The Head Wound Explained

[Bill Miller]

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.

There is no need for the waist to pivot at all. Someone can nudge your shoulder without you turning your waist. I have demonstrated this movement many times on others, so I would have to be there with you to see why you are not accomplishing it on your own. The movement is so natural that as I said, Al Carrier (trained in CSI) was able to give a good explanation for it as told to him by some of the experts he knew. If it didn't happen the way I have said, then you too, need to explain the absense of the rotation that should have occurred with JFK and Jackie between Z312 and Z313.

Bill Miller

Edited December 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

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

Bill, Let me know if my assumption is wrong, regarding the origination of your frames. They appear to be from the enlarged version of the MPI DVD.

If they are not, please describe where they are from.

With the MPI version, there might be another problem to address in this discussion.

Supplied is 2 different gifs from that DVD.

The small version and the enlarged version, same frames (312+313).

The frame movement is different.

Small version moves horizontally, enlarged moves vertically.

Does someone have a simple explanation for this?

If the 2 gifs don't appear in the same post, I'll follow up with the other one in the next post.

thanks

chris

Edited December 25, 2006 by Chris Davidson

[Ashton Gray]

The simple rule of physics that I am utilizing...

Bilgewater. You have clubbed physics over the head and thrown it down the cellar stairs and barred the door. You have rewritten physics from Newton forward, and have managed to set it back by centuries in the effort. You posit a "theory" based on "physics" that only could have come from an alternate universe, and order people to ignore the evidence of their own eyes in favor of adopting your oh-so-superior (invariably) understanding of Counter Earth, where a .0000000000001 degree of camera rotation in a 40th of a second magically nullifies all mere human fancies about the laws of inertia of bodies in motion and at rest.

when the bullet hit him from the front - the head rocked forward while the shoulder was driven backwards

Well, of course it happened just that way, Bill. After all, you say so, and, after all, these are the "physics" of your alternate universe, and, after all, this is "Miller's Magic Bullet" we're talking about:

• Bang-bang, Miller's Magic Bullet came down on his head.
  Bang-bang, Miller's Magic Bullet made sure he was dead. Whoa-o-whoa-o-whoa-o-whoa!
  

It's a damned pity that when hundreds of thousands or teeming millions of your unwashed, uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, common inferiors look with their inferior eyeballs, they are deceived into believing that JFK's head and body follow exactly the expected motions dictated by pedestrian, boring, unfantacized Earth physics for his having been hit with a plain old projectile from behind, since his shoulders and torso patently don't show even the most miniscule rearward motion, and in fact clearly remain almost static at Z313 (as the head goes forward). The shoulders and torso, having more mass, and being already clenched, follow, moving forward at Z314.

The shoulders and torso are still in that forward position at Z315—which is the first frame where the torso begins to twist up and back:

The outline of the head and torso from Z312 is there, remaining unchanged, superimposed over Z313, Z314, and Z315. There is not the least rearward motion of the shoulder and torso. Zilch. None. The only change of position of the torso and shoulders in Z314 and Z315 is forward. It is evident to a blind horse—at least one not from an alternate universe where water runs uphill and logic only ever runs in infinite tail-chasing circles.

thus meaning a shot hit JFK from the front.

Well... Well.... There, there. Bill. Don't get upset, now. Don't go off on me, okay? But before you tell everybody again about the Magnificent Marvelous and Magical Metaphysical Mannerisms of Miller's Magic Bullet, I regret having to point out that you've weaseled on where this purported Miller's Magic Bullet came from—exactly as I predicted with uncanny, terrifying accuracy when I started the Weasel Watch countdown.

Where, Bill? That's the question. Where was the magic shooter with the magic rifle that fired Miiller's Magic Bullet? It didn't rain down from the sky, like some Biblical plague of one bullet, did it? Posting another ten thousand bold-faced words of assertion for the existence of a Magic Bullet isn't going to stop the Weasel Watch from ticking, and it's going to go right on ticking, inexorably, while you dodge and evade this vital question:

WHERE "in the front" did Miller's Magic Bullet come from, traveling on "a downward trajectory"?

That's your claim. But Miller's Magic Bullet couldn't have materialized out of thin air, like Mister Mxyzptlk popping in from the fifth dimension, just at the propitious instant to slam JFK's head "down," now, could it? Even you, at the most extreme fever pitch of your pitch, wouldn't try to put that past anybody. Would you?

So where was the shooter of this Miller Magic Bullet? You can't have a Miller Magic Bullet without a trajectory, and you can't have a trajectory without a point of origin for said (purported) trajectory, so where was the shooter?

If you don't get an immediate answer, allow me to suggest that you use your own proposed test: sit in a chair in the attitude of JFK at the time of the head shot, and have somebody hit you in the head until an answer presents itself.

Meanwhile, the Weasel Watch is still tick-tick-ticking, waiting for your answer. How long will you weasel?

Ashton Gray

Edited December 26, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Bill Miller]

Bill, Let me know if my assumption is wrong, regarding the origination of your frames. They appear to be from the enlarged version of the MPI DVD.

Correct, Chris. They are the "close-up" frames that MPI presented.

With the MPI version, there might be another problem to address in this discussion.

Supplied is 2 different gifs from that DVD.

The small version and the enlarged version, same frames (312+313).

The frame movement is different.

Small version moves horizontally, enlarged moves vertically.

Does someone have a simple explanation for this?

If I understand what you are saying correctly, the wide ''full frame' version has the numbering put on the outer frame, thus when played in sequence the numbers come over the top of one asnother. The enlarged 'close-up' version was a zoom-in of the full frame and they placed the numbers on the grass. When MPI played the frames in sequence, they aligned the numbers so they would come over the top of one another. When you stablized the frames by using the occupants of the limo - it caused the numbers on the close-up version to be off-set. You may recall some researchers animations where they staggered the full frame version so to make a smooth transition from frame to frame

Below are some frames from both my copies off MPI. I have not stabilized these frames and I can see pitch changes and camera movement between frames on both versions. If one stablizes both versions correctly - the numbers will not come over the top of one another. (see example below) One other thing, MPI merely took photos of the original film frames and I believe there is evidence that they did not get each frame photographed at the same zoom or the each frame was not perfectly flat and there lies some degree of error. When the final product was finished and each frame sized equally - the images within that frame may have varied. There is no doubt that MPI made mistakes that have since been regrettable.

Bill Miller

Edited July 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

Hiya, Priscilla Petticoats.

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

**********************************************

• ASHTON
  "The idee fixé is the consummate tyrant."
  

No parlez vous francaise, pal! Yo hablo espanol.

It means: "The fixed idea is the consummate tyrant." You may quote me in any language.

• ASHTON
  "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?

As far as I can determine from testimony, they rushed with the railroad workers on the overpass immediately to the area behind the picket fence—where Sheriff Decker had immediately ordered all available men to go—and tramped around in the TSBD lot with many others looking in vain for any evidence of a shooter. If you know something different, I'd be happy to hear it.

• ASHTON
  "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.

I believe this is nonsense, and I've demonstrated why I believe it is (see also my last message, above, to Bill Miller). More on this, and why I think it is, in a moment...

The "cops" were not looking the other way. They were more than likely pulling the trigger.

Leaving alone for a moment the testimony of Bowers that they were in his view, leaving alone the complete absence of the slightest shred of evidence that either of them had a rifle at any relevant time, here is the head shot view from the end of the picket fence near where the cops were stationed:

And zooming in to see what the actual shot was:

Good luck.

And just as a reality check, here is what Bowers or anybody in the train tower would have been able to see in that direction:

It's a little difficult to see, but that shows the two cops, the two men who were near them at all relevant times, and at least three railroad workers who were on the overpass at all relevant times.

I dunno. You really believe a shot came from there, bless your heart. All I'm doing is trying to bring some common sense to bear on all these shooting scenarios that get flung around like rice at a wedding.

I don't claim to be an expert, just a student, here.

So am I. But on the subject of "experts" all over this case, let me turn on pure opinion mode for a moment.

I'm rapidly coming to a personal conviction that the majority of "experts" in this case are experts primarily in disinformation, and that one of the most fertile areas of disinformation fertilizer that has been dumped all over the research community in loads measured in tons is the "front shot" scenarios that have countless thousands running all over Dealey Plaza peering under every bush like kids on an Easter Egg hunt where no Easter Eggs have been hidden, and myopically peering at every square inch available images searching in endless vain for a "shooter" from the "grassy knoll" or anywhere "in front."

My one unvarying rule in even approaching anything that even smells faintly of CIA (or any intelligence cult) is this:

They always play both sides of the game.

So bear with me a moment, even hypothetically, to explore possible ramifications of that fundamental as applied to this case, particularly the location of shooters:

• A. If the CIA did the deed and set up Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy, and set up that patsy in the 6th floor of the TSBD (behind the motorcade at time of shooting), the consideration of possible post-assassination forensics and medical evidence argue for their having set up that patsy and the phony "sniper's nest" in a location approximating in some way the location of where their actual shooter would have been placed, meaning somewhere from behind the motorcade. The CIA would populate the Warren Commission sufficiently to falsely "sell" this patsy location (after they had murdered the patsy), however absurd the "findings."
  B. On the same principle, the CIA would also have an extreme vested interest in creating many controversial and unprovable "theories" of shooters shooting from the direct opposite direction—meaning from in front.
  C. The CIA would insinuate into the research community, and into any out-of-control investigation (such as Garrison) "experts" to promote and "support" theories that the shot or shots came from the direct opposite of where their shooter actually had been. The CIA would want to flood the literature with just such arguments (however absurd), presented with equal force to the equally absurd Warren Commission "finding." This is the perfect psy-op: to have TWO COMPLETELY FALSE dichotomies endlessly at war, neither of them even considering the TRUTH. I cannot stress enough that this creates the perfect psy-op: two EQUALLY FALSE positions to be endlessly at war. Naturally, neither of them EVER can be proved or disproved, because both are FALSE.
  D. By successfully creating completely conflicting (and FALSE) dichotomies, and supplying enough "evidence" to keep these opposite camps of theories in almost perfect equalibrium and in constant forment and argument, CIA has infinite protection from any actual solution to the case.
  

And I believe that is exactly the current situation. Precisely. I believe that the research community argues endlessly over essentially two equally impossible scenarios—BOTH THE WORK PRODUCT OF CIA DISINFORMATION—and that no one yet has broken sufficiently out of these CIA-created molds to find the truth.

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.

I quite agree. I've "looked" through enough of the DalTex building windows to find enough problems with them as a shooting location that I've more or less eliminated it (although there are a few locations that might be exceptions, though...well, "long shots").

That's why I haven't suggested a shot coming from the DalTex building.

I've also looked at every proposed outdoor "shooter location" that I've been able to scrape up. So far every one of them looks so burdened with potential liabilities as to be downright ludicrous as any carefully planned assassin's lair. To me. And no, I didn't go into the study of them with that viewpoint. I looked, and I looked, and I looked, and the more I looked, the more absurd these "theories" became to me.

And regardless all of that: I ain't scared of you.

Ashton

[Chris Davidson]

Bill, Let me know if my assumption is wrong, regarding the origination of your frames. They appear to be from the enlarged version of the MPI DVD.

Correct, Chris. They are the "close-up" frames that MPI presented.

With the MPI version, there might be another problem to address in this discussion.

Supplied is 2 different gifs from that DVD.

The small version and the enlarged version, same frames (312+313).

The frame movement is different.

Small version moves horizontally, enlarged moves vertically.

Does someone have a simple explanation for this?

If I understand what you are saying correctly, the wide ''full frame' version has the numbering put on the outer frame, thus when played in sequence the numbers come over the top of one asnother. The enlarged 'close-up' version was a zoom-in of the full frame and they placed the numbers on the grass. When MPI played the frames in sequence, they aligned the numbers so they would come over the top of one another. When you stablized the frames by using the occupants of the limo - it caused the numbers on the close-up version to be off-set. You may recall some researchers animations where they staggered the full frame version so to make a smooth transition from frame to frame

Below are some frames from both my copies off MPI. I have not stabilized these frames and I can see pitch changes and camera movement between frames on both versions. If one stablizes both versions correctly - the numbers will not come over the top of one another. (see example below) One other thing, MPI merely took photos of the original film frames and I believe there is evidence that they did not get each frame photographed at the same zoom or the each frame was not perfectly flat and there lies some degree of error. When the final product was finished and each frame sized equally - the images within that frame may have varied. There is no doubt that MPI made mistakes that have since been regrettable.

Bill Miller

Bill,

Let me ask it this way.

Why would the horizontal/vertical movement between sets of the same 2 frames be different if the only change was the enlargement?

The frames I supplied were stabilized using the stationary convertible frame as my registration object.

I'm not concerned about the numbering scheme not lining up, the frame movement is not the same between "full frame" and enlarged versions. That's what I'm hoping someone has an explanation for.

Or, if you believe it is the same movement, please show me what I'm missing.

chris

P.S.

I've watched the MPI DVD many times. I'm sure you have too. They built a customized table and rolled out the Zfilm flat, discussed in-depth the consistant photographic method used to create transparencies and presented it this way.

[Bill Miller]

The "cops" were not looking the other way. They were more than likely pulling the trigger.

Leaving alone for a moment the testimony of Bowers that they were in his view, leaving alone the complete absence of the slightest shred of evidence that either of them had a rifle at any relevant time, here is the head shot view from the end of the picket fence near where the cops were stationed:

One is not considered an expert for learning the facts of the case, but rather someone who bothered to do their homework before offering an opinion.

Lee Bower's described the two men out in front of him and they were not at the end of the fence, but rather in the area that the accoustic evidence says a shot was fired from. Ed Hoffman saw the man with the suit and hat turn away from the fence and that man had a rifle. Hoffman said the man tossed the rifle off to someone else near the steam pipe. Hoffman has volunteered to take a polygraph to prove his veracity. Independent witness Austin Miller (I think that was the name) told Seymour Weitzman that he saw someone through the trees toss something near the steam pipe following the shooting. Bower's spoke of this man, but all he said was there was a flash of light or some strange occurence that happened at that spot where the man had been standing, but had lost track of the man. The men on the overpass heard a shot from that location and immediately saw smoke come through the trees from the same said location. The smell of burnt gunpowder lingered in the air at that place and was noted by at least one person. The official inquiries dealt with this problem by trying to blame it on the steam pipe that was almost 100 feet away. That would be the same pipe that that was enclosed and didn't have any vents that would allow such a thing and even if it could - with the wind gust seen at the time of the shooting - steam would never hold its shape long enough to be blown 100 feet down the fence line and then through the trees so people on the overpass would see it. So to say there is no shred of evidence of a shot fired from that location is not actually a true statement of fact.

Bill Miller

Edited December 26, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Let me ask it this way.

Why would the horizontal/vertical movement between sets of the same 2 frames be different if the only change was the enlargement?

One obvious explanation would be that MPI moved their camera when taking a zoomed image of that frame or someone when transfering the image to film had not centered the image properly. There are several instances in the MPI film where odd occurences took place like this that are not seen on the actual camera original. So what I am saying is that any variances between the two (full and close-up) versions were of MPI's doing because one is just a photo of the other - only zoomed in. I remember touching on this stuff a few years ago with Groden who explained the causes to me, but it has been too long ago for me to remember exactly how he put them. I recall Gary Mack once saying that there was talk of MPI doing the job over again because there were so many mistakes, but to date the idea has gone by the waste side.

Bill Miller

Edited December 26, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

• TERRY MAURO: The "cops" were not looking the other way. They were more than likely pulling the trigger.
  ASHTON GRAY: Leaving alone for a moment the testimony of Bowers that they were in his view, leaving alone the complete absence of the slightest shred of evidence that either of them had a rifle at any relevant time, here is the head shot view from the end of the picket fence near where the cops were stationed:

One is not considered an expert for learning the facts of the case, but rather someone who bothered to do their homework before offering an opinion.

Lee Bower's described the two men out in front of him and they were not at the end of the fence...

Poppycock. Claptrap. Tommyrot. I notice you don't quote Bowers before "offering an opinion." I guess I have to do your homework for you:

• MR. BALL: Now, were there any people standing on the high side-- high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?
  MR. BOWERS: Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. ...On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders.
  MR. BALL: You saw those before the President came by, you saw those people?
  MR. BOWERS: Yes; they were there before and after.
  

And let's not leave out the testimony of Sam Holland, one of the workers on the overpass at the time:

• MR. STERN: Tell me if this is correct, Mr. Holland. At the time' the Presidential motorcade arrived, to the best of your recollection, on the overpass there were two uniformed Dallas Police, and the following employees of the Terminal Co. yourself, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Potter, Mr. Winburn, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cowzert, and perhaps one other man?
  MR. HOLLAND: That's right.
  

Giving complete benefit of the doubt, and allowing that the stray "two men" in Bowers's testimony were two of the men named during Holland's testimony, that's still no fewer than than ten men on or near the overpass, two of them cops who had been stationed there all morning, all in the same general area, with yet another man—Bowers—in a watch tower having them in view.

No charge for having done your homework for you. This time.

Do people actually take you seriously?

I sure hope you weren't trying to spin Bowers's testimony so you could try to make the case that Miller's Magic Bullet came from there.

Speaking of which, the Weasel Watch is still ticking, and you still haven't said where Miller's Magic Bullet came from.

Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick...

Ashton

[Bill Miller]

Poppycock. Claptrap. Tommyrot. I notice you don't quote Bowers before "offering an opinion." I guess I have to do your homework for you:

Ashton, allow me to do your homework ....

From the RR tower that Bowers was positioned in - the mouth of the underpass covers an area that extends from Elm Street to Commerece Street, which does cover the two mens location being exactly where Holland and Hoffman placed them. Bowers saw only two men, as well as Hoffman ... the same two men.

You also mentioned in a previous response something about the men on the underpass rushing over behind the fence ... let me tell you that Holland told Mark Lane that maybe as much as two minutes elapsed before they moved off the underpass. The post assasination films showing pans of the underpass also support Holland's statement.

Maybe instead of drawing inaccurate cartoons of the plaza, try going there instead and looking the place over ... that can be your homework! In fact, your view of the RR tower has nothing to do with the view of the mouth of the underpass because you are looking at the RR yard from the west side of the triple underpass and not the east side that the men were seen standing on.

You also seem to dismiss a frontal shot, so take the time to explain away the bones on the back of JFK's head being avuslsed to the rear, but try doing it in a way that you don't come off sounding like a jackass who hates the world! I know there are members here who would appreciate it. Someone who I don't recall even posting in this thread sent me this message pertaining to the tone you have been taking with members here. The message said " .......... FWIW, you've got my sympathies. I figure eventually the sorry fuc#er will latch on to every member of the forum to spread his xxxx on. As far as I'm concerned he's only playing a very elaborate and sophisticated trolling and disinformation game. He's not really interested in anyone finding out the truth about anything; he's only interested in scoring points in a PR propaganda game ...................... "

I hope you find this information useful.

Bill Miller

Edited December 26, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

Poppycock. Claptrap. Tommyrot. I notice you don't quote Bowers before "offering an opinion." I guess I have to do your homework for you:

Ashton, allow me to do your homework ....

I wouldn't let you shine my shoes.

Bowers saw only two men...

Well, now you've gotten so flustered that you're making it up when I just posted exactly what proves you false. I'll post it again:

• MR. BOWERS: ...[T]here were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. ...On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders.
  

When you count this time, try using both hands.

Does anybody take you seriously?

as well as Hoffman...

Hoffman changed his story at least four times—once on the very day he first gave it to the FiBI. It's not in evidence over here where I sit on the basis of his self impeachment. You use whatever gets you through the night.

You also seem to dismiss a frontal shot...

I'm waiting patiently for you to tell me where the alleged "frontal shot" with Miller's Magic Bullet came from. And the Weasel Watch is ticking, and you're still weaseling.

Now here you've posted yet another patented bald-faced (I'm sorry: I meant to type "bold-faced") harangue, and you still haven't provided a point of origin for Miller's Magic Bullet. Stop weaseling, Bill. It's starting to get embarrassing. Remember: it's just common, low-brow, low-bred, baseborn, inferior, Dallas-challenged, plebian, raffish trailer trash you're dealing with here—not the kind of superior intelligentsia you make sure everybody knows you're in company with.

So spell it out real plain for this old boy, and make your intelligentsia crowd proud: where "in the front" exactly did Miller's Magic Bullet come from "on a downward trajectory" that slapped that boy's head forward and down so hard? Where, Bill? That's the question. It keeps coming, you keep dodging.

And the Weasel Watch ticks on. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick...

Ashton

Edited December 26, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Mark Knight]

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.

There is no need for the waist to pivot at all. Someone can nudge your shoulder without you turning your waist. I have demonstrated this movement many times on others, so I would have to be there with you to see why you are not accomplishing it on your own. The movement is so natural that as I said, Al Carrier (trained in CSI) was able to give a good explanation for it as told to him by some of the experts he knew. If it didn't happen the way I have said, then you too, need to explain the absense of the rotation that should have occurred with JFK and Jackie between Z312 and Z313.

Bill Miller

OK, Mr. Miller...I should've been more specific. What I was attempting to say was that one cannot move the head forward and downward [and to the right] while simultaneously moving the right shoulder backwards--while keeping the left shoulder relatively motionless--without pivoting the spine to the right at or near the waist. And the fact that JFK, just prior, is in the process of pivoting to the LEFT...??? To do this without dropping the left shoulder takes a large amount of rearward motion at the right elbow, for which I just don't see the evidence in the Z-film.

Try it yourself while sitting at your computer--WITHOUT someone exerting outside force on your body...hands raised towards the neck...then suddenly induce the rearward motion to your shoulder while suddenly and violently moving your head downward and to the right...WITHOUT generating a corresponding significant drop of the LEFT shoulder OR major rearward movement of the right elbow...this is practically impossible.

Yet the film doesn't appear to show such a drop of the left shoulder, OR a corresponding radical rearward movement of the right elbow...which leads me to conclude that what you're seeing is probably an anomaly from your "image stabilization" process, and not an actual rearward movement of the right shoulder.

BUT...as I said before...I could be wrong.

Edited December 26, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Bill Miller]

I wouldn't let you shine my shoes.

I wouldn't offer to shine them, Ashton, so don't worry.

Bowers saw only two men...

Well, now you've gotten so flustered that you're making it up when I just posted exactly what proves you false. I'll post it again:

• MR. BOWERS: ...[T]here were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. ...On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders.
  

When you count this time, try using both hands.

Ashton, I would suggest that you get a copy of Altgens 7 and count the people on the triple underpass and study their position in relation to that underpass. You claim to be a student of the assassination, then I suggest you learn the material better before trying to come across like some jackass arm-chair researcher trying to cut corners by not studying the available material in-depth beforehand. There were 14 people on that overpass when the shooting occurred and I think you will find them all in that photo .... none of them had a view down the wooden fence-line.

Hoffman changed his story at least four times—once on the very day he first gave it to the FiBI. It's not in evidence over here where I sit on the basis of his self impeachment. You use whatever gets you through the night.

How does one change his story the first time he tells it, Ashton? What you said doesn't make sense and shows me that you are not thinking things through before trolling this forum. Hoffman has never changed his story. What has happened is that interpreters have not cited him correctly. Hoffman is a deaf mute and more importantly he doesn't have a good use of the english language. People who have actually looked into Ed's background know this. As I said before, Ed has volunteered to be polygraphed .... I would be interested in having you do the same to see how sincere you are concerning your reasons for trolling the members of this forum. And yes, Bower's mentioned the guy wearing a white shirt, but he didn't say the guy didn't have on a coat or a hat. What Bowers did say was the man was up by the fence looking in the direction of the motorcade. Both Moorman's photo and the Willis photo captures this individual and lo' and behold he is wearing a fedora type hat just as Hoffman describes.

I'm waiting patiently for you to tell me where the alleged "frontal shot" with Miller's Magic Bullet came from. And the Weasel Watch is ticking, and you're still weaseling.

Now here you've posted yet another patented bald-faced (I'm sorry: I meant to type "bold-faced") harangue, and you still haven't provided a point of origin for Miller's Magic Bullet. Stop weaseling, Bill. It's starting to get embarrassing. Remember: it's just common, low-brow, low-bred, baseborn, inferior, Dallas-challenged, plebian, raffish trailer trash you're dealing with here—not the kind of superior intelligentsia you make sure everybody knows you're in company with.

So spell it out real plain for this old boy, and make your intelligentsia crowd proud: where "in the front" exactly did Miller's Magic Bullet come from "on a downward trajectory" that slapped that boy's head forward and down so hard? Where, Bill? That's the question. It keeps coming, you keep dodging.

And the Weasel Watch ticks on. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick...

Ashton

Don't be so hard on yourself, Ashton ... just because you are wearing a watch and watching it tick doesn't necessarily mean that its a "weasel watch" ... just that a weasel is wearing it. I believe the shot that killed JFK came from the exact location that Hoffman saw the man with the rifle, which is the exact same spot where the men on the underpass saw the smoke come through the trees which is the same spot that the accoustic evidence says a shot came from. It would certainly explain the avusion seen on the back of the President's head by so many medical personnel at Parkland.

Bill Miller

Edited December 26, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

OK, Mr. Miller...I should've been more specific. What I was attempting to say was that one cannot move the head forward and downward [and to the right]while simultaneously moving the right shoulder backwards--while keeping the left shoulder relatively motionless--without pivoting the spine to the right at or near the waist. And the fact that JFK, just prior, is in the process of pivoting to the LEFT...??? To do this without dropping the left shoulder takes a large amount of rearward motion at the right elbow, for which I just don't see the evidence in the Z-film.

Mark, I have seen no evidence of JFK pivoting anywhere ... I do however, see him leaning slightly towards his wife. I also cannot see JFK's left shoulder to know what it did. All I can comment on is the shoulder that is visible in the Zapruder film and that is his right shoulder. What I do see after the impact is JFK going back and TO THE LEFT. This causes me to think that the right shoulder is what went back because of the blow to the head for if both shoulders went backwards at the same time, then I would think JFK would have merely went rearward and not back and TO THE LEFT. When I observe someone in this posture, I note that because they are leaning slightly to their left - their left shoulder is anchored and the right shoulder is more susceptible to being moved by a transfer of energy. Like I said a moment ago, something had to allow JFK to go back and TO THE LEFT and his right shoulder being pushed rearward would make that occurence happen and would also hide the natural rotation of Jackie's arm against JFK's back that I have been pointing out.

Bill Miller

Edited December 26, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Mark Knight]

Bill, I have no intention of getting into an argument with you about this. I'm just trying to understand what I'm seeing by relating it to how MY body moves when occupying a sitting position. I won't attempt to insult you, and I trust you'll return the favor.

And the fact is, I just can't duplicate with MY body, what I'm [apparently] seeing in your interpretation of the Z-film...but then, I'm older than JFK was then, and my parts don't quite move like a 46 year-old's anymore. So that might explain a lot of the problem I have in understanding all this.

But I suppose my point in all this is...if JFK is apparently turning toward Jackie, as he appears to be doing prior to this backward shoulder movement, what sort of VIOLENT force would cause this degree of movement of the right shoulder in a single frame--0.0546 seconds, by my calculations--but still allow the head to continue to move FORWARD and DOWNWARD?

I just can't get my mind around the dynamics of what appears to be happening. I agree, for the most part, about what you say we're seeing...I just can't for the life of me figure it out...it's as if something is already driving his right shoulder backwards, as in the back-and-left movement, but it's apparently NOT any kind of impact to the head, since the head is continuing forward and downward. And it's apparently NOT a result of the limo accelerating, since all of JFK would be rocked back in the seat...and if the limo was decelerating, the shoulder woulr move forward, not backward.

THAT's the part I'm having trouble with. So I'm not arguing with you so much as I'm just seeking some sort of clarification, as to WHY I should be seeing what I'm apparently seeing.

Edited December 26, 2006 by Mark Knight