Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 17540 times)

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2023, 01:18:58 AM »
Advertisement
1. You gave a starting point of Z277 and a stopping frame of Z287, which is 11 Frames. Sorry about that!

2. On your Zapruder misinformation page you said that you had your son standing behind a chair when you carried out your experiment because you assumed that Brehm's son was standing but as I pointed out, in the frame previous to your starting point we can see that Brehm's son was already in motion. You amateurs with your self serving assumptions, make me laugh!



3. I made a stabilized real time GIF across the frames you specified and there is nothing unusual, how about you show this GIF to someone who is completely impartial and get their opinion because I did and they saw nothing unusual, only a simple natural movement.



Your points are just more amateur observations, for example the difference of perspective is the reason of your perceived difference in Jackie's position on the trunk in Nix and Zapruder.
And your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.



Btw I hope you correct these amateur errors on your PDF, because there is already way too much JFKA misinformation out there.

JohnM

One of Griffith's cheap tactics is his lazy cut-n-paste Gish's Gallop. When he's losing, he will predictably dump a -----load of unrelated CT fantasy defections. So where's the video of his "reenactment" of the Brehm child's "impossible" movement? Probably playing in the windmills of his mind.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2023, 01:18:58 AM »


Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4264
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2023, 05:43:45 AM »
One of Griffith's cheap tactics is his lazy cut-n-paste Gish's Gallop. When he's losing, he will predictably dump a -----load of unrelated CT fantasy defections. So where's the video of his "reenactment" of the Brehm child's "impossible" movement? Probably playing in the windmills of his mind.

Oh Yeah, Griffith's full of it alright, here's a couple of his other tactics.

1. Here, look at this "Expert" with a PHD in Medicine/Mathematics etc etc, prove my point by making a comment about some subject totally out of their field, for example, film alteration, ballistics etc etc.
2. Griffiths tactic of placing himself at the forefront of the research timeline. For instance, Griffith attempted to refute my "Stereoscopic Autopsy Morphs" discovery by irrelevantly and nonsensically saying that not all the Autopsy photos were taken Stereoscopically and therefore he claimed "You're years behind the information curve". When in fact ironically, Griffith with a Neanderthal understanding of this technological breakthrough, he was indeed himself "decades behind the information curve"! Go figure.

Btw, I'd also like to see his video proof of his son's possible/impossible movement but I'm guessing that he's realized it is in fact quite possible and altering PDF's, web pages and his book is just too much trouble! I mean why muddy the waters and the subsequent money train with reality, right?

JohnM

« Last Edit: December 12, 2023, 05:49:45 AM by John Mytton »

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4264
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2023, 08:38:50 AM »
I take it you're not going to address all the other points I made.



I cut and pasted the above from Griffith's Zapruder alteration PDF, I chose a more unobstructed view at a point where Hill first has both feet on the rear of the Limo, the frames are Zapruder 383 and Nix 279.
Now using line of sight and a reasonably accurate positioning of Hill's and Jackie's heads (while not pixel perfect it is close enough to convey the basic concept) we can see by using perspective and the filming positions of Nix and Zapruder, why their heads are relatively touching in Nix while far apart in Zapruder.





To make the actual dimensions of the trunk area clearer I've put vertical posts on the rear corners of the Limo and since Nix was holding his camera at a slight angle I've appropriately compensated the Nix Trunk posts.



JohnM
« Last Edit: December 12, 2023, 08:56:15 AM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2023, 08:38:50 AM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2023, 03:48:28 PM »
1. You gave a starting point of Z277 and a stopping frame of Z287, which is 11 Frames. Sorry about that!

One, but you can't count the first frame as the time it took to perform the actual movement if that's the point from which he moved, unless you assume that the son was already in motion in Z277. This isn't like counting calendar days. If he was not in motion in Z277, then you can't count Z277 as part of the time it took to perform the movements.

Two, but as I said in my reply, let's assume 11 frames for the sake of argument. Again, 11 frames is only 0.61 seconds--as opposed to 0.56 seconds for 10 frames, a whopping difference of 0.05 seconds (or 1/20th/second). 0.61 seconds is still far, far too little time to perform the movements that the son performs. No one can go from the son's starting-point position to standing calmly and clapping in just 0.61 seconds, even if one assume the son was moving by or even before Z277.

Prove me wrong. Do a reenactment with a child around the age of Brehm's son. Heck, use an adult if you want. Videotape the reenactment. Prove that someone can perform those movements in no less than 0.61 seconds. You can even have the person start moving before you start timing him/her. Do the reenactment and post the video. Let's see it.

2. On your Zapruder misinformation page you said that you had your son standing behind a chair when you carried out your experiment because you assumed that Brehm's son was standing but as I pointed out, in the frame previous to your starting point we can see that Brehm's son was already in motion. You amateurs with your self serving assumptions, make me laugh!

"You amateurs," huh?! And who are you? What books have you published on the JFK case? How many degrees do you have? What's the URL for your JFK assassination website? What articles have you written on the subject? Trolling the Internet in defense of a theory that 2/3 of the Western world rejects does not qualify you to be attacking anyone as an "amateur."

And, I hate to say this, but you really shouldn't call someone an "amateur" and then in the same sentence commit a basic writing error. The term "self serving" in your sentence should be hyphenated ("self-serving") because it is a unit modifier. In fact, when the word "self" is used with another word to modify a third word, it should be hyphenated. If you doubt me, Google "self unit modifier punctuation."

Anyway, you don't know if the son had merely finished shifting his foot in Z277, as people often do when they're standing for a time. The rest of his body appears to stay in the exact same position until Z279, so the movement of the right foot is something of a thin reed on which to base your argument.

But, as I said above, go ahead and assume that the son started moving before Z277. That does not alter the fact that by Z287 he is standing calmly--and even clapping--beside his father, showing no signs of having completed what would have had to be a very rapid movement, as my reenactment with my son proved. Again, my son failed to match the Brehm son's time even though he was practically jumping on his last three attempts.

Whatever you want to assume about the son's movements before Z277, you still need to get him beside his father standing calmly and clapping by Z287. Again, if you assume he was moving by Z277, that gives you just 11 frames, only 0.61 seconds. Do a reeactment, videotape it, and post the video. Let's see it.

3. I made a stabilized real time GIF across the frames you specified and there is nothing unusual, how about you show this GIF to someone who is completely impartial and get their opinion because I did and they saw nothing unusual, only a simple natural movement.

As a matter of fact, I have actually showed the Brehm son's movement to people who knew nothing or very little about the case, and every single one of them said it was unnaturally fast, impossibly fast, unfeasible, etc.

Your phony GIF starts too soon and thus the movements take more than twice as long as the movements in the Zapruder film, even if you assume 11 frames as the time span.

Your points are just more amateur observations, for example the difference of perspective is the reason of your perceived difference in Jackie's position on the trunk in Nix and Zapruder.

And I say this is total hogwash. You know this is nonsense, or else your eyesight is quite bad. This is not even a close call. In the Zapruder film, Jackie goes nowhere near as close to Agent Hill as the Nix film shows her going. Z380 shows her as close as she gets to Agent Hill in the Zapruder film, before she starts to move backward to return to her seat, which movement begins in Z381. Anyone with decent vision can see that she is much closer to Hill in the Nix film than she ever gets to him in the Zapruder film.

Moreover, in the Nix film, she is sprawled lower on the trunk--her body is clearly closer to the trunk than it is in the Zapruder film; her right arm is extended farther than it is in the Zapruder film; and her right forearm appears to be almost touching the trunk, whereas in the Zapruder film her right forearm remains virtually straight and at about a 45-degree angle in relation to the trunk. In addition, in the Nix film, her head appears to be almost touching Hill's head, whereas in the Zapruder film her head is at least 3 feet from Hill's head. I know you can see these things. They are obvious.

And, by the way, the camera angles of Zapruder's and Nix's cameras in relation to the limo during this sequence, though shot from opposite sides of the limo, are not markedly different.

I recommend Milicent Cranor's detailed article on this crucial evidence of alteration:

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/

And your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.

More nonsense. Do you think people aren't going to see that your description is misleading and incomplete? In Z353 Summers' left leg is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame, Z354, just 1/18th/second later, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Then, in Z355, 1/18th/second later, Summers' left leg is bent even farther backward. Then, in Z356, the left foot seems to be on the ground. Are you telling me you can't see these things? Really?

Again, either your eyesight is bad or you are dissembling.

But, hey, this is another case where you can prove your point by doing a reenactment, videotaping it, and posting it. I tried duplicating Summers' left-leg movements and could not even remotely come close. They are way too fast for humans on this planet. If you say they are normal and doable, then it should be a simple matter for you to prove this claim with a reenactment. Let's see it.

« Last Edit: December 12, 2023, 03:50:16 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2662
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2023, 04:45:49 PM »
   With regard to your mentioning the Closeness between Jackie and SA Hill on the NIX FILM vs the Distance between them on the Zapruder Film, CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni brought this same point up when he was shown the Current Zapruder Film. Brugioni said as he recalled, the Zapruder Film he examined on 11/23/63 showed much more contact between Jackie and SA Hill.  This is another example of why I continue stressing that it is No Mystery why the Original NIX FILM has been missing for decades.  Filmed from the other side of Elm St, the Original NIX FILM would FACT CHECK the Current Zapruder Film.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2023, 04:47:58 PM by Royell Storing »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2023, 04:45:49 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #61 on: December 12, 2023, 05:35:11 PM »
   With regard to your mentioning the Closeness between Jackie and SA Hill on the NIX FILM vs the Distance between them on the Zapruder Film, CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni brought this same point up when he was shown the Current Zapruder Film. Brugioni said as he recalled, the Zapruder Film he examined on 11/23/63 showed much more contact between Jackie and SA Hill.  This is another example of why I continue stressing that it is No Mystery why the Original NIX FILM has been missing for decades.  Filmed from the other side of Elm St, the Original NIX FILM would FACT CHECK the Current Zapruder Film.

Oh, yes. Good point. And that reminds me! I forgot to mention that Clint Hill told the WC that he "grabbed" Jackie and "put her back in the back seat":

She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the seat. . . . (2 H 139)

But in the current Zapruder film, he never comes close to touching her during the sequence in question, so Hill's testimony is irrelevant to the sequence.

Thank you for jogging my memory. I need to add this key point to my article on Z-film alteration.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2023, 10:44:44 AM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2662
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #62 on: December 12, 2023, 06:35:53 PM »
Oh, yes. Good point. And that reminds me! I forgot to mention that Clint Hill told the WC that he "grabbed" Jackie and "put her back in the back seat":

She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the seat. . . . (2 H 139)

But in the current Zapruder film, he never comes close to touching her.

Thank you for jogging my memory. I need to add this key point to my article on Z-film alteration.

     This is the only tactic they have left. Attack YOU with all kinds of erroneous and personnel  BS: hoping that they can redirect the discussion away from the Issue(s) at hand.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #62 on: December 12, 2023, 06:35:53 PM »


Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4264
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #63 on: December 12, 2023, 09:39:01 PM »
Oh, yes. Good point. And that reminds me! I forgot to mention that Clint Hill told the WC that he "grabbed" Jackie and "put her back in the back seat":

She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the seat. . . . (2 H 139)

But in the current Zapruder film, he never comes close to touching her.

Thank you for jogging my memory. I need to add this key point to my article on Z-film alteration.

How about jogging your memory about what's actually seen in the Zapruder Film! That would be a good start, ya think?
Not only does Clint Hill come close to Jackie, he grabs her arm and pushes her back to her seat. Oops!



To paraphrase Apocalypse Now, "The bullsh!t is piling up so fast around here you need wings to stay above it!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's some more food for thought.

In the Life Magazine article on the stands a week later, multiple Zapruder frames were printed which can with perfect precision be reinserted back into the currently authenticated Zapruder Film and allowing for the acquirement, organising, laying out, printing and distribution of this Issue of Life Magazine, gave very little time for any "Griffith Scale Alteration"!
Hollywood Films with a literal SFX crew of many hundreds with banks of Modern Computer Power can take up to a year to produce the finished product, and just go to any Forum and plenty of discerning critics of the latest Marvel Film, still say they look fake but the Zapruder Film is and always will be Photorealistic!

Here's the Life Magazine of 29th November 1963 and the main frame of the Hill and Jackie sequence which is the merest split second away of Griffiths example on his Disinformation Zapruder PDF.





Here's a GIF showing virtually all the key frames from the 29/11/1963 Zapruder Life Magazine reinserted back into the Zapruder Film, meaning that any alteration away from these frames like Griffith's "Brehm's son impossible movement" had to synch back to these frames, which becomes another massive impossible hurdle!



Case Closed!

JohnM


« Last Edit: December 12, 2023, 09:45:36 PM by John Mytton »