Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 21222 times)

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2023, 08:38:50 AM »
Advertisement
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 #56 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 #57 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 »

Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2769
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #58 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 #58 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 #59 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 »

Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2769
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #60 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 #60 on: December 12, 2023, 06:35:53 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #61 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 »

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #62 on: December 12, 2023, 11:04:29 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.

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

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #63 on: December 13, 2023, 01:12:36 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2023, 03:45:21 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #63 on: December 13, 2023, 01:12:36 PM »