Who is sitting up in Zapruder @Z456?

[Susan Wilde]

Myers  C.A.D.-cartoons  are a total  joke.

Myers  deliberately-deceitful  lie's  were  simply and totally  exposed  by  Martin Hinrichs,  long ago,  as Myers  C.A.D.-lies  about the 6'0" JFK being Myers-bigger than the 6'2" Connally in the Myers/WC-swallower's to  (fail to)  try and force swallowing their impossible "magic-bullet theory"


http://i.imgur.com/PilOn44.gif


http://i.imgur.com/IbZFPSs.gif

[Brian Walker]

That qoute makes it clear that he was not sure of what she was doing. His opinion at that time actually should be considered less then anyone's opinion who has studied the Z-film.  So typical of someone like John to try and use a totally unreliable statement to try and debunk an obvious conclusion that is formed by what someone can see for themselves on video.

[John Mytton]

Myers  C.A.D.-cartoons  are a total  joke.

Myers  deliberately-deceitful  lie's  were  simply and totally  exposed  by  Martin Hinrichs,  long ago,  as Myers  C.A.D.-lies  about the 6'0" JFK being Myers-bigger than the 6'2" Connally in the Myers/WC-swallower's to  (fail to)  try and force swallowing their impossible "magic-bullet theory"


http://i.imgur.com/PilOn44.gif


http://i.imgur.com/IbZFPSs.gif

The original video is clearly falling away to the right because the images that you are misrepresenting were filmed off a TV screen. Doh!



In the following shot from the same video the shift in perspective is more than obvious showing that whoever made your nonsense was a complete noob.





JohnM

[John Mytton]

Kennedy and Connally were essential the same size when seated; most of the height difference was in the leg length.

The camera angle in the 3D clip was such that the bottoms of Kennedy and Connally appear to be nearly at the same level, but Connally's seat was lower and more inboard than Kennedys. This would be better seen in a profile-view with minimal perspective. This view instead has a lot of perspective. Kennedy simply appears larger because he's closer in space to the camera than Connally.



Here's a photo with a similar (though not the exact same) camera-view as the Myers 3D clip. One can see that Connally "appears" smaller than Kennedy. The Myers 3D clip is much more closer to the figures in the car than any photographer was on the day of the assassination (with the possible exception of a few pictures taken by Dillard at Love Field). Therefore the difference in the size of the figures is more pronounced in the 3D clip.


Photos taken from the opposite side that have some perspective (the camera is near the limousine) make Connally "appear" larger than Kennedy.




A film frame taken from the right side and to the front of the rollbar shows the two men roughly equal in size. This is because the angle results in Kennedy and Connally being equidistant from the camera (ie: Connally's jumpseat -- being more inboard than where Kennedy was seated -- is now closer in space to the camera, which brings Connally into the same plane as Kennedy, thus making them the same size to the camera).

The camera angle in the 3D clip was such that the bottoms of Kennedy and Connally appear to be nearly at the same level, but Connally's seat was lower and more inboard than Kennedys. This would be better seen in a profile-view with minimal perspective. This view instead has a lot of perspective. Kennedy simply appears larger because he's closer in space to the camera than Connally.

Hi Jerry, besides the footage being filmed off angle your above observation of how Connally was inset is another important factor that makes the Connally 3D model smaller.





JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

That qoute makes it clear that he was not sure of what she was doing. His opinion at that time actually should be considered less then anyone's opinion who has studied the Z-film.  So typical of someone like John to try and use a totally unreliable statement to try and debunk an obvious conclusion that is formed by what someone can see for themselves on video.

He was there.  The opinion of someone "studying" a film is nothing more than that.  Especially a grainy low-res film taken from a distance.

[John Mytton]

He was there.  The opinion of someone "studying" a film is nothing more than that.  Especially a grainy low-res film taken from a distance.

He was there.

So was Brennan.

The opinion of someone "studying" a film is nothing more than that.

How come you don't preach the same to the millions of CKs who say the Zapruder film shows shots from the Grassy Knoll?

Especially a grainy low-res film taken from a distance.

By definition all film is made up of film grain and Zapruder used a telephoto lens so what point are you trying to make?



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

So was Brennan.

You mean the guy who failed to identify Oswald in a lineup?

How come you don't preach the same to the millions of CKs who say the Zapruder film shows shots from the Grassy Knoll?

I do.  And I've told you a million times not to exaggerate...

By definition all film is made up of film grain and Zapruder used a telephoto lens so what point are you trying to make?

That people on both sides see what they expect to see in the film and then tack on the word "clearly" as if that means anything.

[John Mytton]

You mean the guy who failed to identify Oswald in a lineup?

I do.  And I've told you a million times not to exaggerate...

That people on both sides see what they expect to see in the film and then tack on the word "clearly" as if that means anything.

You mean the guy who failed to identify Oswald in a lineup?

What?, an unfair lineup?, no wonder Brennan was hesitant. Brennan's testimony under oath can only be an honest recollection.

I do.  And I've told you a million times not to exaggerate...

Isn't it about 60% of the US population believe in a JFK conspiracy which makes a number of about 200,000,000 and it's safe to say that a fair percentage formed this opinion based on the "back and to the left" in Zapruder, so my original point is hardly an exaggeration.

That people on both sides see what they expect to see in the film and then tack on the word "clearly" as if that means anything.

For a start my original post that you responded to said "reasonably clearly" and secondly there is a lot of misinterpretation in Zapruder but when you use the Zapruder film in addition to the physical evidence then everything becomes clear.



JohnM