Hi Robin, thanks for the GIF. I see the usual uninformed noise over at the ED Forum with their endless brainless accusations! -sigh-
Anyway the following comparison of Nix and Zapruder shows the relative speed of Kennedy's Limo and also as an added bonus, Jerry Organ did an excellent study of why Hill and Jackie on the trunk are the exact same event but just from two differing perspectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3925.msg156989.html#msg156989After presenting a graphic of why Jackie and Hill appear as the do in Nix and Zapruder, Griffith called me "total clown" with a side helping of "dishonest, erroneous bluster", so I decided with the help of Jerry Organ's exemplary 3D work to address yet another one of Griffith's amateur observations.
With regards to the so called "problem" of Jackie and Hill on the trunk of the Limo when viewed from the respective angles of Nix and Zapruder, Griffith shows a childlike understanding of perspective, so I simply explained that the original positions of Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza and hence the different filming angles created differing perspectives, but as can be seen in the replies below, Griffith doubles down on his amateur stupidity and absurdly said the angles from Nix and Zapruder were not much different?!??
Following is my original graphic explaining why Hill and Jackie appear as they do in Nix and Zapruder and then two of Griffith's posts which conclusively show the preposterous arrogance which exemplifies the typical illogical insanity of the hardcore, close minded conspiracy theorist.
Howling Betsy!!!
--------------
I'll address your drivel about the supposedly drastically different Nix and Zapruder camera angles by asking you a simple question: If the Nix and Zapruder camera angles are drastically different, how do you explain the fact that the Nix and Zapruder frames show the respective rear tires, the respective sides of the rear bumper, and the respective sides of Jackie and Agent Hill? How can this be if the camera angles are drastically different?
This is just more of your dishonest, erroneous bluster. Anyone with two working eyes can see that the camera angles are quite similar. That's why both Z380 and the corresponding Nix frame show the rear wheel on their side, show their end of the rear bumper, show the respective sides of Jackie's and Hill's bodies. This would not be the case if the viewing angles were markedly different. Apparently you just don't care or realize that your own Dealey Plaza-diagram graphic shows that the viewing angles are not all that different.
Again, as is readily apparent to anyone who isn't committed to denying what they can see, in Z380 Jackie's head is clearly at least 3 feet from Hill's head, and Jackie's right hand and Hill's hands are at least 1 foot apart, but in the Nix frame their heads almost appear to be touching, with no space between them, and Hill's left hand appears to be beyond Jackie's right hand. You can delude yourself into believing that this is just a gigantic optical illusion caused by drastically different camera angles, but few people are going to join you in your self-delusion.
Anyway, after my above graphics were met with an avalanche of unwarranted Ad Hominins and ridiculous justifications, I went to Jerry to help me visualize an irrefutable response, so as to finally put this bizarre nonsense to bed. Then Jerry went to work with the occasional suggestion from me and fine tuned and polished this recreation with an incredible level of precision.
And ta-da this is the result!1 First of all match the 3D models with Zapruder.
2. Secondly match the 3D models with Nix.
3. Thirdly was to create a rotating GIF with nearly 100 frames of the 3D models being immovable statues and thus proving beyond all doubt that there was never any trickery or faking, because as I repeatedly explained to Griffith, this SFX work that Griffith alludes to would require a level of film manipulation that would be very difficult, if not impossible even today, but back in the dark ages of last century, well, just forget it. And this of course leads to the last question of why, why would "they" even bother with altering this section of film which has absolutely no bearing on anything? Why Griffith, WHY?
------------------------------------------------
Btw, this insulting dishonest garbage on your "Deceptive JFK Alteration PDF" needs to be cleaned up and corrected, thanks in advance!
"Numerous frames have been removed" LOL!
JohnM
