The Nix Illusion

[Dan O'meara]

I am of the firm belief that the Zapruder film is unaltered, certainly in any meaningful way. One apparent 'proof' of alteration are the so-called inconsistencies between the Zapruder and Nix films. This is dealt with in the following article by Millicent Cranor at the Who.What.Why website https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/07/12/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/

The inconsistency in question revolves around the following frames:



In the Zapruder frame above there appears to be a sizeable gap between Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill. In the Nix frame below their heads are more or less touching. How could this possibly be?



The only mystery here is how this easily explained 'illusion' ever gained any traction. It is caused by Jackie leaning diagonally across the trunk. I tried to write down what was happening but found it easier to make my own vid. The upturned baking tray represents the trunk of the limo, the spoon represents Jackie, the lighter represents Clint Hill (the point of this video is just to show the 'illusion').
It starts off with an overview then moves to the left (Nix position) where we see the spoon appears to be touching the lighter. It then moves to the right (Zapruder position) where it reveals a sizeable gap between the two items:



That the Nix and Zapruder films are perfectly synchronised is ably demonstrated in this following Gif



The original Ant Davison clip:

[Joe Elliott]

Your presentation makes it clear why from one angle, Jackie and Hill seem to touch, while from another angle, they don’t. Milicent Cranor can’t seem to grasp that an individual frame of film shows a two dimensional image of the three dimensional reality. So, naturally, two objects might appear to touch from one angle but not from another. And Milicent Cranor is a member of the American Mensa Society?

[Dan O'meara]

Your presentation makes it clear why from one angle, Jackie and Hill seem to touch, while from another angle, they don’t. Milicent Cranor can’t seem to grasp that an individual frame of film shows a two dimensional image of the three dimensional reality. So, naturally, two objects might appear to touch from one angle but not from another. And Milicent Cranor is a member of the American Mensa Society?

I know Joe. It took me about 10 seconds to work out what was going on and I couldn't believe it was seriously be entertained by some as 'proof of tampering'. I've read other stuff by Cranor and was quite impressed with how she approached things but it is a big disappointment that someone of her obvious intelligence couldn't see it.
It would be interesting to hear from someone who does accept this as 'proof of tampering' but I doubt that will happen.

[Jerry Organ]

There was one going around a few years ago about Jackie having no shadow on the trunk lid.


A critic didn't believe my argument that the Jackie shadow was present, just some areas overwhelmed by ambient light. He replicated the hand on the trunk and came over to my side. I wonder if that critic became one of the many CTs who convert to LNism.

Having someone listen to reason made me think of Lindsey Graham's comments yesterday about the near full-vote Ruth Bader Ginsburg got in the Senate decades ago, showing there was a time when opposing sides could compromise. However, Graham's comparison is kind of illogical as Ginsburg was a moderate recommended by Republican Orrin Hatch and she wasn't forced through during the closing weeks of an election.

[Dan O'meara]

There was one going around a few years ago about Jackie having no shadow on the trunk lid.


A critic didn't believe my argument that the Jackie shadow was present, just some areas overwhelmed by ambient light. He replicated the hand on the trunk and came over to my side. I wonder if that critic became one of the many CTs who convert to LNism.

Having someone listen to reason made me think of Lindsey Graham's comments yesterday about the near full-vote Ruth Bader Ginsburg got in the Senate decades ago, showing there was a time when opposing sides could compromise. However, Graham's comparison is kind of illogical as Ginsburg was a moderate recommended by Republican Orrin Hatch and she wasn't forced through during the closing weeks of an election.

Great point Jerry, there's certain things I feel quite sure about in all this but on at least two occasions I can think of I've had cause to completely overturn things I believed were true by well made arguments. I don't see it as a weakness in any way. Far from it, I see it as a movement towards greater clarity.

[Bill Chapman]

I am of the firm belief that the Zapruder film is unaltered, certainly in any meaningful way. One apparent 'proof' of alteration are the so-called inconsistencies between the Zapruder and Nix films. This is dealt with in the following article by Millicent Cranor at the Who.What.Why website https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/07/12/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/

The inconsistency in question revolves around the following frames:



In the Zapruder frame above there appears to be a sizeable gap between Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill. In the Nix frame below their heads are more or less touching. How could this possibly be?



The only mystery here is how this easily explained 'illusion' ever gained any traction. It is caused by Jackie leaning diagonally across the trunk. I tried to write down what was happening but found it easier to make my own vid. The upturned baking tray represents the trunk of the limo, the spoon represents Jackie, the lighter represents Clint Hill (the point of this video is just to show the 'illusion').
It starts off with an overview then moves to the left (Nix position) where we see the spoon appears to be touching the lighter. It then moves to the right (Zapruder position) where it reveals a sizeable gap between the two items:



That the Nix and Zapruder films are perfectly synchronised is ably demonstrated in this following Gif



The original Ant Davison clip:

You've erred in the angle of your tin-can jalopy. The angle is not that extreme in either of the two images.
Although your changing-perspective thing is correct, Jackie's head is much closer to the back of the limo in Nix, angle or not.

[John Tonkovich]

You've erred in the angle of your tin-can jalopy. The angle is not that extreme in either of the two images.
Although your changing-perspective thing is correct, Jackie's head is much closer to the back of the limo in Nix, angle or not.

Mr O'meara and his McAdams cheering section.
Three blind mice.

[Joe Elliott]

There was one going around a few years ago about Jackie having no shadow on the trunk lid.

A critic didn't believe my argument that the Jackie shadow was present, just some areas overwhelmed by ambient light. He replicated the hand on the trunk and came over to my side. I wonder if that critic became one of the many CTs who convert to LNism.

Good to hear that she wasn’t a vampire.