The lapel flip -- what did i miss?

[Dan O'meara]

Can you not answer a simple question? Why are you avoiding answering?

What we see is not the issue. We can't see the arm between z223 and z225.

The issue is whether the jacket movement has no other explanation than a bullet strike. (I am not convinced the a bullet strike is even a possible explanation, but that is a separate matter. I don't want to argue Lattimer's theory). . We seem to agree that arm movement could cause jacket movement.  So I am not sure why you think it can be eliminated as a possibility. And you just avoid answering and accuse me of putting words in your mouth.
 

What was the question?

[Andrew Mason]

What was the question?

"Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were (or could be) moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224). 

And depending on the answer to that question I had a follow-up question:

If so, how is that ruled out as a possible cause of the jacket movement?

OR

If not, how can you tell it is not moving across the front of his jacket? 

[Andrew Mason]

Jerry had mentioned it and it is apparent in some of the tactics he uses in debate.
But he's in a position I hope never to be in, where you invest so much time in a particular theory that you can't let it go.
I've had complete 180 degree turns on a couple of the big issues involving this case because the arguments/evidence left me no choice. It's something I believe I will always be prepared to do.

I assume that you realize that I can read this.  So I feel compelled to respond.

When I first read the Warren Report in the 1960's I was persuaded that the SBT was correct and that Oswald was guilty.   I became interested in the JFK assassination after seeing Stone's JFK and particularly after reading Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassin which was after seeing a documentary based on Garrison's book.

I decided to read the Warren Report again and looked at the testimony of witnesses. I started with John Connally.  I tried to find the point at which he said he was hit - after he had turned around to see JFK and as he turned back.  I couldn't find it anywhere.  So I read Nellie Connally's testimony.  I read the testimony of over a hundred witnesses and wrote a paper that I posted on the alt.assassinations.jfk newsgroup in 2001.  I also posted a comment on Ken Rahn's site: http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Single-Bullet_theory/Mason--SBT.html. 

At that point, I had not yet done a 3D model of Dealey Plaza and the car to work out the trajectory.  I didn't yet have the IOAA DVD of the zfilm.  I was also not aware of the Secret Service video done in December 1963 which shows the position of JFK after he is clear of the oak tree.  I also was not aware of Hickey's comment about seeing the hair on the right side of JFK's hair fly up at the time he heard the second shot. Someone on the newsgroup suggested that a shot at z273 or so did not fit with Hickey's observation. I remember that moment when I examined the hair in the frames I could see that hair movement just as Hickey had described it!   I became aware of Greer's testimony about his turns. I noticed how JBC suddenly started moving after z272 before he started falling back onto his wife.  All of that evidence identified a second shot striking JBC at z271-272.  All the evidence fit a 3 shot, 3 hit scenario with Oswald firing all 3 shots.

It is not that I am not willing to let go of a pet "theory".  I am not willing to ignore large bodies of evidence that are a) mutually consistent b) independent and c) not contradicted by other evidence.   I don't have a "theory".  I am just following what the evidence says.  The evidence is overwhelming and consistent that:
1. JFK was hit on the first shot.
2. JBC was not hit in the back on the first shot.
3. The shot pattern was 1.......2....3

If you can persuade me with evidence that rebuts that evidence I am all ears.  So far, no one has provided any.  Saying "it's obvious that the two men are both shot at z224" is not persuasive.   It is not because that conclusion does not fit with what we see in the zfilm.  It does. It just doesn't fit a whole lot of other independent bodies of evidence (which, of course, also fit perfectly with the zfilm).

I've mentioned the importance of a narrative in recent posts and as a CTer by default I'm satisfied with my understanding of the basics but now I've got to come up with "the big picture", the big Conspiracy. It's the only way I can construct my own narrative concerning this case.
I feel at this point, it would be easier to be an LNer.

Don't get bogged down in the details of the shots.  That will not tell you who was shooting.  The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was involved and there is absolutely no evidence that anyone else was involved.  It does not take much to put the dots together and conclude - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Oswald had his finger on the trigger.  For me, the shots just absolutely confirm that one person (Oswald) fired all three shots.

[Dan O'meara]

"Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were (or could be) moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224). 

I would have thought that a string of laughing emojis might have indicated to you how ridiculous I find this question.
No Andrew, I am not agreeing with you that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the 'lapel fllip' occurred.
No.
It is absolutely clear from my previous posts that I am not agreeing with this.

And depending on the answer to that question I had a follow-up question:

If so, how is that ruled out as a possible cause of the jacket movement?

OR

If not, how can you tell it is not moving across the front of his jacket?

Once again:
In z222 we see JBC's cuff just above the top of the door frame.
In z223 his cuff (and hand) have moved down below the top of the frame of the door (bullet strike)
His hand is moving downwards in z223.

How can I rule out that his hand isn't moving across the front of his jacket between z223 and z224?
Time and time again I have emphasised the incredibly small amount of time between each frame - 55 milliseconds.
The average time for the human eye to blink is around 100 milliseconds. The time between each frame is almost half this.
Half the time it takes to blink.

To try to prop up your doomed theory you are asking how I can rule out JBC's hand from moving downwards, to moving across the front of his jacket, causing the 'lapel flip', in half the time it takes to blink?

To spell it out in a way that even you will understand -
IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH A MOVEMENT IN SUCH AN INCREDIBLY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME!

How can I rule it out?
Because you are describing a physical impossibility.

[Andrew Mason]

I would have thought that a string of laughing emojis might have indicated to you how ridiculous I find this question.
No Andrew, I am not agreeing with you that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the 'lapel flip' occurred.
No.
It is absolutely clear from my previous posts that I am not agreeing with this.

Oh, like this statement in Post #27:

"And here we have the craziness.
Who said JBC's arm isn't moving? Are you implying I've said that?
Provide the quote please.
JBC's arm is in constant motion during the clip."

So, so am I correct in inferring that you are saying that his arm is possibly moving but not moving from right to left prior to z224 when the jacket moves?

If so, my question would have been:  how can you tell this from the zfilm when you cannot see his hand?  But now I see that you are just arguing that an arm cannot move a jacket in 55 ms. 

Once again:
In z222 we see JBC's cuff just above the top of the door frame.
In z223 his cuff (and hand) have moved down below the top of the frame of the door (bullet strike)
His hand is moving downwards in z223.

Not necessarily downward and, in any case, not completely downward. He could have moved it outward from his torso a bit causing the jacket to just fall open but putting the hand just out of sight but at the same height.

How can I rule out that his hand isn't moving across the front of his jacket between z223 and z224?
Time and time again I have emphasized the incredibly small amount of time between each frame - 55 milliseconds.
The average time for the human eye to blink is around 100 milliseconds. The time between each frame is almost half this.
Half the time it takes to blink.

Well, first of all, the jacket moved as much from z222 to z223, which would have been between 30 and 80 ms (ie. the maximum time being from the beginning of z222 to the end of exposure of z223, which is 55 ms + exposure time of 25 ms.  the minimum time from the end of z222 to the beginning of z223, which is 55 ms. less the 25 ms exposure time, or 30 ms.) How did that happen?

Second, if you are saying that a jacket cannot move 2 inches in 55 ms you are saying that a human cannot move their hand/jacket at a speed of 37 inches per second or about 3 feet per second?  If so, what are you basing that on?

To try to prop up your doomed theory you are asking how I can rule out JBC's hand from moving downwards, to moving across the front of his jacket, causing the 'lapel flip', in half the time it takes to blink?

To spell it out in a way that even you will understand -
IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH A MOVEMENT IN SUCH AN INCREDIBLY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME!

How can I rule it out?
Because you are describing a physical impossibility.

Again, how do you know is it impossible?  Have you tried it?

[Dan O'meara]

Oh, like this statement in Post #27:

"And here we have the craziness.
Who said JBC's arm isn't moving? Are you implying I've said that?
Provide the quote please.
JBC's arm is in constant motion during the clip."

So, so am I correct in inferring that you are saying that his arm is possibly moving but not moving from right to left prior to z224 when the jacket moves?

As usual, you are incorrect.
You said that I said his arm wasn't moving.
Another of your desperate ploys to misrepresent what I was saying.
I asked you to provide the quote where I said his arm wasn't moving.
But you couldn't.
Because you'd made it up (an 'untruth')

If so, my question would have been:  how can you tell this from the zfilm when you cannot see his hand?  But now I see that you are just arguing that an arm cannot move a jacket in 55 ms. 

Again, another one of your desperate ploys.
Provide the quote where I state an arm cannot move a jacket in 55ms
You can't.
Because I've never said that.
Just another of your 'untruths'.
Sad, really.

Not necessarily downward and, in any case, not completely downward. He could have moved it outward from his torso a bit causing the jacket to just fall open but putting the hand just out of sight but at the same height.

"Not necessarily downward and, in any case, not completely downward"

  Quality

Well, first of all, the jacket moved as much from z222 to z223, which would have been between 30 and 80 ms (ie. the maximum time being from the beginning of z222 to the end of exposure of z223, which is 55 ms + exposure time of 25 ms.  the minimum time from the end of z222 to the beginning of z223, which is 55 ms. less the 25 ms exposure time, or 30 ms.) How did that happen?

I wish you could hear how crazy you sound.

Second, if you are saying that a jacket cannot move 2 inches in 55 ms you are saying that a human cannot move their hand/jacket at a speed of 37 inches per second or about 3 feet per second?  If so, what are you basing that on?

Their "hand/jacket"??
WTF
Where did I say a jacket couldn't move 2 inches in 55ms?
Oh that's right, I didn't. It's just another of your lies...sorry, I meant "untruths"
Where did I say a human couldn't move their hand jacket ( ) about 3 feet per second?
Oh, that's right, I didn't.
I honestly don't know how fast a hand jacket can move 

Again, how do you know is it impossible?  Have you tried it?

Yes, and it can't be done.
Can you do it?
If so, post a video of you moving your hand jacket downward but not completely downward more like outward so it's looks a bit downward and then across the front ofyour hand jacket in 55 ms.
I don't think it can be done 

[Andrew Mason]

As usual, you are incorrect.
You said that I said his arm wasn't moving.

No. Here is how it went:

You asked me what the question was.

I responded with the question:

• "Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were (or could be) moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224).
  
  You responded:
  
  • "I would have thought that a string of laughing emojis might have indicated to you how ridiculous I find this question.
    No Andrew, I am not agreeing with you that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the 'lapel fllip' occurred.
    No.
    It is absolutely clear from my previous posts that I am not agreeing with this."
  
  I then responded quoting your then most recent post on the subject, which was:
  
  • "And here we have the craziness.
    Who said JBC's arm isn't moving? Are you implying I've said that?
    Provide the quote please.
    JBC's arm is in constant motion during the clip.'
    
  And I then asked:
  
  • "So, am I correct in inferring that you are saying that his arm is possibly moving but not moving from right to left prior to z224 when the jacket moves?"
  
  I thought that was a simple enough, honest question.  Since you said the arm is in constant motion, I just wanted to be clear that you were saying it just wasn't moving right to left.  And, if so, I wanted to understand the basis for you saying that it was in motion but not right to left.
  
  For some reason, you think that was a dishonest question. I wasn't accusing you of anything.  I just wanted to be clear on what you were saying and what you were basing it on.
  
  

  Another of your desperate ploys to misrepresent what I was saying.
  I asked you to provide the quote where I said his arm wasn't moving.
  But you couldn't.
  Because you'd made it up (an 'untruth')
  
  Again, another one of your desperate ploys.
  Provide the quote where I state an arm cannot move a jacket in 55ms
  You can't.
  Because I've never said that.
  Just another of your 'untruths'.
  Sad, really.
  
  "Not necessarily downward and, in any case, not completely downward"
  
    Quality
  
  I wish you could hear how crazy you sound.

  Like a 45 degree angle is downward but not completely downward.  I guess that is crazy to you for some reason.
  
  

  Their "hand/jacket"??
  WTF
  Where did I say a jacket couldn't move 2 inches in 55ms?
  Oh that's right, I didn't. It's just another of your lies...sorry, I meant "untruths"
  Where did I say a human couldn't move their hand jacket ( ) about 3 feet per second?

  I had understood you to say that the observed jacket motion from z223 to z224 could not be caused by the motion of hand or arm. That is 55 ms.  That is the issue under discussion.
  

  Oh, that's right, I didn't.
  I honestly don't know how fast a hand jacket can move 
  

  Are you trying to be cute?  The question is: on what basis can you say a hand or arm motion could not have caused the jacket to move as seen in the zfilm?
  
  

  Yes, and it can't be done.
  Can you do it?
  If so, post a video of you moving your hand jacket downward but not completely downward more like outward so it's looks a bit downward and then across the front of your hand jacket in 55 ms.
  I don't think it can be done 
  

  First of all, the time between the end of the exposure of z222 to the end of exposure of z224 is 110 ms.  The time between the beginning of the exposure of z222 to the end of exposure of z224 is 135 ms (exposure time being 1/40^th of a second or 25 ms.).
  
  Second, I don't know what you are referring to as "hand jacket" because that is not a term I have used.  I am referring to hand/jacket motion, which I was using to mean motion of the jacket caused by motion of the hand (or forearm).
  
  

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I found a copy of Lattimer's 1994 report re tests re Connally's lapel bulge flap flip at Z224.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lattimer%20John%20Dr/Item%2006.pdf
Lattimer's tests show that the flip goes from say 20% at his Frame-06 to say 90% at Frame-07.
His frames are 30 fps.  The Zapruder frames are 18.3 fps.
I said that reactions show that Oswald's shot-2 was at i reckoned Z218.  However, the Zapruder footage shows that the lapel flip happened (ie attained 100% flip or nearly) between Z223 & Z224.
Therefore i need to change my estimate for Oswald's shot-2 being at Z218, it was at Z219, or a fraction later than Z219.
At Z219 & Z220 Connally was hidden by the road signage – hence the Zapruder footage missed showing the cloud of debris that caused the bulge & the flip.

Lattimer said that his tests confirmed that the shot was at Z224.
NNOOOOOOOOO.
His sequence clearly shows that his lapel flip happened at his Frame-07 (ie just before Frame-07), not at his Frame-00.
His first photo is Frame-minus-01 if u like – it merely shows his "Connally" test dummy etc before the shot.
His first frame of his shot sequence is what i call Frame-00 – it shows that the shot & the debris cloud have already happened.  What i call Frame-07 is the 8th frame of his shot sequence.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52543820000/in/dateposted-public/

https://i.postimg.cc/hvCw3MrK/latimer-4-Copy-2.jpg