Greer ducking in Nix

[Robin Unger]

Excellent as usual Robin... thanks

Is this where the film begins... there is a splice just before this correct? We do not see the 2-4 seconds just before this starts on the 1st part...

I think the point Hargis makes about the limo stopping is pretty significant as well as the extreme slowing of the two motorcycles to the RIGHT rear of the limo... by all indication it looks like they are stopping... and immediately looking to their right as well

you can also see the agent told not to move off the running board on the right of the SS car... he doesn't begin to move until AFTER the headshot...

I will get into analyzing this version a bit... much appreciated Robin... I believe there is quite a lot to learn here

Regards

DJ

edit: is there ANY FILM in which we see Hill jumping off the limo... any photos?

I can't seem to remember any - suggests to me the limo stop occurs at that point and somehow the follow-up car is moved much closer to the limo... problem with that is Altgens at z255 shows the ss car right there.. I thought it was said that Hill ran 85 feet in total to get to the limo...

Thanks David.

One of the reasons i had to make the frames so light was so that the HSCA " white spot anomily " can be seen properly .

The other reason was to get a better look at running man on the steps disapearing into the shadows as he bolts for the carpark.

HSCA NIX Enhancement.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

All studies of films ASSUME that they are genuine.

First establish that a film is genuine before using it as evidence. If the films are fabrications,

then study of the fabrications is more important than what the extant films show.

Jack

Just to clarify things Jack.

Are you saying that NIX is not genuine. ?

And that because it is a fabrication i am wasting my time studying it.. ?

Robin.

[Jack White]

All studies of films ASSUME that they are genuine.

First establish that a film is genuine before using it as evidence. If the films are fabrications,

then study of the fabrications is more important than what the extant films show.

Jack

Just to clarify things Jack.

Are you saying that NIX is not genuine. ?

And that because it is a fabrication i am wasting my time studying it.. ?

Robin.

I am not addressing ANY particular person. All films should be studied, both their content and provenance.

Among the things studied should be the authenticity. A careful such study shows the Nix film to be not

genuine as shot by Nix. Once it is determined that such a film is inauthentic, it is only common sense not

to rely on it as evidence, but rather to look into the alterations rather than what is shown, and try to determine

what meaning, if any, should be placed on what is seen, what is changed, and what is removed.

It is NOT a waste of time to study the films in this manner. It IS a waste of time to rely on altered films

for evidentiary value.

Jack

[Daniel Meyer]

All studies of films ASSUME that they are genuine.

First establish that a film is genuine before using it as evidence. If the films are fabrications,

then study of the fabrications is more important than what the extant films show.

Jack

Just to clarify things Jack.

Are you saying that NIX is not genuine. ?

And that because it is a fabrication i am wasting my time studying it.. ?

Robin.

Again, Orville Nix is on record saying the film he got back from the FBI was not quite the same as what he had originally shot.

Mark Lane interviewed him on film in the movie version of Rush to Judgment. (Multiple copies available on line, eg http://youtu.be/wtqH60ivqgs relevant section starting at 3:20.)

Edited May 1, 2011 by Daniel Meyer

[Robin Unger]

Hi Daniel.

Yes, i have seen that orville Nix interview before, where he says the Gov copy of the film he got back, appeared to have several frames missing.

In the same interview he also said that he first thought that the shots came from the grassy knoll.

But

now he thinks that the shots came from the TSBD and that the Warren Commision findings were correct.

The same Commissiion that apparently removed frames from his film ??

How did Nix come to the conclusion that there where a couple of frame missing here and there in the copy of the film that was returned to him.

what did he have to compare this Gov copy of the film too ?

He stated in the same interview that the authorities had lost his original copy,.so how was he able to compare the film he now had, with the original in camera film

was he just going by memory.

Also, he never actually mentions what individual frames from what part of the film he considered where missing ? ( Houston st, Elm st )

To the naked eye watching a copy of the film, it would be very hard to distinguish that there were any single frames missing. !

so how did he come to this conclusion. ?

The only real way to do this would to be to study the ( two films side by side)the in camera original, and the Gov copy 1-frame at a time, this obviously couldn't be done, as the original film was lost.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Daniel Meyer]

Hi Daniel.

Yes, i have seen that orville Nix interview before, where he says the Gov copy of the film he got back, appeared to have several frames missing.

In the same interview he also said that he first thought that the shots came from the grassy knoll.

But

now he thinks that the shots came from the TSBD and that the Warren Commision findings were correct.

The same Commissiion that apparently removed frames from his film ??

How did Nix come to the conclusion that there where a couple of frame missing here and there in the copy of the film that was returned to him.

what did he have to compare this Gov copy of the film too ?

He stated in the same interview that the authorities had lost his original copy,.so how was he able to compare the film he now had, with the original in camera film

was he just going by memory.

Also, he never actually mentions what individual frames from what part of the film he considered where missing ? ( Houston st, Elm st )

To the naked eye watching a copy of the film, it would be very hard to distinguish that there were any single frames missing. !

so how did he come to this conclusion. ?

The only real way to do this would to be to study the ( two films side by side)the in camera original, and the Gov copy 1-frame at a time, this obviously couldn't be done, as the original film was lost.

I've always thought that Nix was being cagey or coy in this interview. Remember, this was at a time when witnesses with inconvenient details were being threatened, and several witnesses refused to go on camera at all. Basically, it looks to me like Nix recounts what he observed -- then says that if a US Government report says he didn't see what he saw, well, who is he to disagree with the U.S. Government, of course they know best.

What do other people think?

[Don Jeffries]

In the film Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane certainly inferred that Nix changed his story (about shots coming from in front) under pressure from the authorities and/or a desire to cooperate, since they must "know best."

[Robin Unger]

Nix Gif angle adjusted and Stabilized using the concrete wall.

Click on the image to view full size:

Edited May 3, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Nix Gif angle adjusted and Stabilized using the concrete wall.

While creating the stabilized GIF shown above, and using the wall as a stabilizing point

my attention was drawn to this area near the car just above the wall.

there appears to be some sort of movement shown in the GIF ?

This movement would be very hard to detect on the unstabilized film, as the wall moves around too much as the camera pans to the left.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Robin Unger