Jump to content

Help in correlating timing to z-frames


Recommended Posts

25 choirs?

Reporter Robert Macneil made that statement.

BM received an award for finding Hudson in the bushes (Z-413). BUT, Is it Hudson? Hudson would have knocked himself out doing a 2 second nose dive.

If you cannot rely on Hudson's testimony, then the photographic evidence is the only game in town.

It seems that the only game in town being ran is the game you are playing. Below is Jackie GETTING UP from a sitting position at Z330 ... then at Z366 (2 seconds). Is it still your position that Hudson could not have lowered himself towards the ground at a similar rate to Jackie's rising up from a sitting position??????????????

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ouch! Someone just sustained a self-inflicted foot injury.

Of course Hudson's head does not completely disappear in 1/18th of a second between Z-414 & Z-415.

But since it does, this proves that the object is NOT Hudson.

I was waiting for you to say something like this ... Z415 blurred, which causes objects to look like they have vanished. Why did you not mention this? Here is a clear frame following Z414 ... Husdon's head has lowered from view.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z416.jpg

And before you start telling us how motion blur doesn't make objects fade out ... look at the running man across the street on the grass ....

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z419.jpg

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch! Someone just sustained a self-inflicted foot injury.

Of course Hudson's head does not completely disappear in 1/18th of a second between Z-414 & Z-415.

But since it does, this proves that the object is NOT Hudson.

Z415 blurred, which causes objects to look like they have vanished. Why did you not mention this? Here is a clear frame following Z414 ... Husdon's head has lowered from view.

And before you start telling us how motion blur doesn't make objects fade out ... look at the running man across the street on the grass ....

Z415 blurred, which causes objects to look like they have vanished.

Let's think about this.

Blurring causes an object to look like it has vanished.

Vanished — not having existence or being or actuality

So, the object is really there, only it looks like it does not have existence or being or actuality.

OK, so, what does something look like if it does not have existence or being or actuality?

z415-0.jpg

The running man in the red oval is blurred, but visible.

The alleged Hudson object in the yellow oval is NOT visible.

The reason it is not visible is that it is not there at all.

It has been said several times before on the forum: cryptozoological methods are not appropriate & are at best misleading.

For example, it would be true in cryptozoological methodology to say that Sasquatch is in Z-415, but is invisible because of blurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a leap. I don't buy it. Remember - I don't believe this alleged third individual is present in the Willis photo - aside from the very likely possibility of being BDM. That is my opinion and impression.

Please explain how you reached that conclusion .. both men on the steps with Hudson is seen in the Willis photo. It is Hudson who is mostly hidden by the man standing east and on the same step with him.

That is your opinion - not mine.

That small study I posted is made up of early copies of the Moorman - the Times Herald, Jack White's copy, etc. No worries - they were good enough for me.

Lee ... no problem on my end. By the way, did you look at the Muchmore film to check the area in question or are you satisfied that your posted dark poor quality prints are good enough? I only ask because Jack has had some of the best prints in his possession and even he has never made the claim of seeing what you are talking about. The Moorman print you used is not one of the better prints ... you might want to examine some other prints that are found in Groden's book "The Killing of a President".

It's good stuff Bill - I spent well over $1K in acquiring Moorman material - trying to get original prints. Groden didn't like it when I pissed on his photo - he started getting into a hissy fit - all about how much money he spent getting originals and whatnot.

All this having been said - nothing will shake me on the guy squatting on the stairs and the probability of the third man having been added after-the-fact.

What I find odd about the remark above is that regardless if you have seen the NBC show 'As it Happens" which shows Moorman's photo as it was still in her possession only 35 minutes after the shooting ... all three men are on the steps. You may not be able to ID them as to who they are, but seeing them standing there is quite obvious. How you figure that one of them was added after the fact, presumably by Moorman in the alteration lab hidden inside the lining of her coat, will remain a mystery to me.

It will have to remain a mystery - but we'll all be taking a look at 'As it HAPPENED' shortly. Maybe 35 minutes explains the poor quality of the alteration. Even if the alleged third man was genuine, it fails to explain the man squatting - which I brought to Jack White's attention 4 years ago.

Speaking of Jack White - he sent me the Zippo Moorman. The man on the stairs is plainly evident. You can see him in Jack's work, attached here - and you can see him plainly. He also appears in Four Dark Days - but oddly enough, not by the time Groden published his book, which I also have. Also oddly enough, we don't see him in the 'drumscan.' This leads me to the distinct impression that the Moorman changed over time - which I believe I have shown here in this thread comparing the 'young man' on the steps that accompanied Hudson during the aftermath - the man whom I enquired of Hemming as to whether or not he was in fact Roy Hargraves, without a response.

Rice and beans,

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will have to remain a mystery - but we'll all be taking a look at 'As it HAPPENED' shortly. Maybe 35 minutes explains the poor quality of the alteration. Even if the alleged third man was genuine, it fails to explain the man squatting - which I brought to Jack White's attention 4 years ago.

You could bring a stain where some careless moron sat their water glass on a copy print to Jack's attention and it would somehow be turned into an alteration. Also, Muchmore's film doesn't show anyone there either.

One side note ... I have often wondered how it was that someone could look at the stars and by merely seeing no more than three in a row that they could come up with some elaborate image. I think you have demonstrated here how that process is accomplished.

By the way, what they are claiming to be a car parked back in the RR yard in Mary's photo is the top of a tree. There is not a chance in the world that with her upward angle that she could capture a car sitting back in the RR yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Lee,

Jack’s Zippo Moorman photo points out the car behind the pegola. This is something that I also discovered by adjusting the brightness/contrast in the Moorman photo. IMO, the Moorman photo did change over time!

Don

Go to the plaza - stand where Moorman did with a car parked near the shelter in the parking area and you will not be able to see it. What is being called a car in her image is the top of a tree that can be seen in Trask book (POTP) on around page 350. This is a not a point to argue over ... it is a fact that can be tested by anyone who wishes to do so.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe you can see the car from Moorman's position. Agree from personal experience.

View photos provided. Yes, I understand these aren't perfect, but reasonable.

I still believe that much has been altered.

For instance, take a Couch frame and a Darnell frame.

Darnell films at street level on the South side of Elm.

Couch films from the street, on the seat top of a convertible.

The Darnell film shows what appears to be the bush/tree behind the wall, not a car.

The problem is revealed in the animation.

It's playing quickly on purpose. So you can see how the left side of the wall aligns, and the right.

We have 2 professional cameramen, and both shoot films at the same angle.

Neither of which is level to the horizon.

Did they both go to the same filmographers school?

BTW, that's a 5 degree camera tilt.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe that much has been altered.

chris

I agree, Chris,

For example there is the Hudson object question. Is it real or is it a hoax?

See Z-414:

z414.jpg

z415-0.jpg

Stick Man in the red oval is blurred but visible, not vanished in Z-415

Then 1/18th of a second after Z-414 the alleged Hudson object has vanished without a sign (yellow oval).

And in 2/18ths of a second later (Z-416) he is gone.

z416.jpg

Is this "object" a UFO? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe you can see the car from Moorman's position. Agree from personal experience.

View photos provided. Yes, I understand these aren't perfect, but reasonable.

I still believe that much has been altered.

For instance, take a Couch frame and a Darnell frame.

Darnell films at street level on the South side of Elm.

Couch films from the street, on the seat top of a convertible.

The Darnell film shows what appears to be the bush/tree behind the wall, not a car.

The problem is revealed in the animation.

It's playing quickly on purpose. So you can see how the left side of the wall aligns, and the right.

We have 2 professional cameramen, and both shoot films at the same angle.

Neither of which is level to the horizon.

Did they both go to the same filmographers school?

BTW, that's a 5 degree camera tilt.

chris

Very interesting, Chris...but here is one of my studies of this; I say that if Nix is genuine and

there is a car in this location (doubtful), then the car should be in the same location in Moorman,

since the line of sight is virtually the same, and Moorman is only slightly lower than Nix.

I see why you think it is a treetop, not a car...but I am not convinced of anything except that

Nix has been altered.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will have to remain a mystery - but we'll all be taking a look at 'As it HAPPENED' shortly. Maybe 35 minutes explains the poor quality of the alteration. Even if the alleged third man was genuine, it fails to explain the man squatting - which I brought to Jack White's attention 4 years ago.

You could bring a stain where some careless moron sat their water glass on a copy print to Jack's attention and it would somehow be turned into an alteration. Also, Muchmore's film doesn't show anyone there either.

One side note ... I have often wondered how it was that someone could look at the stars and by merely seeing no more than three in a row that they could come up with some elaborate image. I think you have demonstrated here how that process is accomplished.

By the way, what they are claiming to be a car parked back in the RR yard in Mary's photo is the top of a tree. There is not a chance in the world that with her upward angle that she could capture a car sitting back in the RR yard.

The car has nothing to do with why I posted the photo. And the Muchmore film NOT containing the man on the steps is one of the reasons for the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe you can see the car from Moorman's position. Agree from personal experience.

View photos provided. Yes, I understand these aren't perfect, but reasonable.

I still believe that much has been altered.

For instance, take a Couch frame and a Darnell frame.

Darnell films at street level on the South side of Elm.

Couch films from the street, on the seat top of a convertible.

The Darnell film shows what appears to be the bush/tree behind the wall, not a car.

The problem is revealed in the animation.

It's playing quickly on purpose. So you can see how the left side of the wall aligns, and the right.

We have 2 professional cameramen, and both shoot films at the same angle.

Neither of which is level to the horizon.

Did they both go to the same filmographers school?

BTW, that's a 5 degree camera tilt.

chris

Very interesting, Chris...but here is one of my studies of this; I say that if Nix is genuine and

there is a car in this location (doubtful), then the car should be in the same location in Moorman,

since the line of sight is virtually the same, and Moorman is only slightly lower than Nix.

I see why you think it is a treetop, not a car...but I am not convinced of anything except that

Nix has been altered.

Jack

One of the 'car experiments' I did. This required pulling the rental up and over the curb and on to the grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I too believe Nix was altered.

But Moorman is down at street level looking up at the wall.

I think if a car is to be seen in Moorman, it has to be right next to the wall or much closer than what I am providing.

Lee,

Here is something similar to what you supplied.

The photo shows the car position from the animation.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will have to remain a mystery - but we'll all be taking a look at 'As it HAPPENED' shortly. Maybe 35 minutes explains the poor quality of the alteration. Even if the alleged third man was genuine, it fails to explain the man squatting - which I brought to Jack White's attention 4 years ago.

You could bring a stain where some careless moron sat their water glass on a copy print to Jack's attention and it would somehow be turned into an alteration. Also, Muchmore's film doesn't show anyone there either.

One side note ... I have often wondered how it was that someone could look at the stars and by merely seeing no more than three in a row that they could come up with some elaborate image. I think you have demonstrated here how that process is accomplished.

Well Bill - as you may recall, I made the claim that there was someone in the area of the bushes at the corner of the North Peristyle - especially as seen in the Dorman; folks contested that also - but I proved that wrong, did I not. I did. And as the Muchmore was in what I would call a 'controlled' state, as opposed to some film lying dormant for years in someone's basement - I consider it suspect. That again, is the point.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...