Bill Miller Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 (edited) John...the area behind the pergola that you are speculating abouthad a small "tool shed" up against the wall. Someone on top of it would have a perfect view thru the pergola openings. And I doubt very much that the tool shed was searched for weapons. The back of the shed was attached to the eastmost shelter wall and was nowhere close to the place John has been discussing. Even the car seen in the example photo IS NOT up against the colonnade. There was however a tree behind the colonnade which is seen in many of the assassination photos and films. Below are two such views from above and from Bronson's slide. Those same colonnade windows should also be visible in Willis's photo and for a good blow-up of that photo - see Grden's book "The Killing of a President". B&W Bronson slide There are two probable excuses for the alleged movement thought to be seen in the animation below. One might be that the wind gust were indeed causing the tree branches to move, thus effecting the light areas seen between the foliage. The other possible excuse might be that the slight movement of the Nix camera could be bending the image in a way to make it appear to be moving. When I watch the clip below, I see movement all over the place, not to mention light flashes even above the colonnade. If the Nix camera is moving above and below the horizontal plane as he films, then even straight edges like that of a tree trunk can be made to appear to be in motion. The same thing happens to the tree on the south pasture in Zapruder's film when seen against the concrete wall and background. Because we are talking about a possible alleged shooter seen moving through the second row of colonnade windows, then I just don't buy the idea that all some had to do is stand on a car bumper to achieve such a angle to shoot at the President .... not to mention that there is no evidence that such a shot ever hit the President from that angle. We should always keep in mind that what we see on film is not nearly as clear of an image as what was seen by people who were actually there and looking in that direction. Bill Miller Edited December 27, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 What was at one time an important work in progress has now been sidetracked and gone the way of so many others. Lost into the Rabbit holes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 (edited) What was at one time an important work in progress has now been sidetracked and gone the way of so many others.Lost into the Rabbit holes! I am not sure what you mean exactly, but if you are implying that I have done something other than to offer more information that may help lead to a more informed and rational conclusion, then you are mistaken. If I read you correctly, the appearence of what you have said is like someone thinking that because a drop of water seen on the ground in the hot noon-day sun was there a minute ago and now it is gone must mean that something conspiritorial went on .... never giving any thought to a natural occurence called 'evaporation'. Below is Z213 and Z214. I have added a mixture of the two frames (only on the middle of the two original frames) in the animation so to make it easier to see what happens when some of the occurences that I previously mentioned come into play. Note how even the shadfing of the tree trunk seems to move between frames. Take it for what it is worth! Bill Miller Edited December 21, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 What was at one time an important work in progress has now been sidetracked and gone the way of so many others.Lost into the Rabbit holes! Missing Nix frames I was under the obviously mistaken impression that this topic was related to a comparison of the Nix film with the Z-film, in order to determine some form of "baseline" comparison which could be utilized in determination of potentially missing frames from any of the assassination films, and a better understanding of the discrepancies in the purported Presidential Limousine speeds at given points along Elm St. To include: The Z-film/The Nix Film/& the Muchmore Film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 I think tracking Z's lens angles, etc, is a worthy topic for a fresh thread. This one needs to get back on the focus of film sync, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 I think tracking Z's lens angles, etc, is a worthy topic for a fresh thread.This one needs to get back on the focus of film sync, etc. That sounds like a very good solution. (At least I don't think the forum has imposed a quota on new topics. Yet.) Ashton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 (edited) I was under the obviously mistaken impression that this topic was related to a comparison of the Nix film with the Z-film, in order to determine some form of "baseline" comparison which could be utilized in determination of potentially missing frames from any of the assassination films, and a better understanding of the discrepancies in the purported Presidential Limousine speeds at given points along Elm St.To include: The Z-film/The Nix Film/& the Muchmore Film. Tom, you must surely be aware that while investigating one matter of the assassination that it almost always leads into other questions and answers pertaining to other matters as well. For years we have been discussing the Zapruder film and how one can track the limo's speed frame by frame. Numerous times I have posted Zapruder and Nix clips showing this advancement of the limo against the background and I even offered clips with frames that I removed to demonstrate the sudden forward leaps that would appear to anyone watching for them. In this thread we have had the opprotunity to visually observe the Nix and Zapruder film in motion with some great side by side examples. In this thread - these films are being shown to run in sync with one another. Muchmore's film didn't capture but only a couple of seconds before the headshot. Groden offers an uncut B&W version and since 2003 we have seen a version of Muchmore's film that is in color. I am sure that the same will be found with Marie's film that has now been shown with the Zapruder and Nix film. In every instance, the notion that the Zapruder film was somehow altered has fallen flat on its face due to responsible and careful study. Now within this thread there has been an observation pertaining to possible movement seen behind the colonnade and I didn't see anything wrong with John Dolva mentioning it ..... for in trying to understand how it may be related to how a camera can cause things to look like they do unrelated to the real world, it is still something to keep in mind when making these visual in sync frame by frame comparisons. I realize that as these things finally put to rest the alleged alteration nonsense that some people have embraced without question that it may be a hard and bitter pill to swallow, but it is a step towards the truth and that is what everyone has been saying they were looking for - right? There is a saying that I have posted in the past on these forums that pertains to how the evidence has been accepted in many cases without the proper study by both lone assassin and conspiracy believers alike and it goes like this ........ "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999. This thread has shown that there are people here who now have the ability to test the evidence so to produce the facts in a way that has not been done before. For some individuals it will be considered a welcomed advancement - to others it will not be something they wanted to see because it will not support their agenda. I am reminded of another saying that can be found in Jim Garrison's book "On the trail of the Assassins" and it reads, "Let justice be done, though the Heavens fall". I commend those who have let the chips fall where they may in an effort to better find the truth. Bill Miller Edited December 22, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 (edited) John...the area behind the pergola that you are speculating abouthad a small "tool shed" up against the wall. Someone on top of it would have a perfect view thru the pergola openings. And I doubt very much that the tool shed was searched for weapons. The back of the shed was attached to the eastmost shelter wall and was nowhere close to the place John has been discussing. Even the car seen in the example photo IS NOT up against the colonnade. There was however a tree behind the colonnade which is seen in many of the assassination photos and films. Below are two such views from above and from Bronson's slide. Those same colonnade windows should also be visible in Willis's photo and for a good blow-up of that photo - see Grden's book "The Killing of a President". B&W Bronson slide There are two probable excuses for the alleged movement thought to be seen in the animation below. One might be that the wind gust were indeed causing the tree branches to move, thus effecting the light areas seen between the foliage. The other possible excuse might be that the slight movement of the Nix camera could be bending the image in a way to make it appear to be moving. When I watch the clip below, I see movement all over the place, not to mention light flashes even above the colonnade. If the Nix camera is moving above and below the horizontal plane as he films, then even straight edges like that of a tree trunk can be made to appear to be in motion. The same thing happens to the tree on the south pasture in Zapruder's film when seen against the concrete wall and background. Because we are talking about a possible alleged shooter seen moving through the second row of colonnade windows, then I just don't buy the idea that all some had to do is stand on a car bumper to achieve such a angle to shoot at the President .... not to mention that there is no evidence that such a shot ever hit the President from that angle. We should always keep in mind that what we see on film is not nearly as clear of an image as what was seen by people who were actually there and looking in that direction. Bill Miller Not that I want to sidetrack this even more, but here's part of the Bronson movie showing the area in question, at the time of the head shot. A better copy of this movie (first generation) would probably confirm or disprove the shooter's position being discussed. chris Edited December 22, 2006 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 22, 2006 Author Share Posted December 22, 2006 Nicely said Bill, and I think it has a bearing on cameras and how they work and through thoroughy understanding all this while continuing the main topic, which is the look at all the films and how they relate to each other, in honor of Frank and the topic, it's true it's gone off track, and the thread has a way to go. It's too important as is widely recognised. I'll try shift all this and the comments to another thread. (it'll take a little while to organise). Meanwhile, thank's to everyone, particularly for the maintenace of an overall good tone which favours the finding of answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Nicely said Bill, and I think it has a bearing on cameras and how they work and through thoroughy understanding all this while continuing the main topic, which is the look at all the films and how they relate to each other, in honor of Frank and the topic, it's true it's gone off track, and the thread has a way to go. It's too important as is widely recognised. I'll try shift all this and the comments to another thread. (it'll take a little while to organise). Meanwhile, thank's to everyone, particularly for the maintenace of an overall good tone which favours the finding of answers. Please don't misinterpret my desire to keep the thread on track as an indictment of the other topics and potential discoveries this thread may yield. I'm extremely eager to research these other topics, too. And now, I've been reminded of needing to look at Bronson as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 22, 2006 Author Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) Nicely said Bill, and I think it has a bearing on cameras and how they work and through thoroughy understanding all this while continuing the main topic, which is the look at all the films and how they relate to each other, in honor of Frank and the topic, it's true it's gone off track, and the thread has a way to go. It's too important as is widely recognised. I'll try shift all this and the comments to another thread. (it'll take a little while to organise). Meanwhile, thank's to everyone, particularly for the maintenace of an overall good tone which favours the finding of answers. Please don't misinterpret my desire to keep the thread on track as an indictment of the other topics and potential discoveries this thread may yield. I'm extremely eager to research these other topics, too. And now, I've been reminded of needing to look at Bronson as well... Yeah, it'll continue to spawn new directions, but I think you're right to stay on track with the fundamentals. No worries on any score. Edited December 22, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) Nicely said Bill, and I think it has a bearing on cameras and how they work and through thoroughy understanding all this while continuing the main topic, which is the look at all the films and how they relate to each other, in honor of Frank and the topic, it's true it's gone off track, and the thread has a way to go. It's too important as is widely recognised. I'll try shift all this and the comments to another thread. (it'll take a little while to organise). Meanwhile, thank's to everyone, particularly for the maintenace of an overall good tone which favours the finding of answers. There is nothing more that I can add to this, but I will certainly maintain an interest in seeing what you guys are doing. Years ago, I had done side by side individual frame analysis of the Zapruder and Nix films and I found nothing to not match the other. (You may recall my saying that I went as far as to stablize the Nix film so to watch the camera movemnt of Zapruder to see if it followed the jiggles on the Zfilm) David Healy had often been critical of no one putting the films in motion against one another and while I had already did the still frame examinations and didn't deem it necessary for me to waste any more time on the matter - David was in his right to want to see them compared to one another and while in motion. Some of you have the time, the desire, and the software to do these things and I am glad to see it finally coming full circle. If seeing these things in motion helps others to better understand how these films are in sync with one another, then I am certainly all for that. I will say this ... even just the Zapruder and Nix films being in sync is all one needs to see for the Bronson and Muchmore films are so short in duriation that they offer little to nothing as to whether JFK was shot from the front or rear. It has been said numerous times how Muchmore kept her film in her possession until Monday afternoon and how it was then flown to New York where it was shown on local TV. While the current efforts in showing these films running in sync with one another can be helpful to future researchers who would be just now hearing about all the alteration claims that have been made, there must come a time when people say that enough is enough. These claims came about due to poorly thought out research practices in my opinion and have caused the research community no less than the better part of a decade wasting time on them. If there are individuals alive today that never wanted the truth to be known pertaining to the assassination of JFK, then they must have been terribly pleased at the amount of time that has been wasted on the alleged alteration topic. To those whose work has been exposed as being in error - they have no one to blame but themselves. John F. Kennedy once reminded us that a mistake is not a mistake unless one refuses to correct it. Many of us have done our job by investigating this matter and exposing the errors - it's now up to the authors of all those alteration claims to admit their mistakes and to correct the record. Bill Miller Edited December 22, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Does anyone have any information on the Muchmore and Bronson cameras? My French is a little rusty, but I read the copweb French-language site Glossary, and I believe that the Muchmore camera was a Keystone K7 8mm camera. I was not able to discover its published frame rate (although most cameras of the era had set "normal" to around 18fps), nor if it was ever tested. One site listed the Bronson camera as operating at 12 frames per second. Is this correct? I guess I could ask the same questions about Dorman's and Bell's cameras as well, along with Towner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) Does anyone have any information on the Muchmore and Bronson cameras?My French is a little rusty, but I read the copweb French-language site Glossary, and I believe that the Muchmore camera was a Keystone K7 8mm camera. I was not able to discover its published frame rate (although most cameras of the era had set "normal" to around 18fps), nor if it was ever tested. One site listed the Bronson camera as operating at 12 frames per second. Is this correct? I guess I could ask the same questions about Dorman's and Bell's cameras as well, along with Towner... I believe that Trask's book "Pictures of the Pain" gives the specifics concerning Muchmore's camera. While I don't have my copy of Trask's book with me at the moment, I do however believe that according to Trask - Marie'a film recorded at 18 fps. As I recall, Bronson's camera recorded at 12 fps. Bill Miller Edited December 22, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) Does anyone have any information on the Muchmore and Bronson cameras?My French is a little rusty, but I read the copweb French-language site Glossary, and I believe that the Muchmore camera was a Keystone K7 8mm camera. I was not able to discover its published frame rate (although most cameras of the era had set "normal" to around 18fps), nor if it was ever tested. One site listed the Bronson camera as operating at 12 frames per second. Is this correct? I guess I could ask the same questions about Dorman's and Bell's cameras as well, along with Towner... Hi Frank. Marcels site in english. Zapruder,Moorman,croft,willis,towner.bronson. CAMERA'S http://www.copweb.be/index.html Bronson http://www.copweb.be/Charles%20Bronson%20Camera.htm Edited December 22, 2006 by Robin Unger 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