A Response To DiEugenio's "Dale Myers and his World of Illusion"

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

To the Mods.

Do we have a rule about flooding the Board? 

I think 8 posts in a row would do it.

You did the exact same thing in my Lee Oswald - The Cop-Killer thread on page 6.

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27892-lee-oswald-the-cop-killer/page/6/

 

I didn't say a word.

 

Quitcher bitching.

[James DiEugenio]

I came in on Safari so I had to look at Brown's last post.

He sees no difference between the two cases.

Whew.  

What he just did was to simply shift Myers' blog posts to this site.

And it took him 8 posts to do it.

Repeat: Whew.

Geez Bill why not post your debate with Matt D on TIppit? Or maybe I should do that.  Instead of linking to the URL for the debate, i will post it in 8 installments.

Edited November 25, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

On 11/25/2022 at 10:10 AM, Bill Brown said:

More from the Dale Myers blog:

 

"The credentials I hold in my chosen field are solid. My computer animation work was evaluated and vetted by Z-Axis Corporation in 2003. They concluded that the methods I used to match the path of the limousine to the Zapruder and other film and photographic sources were sophisticated and accurate; that I did an excellent job of matching the positions of Kennedy and Connally in the car; that my use of a straight line for the trajectory of the single-bullet was a reasonable assumption given the speed and relatively short distance the bullet could have traveled; that errors in wound placement based on the autopsy and operative reports of JFK and JBC were properly constrained by the use of an error cone which was well thought out and accurately created; and that the methods used to determine the source of the head shot were sound and logical. In summary, they wrote, “Mr. Myers has taken a comprehensive and reasoned approach to animating this event and has successfully incorporated many diverse visual records into a unified and consistent recreation. We believe that the thoroughness and detail incorporated into his work is well beyond that required to present a fair and accurate depiction.” (emphasis added)

 

What does Jimmy D do with the Z-Axis Corporation’s report? He ignores it, of course! Instead, he substitutes a strawman argument that I am unqualified in the field of forensic science."

 

Myers' animation work was vetted by Z-Axis Corporation in 2003.  'Nuff said.

Ok. I see. In 1976 or whenever Z-Axis gave him a stamp of approval. That's great, very good, but here's my qualifications:

I have used every 3d software program widely used since about 1992 for a variety of applications, including a couple of crime scene recreations. Those include:

3d StudioMax
Softimage
Maya
Houdini
ArcGIS
Poser
Wilbur
View D'Spirit (SW beta tester and production)
Unity
World Machine
and literally dozens of other programs which I couldn't possibly recall (I think I counted 162 at one time) for creating, among other things, accurate representations of historical locations (typically pre-historic) for little places like the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. I was synchronizing NASA elevation data and USGS and Landsat imagery long before Google even thought of it. I also developed a system to synch video cameras with GPS elevation coordinates for a producer before that was native (surprise! you do it with Excel!). I think my next project will be the Hoover Dam although that's not official yet. My production client list also includes Boeing, Vulcan, Microsoft, and Pirelli (few know that they do trans-oceanic cable deployment) along with several federal agencies and companies and innumerable smaller clients.

In my experience, recreating bullet trajectories for crime scene analysis and determining a confidence level is problematic once you expand the area of investigation. It's one thing to factor in possible errors in a 20'x30' room after you've dug bullets out of a wall and then an entirely different one at 250 to 300'. An error on one end of the trajectory amplifies the POTENTIAL difference on the other end. I believe this is what would have been a focus of a defense attorney also.

I respect the effort to try to recreate the scene and don't question the qualifications of Myers (in regard to the 3d recreation), but I have little confidence in the accumulated evidence that would allow him to come up with anything conclusive. This is based on my experience of having to match positions accurately in X,Y,Z coordinates while using a variety of sources such as cheap camera lenses, witness approximations, presumptive locations, unverifiable and assumptive vectors and on and on. 

In this case I believe the possible accumulation of errors that includes victim and perpetrator positions, heights and distances, angles of incidence, lens aberrations, entry points and so on tend to argue that the assumptions made must start at a predefined end result. That is, there is not enough information to compare that result with a beginning assumption and confirm both. If I interpret the information correctly, the error cone is meaningless because the predetermined end result was always going to have to start at the 6th story window. The animation may suggest but IMO not conclude. It's interesting to see to describe a theory, but evidence it's not.

I find dictabelt recordings to be even less conclusive but although I have experience in location sound it's not really an area I trudge around in. Aside from approximating the timing of shots I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from them with a straight face.

Someone is undertaking a laser mapping of Dealy Plaza which will be very interesting. Many of the same problems will occur with that also but I imagine the model could possibly eliminate many potential errors. That will be interesting to see.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Bob Ness
Removed reference

[Bill Brown]

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I came in on Safari so I had to look at Brown's last post.

He sees no difference between the two cases.

Whew.  

What he just did was to simply shift Myers' blog posts to this site.

And it took him 8 posts to do it.

Repeat: Whew.

Geez Bill why not post your debate with Matt D on TIppit? Or maybe I should do that.  Instead of linking to the URL for the debate, i will post it in 8 installments.

 

Whatever you prefer.

 

But, you shouldn't embarrass Matt D like that.

 

I can post the entire thing right here if you like.

 

Now back to the points raised by Myers.  Do you care to respond to any of them?  I posted them one at a time in order to keep some semblance of each point being "easy to understand and follow".  If I were to post them all at once, one could get lost in the shuffle and we don't want one point getting overlooked, do we?

[Bill Brown]

Since (for whatever reason) Mr. DiEugenio brought it up... Below is the "debate" between Matt Douthit and myself, on the Tippit case.

Warning, it's raw and unedited but very informative.

 

 

[David G. Healy]

Actually when Myers Z-film cartoon was released I made a direct request to Myers personally that he provide the Lightwave files he used (and version of the software) to produce his cartoon to other Dealey Plaza assassination related event researchers. At that time, I was familiar with New-Tek's Lightwave 3d/2d software application... 

(Lightwave: Released in 1992 (?), Lightwave (up to this day) has been used commercially in films, television, motion graphics, digital matte painting, visual effects, video game development, product design, architectural visualizations, virtual production, music videos, previsualizations and advertising.) --Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

The dude never spoke to me again -- it was around that same time a bit of noise was being made about him and the Tippit family discussing a project (?). Myers went on to win an EMMY for his Z-film cartoon, at that same time a nickname for Myers burst forth: Dale *wanna see my EMMY* Myers... I swear it wasn't me....

I always wondered why a small market graphic artist jumped on the Tippit bandwagon, despite his wrong-place/wrong-time(?) tragic ending. One could conceive Myers was looking to change the subject to anything other than sharing Z-film software/data with a few that knew what he created and had theories as well as how-to's at the time.... I don't think Myers would of pulled it off without help and support from Peter Jennings who had his name all over the documentary...

So, what do you do with a guy that whines during a 2003 ABC television broadcast, that the Single Bullet Theory was "a Single Bullet Fact?... 

arrivederci

 

[Bob Ness]

47 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

Actually when Myers Z-film cartoon was released I made a direct request to Myers personally that he provide the Lightwave files he used (and version of the software) to produce his cartoon to other Dealey Plaza assassination related event researchers. At that time, I was familiar with New-Tek's Lightwave 3d/2d software application... 

(Lightwave: Released in 1992 (?), Lightwave (up to this day) has been used commercially in films, television, motion graphics, digital matte painting, visual effects, video game development, product design, architectural visualizations, virtual production, music videos, previsualizations and advertising.) --Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

The dude never spoke to me again -- it was around that same time a bit of noise was being made about him and the Tippit family discussing a project (?). Myers went on to win an EMMY for his Z-film cartoon, at that same time a nickname for Myers burst forth: Dale *wanna see my EMMY* Myers... I swear it wasn't me....

I always wondered why a small market graphic artist jumped on the Tippit bandwagon, despite his wrong-place/wrong-time(?) tragic ending. One could conceive Myers was looking to change the subject to anything other than sharing Z-film software/data with a few that knew what he created and had theories as well as how-to's at the time.... I don't think Myers would of pulled it off without help and support from Peter Jennings who had his name all over the documentary...

So, what do you do with a guy that whines during a 2003 ABC television broadcast, that the Single Bullet Theory was "a Single Bullet Fact?... 

arrivederci

 

Do you know whether he made the models or used and/or edited existing models? Was a topo survey done? Just curious.

Lightwave is a good program. Didn't use it much myself. 

Edited November 26, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Micah Mileto]

What does Meyers say about the torn $1 bill?

[Guest]

You will always have the problem here of people that have made up their mind a couple of decades ago, and no matter what happens, they'll stick to it.  I do not expect that to change.

And there is the everlasting difference between people willing to share, versus those that sit on their information like breeding hens..

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve Roe]

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Since (for whatever reason) Mr. DiEugenio brought it up... Below is the "debate" between Matt Douthit and myself, on the Tippit case.

Warning, it's raw and unedited but very informative.

 

 

Having listened to this some time ago, Mr. Douthit's arguments were absolutely embarrassing. He makes no sense whatsoever. It's time to grow up folks, Oswald murdered Patrolman Tippit and there's plenty of evidence to support it. If this was supposed to be the definitive "Oswald didn't shoot Tippit" debater that DiEugenio supports......then he better go find someone better than this. 

Bill Brown handled this debate civilly and addressed Mr. Douthit's objections with logic, evidence and common sense. 

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Having listened to this some time ago, Mr. Douthit's arguments were absolutely embarrassing. He makes no sense whatsoever. It's time to grow up folks, Oswald murdered Patrolman Tippit and there's plenty of evidence to support it. If this was supposed to be the definitive "Oswald didn't shoot Tippit" debater that DiEugenio supports......then he better go find someone better than this. 

Bill Brown handled this debate civilly and addressed Mr. Douthit's objections with logic, evidence and common sense. 

 

Thanks Steve.

 

The idea was that the debate would be posted in the Facebook groups in 8 smaller segments.  It was.  I didn't feel like posting them individually here so I posted the raw, unedited version.

 

As for your comment about "someone better than this", in my opinion, Matt D is the best they have, regarding the Tippit case; better than both McBride and DiEugenio.  Before challenging me to this debate himself (yes, Matt D challenged me, wasn't my idea), Matt asked McBride to debate the Tippit case with me for his (Matt's) Facebook group and Youtube channel.  McBride declined.  Smart move on his part, in my opinion.

 

Anyway, back to the thread at hand... why hasn't DiEugenio responded to the points raised by Myers in the blog post?

 

 

[Pat Speer]

11 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Thanks Steve.

 

The idea was that the debate would be posted in the Facebook groups in 8 smaller segments.  It was.  I didn't feel like posting them individually here so I posted the raw, unedited version.

 

As for your comment about "someone better than this", in my opinion, Matt D is the best they have, regarding the Tippit case; better than both McBride and DiEugenio.  Before challenging me to this debate himself (yes, Matt D challenged me, wasn't my idea), Matt asked McBride to debate the Tippit case with me for his (Matt's) Facebook group and Youtube channel.  McBride declined.  Smart move on his part, in my opinion.

 

Anyway, back to the thread at hand... why hasn't DiEugenio responded to the points raised by Myers in the blog post?

 

 

FWIW, I thought both Matt and Bill did a good job in their first debate. (I think you had two. Is that correct?) It was refreshing to listen to an exchange of ideas and information--where one could understand both viewpoints--as opposed to  an exchange of insults and/or nonsense. 

I've mentioned it before, but oh well. I participated in a debate in my high school philosophy class. The class voted on what to debate and a group of Born-Againers in the class forced the issue: they wanted to debate the existence of God. It ended up being like 8 on team God, and 3 on team No God--with the rest of the class assigned the task of judging the debate. Or something like that. I don't exactly remember. But what I remember clearly--because it is so absurd--is that it ended up where I was the only one who actually spoke for team No God during the debate. So it was really 8 against 1. And I mopped the floor with them. It was embarrassing. And it wasn't embarrassing because I was right and they were wrong--I could have argued for God and won as well. It was embarrassing because their self-righteousness prevented them from adequately preparing. Their arguments were pathetic--dribble like "If there's no God then why are we here?" For their big finale, moreover, they introduced photos of cloud formations they said looked like Jesus. 

So my point is that Matt and Bill's debate was fairly even, and that they both took it seriously and knew their stuff. That's rare. Having witnessed thousands of exchanges online, with some who supposedly knew their stuff, I would say that 80% of the exchanges are extremely one-sided. 

[David G. Healy]

21 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Do you know whether he made the models or used and/or edited existing models? Was a topo survey done? Just curious.

Lightwave is a good program. Didn't use it much myself. 

Doubt that he made any models, although he may have AFTER the fact... Best to remember at that particular time only Hollyweird and NASA had proprietary 3D software (optical special effects) and computers with the *umf* to run'em. For NASA (Ames Institute, Mountain View Ca.) UNIX operating system-work stations running UNIX proprietary code with CRAY support (same type of kernel that Apple OSX sits on today).. Kinda the same situ for DP "topo" survey(s), I recall 2 surveys that were tempted in the 90's, but what would they prove, other than endless argument? Finding accurate plat's of the day 1963 proved very difficult, even for a specific researcher that educated this board for years and knew, KNEW the gent who created the latter day, official, DP plats...

Which leaves what? Yes, the Z-film... some believe a 3D simulation of 2D Z-film frame fabrication became the basis of the cartoon --frame by frame!  To the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen those Lightwave project files. I wonder why?

[Pat Speer]

11 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

Doubt that he made any models, although he may have AFTER the fact... Best to remember at that particular time only Hollyweird and NASA had proprietary 3D software (optical special effects) and computers with the *umf* to run'em. For NASA (Ames Institute, Mountain View Ca.) UNIX operating system-work stations running UNIX proprietary code with CRAY support (same type of kernel that Apple OSX sits on today).. Kinda the same situ for DP "topo" survey(s), I recall 2 surveys that were tempted in the 90's, but what would they prove, other than endless argument? Finding accurate plat's of the day 1963 proved very difficult, even for a specific researcher that educated this board for years and knew, KNEW the gent who created the latter day, official, DP plats...

Which leaves what? Yes, the Z-film... some believe a 3D simulation of 2D Z-film frame fabrication became the basis of the cartoon --frame by frame!  To the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen those Lightwave project files. I wonder why?

When reading about Myers' animation in preparation for writing my Animania chapter, I discovered that the claim the animation was based on the Z-film was only partly true. As I recall, Myers admitted he'd matched up every seventh frame or so, and that the rest were just him filling in the blanks. I don't recall their titles, but my stepdad's two sisters both worked at Hanna-Barbera in the fifties and sixties. There was a head animator who determined the look and the basic action, and then there were subordinate animators who drew the frames linking the movements together. They were the latter. In any event. Myers chose to match the animation to the film every seven frames as I recall, and this allowed him to smooth over the hurky-jerky movements of JFK before he went behind the sign in the film. In effect, he erased them, even though these movements had led the HSCA photography panel to conclude JFK was hit at that time. Coincidence? We can suspect not, particularly in that Myers also disappeared Jackie from the film. Now, he would probably say he did this to simplify the action--to make the viewer focus on JFK and JBC. But huh... Jackie turned to look at her husband before Myers claimed he'd been hit, and her turning her head to look at him suggested he had already been hit. So once again--coincidence? We can suspect not. 

[David G. Healy]

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

When reading about Myers' animation in preparation for writing my Animania chapter, I discovered that the claim the animation was based on the Z-film was only partly true. As I recall, Myers admitted he'd matched up every seventh frame or so, and that the rest were just him filling in the blanks. I don't recall their titles, but my stepdad's two sisters both worked at Hanna-Barbera in the fifties and sixties. There was a head animator who determined the look and the basic action, and then there were subordinate animators who drew the frames linking the movements together. They were the latter. In any event. Myers chose to match the animation to the film every seven frames as I recall, and this allowed him to smooth over the hurky-jerky movements of JFK before he went behind the sign in the film. In effect, he erased them, even though these movements had led the HSCA photography panel to conclude JFK was hit at that time. Coincidence? We can suspect not, particularly in that Myers also disappeared Jackie from the film. Now, he would probably say he did this to simplify the action--to make the viewer focus on JFK and JBC. But huh... Jackie turned to look at her husband before Myers claimed he'd been hit, and her turning her head to look at him suggested he had already been hit. So once again--coincidence? We can suspect not. 

Helo Pat -- that technique is called 'interpolation' (let the computer "an estimation" how it gets from this point to that point. Hanna-Barbera animators had to figure that out themselves, usually the smoothest timing of a move did the trick and of course what looked good, frame by frame and consistent, that's why every 7 frames...... It would be nice to see the Lightwave project files wouldn't it? That why Lighwave was used, it would interpolate from keyframe to keyframe, its *built into the software... And, you will also notice JFK had very little animating characteristics (self-generated body movement) in the alleged 28 second Zapruder film in-camera original clip.

Some would consider old Dale altered the z-film, massively, right in front of Gawd and everyone, even Peter Jennings and the entire ABC viewing audience... and JFK researchers of every stripe -- to boot... Long live the SBT, eh?