Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and an LNT, has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics in order to attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link, so readers are supposed to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for themselves, it would appear.
If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence, and the closeups do not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes through the window onto JBC's torso.
Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this information, again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the 'lapel flop' issue once again???
And, lastly, Chad tries to pretend that 'the SBT' is 'my' pretty pig. It is not. I didn't create 'the SBT'. Specter did. So it's Specter and the WC's Pretty Pig! And Chad's! <g>
Pamela ;-)
On 5 Dec 2004 19:48:44 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote:
>I don't know what's cuter, the pig you wrote about or the pig you trailed in with you in the paper.
>Again, you've stated that the 'lapel flip', or "flop" as you prefer to call it, was created from the shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>Quote:
>"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the fulll-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
>You are familiar with the numerous photos that show that sign within minutes of the assassination, aren't you?
>Would it surprise you that no such shadow is cast onto the street where you have alleged Connally to have driven through it.
>See the Bond #8 below:
>See that shadow to the left (man's left) of the man in the dark suit? That's the Stemmons Freeway >sign's shadow. See how the shadow of the man in the dark suit crosses over the curb and into >the grass? Just how did JBC catch some of the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow?
>Nice to see that your only major refutation of the Posner scenario is the 'lapel flip' into a 'flop'.
>However, whose 'flop' is it?
>Chad
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel throughout November 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and an > LNT,
And Pamela who happens to be a flute player and limo expert...
>has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics
Yeah, facts. Damn those things.
Kind of like that damn tactic I used to show that 8cm isn't 6"...it's called proper conversion beyond your editing.
in order to
> attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday > Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link,
Yeah, by taking advantage of the fact that it wasn't in the body of the 'article'. That's your problem, not mine. I quoted the pertinent text of yours, now you want me to have posted the entire thing.
so readers are supposed
> to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for > themselves, it would appear.
Yeah, I quoted it directly. Sorry. Its your interpretation, not mine- hence those pesky quotation marks.
> In addition, Chad has apparently not even looked at the exhibit I used > relative to my statement. He doesn't reference it in his cute reply.
He doesn't need to because it is absurd. The shadow (of the sign) wasn't anywhere near JBC. You don't need to review the Zapruder frames to know that. How about the plethora of photos that illustrate that fact. Don't let those get in the way!
> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he > and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence,
Of course, that's asinine, I have all the frames: wideframe, full frame, closeup, medium frame- but Pamela, herself, chooses to use the very frames that she is castigating me for allegedly using.
and the closeups do
> not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the > shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
So, she resorts to using the closeup frames in order to illustrate it, then insinuates that that's all I've used! Good job!
....something about a pot and a kettle...
> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the > center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes > through the window onto JBC's torso.
The shadow is not cast onto the car or into the street. Several photos, as well as the Zfilm, illustrate this basic concept. Just look at those shadows across the street. Now, figure out where the Stemmons Sign shadow was.
Rocket science?
> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this > information,
Huh? I did nothing of the sort. Is this what happens when you show someone that they made a mistake?
again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the
> 'lapel flop' issue once again???
I didn't delete the links. You didn't post them in the body of your 'article'.
> And, lastly, Chad tries to pretend that 'the SBT' is 'my' pretty pig.
No, I did not.
It
> is not.
No kidding.
I didn't create 'the SBT'. Specter did. So it's Specter and the
> WC's Pretty Pig!
But you trailed in your own shadowy pig! If you'd read the post, you would've understood that.
>And Chad's!
I don't have one. I am talking about yours. (Big, enormous, superlarge, gigantic...<G>)
> On 5 Dec 2004 19:48:44 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> > wrote:
>>I don't know what's cuter, the pig you wrote about or the pig you trailed >>in with you in the paper.
>>Again, you've stated that the 'lapel flip', or "flop" as you prefer to >>call it, was created from the shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>>Quote:
>>"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning >>glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as >>I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side >>window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a >>result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the >>fulll-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than >>the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
>>You are familiar with the numerous photos that show that sign within >>minutes of the assassination, aren't you?
>>Would it surprise you that no such shadow is cast onto the street where >>you have alleged Connally to have driven through it.
>>See the Bond #8 below:
>>See that shadow to the left (man's left) of the man in the dark suit? >>That's the Stemmons Freeway >>sign's shadow. See how the shadow of the man in the dark suit crosses over >>the curb and into >>the grass? Just how did JBC catch some of the Stemmons Freeway sign >>shadow?
>>Nice to see that your only major refutation of the Posner scenario is the >>'lapel flip' into a 'flop'.
>>However, whose 'flop' is it?
>>Chad
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the > impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A > Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary > devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel throughout > November 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: > http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow > and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay > "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for > the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination > Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more > detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on > Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit > www.themagicflute.org
Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic. In addition, he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to put his spin on the criticism..
Let's clarify things:
1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario. What are they doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who disagree with it put up their proof?
S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
Pamela
On 7 Dec 2004 09:19:15 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote:
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:rst9r0lb2ba3augbf4fhh943hcmhkrg2ng@4ax.com... >> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and an >> LNT,
>And Pamela who happens to be a flute player and limo expert...
>>has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics
>Yeah, facts. Damn those things.
>Kind of like that damn tactic I used to show that 8cm isn't 6"...it's called >proper conversion >beyond your editing.
> in order to >> attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday >> Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link,
>Yeah, by taking advantage of the fact that it wasn't in the body of the >'article'. That's >your problem, not mine. I quoted the pertinent text of yours, now you want >me to have >posted the entire thing.
> so readers are supposed >> to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for >> themselves, it would appear.
>Yeah, I quoted it directly. Sorry. Its your interpretation, not mine- hence >those >pesky quotation marks.
>> In addition, Chad has apparently not even looked at the exhibit I used >> relative to my statement. He doesn't reference it in his cute reply.
>He doesn't need to because it is absurd. The shadow (of the sign) wasn't >anywhere >near JBC. You don't need to review the Zapruder frames to know that. How >about >the plethora of photos that illustrate that fact. Don't let those get in the >way!
>> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he >> and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence,
>Of course, that's asinine, I have all the frames: wideframe, full frame, >closeup, >medium frame- but Pamela, herself, chooses to use the very frames that she >is >castigating me for allegedly using.
>and the closeups do >> not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the >> shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
>So, she resorts to using the closeup frames in order to illustrate it, then >insinuates >that that's all I've used! Good job!
>....something about a pot and a kettle...
>> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the >> center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes >> through the window onto JBC's torso.
>The shadow is not cast onto the car or into the street. Several photos, as >well >as the Zfilm, illustrate this basic concept. Just look at those shadows >across the >street. Now, figure out where the Stemmons Sign shadow was.
>Rocket science?
>> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this >> information,
>Huh? I did nothing of the sort. Is this what happens when you show someone >that >they made a mistake?
> again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the >> 'lapel flop' issue once again???
>I didn't delete the links. You didn't post them in the body of your >'article'.
>> And, lastly, Chad tries to pretend that 'the SBT' is 'my' pretty pig.
>No, I did not.
>It >> is not.
>No kidding.
> I didn't create 'the SBT'. Specter did. So it's Specter and the >> WC's Pretty Pig!
>But you trailed in your own shadowy pig! If you'd read the post, you >would've >understood that.
>>And Chad's!
>I don't have one. I am talking about yours. (Big, enormous, superlarge, >gigantic...<G>)
>Chad
> <g>
>> Pamela ;-)
>> On 5 Dec 2004 19:48:44 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> >> wrote:
>>>I don't know what's cuter, the pig you wrote about or the pig you trailed >>>in with you in the paper.
>>>Again, you've stated that the 'lapel flip', or "flop" as you prefer to >>>call it, was created from the shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>>>Quote:
>>>"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning >>>glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as >>>I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side >>>window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a >>>result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the >>>fulll-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than >>>the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
>>>You are familiar with the numerous photos that show that sign within >>>minutes of the assassination, aren't you?
>>>Would it surprise you that no such shadow is cast onto the street where >>>you have alleged Connally to have driven through it.
>>>See the Bond #8 below:
>>>See that shadow to the left (man's left) of the man in the dark suit? >>>That's the Stemmons Freeway >>>sign's shadow. See how the shadow of the man in the dark suit crosses over >>>the curb and into >>>the grass? Just how did JBC catch some of the Stemmons Freeway sign >>>shadow?
>>>Nice to see that your only major refutation of the Posner scenario is the >>>'lapel flip' into a 'flop'.
>>>However, whose 'flop' is it?
>>>Chad
>> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the >> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A >> Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary >> devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel throughout >> November 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: >> http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow >> and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay >> "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for >> the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination >> Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more >> detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on >> Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit >> www.themagicflute.org
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than > acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he > attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
In addition,
> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to > put his spin on the criticism..
Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in question. You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other discussion- initiated by you.
> Let's clarify things:
> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a rabid CT, I'd say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches > clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there > was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that you've figured out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not everything except the shadow.
What are they
> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who > disagree with it put up their proof?
I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps, read someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
I was talking about the shadow. Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said versus what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address ANYTHING related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE PRIMARY SUBJECT OF MY POST.
Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a tactic to scream 'tactic', then employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
> On 7 Dec 2004 09:19:15 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> > wrote:
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > >news:rst9r0lb2ba3augbf4fhh943hcmhkrg2ng@4ax.com... > >> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and an > >> LNT,
> >And Pamela who happens to be a flute player and limo expert...
> >>has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics
> >Yeah, facts. Damn those things.
> >Kind of like that damn tactic I used to show that 8cm isn't 6"...it's called > >proper conversion > >beyond your editing.
> > in order to > >> attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday > >> Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link,
> >Yeah, by taking advantage of the fact that it wasn't in the body of the > >'article'. That's > >your problem, not mine. I quoted the pertinent text of yours, now you want > >me to have > >posted the entire thing.
> > so readers are supposed > >> to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for > >> themselves, it would appear.
> >Yeah, I quoted it directly. Sorry. Its your interpretation, not mine- hence > >those > >pesky quotation marks.
> >> Here is the link for those who are interested:
> >> In addition, Chad has apparently not even looked at the exhibit I used > >> relative to my statement. He doesn't reference it in his cute reply.
> >He doesn't need to because it is absurd. The shadow (of the sign) wasn't > >anywhere > >near JBC. You don't need to review the Zapruder frames to know that. How > >about > >the plethora of photos that illustrate that fact. Don't let those get in the > >way!
> >> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he > >> and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence,
> >Of course, that's asinine, I have all the frames: wideframe, full frame, > >closeup, > >medium frame- but Pamela, herself, chooses to use the very frames that she > >is > >castigating me for allegedly using.
> >and the closeups do > >> not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the > >> shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
> >So, she resorts to using the closeup frames in order to illustrate it, then > >insinuates > >that that's all I've used! Good job!
> >....something about a pot and a kettle...
> >> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the > >> center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes > >> through the window onto JBC's torso.
> >The shadow is not cast onto the car or into the street. Several photos, as > >well > >as the Zfilm, illustrate this basic concept. Just look at those shadows > >across the > >street. Now, figure out where the Stemmons Sign shadow was.
> >Rocket science?
> >> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this > >> information,
> >Huh? I did nothing of the sort. Is this what happens when you show someone > >that > >they made a mistake?
> > again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the > >> 'lapel flop' issue once again???
> >I didn't delete the links. You didn't post them in the body of your > >'article'.
> >> And, lastly, Chad tries to pretend that 'the SBT' is 'my' pretty pig.
> >No, I did not.
> >It > >> is not.
> >No kidding.
> > I didn't create 'the SBT'. Specter did. So it's Specter and the > >> WC's Pretty Pig!
> >But you trailed in your own shadowy pig! If you'd read the post, you > >would've > >understood that.
> >>And Chad's!
> >I don't have one. I am talking about yours. (Big, enormous, superlarge, > >gigantic...<G>)
> >Chad
> > <g>
> >> Pamela ;-)
> >> On 5 Dec 2004 19:48:44 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> > >> wrote:
> >>>I don't know what's cuter, the pig you wrote about or the pig you trailed > >>>in with you in the paper.
> >>>Again, you've stated that the 'lapel flip', or "flop" as you prefer to > >>>call it, was created from the shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign.
> >>>Quote:
> >>>"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning > >>>glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as > >>>I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side > >>>window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a > >>>result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the > >>>fulll-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than > >>>the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
> >>>You are familiar with the numerous photos that show that sign within > >>>minutes of the assassination, aren't you?
> >>>Would it surprise you that no such shadow is cast onto the street where > >>>you have alleged Connally to have driven through it.
> >>>See the Bond #8 below:
> >>>See that shadow to the left (man's left) of the man in the dark suit? > >>>That's the Stemmons Freeway > >>>sign's shadow. See how the shadow of the man in the dark suit crosses over > >>>the curb and into > >>>the grass? Just how did JBC catch some of the Stemmons Freeway sign > >>>shadow?
> >>>Nice to see that your only major refutation of the Posner scenario is the > >>>'lapel flip' into a 'flop'.
> >>>However, whose 'flop' is it?
> >>>Chad
> >> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the > >> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A > >> Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
> >> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary > >> devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel throughout > >> November 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: > >> http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow > >> and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay > >> "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for > >> the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination > >> Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more > >> detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on > >> Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit > >> www.themagicflute.org
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, > whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, > Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the > schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section. > For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
>> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than >> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he >> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
>Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your >pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
Untrue. You misrepresented the facts and confused them. Unless you really don't know what you are talking about?
Here's the link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"
> In addition, >> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to >> put his spin on the criticism..
>Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in question. >You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other >discussion- initiated by you.
You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference in clearance measurement. You have been and are now rambling all alone by yourself, aren't you? I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
>Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a rabid >CT, I'd >say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
>> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches >> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there >> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
>Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that >you've figured >out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is what you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any success, are you?
>> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
>Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not everything >except >the shadow.
I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about that, don't you?
>What are they >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who >> disagree with it put up their proof?
>I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps, >read >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
>I was talking about the shadow.
You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged the 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
>Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get >together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said >versus >what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
>> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
>The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address >ANYTHING >related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE >PRIMARY >SUBJECT OF MY POST.
You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your mind?
Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
>Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a >tactic to scream 'tactic', then >employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
My position is that Posner owes us all an apology for jumping to a sinister conclusion. That you choose to agree with him is up to you. Is that the problem? :-0
Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine. "
You complain about Posner :
"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every other possibility, wouldn't it?"
Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is no way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most geographically challenged.
Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of misrepresentations' & their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order at this point. ?
> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and an > LNT, has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics in order to > attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday > Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link, so readers are supposed > to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for > themselves, it would appear.
> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he > and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence, and the closeups do > not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the > shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the > center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes > through the window onto JBC's torso.
Pamela,
It is you who is utterly failing to address the fact that Chad's pic shows the shadow cast by the sign to be going *away* from the street, not toward it. This was Texas in November. At that time of year & at that latitude the sun is more southward than it is in the summer. The sign was on the *north* side of Elm. No object under the sun is going to cast a shadow to the *south* at that time of year in Texas, thus it is utterly impossible for the shadow of the sign to have extended into the street at all.
In fact, not even on the summer solstice does the sun cast any shadows to the south anywhere in Texas at any time of day. On that solstice, the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer, which is still well south of even the southernmost tip of Texas, & considerably further south than Dallas. Even at high noon on the solstice shadows cast by the sun point slightly north. They don't ever point south, not an iota.
> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this > information, again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the > 'lapel flop' issue once again???
Neither of those links show the shadow of the sign extending into the street. The tilt of the earth on its axis precludes that from ever being a possibility at that time of day at that time of year in Dallas.
> >> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than > >> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he > >> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
> >Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your > >pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
> Untrue. You misrepresented the facts and confused them. Unless you > really don't know what you are talking about?
> Here's the link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"
"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
If I misunderstood, what did I misunderstand?
You did say that it was the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow, right?
> > In addition, > >> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to > >> put his spin on the criticism..
> >Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in question. > >You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other > >discussion- initiated by you.
> You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference > in clearance measurement. You have been and are now rambling all alone by > yourself, aren't you? I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
Pamela, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE STEMMONS FREEWAY SHADOW.
That is it. I don't know what you keep mumbling about. I made no mention of such things in this thread.
I directly quoted your passage regarding the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow. Did you forget to read that?
> >Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a rabid > >CT, I'd > >say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
> >> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches > >> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there > >> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
> >Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that > >you've figured > >out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
> The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is what > you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any > success, are you?
No, read the damned post, Pamela. I never made an issue of any height. I made an issue of your claim regarding the STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN SHADOW that you reference in your article.
> >> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
> >Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not everything > >except > >the shadow.
> I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in > measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about > that, don't you?
I'm talking about the shadow. Is that so hard to comprehend, or would you prefer not talking about it?
> >What are they > >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who > >> disagree with it put up their proof?
> >I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps, > >read > >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
> You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious > discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to > attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
Not in this thread.
> >I was talking about the shadow.
> You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged the > 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an > incorrect conclusion.
Bull. What shadow? The Stemmons sign? Please do some research. That's impossible. I posted numerous photos that show this to be wrong. This post was entirely based upon a shadow that has taken you 3 posts to acknowledge. I did not bring up distances in this post, did I?
> >Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get > >together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said > >versus > >what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
> Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
Um, you're meandering, Pamela. My post entitled 'Pamela's Cute Pig' was entirely founded on your shadowy argument- not measurements.
> >> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
> >The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address > >ANYTHING > >related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE > >PRIMARY > >SUBJECT OF MY POST.
> You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read > it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your > mind?
I've read your article. Every word of it. However, I chose to address the shadow issue first.
Its not that you're not reading my mind- YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT READING MY POSTS. This post was about the shadow that you don't want to talk about, so you are bringing up measurements and ANYTHING else that suits you.
> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
The shadow! READ the post.
> >Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a > >tactic to scream 'tactic', then > >employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
> My position is that Posner owes us all an apology for jumping to a > sinister conclusion.
Posner wasn't the originator of the lapel flip, Pamela. Get your facts straight. He popularized it. Go find the true culprit and tell them that it was created by a shadow from a sign that was cast AWAY from Connally.
>That you choose to agree with him is up to you. Is > that the problem? :-0
Do you read the posts at all? Apparently not. So far you have barely addressed anything from the original post, save to say that the shadow IS the lapel flip. That's it. You refuse to address anything and are constantly changing the subject.
Funny how you accuse everyone else of doing such things, yet are making it routine with your own posts.
Let's try and discuss this shadow thing, shall we?
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the > impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A > Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary > devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on > December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: > http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow > and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay > "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for > the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination > Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more > detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on > Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit > www.themagicflute.org
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 12/5/2004
>"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow >coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The >apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as >you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow >came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between >Zapruder and the limousine. "
>You complain about Posner :
>"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his >disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every >other possibility, wouldn't it?"
>Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's >recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is no >way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway >sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
>Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most >geographically challenged.
>Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of misrepresentations' >& their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the >naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order at >this point. ?
Here is the gif that shows the orientation of Zapruder, the limo, and JBC:
1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the refraction of the shadow that fell on JBC's chest.
2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the Z-frames.
3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop' could not be a shadow.
So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum. Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
Pamela :-)
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
> >"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow > >coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The > >apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as > >you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow > >came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between > >Zapruder and the limousine. "
> >You complain about Posner :
> >"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his > >disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every > >other possibility, wouldn't it?"
> >Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's > >recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is no > >way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway > >sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
> >Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most > >geographically challenged.
> >Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of misrepresentations' > >& their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the > >naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order at > >this point. ?
> Here is the gif that shows the orientation of Zapruder, the limo, and > JBC:
> 1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement > that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the > refraction of the shadow that fell on JBC's chest.
Care to elaborate on the unearthly optics involved in that ? You might start by explaining how a shadow can be refracted ??
> 2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could > not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other > orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the > Z-frames.
I'm beginning to think you have no idea how shadows are formed. Shadows are formed when an opaque object comes between a source of illumination and the object in shadow. In this case, the opaque object is the Stemmons sign, the source of the illumination is the sun, & the object in shadow is JBC. If you haven't worked it out yet, JBC is SOUTH of the Stemmons sign, and any shadow that sign casts MUST FALL NORTH. Consequently .... this little pig isn't going to market.
> 3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop' > could not be a shadow.
It addresses - & demolishes - your bold contention that the 'flop' is the shadow *of the Stemmons sign.* If you want to claim it's the shadow of something else, go ahead. (Hint : I suggest you at least pick an object that is SOUTH of JBC.)
> So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to > be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
Then you have no idea how shadows are formed.
> In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum. > Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
"Once you have eliminated the unacceptable (on no grounds whatever) then whatever remains, however physically impossible, might just be successfully promoted as the truth, to a really dumb audience."
> >"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow > >coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The > >apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as > >you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow > >came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between > >Zapruder and the limousine. "
> >You complain about Posner :
> >"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his > >disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every > >other possibility, wouldn't it?"
> >Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's > >recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is no > >way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway > >sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
> >Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most > >geographically challenged.
> >Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of misrepresentations' > >& their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the > >naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order at > >this point. ?
> Here is the gif that shows the orientation of Zapruder, the limo, and > JBC:
> 1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement > that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the > refraction of the shadow that fell on JBC's chest.
Except the shadow is not there, Pamela. Are you now suggesting that the clear window is reflecting the shadow that is on the ground and onto Connally?
At best, you might have the argument that any light coming through that window may have been reduced due to the shadow on the ground. Then, of course, you'd have to realize that the top was off of the limo and the sunshine was radiating down, illuminating the occupants.
But, I'll bet you stick with some refraction claim.
> 2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could > not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other > orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the > Z-frames.
Yeah, those damn photos show the shadow you are talking about on the ground, rather than the Zfilm frames (closeup I might add) that don't show the Stemmons Freeway shadow.
Sorry for getting specific with my choice of photos, Pamela.
> 3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop' > could not be a shadow.
Huh? Did you read it yet? I said it could not be the Stemmons Freeway sign's shadow. In fact, in another post, I said that it could potentially be a shadow- just not THAT one.
Are you actually reading posts or just replying?
> So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to > be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
> In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum. > Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
You did? When? And, why do I need to debate on another forum, when we can debate it right here?
Of course, thus far, you haven't debated anything with me. The most you've said about the shadow is in this reply to Paul. In posts to me, you want to talk about measurements, not shadows.
Wonder why.
Chad
> Pamela :-)
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, > whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, > Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary
devoted to SS-100-X.
> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the > schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson,
Vaughn's widow and I are
> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR
CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002)
> was used as the basis for the assassination section. > For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine
This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and also JFK and JBC.
In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway sign.
In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I would rather move forward.
>> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and an >> LNT, has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics in order to >> attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's Saturday >> Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link, so readers are supposed >> to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for >> themselves, it would appear.
>> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he >> and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence, and the closeups do >> not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the >> shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
>> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the >> center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow comes >> through the window onto JBC's torso.
>Pamela,
>It is you who is utterly failing to address the fact that Chad's pic >shows the shadow cast by the sign to be going *away* from the street, >not toward it. This was Texas in November. At that time of year & at >that latitude the sun is more southward than it is in the summer. The >sign was on the *north* side of Elm. No object under the sun is going >to cast a shadow to the *south* at that time of year in Texas, thus it >is utterly impossible for the shadow of the sign to have extended into >the street at all.
>In fact, not even on the summer solstice does the sun cast any shadows >to the south anywhere in Texas at any time of day. On that solstice, >the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer, which is still well south >of even the southernmost tip of Texas, & considerably further south than >Dallas. Even at high noon on the solstice shadows cast by the sun point >slightly north. They don't ever point south, not an iota.
>> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this >> information, again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on the >> 'lapel flop' issue once again???
>Neither of those links show the shadow of the sign extending into the >street. The tilt of the earth on its axis precludes that from ever >being a possibility at that time of day at that time of year in Dallas.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X. It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow and I are interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) was used as the basis for the assassination section. For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
>> >> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than >> >> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he >> >> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
>> >Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your >> >pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
>> Untrue. You misrepresented the facts and confused them. Unless you >> really don't know what you are talking about?
>> Here's the link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"
>"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning >glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as >I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side >window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a >result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the >full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than >the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
>If I misunderstood, what did I misunderstand?
>You did say that it was the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow, right?
I did. Now help me clarify what you are attempting to say. You have dismissed the small side window of the limo as being a factor in how light and shadow hit JBC, have pulled photos from other orientations and claimed they represent that of Zapruder, and are also claiming by inference that if there is no shadow from the Stemmons Freeway sign that means the lapel 'flop' isn't a flop, am I right?
>> > In addition, >> >> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to >> >> put his spin on the criticism..
>> >Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in >question. >> >You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer other >> >discussion- initiated by you.
>> You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference >> in clearance measurement. You have been and are now rambling all alone by >> yourself, aren't you? I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
In your earlier posts you misrepresented the clearance and height discrepancies. Am I supposed to just walk by that? Are you going to acknowledge that you did so or should I just make an excuse for you?
>Pamela, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE STEMMONS FREEWAY SHADOW.
>That is it. I don't know what you keep mumbling about. I made no mention of >such things in this thread.
You have made multiple misrepresentations of what I have said. Excuse me for attempting to address them!
>I directly quoted your passage regarding the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow. >Did >you forget to read that?
>> >> Let's clarify things:
>> >> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
>> >Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a rabid >> >CT, I'd >> >say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
>> >> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches >> >> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there >> >> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
>> >Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see that >> >you've figured >> >out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
>> The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is what >> you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any >> success, are you?
>No, read the damned post, Pamela. I never made an issue of any height. I >made
You made an ERROR about the height and clearance discrepancy. I pointed it out and corrected it. Can we stay on the same page now?
>an issue of your claim regarding the STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN SHADOW >that you reference in your article.
I am saying two things -- (1) I think the 'flop' is caused by a shadow; (2) because of the orientation of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the similarity in outline of the upper right corner of the sign and the shadow, that this is what -- refracting through the limo side window-- caused the shadow.
>> >> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
>> >Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not >everything >> >except >> >the shadow.
>> I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in >> measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about >> that, don't you?
>I'm talking about the shadow. Is that so hard to comprehend, or would you >prefer >not talking about it?
You would apparently perfer to forget your own error Chad in mixing up the clearance and height differences. Your choice.
>> >What are they >> >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who >> >> disagree with it put up their proof?
>> >I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, perhaps, >> >read >> >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
>> You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious >> discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to >> attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
>Not in this thread.
Are you acknowledging your error so we can move on from this?
>> >I was talking about the shadow.
>> You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged the >> 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an >> incorrect conclusion.
>Bull. What shadow? The Stemmons sign? Please do some research. That's >impossible. >I posted numerous photos that show this to be wrong.
Chad has removed an element of the equation and then claims the equation to be 'wrong'. That is called a strawman argument Chad.
>This post was entirely >based upon >a shadow that has taken you 3 posts to acknowledge. I did not bring up >distances in this >post, did I?
You also misrepresented the measurements. Hopefully you will acknowledge that and move on.
>> >Write it down. Perhaps you and Tony can get >> >together and read my posts fully and take notes on what I actually said >> >versus >> >what you think I was thinking but didn't write.
>> Huh? It isn't easy to follow the meandering.
>Um, you're meandering, Pamela. My post entitled 'Pamela's Cute Pig' was >entirely >founded on your shadowy argument- not measurements.
QUOTE ON
>has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics
Yeah, facts. Damn those things.
Kind of like that damn tactic I used to show that 8cm isn't 6"...it's called proper conversion beyond your editing.
QUOTE OFF
That is your misrepresentation of the measurements. 8cm refers to the height discrepancy of the WC/HSCA of 1.5/8cm; 6" refers to the clearance discrepancy of the WC/HSCA of 6"/2.5
You introduced it Chad. Now you want to drop it. Fine.
>> >> S-O-D (slime, obfuscate, divert). A legal tactic.
>> >The only diversion here is from you, Pamela. Not ONCE did you address >> >ANYTHING >> >related to my post. Heck, you never even once mentioned the shadow- THE >> >PRIMARY >> >SUBJECT OF MY POST.
>> You were comfortable complaining about my essay without even having read >> it, weren't you? And now you are complaining that I am not reading your >> mind?
>I've read your article. Every word of it. However, I chose to address the >shadow >issue first.
You have misrepresented what you term 'the shadow issue'.
>Its not that you're not reading my mind- YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT READING >MY POSTS. This post was about the shadow that you don't want to talk about, >so >you are bringing up measurements and ANYTHING else that suits you.
Untrue Chad. You are a mod. Surely you take responsibility for your statements. See above.
>> Why not just spit it out Chad? Just what are you so lathered about?
>> >Would that be a tactic of any significant derivation? Or, is it simply a >> >tactic to scream 'tactic', then >> >employ the same tactic you are screaming about?
>> My position is that Posner owes us all an apology for jumping to a >> sinister conclusion.
>Posner wasn't the originator of the lapel flip, Pamela. Get your facts >straight. He >popularized it. Go find the true culprit and tell them that it was created >by a shadow >from a sign that was cast AWAY from Connally.
>>That you choose to agree with him is up to you. Is >> that the problem? :-0
>Do you read the posts at all? Apparently not. So far you have barely >addressed anything >from the original post, save to say that the shadow IS the lapel flip. >That's it. You refuse >to address anything and are constantly changing the subject.
>Funny how you accuse everyone else of doing such things, yet are making it >routine with >your own posts.
Why are you misrepresenting my statements and then criticizing my response to your strawman? What good do you see coming from that?
>Let's try and discuss this shadow thing, shall we?
Which version -- your strawman or the one I presented?
>> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the >> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A >> Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in > the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the > orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and > also JFK and JBC.
LOL. The car window is in front and to the right of JBC. The shadow is STILL on the ground.
> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that > orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is > similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway > sign.
And you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that every photograph taken within minutes of the assassination that shows the shadow places in a position that cannot reach the car. Period.
> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or > not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
Yeah, I'd say- particularly the Stemmons sign shadow that is on the ground.
> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this > subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where > it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I > would rather move forward.
I'll bet you would like to continue preaching to all of those that don't question anything.
>>> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and >>> an >>> LNT, has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics in order to >>> attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's >>> Saturday >>> Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link, so readers are supposed >>> to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for >>> themselves, it would appear.
>>> Here is the link for those who are interested:
>>> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he >>> and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence, and the closeups do >>> not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the >>> shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
>>> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the >>> center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow >>> comes >>> through the window onto JBC's torso.
>>Pamela,
>>It is you who is utterly failing to address the fact that Chad's pic >>shows the shadow cast by the sign to be going *away* from the street, >>not toward it. This was Texas in November. At that time of year & at >>that latitude the sun is more southward than it is in the summer. The >>sign was on the *north* side of Elm. No object under the sun is going >>to cast a shadow to the *south* at that time of year in Texas, thus it >>is utterly impossible for the shadow of the sign to have extended into >>the street at all.
>>In fact, not even on the summer solstice does the sun cast any shadows >>to the south anywhere in Texas at any time of day. On that solstice, >>the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer, which is still well south >>of even the southernmost tip of Texas, & considerably further south than >>Dallas. Even at high noon on the solstice shadows cast by the sun point >>slightly north. They don't ever point south, not an iota.
>>> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this >>> information, again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on >>> the >>> 'lapel flop' issue once again???
>>Neither of those links show the shadow of the sign extending into the >>street. The tilt of the earth on its axis precludes that from ever >>being a possibility at that time of day at that time of year in Dallas.
> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the > impossible, > whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in > Scarlet, > Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary > devoted to SS-100-X. > It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here > is a link to the > schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, > Vaughn's widow and I are > interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR > CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) > was used as the basis for the assassination section. > For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine > SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. > Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join > jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. > For information about my life away from research, visit > www.themagicflute.org
>>> >> Now Chad seems to be using another LNT tactic -- rather than >>> >> acknowledge the burden of proof on the LNTs regarding 'their SBT' he >>> >> attempts to push that responsibility back on the critic.
>>> >Um, no. I was simply addressing ONE POINT of what you wrote in your >>> >pig paper. A factual inconsistency.
>>> Untrue. You misrepresented the facts and confused them. Unless you >>> really don't know what you are talking about?
>>> Here's the link to the essay "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"
>>"With colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning >>glory of his book. And it wasnt' even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as >>I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow coming through the small side >>window on the Presidential limousine. The apparent change in position is a >>result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as you can clearly see in the >>full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow came from none other than >>the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine."
>>If I misunderstood, what did I misunderstand?
>>You did say that it was the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow, right?
> I did.
Okay. Forward progress. 3 posts and finally an answer.
Now help me clarify what you are attempting to say. You have
> dismissed the small side window of the limo as being a factor in how > light and shadow hit JBC, have pulled photos from other orientations > and claimed they represent that of Zapruder,
Huh? You tell me where I said that. I never did. I said the shadow wasn't where YOU need it to be and is verified extensively by the photographic record. By saying such, you must be ASSUMING that the sun was in such a different spot as to cast a shadow through the window and onto Connally.
and are also claiming by
> inference that if there is no shadow from the Stemmons Freeway sign > that means the lapel 'flop' isn't a flop, am I right?
Um, shall I write this in 'Sherlock' English?
M'dear Pamela, thou can see that the shadow plainly rests on the vegetative knoll and not the street. Therefore, m'dear McElwain-Brown, we can safely rule out the shadow. And, henceforth, m'dear- we dost thou have a m'strey within our hands.
It isn't the Stemmons shadow, Pamela.
Here's an idea. Go to the local auto recycling center (auto heap) and buy a similar side window- or any window. Since its December, put up a nice big snowman, casting its shadow in a position similar to that in the photographic record. Now, stand several feet away on the opposite side of the snowman's shadow, holding that piece of glass and see if it now casts a shadow on you.
It won't. Know why? (Hint: the shadow is being cast the other direction)
>>> > In addition, >>> >> he is pulling insignificant information out of context to attempt to >>> >> put his spin on the criticism..
>>> >Bull. I quoted you DIRECTLY. It came right from the pig paper in >>question. >>> >You wrote it. You now don't want to discuss the shadow, but prefer >>> >other >>> >discussion- initiated by you.
>>> You confused the difference in height measurement between the difference >>> in clearance measurement. You have been and are now rambling all alone >>> by >>> yourself, aren't you? I don't see you referencing anything that I said.
> In your earlier posts you misrepresented the clearance and height > discrepancies. Am I supposed to just walk by that? Are you going to > acknowledge that you did so or should I just make an excuse for you?
I don't know. I am not sure what post you are referring to. Even if I confused something, the point stands. You have yet to prove that any of those differences keep a bullet from hitting Connally.
Therefore, you've proven that its never been proven by illustrating something that's never been proven to make a difference. Oy.
Since I can't seem to even access my original post on this thread, I'm not sure which post you are recalling. Perhaps one that pointed out that 8cm doesn't equal 6"?
>>Pamela, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE STEMMONS FREEWAY SHADOW.
>>That is it. I don't know what you keep mumbling about. I made no mention >>of >>such things in this thread.
> You have made multiple misrepresentations of what I have said. Excuse > me for attempting to address them!
Um, aren't you the same Pamela M-B that doesn't like to address other subjects not introduced in the thread?
If you look at my original post, you'll see that there's nary a remark about distances cited in your article.
>>I directly quoted your passage regarding the Stemmons Freeway sign shadow. >>Did >>you forget to read that?
>>> >> Let's clarify things:
>>> >> 1 -- No SB scenario has ever been proven.
>>> >Not a point in this issue, but thanks for reminding us. If I were a >>> >rabid >>> >CT, I'd >>> >say that you are side-stepping, diverting if you will.
>>> >> 2 -- The WC used incorrect limo measurements, per the HSCA-- 6 inches >>> >> clearance v 2.5 inches, and 1.5 inches height difference when there >>> >> was at least 3 inches (8 cm) difference.
>>> >Again, not material in any capacity to this discussion. Glad to see >>> >that >>> >you've figured >>> >out that 8cm isn't 6". You're welcome.
>>> The clearance distance was never at issue. The height difference is >>> what >>> you are trying to make an issue out of. But you're not having any >>> success, are you?
>>No, read the damned post, Pamela. I never made an issue of any height. I >>made
> You made an ERROR about the height and clearance discrepancy. I > pointed it out and corrected it. Can we stay on the same page now?
No. That is apparently in some other thread.
>>an issue of your claim regarding the STEMMONS FREEWAY SIGN SHADOW >>that you reference in your article.
> I am saying two things -- (1) I think the 'flop' is caused by a > shadow;
Yep, we all know that by now.
(2) because of the orientation of the Stemmons Freeway sign
> and the similarity in outline of the upper right corner of the sign > and the shadow, that this is what -- refracting through the limo side > window-- caused the shadow.
So, its your impression that: since the 'orientation' (shape?) of the sign and that of the shadow are similar, then (ergo!) it has to be the shadow of the Stemmons sign?
>>> >> Thus, the LNTs have yet to even prove an SB scenario.
>>> >Red leader, stay on target. I was talking about the shadow, not >>everything >>> >except >>> >the shadow.
>>> I was replying to your misrepresentations of the difference in >>> measurements between the WC and HSCA.. You do recall rambling on about >>> that, don't you?
>>I'm talking about the shadow. Is that so hard to comprehend, or would you >>prefer >>not talking about it?
> You would apparently perfer to forget your own error Chad in mixing up > the clearance and height differences. Your choice.
Well, this thread is about the damned shadow, not an error that I may have made elsewhere. I still don't know what message you are talking about. Not all the posts have been downloading on my computer. For instance, the original post on this thread does not show up here or on Google (last I checked).
>>> >What are they >>> >> doing assuming it has been proven and demanding that those who >>> >> disagree with it put up their proof?
>>> >I don't know. That's not was I was addressing, was it? Did you, >>> >perhaps, >>> >read >>> >someone else's post and, perhaps, attribute it to me?
>>> You were complaining about the fact that I have pointed out serious >>> discrepancies between the measurements used by the WC and the HSCA to >>> attempt to prove their SB scenarios.
>>Not in this thread.
> Are you acknowledging your error so we can move on from this?
If I made an error, sure. Yippee! We all make them. However, I was talking about the shadow issue, you apparently aren't ready to move on just yet.
>>> You were misrepresenting measurements. I thought you had acknowledged >>> the >>> 'lapel flop' was nothing more than a shadow. Posner jumped to an >>> incorrect conclusion.
>>Bull. What shadow? The Stemmons sign? Please do some research. That's >>impossible. >>I posted numerous photos that show this to be wrong.
> Chad has removed an element of the equation and then claims the > equation to be 'wrong'. That is called a strawman argument Chad.
What the hell are you talking about? You brought up the damned shadow. I pointed out how it is impossible.
The issue is the shadow. You brought it up. Now, when confronted with evidence, you are saying that the argument is a strawman. Go figure.
>>This post was entirely >>based upon >>a shadow that has taken you 3 posts to acknowledge. I did not bring up >>distances in this >>post, did I?
> You also misrepresented the measurements. Hopefully you will > acknowledge that and move on.
Okay, fine. Even though I don't know specifically which, let's say I did make an error and move on. I'm not beyond that. Are you?
In article <aa6fr0pruu4bad43t2p2696ehjgv1ta...@4ax.com>, Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in > the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the > orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and > also JFK and JBC.
Since you are replying to my article here, I'm assuming that it is my argument you're calling a "strawman," which is quite obviously false. Had I addressed an argument you had never made as if you *had* made it, then *that* would be a strawman. But you have indeed specifically said that the "lapel flip" is actually a shadow from the Stemmons Freeway sign, & it was precisely that claim that I addressed, so it is utterly impossible for what I posted to be a "strawman."
Only if I addressed something you *didn't* say would it have been a strawman.
> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that > orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is > similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway > sign.
I did not "ignore" that gif; I instead looked right at it prior to posting my reply, & am looking at it again right now as I'm typing these words, & I clearly see that it does not show any portion of the shadow of the sign on the ground, & thus does not confirm that the shadow was extending toward the street at *all*. Chad's pic, on the other hand, in the article in which he began this thread, a photo taken bare minutes after the assassination, with absurd plainness shows the *entire* shadow of the sign on the ground extending *away* from the street, not toward it. For some strange reason you are utterly refusing to discuss that photo directly.
You have also refused in this present reply to discuss what I pointed out to you about the celestial impossibility of a shadow of that sign extending toward that street near noon in Dallas in late November. Let's go through this again. November 22 is only a month away from the winter solstice, the latter of which is the day of the year in which, due to the tilt of the earth's axis, the sun is at its southernmost point in the sky, & directly over the Tropic of Capricorn, which is thousands of miles south of Dallas. In late November the sun is already fairly close to its southernmost point. Shadows cast by the sun anywhere within an hour or two of high noon (12:30 p.m. CST is indeed quite close to high noon) are going to have a distinct northerly trend because the sun is shining from a position significantly SOUTH of straight overhead. It is simply an utter impossibility for the shadow of an object under the sun to extend in any southerly direction whatsoever at that time of year at that latitude at that time of day. The shadow will instead be to the north, with an additional easterly or westerly element depending on how long before or after high noon it is. But this will be northeast or northwest to a greater or lesser degree, not southeast or southwest. The limo was not even remotely north of the sign as it approached the sign, except far up the street nearer the intersection of Elm & Houston, since the street curves slightly south after that intersection, when the limo was still much too far away for the shadow of the sign to fall upon it. By the time it got close to the sign, however, the limo was SOUTHEAST of it & passed directly to the SOUTH of it. It would be totally inconsistent with the position of the sun in the sky at that time of day at that time of year in Dallas for the shadow to reach anywhere near the limo as it passed, & in fact impossible for the shadow to reach into the street at all, much less all the way to the center lane of 3 lanes.
What you see may or may not be "similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway sign," but no matter how "similar" it is, it is simply an impossibility for that to actually BE the shadow of the sign as cast by the sun. That shadow could not have extended toward the limo at all.
> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or > not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
Maybe it is. If so, it is a shadow of some other object. Not the sign.
> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this > subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where > it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I > would rather move forward.
> This sort of debate can only work to move things forward.
Indeed, & included in moving forward would be your acknowledgement of the tilt of the earth's axis, a phenomenon which has been universally accepted in the worldwide scientific community for longer than any of us have been alive.
> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in > the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the > orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and > also JFK and JBC.
> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that > orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is > similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway > sign.
> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or > not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this > subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where > it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I > would rather move forward.
Doesn't say much for the general state of scientific intelligence over at the 'Ed Forum', now does it ?? :-)
>>"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow >>coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The >>apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, as >>you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow >>came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between >>Zapruder and the limousine. "
>>You complain about Posner :
>>"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his >>disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every >>other possibility, wouldn't it?"
>>Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's >>recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is no >>way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway >>sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
>>Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most >>geographically challenged.
>>Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of misrepresentations' >>& their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the >>naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order at >>this point. ?
>Here is the gif that shows the orientation of Zapruder, the limo, and >JBC:
>1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement >that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the >refraction of the shadow
Huh?
>that fell on JBC's chest.
>2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could >not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other >orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the >Z-frames.
It seems to be you jumping to conclusions ... you've jumped and left the science of what you are positing behind .... dare i say, in the shadows, but that of course would depend on the position of the sun relative to the object ......
>3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop' >could not be a shadow.
Chad's comment is in no way a "strawman" .... maybe look that up along with shadows.
>So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to >be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
>In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum. >Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
>Pamela :-)
>"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, >whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, >Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary devoted to SS-100-X. >It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the >schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, Vaughn's widow and I are >interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) >was used as the basis for the assassination section. >For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. >Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. >For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:42ler090jbeg261opjs9leeh5oe6l167op@4ax.com... >> On 8 Dec 2004 11:48:32 -0500, "Paul Seaton" >> <NOpaulseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>> >Pamela,
>> >You need to double check what you think you can 'clearly see', because >you >> >are 'clearly seeing' something that provably isn't happening.
>> >"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow >> >coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The >> >apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, >as >> >you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow >> >came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between >> >Zapruder and the limousine. "
>> >You complain about Posner :
>> >"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his >> >disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every >> >other possibility, wouldn't it?"
>> >Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's >> >recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is >no >> >way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons >Freeway >> >sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
>> >Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most >> >geographically challenged.
>> >Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of >misrepresentations' >> >& their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive >the >> >naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order >at >> >this point. ?
>> Here is the gif that shows the orientation of Zapruder, the limo, and >> JBC:
>> 1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement >> that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the >> refraction of the shadow that fell on JBC's chest.
>Care to elaborate on the unearthly optics involved in that ? >You might start by explaining how a shadow can be refracted ??
>> 2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could >> not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other >> orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the >> Z-frames.
>I'm beginning to think you have no idea how shadows are formed. >Shadows are formed when an opaque object comes between a source of >illumination and the object in shadow. >In this case, the opaque object is the Stemmons sign, the source of the >illumination is the sun, & the object in shadow is JBC. >If you haven't worked it out yet, JBC is SOUTH of the Stemmons sign, and any >shadow that sign casts MUST FALL NORTH. >Consequently .... this little pig isn't going to market.
>> 3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop' >> could not be a shadow.
>It addresses - & demolishes - your bold contention that the 'flop' is the >shadow *of the Stemmons sign.* >If you want to claim it's the shadow of something else, go ahead. (Hint : I >suggest you at least pick an object that is SOUTH of JBC.)
>> So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to >> be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
>Then you have no idea how shadows are formed.
>> In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum. >> Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
> On 8 Dec 2004 19:52:51 -0500, "Paul Seaton" > <NOpaulseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
> >"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > >news:42ler090jbeg261opjs9leeh5oe6l167op@4ax.com... > >> On 8 Dec 2004 11:48:32 -0500, "Paul Seaton" > >> <NOpaulseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
> >> >Pamela,
> >> >You need to double check what you think you can 'clearly see', because > >you > >> >are 'clearly seeing' something that provably isn't happening.
> >> >"The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow > >> >coming through the small side window on the Presidential limousine. The > >> >apparent change in position is a result of JBC's rotating forward. And, > >as > >> >you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, the shadow > >> >came from none other than the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between > >> >Zapruder and the limousine. "
> >> >You complain about Posner :
> >> >"With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his > >> >disposal one would think that he would have examined and excluded every > >> >other possibility, wouldn't it?"
> >> >Unfortunately, unless the sun momentarily flipped to the north (& let's > >> >recall Dallas is in the northern hemisphere & it was mid-day ) there is > >no > >> >way on earth that "the shadow came from none other than the Stemmons > >Freeway > >> >sign", since the sign was north of the limo.
> >> >Chad has posted enough graphics to make this ultra-clear to even the most > >> >geographically challenged.
> >> >Since you complain so much about others 'hodge-podge of > >misrepresentations' > >> >& their "continu[ing] to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive > >the > >> >naive. ' perhaps a frank admission that you screwed up would be in order > >at > >> >this point. ?
> >> Here is the gif that shows the orientation of Zapruder, the limo, and > >> JBC:
> >> 1 --In Chad's 'flop' scenario he has chosen to ignore my statement > >> that the small side window of the limousine was involved in the > >> refraction of the shadow that fell on JBC's chest.
> >Care to elaborate on the unearthly optics involved in that ? > >You might start by explaining how a shadow can be refracted ??
> >> 2 -- In Chad's haste to jump to the conclusion that this shadow could > >> not be a shadow, he has managed to assemble photos from other > >> orientations which do nothing to help orient the reader to the > >> Z-frames.
> >I'm beginning to think you have no idea how shadows are formed. > >Shadows are formed when an opaque object comes between a source of > >illumination and the object in shadow. > >In this case, the opaque object is the Stemmons sign, the source of the > >illumination is the sun, & the object in shadow is JBC. > >If you haven't worked it out yet, JBC is SOUTH of the Stemmons sign, and any > >shadow that sign casts MUST FALL NORTH. > >Consequently .... this little pig isn't going to market.
> >> 3 -- Chad's strawman in no way addresses the question that the 'flop' > >> could not be a shadow.
> >It addresses - & demolishes - your bold contention that the 'flop' is the > >shadow *of the Stemmons sign.* > >If you want to claim it's the shadow of something else, go ahead. (Hint : I > >suggest you at least pick an object that is SOUTH of JBC.)
> >> So, in case you don't get the picture, as I realize sometime it has to > >> be v-e-r-y clearly spelled out for the LNT's -- No.
> >Then you have no idea how shadows are formed.
> >> In fact, I have encouraged him to debate his point on the Ed Forum. > >> Perhaps you'd like to do it for him?
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:aa6fr0pruu4bad43t2p2696ehjgv1tacft@4ax.com... >> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and >> also JFK and JBC.
>LOL. The car window is in front and to the right of JBC. The shadow >is STILL on the ground.
>> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that >> orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is >> similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway >> sign.
>And you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that every photograph taken >within minutes of the assassination that shows the shadow places in a >position >that cannot reach the car. Period.
>> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or >> not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
>Yeah, I'd say- particularly the Stemmons sign shadow that is on the ground.
>> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this >> subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where >> it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I >> would rather move forward.
>I'll bet you would like to continue preaching to all of those that don't >question >anything.
>> This sort of debate can only work to move things forward.
>What, simply agreeing with you to move forward? Come on.
>Chad
Can you post a clear closeup of the "flip" frame ... one that shows that the outline of the lapel laying in place is ... gulp ... gone in that frame? Seems like the easiest way to show this ... if someone else has already posted one, I apologize, I missed it.
>>>> Ironically, and unfortunately, Chad, who happens to be a mod of aaj and >>>> an >>>> LNT, has resorted to some of the more typical LNT tactics in order to >>>> attempt to make an objection to my statement in "The Pretty Pig's >>>> Saturday >>>> Night". Chad has managed to eliminate the link, so readers are supposed >>>> to rely on him for interpretation instead of analyzing information for >>>> themselves, it would appear.
>>>> Here is the link for those who are interested:
>>>> If Chad had bothered to look at this gif he might have realized that he >>>> and Posner use only closups of the Z223-6 sequence, and the closeups do >>>> not show correctly the orientation of the limo, JFK and JBC, and the >>>> shadow of the Stemmons Freeway sign that is between them and Zapruder.
>>>> Chad also chose to ignore, the fact that the small side window in the >>>> center partition is also part of the orientation by which the shadow >>>> comes >>>> through the window onto JBC's torso.
>>>Pamela,
>>>It is you who is utterly failing to address the fact that Chad's pic >>>shows the shadow cast by the sign to be going *away* from the street, >>>not toward it. This was Texas in November. At that time of year & at >>>that latitude the sun is more southward than it is in the summer. The >>>sign was on the *north* side of Elm. No object under the sun is going >>>to cast a shadow to the *south* at that time of year in Texas, thus it >>>is utterly impossible for the shadow of the sign to have extended into >>>the street at all.
>>>In fact, not even on the summer solstice does the sun cast any shadows >>>to the south anywhere in Texas at any time of day. On that solstice, >>>the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer, which is still well south >>>of even the southernmost tip of Texas, & considerably further south than >>>Dallas. Even at high noon on the solstice shadows cast by the sun point >>>slightly north. They don't ever point south, not an iota.
>>>> Will Chad next attempt to divert and obfuscate and dismiss this >>>> information, again delete the links, and hope to place an LNT spin on >>>> the >>>> 'lapel flop' issue once again???
>>>Neither of those links show the shadow of the sign extending into the >>>street. The tilt of the earth on its axis precludes that from ever >>>being a possibility at that time of day at that time of year in Dallas.
>> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the >> impossible, >> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in >> Scarlet, >> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
>> "Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" is a one-hour documentary >> devoted to SS-100-X. >> It airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here >> is a link to the >> schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/. Catherine Ferguson, >> Vaughn's widow and I are >> interviewed along with other limo specialists. My essay "SS-100-X" in CAR >> CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave 2002) >> was used as the basis for the assassination section. >> For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine >> SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. >> Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join >> jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. >> For information about my life away from research, visit >> www.themagicflute.org
>> This is another version of Chad's Strawman which eliminates factors in >> the equation; namely the small side window of the limo and the >> orientation of Zapruder to the Stemmons Freeway sign and the limo and >> also JFK and JBC.
>Since you are replying to my article here, I'm assuming that it is my >argument you're calling a "strawman," which is quite obviously false. >Had I addressed an argument you had never made as if you *had* made it, >then *that* would be a strawman. But you have indeed specifically said >that the "lapel flip" is actually a shadow from the Stemmons Freeway >sign, & it was precisely that claim that I addressed, so it is utterly >impossible for what I posted to be a "strawman."
>Only if I addressed something you *didn't* say would it have been a >strawman.
Exactly. How silly to call what you and Chad argued in reply a "strawman" ... and she apparently stated the same thing on the education forum ... yoy.
>> In addition, both are ignoring the gif of Z-frames which do show that >> orientation as well as the fact that the perimiter of the shadow is >> similar to that of the upper right corner of the Stemmons Freeway >> sign.
>I did not "ignore" that gif; I instead looked right at it prior to >posting my reply, & am looking at it again right now as I'm typing these >words, & I clearly see that it does not show any portion of the shadow >of the sign on the ground, & thus does not confirm that the shadow was >extending toward the street at *all*. Chad's pic, on the other hand, in >the article in which he began this thread, a photo taken bare minutes >after the assassination, with absurd plainness shows the *entire* shadow >of the sign on the ground extending *away* from the street, not toward >it. For some strange reason you are utterly refusing to discuss that >photo directly.
>You have also refused in this present reply to discuss what I pointed >out to you about the celestial impossibility of a shadow of that sign >extending toward that street near noon in Dallas in late November. >Let's go through this again. November 22 is only a month away from the >winter solstice, the latter of which is the day of the year in which, >due to the tilt of the earth's axis, the sun is at its southernmost >point in the sky, & directly over the Tropic of Capricorn, which is >thousands of miles south of Dallas. In late November the sun is already >fairly close to its southernmost point. Shadows cast by the sun >anywhere within an hour or two of high noon (12:30 p.m. CST is indeed >quite close to high noon) are going to have a distinct northerly trend >because the sun is shining from a position significantly SOUTH of >straight overhead. It is simply an utter impossibility for the shadow >of an object under the sun to extend in any southerly direction >whatsoever at that time of year at that latitude at that time of day. >The shadow will instead be to the north, with an additional easterly or >westerly element depending on how long before or after high noon it is. >But this will be northeast or northwest to a greater or lesser degree, >not southeast or southwest. The limo was not even remotely north of the >sign as it approached the sign, except far up the street nearer the >intersection of Elm & Houston, since the street curves slightly south >after that intersection, when the limo was still much too far away for >the shadow of the sign to fall upon it. By the time it got close to the >sign, however, the limo was SOUTHEAST of it & passed directly to the >SOUTH of it. It would be totally inconsistent with the position of the >sun in the sky at that time of day at that time of year in Dallas for >the shadow to reach anywhere near the limo as it passed, & in fact >impossible for the shadow to reach into the street at all, much less all >the way to the center lane of 3 lanes.
>What you see may or may not be "similar to that of the upper right >corner of the Stemmons Freeway sign," but no matter how "similar" it is, >it is simply an impossibility for that to actually BE the shadow of the >sign as cast by the sun. That shadow could not have extended toward the >limo at all.
>> In addition, all if this discussion begs the question of whether or >> not the 'flop' is actually a shadow.
>Maybe it is. If so, it is a shadow of some other object. Not the sign.
>> I would cordially like to invite all of you who are interested in this >> subject to consider also enrolling and posting at the Ed Forum, where >> it seems that I am preaching to the choir. Fun though that is, I >> would rather move forward.
>> This sort of debate can only work to move things forward.
>Indeed, & included in moving forward would be your acknowledgement of >the tilt of the earth's axis, a phenomenon which has been universally >accepted in the worldwide scientific community for longer than any of us >have been alive.
So, will Pamela "acknowledge" the science on which Chad and Caeruleo argue against her thesis? Hmmmmm....
|
