Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Jerry Organ]

Anyway, so you can't nit pick over insignificant details here's your "11" Zapruder frames from Z177 to Z187 in real time and each cycle is 0.6 seconds which is virtually identical to 11/18.3 and we see nothing even closely resembling superhuman, just normal expected movement! Why do you think that at a point in the Zapruder film where nothing happens, they would alter Brehm's son, do you think he was one of the assassin's with a killer water pistol?



JohnM

Thanks, Honest John, for challenging the CTs' eloquent and heartfelt (if lamebrain) sophistry.



There's Brehm clapping his meat-hooks totally naturally and the Artful Dodger walking like any other kid. Except ... maybe he just picked his dad's back pocket?

[John Mytton]

Thanks, Honest John, for challenging the CTs' eloquent and heartfelt (if lamebrain) sophistry. Like the Mormon founders, Griffith has placed reams of his mythological bull-dung between two covers and called it a book.



There's Brehm clapping his meat-hooks totally naturally and the Artful Dodger walking like any other kid. Except ... maybe he just picked his dad's back pocket?

Hi Jerry, thanks for the Honest John comment but I think that most, if not ALL LNer's are Honest, it is what it is.
I never set out to deceive with my images because everything is easily accessible, I just go through the process and what comes out I post. For instance today I took the 11 Zapruder frames and made a GIF that had a 0.6 second cycle, it's not hard.
Also when I made the rotating Morphs from the stereoscopic Autopsy Photos, I can't alter anything because it's all there in the Public Domain, and I wasn't really surprised that each and every corresponding pixel lined up with mathematical accuracy.
And I know that your 3D work corresponds to the real World, you can't fake it because the Locations and objects all exist and thus can be checked.

Btw I had a second look at Griffith's Zapruder alterationist page and I don't think I saw even one special effects artist with celluloid experience give an opinion, I'm sure that if Griffith was "Honest" he would have approached at least one SFX specialist and I guarantee that they would flat out say that what he proposes is off with the fairies. Kinda Like Sandy Larson over at the ED Forum who when Zapruder fakery come up, he shows appropriately a "cartoon" GIF of Penguins dancing with a smoothly panning Dick Van Dyke who's outlined by heavy matte artefacts, whereas the Zapruder film is literally a shaky hand held shot with perfectly blended motion blur on each and every microscopic film grain. The fact that he believes that a cartoon with a badly superimposed actor is representative of the complexities of altering the infinitely more intricate Zapruder Film boggles the mind!

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

First of all, your Maths is wrong, Zapruder frames from Z277 to Z287 is 11 frames! Oops! We're not off to a good start, are we.

Secondly my earlier GIF starts at Z176 and ends at Z296 and since I emphasized that I was focusing on the natural movement of his son, the animation obviously will run slightly slower than the original, and by the way in your text in the PDF that you linked to, you state that Brehm's son started from a standing position, how did you come to that conclusion because Frame Z276 shows Brehm's son already in motion stepping out from behind his dad.

Anyway, so you can't nit pick over insignificant details here's your "11" Zapruder frames from Z177 to Z187 in real time and each cycle is 0.6 seconds which is virtually identical to 11/18.3 and we see nothing even closely resembling superhuman, just normal expected movement! Why do you think that at a point in the Zapruder film where nothing happens, they would alter Brehm's son, do you think he was one of the assassin's with a killer water pistol?

JohnM

It's 10 frames, if not arguably nine frames, (1) because his movement does not become discernible until Z279, and (2) because he has completed the movement of his feet in Z287. In saying 10 frames, I've been giving the benefit of the doubt to the duration of the movement. In point of fact, one could plausibly argue that the movement begins in Z279, because he appears to be in virtually the same exact position in Z278 as he does in Z277. I decided to err on the side of caution and assume he began to make the movement in Z278, with Z277 being his starting-point position.

But, let's say 11 frames for the sake of argument. 11 frames is 0.61 seconds--as opposed to 0.56 seconds for 10 frames, a whopping difference of 0.05 seconds (or 1/20th/second). Okay, 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. I did a reenactment with one of my sons, and he could not even come close to doing those movements in that amount of time.

I take it you're not going to address all the other points I made.

[Royell Storing]

It's 10 frames, if not arguably nine frames, (1) because his movement does not become discernible until Z279, and (2) because he has completed the movement of his feet in Z287. In saying 10 frames, I've been giving the benefit of the doubt to the duration of the movement. In point of fact, one could plausibly argue that the movement begins in Z279, because he appears to be in virtually the same exact position in Z278 as he does in Z277. I decided to err on the side of caution and assume he began to make the movement in Z278, with Z277 being his starting-point position.

But, let's say 11 frames for the sake of argument. 11 frames is 0.61 seconds--as opposed to 0.56 seconds for 10 frames, a whopping difference of 0.05 seconds (or 1/20th/second). Okay, 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. I did a reenactment with one of my sons, and he could not even come close to doing those movements in that amount of time.

I take it you're not going to address all the other points I made.

    I'm waiting on John too. It seems if he can tear into a CT related issue/image(s), he does so Immediately. His failure to respond indicates he has been unable to find anything to debunk or even challenge the issue at hand. At some point, the frustration of being unable to debunk a CT posting usually produces a "cartoon" response. This is not uncommon on this Forum. Personally, I regard cartoon responses and general joke responses as the waving of a White Flag. In short, "They got nothing".

[Michael T. Griffith]

    I'm waiting on John too. It seems if he can tear into a CT related issue/image(s), he does so Immediately. His failure to respond indicates he has been unable to find anything to debunk or even challenge the issue at hand. At some point, the frustration of being unable to debunk a CT posting usually produces a "cartoon" response. This is not uncommon on this Forum. Personally, I regard cartoon responses and general joke responses as the waving of a White Flag. In short, "They got nothing".

As I've said for many years, if WC apologists want us to believe that Brehm's son could have performed those movements in the time required by the Zapruder film, all they have to do is duplicate the alleged performance in a reenactment and post a video of the reenactment. This should be a simple, easy thing to do, to believe their polemic on the issue.

My OP does not even mention some of the most glaring, unsolvable conflicts between eyewitness accounts and the lone-gunman theory. Some additional examples:

-- All three autopsy doctors said there was a fragment trail that ran from the EOP entry site up to a point just above the right orbit, and the autopsy report describes this fragment trail. However, (1) even the WC recognized that JFK would have had to be leaning about 60 degrees forward for a bullet from the alleged sniper's nest to have created this fragment trail, and (2) astonishingly, no such fragment trail appears on the existing autopsy x-rays.

-- The autopsy report and the autopsy doctors never mentioned the high fragment trail, yet the trail is brazenly obvious on the lateral skull x-rays. A first-year medical student could spot it. That trail is at least 2 inches above the trail described in the autopsy report and in the autopsy doctors' other statements.

-- Numerous, and I mean numerous, eyewitness accounts document that pieces of brain tissue from JFK's brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces, and several eyewitnesses who saw JFK's wounded head (including mortician Tom Robinson) said that at least one-quarter to over one-half of the brain was missing, as I document in my book. But, according to Vincent Bugliosi, no more than two ounces of brain tissue were missing from JFK's brain. Why did Bugliosi make this stunning claim? Because the autopsy brain photos show virtually no missing brain tissue. Dr. Baden assured Bugliosi that the brain photos showed no more than "an ounce or two" of missing brain tissue.

Moreover, the autopsy skull x-rays show that at over half of the right side of the brain was missing, in harmony with the witnesses who said that a substantial portion of the brain was blown out. Heck, Humes himself told JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away." No such damage is seen in the autopsy brain photos.

-- Every single autopsy witness who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was where the autopsy doctors placed it in the autopsy report: they said it was slightly above and to the right of the EOP. But that's impossible if the autopsy brain photos are authentic, because a bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum and part of the rear area of the right occipital lobe, yet the brain photos show a virtually undamaged cerebellum and right occipital lobe, as the HSCA medical experts pointed out to the autopsy doctors.

I document all these points in my book.

And on and on we could go.

[Royell Storing]

  Did you read the series of books that Doug Horne penned detailing the work of the ARRB? Part of that series detailed the general autopsy, X-Rays, Photos, etc. I believe they got in to the JFK brain sectioning. Both Horne and Gunn agreed that there was 2 "autopsies" of some degree. Gunn even questioned Humes for the final time. By then, Humes was pretty old and spilling info that he previously withheld. Including how much earlier he 1st saw the JFK Casket/Body being delivered to the Bethesda Morgue. Earlier than Jackie and the JFK Hearse/Casket arrived.

[Michael T. Griffith]

  Did you read the series of books that Doug Horne penned detailing the work of the ARRB? Part of that series detailed the general autopsy, X-Rays, Photos, etc. I believe they got in to the JFK brain sectioning. Both Horne and Gunn agreed that there was 2 "autopsies" of some degree. Gunn even questioned Humes for the final time. By then, Humes was pretty old and spilling info that he previously withheld. Including how much earlier he 1st saw the JFK Casket/Body being delivered to the Bethesda Morgue. Earlier than Jackie and the JFK Hearse/Casket arrived.

Yes, I've read Doug Horne's five-volume work Inside the Assassination Records Review Board and also just about everything he has published online.

One of the most valuable facts that Horne has uncovered is the fact that Fink was excluded from one of the two brain exams. This could explain why Finck told the ARRB that there was "extensive damage" done to the cerebellum. He obviously was not describing the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos, which shows no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum except for one tiny piece of tissue partially dislodged on the bottom of the cerebellum.

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that the HSCA medical experts believed the rear head entry wound could not be near the EOP is that they accepted (or said they accepted) the autopsy brain photos as authentic. They hammered the autopsy doctors on the virtually intact/undamaged condition of the cerebellum and the rear of the right occipital lobe in the brain photos. Dr. Loquvam pounced on Finck regarding this enormous, glaring contradiction, and Finck admitted he could not explain it. Dr. Petty literally yelled at Dr. Humes off-the-record over his refusal to acknowledge that the brain photos made the EOP entry site impossible.

Yet, years later, the autopsy doctors were vindicated on the EOP entry site, and now even Dr. Sturdivan and the super-cautious Pat Speer acknowledge that the EOP entry site is correct (but neither of them can explain why the autopsy brain photos so drastically contradict the EOP site--Sturdivan hasn't even tried).

[John Mytton]

It's 10 frames, if not arguably nine frames, (1) because his movement does not become discernible until Z279, and (2) because he has completed the movement of his feet in Z287. In saying 10 frames, I've been giving the benefit of the doubt to the duration of the movement. In point of fact, one could plausibly argue that the movement begins in Z279, because he appears to be in virtually the same exact position in Z278 as he does in Z277. I decided to err on the side of caution and assume he began to make the movement in Z278, with Z277 being his starting-point position.

But, let's say 11 frames for the sake of argument. 11 frames is 0.61 seconds--as opposed to 0.56 seconds for 10 frames, a whopping difference of 0.05 seconds (or 1/20th/second). Okay, 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. I did a reenactment with one of my sons, and he could not even come close to doing those movements in that amount of time.

I take it you're not going to address all the other points I made.

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.

I take it you're not going to address all the other points I made.

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