he traveled seem odd too?? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...FunkyGames7.jpg Alan, I can see why you have so much trouble analyzing these films ... is that the best quality image that you can get your hands on or did you start with the MPI frame and worked with it until you got it looking that faded? (Just curious) Bill 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