Video: Hoffman Hill & Oliver

[John Mytton]

   Hey John - I pinpointed 29:30. You obviously prefer 29:25, for reasons of your own.  29:30 clearly shows Lamb Chop's: (1) BLACK Nose, (2) BLACK Eyes, (3) FLOPPY Ear, and (4) Dimpled/Wool FUR. To your credit, You always do very Detailed Image work. This is why your avoidance of 29:30 says much.

I did what you said, I advanced frame by frame from the first instance where the flowers became visible and straight away it was clear that the additional flowers that were just photographed were the same ones that Jackie was seen holding.

If you look closely as Jackie moves/shakes the flowers each flower moves independently. Game over, man! Game over!



Anyway, I went further and screen grabbed this frame @29:30 and nothing changes it's still just flowers.



JohnM

[Royell Storing]

I did what you said, I advanced frame by frame from the first instance where the flowers became visible and straight away it was clear that the additional flowers that were just photographed were the same ones that Jackie was seen holding.

If you look closely as Jackie moves/shakes the flowers each flower moves independently. Game over, man! Game over!



Anyway, I went further and screen grabbed this frame @29:30 and nothing changes it's still just flowers.



JohnM

   There is MORE than just 1 frame within 29:30. You know this.

[John Mytton]

   There is MORE than just 1 frame within 29:30. You know this.

Are you being deliberately obtuse??

The GIF I just showed you, showed multiple flowers moving independently!



Here's ALL the frames plus a few more in your much ballyhooed 29:30 timeframe and as can be seen, you're imagining a twisted face from shadows and open spaces. Somewhere in the middle an obvious space between two flowers at the top becomes your right eyebrow and the left eyebrow appears and disappears because it's the shadow between two moving flowers. DOH!



JohnM

 

[Royell Storing]

Are you being deliberately obtuse??

The GIF I just showed you, showed multiple flowers moving independently!



Here's ALL the frames plus a few more in your much ballyhooed 29:30 timeframe and as can be seen, you're imagining a twisted face from shadows and open spaces. Somewhere in the middle an obvious space between two flowers at the top becomes your right eyebrow and the left eyebrow appears and disappears because it's the shadow between two moving flowers. DOH!



JohnM

                                                               JOHN - Thanks for posting 29:30

              So you're claiming that what we are actually seeing in 29:30 is merely "shadows"? This is what we do actually see: (1) A LARGE SOLID BLACK DOT at the end of Lamb Chop's snout, (2) A THIN BLACK CIRCLE around Lamb Chop's Entire snout preceding the LARGE SOLID BLACK DOT, (3) BLACK EYES, and, (4) The FLOPPY EAR. "Shadows"? What we see are irrefutable Details! These are irrefutable Facts!
 
              You need to remember that there were numerous variations of Lamb Chop. There was everything from a small Lamb Chop "hand puppet", to a full body Lamb Chop "Doll". And the face of Lamb Chop also changed with these numerous Lamb Chop variations. These facial variations included the distinctive Lamb Chop "Snout" with its' THIN BLACK CIRCLE and Large BLACK DOT that we do see in 29:30.  Jean Hill said she saw a small dog in the backseat of the JFK Limo. What she actually saw was "Lamb Chop".  The Lamb Chop facial details that we see in 29:30 conclusively Proves this.

[Lance Payette]

As far as I can tell, Lamb Chop is the classic Royell factoid. It has no provenance whatsoever. It is based solely on someone attempting to rehabilitate Jean Hill and finding a pareidolic Lamb Chop in the photos of Jackie holding flowers at Love Field. As far as I can determine, no one ever suggested that Jackie had actually been handed a Lamb Chop at Love Field or had one in the limousine (why would she have been handed one? would the Secret Service have allowed this?). Like the supposed getaway car, it is strictly a matter of photographic misinterpretation by some Royell predecessor. Pathetic that this is actually being discussed. Wake me up when it hits 68,000 views.

[Royell Storing]

As far as I can tell, Lamb Chop is the classic Royell factoid. It has no provenance whatsoever. It is based solely on someone attempting to rehabilitate Jean Hill and finding a pareidolic Lamb Chop in the photos of Jackie holding flowers at Love Field. As far as I can determine, no one ever suggested that Jackie had actually been handed a Lamb Chop at Love Field or had one in the limousine (why would she have been handed one? would the Secret Service have allowed this?). Like the supposed getaway car, it is strictly a matter of photographic misinterpretation by some Royell predecessor. Pathetic that this is actually being discussed. Wake me up when it hits 68,000 views.

      I encourage this Forum to recognize that the above is doing everything it can to Avoid addressing the "Image Evidence". What do you SEE on 29:30? Do you see Lamb Chop's: (1) BLACK on the end of the Snout?, (2) Thin BLACK CIRCLE wrapping around the Snout?, (3) BLACK Eyes?, and (4) Floppy Ear? We are forever told to rely on the JFK Assassination "Image Evidence". 29:30 contains "Image Evidence" supporting Jean Hill's story of seeing a "small dog" on the backseat of the JFK Limo.
     I believe this Lamb Chop Issue is important as it demonstrates that from that Elm St eyewitnesses could see DOWN, INSIDE, the JFK Limo. This is important with respect to "blood splatter" and "skull fragments" falling inside the JFK Limo. I do Not recall a single Elm St Eyewitness being questioned about what they might have seen with respect to seeing JFK blood/brain matter & skull fragment(s) DOWN INSIDE the JFK Limo. Jean Hill has proven that Elm St eyewitnesses could see down inside the JFK Limo.       

[Lance Payette]

      I encourage this Forum to recognize that the above is doing everything it can to Avoid addressing the "Image Evidence". What do you SEE on 29:30? Do you see Lamb Chop's: (1) BLACK on the end of the Snout?, (2) Thin BLACK CIRCLE wrapping around the Snout?, (3) BLACK Eyes?, and (4) Floppy Ear? We are forever told to rely on the JFK Assassination "Image Evidence". 29:30 contains "Image Evidence" supporting Jean Hill's story of seeing a "small dog" on the backseat of the JFK Limo.
     I believe this Lamb Chop Issue is important as it demonstrates that from that Elm St eyewitnesses could see DOWN, INSIDE, the JFK Limo. This is important with respect to "blood splatter" and "skull fragments" falling inside the JFK Limo. I do Not recall a single Elm St Eyewitness being questioned about what they might have seen with respect to seeing JFK blood/brain matter & skull fragment(s) DOWN INSIDE the JFK Limo. Jean Hill has proven that Elm St eyewitnesses could see down inside the JFK Limo.     

I didn't avoid the image evidence. I told you that I could see the pareidolic "face" at 29:30. Alas for you, neither I nor pretty much anyone else who has looked at this pareidolic face thinks it looks like our beloved Lamb Chop. Actually, at first blush I thought the image posted by Jack White looked more like Lamb Chop than your pareidolic flower face, It took me about 30 seconds to realize "Wait a minute, that's the purse of a woman on the sidewalk."

Bugiloisi (BOO! HISS!) says the following in his endnotes in Reclaiming History (BOO! HISS!):

Jean Hill took a lot of ribbing for telling reporters in a national TV interview shortly after the shooting that President and Mrs. Kennedy were looking at a little white dog on the seat between them as the car came abreast of Hill’s position. In later years, conspiracy theorists tried to restore her credibility by claiming that photographs taken at Love Field show that Mrs. Kennedy had been given a white, stuffed-toy version of the famous Sheri Lewis TV puppet, Lamb Chop. The claim, however, was based on poor-quality images posted on the Internet. High-quality images show that what critics thought was a Lamb Chop toy was, in fact, a bouquet of white asters. (Trask, That Day in Dallas , p.29).

I don't have the Trask book, but if you can find it take a look at page 29 and see if it clears up this non-mystery for you.