Bill Miller Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Now "Miller" tries his hand at psychoanalysis! Wotta guy! He has no idea what I have in mind when I write! It appears that you do not know what you have in mind when you write either. He cannot detect "tongue-in-cheek". When I said WOW, it was to indicate something impossible...not thatWillis had superhuman speed. Yes Jack ... its impossible and mind boggling how a middle aged man can out-run a slow moving car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 Bell appears to show Willis already at the curb on Elm long before the limo arrives. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 The caravan’s speed traveling up Houston seems to be faster than what a normal man can run. It doesn’t make sense. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 The caravan’s speed traveling up Houston seems to be faster than what a normal man can run. It doesn’t make sense.Don Based on what - you merely saying it to be so???? The speed of the car isn't much different than it was at Love Field with the SS Agent was trotting along side of it before being called off. But even if you were correct despite having nothing to support what you have said ... Willis only had to cut by the reflection pool and down the few steps and he would have been in position to take his photo. And so you know, Don ... Jack has altered (no pun intended) his claim to say that the car wasn't going that fast, thus Willis wasn't running at 'amazing speed' afterall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 The caravan’s speed traveling up Houston seems to be faster than what a normal man can run. It doesn’t make sense.Don Don, I'm still working on that aspect. Another from Myers: The speed and trajectory of the limo rounding the corner of Elm/Houston. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Jack "Miller" tries his hand at psychoanalysis! Wotta guy! He has no idea what I have in mind when I write! Jack No, and I don belive anyone else here does either including yourself, except of course Don "mallet-man" Bailey, who doesn't really count. You posting's are becoming almost as ridiculous as they numerous!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Picture shows Willis in Martin's film. He's off the steps and according to Myer's is 12.68 sec. from frame 313. Willis has a total of 16 sec. to run from his last photo#3, to get to where we see him in Zapruder 133. So from his position in Martin, he has approx 3.2 sec to get to where we see him in Z133. If 200 ft. approx, is the distance from the Houston corner to where we see him in Martin, he ran to it in 13 sec. approx. This equates to 15.3 ft. per sec, or 10.43 mph. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 The caravan's speed traveling up Houston seems to be faster than what a normal man can run. It doesn't make sense. Based on what - you merely saying it to be so???? ... But even if you were correct despite having nothing to support what you have said ... If the roles were reversed, Miller would be squawking "foul!" at being called for "proof." Witness his attitude about Ed Hoffman, who "must've" been where he'd said he was despite Miller's having absolutely nothing to support it and his continued ignoring of what completely disproves it. He can have his pet theories - even disproven ones! - but nobody else can, not even relatively meaningless little ones without getting a piece of Miller's mind. This is maybe a side benefit of getting "JFK awards" (besides having a long sililoquy as a "signature" to tell everyone how cool and well-qualified (and more so than you!) that he actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 The caravan’s speed traveling up Houston seems to be faster than what a normal man can run. It doesn’t make sense.Don It would appear, at least according to the Hughes film, that the limo was traveling approx 8mph on Houston. Myers calculates the national press pool car at 7.8 mph. 28 Hughes frames to traverse it's length. Using roughly the same method, I came up with 27 Hughes frames for the limo to traverse it's own length. The press pool car is 17.5 feet long. I believe the limo is a little longer, therefore a little more speed needed. I think this is a reasonable estimate. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 If the roles were reversed, Miller would be squawking "foul!" at being called for "proof." Witness his attitude about Ed Hoffman, who "must've" been where he'd said he was despite Miller's having absolutely nothing to support it and his continued ignoring of what completely disproves it. As I recall, Duke ... you had your conclusions drawn even before reading Ed's book. Ed was committing to his story from day one, which is telling in itself. If you should ever find evidence that Ed was seen somewhere else during JFK's assassination, then I would like to hear it. Until then I do not buy into your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 7, 2008 Author Share Posted March 7, 2008 The caravan’s speed traveling up Houston seems to be faster than what a normal man can run. It doesn’t make sense.Don It would appear, at least according to the Hughes film, that the limo was traveling approx 8mph on Houston. Myers calculates the national press pool car at 7.8 mph. 28 Hughes frames to traverse it's length. Using roughly the same method, I came up with 27 Hughes frames for the limo to traverse it's own length. The press pool car is 17.5 feet long. I believe the limo is a little longer, therefore a little more speed needed. I think this is a reasonable estimate. chris Chris...No documentation is presented that the Hughes camera speed was 18.3 fps. What if it were the STANDARD 16 fps? I am poor at math, but wouldn't that make the speed approximately 10 mph instead of 7.8? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 If the roles were reversed, Miller would be squawking "foul!" at being called for "proof." Witness his attitude about Ed Hoffman, who "must've" been where he'd said he was despite Miller's having absolutely nothing to support it and his continued ignoring of what completely disproves it. As I recall, Duke ... you had your conclusions drawn even before reading Ed's book. Ed was committing to his story from day one, which is telling in itself. If you should ever find evidence that Ed was seen somewhere else during JFK's assassination, then I would like to hear it. Until then I do not buy into your position. You recall close to correctly: I simply didn't believe Ed's story. I hadn't "drawn conclusions." Ed's book did nothing to convince me otherwise. Research proved my disbelief correct, and Ed's story completely incredible. That Ed made up a story and "improved" upon it as years went by (prediction: the next book will tell all about the roadblock, which Ed "didn't think was important," and hence didn't mention it) does not make it more true. You're so hooked on the story, you believe it in spite of evidence to the contrary, and simply call for more - and more difficult - proofs, which if found, will probably come from a xxxx or other unreliable source. You - and Ed - have none; he, at least, admits it. Until you prove who - by name - shot JFK and from where, then I guess it must've been Lee Oswald, by your measure. So why are we having all these conversations? Why does this forum even exist, and why do you waste your time researching this stuff? The whole point of my message, which you missed but have nevertheless proven, was only ever simply this: If Ed's story is true (quote) based on what - you merely saying it to be so? Despite having nothing to support what you have said? (unquote), then you have absolutely no business chiding anyone else for living up - or down - to your own standards. It's your petard, you've claimed it as your own, and hoisted yourself upon it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 7, 2008 Author Share Posted March 7, 2008 "It's your petard, you've claimed it as your own, and hoisted yourself upon it." It's Duke's metaphor and I doubt that he knows its meaning. A petard was an explosive device used to breech medieval walls. It was placed by an engineer at the best place to break through the wall, often the gate. If his explosive ignited prematurely, the poor bloke was blown skyward, and said to be HOIST ON HIS OWN PETARD...or blown to smithereens by his own explosive. The metaphor was immortalized by Shakespeare. But then Duke is no Shakespeare. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) "It's your petard, you've claimed it as your own, and hoisted yourself upon it."It's Duke's metaphor and I doubt that he knows its meaning. ... Tsk, tsk, Jack. The word has an even more odorous background than merely being an "explosive device" inasmuch as it specifically dealt with the practice of exploding intestinal gasses as a means to breach the city gates. Colloquially, it means you've been spoiled by your own devices, undone by your own plot. Now what's that on your face? Edited by moderator due to inappropriate remarks. Edited March 10, 2008 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 You're so hooked on the story, you believe it in spite of evidence to the contrary, and simply call for more - and more difficult - proofs, which if found, will probably come from a xxxx or other unreliable source. You - and Ed - have none; he, at least, admits it. I was skeptical at one time and is why I spent time talking to Ed's family. I read Ed's book (and before drawing any conclusion) and I am smart enough to know that two people can witness the same event and see it differently, thus both are telling what they believe to be the truth. Like I said before ... most people know where they were when JFK was killed and who they were with. If you should ever find that someone saw Ed somewhere other than where he said he was when JFK was shot, then I am interested in hearing about it. 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