Bill Miller Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 All of which clearly demonstrates exactly why you are among those who continue to search for mythological creatures amongst the manholes, trees, fences, and tall buildings of Dealy Plaza."Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence" Sometimes it merely means that one has an extremely low reading/comprehension ability! You misspelled Dealey Plaza, Tom. And I agree with the last two lines above. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 All of which clearly demonstrates exactly why you are among those who continue to search for mythological creatures amongst the manholes, trees, fences, and tall buildings of Dealy Plaza."Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence" Sometimes it merely means that one has an extremely low reading/comprehension ability! You misspelled Dealey Plaza, Tom. And I agree with the last two lines above. Bill Miller man, where would you be with GMacks h-e-l-p? I know, I know, this forum would fold its tent tomorrow without it.... LMFAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 MPI has numbering problems galore. They are missing at least one frame in the "later" portion of the film. I don't have the number in front of me, but it is after Z313 and would affect the frames presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 (edited) MPI has numbering problems galore. They are missing at least one frame in the "later" portion of the film. I don't have the number in front of me, but it is after Z313 and would affect the frames presented. you'd think Gary Mack (or his local gofer) would send this forum all the problems MPI's Zapruder film version/alteration has..... after all the 6th floor is now in charge of the film.... Edited May 12, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 MPI has numbering problems galore. They are missing at least one frame in the "later" portion of the film. I don't have the number in front of me, but it is after Z313 and would affect the frames presented. you'd think Gary Mack (or his local gofer) would send this forum all the problems MPI's Zapruder film version/alteration has..... after all the 6th floor is now in charge of the film.... I'm using Costella Combined Edit Frames (updated 2006). The red arrow points out a leaf as it moves frame to frame in frame sequence. This is how you fix the object's movement. When sequenced at very slow motion speed, the object is last seen in frame 416 in the yellow oval. It is the same object seen in the other earlier frames. No doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 MPI has numbering problems galore. They are missing at least one frame in the "later" portion of the film. I don't have the number in front of me, but it is after Z313 and would affect the frames presented. you'd think Gary Mack (or his local gofer) would send this forum all the problems MPI's Zapruder film version/alteration has..... after all the 6th floor is now in charge of the film.... I'm using Costella Combined Edit Frames (updated 2006). The red arrow points out a leaf as it moves frame to frame in frame sequence. This is how you fix the object's movement. When sequenced at very slow motion speed, the object is last seen in frame 416 in the yellow oval. It is the same object seen in the other earlier frames. No doubt about it. in my opinion.Bill Miller QUOTEFor example Hudson said that he heard a third shot as the limo entered the underpass. If the object seen in Z-416 is in fact Hudson. Hudson said that the third shot came over his head. Therefore it came from the TSBDB or the Dal-Tex. So someone was shooting at JFK when he was not visible to the shooter. Hudson's testimony seems suspect. Suspect ... that can be said about many of your post. Maybe Hudson heard a backfire from a cycle that he took to be a shot ... -- MILLER Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind. Have you read Hudson's testimony? You say it could have been a BACKFIRE from a cycle? Hudson says that the shot came from above and kind of behind. So, was the cycle flying around 30 feet off the ground hovering above Dealey Plaza? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 (edited) you'd think Gary Mack (or his local gofer) would send this forum all the problems MPI's Zapruder film version/alteration has..... after all the 6th floor is now in charge of the film.... Why not have some of the optical printer boys just make a new set of frames with the correct numbers! Isn't it funny that those who have all the time in the world to post say-nothing comments have no time to actually do anything positive for themselves. We have gone from merely discussing a head moving from view in a span of a few frames to talking about numbering problems that have nothing to do with the point that was made. (sigh~) Bill Miller Edited May 13, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Isn't it funny Bill Miller[/b] The red oval is the object. It is too low to be the hubcap of the right rear wheel. Also, it is far too rearward to be that. Completely out of position. And it is the wrong shape. Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) When sequenced at very slow motion speed, the object is last seen in frame 416 in the yellow oval. It is the same object seen in the other earlier frames. No doubt about it. The pyracantha bush was stationary, thus two of the clearer frames taken less than a few frames apart should show the same head between the same two branches in both frames. I believe what you see in the latter frame is the wheel of the car. The shadow of the limo against the street can be seen on both sides of the stalk holding the foliage, thus I don't believe it to still be Hudson's head. The other option would be Hudson in motion because Zapruder remained on the pedestal, thus his angle didn't change as far as how he was looking through those two recognizable branches. After all, Hudson did start moving towards the ground before the car had reached the underpass. But if it was Hudson's head, then why is the street and limo's shadow seen on both sides of the stalk???? Bill Miller Edited May 13, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 The pyracantha bush was stationary... You got that one right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 The red oval is the object. It is too low to be the hubcap of the right rear wheel. Also, it is far too rearward to be that. Completely out of position. And it is the wrong shape. Nonsense. The wheel is just behind JFK's seat ... the Zapruder film shows the car turned away at an angle and the light blur doesn't seem to be in the wrong location to me. Sp while it can be debated as to what it is ... it cannot be the back of Hudson's head when the shadow of the limo against the asphalt can be seen on both sides of the stem seen on the pyracantha bush ... or do you wish to argue that point as well?????????? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 The pyracantha bush was stationary... You got that one right... Is that all that I got right, Paul? Would you agree that if Zapruder was stationary on the pedestal and the pyracantha bush was stationary on the ground, then any object seen between the branches in one frame that is not in the same location in another frame indicates that the object has moved ... or is that not conspiratorial enough for your liking to comment on??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 The pyracantha bush was stationary... You got that one right... Is that all that I got right, Paul? Would you agree that if Zapruder was stationary on the pedestal and the pyracantha bush was stationary on the ground, then any object seen between the branches in one frame that is not in the same location in another frame indicates that the object has moved ... or is that not conspiratorial enough for your liking to comment on??? Bill Miller your Lone Nut theory is shaping up just fine.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 All of which clearly demonstrates exactly why you are among those who continue to search for mythological creatures amongst the manholes, trees, fences, and tall buildings of Dealy Plaza."Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence" Sometimes it merely means that one has an extremely low reading/comprehension ability! You misspelled Dealey Plaza, Tom. And I agree with the last two lines above. Bill Miller You misspelled Dealey Plaza, Tom. Perhaps, as I do with many of my "spelling" errors, I just do not worry that much about the spelling and gramatical aspects and actually attempt to read and understand what the witness's have told us all along. And I agree with the last two lines above. Then perhaps, for the enjoyment of the reading public, you might attempt an explanation as to exactly why you have apparantly never even considered that the Z313 impact was in fact the SECOND SHOT, when in fact multiple, as well as some of the most reliable witnesses, have so stated? To inculde the fact that the US Secret Service, who was in possession of "first generation" evidence as well as the witness testimonies, clearly indicated that the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot occurred some 30-feet farther down Elm St. than the Z313/aka second shot. Is it that you can "spell", yet have difficulty with reading? Or perhaps is someone else "coaching" you as to how to attack the errors (in spelling) and avoid the truth and fact of the statements made. Go play with your "Blood Spatter", as anyone who would fall for that most certainly does not have the ability to play the JFK Obfuscation Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) Is it that you can "spell", yet have difficulty with reading?Or perhaps is someone else "coaching" you as to how to attack the errors (in spelling) and avoid the truth and fact of the statements made. When sequenced at very slow motion speed, the object is last seen in frame 416 in the yellow oval. It is the same object seen in the other earlier frames. No doubt about it. The pyracantha bush was stationary, thus two of the clearer frames taken less than a few frames apart should show the same head between the same two branches in both frames. I believe what you see in the latter frame is the wheel of the car. The shadow of the limo against the street can be seen on both sides of the stalk holding the foliage, thus I don't believe it to still be Hudson's head. The other option would be Hudson in motion because Zapruder remained on the pedestal, thus his angle didn't change as far as how he was looking through those two recognizable branches. After all, Hudson did start moving towards the ground before the car had reached the underpass. But if it was Hudson's head, then why is the street and limo's shadow seen on both sides of the stalk???? Bill Miller The pyracantha bush was stationary, No. You forget the blustery wind. But let that pass. thus two of the clearer frames taken less than a few frames apart should show the same head between the same two branches in both frames. Correct. That is the same alleged "head" object. You do not know that it is a head. I believe what you see in the latter frame is the wheel of the car. Wheel? Before you said hubcap. Do you mean the tire? The shadow of the limo against the street can be seen on both sides of the stalk holding the foliage, thus I don't believe it to still be Hudson's head. Absurd non sequitur. Nonsense. But if it was Hudson's head, then why is the street and limo's shadow seen on both sides of the stalk???? Maybe you should cross reference Jack and the Beanstalk? Examine: The object is the alleged "head" object & not the wheel because it is too low to be the right rear wheel. Also, it is far too rearward to be that. Completely out of position. And it is the wrong shape. Edit: punctuation Edited May 13, 2008 by Miles Scull 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