Jack White Posted February 20, 2010 Author Share Posted February 20, 2010 Closer examination of Nix Bowlingballman shows that he has a left arm that danglesnearly to the sidewalk, with his fingers below his knees. His bowling ball, seen in only one or two frames, neatly splits into two parts. His elbow is about a foot below his waist. This is very poor animation! Jack Jack, about what time is this happening? [approximately]? That may give some clues. The 'bowling ball' with the stripe splitting into two really struck me as strange - as if the rest wasn't strange enough! I see you have the usual hecklers and some new ones. Yet they 'hang-out' on your thead....why? [sadists, masochists, or fearful?] What are they afraid Jack might find? Or are they afraid Jack might make people QUESTION the usually held assumptions and have to THINK from first principles. If 5% of what Jack has found anomalous in photos and films about Dallas is truly anomalous and/or faked [and I believe at least ten times that would be closer to the truth], we have a little itty bitty problem with the official version of events [and the 'evidence']......wouldn't 'ya say?! We now know the autopsy was faked [and a secret third one held]; that the autopsy photos were faked and some disappeared; others not real put in the 'record'; we know the original autopsy report and some notes were burned; we know the patsy was correct when he said 'I didn't shoot anyone'; I seem all but sure that Tippit was done in by one of the plotters mechanics and Ruby silenced Lee, so his true connections and allegiances would never surface; the WC lied, the HSCA was controlled....and so on.....so what is so strange about films and photos being either faked or tampered with or showing very odd things that might be part of the mechanics movements and devices....or other proofs that we can't use some of the films or photos as having frozen the truth in time.... Thanks, Peter. You seem to be one of the only perceptive ones here. For anyone to claim that this anomalous frame from Nix is a naturally photographed OBJECT is beyond ridiculous. And that they call me names for noticing it is further beyond ridiculous. I sometimes believe that 90 percent of this forum is infiltrated by persons tasked to ridicule any investigation which seeks truth. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 20, 2010 Author Share Posted February 20, 2010 see you have the usual hecklers and some new ones. Yet they 'hang-out' on your thead....why? [sadists, masochists, or fearful?] What are they afraid Jack might find? How about disagreeing with Jack as an option...about not seeing what he sees? Why do the folks who frequent these threads have to be "sadists, masochists or fearful"? Ok Kathy. What Jack is presenting lately is beyond any judgement. It is false as it can be and a tremendous backstep into the photographic research evidence. I stand in with my word. Martin I am ASTONISHED at Martin's opinion! It greatly diminishes any admiration I had for HIS work. That he thinks this discovery in the Nix film IS FALSE AND A TREMENDOUS BACKSTEP is beyond belief. I would like to hear Martin's explanation for this anomaly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 Well, Jack, this is the problem I have with most of this stuff..While I believe the films are authentic, I can sort of understand why you folk think that parts may be altered, you know the parts that give us a view of the assassination. However, that these guys who were supposedly very good at altering, so the films look authentic, would take the time to have a dude holding a bowling ball, or huge toy dogs, etc, just makes no sense. They were supposed to have super equipment where they could pull this off, and I assume it is serious work, so why would they add a bunch of goofy things to the films? I mean if this is such a keen cover-up, why put all that stuff in there? You will probably say that you don't know the answer, and I should probably ask them. My answer to you is that it is because it probably isn't there in the first place. Kathy THIS IS NOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Just what are you accusing me of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 Well, Jack, this is the problem I have with most of this stuff..While I believe the films are authentic, I can sort of understand why you folk think that parts may be altered, you know the parts that give us a view of the assassination. However, that these guys who were supposedly very good at altering, so the films look authentic, would take the time to have a dude holding a bowling ball, or huge toy dogs, etc, just makes no sense. They were supposed to have super equipment where they could pull this off, and I assume it is serious work, so why would they add a bunch of goofy things to the films? I mean if this is such a keen cover-up, why put all that stuff in there? You will probably say that you don't know the answer, and I should probably ask them. My answer to you is that it is because it probably isn't there in the first place. Kathy THIS IS NOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Just what are you accusing me of? I asked Kathy what she is accusing me of. She has not answered. Here is an uncropped, unmanipulated in any way frame of the striped ball in Nix attached to the man in the cap whose left arm dangles below his knee. I request that Ms. Beckett rescind her accusation of fakery on my part, and look at the film herself...21 seconds in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 I purposely did not mention the WATER SPOTS on the painted-in gray shape at left. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 (edited) look at the film herself...21 seconds in.THAT IS A VERY GOOD IDEA FOR ANY WHO THINK OTHERWISE ...HE DOES NOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP AS JACK MENTIONS...AND BTW I MIGHT ADD HE DID NOT PUT IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE IMO...SURPRISE !!!!! B please excuse the darn caps thank you.. Edited February 21, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Jack, This is Nix stabilized. http://98.155.2.255:8400/95505/2.gif chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 (edited) THANKS CHRIS APPRECIATED VERY AS ALWAYS BUT THAT MAN DOES HAVE THE LONGEST LEFT ARM I HAVE EVER SEEN JACK RIGHT ON...BEST ALL B.. Edited February 21, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Bernice, That is not his left arm. His left arm is folded across his waist. It is holding something which leads through his armpit and droops back behind his left leg. It looks like an arm and hand or is supposed to be an arm/hand, but is not, and can't be. (Anatomically speaking). It also seems as if the drooping hand attached to the drooping arm disappears for a few frames. Watch closely. See if this looped movie helps. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 (edited) Well, Jack, this is the problem I have with most of this stuff..While I believe the films are authentic, I can sort of understand why you folk think that parts may be altered, you know the parts that give us a view of the assassination. However, that these guys who were supposedly very good at altering, so the films look authentic, would take the time to have a dude holding a bowling ball, or huge toy dogs, etc, just makes no sense. They were supposed to have super equipment where they could pull this off, and I assume it is serious work, so why would they add a bunch of goofy things to the films? I mean if this is such a keen cover-up, why put all that stuff in there? You will probably say that you don't know the answer, and I should probably ask them. My answer to you is that it is because it probably isn't there in the first place. Kathy THIS IS NOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Just what are you accusing me of? I asked Kathy what she is accusing me of. She has not answered. Here is an uncropped, unmanipulated in any way frame of the striped ball in Nix attached to the man in the cap whose left arm dangles below his knee. I request that Ms. Beckett rescind her accusation of fakery on my part, and look at the film herself...21 seconds in. Funny how jack who has no qualms about accusing others of dishonesty gets all bent out of shape when he thinks someone is imply he is guilty of the same thing. Take a chill pill Jack she obviously meant you have an over active imagination. Now thanks to Duncan we can see that the 'stripped' "bowling ball" appears to be nothing more than a shadow. Even in your blurry image the "ball" is an oval about 60% wider than it is tall and wider than the man's head, bowling ball are round and roughly the size of a head. Edited February 21, 2010 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 Jack,I would never accuse you of altering a photo--I meant that what you perceive probably isn't there. Kathy Huh? You mean this frame does NOT REALLY SHOW a ball with a stripe on it, and a left arm of a man dangling below his knee??? You mean I am just seeing things that are not really there????? OK, if it is a matter of perception, tell us what YOU PERCEIVE this frame to show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 (edited) Bernice,That is not his left arm. His left arm is folded across his waist. It is holding something which leads through his armpit and droops back behind his left leg. It looks like an arm and hand or is supposed to be an arm/hand, but is not, and can't be. (Anatomically speaking). It also seems as if the drooping hand attached to the drooping arm disappears for a few frames. Watch closely. See if this looped movie helps. chris Chris...that is my point...IT IS ANATOMICALLY INCORRECT! I must disagree with your assessment. Watch the entire sequence IN MOTION. You clearly see THE ARM SWING, THE THUMB EXTEND, ETC. What you see as his folded arm appears to be a broad black belt which goes around his waist and is seen in back. I will be glad to do a complete study of the man, but it is unnecessary if one watches IN MOTION as the "arm" swings and the thumb extends. It is ALL ANIMATION, and poorly done. The best way to view it is ONE FRAME AT A TIME. Jack Edited February 21, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 Many thanks to Duncan for furnishing all of these frames in his GIF. This clearly shows the VERY LONG ARM of the man in Nix. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 (edited) Long study of this seems to show that the animators put in a puzzling conundrum as a joke or to confound us. The man appears to have TWO LEFT ARMS, but the second LONG arm looks like an additional ARM WITH A BLACK GLOVE carried under his left armpit. It could be a jacket the same color as his shirt, with a black glove attached. (?) In addition, several of the frames show the black ball with the stripe forming and then disappearing. But for one full frame the ball is there But...the ball with the stripe is there...and the long arm with extra black hand is there. And the man does have a broad black belt. Remember...none of this is reality...it is animation. Jack Edited February 21, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Long study of this seems to show that the animators put in a puzzling conundrumas a joke or to confound us. The man appears to have TWO LEFT ARMS, but the second LONG arm looks like an additional ARM WITH A BLACK GLOVE carried under his left armpit. It could be a jacket the same color as his shirt, with a black glove attached. (?) In addition, several of the frames show the black ball with the stripe forming and then disappearing. But for one full frame the ball is there But...the ball with the stripe is there...and the long arm with extra black hand is there. And the man does have a broad black belt. Remember...none of this is reality...it is animation. Jack Its Duncan's monkey It looks to me to be a chimpanzee dressed as a human baby and the owner has a collection tin in his right hand If not I am off to specsavers 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