Bronson saw Hickey shoot JFK.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I saw a claim that smoke can be seen in or near Queen Mary in Bronson's footage.
I can't see any.  If Hickey fired at UYB09 then we might see smoke at UYB10 UYB11 UYB12, & this would have to be at chest level in front of Hickey & the standing Agents, but i don’t see any such smoke. 

A patch of grass on the knoll behind Queen Mary seems to change color slightly from frame to frame, but that doesn't prove anything much.

Would an AR15 give much smoke? 
I suspect that Hickey fired an auto burst of at least 4 shots, so praps 4 or 5 shots might make an appreciable amount of smoke.  Dunno.

Smoke evidence proves that ………………………………………………..…
(1) No-one shot from the 6th floor -- no-one saw gunsmoke.
(2) No-one shot Tippit -- no-one saw gunsmoke.
(3) No-one shot from the Queen Mary -- no-one saw gunsmoke.
(4) A shot came from the picket fence – many saw gunsmoke.
Many was called as a witness -- why wasnt no-one called? -- why wasnt No-one found guilty?

[Jerry Freeman]

Of those 20 links posted above....all come up as a 'google error'--- check this before you post

Many was called as a witness, why wasnt no-one called??

What does that even mean?

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Of those 20 links posted above....all come up as a 'google error'--- check this before you post :-\What does that even mean?

Ok thanx for that. It looks like Google Photos only shares with other members. [edit][i forgot to share][now shared].
So today i opened a new website on Google Sites & i uploaded my 18 images to that.
https://sites.google.com/view/bronsonfilmframes/home

I notice that the google images come across at about 45k, whereas my originals are about 210k, but the 45k images dont look inferior, but praps they will be too grainy if u magnify them. If anyone wants my originals i will email them.  Actually the google images download with the correct height but google have cropped the width.  It looks as if the cropping is equal on the left & right, in which case when u scroll throo the pix to get a pseudo film effect then the Queen Mary might look stationary like it should, & the frames/pix should be good enough to see if u can see Hickey shooting JFK, but if u aint happy with it then message me & i will email my 18 originals.

Posting images on Google Sites is a bit difficult, it is a little user unfriendly, but it is free.  Not to be confused with Google Images.

[Jerry Freeman]

The value of Dillard's photographic work would not come into play until some years later, when he handed his twelve negatives over to the HSCA inquiry into the shooting of JFK. The idea was to enhance the negatives to allow a better view of the window and imagery inside the window in the hope that they might show if Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the window frame at the various times of each bullet being fired..........
All twelve negatives were irreversibly destroyed during the enhancement process, a process that did not involve Tom Dillard. Not only did Dillard never get asked to explain his gunpowder observation to the original Warren Commission hearing, his now destroyed negatives denied him, and anyone trying to unravel the death of JFK, an opportunity to see if there was a picture that might have told a thousand words. Tom's disappointment was followed by his comment on the entire affair: 'a nauseating boondoggle'.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/jfk-the-smoking-gun-reveals-shocking-new-details-about-who-was-responsible-for-gunning-down-jfk/news-story/6c8a3ba473172faca7d91717683cf95f

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/jfk-the-smoking-gun-reveals-shocking-new-details-about-who-was-responsible-for-gunning-down-jfk/news-story/6c8a3ba473172faca7d91717683cf95f

Yes all of that supports my wordage that no-one saw (reported seeing) gunsmoke at the 6th floor.

However gunsmoke was seen near Queen Mary, because i suppose that there is always a little observable smoke, & as i have said in another thread Hickey fired an auto burst of at least 4 shots hence 4 or 5 lots of a little smoke. 

Re Dillard that article says twice that Dillard observed gunsmoke when in fact he hadnt -- smelling gunsmoke should not be called observing gunsmoke. 
And the timing of Dillard smelling gunsmoke is wrong. He could not have smelled gunsmoke until much later when the wind carried it from the location of Queen Mary at UYB09, or until he met the smell say halfway or something. 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

https://sites.google.com/view/bronson-ar15-inframe11/home
Spot the AR15.
This shows UYB11 which is 2 or 3 frames after the fatal shot at UYB09 or UYB08 (Zapruder frame Z313 is UYB09 or praps a little before UYB09).
Enuff time i think for the AR15 to recoil from horizontal in UYB09 to near vertical in UYB11.
That little patch of pink at the AR15 aint Hickey's hand it is Bennett's face, which is the main reason that we can make out a fuzzy AR15 at all, if Bennett wasnt low down & leaning forward then we would not be able to see the AR15, but luckily it shows up dark against Bennett's face. Likewise in another frame.
More to come.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPiTwDNDUf06ceWTq-G6iT6vves11HFUmynWgrfFkiEu-k5wdyTe170ykYZ1AUB6A?key=bExjLWY1U1VuenhGbFlMRlhzMTY5YzFkanZYQ0ZR
 

 

[Bill Chapman]

https://sites.google.com/view/bronson-ar15-inframe11/home
Spot the AR15.
This shows B11 which is 2 or 3 frames after the fatal shot at B09 or B08 (Zapruder frame 313 is B09 or praps a little before B09).
Enuff time i think for the AR15 to recoil from horizontal in B09 to near vertical in B11.
That little patch of pink at the AR15 aint Hickey's hand it is Bennett's face, which is the main reason that we can make out a fuzzy AR15 at all, if Bennett wasnt low down & leaning forward then we would not be able to see the AR15, but luckily it shows up dark against Bennett's face. Likewise in another frame.
More to come.

Attack of the Blobs

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

https://topekatornado.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/the-Bronson-Kennedy-assasination-film-investigation-Report.v2.1.pdf
An interesting report by kenneth s weissman
"report: the bronson kennedy assassination film investigation"
which says that Robin Unger's 20 (screenprints i think) of the Museum's 2017 scan of Bronson's film (ie the 20 frames that i am using) are not as good as the Museum's 2019 scan of the 26 frames.

I doubt that the Museum would send me copies of their 26 2019 frames for free or even for dollars. Might Robin Unger be able to get copies?

The inferior 2017 Robin Unger frames (no fault of Robin) that i used definitely suffer from software artifacts (ie an attack of the blobs).
I wonder what the good hi-res 2019 version of UYB11 might show re that there AR15.
Plus what would the other 2019 frames show?

Weissman says that he would like to look at the original film frames using a microscope.  And adds that fixing the frames to use a microscope would be a danger to the film.  Why does Weissman think that a good digital copy is not as good as a microscope?