The lapel flip -- what did i miss?

[Dan O'meara]

Your "logic" escapes me.  You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left!  Yet we see it moving from right to left in z224-231.  Why does the motion have to be seen by Zapruder in order for it to occur?  Why can it not be moving when we cannot see it? Simple question....

Nobody, at any point has disputed whether JBC's hand is moving left to right.
It hasn't been brought up at any time.
You've introduced it, as you often do, to argue a point that never existed.

"You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left!"

That's an untruth (I know I've got to be careful using the word 'lie' with you).
Nowhere have I said anything even remotely like that.

"Why does the motion have to be seen by Zapruder in order for it to occur?"

Do you have any idea how crazy you're coming across? In the post you are responding to I've said his hand was in constant motion. Can't you remember? It was the post you were responding to.

"Why can it not be moving when we cannot see it?"

WTF are you talking about? Even for you this off the charts.

It has been your contention that the 'lapel flip' is caused by JBC's hand moving across the front of his jacket.
We can see the front of his jacket in the Z-Film.
We can see that the lapel flip occurs while his hand is still down below the top of the door frame.
When his hand comes into view and moves across the front of his jacket the lapel flip has already occurred.

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
HONESTLY, WHAT IS IT YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH?

[Chris Bristow]

What data does Lattimer provide to document his lapel test? Can someone point me to it?

[Andrew Mason]

Nobody, at any point has disputed whether JBC's hand is moving left to right.
It hasn't been brought up at any time.
You've introduced it, as you often do, to argue a point that never existed.

"You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left!"

That's an untruth (I know I've got to be careful using the word 'lie' with you).
Nowhere have I said anything even remotely like that.

"Why does the motion have to be seen by Zapruder in order for it to occur?"

Do you have any idea how crazy you're coming across? In the post you are responding to I've said his hand was in constant motion. Can't you remember? It was the post you were responding to.

"Why can it not be moving when we cannot see it?"

WTF are you talking about? Even for you this off the charts.

It has been your contention that the 'lapel flip' is caused by JBC's hand moving across the front of his jacket.
We can see the front of his jacket in the Z-Film.
We can see that the lapel flip occurs while his hand is still down below the top of the door frame.
When his hand comes into view and moves across the front of his jacket the lapel flip has already occurred.

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
HONESTLY, WHAT IS IT YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH?

I don't understand the difference between you saying:  "We can see that the lapel flip occurs while his hand is still down below the top of the door frame. When his hand comes into view and moves across the front of his jacket the lapel flip has already occurred."

AND me saying:  "You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left!"

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

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

If not, how can you tell it is not moving across the front of his jacket?  Just because we can't see it?

[Dan O'meara]

I don't understand the difference between you saying:  "We can see that the lapel flip occurs while his hand is still down below the top of the door frame. When his hand comes into view and moves across the front of his jacket the lapel flip has already occurred."

AND me saying:  "You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left!"

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

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

If not, how can you tell it is not moving across the front of his jacket?  Just because we can't see it?

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

  Quality



Look closely at JBC's arm movement and tell me what you really see.
 

[John Mytton]

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

  Quality



Look closely at JBC's arm movement and tell me what you really see.
 

A lot of SBF critics had already made up there minds up decades ago when they only had poor copies of Zapruder's hand held film footage to analyse and when really clear stabilized footage of the same event comes along where the precise movements of all the Limo occupants can be closely studied, well, the critics don't want to admit wasting so much time endorsing their long held beliefs and essentially force themselves stay the course. Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?



JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

A lot of SBF critics had already made up there minds up decades ago when they only had poor copies of Zapruder's hand held film footage to analyse and when really clear stabilized footage of the same event comes along where the precise movements of all the Limo occupants can be closely studied, well, the critics don't want to admit wasting so much time endorsing their long held beliefs and essentially force themselves stay the course. Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?



JohnM

"Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?"

Same here John.
When I first came to this subject (just over a year ago) and started to study the Z-Film, the simultaneous reactions of both men were so obvious I was shocked to find out how many people questioned it.
It took me quite a while to realise what you're pointing out - if somebody has already made up their mind they refuse to see what's right in front of them. The 'debate' I'm having with Andrew is a classic example of it. On the plus side, the interaction with Andrew (particularly on "The First Shot" thread) has forced me to question every detail about this aspect of the assassination and test any theory I'm putting forward.
 

[John Mytton]

"Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?"

Same here John.
When I first came to this subject (just over a year ago) and started to study the Z-Film, the simultaneous reactions of both men were so obvious I was shocked to find out how many people questioned it.
It took me quite a while to realise what you're pointing out - if somebody has already made up their mind they refuse to see what's right in front of them. The 'debate' I'm having with Andrew is a classic example of it. On the plus side, the interaction with Andrew (particularly on "The First Shot" thread) has forced me to question every detail about this aspect of the assassination and test any theory I'm putting forward.

I believe Mason is an actual Lawyer but even after debating him many times re the SBF he never let on and I only found out about his legal background much later, in other words he didn't force down my throat that he's a Lawyer and he's knows better yada yada yada and let his presentation stand on it's own, so for that alone he deserves much kudos. In the past I have debated a few "Lawyers" and when backed into a corner out comes the classic "Get out of Jail free card" but their lack of knowledge about all things legal is a dead giveaway. Thankfully we haven't seen one for a while but Roger Collins does come to mind, what a goose.

JohnM