For John Dolva: A mission?

[Stuart Wexler]

Hi John,

Your work on photography has impressed me, including your work with Greg Parker on the writing in Pic's notebook. I wanted to see if you could look into some work Bill Miller has done in the past. He did some work with the Weigman film and concluded you can see moving smoke at the knoll region. Some have claimed that this is an optical illusion and that it is really leaves. But Bill has an animation which he says shows this smoke as moving. Can you look into it?

-Stu

[John Dolva]

Hi John,

Your work on photography has impressed me, including your work with Greg Parker on the writing in Pic's notebook. I wanted to see if you could look into some work Bill Miller has done in the past. He did some work with the Weigman film and concluded you can see moving smoke at the knoll region. Some have claimed that this is an optical illusion and that it is really leaves. But Bill has an animation which he says shows this smoke as moving. Can you look into it?

-Stu

Awwright, already, no need to shout.

Sure, Stuart, I'm doing other things too but I like to try to help as much as possible. Any more info, links?

[Stuart Wexler]

Hi John,

Your work on photography has impressed me, including your work with Greg Parker on the writing in Pic's notebook. I wanted to see if you could look into some work Bill Miller has done in the past. He did some work with the Weigman film and concluded you can see moving smoke at the knoll region. Some have claimed that this is an optical illusion and that it is really leaves. But Bill has an animation which he says shows this smoke as moving. Can you look into it?

-Stu

Awwright, already, no need to shout.

Sure, Stuart, I'm doing other things too but I like to try to help as much as possible. Any more info, links?

John,

Here is a place to start:

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...id=&page=#13709

-Stu

[John Dolva]

Initial impression: The version of Wiegman I have is fairly sharp However the sequence relevant is blurred. The section which could possibly show this in the version I have has one frame possibly three that seems to me to be capable of showing such a thing. However they are not sequential. Also they, considering the wind conditions and direction of wind (towards the camera) would make such a thing difficult to percieve. However, If there are frames I am not in posssession of? Also I'd like to see Bills study.

Reply to above: OK thanks

Edited October 29, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

This is how I see it so far based on the film available to NFV grayscale.

Subtracting duplicate frames.

Between the 4 sharpest frames showing the 'smoke' is approximately 1.5 seconds when I assume a frame rate of 16. (does any one know reported rate?

By looking at earlier frames and other photos I locate the end of fence at approximately red dot.

According to lancer post the time since headshot is around 7-10 seconds?

The smoke is almost stationary for 1.5 seconds (assuming as above)

Prior study of wind indicates a wind that is stronger the greater the altitude. Plus a wind that moves roughly east.

Given that the camera is moving towards the 'smoke', then if the smoke was significantly forward(towards camera) of the tree (as I would have assumed it to be if it came from the fence area and was blown along) then this camera movement should have shifted the location of the smoke on the frames in relation to the tree. This does not appear to be the case. This indicates the 'smoke' is close to the tree and fairly stationary which appears to defy wind.

Considerations: the camera is moving so the perspective and location of objects shift continuously.

(This is only my take on this. I'd like to see how Bill did it, I have respect for him, as well as Jack and others. In my experience it is entirely possible to view the same info in different ways, taking into account factors otherwise ignored,)

[Thomas Graves]

This is how I see it so far based on the film available to NFV grayscale.

Subtracting duplicate frames.

Between the 4 sharpest frames showing the 'smoke' is approximately 1.5 seconds when I assume a frame rate of 16. (does any one know reported rate?

By looking at earlier frames and other photos I locate the end of fence at approximately red dot.

According to lancer post the time since headshot is around 7-10 seconds?

The smoke is almost stationary for 1.5 seconds (assuming as above)

Prior study of wind indicates a wind that is stronger the greater the altitude. Plus a wind that moves roughly east.

Given that the camera is moving towards the 'smoke', then if the smoke was significantly forward(towards camera) of the tree (as I would have assumed it to be if it came from the fence area and was blown along) then this camera movement should have shifted the location of the smoke on the frames in relation to the tree. This does not appear to be the case. This indicates the 'smoke' is close to the tree and fairly stationary which appears to defy wind.

Considerations: the camera is moving so the perspective and location of objects shift continuously.

(This is only my take on this. I'd like to see how Bill did it, I have respect for him, as well as Jack and others. In my experience it is entirely possible to view the same info in different ways, taking into account factors otherwise ignored,)

This is off the subject, but it's interesting to me that our "friends" TUM and DCM are already sitting down next to each other in this frame.........

FWIW, Thomas

[Thomas Graves]

This is off the subject, but it's interesting to me that our "friends" TUM and DCM are already sitting down next to each other in this frame.........

FWIW, Thomas

...or should I have said "still sitting down..."?

FWIW, Thomas

[Robin Unger]

[John Dolva]

A further thought on this. : I'd imagine that gunsmoke is superheated gas and would therfore tend to rise, not travel on a level? Or even sink as this appears to do? I'm no authiorityon this. Perhaps someone with experience could comment?

Edited November 3, 2005 by John Dolva