John Dolva Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 Bill, you can keep ignoring it, but it's a factor, even if the limo only drops an inch, the view looking down into the limo increases in width. It's the vertical separation I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 What I'm seeing is JFK's body slipping down with his hands slipping away from his throat, elbows down, at this point, as the fatal shot impacts his skull at the right temporal/parietal region, driving his head further down The idee fixé is the consummate tyrant. That shot appears to have come from the area on the knoll to the right, over by the underpass. But, that's JMHO. Where the two policemen were stationed. And a shot from there (real quick, while the cops were looking the other way) drove Kennedy's head...down. Glad you're on the case. Ashton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 (edited) Bill, you can keep ignoring it, but it's a factor, even if the limo only drops an inch, the view looking down into the limo increases in width. It's the vertical separation I'm talking about. John, supposed you'd like to tell me how that applies to a stabilized frame by frame comparison such as this one ... Edited July 24, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 Do you see shoulder movement in my movie?I don't. chris Chris, I have reviewed your movie very closely despite its very small size and I would like to point out something to you that I have said several times now .... I will use your movie as the example. The limo rotates counter clockwise with each frame, thus if JFK's shoulder was to remain stationary and not moved an inch (remember the dummie reference I used previously), then one would still see more of Jackie's sleeve creases coming out from behind the President. This is a rule of physics concerning perspective and how it is viewed by way of an ever changing angle to the subjects. The reason for it not being seen in your clip is because you positioned your frames in such a way to make the shoulder not appear to move, but in doing so you removed the rotation of the limo which should have caused more of Jackie to become visible between those two frames. In other words, if YOU see no rotation between JFK and Jackie between Z312 and Z313, then it is because of the President's right shoulder moving backwards as the energy of the force of the impact passed down the trunk of his body. Take a moment and consider what I said about the blurring issues. Zapruder moves his camera in a way that causes the forward moving limo to blur to the east. If JFK was stationary, then he too, should blur in the same direction that the limo did. But JFK blurred to the west, which means that his shoulder moved with Zapruder's pan, but only faster. The back of JFK (the east side of his back) did not blur as the front side did because the shoulder moving backwards for that one instant canceled out the rotation between JFK and his wife. Below is a line drawn over the edge of the suit coat of JFK. In Z313 the image blurs, but forget the blur and look where the solid part of the coat has moved to ... Bill Miller Bill, I took 2 frames (312+313), overlayed them in Photoshop using the convertible frame supports of the limo for registration/stabilization, and somehow made the shoulder appear not to move? How would you like me to stabilize 2 frames? The transition frames were made AFTER the 2 normal frames were stabilized using the registration described above? Also, you keep referring to the blurring among the 2 frames. Supplied is a picture of the camera movement of frames 312+313 layered. Notice the edge difference between the frames. Nice steady pan. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 Sure. If all things were equal, as the limo descends, Jackies forearm would elongate, or rather Z would be looking more down and it would aooear to elongate. Similarly the shadows of the crease in her coat arm would elongate. We wold see more of it. We don't. It doesn't. Kennedy's right shoulder is being pushed towards Zapruder, and as Jackie pushes him this way her fore arms 'scissor' towards each other and her fore arm moves in to the shadow cast by her head, and her fore arm becomes more hidden by Kennedy. Ipso facto all things are not equal. Jackie is pushing Kennedy upright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 (edited) I am talking about the initial shockwave that drives the President's right shoulder rearward at the same instant that his head rocks forward. Snakefeathers. Hooey. Flobbergobber. Gombligernicampoikananity. The shoulder does not go "rearward" when his head slams forward. At all. The only "rearwardness" in evidence comes in these giant zeppelin loads of 100% pure hootus that you manufacture around the clock, always based on "evidence" that isn't, and that can only, and inevitably does, result in page after page after page after page after page after page of just this kind of barking mad tail chasing that is your stock in trade. An example of this particulr occurrence could be compared to a lunar eclipse where the sun (Jackie) gets blocked out by the moon...I got your moon right here.The shoulder doesn't go "rearward" when the head slams forward at Z313. Period. It doesn't happen. So how many more forum pages do you plan to cover with this endless supply of offal, patiently, endlessly, inexhaustibly explaining to all of us morons that we're all nuts because we can't see your private hallucinations? (Even though they'd get kicked out of any self-respecting opium den.) JFK's head goes forward and his shoulder is driven backwards. No, his shoulder is not driven backwards when his head slams forward. Anybody who looks can plainly see that it isn't. Now what? Gonna' say it again? Gonna' keep repeating it? what it boiled down to was the instantaneous absorbtion of the initial shockwave as it passed through the President's body from a bullet hitting the top portion of JFK's head on a downward trajectory from the front.From WHERE "in the front"? Where did this "Miller's Magic Bullet" come from "on a downward trajectory from the front," that hit a man's head "in the front" and made his head fly forward? (But—naturally, made his shoulders fly "rearward.") That's better than the Warren Commission's Magic Bullet, Big Bad Bill.But even Magic Bullets have to some from somewhere. So tell us all exactly where Miller's Magic Bullet with reverse physics came from. Exactly where "in the front" was the magic gun that shot this magic bullet? I'm going to set up this alleged "downward trajectory" from the precise point you tell me this magic gun was, and I'm going to put all your bloviating about Miller's Magic Bullet to the test. Where was it shot from? Exactly. (I'm going to start my Weasel Watch now. You can start weaseling any time.) I hope these examples have offered a better insight into what I have been saying for the past several years. No, they didn't. They never do. That's why you've been saying them—endlessly, over and over and over and over and over and over, page after page after page after page after page—"for the past several years." And how much closer to the truth has it moved anybody? Huh? The Weasel Watch is tick-tick-ticking... Ashton Edited December 25, 2006 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 (edited) Miller' post='86118' date='Dec 23 2006, 08:25 AM']I am talking about the initial shockwave that drives the President's right shoulder rearward at the same instant that his head rocks forward.Snakefeathers. Hooey. Flobbergobber. Gombligernicampoikananity. The shoulder does not go "rearward" when his head slams forward. At all. The only "rearwardness" in evidence comes in these giant zeppelin loads of 100% pure hootus that you manufacture around the clock, always based on "evidence" that isn't, and that can only, and inevitably does, result in page after page after page after page after page after page of just this kind of barking mad tail chasing that is your stock in trade. Ashton, I note that you don't ever seem to speak in specific terms, but rather in generalities like above. Instead of appearing like an uneducated idiot who tries to use large moronic terms like "Flobbergobber and Gombligernicampoikananity" to cover your inability to speak intelligently about the details being offered ... start by explaining where the rotation of the limo (in other words the angle shift between JFK and his wife) went to if the shoulder didn't move backwards? And while you are at it, explain the motion blur of the President appearing on the opposite side that it did with the limo .... there are reasons for this being that way on the film, so let us her your most wise explanation for all of this. The simple rule of physics that I am utilizing stems from JFK's head already being pitched forward so that when the bullet hit him from the front - the head rocked forward while the shoulder was driven backwards and that explains missing rotation of the occupants between Z312 and Z313, and it also explains the blur to JFK going in the opposite direction than the blur of the limo went. A simple test of those rules of physics can be easily accomplished by sitting in a chair in the President's posture and having someone hit you in the top of the head in a front to back motion. The blow doesn't have to be hard to see how the body reacts to it - the harder the force - the more pronounced the movement. It is obvious that the bones on the back of JFK's head were sprung opened to the rear ("avulsed" was the term used by so many Parkland doctors), thus meaning a shot hit JFK from the front. The bullet didn't go through the President's nostrils, nor through his eye, nor through his mouth, but instead it must have entered the top of the skull. Dennis David, who worked at Bethesda, has told me they were taught that when a bone plate such as the one that came off the top of JFK's head .... that somewhere along its outer edge should be signs of where the bullet penetrated the skull. Oddly enough the bone plate seen in the autopsy photos isn't as large as the one seen in the Zapruder film, but of course by the time the body had reached Bethesda - the chain of evidence had been compromised IMO. Bill Miller Edited December 25, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 (edited) Bill, I took 2 frames (312+313), overlayed them in Photoshop using the convertible frame supports of the limo for registration/stabilization, and somehow made the shoulder appear not to move?How would you like me to stabilize 2 frames? Chris, you could start by using the most magnified images possible rather than the wide frame view which is little more than mud. I will ask you the same questions that I asked 'Sir Ashton the factless critic' .... what happened to the shift that occurred between JFK and his wife in each frame prior to the head shot and please explain why JFK's shoulder blurred in the opposite direction than the limo's did ??? There can only be one reason for all this - I have given you mine - let's have yours. Below is that shift once more in Z311 and Z312. I use the most magnification possible without losing clarity. Despite what John has said about the dropping of the street - the pitch of the President's right ear can be measured against the right shoulder and one will find there is no change. One can draw a thin line from the bottom of JFK's right ear lobe to the tip of his nose and run the two frames over that line - other than the reflective angle change to the sun - the changes in pitch are virtually non-existent. The only noticeable change is the rotation of the limo which allows more of Jackie's arm to be seen coming out from behind JFK's head and shoulder. If someone can see more than this, then I'd like to hear what they have to say and why they are saying it. If we remove the fact that JFK's head pitches forward in Z313, why didn't Jackie's arm become more visible in Z313 than it was in Z312? Bill Miller Edited December 25, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 (edited) Miller' post='86118' date='Dec 23 2006, 08:25 AM']I am talking about the initial shockwave that drives the President's right shoulder rearward at the same instant that his head rocks forward.Snakefeathers. Hooey. Flobbergobber. Gombligernicampoikananity. The shoulder does not go "rearward" when his head slams forward. At all. The only "rearwardness" in evidence comes in these giant zeppelin loads of 100% pure hootus that you manufacture around the clock, always based on "evidence" that isn't, and that can only, and inevitably does, result in page after page after page after page after page after page of just this kind of barking mad tail chasing that is your stock in trade. Ashton, I note that you don't ever seem to speak in specific terms, but rather in generalities like above. Instead of appearing like an uneducated idiot who tries to use large moronic terms like "Flobbergobber and Gombligernicampoikananity" to cover your inability to speak intelligently about the details being offered ... start by explaining where the rotation of the limo (in other words the angle shift between JFK and his wife) went to if the shoulder didn't move backwards? And while you are at it, explain the motion blur of the President appearing on the opposite side that it did with the limo .... there are reasons for this being that way on the film, so let us her your most wise explanation for all of this. The simple rule of physics that I am utilizing stems from JFK's head already being pitched forward so that when the bullet hit him from the front - the head rocked forward while the shoulder was driven backwards and that explains missing rotation of the occupants between Z312 and Z313, and it also explains the blur to JFK going in the opposite direction than the blur of the limo went. A simple test of those rules of physics can be easily accomplished by sitting in a chair in the President's posture and having someone hit you in the top of the head in a front to back motion. The blow doesn't have to be hard to see how the body reacts to it - the harder the force - the more pronounced the movement. It is obvious that the bones on the back of JFK's head were sprung opened to the rear ("avulsed" was the term used by so many Parkland doctors), thus meaning a shot hit JFK from the front. The bullet didn't go through the President's nostrils, nor through his eye, nor through his mouth, but instead it must have entered the top of the skull. Dennis David, who worked at Bethesda, has told me they were taught that when a bone plate such as the one that came off the top of JFK's head .... that somewhere along its outer edge should be signs of where the bullet penetrated the skull. Oddly enough the bone plate seen in the autopsy photos isn't as large as the one seen in the Zapruder film, but of course by the time the body had reached Bethesda - the chain of evidence had been compromised IMO. Bill Miller blur re JFK and NOT the other occupants of the limo? Whose version of the Z-film you looking at, Groden's? Physics a little tougher go that you thought, eh? And btw, Ashton can indeed craft a sentence or two, or three... my hats off to him regarding that! Merry Christmas to all....! David Healy Edited December 25, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: Chris wrote: Bill, I took 2 frames (312+313), overlayed them in Photoshop using the convertible frame supports of the limo for registration/stabilization, and somehow made the shoulder appear not to move?How would you like me to stabilize 2 frames? Chris, you could start by using the most magnified images possible rather than the wide frame view which is little more than mud. I will ask you the same questions that I asked 'Sir Ashton the factless critic' .... what happened to the shift that occurred between JFK and his wife in each frame prior to the head shot and please explain why JFK's shoulder blurred in the opposite direction than the limo's did ??? There can only be one reason for all this - I have given you mine - let's have yours. dgh: perhaps there is a optical film printing reason for that, you think? [...] Bill Miller Edited December 25, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 Hello Ashton "Ebeneezer" Gray I initially was under the impression that you only disliked me because you thought me stupid, uneducated, a poor writer, ignorant of the JFK subject, and in general diagreement with your "learned" thoughts and mode of expression. I am truly disheartened to have finally discovered that, I personally, am not so "singularly entitled" I am apparently merely "one more rotten apple" floating in that savage sea of the uninformed, uneducated and disagreeable. Ashton, if I truly didn't think so highly of you, I would not feel comfortable digging into my emotions and offering you what I have offered very few others in the course of my life. "You should seriously seek help"!......as you certainly seem certifiable. You probably understand that I offer this advice, as could only one who truly cares. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 What I'm seeing is JFK's body slipping down with his hands slipping away from his throat, elbows down, at this point, as the fatal shot impacts his skull at the right temporal/parietal region, driving his head further down The idee fixé is the consummate tyrant. That shot appears to have come from the area on the knoll to the right, over by the underpass. But, that's JMHO.Where the two policemen were stationed.And a shot from there (real quick, while the cops were looking the other way) drove Kennedy's head...down. Glad you're on the case. Ashton ********************************************** "The idee fixé is the consummate tyrant." No parlez vous francaise, pal! Yo hablo espanol. "Where the two policemen were stationed." And, where were they [the two policemen] when everyone ran up the knoll [like lemmings] when those guys in the suits and walkie talkies, flashing S.S. badges, told everyone they had it all covered? "And a shot from there (real quick, while the cops were looking the other way) drove Kennedy's head...down." If JFK happened to be sliding down in his seat, slightly forward and to his left toward Jackie, as it appears to me. The force of the impact of a shot gotten off to his right front temple would've driven his head down, for an instant (at impact), and back up and to the left, posteriorly, as the contents of the right hemisphere of his brain were ejected [anteriorly, posteriorly, vertically, and laterally, thus lightening the load of his skull, since it was now half gone. The "cops" were not looking the other way. They were more than likely pulling the trigger. "Glad you're on the case." I don't claim to be an expert, just a student, here. The experts are those I consider to be "my" heroes. Prouty, Lane, Weisberg, Meagher, Lifton, Gibson, Garrison, P.D. Scott, Oglesby, et.al. who originally stuck their necks out and almost got their reputations ruined, and in some cases their lives and livelihoods compromised for having the balls to stand up to the perps. So, don't come at me with your high-handed attitude for perceiving what appears, to me, to be a shot from the right front. It wasn't the only shot gotten off, either. Only one of possibly 8 to 10 that were aimed and fired that day. But, that one in the frames you've taken the time to outline the heads [and, I thank you for doing so], did not originate from the Daltex Building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 blur re JFK and NOT the other occupants of the limo? Whose version of the Z-film you looking at, Groden's?Physics a little tougher go that you thought, eh? And btw, Ashton can indeed craft a sentence or two, or three... my hats off to him regarding that! Merry Christmas to all....! David Healy David, as someone who wanted to hold the Zapruder film in his hands so you could authenticate it - you should know what version I used and besides, the motion blur is on each print right up to the camera original ... of course you should already of known this, which means that your response didn't address anything at all. I will assume that is why you enjoyed Ashton's say nothing response so much. Also, Merry Christmas to you too David, I hope that the spirit of Christmas will bring you back to the forum with a sincere mindset to actually take the JFK assassination more seriously in the upcoming new year. If you do decide to take the forum seriously, then by all means tell us what happened to the rotation of the limo between Z312 and Z313 and why JFK blurred in the opposite than the limo did if it wasn't for that jolt that he took upon impact. Bill Miller Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 (edited) Here's a very unscientific experiment to determine if what Bill Miller is saying actually occurs. Right now, you're more than likely sitting in a chair in front of your terminal...imagine yourself to be JFK in the limo, prior to Z313. Now...place your hands near your throat...that's good...now jerk your head downward and forward while simultaneously moving your right shoulder backward. What did you observe? In multiple attempts, I only managed to pivot at the waist TO THE RIGHT--away from Jackie's position--when moving my shoulder rearward. The ONLY way I've found to move the shoulder rearward without having some pivot action toward the right is by RAISING the head, NOT by moving it forward and down. The only problem I have with that is...in the Z-film, I don't see where JFK turns away from Jackie; in fact, it appears to me that, until the head shot, he's attempting to turn TOWARD Jackie. Maybe my perceptions are wrong...but attempting to make my body move the way Bill Miller insists that JFK's does is to imply that there was a sudden reversal in direction of his torso, and quite opposite of the apparent movement of his head. Did I miss something? Or am I essentially in agreement with Bill Miller, and simply don't realize it? Edited December 25, 2006 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 (edited) dgh: perhaps there is a optical film printing reason for that, you think? David, you are the optical printing guy, so why respond with a question ... why not tell people what your opinion is and why you take that position? This past year you ran up thread after thread with similar responses that never offered a shred of evidence to any of the discussions. In the end you were pinned down to admitting that you had never seen any signs of alteration to the Zapruder film, you said that even a first generation copy of a film will show slight fuzziness to the images even in the sharper frames (which Groden and Zavada had already looked for and couldn't find on the alleged camra original), and when asked to tell us what forensic testing would you do to a film that you kept saying it needed to be done to - you went completely silent and never gave an answer in reply. Since that time you have also gotten to see key parts of the films running in sync with one another and still you said nothing. Now you surface with the same type of responses that failed you in the past by merely suggesting something that is supposed to be related to your field and you offered not a word of proof for why you bring it up - why??? Can you not do a little better than this or do you think the researchers here (including Ashton) don't deserve informative responses? I for one welcome any information that you may have to offer and I would think that by now you will have turned over a new leaf and would stop playing games here. Bill Miller Edited December 25, 2006 by Bill Miller 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