--=SHOCKER: Does VB really place SB at just after 210?=--
eca...@tx.rr.com
apparently accurate post by Tony Marsh.. Anyway sincere thanks to
Marsh for the heads-up on this sizzler:
-------------------
>>> "Bugliosi places the Single Bullet Theory at frame 210." <<<
Yes, an Internet friend told me this the other day by private e-mail
(after that friend asked Vince directly at a book signing in NYC about
his
odd SBT timing). Vince told my friend that he places the SBT "just
after
Z210".
This is, indeed, odd and is something I completely disagree with VB
about,
and I will say so in my tome of a review coming in a few weeks. But
at
least VB realizes that an SBT frame IS on that film SOMEWHERE. There
HAS
to be. The WC knew that and so did the HSCA (even though they, too,
came
to different conclusions about the timing).
Odder still, IMO, is Vincent's picking "210", which is, number 1, a
frame
that DOES NOT EVEN EXIST on the copies of the Z-Film we see today.
Z210 is
one of the damage and removed frames that were damaged by Time-Life
in
'63-'64.
And, number two, Z210 (if it WERE a part of the extant film) can't
possibly lead Vince to a conclusive "SBT" conclusion, because we
can't
even SEE Kennedy's body at that point on the film. All but the top of
his
head is behind the Stemmons sign.
I see, though, that Vince has gotten closer to the true SBT frame
(which
is Z224, without a SPECK of a doubt, IMHO)....because VB had endorsed
the
HSCA's ridiculously-early Z190 timeline back in 1986 at the Mock Trial
of
LHO in London.
Very strange. But I'll wait and see what VB's full explanation is for
this
odd 210 timeline when I read (fully) his book very soon. (My copy is
coming in a day or so.)
Perhaps Vince is doing a little "extrapolating" backward from
Z224-225
(via some "expert" in the field of "reaction times" or something) to
arrive at his 210 SBT time. I don't know. But I'll know for certain
soon.
(Or perhaps Tony Marsh will tell us more details, since he apparently
has
read VB's SBT chapter.)
--------------DVP OFF
regarding Marsh's shocking but apparently accurate post.
MR :~? ED is bamfoozled..
Primarily because one snafu like this and the kooks will attempt to
discredit the entire book.. Unless the quote is not in context OR
there is a valid explanation..
(*Profoundly* interesting to Ed Cage)
2112May1907
PS: Vincent Bugliosi will be in Dallas I believe either Thursday the
24th or 31st.. Anyway I RSVP'd via email and I will be there to
personally ask VB about the "just after 210" block-buster!
eca...@tx.rr.com
I think you've got to say 224.. Perhaps
wiggle room for 223 or the interval in
between, but I'll be interested to see
what VB says.. I'LL BE THERE.
Somewhat perplexed but always *objective*
Ed Cage
2052May1907
On May 19, 10:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Vince Bugliosi will be in Dallas on Thurs., May 24th (at the 6th Floor
> Museum).
>
> RE. the Z210 SBT timing --- It's possible that Vince is going with the
> WC (more or less) re. the "just after 210" SBT shot. That is, Vince is
> not convinced beyond all doubt that ANY Z-Frame shows a definitive SBT
> "hit".
>
> I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the film does
> show us the precise frame for the SBT bullet strike....and it's frame
> 224. But apparently Vince doesn't agree with that 100%.
>
> Therefore, per VB's thinking (which could be valid too; I'll want to
> see his precise arguments for this), the WC was correct at
> "bracketing" the SBT between "210 and 225" (which, of course, is
> technically correct even from my POV of a 224 hit, with that
> bracketing being remarkably accurate, actually, considering '64
> technology used to examine the shooting).
>
> So, my feeling is that Vince is probably just sort of playing it safe
> (similar to the WC), and he doesn't want to commit to a specific Z-
> Frame. I think he's technically wrong here (and I'm prepared to say so
> in my upcoming review of VB's book after I've read the entire book).
>
> But at least Vince isn't going to "pull a Fuhrman" and invent some
> wild speculation about the bullet going through JFK and then somehow
> tipping upwards and missing Connally and then hitting the chrome and
> bouncing clear out of the limo. That theory, IMO, is just silly and is
> pure guesswork....even though Fuhrman is a devout LNer. (And I said
> so, too....)
>
> BOOK REVIEW -- "A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER" BY MARK FUHRMAN:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
>
> But I have a hard time believing that Vince didn't get together with
> Dale Myers at some point since Dale started his excellent animation
> project in about 1995. If he had done that and examined Dale's work
> meticulously, I cannot see how it's even possible to arrive at a SBT
> strike as early as Z210 (or "just after").
>
> However, as I said, perhaps Vince's "just after" (or some similar
> phrasing in his book) indicates he hasn't totally abandoned the notion
> of a SBT strike as late as Z224 either. It depends on what he means by
> "just after" or "a little after" or "within a split second of
> 210" (which I think is the exact quote that Tony provided from VB's
> book; I'll be getting the book very shortly; Amazon's mailing is slow
> this week; dammit!).
>
> So, I wonder if Vince's "split second" term is meant to mean close to
> a literal FULL second? I'm doubting he means a FULL second; because
> "split second", definition-wise, means a "fractional part of a
> second"....
>
> http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>
> But, to split these split hairs even finer here (as I, admittedly, am
> speculating before reading VB's SBT chapter)...."split second" in this
> "210 vs. 224" context DOES equate to only a "fraction" of a
> second....because the difference in real time there is only 14/18ths
> of 1 second. So, technically, it IS just a "split/fraction" of a
> second difference.
>
> So, perhaps Vince's "just after 210" conclusion could still include
> frame Z224 too. I'm just not sure. But I'll find out soon.
>
> But at least Vince knows that a SBT frame does exist on the
> film...someplace. And so do I. And so did the WC. And so did the HSCA.
>
> [END RAMBLING AND VB SPECULATION.]
>
> <g>
David Von Pein
aeffects
> Vince Bugliosi will be in Dallas on Thurs., May 24th (at the 6th Floor
> Museum).
of course DaBug will be there, I told you a month ago it wouuld be one
of the first stops of Vinnie's farwell tour... His book will be for
sale there, too! It has to be.... there's nothing else for the
Nutter's to read other than the WCR and daPoz
~~ Oh, Happy Day, Oh, Happy Day, When Vinnie walked... ~~
> RE. the Z210 SBT timing --- It's possible that Vince is going with the
> WC (more or less) re. the "just after 210" SBT shot. That is, Vince is
> not convinced beyond all doubt that ANY Z-Frame shows a definitive SBT
> "hit".
of course he isn't convinced, he knows the Z-film is fraud -- Bet he
couldn't put Harry Livingston's book down..... LMAO!
[...]
eca...@tx.rr.com
Tony Marsh:
--------Marsh ON-----------
"Well, guess who else says that Kennedy was hit at Z-210? I do.
Mainly
because of my match-up of the acoustical evidence. Which then places
the
shot at Z-313 coming from the grassy knoll."
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt
--------Marsh OFF---------
The problem for Tony that he is blissfully unaware
of, is that there is no shot from the GK. That's
right folks, there's no shot at all from the grassy
knoll save a super lucky trick shot than nobody in
their right mind would ever attempt.
Ed Cage
1135May2007
Lone
> Vince Bugliosi will be in Dallas on Thurs., May 24th (at the 6th Floor
> Museum).
A good occasion to lock him up in this Frankenstein museum and throw
away the key.
L
eca...@tx.rr.com
researcher Michael O'Dell:
------O'Dell ON--------------
"Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong.
It's a
little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the
caption to
one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his argument.
On page 40 he has the second shot 3.5 seconds after the first, and the
third
shot 8.4 seconds after the first. So the second and third are 4.9
seconds
apart.
4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot
being
frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't
read it
yet.
Michael"
---------O'Dell OFF-----
Thanks Mike! I couldn't make ANY sense out
of a "just after 210" SB analysis.
Ed Cage
2244May2007
> > <g>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -