Your presentation makes it clear why from one angle, Jackie and Hill seem to touch, while from another angle, they don’t. Milicent Cranor can’t seem to grasp that an individual frame of film shows a two dimensional image of the three dimensional reality. So, naturally, two objects might appear to touch from one angle but not from another. And Milicent Cranor is a member of the American Mensa Society?I know Joe. It took me about 10 seconds to work out what was going on and I couldn't believe it was seriously be entertained by some as 'proof of tampering'. I've read other stuff by Cranor and was quite impressed with how she approached things but it is a big disappointment that someone of her obvious intelligence couldn't see it.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/shadow-consistancy-z377.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/arm-repro-shadow-burn.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/trunk-lid-shadow-burn.jpg) |
There was one going around a few years ago about Jackie having no shadow on the trunk lid.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/shadow-consistancy-z377.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/arm-repro-shadow-burn.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/trunk-lid-shadow-burn.jpg)
A critic didn't believe my argument that the Jackie shadow was present, just some areas overwhelmed by ambient light. He replicated the hand on the trunk and came over to my side. I wonder if that critic became one of the many CTs who convert to LNism.
Having someone listen to reason made me think of Lindsey Graham's comments yesterday about the near full-vote Ruth Bader Ginsburg got in the Senate decades ago, showing there was a time when opposing sides could compromise. However, Graham's comparison is kind of illogical as Ginsburg was a moderate recommended by Republican Orrin Hatch and she wasn't forced through during the closing weeks of an election.
I am of the firm belief that the Zapruder film is unaltered, certainly in any meaningful way. One apparent 'proof' of alteration are the so-called inconsistencies between the Zapruder and Nix films. This is dealt with in the following article by Millicent Cranor at the Who.What.Why website https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/07/12/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/
The inconsistency in question revolves around the following frames:
(https://i.postimg.cc/76YVGmjD/jackie-on-the-trunk.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In the Zapruder frame above there appears to be a sizeable gap between Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill. In the Nix frame below their heads are more or less touching. How could this possibly be?
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4Lz8vXs/jackie-on-the-trunk-nix.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The only mystery here is how this easily explained 'illusion' ever gained any traction. It is caused by Jackie leaning diagonally across the trunk. I tried to write down what was happening but found it easier to make my own vid. The upturned baking tray represents the trunk of the limo, the spoon represents Jackie, the lighter represents Clint Hill (the point of this video is just to show the 'illusion').
It starts off with an overview then moves to the left (Nix position) where we see the spoon appears to be touching the lighter. It then moves to the right (Zapruder position) where it reveals a sizeable gap between the two items:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRPF20yJ/Nix-Illusion-Gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
That the Nix and Zapruder films are perfectly synchronised is ably demonstrated in this following Gif
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fbcWQG0/Nix-and-Zapruder.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The original Ant Davison clip:
You've erred in the angle of your tin-can jalopy. The angle is not that extreme in either of the two images.
Although your changing-perspective thing is correct, Jackie's head is much closer to the back of the limo in Nix, angle or not.
There was one going around a few years ago about Jackie having no shadow on the trunk lid.
A critic didn't believe my argument that the Jackie shadow was present, just some areas overwhelmed by ambient light. He replicated the hand on the trunk and came over to my side. I wonder if that critic became one of the many CTs who convert to LNism.
Could the David Blaine incorporate the “Nix Illusion” into his magic act?;D
And know, I shall have these two people merge into one body sharing the same space.
A circular section of the floor rotates underneath them.
The audience gasps in astonishment.
The floor rotates back and the audience is relieved to see that both people are back in their separate bodies.
I don’t know, I think it sounds a little lame.
Mr O'meara and his McAdams cheering section.
Three blind mice.
You've erred in the angle of your tin-can jalopy. The angle is not that extreme in either of the two images.
Although your changing-perspective thing is correct, Jackie's head is much closer to the back of the limo in Nix, angle or not.
You've erred in the angle of your tin-can jalopy. The angle is not that extreme in either of the two images.As I clearly stated in my opening post, the set-up with my 'tin-can jalopy' was just to show how the illusion works. It's not to scale, the angles and positions were not meant to truly reflect what was happening, it was just to demonstrate the illusion. Something you agree is correct.
Although your changing-perspective thing is correct, Jackie's head is much closer to the back of the limo in Nix, angle or not.
Jackie's head is much closer to the back of the limo in Nix, angle or not.The same goes for you Walt. Were you one of the researchers who bought into the illusion and what are you basing your opinion on about the position of Jackie's head?
Hallelujah ...Praise the Lord!....Chappie has displayed a glimmer of intelligence..... Yer right Chappie....
As I clearly stated in my opening post, the set-up with my 'tin-can jalopy' was just to show how the illusion works. It's not to scale, the angles and positions were not meant to truly reflect what was happening, it was just to demonstrate the illusion. Something you agree is correct.
What seems to have confused people is that Jackie is leaning diagonally across the trunk and this is at the heart of the illusion. The mystery of how they can seem so close and so far apart has been solved.
Were you one of the researchers who bought into the illusion because the statement about Jackie's head smacks of denial. Are you basing that statement on anything more than your interpretation of an optical illusion? Does it 'just look that way' to you? Or do you have something more concrete?
Jackie's head is much closer to the back of the limo in Nix, angle or not.
Hallelujah ...Praise the Lord!....Chappie has displayed a glimmer of intelligence..... Yer right Chappie....
There was one going around a few years ago about Jackie having no shadow on the trunk lid.Ginsburg wasn't a moderate; she was a noted ACLU lawyer known for her openly liberal views. There was hardly any objection to her nomination - she was confirmed 95-3 - and I don't recall any efforts by conservative to run anti-Ginsburg ads or accuse her of all sorts of corruption. Scalia, a noted conservative, was confirmed by a 98-0 vote.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/shadow-consistancy-z377.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/arm-repro-shadow-burn.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/trunk-lid-shadow-burn.jpg)
A critic didn't believe my argument that the Jackie shadow was present, just some areas overwhelmed by ambient light. He replicated the hand on the trunk and came over to my side. I wonder if that critic became one of the many CTs who convert to LNism.
Having someone listen to reason made me think of Lindsey Graham's comments yesterday about the near full-vote Ruth Bader Ginsburg got in the Senate decades ago, showing there was a time when opposing sides could compromise. However, Graham's comparison is kind of illogical as Ginsburg was a moderate recommended by Republican Orrin Hatch and she wasn't forced through during the closing weeks of an election.
Ginsburg wasn't a moderate; she was a noted ACLU lawyer known for her openly liberal views. There was hardly any objection to her nomination - she was confirmed 95-3 - and I don't recall any efforts by conservative to run anti-Ginsburg ads or accuse her of all sorts of corruption. Scalia, a noted conservative, was confirmed by a 98-0 vote.
Eisenhower nominated - actually recess appointed him since the Senate was not in session - William Brennan to an open seat two weeks before the election. Brennan was a Catholic and Eisenhower was hoping to get some Catholic votes in the election by doing so.
Graham is 100% correct. There was a time when both sides compromised and reached agreement on these matters. But those are long gone and it's why we see the two sides running campaign type ads and commercials against candidates. If Barrett had been nominated to replace Kennedy she would have picked up, at best, a handful of Democrats. The days of the 92-0 votes are dead.
I stand corrected re your diagonal thing
Zapruder
(https://i.postimg.cc/yx2jkqpM/jackie.gif)
Nix
(https://i.postimg.cc/02mFDZGY/jackienix-1.gif)
Ginsburg wasn't a moderate; she was a noted ACLU lawyer known for her openly liberal views. There was hardly any objection to her nomination - she was confirmed 95-3 - and I don't recall any efforts by conservative to run anti-Ginsburg ads or accuse her of all sorts of corruption. Scalia, a noted conservative, was confirmed by a 98-0 vote.
The same goes for you Walt. Were you one of the researchers who bought into the illusion and what are you basing your opinion on about the position of Jackie's head?
I know Joe. It took me about 10 seconds to work out what was going on and I couldn't believe it was seriously be entertained by some as 'proof of tampering'. I've read other stuff by Cranor and was quite impressed with how she approached things but it is a big disappointment that someone of her obvious intelligence couldn't see it.Mr O: can you provide the frame in Zapruder where Jackie is at the greatest distance from the rear seat/JFK, and farthest out on the trunk?
It would be interesting to hear from someone who does accept this as 'proof of tampering' but I doubt that will happen.
Jackie's hips are above the rear wheels and her head is near the back of the deck lid.......I have no dog in this hunt ..... But it is a fact that the two frames do not match.... and it isn't just an illusion created by different points of view.
Mr O: can you provide the frame in Zapruder where Jackie is at the greatest distance from the rear seat/JFK, and farthest out on the trunk?
Thx.
( I have my own answer, already, but will withhold at the moment.)
My guess, just from eyeballing it, would be about z380.At Z380 - your choice - Jackie's hand is about 18" to 2' away from the continental kit on the rear bumper, sprawled in the middle of the trunk. Clint, obviously, is at the left rear bumper, behind and to his left of her. Her head, and Clint Hill's head are about 2' to 3' apart. Now Zapruder is also not, at this point, perpendicular to the limo. Your alleged optical illusion in Nix should then work, in reverse, with Jackie, in the foreground, overlapping Clint Hill, in the background. This effect is not visible in Z380, or any other frames.
By the way John, aren't you happy I've sorted out your confusion for you. It was kind of on your suggestion I looked into this.
You must be so happy I've cleared things up for you. 8)
At Z380 - your choice - Jackie's hand is about 18" to 2' away from the continental kit on the rear bumper, sprawled in the middle of the trunk. Clint, obviously, is at the left rear bumper, behind and to his left of her. Her head, and Clint Hill's head are about 2' to 3' apart. Now Zapruder is also not, at this point, perpendicular to the limo. Your alleged optical illusion in Nix should then work, in reverse, with Jackie, in the foreground, overlapping Clint Hill, in the background. This effect is not visible in Z380, or any other frames.
No. Seen from behind and from the left (Nix view), they seem to overlap. Seen from behind and from the right (Zapruder view) we see the true separation.May I inquire as to why it's the "perfect distance"?
Try looking at a couple of salt shakers, which represent the heads, a few inches apart and at a 45-degree angle between them. The one on the left, closer to you by about 3 inches. From the left and behind, they almost overlap. From the right and behind, they are widely separated.
By the way, I place it at z-375:
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z375.jpg)
At z-375, Clint Hill is just the perfect distance from the standing man that is directly above him. Not z-374. Not z-376. It’s z-375.
May I inquire as to why it's the "perfect distance"?
Compare z-375 with the Zapruder frame from the first post. The Zapruder frame from that one was z-375. The frame from the Nix film looks like it was from the time frame of z-380, because the trailing foot is well off the ground.Once you acknowledge the importance of the actual limo speed, and consider that Nix was closer to perpendicular to the limo than Zapruder at that point, and that Jackie's arm is touching or above the Continental spare tire housing on the back bumper - not an illusion - well...
In any case, comparing z-375 or z-380 with the frame from the Nix film tells the same story. There is clear separation between Hill and Jackie as seen from that angle.
It isn't a fact, Walt.
It's your eyes playing tricks on you.
Do you believe Zapruder has been altered?
Look at the Frames Z330 and Z337 as examples in the Zapruder film and examine the cog region of the film. Is there a logical explanation for seeing a clearly visible front motorcycle wheel at the top (Z330) and seeing more of the curb (Z337) in the cog region? Please explain in Z337 why there is a square "cut off" in the front of the President's head or why Jacqueline's arm in that region is fully visible below and above the head "region"? My guess is that the film was totally altered in those regions to coincide with all shots coming from the rearward. Even though JFK can be seen in other footage to be moving back and to his left on possible impact. I say possible because it takes an awful long time for Jacqueline to register alarm!
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z330.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z337.jpg)
I would also speculate that the first shot was much lower as evidenced by JFK putting his hand to his chest and then later Jacqueline is examining chest and not his neck region (judging by her hands and facial position).
As of now, we see "Ida Dox" illustrations of where bullets landed and based largely on hearsay or what supports the LNer narrative. Why were x-rays and pictures of his body not presented and why were they withheld from public for so many years? Why the need to hire someone to "draw" pictures based on a story teller rather than present the WC with the real evidence? Are x-rays gruesome? Do they even exist or was all this evidence shredded or made up and given to Ida Dox. We know that some of original doctors at scene said the gunshot came from the front and exited out the back of head.
Of course, the controlled narrative makes sense and would explain why so much remains hidden and kept from the public for so many years- 50 or more. Of course Zapruder frames portray the total front half of face missing and gone. If you believe the image of the face shown on Wikipedia - the President's with eyes wide open and no damage to front, you have to figure someone is controlling what you see! Also, it defies logic that you would consider using a wound hole to the side of the neck to make a hole into your windpipe to aid breathing. Unless of course the wound had penetrated the windpipe and you were putting a tube directly into an existing hole to the windpipe. Nothing logical here and no mention of that in autopsy results!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy)
You also know that Dan Rather (news media) had already stated within days that there was one assassin and that all shots came from Oswald and the TSBD and were from behind. He describes in detail body movement to the front! John Connally in his hospital bed already knew that Oswald was the lone gunman and that it was clear that "he" wanted to kill both of us! Contrast that to Jacqueline saying "they" killed my husband.
Conclusions were already pointing to one shooter. Also no one can explain why Life (Time Life) paid Zapruder big bucks for the entire film but kept it from the public and showed frames selected for supporting LNer theory only for the WC report? Who was publisher of Life magazine at the time and did he have governmental ties (ie. CIA or FBI or SS)? Who really was C.D. Jackson and did he really have ties with Allen Dulles? Were they both CIA operatives and part of a massive coverup plan?
Those are facts plain and simple. If it was a simple Lone nut gunman, a 1000 page WC report would not have been needed. You would have no need to assassinate LHO and he could have been tried by a grand jury of regular peasants and there would have been no need for a "politically" formed a commission to examine and weigh in on the evidence!
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z330.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z331.jpg) | (http://the-puzzle-palace.com/z183faux.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) (https://images2.imgbox.com/9a/37/3HYq5GFx_o.jpg) |
Mr Fritzke: interesting posts.
If one's purpose is to make the limo seem to go faster, excision of a few frames here and there would certainly, uh, help, yes?
Not much else needed.
True, but there would be an obvious problem. So, removing frames would not work.I see an " obvious problem" when looking at z381 to z382, at least in Costella version.
At Z380 - your choice - Jackie's hand is about 18" to 2' away from the continental kit on the rear bumper, sprawled in the middle of the trunk. Clint, obviously, is at the left rear bumper, behind and to his left of her. Her head, and Clint Hill's head are about 2' to 3' apart. Now Zapruder is also not, at this point, perpendicular to the limo. Your alleged optical illusion in Nix should then work, in reverse, with Jackie, in the foreground, overlapping Clint Hill, in the background. This effect is not visible in Z380, or any other frames.
John, the illusion is clearly demonstrated in the opening post. I didn't expect you to accept it. The mistake that you, and anyone else who fell for it, has made is that you didn't realise Jackie was leaning diagonally across the trunk.
It's that simple.
Look again with open eyes and an open heart and I'm sure you'll see it.
You can't see Jacqueline's shoulder where JFK's head should be either? IT is pretty coincidental that you have an ear that looks like a bone showing up where the ear should be and compares nicely to Z312. Then, compare the only picture of JFK laying on a morgue slab with eyes wide open as if you can try to justify "putting" the face back together. Obviously amazing "recreation" to say the least. Someone is lying! You can't sustain the missing head damage and sew it all back together. Obvious need as well to use sketches by Ida Fox to prove your point rather than base anything on xray or actual photos.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z300-z349/z328.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z300-z349/z337.jpg) |
Jackie's hands are on the spare tire/ continental kit, or right above it.
Once you understand why the limo must appear faster..but you haven't yet.
Z381 to Z382. Costella version. In 1/18th of a second, no less.
I see an " obvious problem" when looking at z381 to z382, at least in Costella version.
If you say so.Seems to have worked just fine.
But can you tell me why removing a frame from the Zapruder film would not work?
But can you tell me why removing a frame from the Zapruder film would not work?
Seems to have worked just fine.
Lets say the limo slowed to 2 mph. The Z film has it slowing to 8 mph. To make the limo appear to go 8 mph they would need to remove 3 out of every 4 frames. That would mean through that part of the film the people in the limo and Miss Foster would all speed up x4. By around frame 350 they may have been doing 4mph so they would need to take out every other frame at that point. So we would see Malcom Summers thrust himself to the ground at twice the natural speed.
This would have been a complicated process using matte shots for the background and for the occupants of the limo to keep their action from doubling and maybe quadrupling in speed which would be obvious compared to their movement prior to and after the limo stop.
The only alteration that would have been fairly straight forward would have been masking the hole in the back of the head and the debris that came from it. People claim that they would have had to do that on the tiny 8mm film itself but that is not true. The 8 mm film strip is magnified 60 times when projected onto a screen at 3 feet wide so you have room to work without causing it to look all blurry. So you photograph a frame in 50mm then edit the actual photograph and then re film it through the original camera one frame at a time. That would allow the film to show the 8mm film grain it should have.
| first | second | third | fourth | |
| distance: | 8 inches | 8 inches | 8 inches | 8 inches |
| average speed: | 8 mph | 8 mph | 8 mph | 8 mph |
| first | second | third | |
| distance: | 8 inches | 16 inches | 8 inches |
| average speed: | 8 mph | 16 mph | 8 mph |
| distance: | 8.0 inches | 8.5 inches | 9.0 inches | 9.5 inches | 10.0 inches | 10.5 inches | 11.0 inches | 11.5 inches |
| average speed: | 8.0 mph | 8.5 mph | 9.0 mph | 9.5 mph | 10.0 mph | 10.5 mph | 11.0 mph | 11.5 mph |
This version of the Z-film by Kiwi Ant Davison shows the limo slowing down to almost walking pace just before the headshot, then speeding away:
Lets say the limo slowed to 2 mph. The Z film has it slowing to 8 mph. To make the limo appear to go 8 mph they would need to remove 3 out of every 4 frames. That would mean through that part of the film the people in the limo and Miss Foster would all speed up x4. By around frame 350 they may have been doing 4mph so they would need to take out every other frame at that point. So we would see Malcom Summers thrust himself to the ground at twice the natural speed."Let's say the limo slowed to 2 mph."
This would have been a complicated process using matte shots for the background and for the occupants of the limo to keep their action from doubling and maybe quadrupling in speed which would be obvious compared to their movement prior to and after the limo stop.
The only alteration that would have been fairly straight forward would have been masking the hole in the back of the head and the debris that came from it. People claim that they would have had to do that on the tiny 8mm film itself but that is not true. The 8 mm film strip is magnified 60 times when projected onto a screen at 3 feet wide so you have room to work without causing it to look all blurry. So you photograph a frame in 50mm then edit the actual photograph and then re film it through the original camera one frame at a time. That would allow the film to show the 8mm film grain it should have.
The limo certainly slowed down in the region of Z330. If you follow the white marker in the grass, you can see the marker slow down when SS agent jumps on car. It hangs in the cogs for a long time! Also, I want to see someone catch a car at 8 mph and jump on. You have to be a super athlete! Even Jean Hill in her first interview said the car momentarily halted. If it didn't halt, it came to a very slow pace to allow the SS agent to leave the perch on the car behind and run up and jump on. Can you dispute that? The film should be called the Zapruder Illusion as you see evidence of cleverly hidden cut and paste lines. If frames are all there, they have been modified to paint a particular picture and obscure identities and support the LNer narrative. In 3 frames, SS agent is even with the policeman on the bike! So he moved 2 ft conservatively in 3 frames. A car speed constant at 8 mph speed and a film speed of 16 fps, we get the SS agent speed of 16 feet/s (11 mph!) Sure!!!!
Again, no idea how advanced editing techniques were in the day but I am sure they were quite remarkable and that they edited the film in such a short time is truly amazing. Again no one wants to comment on frame Z337 and their sloppy editing. So I will present another. They were masters at using the light and cutting film at just the right interface between sunlight and darkness. Besides that, the image from the camera is way more blurry on one side of the cut than the other on Z334. We get better focus in the cogs or generally on the left hand side of the image! I guess I am the only one that can see that. The SS agent in the cogs is not affected by camera jiggle!!
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z334.jpg)
I would like to see someone use photo recognition software and compare the one morgue slab picture of the president in Wikipedia with a regular photo to see if they could actually get a match. I think it is ridiculous to have the President's head missing on the Zapruder Film (front blown off) and then see a picture of him laying on the table with eyes wide open (uhuh) and stating they used an existing wound to do a tracheotomy. Can you imagine the risk of a side tracheotomy with veins and arteries (jugular and otherwise) and associated nerve damage to bore a hole into the windpipe from the side? Give me a break!
How some people can get off on saying that there is a "bone" laying in the spot where the ear is on the photo is incredible. No evidence of an ear shaped bone with scalp folded over in Ida Dox's drawings! Why is everyone avoiding the reality of what you can obviously see below in these frame which compare nice to each other if it was left unedited - I haven't a clue! Ear is present in both photos but one has photoshopping! Even suit jacket/collar ruffle matches!
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z337.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z312.jpg)
I am of the firm belief that the Zapruder film is unaltered, certainly in any meaningful way. One apparent 'proof' of alteration are the so-called inconsistencies between the Zapruder and Nix films. This is dealt with in the following article by Millicent Cranor at the Who.What.Why website https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/07/12/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/Just a reminder: your angle is about 45 degrees.
The inconsistency in question revolves around the following frames:
(https://i.postimg.cc/76YVGmjD/jackie-on-the-trunk.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In the Zapruder frame above there appears to be a sizeable gap between Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill. In the Nix frame below their heads are more or less touching. How could this possibly be?
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4Lz8vXs/jackie-on-the-trunk-nix.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The only mystery here is how this easily explained 'illusion' ever gained any traction. It is caused by Jackie leaning diagonally across the trunk. I tried to write down what was happening but found it easier to make my own vid. The upturned baking tray represents the trunk of the limo, the spoon represents Jackie, the lighter represents Clint Hill (the point of this video is just to show the 'illusion').
It starts off with an overview then moves to the left (Nix position) where we see the spoon appears to be touching the lighter. It then moves to the right (Zapruder position) where it reveals a sizeable gap between the two items:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRPF20yJ/Nix-Illusion-Gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
That the Nix and Zapruder films are perfectly synchronised is ably demonstrated in this following Gif
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fbcWQG0/Nix-and-Zapruder.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The original Ant Davison clip:
So would you agree the head shot came in about Z330 when you can see the white marker in the grass appear to slow down in the frames? My point about focus is that a lot of people attribute "out of focus" to camera jitter/shock. I can see your point about pan speed vs. movementand that it is in play. I will try to "slow down" my arguments! :'(
Just a reminder: your angle is about 45 degrees.
Nix, at most, is 20 degrees, or less.
The "illusion" is yours.
This is an interesting clip of Hargis claiming the "limo slowed down almost to a stop". He prefaces his statement by saying "This is not for the public but that car came almost to a stop". So the question it raises is why does he need to say is not for the public when the Z film had been public for years. I can only think that it is because his version contradicts what we see in the Z film. If he agreed with the Z film he would have no reason to want to keep his opinion from public view.
He does assume he slowed to let Hill onboard which is fine but 8mph is not almost a stop. The whole point is why he did not want to let that statement out to the public if he agreed with the Z film.
JFK's head definitely explodes at z313 when the white blur on the grass comes into view (not z330).
As I've said, in the version of the Z-film I posted the limo really slows down to what looks not much more than walking pace. At that precise moment JFK is shot in the head. The car was being driven by an expert driver who put his foot on the brakes. It was a deliberate act. Whether it was to make the headshot easier is impossible to say but I understand why people would look at it that way.
A "deliberate act" or a reflex reaction by a driver startled and glancing behind to see what was happening? I would argue the latter.
Good thread BTW.
Just a reminder: your angle is about 45 degrees.Mr O'meara: what part of " your angle" don't you understand? Your angle, meaning - let me help you here - your video. 45 degrees. Break out the protractor. It's your construction, so it should be easy to measure.
Nix, at most, is 20 degrees, or less.
The "illusion" is yours.
Mr O'meara: what part of " your angle" don't you understand? Your angle, meaning - let me help you here - your video. 45 degrees. Break out the protractor. It's your construction, so it should be easy to measure.
Nix, is, at most, 20 degrees. 45>20.
Once again, where are you getting 20 degrees from John?Where did you get your 45 degrees from?
Where did you get your 45 degrees from?
When your argument is a case study in ad hominem, it shows you have no real response.
Do yourself a favour, go back and read through the first post (which you should've done in the first place)
Let me explain it to you in a way I feel confident you will understand -
On another thread you brought up inconsistencies between the Nix and Zapruder film completely out of nowhere, it had nothing to do with what we were talking about or what the thread was about but I looked into it anyway and came across this article by Milicent Cranor, writing for the WhoWhatWhy website (https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/07/12/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/) showing the problem researchers such as yourself were having when comparing two specific frames from the Nix and Zapruder films. It was felt they demonstrated a discrepancy which could only be explained by 'tampering' with the films. It took me seconds to figure out what was going on - you had failed to realise Jackie was leaning diagonally across the trunk of the limo which created what I have named the Nix Illusion. Rather than try to explain it in writing I felt it would be more helpful to make a little video to demonstrate things, so I went into the kitchen and got the first things to hand - a baking tray, a spoon and a lighter. I set things up, made the video and it worked perfectly, clearly demonstrating the illusion that you had fallen for - one angle the spoon and lighter are touching, one angle there is clear separation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Q982NKX/Nix-Illusion-Gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The 'inconsistency' you originally brought up had been resolved, you had simply failed to realise Jackie was leaning diagonally across the trunk of the limo. Such a simple thing - but do you have the good grace to 'learn', to be shown something new and allow it to inform your opinion - not a chance!
Rather than accept you are wrong in any detail, no matter how small, you now what to make up false arguments to distract from your mental inflexibility. I made the kitchen set up without any thought to scale or angles, I just wanted to show the illusion. I specifically state this in my opening post. You have decided to ignore this and want to argue that my throw-together kitchen set-up with a tray. a spoon and a lighter isn't an accurate scale model of the Presidential limo on the day of the assassination.
You want to argue about the angle of the spoon on the tray representing Jackie leaning diagonally across the trunk. Due to a lack of imagination you can't see that changing the angle of the spoon doesn't change the fundamentals of how the illusion works. You just want to get lost in a meaningless argument about trivia rather than admit you've made an honest mistake.
I never mentioned 45 or 20 degrees. These are your inventions, part of the trivia you hope to argue. And then you have the nerve to ask where I have got 45 degrees from. Unbelievable.
When your argument is a case study in ad hominem, it shows you have no real response.
:)
P.S. Let me clarify, again. The 45 degrees refers to your camera angle. Also, your camera position is also not reflective of Nix's. Nix is much farther away, and almost perpendicular to the limo when he starts filming.
https://images.app.goo.gl/VfUUWdxNgfYu4T357Uh, getting beyond the fact the map is unreadable, what's the source?
Here is the map showing the position of the limo with Z film frame numbers. If you don't trust it just go to google earth or maps and gut an overhead of the plaza. The Fort Worth sign is right behind the limo in Nix so you can easily draw line of sight and find NIx is 50 degree off the limo and 40 degrees by fr 400.
This argument should have ended after one post because it is so easy to check. Draw a line on your map and post it. Or Dan O'meara could do it. I don't have a photo account anywhere so I can't post it.
Uh, getting beyond the fact the map is unreadable, what's the source?Have you done the experiment yet?
Thx.
Have you done the experiment yet?
Have you realised you're wrong yet?
Are you going to accept you're wrong so we can move on?
My question was not directed at you, though, if you know the source of the unreadable map from...somewhere do chime in.
If not, and you have nothing constructive to add, then you're just trolling. Sad. :(
The cheek of you using the phrase 'nothing constructive to add'.Thanks, Dan. What a nice thing to say. You're so polite and well mannered. Such adult behavior.
You should get that tattooed on your forehead.
The map is a Don Roberdeau creation btw
Thanks, Dan. What a nice thing to say. You're so polite and well mannered. Such adult behavior.
Roberdeau? :) Not a surveyor.
West . A surveyor.
Roberdeau's info is worthless.
His survey is not a real professional surveyor.
I don't agree with everything he says but I constantly reference Roberdeau's work. I don't know what he's like as a person but he is my favourite kind of researcher -fearless, forthright and prolific.Again with the personal attacks.
The only thing worthless round here is your contribution John.
Again with the personal attacks.
Roberdeau's map is worthless. Roberdeau, from his posts that I've read over the years, seems like a good guy.
It's not a personal attack John. It's an accurate observation.Here's a " contribution".
If you dispute this I'd like you to point me to where you've made a genuine contribution.
If you can't do this I'm well within my rights to correctly point out your contribution as being worthless.
But don't confuse it as being an personal attack. It's nothing of the sort.
Here's a " contribution".
Are there any photos or films that show Nix's location in Dealey Plaza?
If not, how can his location be plotted on a map?
Yeah John, you seem to be having a problem with basic English.Wow.
What you've written is not a contribution, do you see that?
A 'contribution' would involve you answering these questions.
Do you have any idea about the questions you're asking or are you expecting others to do the research for you?
Wow.
As I have seen no photos or films of Nix in Dealey Plaza, I don't believe any exist.
Therefore, plotting his exact position on a map would be impossible.
If someone has evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Thx.
Here's a " contribution".John, you can find nix's location by tracing his lines of sight. You pick something like a Lamppost or a sign in the film and then note what lies directly behind it from the cameras point of view. Then you take a map and draw a line from the object that lines up behind the lamp post, through the lamp post and continue it on across the Plaza. For those two objects to line up you would have to be standing somewhere along that line. That's a line of sight. But then you have to do it at least twice with another object in the film. As an example you might line up another lamp post in the South Plaza and draw another line. Those lines will cross at some point. That will be the position, the only position from which you could see both of those alignments. Take one step to the side and the Lamppost won't line up with the object behind it anymore. That's how you use the film to find out exactly where the camera was. Then you can do the same thing using Google Maps to double-check.
Are there any photos or films that show Nix's location in Dealey Plaza?
If not, how can his location be plotted on a map?
I don't agree with everything he says but I constantly reference Roberdeau's work. I don't know what he's like as a person but he is my favourite kind of researcher -fearless, forthright and prolific.So, you reference Roberdeau's " map" regarding Nix's position in Dealey Plaza.
The only thing worthless round here is your contribution John.
So, you reference Roberdeau's " map" regarding Nix's position in Dealey Plaza.
Now, you admit that no one knows Nix's position in Dealey Plaza.
Again, Robardeu's map is useless in regards to the thread topic.
John, you can find nix's location by tracing his lines of sight. You pick something like a Lamppost or a sign in the film and then note what lies directly behind it from the cameras point of view. Then you take a map and draw a line from the object that lines up behind the lamp post, through the lamp post and continue it on across the Plaza. For those two objects to line up you would have to be standing somewhere along that line. That's a line of sight. But then you have to do it at least twice with another object in the film. As an example you might line up another lamp post in the South Plaza and draw another line. Those lines will cross at some point. That will be the position, the only position from which you could see both of those alignments. Take one step to the side and the Lamppost won't line up with the object behind it anymore. That's how you use the film to find out exactly where the camera was. Then you can do the same thing using Google Maps to double-check.Gee, does Nix's camera lens not factor into this simple task?
No the camera lens doesn't make much of a difference at all. Most of the Distortion is not in the center of the lens. Distortion can bend things but it will not make one object appear behind another falsely. You do have to make sure the photo is rotated to level though. But you don't really need multiple lines of sight other than the line of sight through the limo. For instance where does the front of Nellie's window line up with the far side of the limo. As I recall it lines up with the sun visor on the shotgun side. Draw a line from exactly where that window wines up underneath the sun visor and extend that line to the point on Nelly's window you were using. If you do that on an overhead diagram or picture of the limo, you will have the angle at which Nix was relative to the limo.Uh, ok.
Uh, ok.
"Distortion... will not make one object appear behind another falsely."
Uh, I guess you've got some "target fixation" going on. :) And disproving the fact of Nix/Zapruder non alignment is your target.
Let's recap: you cite Roberdeau's "map. You say this "map" tells you Nix's location. And the angle at which Nix is shooting from.
I point out that there are no photos/films to document Nix's location.
So, how do you know what the angle is?
You double down and tell me line of sight? And that the camera lens is unimportant? So, are changes in elevations unimportant? Do you conduct land surveys with a super 8 camera?
Where is Nix in the clip below?Where is Nix?
(https://i.postimg.cc/vmRJcsLb/Bronson-Clip.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This picture might help clarify things:
(https://i.postimg.cc/hhRSgdjR/f14dd94ad7ccbab1aca131868ee4074c.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Okay at this point I have to say you really don't know what you're talkin about. Learn how lines of sight are applied to find specific locations. It's science but it's not rocket science.So, first you present Roberdeau's "map", which is worthless.
Where is Nix?He's not there.
Bronson was standing on pedestal just like the one Zapruder was on. You can find that pedestal on the south side of Main Street Maybe 20 or 30 feet west of Houston. So he's 4 ft higher compared to Nix and his camera is going right over the head of Nix. The second Bronson image is after the attack when next started walking West on Main. At that point he would have been left of frame.
He's not there.That really narrows it down.
This tells me he's either hidden from view in front of the 'north peristyle' (see Roberdeau's map) or he's somewhere on the south side of Main Street, possibly near the 'south peristyle'.
In the Nix film there's a moment, just after Hill has managed to get a proper foothold, that the limo passes behind a lamp-post.
This tells me he's not in front of the north peristyle as there's no lamp-posts there for the limo to pass behind. Therefore he must be somewhere on the south side of Main Street.
Can't say I'm spotting Nix to be honest Duncan, but what I did spot was the lamp-post I'd mentioned seen in Nix:Alterations to the Zfilm, if proven, are not evidence of a "conspiracy", just evidence of alteration.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxwyBfpw/Hughes-screen-grab-1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/59FWZVmW/Nix-screen-grab-1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Just from eye-balling it, judging from the relative positions of the lamp-post and the bottom of the stairs in the distance, I'd say Nix was filming from a position slightly west of Hughes (I also got the impression Nix was stood slightly west of Bronson as well). Nix's position was on the south side of Main Street, slightly west of the south peristyle and when we look on Roberdeau's 'worthless' map, that is exactly where he is positioned.
Just returning briefly to the general subject of this thread, I've always wondered what the point of altering the Zapruder film was. To hide evidence of a second gunman? If so, how could "they" leave in JFK's 'back and to the left' head and body movement? Surely any right-minded person would see the effects of a shot from the right front, which is exactly what happened when the film was finally made public. Surely this is the clearest evidence of a conspiracy there could be, what's the point of any alterations whilst leaving this glaring give-away in there.
I find it baffling that those fighting hardest to show the Z-film was altered are those who believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The Z-film is the best evidence there is of a conspiracy yet it is undermined by those who wish to show the alterations are evidence of conspiracy.
Go figure.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/myers/geometric/epipolar_exh97.png)Nix doesn't start filming until after Z312.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Blue: Nix | Yellow: Bronson | Green: Zapruder | Purple: Muchmore (Dale K. Myers)
Nix doesn't start filming until after Z312.
It's impossible to know where he was at that time.
How can you be so wrong over something so basic?Someone's video on YouTube is not proof of when, and where, Nix started filming, nor how Nix and Zapruder line up, frame wise. It's just..someone's idea.
Surely you must have seen the Nix film.
How do you feel 'qualified' to take any part in a discussion where you have no grasp of the fundamentals?
Am I missing something here?
In the opening post of this thread there is a video synching the Zapruder and Nix films. Take a few minutes out of your day and check it out (just a suggestion)
The woman in the tan coat reacts quite suddenly, moments into the Nix film. As Altgens is also present, we know that's about Z340ish, allegedly.
Is she reacting to a gun shot?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.I'm free to post here.
She reacts just after the headshot at z313.
Hill is just leaving the follow-up car to cover the gap to the limo.
What's the point in carrying on with this when you have such a lack of understanding about the most basic issues.
I'm free to post here.
You're free to miss the point.
I'm not questioning your freedom to post John.What's the "angle" of Nix to the limo when Nix starts filming?
I am asking why you bother to post when you have no grasp of the most basic issues? I know you're free to post but my question is clearly "what's the point?"
I'm free to miss the point!!
The point is that you're not contributing to this thread.
You were wrong all along to think the Nix/Zapruder films were inconsistent.
You were showed why you were wrong.
Rather than take the opportunity to learn you've gone into denial.
The Nix Illusion explains your error.
Before posting again here's some basics you should already know:
It's not about distances It's about angles
The Nix film starts before z313
The woman in the tan coat reacts just after the headshot at z313
What's the "angle" of Nix to the limo when Nix starts filming?
What's the "angle" of Nix to the limo when Nix starts filming?Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Keep on waitingYou have no answer.
What's the "angle" of Nix to the limo when Nix starts filming?I can't answer your question because there needs to be three points of reference to create an angle.
Firstly, I never used Roberdeau's map for anything to do with this thread. There's no need, any angles can be estimated using the relative position of the limo.
Secondly, nowhere have I said "no-one knows Nix's position". It doesn't take too much brainpower to figure out where Nix is standing but, again, it's not necessary to know where he's standing in Dealey Plaza.
Thirdly, the position Roberdeau has for Nix on his map is more or less accurate, not that it matters.
Other than that, great contribution 8)
Gee. You seemed to have changed your " location of Nix" answer since this post.
First, it's a matter of " not much brainpower", and Roberdeau's map is " more or less accurate.
Now, it's " I have no idea."
Your previous - since corrected - " contribution is duly noted.
I can't answer your question because there needs to be three points of reference to create an angle.You know, in court, a good attorney never asks a question of a witness without already knowing the answer already.
Talk about clueless.
You know, in court, a good attorney never asks a question of a witness without already knowing the answer already.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
Good.Actually, I " contributed" to this thread by mentioning the Nix film/Zapruder non alignment in another thread. You then started this thread, in attempt to disprove this notion. I think a thank you note and/or a gift basket should be headed my way.
I'm relieved to hear you were just setting some kind of trap and not being an utter buffoon.
Most children know you need three points of reference to create an angle so I felt confident you knew that as well.
Thanks again for another amazing contribution to the thread.
Actually, I " contributed" to this thread by mentioning the Nix film/Zapruder non alignment in another thread. You then started this thread, in attempt to disprove this notion. I think a thank you note and/or a gift basket should be headed my way.
;DAnd my gift basket? :)
I can't argue with that.
It's a pity you can't accept the Nix Illusion has resolved said non-alignment.
And my gift basket? :)
And the angle of Nix to the presidential limo?
And the " validity" of the Roberdeau map re:Nix position?
And the invalidity of your video? Wrong camera position, angle?
You're not left with much in the way of "proof".
Crazy+ a waste of web space..That pretty well describes this thread.
Mental... Non-coherent..Meaningless.. Nothing
+ a waste of web space..That pretty well describes this thread.
So you've gone back a page or two to revive a thread that had come to it's end?It did? Apparently not...you had to come back with a
You may think challenging those who believe the Z-film has been altered is a waste of web space but I don't.
It did? Apparently not...you had to come back with afinallast word. Anyway I went through all 6 pages or so and learned nothing new.
You revived the thread to make you're nonsense comment.you're.
If you want to learn something new learn how to count - it's 14 pages.
So you were already aware of the effect I'm calling the Nix Illusion.
Why don't I believe that?
Why don't you point out where you came across this info.
Maybe you learned nothing new because you know it all already.
you're.
Sloppy.
Like your video. Inaccurate. As always.