Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?  (Read 24687 times)

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
    • SPMLaw
Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2023, 04:14:34 PM »
Advertisement
Yes, there is a small movement of the lapel outwards in Z222, i hadnt noticed.
And, yes, the lapel seems to have moved back inwards in Z223 (& then we have the full blown flip outwards in Z224).
I dont know how the upper lapel could flip out then in then out in the space of 3 frames.
However, my posting detailing the timings in Lattimer's 18 frames duz show the upper lapel & lower lapel doing different things. I will have to think about it.
While you are thinking about it it you might ask yourself how does the jacket bulge out but not the shirt or the tie?  The tie does not move at all. 
Quote
In 1963 the outshoot was below the level of the side of the limo, hence the cloud of steam & debris could not be seen in Zapruder.
U are correct that the lapel flips between Z223 & Z224.
But u cant say that that is different to Lattimer. We cant see what the lapel duz after Z226 (frame too blurry)(lapel hidden by arm/hand).

I think that Lattimer did not tell us anything about how much debris was found inside shirt & inside jacket in 1994.
And i dont know how much debris was found in 1963.

Here is the shirt:


Not that much blood there and there would be a less hitting the jacket.  Lattimer proved that the bullet itself cannot cause the jacket to bulge. 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2023, 04:14:34 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
    • SPMLaw
Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2023, 04:33:52 PM »
C'mon Andrew, are you sure they're "nothing alike"?
I see the top part of Connally's jacket move forward and create the same shape as seen in Lattimer's recreation and then the after effects are obscured by Connally's raised arm.
A few of the differences:
1.  There is no blast of bodily tissue that we see in Lattimer's film.  It was that blast of stuff of whatever Lattimer was using for a body that caused the jacket in Lattimer's film to fly out.  He could not get it to bulge out without it.
2.  There is no movement of any underlying shirt.  If the shirt moved, the tie would have to move. There is no movement of the tie at all.
3.  The bulge in Lattimer took several frames to develop. That is because the jacket can't move as fast as the bullet or exploding tissue. In the Zfilm the change occurs over one frame. That is consistent with the arm and torso motion that is beginning there and continues in subsequent frames.
4.  In Lattimer's demo there is no motion of the torso or arm occurring at the same time as the jacket motion.  There is in the zfilm.
5.  In Lattimer's case, the bullet exited under the lapel.  In Connally's case, it exited through the jacket pocket, not the lapel.

Quote
Consider Connally's positioning as to where the camera is and also Connally was seated which makes the bottom of the jacket compress into your lap and thus applies differing forces to the jacket.
In addition look at the right side of Connally's white shirt collar and how the jacket when hit rises and momentarily hides the white part, just like Lattimers recreation.
How does the jacket bulge but not the shirt?  If the shirt bulged, the tie would have to move. It doesn't.

And how do you explain the difference between z222 and z223?

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #90 on: December 04, 2023, 09:33:19 PM »
A few of the differences:
1.  There is no blast of bodily tissue that we see in Lattimer's film.  It was that blast of stuff of whatever Lattimer was using for a body that caused the jacket in Lattimer's film to fly out.  He could not get it to bulge out without it.
2.  There is no movement of any underlying shirt.  If the shirt moved, the tie would have to move. There is no movement of the tie at all.
3.  The bulge in Lattimer took several frames to develop. That is because the jacket can't move as fast as the bullet or exploding tissue. In the Zfilm the change occurs over one frame. That is consistent with the arm and torso motion that is beginning there and continues in subsequent frames.
4.  In Lattimer's demo there is no motion of the torso or arm occurring at the same time as the jacket motion.  There is in the zfilm.
5.  In Lattimer's case, the bullet exited under the lapel.  In Connally's case, it exited through the jacket pocket, not the lapel.
How does the jacket bulge but not the shirt?  If the shirt bulged, the tie would have to move. It doesn't.

And how do you explain the difference between z222 and z223?


Connally's jacket in front had more loose material than
the tucked-in shirt and tie-with-clip. But nice try.
 

It's a later picture, but it looks like
the Guv wore his belt high.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2023, 09:44:57 PM by Jerry Organ »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #90 on: December 04, 2023, 09:33:19 PM »


Online Marjan Rynkiewicz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #91 on: December 04, 2023, 10:42:19 PM »
While you are thinking about it it you might ask yourself how does the jacket bulge out but not the shirt or the tie?  The tie does not move at all. 
Here is the shirt:


Not that much blood there and there would be a less hitting the jacket.  Lattimer proved that the bullet itself cannot cause the jacket to bulge.
In my giff of Lattimer's 1994 bulge & flip the tie appears to be short, shorter than the lapel even.
The tie comes out (in 1994), & the end of the tie lifts up to about where we might possibly see it over the top of the side of the jfklimo in the Zapruder 1963 frames/giffs (if the tie came out in 1963).
Anyhow, the tie might have come out in 1963, but it is unlikely that the coming out would be vizible in Zapruder.
I will have a closer look at the 1963 frames to see if there is any hint of tie coming out.

I forget whether Lattimer said that in 1994 the jacket did not bulge nor the lapel flip unless the slug was tumbling during outshoot.
Or whether Lattimer was referring to the lapel flip only.
In any case we can safely assume that the shirt bulges as per the jacket. We can see a bit of shirt bulge in 1994, but i dont think we can see shirt bulge in 1963 (shirt might have bulged, but not vizible in Zapruder)(too blurry etc).
And anyhow why would the movement of the shirt be important?
Its strange that the 1994 lapel on Connally's left side duznt appear to bulge or flip at all.

Lattimer's outshoot in 1994 is much closer to centerline than the outshoot in 1963, & higher. The 1994 outshoot was just a couple of inches from the tie.
In fact the 1994 slug took a big chunk out of the edge of the lapel (as can be seen).
« Last Edit: December 04, 2023, 10:59:43 PM by Marjan Rynkiewicz »

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
    • SPMLaw
Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #92 on: December 05, 2023, 03:50:15 PM »

Connally's jacket in front had more loose material than
the tucked-in shirt and tie-with-clip. But nice try.
 

It's a later picture, but it looks like
the Guv wore his belt high.
Nice try Jerry.  But since the tie is clipped to the shirt it should move with the shirt. Neither shirt nor tie budges at all.   The jacket moves independently of the underlying shirt - just like the jacket opened a bit from z222-223.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #92 on: December 05, 2023, 03:50:15 PM »


Online Marjan Rynkiewicz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #93 on: February 14, 2024, 10:20:07 PM »
Bump. Below is one of my old postings re the lapel flip.

Here are my latest estimates (done today) off Lattimer's 18 frames (actually 18 photos)(it was not a film)(camera took 30 pix/sec)(Lattimer's test dunn in 1994).
Its difficult to see what is what in Lattimer's 1994 frames (pix) – its partly guesswork.
The flap on the jacket on the 1994 dummy was much longer than the 1963 jacket, so i have divided the 1994 flap into the lower flap & the upper flap.
In the 1963 Zapruder frames the 1963 flap is in effect the upper flap in the 1994 frames.
I assumed that the 1963 slug hit Connally at Z220.0.  This accords with the max flip at Lattimer 07 (1994) happening at the same time as the flip in Z224 (1963).
We don’t see any debris cloud in the 1963 Zapruder frames – the exit outshoot on the 1963 jacket is hidden below the level of the 1963 limo door.
Frame … Time s … Bulge % … Lower/Upper [Flap Flip %] … Debris Cloud % … Zapruder Frame … Connally 1963 Flap.
…. 00 …. 0.0000 …. 000 ……….. 010 …. 000 ……………………………….. 075 ……………………. Z220.0 ….…. hidden by sign..
…. 01 …. 0.0333 …. 040 ………...010 …. 000 ……………………………….. 100 …………………... Z220.6 …….. hidden by sign..
…. 02 …. 0.0667 …. 070 ……….. 060 …. 010 ………………………………. 050 ……………………. Z221.2 … half hidden by sign..
…. 03 …. 0.1000 …. 100 ……….. 100 …. 010 ………………………………. 040 ……………………. Z221.8 … half hidden by sign..
…. 04 …. 0.1333 …. 100 …….... 100 …. 010 ………………………………. 030 ……………………. Z222.4 …….….... no flip [edit 1dec2023][Andrew Mason has pointed out that there is a small flip or bulge in Z222].
…. 05 …. 0.1667 …. 090 …….…. 100 …. 020 ……………………………... 010 ……………………. Z223.0 …….….... no flip ..
…. 06 …. 0.2000 …. 080 …….... 100 …. 050 ………………………………. 005 …………………….. Z223.7 …….….... no flip ..
…. 07 …. 0.2333 …. 070 ……….. 100 …. 100 …………………….………. 000 …………………….. Z224.3 …….. flipped ..
…. 08 …. 0.2667 …. 060 ……….. 100 …. 100 ………………………….…. 000 …………………….. Z224.9 …….. flipped ..
…. 09 …. 0.3000 …. 050 ……... 100 …. 100 …………………………….. 000 ……………….….…. Z225.4 …….. flipped ..
…. 10 …. 0.3333 …. 040 ……... 100 …. 080 …………………………….. 000 ……………….……. Z225.9 …….. flipped ..
…. 11 …. 0.3667 …. 030 ………. 100 …. 050 …………………………….. 000 ……………….…... Z226.8 …….. flipped ..
…. 12 …. 0.4000 …. 020 ………. 100 …. 030 ……………………………. 000 ……….…………... Z227.3 ……...….. blurred frame ..
…. 13 …. 0.4333 …. 020 ……... 080 …. 020 ……………………………... 000 ……….………….. Z227.9 ……...….. blurred frame..
…. 14 …. 0.4667 …. 010 ……... 050 …. 010 ……………………………... 000 …………….……. Z228.4 …….. hidden ..
…. 15 …. 0.5000 …. 010 ……... 030 …. 005 …………………….……….. 000 …………….….…. Z229.2 …….. hidden ..
…. 16 …. 0.5333 …. 000 ………. 020 …. 000 ……………….….…………. 000 …………….……. Z229.8 …….. hidden ..
…. 17 …. 0.5667 …. 000 ……... 010 …. 000 …………………..…………. 000 …………….……. Z2230.3 …….. hidden ..
…. …. …. 0.6000 …. ……. ……... …... …. …... …………………..…………. ..... …………….……. Z231.0 …….. hidden ..
In the above analysis we can see that the max lapel flip happens at frame07 2 frames after the jacket bulge starts to diminish at frame05.
Latimer's frames are at 30 fps. So, 2 such Lattimer frames would have an interval of 1/15th of a sec. Which is similar to the interval (1/9th sec) between Z222 & Z224.
Mystery solved.
Z222 shows us mainly jacket bulge, plus a little bit of upper-lapel flip.
Z224 shows us mainly a large upper-lapel flip, plus some jacket bulge.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2024, 10:21:47 PM by Marjan Rynkiewicz »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The lapel flip -- what did i miss?
« Reply #93 on: February 14, 2024, 10:20:07 PM »