Alan Healy Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 It's settled.You cannot have used the Groden copy because there is no frame before the "limo frame" that shows a sharp image of the cluster. I am using Groden's so I think the discussion ends there unless someone can find the frame you used from a copy of Wiegman in the Death in Dealey Plaza DVD. If they do & post it I will try to make a bigger gif from it. Ah ... the ol' bigger gif theory. if you want a bigger gif, then put a magnifying glass up to you screen - its quicker! (smile) It will be bigger, of superior quality & easier for the untrained eye to make it's own mind up if anything moves. That won't be hard too to do since yours looks so crappy now. I did not recall until I went & checked yesterday that one of the splices in Groden's copy was during the rush to the knoll.http://www.copweb.be/Dave%20Wiegman%20film.htm How frustrating. Adding to the confusion is a clear sign of editing in the frame you overlayed. At the very least you should update your gif next chance you get & mark & source the frames. Alan, if you mean that I edited a frame by cropping off part of the frame so to bring the two together for alignment purposes, then that might be a fair observation. If you are saying that I edited any part of the trees in question and/or the alleged smoke, then you are dead wrong. The editing I mentioned can be seen at the bottom of the angled frame you overlayed onto the limo frame. That is in the film itself, so my point being, whatever version of the film you used, it wasn't completely un-edited. Understood? I have a program that sets transparency levels & it is very easy to do, that is not the problem, the problem is that by resizing a much later frame(+56 which was the best one to use in the G DVD)) & having only the tree & with it the cluster as a guide, let's just say, it is not scientific enough to prove or disprove movement. Scientific as what, Alan ... telling people that modern rifles don't smoke ... that leaf clusters are transparent ... what??? I have shown several ways that I approached this matter and how I tested them to draw my conclusion, thus my approach was scientific. Yes, it would be nicer to have had the original images to work with or they have been crystal clear, but that does not have anything to do with being scientific IMO. Anyone, who can capture the sharp limo frame & the frame 56 frames after that & try to line up the tree will know what I'm talking about. You can't get that many points on the tree to line up because the camera is at a different angle to it. No matter what you do, the overlay looks off & it should do because of the reason I stated above. So in order to size these frames accurately you need a professional, who will use more than just their eyes to resize the frames correctly. You say that your frame came around six frames before the limo frame, so no doubt the tree was easier to line up, I'm talking about 56 frames afterwards, different story. Answer me one question. Do you recall resizing the frame you say came before the limo frame when you made the gif? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 If one cross references what Miles sees as possible smoke, then they will find that its the shadows being cast onto the fence. The tree branch looks transparent for the same reason the fence slats are missing and why parts of the witnesses bodies are faded out, not to mention the print on the road signs - its the poor quality of the film.Bill Why encourage people to cross reference something & then tell them what they are seeing before they have a chance to do so & in the same sentence? I would encourage people to not take Millers word for anything. Is that okay with you Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 (edited) These are the frames I am talking about, the best two captures of the cluster in Groden's DVD, 56 frames apart, around two seconds. I haven't resized them at all in this example. All I did was line up a little & spin it around so the horizon matched. I have attempted many times to resize the tree accurately but it always looks out of whack to some degree because of the different angles. I think it's better to leave it like this & let the viewer resize it their mind. I have studied them enough to say quite confidently, the main cluster does not drift towards the street in these two seconds & the "small swirl" (actually just more foliage) remains the same size & position. The only difference is that the +56 frame I inserted isn't a sharp & focused as the proceeding frame. That's my opinion TIOLI. Hopefully someone wiill track down this allusive sharper frame that comes before the limo frame & post it. Edited October 11, 2007 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 Anyone, who can capture the sharp limo frame & the frame 56 frames after that & try to line up the tree will know what I'm talking about.You can't get that many points on the tree to line up because the camera is at a different angle to it. Alan, I spoke to Gary Mack about this a long time ago and again today and Wiegman is running towards the knoll. The fact that he appears to be cutting across the middle of the street to the curb on an angle is because the street curves and is running diagonally away from the knoll. The point being is that in realty - Wiegman is running towards the knoll - not on an angle away from it. No matter what you do, the overlay looks off & it should do because of the reason I stated above.So in order to size these frames accurately you need a professional, who will use more than just their eyes to resize the frames correctly. You say that your frame came around six frames before the limo frame, so no doubt the tree was easier to line up, I'm talking about 56 frames afterwards, different story. Alan, when you say 56 frames ... have you figured the number of frame difference between actual film and the transfer to TV? Have you considered the conversion from American to your country's?? And as I said before ... I took the two best frames I could find and overlaid them so to see if there was any movement. The Groden frame and a frame before that point. Answer me one question.Do you recall resizing the frame you say came before the limo frame when you made the gif? The only thing that I can say is that if the two frames were overlaid onto each other and I found that the reference points were not exactly lined up ... I would have made sure they were, but I honestly do not recall doing it. Even 9 frames and Wiegman running at the knoll would only be slightly over 1/3 of a second, and because Wiegman's camera is always moving - his LOS pertaining to his total field of view is not the same in any two film frames. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 (edited) I have attempted many times to resize the tree accurately but it always looks out of whack to some degree because of the different angles. As I said before ... getting frames closer together and with a greater distance from the knoll will cause little to no background shifting. The size growth of the road sign in your examples gives one an idea how much closer Wiegman was to th knoll and is why the tree is so large. An example for instance would be like sitting two cans on the ground, one in front of the other and about 3 feet apart. At 250 feet away - a step or so to the side will not cause them to shift against one another, but a step or two from only ten feet away from the same cans will caused them to shift dramatically. Bill Edited October 11, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 Show exactly from what (tree?) that specific "shadow" is cast. Not from the tree to the west.Alan, Do you see a source for this shadow? Miles, Can you think of another source for seeing the fence and the shadows being cast upon it? Here is a hint .... Mary Moorman's photo .... hope it helped. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I have attempted many times to resize the tree accurately but it always looks out of whack to some degree because of the different angles. As I said before ... getting frames closer together and with a greater distance from the knoll will cause little to no background shifting. The size growth of the road sign in your examples gives one an idea how much closer Wiegman was to th knoll and is why the tree is so large. An example for instance would be like sitting two cans on the ground, one in front of the other and about 3 feet apart. At 250 feet away - a step or so to the side will not cause them to shift against one another, but a step or two from only ten feet away from the same cans will caused them to shift dramatically. Bill Any smoke in Wiegman, where there is none in reality, would be seen in Nix: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Show exactly from what (tree?) that specific "shadow" is cast. Not from the tree to the west.Alan, Do you see a source for this shadow? Miles, Can you think of another source for seeing the fence and the shadows being cast upon it? Here is a hint .... Mary Moorman's photo .... hope it helped. Bill Miller There is no source for this "shadow." If you cannot name a source for this so-called "shadow," then I have found smoke here: Please name a source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) Miles, Can you think of another source for seeing the fence and the shadows being cast upon it? Here is a hint .... Mary Moorman's photo .... hope it helped. Bill Miller There is no source for this "shadow." If you cannot name a source for this so-called "shadow," then I have found smoke here: Miles, First you said that the smoke in Wiegman was too large in your view to be real ... now you post that because you cannot find a source for the shadow on the fence that you have found the smoke in Nix. So if you were right, then we are supposed to buy the opposite of what you were selling the other day - that the smoke closer to the fence would cast a bigger shadow than it would have when it drifted out from under the trees when it had more time to expand. Is that really the correct philosophy to take here ??? The fact that the same shadow is seen in Moorman's photo, Muchmore's film, Nix's film, Bell's film, and several other post assassination photos (Bond and Towner's just to name a few) taken of the fence in Trask's book, all that takes a back seat because you (Miles) cannot find the source for the shadow, so it must be smoke. sigh~ Bill Miller Edited October 12, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Miles, Can you think of another source for seeing the fence and the shadows being cast upon it? Here is a hint .... Mary Moorman's photo .... hope it helped. Bill Miller There is no source for this "shadow." If you cannot name a source for this so-called "shadow," then I have found smoke here: Miles, you (Miles) cannot find the source for the shadow, so it must be smoke. Bill Miller you (Miles) cannot find the source for the shadow Neither can you (Miller) find it. Or, you would say so. Maybe it's the shadow that is cast by the magic smoke cloud that does not exist in Nix or Wiegman. The cloud you claim is 3 feet by 4 feet by 3 feet... Huge! A small blimp, floating to & fro. Does anyone think that such a dense cloud of smoke of such a size & volume would not be seen here?---- or here? or here? It may be bed time for Bonzo, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Okay I've just watched the unedited Wiegman on tape, it's on the NBC "As it Happened" compellation. There is no sharp image of the cluster before the limo frame, so you have to have used the frame two seconds after that & placed it before it "by accident". That "+56" frame is the one you used. It's the only one there is that has the similarities I pointed out. So, in future if you want to make any conclusions from your small gif it might be better to actually watch it in reverse first. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...Deception-1.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I am not the visual/image expert that you folks represent, but I follow these discussions with interest. Didn't more than witness testify to seeing or experiencing smoke in the vicinity of the Knoll? - gene kelly Gene, thank you for expressing your interest. Gary Mack told me just recently that were at least ten witnesses that reported seeing smoke & I have no reason to doubt him, I trust he is correct. I would guess close to half of them were on the overpass but this isn't about that really. I am not claiming there was no smoke at all from the fence area, I actually believe there was, I'm just looking at the established rumours of it in the images & I feel it is not very strong & the small animation of Wiegman that is pulled out everytime this topic comes up is extreemly weak. It's better that we examinine it, rather than some LN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) Okay I've just watched the unedited Wiegman on tape, it's on the NBC "As it Happened" compellation.There is no sharp image of the cluster before the limo frame, so you have to have used the frame two seconds after that & placed it before it "by accident". That "+56" frame is the one you used. It's the only one there is that has the similarities I pointed out. 'El Wrongo' as usual, Alan. The frames in that clip were in the order that they played on the film. Believe it or not - I am smart enough to know that if out of order, then anyone who watched the film that knows or understands anything about perspective would easily spot such a thing. You somehow think you have figured the whole thing out. Bill Miller Inappropriate remark removed by moderator. Antti Hynonen. Edited October 14, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 Gary Mack told me just recently that were at least ten witnesses that reported seeing smoke & I have no reason to doubt him, I trust he is correct. Alan, I take it that you have abandoned your past position on not accepting anything Mack would say based on your 'hearsay rule' . I am glad to see you have adjusted your thinking on that matter. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Gary Mack told me just recently that were at least ten witnesses that reported seeing smoke & I have no reason to doubt him, I trust he is correct. Alan, I take it that you have abandoned your past position on not accepting anything Mack would say based on your 'hearsay rule' . I am glad to see you have adjusted your thinking on that matter. Bill Miller Please see posts # 414 & #429 on this tread for reply. 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