On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Robin Unger]

Not smoke.

Red leaves, end of story.

[Bill Miller]

Not smoke.

Red leaves, end of story.

I agree and have always said that part of what was seen in Wiegman's film was the distant leaves that you are referring to. However, not all IMO that you attribute to being the distant red leaves can be explained away so easily. The main cloud/ligh area is denser than other similar less denser areas which separates it from the rest. The white swirls that can be found on two independent films cannot be brushed off so easily, especially seeing how Zapruder had to pan passed them and further west to capture those red leaves on film that you speak of. Other bluish gray light areas of similar shape to that seen on Zapruder's film when compared to Wiegman's appear to be transparent which leaves of any color are not. And the bottom line is that the witnesses did not mistake red leaves for smoke drifting out through the trees.

It's a shame that Wiegman's film was not in color for the loss of color tone in a B&W film allows too many things to blend together that would be very distinct and different from one another if viewed in color.

Bill

Edited October 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Hey! Whose the dude in the yellow oval? Arnie?

Miles,

I think it's possible that there's someone behind the fence at that spot but there isn't anyone infront of it IMO.

If you look at the bottom of the fence there you can see the impression of the short thick greenery that grew along the fence bottom.

You can make the destinction between it & the fence in that crop cleary & there is nothing up there blocking it from our view.

It's good to know you still give Arnold the benefit of the doubt for actually being there Miles, I too try to do this on the odd occasion.

That's why I put him on the steps in the red shirt.

Not because it matches his story, it doesn't of course.

It's just the only possible explaination IMO.

He was there & then he his tale grew taller over the years.

LOL can you imagine if he left his mother's camera indoors after she done told him to get some shots of the parade?

Wouldn't you of made an excuse for coming back with nothing too?

Alan,

Good point.

Like Arnie, the smoke in Wiegman is bogus.

It's interesting & telling that in addition to all the other NO SMOKE SHOWS, there is zero smoke seen in Nix, where it should have been seen IF it was in Wiegman.

This means the smoke dissipated in the time line BEFORE Wiegman's film was exposed, i.e. before the Wiegman frames showing alleged smoke were exposed.

That's a clinch for sure. Conclusive!

Here's only one frame from Nix of all the frames where there is NO SMOKE.

If there is smoke hidden in the Nix shadows then that smoke would not be in Wiegman because it would NOT have been in Wiegman's camera's scope or field of view at the time Wiegman shot his alleged "Smoke" frames.

That wraps it up. I believe that Chris, Robin, Ashton, yourself Alan & I are unanimous on the this conclusion.

[Bill Miller]

It's interesting & telling that in addition to all the other NO SMOKE SHOWS, there is zero smoke seen in Nix, where it should have been seen IF it was in Wiegman.

Miles,

When you make comments like the one above, it actually hurts you if it is your purpose to make people think that you know anything about reading these films at all. For instance: The fact that Nix is so far from the knoll, or that his film is of such poor quality that one cannot even see the kinds of details that would allow them to separate the blurry branches of the trees from one another, that you would think that his film somehow demonstrates that there is no smoke in the Wiegman film is ridiculous. Your attempt at trying to discredit one observation also destroys those same observations you have made when reading how witnesses had seen a puff of smoke come through the trees that such people like Holland mentioned. So if it your intention to use the idea that the Nix film is of such significant quality to show smoke when even the details at the fence and much of the tree foliage on the knoll is visual mud and blur, then you must also believe that there was never any smoke at all or else the Nix film would be showing it to us. And while we are on the topic of seeing no smoke on such a fine piece of film like the one you referenced ... add to the list that there are no fence slats seen, no face on Hudson, no cars in the RR yard, and on the sign seen on the pole that is far closer to Nix's camera that the knoll - the lettering is not even clear enough to read. (sigh~)

Your lack of knowledge and experience as to what one can expect out the Nix film concerning details as fine as smoke will cause you to be boxed into a no win situation. Far too many witnesses saw the smoke, so if it is not seen on a particular film ... there must be a reason for it other than just saying you don't see it, so it must not exist. In fact, if that is your position, then someone might say that the sea of cars never existed either because the Nix film doesn't show them as his camera looks over the fence and into the RR yard. That position would be nonsense as well for the same reasons that your use of the Nix film to say there is no smoke visible on a poor grainy film, thus it never existed is in error for the previously said reasons.

Bill Miller

Edited October 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

LOL can you imagine if he left his mother's camera indoors after she done told him to get some shots of the parade?

Wouldn't you of made an excuse for coming back with nothing too?

Alan,

Good point.

Like Arnie, the smoke in Wiegman is bogus.

It's interesting & telling that in addition to all the other NO SMOKE SHOWS, there is zero smoke seen in Nix, where it should have been seen IF it was in Wiegman.

This means the smoke dissipated in the time line BEFORE Wiegman's film was exposed, i.e. before the Wiegman frames showing alleged smoke were exposed.

That's a clinch for sure. Conclusive!

Here's only one frame from Nix of all the frames where there is NO SMOKE.

If there is smoke hidden in the Nix shadows then that smoke would not be in Wiegman because it would NOT have been in Wiegman's camera's scope or field of view at the time Wiegman shot his alleged "Smoke" frames.

That wraps it up. I believe that Chris, Robin, Ashton, yourself Alan & I are unanimous on the this conclusion.

Addendum:

Alan,

About seeing the Wiegman alleged smoke in Nix? Had it been there, it would have been as visible as the Hudson tree itself.

If you ask yourself for some reason if the Wiegman alleged smoke would have been visible in Nix, only take a glance at the huge, dense cloud as seen here in Miller's composites (red :

This cloud is so big it looks like the aftermath of a small flak burst, which just to remind you see:

[Bill Miller]

It's interesting & telling that in addition to all the other NO SMOKE SHOWS, there is zero smoke seen in Nix, where it should have been seen IF it was in Wiegman.

This means the smoke dissipated in the time line BEFORE Wiegman's film was exposed, i.e. before the Wiegman frames showing alleged smoke were exposed.

That's a clinch for sure. Conclusive!

Miles, I'd be embarrassed to say the things you do when telling it to an intelligent researchers. You reference the Nix film and despite the clarity issue that has been pointed out to you - you go on like you never heard it. You were told about what motion blur and poor prints do to one trying to find details within an image, but you ignore it. I even showed using the Betzner photo how blurring can make details in the background disappear altogether and you ignore that. I told you how the details of Hudson's face, the slats on the fence, the leaves and tree branches were blurred to the point that details are lost, and you ignore that. I mentioned how the letters on the nearby sign attached to the pole are unreadable, and you ignore that. Well, here is some more details that are lost that you are either unable to see on your own or you just don't care ...

Look at the man sitting on the ground on the south pasture across from the steps leading up to the walkway. His head is faded out by over 50% - his neck is gone - and his left leg is partly missing. Next look at the lady in the light top between Nix and the rear door of the limo. From her knees down to her shoes one can see through her legs. The same can be said in part about Mrs. Franzen's legs. These are solid objects that are almost erased from the film, so what would that do to smoke which is not a solid object. I won't even get into the angle to the sun the Nix camera was and how that relates to the angle that Wiegman and Zapruder had because its already been pointed out and you either don't get that either or you purposely ignore it. So I am letting you know that unless you think you are preaching to the totally ignorant ... you don't help your position by not seeing the obvious.

If there is smoke hidden in the Nix shadows then that smoke would not be in Wiegman because it would NOT have been in Wiegman's camera's scope or field of view at the time Wiegman shot his alleged "Smoke" frames.

Let me ask a simple question: Have you never been at a campfire and sat on one side of the fire and the smoke looked thin - almost invisible, but yet when you went to the side where the angle of reflectivity is apparent that the smoke appears denser and easier to see? The same principle would apply to seeing a rainbow in the mist of a lawn sprinkler from one angle, but not seeing it from another angle. In fact, who has never noticed that even when a lawn sprinkler is running - one can see the water spray one way and when they get around and face the sun - the same water spray becomes brightly illuminated because of the way the angle of the light hits it.

One more question: Why would one think they could see smoke up under the shade and background of the trees when the large white letters cannot even be seen on the road sign just west if the steps ... any logical explanation come to mind?

As far as whats allegedly seen in the Wiegman film ... Is Nix even seeing the same location as Wiegman when the limo is entering the underpass? The answer is no because Nix not only had already panned west of the trees in question as the limo is still heading towards the underpass, but he turned his camera off before the car entered the underpass and didn't turn it on again until after the crowds were running across the south pasture.

If you ask yourself for some reason if the Wiegman alleged smoke would have been visible in Nix, only take a glance at the huge, dense cloud as seen here in Miller's composites (red :

The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide. I have seen larger puffs of smoke floating across a shooting range. As one also knows if they have been on shooting range and/or at trap shoots ... the cloud grows and expands as it drifts away from the gun and then becomes broken apart by the air current. Could Nix have seen the same cloud once it came out past the confines of the trees ... maybe he could have despite his poor quality film, but if his camera wasn't looking at the same spot as Wiegman when the cloud became visible, then the answer would be that Nix couldn't have seen it.

Bill Miller

Edited October 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

It's interesting & telling that in addition to all the other NO SMOKE SHOWS, there is zero smoke seen in Nix, where it should have been seen IF it was in Wiegman.

This means the smoke dissipated in the time line BEFORE Wiegman's film was exposed, i.e. before the Wiegman frames showing alleged smoke were exposed.

That's a clinch for sure. Conclusive!

If you ask yourself for some reason if the Wiegman alleged smoke would have been visible in Nix, only take a glance at the huge, dense cloud as seen here in Miller's composites (red :

The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide. I have seen larger puffs of smoke floating across a shooting range. As one also knows if they have been on shooting range and/or at trap shoots ...

Trap shoots? As in shooting with shotguns? Are we confusing rifles (little smoke) with shotguns (big smoke)? Why?

Bill Miller

"The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide." -- Miller

Was the alleged smoke cloud 2 dimensional only? A wafer?

Whatever happened to DEPTH? Was the smoke cloud 3' in depth?

An amazingly vast cloud, indeed, to have escaped Nix.

It would have been bigger, in bulk & volume, than Hudson.

Are you backing off from your original shape assessment?- Why? No, not to reduce the cloud's size & volume, true, I grant you... But why, then?

Here's your depiction of the alleged smoke shape. Notice the 3 lines:----

The shape here is WIDER than TALL.

[Bill Miller]

Was the alleged smoke cloud 2 dimensional only? A wafer?

Whatever happened to DEPTH? Was the smoke cloud 3' in depth?

All the assination images are 2D.

An amazingly vast cloud, indeed, to have escaped Nix.

It would have been bigger, in bulk & volume, than Hudson.

You make absolutely no sense and that is the thing I like about your response ... they make my previous points look better.

Are you backing off from your original shape assessment?- Why? No, not to reduce the cloud's size & volume, true, I grant you... But why, then?

I would appreciate you quoting what I have said so to keep the record straight.

Here's your depiction of the alleged smoke shape. Notice the 3

The shape here is WIDER than TALL.

Yes, I pointed to the swirls and the dense body of what looks to be smoke. And as far as 'wider than tall' ... supposed you take two seconds and tell this forum all you know about smoke, its dimensions concerning height, width, and depth, and the factors that would determine this.

(Go to the 3:50 time mark and watch the shooting)

I love it when you make senseless and meaningless responses ... it usually means one has nothing better to post in rebuttal. (smile~)

Bill Miller

Edited October 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide. I have seen larger puffs of smoke floating across a shooting range. As one also knows if they have been on shooting range and/or at trap shoots ...

Trap shoots? As in shooting with shotguns? Are we confusing rifles (little smoke) with shotguns (big smoke)? Why?

Bill Miller

"The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide." -- Miller

Was the alleged smoke cloud 2 dimensional only? A wafer?

Whatever happened to DEPTH? Was the smoke cloud 3' in depth?

An amazingly vast cloud, indeed, to have escaped Nix.

It would have been bigger, in bulk & volume, than Hudson.

Are you backing off from your original shape assessment?- Why? No, not to reduce the cloud's size & volume, true, I grant you... But why, then?

Here's your depiction of the alleged smoke shape. Notice the 3 lines:----

The shape here is WIDER than TALL.

Yes, I pointed to the swirls and the dense body of what looks to be smoke. And as far as 'wider than tall' ... supposed you take two seconds and tell this forum all you know about smoke, its dimensions concerning height, width, and depth, and the factors that would determine this.

Bill Miller

"The dense looking alleged cloud in Wiegman looks to be no more than 36" tall and maybe 24" inches wide." -- Miller

You said 36" tall & maybe 24" wide.

But your own depiction & delineation is 36" tall & 48" wide. Why did you alter & reduce the size & volume of the alleged smoke?

That's 3 feet by 4 feet !!! (with a depth of probably 3 feet) = a huge dense cloud, bigger in space volume than Hudson (!) which Nix could NOT have missed.

But it's NOT in Nix. Zippo.

Why?

Because the alleged smoke is in reality bright red leaves?----

[Bill Miller]

Trap shoots? As in shooting with shotguns? Are we confusing rifles (little smoke) with shotguns (big smoke)? Why?

There is no confusion here, Miles. I have seen gun-smoke from both rifles and shotguns and depending on certain conditions .... I have seen shotguns that hardly smoked and shotguns that made huge clouds when they fired and visa versa with rifles. I assume you have never been to a trap shoot to know this, but I have watched them for hours on end and one shooters gun after another emitted smoke each time it fired, thus a freshly oiled gun barrel was not the cause of the continual smoke clouds being released one after the other. What obviously was the cause is that these shooters were packing their own loads. I have seen rifles do the same thing.

Now I can only speculate, but there could be several reasons why a shooter in Dealey Plaza would have packed his own loads and possibly scored his own bullets. One reason could be so the extra powder delivered more of an impact on the target. Possibly because of it being a moving target - possibly because the assassins knew of the varying wind conditions that the plaza is known for ... that they wanted the shot to reach the target as close to the point of pulling the trigger as possible - who knows for sure for only the assassin him or herself could answer such a question. Just like scoring the head of a bullet so it will come apart upon impact. Possibly packing and making one's own bullets would help prevent the ammunition from being traced back to a particular source. There are several possibilities that any one of them could explain why smoke was seen coming through the trees by several witnesses on both ends of the knoll. I believe the HSCA had their test shooter use regular ammunition and even his rifle smoked when fired.

What makes the reference to the trap shoots significant is that anyone who has ever witnessed such an event, especially at night under the lights, would have gotten one example after another as to what happens to gun-smoke after it comes out of the gun. They would have seen how it expands - how pieces of the main body separate and start to swirl as its exposed to the air current. They would have seen how the main body will hold together longer with a thinner haze around it (usually following behind). These are all things that I and others have considered when looking at what is seen in the clearest of Wiegman frames. And what's more interesting and almost comical is that many of those who don't think it is smoke seen in Wiegman's film had never touched on a fraction of the things that one should have considered in the process of investigating the matter in the first place. It then becomes a belief system whereas they will attempt to show cannon smoke - musket fire smoke - use poor degraded films taken from the other side of the plaza in an effort to try and win their point. They will make a point that if the Nix film (as poor quality as it is for showing detail) doesn't show smoke, then it must not have happened even those these same people had cited that they believed the witnesses had seen smoke and they have posted illustrations saying where they believed that smoke came from along the fence. Two separate positions in contradiction to one another and what's comical about it - they were not even aware they were doing it.

Bill Miller

Edited October 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Not smoke.

Red leaves, end of story.

I agree Robin & there is no drifting towards the street either, that's another myth.

56 frames(2secs est) after the limo frame this cluster of leaves & this proposed small "swirl"are very near the same size, same shape & in exactly the same postion.

The only thing that's changed is Wiegman's view of them.

That red train carriage btw is actually a warehouse of some type Robin way back in the distance, I think if you study the the same area in Nix you will spot the same dark rectangular shape.

I thought it was important enough to mention because of that other myth/downright lie that a train blocked the view of a particular cop who was standing on the overpass at the time of the murder.

[Robin Unger]

Hi Alan

Yeh i agree it is a building, i realised that just after i made the post, but hadn't got around to correcting it.

Thanks.

[Alan Healy]

Miles,

that "Wiegman frame" you are talking about is complete garbage, an utter distortion as was the gif that shows movement.

Pick any other source of the real Wiegman & the leaf cluster is pretty sharp & compact compared to that

monstrosity.

Look at the detail that has been lost due to the need to get that cluster looking that big.

I know you probably noticed this already Miles, I just think it needed saying.

[Bill Miller]

I agree Robin & there is no drifting towards the street either, that's another myth.

56 frames(2secs est) after the limo frame this cluster of leaves & this proposed small "swirl"are very near the same size, same shape & in exactly the same postion.

The only thing that's changed is Wiegman's view of them.

Alan,

Thanks for that all too brief and general description. I would like to know a little more about what you are talking about if you wouldn't mind being a little more specific. I assume we are looking at the same Wiegman film and I painstakingly looked at each Wiegman frame in an effort to find the clearest of frames so to do an overlay. The reason for wanting the clearest frames, as has been said numerous times on this matter and others, is that the effects of motion blur can be deceiving. So if you will, I would like to see what other frame(s) did you view to make the above statement.

Thanks in advance and I look forward to seeing the images that lead to your above statement.

Bill

Edited October 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Miles,

that "Wiegman frame" you are talking about is complete garbage, an utter distortion as was the gif that shows movement.

Pick any other source of the real Wiegman & the leaf cluster is pretty sharp & compact compared to that

monstrosity.

Look at the detail that has been lost due to the need to get that cluster looking that big.

I know you probably noticed this already Miles, I just think it needed saying.

Alan,

Of course you're quite right.

The detail-loss image has been "smoked," so to speak.

Then, there's this:

So, where is the smoke, since it ain't in Wiegman?

Must be rapidly dissipating in the shadows in Nix.

The smoke I've "?" marked looks like it has blocked out some of the tree boughs behind it. Odd. Doesn't seem to move much. I wonder. Your opinion?