Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory

[John Mytton]

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.

Well since you were provably wrong re this "key point", here's a another massive blunder that will need addressing, you label your Zapruder Frame 380 when in fact the actual frame you posted is Z375, I hope this embarrassment isn't in your book because that may be difficult to correct! It's no wonder with this level of research, you get everything wrong.

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

I have been getting through some of the more ridiculous misrepresentations and your outrageous "observations" and so far your responses are what I expect from your faith bound delusions.

Anyway you state on your Deceptive JFK Alteration PDF that JFK's limo either slowed or stopped, of which there is a distinct difference but what the heck, let's hedge our bets, whatever it takes, eh Griffith.

Anyway a dramatic slow down at the time of the head shot can be seen in the following panorama viewing of the Zapruder Film.

Btw the score so far
Mytton 5 vs Griffith 0

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

MG: 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.

Well since you were provably wrong re this "key point",

This is clownish polemic. Which Zapruder frame even shows Hill touching Jackie, much less grabbing her and putting her back in her seat? Please show it to us.

It is amazing that you make such absurd claims with such adamance. Yet, you duck facts that you can't explain and decline to provide evidence when asked to do so.

So let me repeat: Show us the Zapruder frame where Hill even touches Jackie, much less grabs her and puts her back in her seat. I'm going to keep repeating this challenge until you address it.

here's a another massive blunder that will need addressing, you label your Zapruder Frame 380 when in fact the actual frame you posted is Z375, I hope this embarrassment isn't in your book because that may be difficult to correct! It's no wonder with this level of research, you get everything wrong.

A "massive blunder"? Hill's and Jackie's positions and locations in Z375 are virtually identical to their positions and locations in Z380.

But, yes, you are correct that my article mislabels Z375 as Z380. This occurred because I used the Z frame that Cranor uses in her article, and I incorrectly assumed that she was using Z380, since she notes that Jackie begins to retreat in Z381, when in fact I see now that she uses Z375.

I'll be happy to change the frame in my article from Z375 to Z380, since Z380 is just as devastating as Z375 in proving that the current Zapruder film demonstrably contradicts the Nix film regarding how close Hill came to Jackie and Jackie's movements.

I have been getting through some of the more ridiculous misrepresentations and your outrageous "observations" and so far your responses are what I expect from your faith bound delusions.

Oh, so you're another anti-religious bigot. FYI, my faith has nothing to do with my observations about the Zapruder film. Plenty of non-religious and/or atheistic/agnostic researchers have noted that the Nix film severely contradicts the Zapruder film, that the limo never markedly slows or stops in the Zapruder film, that Brehm's son moves far too quickly, etc., etc.

Anyway you state on your Deceptive JFK Alteration PDF that JFK's limo either slowed or stopped, of which there is a distinct difference but what the heck, let's hedge our bets, whatever it takes, eh Griffith.

You again show that your command of written English is poor, one could even say "amateurish." When you're addressing someone by name, you always, always, always put a comma before the name if it comes at the end of the statement (and after the name if the name is stated first). You can Google this basic fact of punctuation, if you don't believe me.

Anyway, leaving aside your apparent lack of higher education, I do not merely say "slowed or stopped" or "stopped or slowed" in my article: I say "stopped or slowed down markedly for at least a second or two," "came to a full stop or slowed down markedly," and "Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the current Zapruder film."

Why did you misrepresent what I said? Surely you knew there's a difference between saying "slowed down" and "slowed down markedly."

Anyway a dramatic slow down at the time of the head shot can be seen in the following panorama viewing of the Zapruder Film.

Just shaking my head. This is both comical and discrediting. Where is the "dramatic slow down" in your video??? Where is it??? This is another one of your fraudulent, deceptive productions, not to mention another prime example of your habit of severely exaggerating. There is no "dramatic slow down" in your "panorama viewing" version.

Moreover, many of the witnesses specified that they saw the limo stop or markedly slow down after they heard the first shot, well before the Z313 shot.

The only slowdown that any expert has detected in the Zapruder film is the split-second slowing of the limousine in Z295-304. Dr. Luis Alvarez detected this half-second slowdown after carefully studying the film frame by frame, and Dr. Art Snyder confirmed Alvarez's finding. When you watch the film at normal speed, this slowdown is imperceptible. Even if know about it in advance and are carefully looking for it, even then it's barely noticeable, because it's so brief. No one can seriously suggest that this imperceptible or barely noticeable half-second slowdown is the event that dozens of witnesses described as a complete stop or a marked slowdown.

And, by the way, just on a point of basic English, you can't say "panorama viewing." "Panorama" is a noun, not an adjective. You should have said "panoramic viewing," not "panorama viewing." Did you ever attend college?

Btw the score so far
Mytton 5 vs Griffith 0

JohnM

Oh, gee, are we in high school or something? This is juvenile, immature polemic, the kind of stuff one would expect from a teenager.

When are you going to address all the points that I have presented to you but that you have so far ignored?

Finally, allow me to give you another lesson in basic English writing. "Btw" should be "BTW" because it's an abbreviation where each letter stands for a word, as in "FYI" and "ASAP." And "vs" should be "vs." You need a period after the s. Check the Cambridge Dictionary online, if you don't believe me.

[Royell Storing]

  He's still smarting from Providing his copy of the NIX FILM, which I turned around on him and used as the foundational Proof that a WHITE SHIRT MAN moved UP The Steps and disappeared into darkness. Stay On-Topic, On-Fact. Don't permit your FACTS to get buried in a degenerating Food Fight. And do Not be shy about taking your Victory Lap when he and his type get desperately to the point of flat-out misrepresentation followed by slander. This poor soul has now crossed into that territory.   

[John Mytton]

This is clownish polemic. Which Zapruder frame even shows Hill touching Jackie, much less grabbing her and putting her back in her seat? Please show it to us.

It is amazing that you make such absurd claims with such adamance. Yet, you duck facts that you can't explain and decline to provide evidence when asked to do so.

So let me repeat: Show us the Zapruder frame where Hill even touches Jackie, much less grabs her and puts her back in her seat. I'm going to keep repeating this challenge until you address it.

A "massive blunder"? Hill's and Jackie's positions and locations in Z375 are virtually identical to their positions and locations in Z380.

But, yes, you are correct that my article mislabels Z375 as Z380. This occurred because I used the Z frame that Cranor uses in her article, and I incorrectly assumed that she was using Z380, since she notes that Jackie begins to retreat in Z381, when in fact I see now that she uses Z375.

I'll be happy to change the frame in my article from Z375 to Z380, since Z380 is just as devastating as Z375 in proving that the current Zapruder film demonstrably contradicts the Nix film regarding how close Hill came to Jackie and Jackie's movements.

Oh, so you're another anti-religious bigot. FYI, my faith has nothing to do with my observations about the Zapruder film. Plenty of non-religious and/or atheistic/agnostic researchers have noted that the Nix film severely contradicts the Zapruder film, that the limo never markedly slows or stops in the Zapruder film, that Brehm's son moves far too quickly, etc., etc.

You again show that your command of written English is poor, one could even say "amateurish." When you're addressing someone by name, you always, always, always put a comma before the name. You can Google this basic fact of punctuation, if you don't believe me.

Anyway, leaving aside your apparent lack of higher education, I do not merely say "slowed or stopped" or "stopped or slowed" in my article: I say "stopped or slowed down markedly for at least a second or two," "came to a full stop or slowed down markedly," and "Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the current Zapruder film."

Why did you misrepresent what I said? Surely you knew there's a difference between saying "slowed down" and "slowed down markedly."

Just shaking my head. This is both comical and discrediting. Where is the "dramatic slow down" in your video??? Where is it??? This is another one of your fraudulent, deceptive productions, not to mention another prime example of your habit of severely exaggerating. There is no "dramatic slow down" in your "panorama viewing" version.

Moreover, many of the witnesses specified that they saw the limo stop or markedly slow down after they heard the first shot, well before the Z313 shot.

The only slowdown that any expert has detected in the Zapruder film is the split-second slowing of the limousine in Z295-304. Dr. Luis Alvarez detected this half-second slowdown after carefully studying the film frame by frame, and Dr. Art Snyder confirmed Alvarez's finding. When you watch the film at normal speed, this slowdown is imperceptible. Even if know about it in advance and are carefully looking for it, even then it's barely noticeable, because it's so brief. No one can seriously suggest that this imperceptible or barely noticeable half-second slowdown is the event that dozens of witnesses described as a complete stop or a marked slowdown.

And, by the way, just on a point of basic English, you can't say "panorama viewing." "Panorama" is a noun, not an adjective. You should have said "panoramic viewing," not "panorama viewing." Did you ever attend college?

Oh, gee, are we in high school or something? This is juvenile, immature polemic, the kind of stuff one would expect from a teenager.

When are you going to address all the points that I have presented to you but that you have so far ignored?

Finally, allow me to give you another lesson in basic English writing. "Btw" should be "BTW" because it's an abbreviation where each letter stands for a word, as in "FYI" and "ASAP." And "vs" should be "vs." You need a period after the s. Check the Cambridge Dictionary online, if you don't believe me.

Which Zapruder frame even shows Hill touching Jackie, much less grabbing her and putting her back in her seat? Please show it to us.

I already posted not one frame but an entire sequence, Clint Hill is on the back of a moving vehicle, with one arm Clint is holding on for dear life and he grabs Jackie with his other arm and pushes her back to her seat.

So let me repeat: Show us the Zapruder frame where Hill even touches Jackie, much less grabs her and puts her back in her seat. I'm going to keep repeating this challenge until you address it.

You can keep repeating it till the cows come home, but it won't change the visual record.

But, yes, you are correct that my article mislabels Z375 as Z380. This occurred because I used the Z frame that Cranor uses in her article, and I incorrectly assumed that she was using Z380, since she notes that Jackie begins to retreat in Z381, when in fact I see now that she uses Z375.

Thank you, but trying to blame someone else for your lack of fact checking is just par for the course for you isn't it! Man up!

I'll be happy to change the frame in my article from Z375 to Z380, since Z380 is just as devastating as Z375 in proving that the current Zapruder film demonstrably contradicts the Nix film regarding how close Hill came to Jackie and Jackie's movements.

When you were busy studying grammar in school you obviously forgot to learn about perspective and for that matter a little education on film alteration certainly would have stopped you looking like a Fool, anyway Zapruder and Nix were filming from opposite sides of Dealey Plaza.

In the following example, 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.

Oh, gee, are we in high school or something? This is juvenile, immature polemic, the kind of stuff one would expect from a teenager.

Wow! English wasn't my first language or as a matter of fact not even my second, but the fact that you are reduced to pointing out insignificant grammatical errors and then using this feeble excuse as an attempt to belittle me demonstrates your laughable superiority complex. Do you feel better now you sad little man?

Oh, so you're another anti-religious bigot. FYI, my faith has nothing to do with my observations about the Zapruder film. Plenty of non-religious and/or atheistic/agnostic researchers have noted that the Nix film severely contradicts the Zapruder film, that the limo never markedly slows or stops in the Zapruder film, that Brehm's son moves far too quickly, etc., etc.

Wow times two, you have so many chips on your shoulders, "faith" isn't always associated with religion as in "his faith in the company was unfounded".
I really don't care on how you spend your Sundays but do you believe that your GOD would approve of the unwarranted attacks that you have inflicted upon me because aren't religious type people supposed to lead by example?

Did you ever attend college?

Well not for English, no. But perhaps if you focused on science, perspective, biology and physics you wouldn't be completely embarrassing yourself right now.

Finally, allow me to give you another lesson in basic English writing. "Btw" should be "BTW" because it's an abbreviation where each letter stands for a word, as in "FYI" and "ASAP."

Does it have to be capitalized? In informal, online communication, many people think of capitalization as optional. If you're using BTW in such a setting, go ahead and leave it in lowercase.
https://websitebuilders.com/how-to/glossary/btw/#:~:text=of%20our%20lexicon.-,Does%20it%20have%20to%20be%20capitalized%3F,and%20leave%20it%20in%20lowercase.

In common usage, these acronyms are rarely capitalized: omg, btw, nsfw.
https://www.writingforward.com/grammar/grammar-rules/grammar-rules-capitalization#:~:text=In%20common%20usage%2C%20these%20acronyms,%3A%20OMG%2C%20BTW%2C%20NSFW.

Anyway Griffith, thanks for the English lesson but I got each and every point across and at the end of the day language is used to communicate ideas, whereas you ended up looking like the aggressive overbearing Troll that you are, who can't win with his science, so instead uses irrelevant personal attacks.

Bye.

[John Mytton]

Why did you misrepresent what I said? Surely you knew there's a difference between saying "slowed down" and "slowed down markedly."

Have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stopped"? LOL!

As I pointed out from my panoramic(thanks for the correction) stabilization, we can see the obvious dramatic slow down.



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

I already posted not one frame but an entire sequence, Clint Hill is on the back of a moving vehicle, with one arm Clint is holding on for dear life and he grabs Jackie with his other arm and pushes her back to her seat.

You can keep repeating it till the cows come home, but it won't change the visual record.

Uh, this is long after the sequence under discussion. I was referring to the sequence before Z381, but I did not make this clear. Yes, of course, starting at Z387, we see Hill grabbing Jackie's right arm as he starts to put her back in the limo. This'll have to be one of those cases of "standing by what I meant to say." Given my wording, your response is understandable.

Thank you, but trying to blame someone else for your lack of fact checking is just par for the course for you isn't it! Man up!

Now you're just lying. I said I was the one who mistakenly assumed that Cranor was using Z380.

It says much that you are pouncing on a minor mistake that makes no substantive difference to my case, since Jackie and Hill's locations and positions in Z375 and Z380 are virtually identical.

When you were busy studying grammar in school you obviously forgot to learn about perspective and for that matter a little education on film alteration certainly would have stopped you looking like a Fool, anyway Zapruder and Nix were filming from opposite sides of Dealey Plaza.

You're lying again. I said, in plain English, that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sides of the car. How did you miss that? And your own diagram shows that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, just as I noted.

In the following example, 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.

This is self-delusion. You can fiddle with graphics all you want, but anyone can plainly see that at no point before Z383 does Hill ever get close to Jackie. Your refusal to admit this is astounding. His right hand never gets near Jackie's right arm until Z387, and his head never comes close to Jackie's head, until perhaps in Z400. In Z380 his head is a good 3 feet from Jackie's head, but in the corresponding Nix frame their heads are so close they look like they could be touching.

Indeed, in the Nix film, Hill gets very close to Jackie before she starts to move backward, and, as I've noted previously, Jackie is much lower and closer to the trunk than she ever gets in the corresponding Z-film sequence. In fact, even in Z385, her right arm is not as parallel to the trunk and her body is not as close to the trunk as it is in the corresponding Nix sequence.

If you say that you just don't see these things, then I say that you're either lying or your eyesight is bad.

Wow! English wasn't my first language or as a matter of fact not even my second, but the fact that you are reduced to pointing out insignificant grammatical errors and then using this feeble excuse as an attempt to belittle me demonstrates your laughable superiority complex. Do you feel better now you sad little man?

Boo-hoo. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. From your first reply to me onward, your responses have been laced with insults, insinuations, and sarcasm, accusing me of being an "amateur," giving me 0 on your delusional scorecard and giving yourself 5, etc. If you're gonna engage in such posturing, don't whine when I point out your writing errors and apparent lack of education.

Wow times two, you have so many chips on your shoulders, "faith" isn't always associated with religion as in "his faith in the company was unfounded".
I really don't care on how you spend your Sundays but do you believe that your GOD would approve of the unwarranted attacks that you have inflicted upon me because aren't religious type people supposed to lead by example?

If you don't want to be called out for being an anti-religious bigot, then don't act like one--don't imply that my views on the JFK case are somehow based on my religious beliefs, which you clearly did.

Well not for English, no. But perhaps if you focused on science, perspective, biology and physics you wouldn't be completely embarrassing yourself right now.

Does it have to be capitalized? In informal, online communication, many people think of capitalization as optional. If you're using BTW in such a setting, go ahead and leave it in lowercase.
https://websitebuilders.com/how-to/glossary/btw/#:~:text=of%20our%20lexicon.-,Does%20it%20have%20to%20be%20capitalized%3F,and%20leave%20it%20in%20lowercase.

In common usage, these acronyms are rarely capitalized: omg, btw, nsfw.
https://www.writingforward.com/grammar/grammar-rules/grammar-rules-capitalization#:~:text=In%20common%20usage%2C%20these%20acronyms,%3A%20OMG%2C%20BTW%2C%20NSFW.

"Common usage"? "Many people think of capitalization as optional." Yes, and many people are poorly educated and look for excuses for their poor writing. How long did you have to search to find two websites that would say that in "common usage" capitalization is "optional"?

Anyway Griffith, thanks for the English lesson but I got each and every point across and at the end of the day language is used to communicate ideas, whereas you ended up looking like the aggressive overbearing Troll that you are, who can't win with his science, so instead uses irrelevant personal attacks.

Again, Crybaby, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you don't want your poor writing skills and education called out, stop acting like a jerk and stop posturing like anyone who disagrees with you knows nothing about "science, perspective, biology and physics."

And, BTW, I'd put my knowledge of those subjects up against yours any day.

Bye.

Bye, bye.

[Jerry Organ]

Uh, this is long after the sequence under discussion. I was referring to the sequence before Z381, but I did not make this clear. Yes, of course, starting at Z387, we see Hill grabbing Jackie's right arm as he starts to put her back in the limo. This'll have to be one of those cases of "standing by what I meant to say." Given my wording, your response is understandable.

Now you're just lying. I said I was the one who mistakenly assumed that Cranor was using Z380.

It says much that you are pouncing on a minor mistake that makes no substantive difference to my case, since Jackie and Hill's locations and positions in Z375 and Z380 are virtually identical.

You're lying again. I said, in plain English, that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sides of the car. How did you miss that? And your own diagram shows that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, just as I noted.

This is self-delusion. You can fiddle with graphics all you want, but anyone can plainly see that at no point before Z383 does Hill ever get close to Jackie. Your refusal to admit this is astounding. His right hand never gets near Jackie's right arm until Z387, and his head never comes close to Jackie's head, until perhaps in Z400. In Z380 his head is a good 3 feet from Jackie's head, but in the corresponding Nix frame their heads are so close they look like they could be touching.

Indeed, in the Nix film, Hill gets very close to Jackie before she starts to move backward, and, as I've noted previously, Jackie is much lower and closer to the trunk than she ever gets in the corresponding Z-film sequence. In fact, even in Z385, her right arm is not as parallel to the trunk and her body is not as close to the trunk as it is in the corresponding Nix sequence.

If you say that you just don't see these things, then I say that you're either lying or your eyesight is bad.

Boo-hoo. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. From your first reply to me onward, your responses have been laced with insults, insinuations, and sarcasm, accusing me of being an "amateur," giving me 0 on your delusional scorecard and giving yourself 5, etc. If you're gonna engage in such posturing, don't whine when I point out your writing errors and apparent lack of education.

If you don't want to be called out for being an anti-religious bigot, then don't act like one--don't imply that my views on the JFK case are somehow based on my religious beliefs, which you clearly did.

"Common usage"? "Many people think of capitalization as optional." Yes, and many people are poorly educated and look for excuses for their poor writing. How long did you have to search to find two websites that would say that in "common usage" capitalization is "optional"?

Again, Crybaby, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you don't want your poor writing skills and education called out, stop acting like a jerk and stop posturing like anyone who disagrees with you knows nothing about "science, perspective, biology and physics."

And, BTW, I'd put my knowledge of those subjects up against yours any day.

Bye, bye.

What an obnoxious xxxxx.

[Michael T. Griffith]

What an obnoxious xxxxx.

Jerry, no one asked you to describe yourself, but thanks for sharing. You left out that you're an anti-religious bigot.

You are perhaps the biggest xxxxx and annoying propagandist ever to post on this board. I can't count how many times I've caught you posting utterly bogus graphics and showing a comical lack of knowledge, not to mention bald-faced lying, such as when you claimed that James DiEugenio resoundingly bested me on the Vietnam War in our exchanges in the Education Forum, when anyone can read our exchanges and see that I trounced DiEugenio and that he knows very little about the war.