Has Pamela refuted the lapel flip?
Dave Reitzes
I paid little attention to her article on SBT when it appeared, as
it's a pretty typical CT rant on that subject:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
But, lo and behold, there is a little nugget of research buried within
it that casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the "lapel flip,"
advanced by Robert Piziali and publicized by Gerald Posner (and
endorsed by me for the past decade or so).
Pamela posted an animated GIF of Z223-226 that appears to show that
the lapel flip was no such thing, but rather a shadow. It looks
awfully compelling to me:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
Comments, anyone?
Dave
John Fiorentino
Yes, I can comment explicitly.
Firstly, Posner has nothing to do with this other than in supporting his
own importance. He was very adept at taking credit for things which were
observed/investigated/postulated by others without proper attribution.
I had numerous discussions with John Lattimer about this, and in fact have
done some photo work on this myself which is on another computer, but
which I have posted to this newsgroup.
Rather than a "lapel flip" the correct term might be "suit jacket bulge."
It's unclear as to whether the lapel actually "flipped." In discussions
with Lattimer, he himself was undecided on this issue. My personal opinion
is, and always was, that indeed it didn't. I have used the term lapel flip
to describe this action however.
In fact Piziali is a Johnny come lately. As our moderator Prof. McAdams
can attest, the most unlikely of candidates, Cyril Wecht was the first
"official" proponent of this idea.
But "somebody" actually beat him to it.
I can assure you, it is no "shadow" and I go into this in great detail in
my book.
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:93b6a3dd-39de-4b50...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
WhiskyJoe
> Pamela posted an animated GIF of Z223-226 that
> appears to show that the lapel flip was no such
> thing, but rather a shadow. It looks awfully
> compelling to me:
I think I detect some humor here but in
any case:
The Return of 'Dark Reflections'
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
> from Pamela: Nov 25 2004, 12:48 AM
> The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to
> call it, comes from a shadow refracted
> from the small side window on the
> Presidential limousine onto JBC's
> chest. There are, in fact, many shadows
> on those in the limo, from the many
> reflective surfaces on and in the car,
> including the side windows and the windshield,
> as well as the chrome molding of the center
> partition.
If I understand what Pamela was saying correctly,
then what happened was the following:
* The upper right side of Connally's shirt,
between his coat and tie, was in sunlight.
* Then, for a frame or two, a dark reflection
from some source, reflected dark light onto
the shirt.
* This caused the shirt to go from white
to black.
This, of course, is totally false. Black is the
absence of light. Connally's bright white shirt
would continue to look bright no matter what was
reflected onto it. You might get his shirt to look
bright red or bright green if you reflected enough
red or green light on it, but you could not get
it to look black, while it is receiving bright
light from the sun.
**************************************************
> And, as you can clearly see in the full-framed
> version of the Z-film, this shadow bears the
> same shape as the perimeter of the Stemmons
> Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and
> the limousine. Notice the orientation of the
> sign and the shadow in the following gif.
> (Figure 3)
A line between the Stemmons Freeway sign and the
limousine at Z224 is at about right angles to
the sunlight. The sign cannot cast any shadows
into the limousine and I don't see how it could
reflect any light, let alone 'dark light', into
the limousine.
> ... this shadow bears the same shape as the
> perimeter of the Stemmons Freeway ...
The 'shadow' bears the same shape as the right
side of Connally's coat, and the same color of
the right side of Connally's coat, because it
is the right side of Connally's coat.
**************************************************
As far as it being any kind of a shadow, that
seems unlikely. Connally's torso was rotating
to his left. That part of Connally's shirt
should get more and more into the sunlight
as he rotates.
It appears that the right side of Connally's
coat moved sideways two inches, or bulged
forward six inches. More likely the later.
The camera jiggle at Z227 corresponds to
a bullet hit at Z222, causing the coat bulge
to maximize at Z224. It all fits with Connally's
torso 'jerk' or 'hitch', which Pamela's video
shows, and Connally's right arm jerking up,
along with JFK's arms jerking up.
Gerry Simone
superimposed white lines, or a description of what she is illustrating?
(I can't figure out the relationship).
Off the cuff (no pun intended), that 'lapel flip' looks much darker than
some surrounding shadows.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:93b6a3dd-39de-4b50...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
I think Governor Connally's lapel is moving. It's not just a shadow
(as some people have theorized).
Although, due to the apparent movement of that same part of Connally's
jacket at a point which I believe was PRIOR to the bullet passing
through JBC's body, I've revised my thinking on the "lapel flip" over
the years.
I now feel it's quite possible that a combination of the wind (which
was gusty that day) and Oswald's CE399 bullet are causing the movement
of Connally's lapel that we see in the Zapruder Film.
Something appears to be happening with the right side of John
Connally's suit coat in this Z222-Z223 toggling clip:
And then we get the bigger "bulging out" (for lack of a better term)
of that same area of Connally's jacket at the precise instant when I
think the bullet is striking Connally (at Z224). There is no way this
is only a shadow, IMO:
In the final analysis, the "lapel flip" or "jacket bulge" is probably
the LEAST compelling evidence on the Z-Film that proves the SBT is
occurring at precisely Z224. There are multiple other indicators that
show JBC is "reacting" to an external stimulus just after Z224, e.g.:
JBC opens his mouth at Z225 (his mouth is closed at Z224), and a
startled (or pained) look comes over his face; his shoulders "hunch"
up, or flinch, starting at exactly Z225.
This "hunching" is extremely important, IMO, because it's showing us
an involuntary reaction on the part of the Governor. So we don't need
to depend only on the CLOTHING (the lapel) of Connally to prove the
SBT. Connally's OWN BODY is telling us that the bullet has just
pierced him. Just look:
Here's another clip showing the very noticeable (but often overlooked)
"hunching" of Connally's shoulders and the distressed look that
crosses his face at Z225:
And then there's also the very important "hat flip" of JBC's, which
begins just an instant later, at Z226:
I challenge anyone to look at that last Zapruder Film clip above a few
times in a row and arrive at the following conclusion:
There's NO WAY that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were
struck by the same bullet! No way!
Anyone who could utter the above words after watching that Z-Film clip
must either be blind or closely related to Oliver Stone.
bigdog
Excellent summation. I agree that the single bullet striking at Z222 is
the best fit for the evidence. The maximum jacket bulge at Z224 and the
simultaneous reflexive reactions by both JFK and JBC in the Z225-226
window. I have read that such reactions require about 150 milliseconds. If
my arithmetic is correct, one Z-frame = 54.6 milliseconds so we should
expect the two men to react 3 frames following the hit. If we back up 3
frames from Z225-226, we have the bullet striking in the Z222-223 time
frame. I think it is possible the bullet could have struck at either frame
or in the brief gap between them. At only 18.3 frames per second, that is
probably as accurate as we can possibily get. I saw something just a
couple days ago that says some modern video equipment is capable of
capturing a mind boggling 10 million frames per second. Given the
limitations of Zapruder's camera, 1/18 of a second is about as precise as
we will ever be able to get in pinpointing the moment of the SB strike.
Dave Reitzes
There are frames where it appears that the Governor's tie and the dark
area occupy the same space, suggesting that the darkness is a shadow;
however, this could just as easily be due to blurring in some frames
of the film. I can't tell which it is.
Dave
WhiskyJoe
> There are frames where it appears that the
> Governor's tie and the dark area occupy the
> same space, suggesting that the darkness is
> a shadow; however, this could just as easily
> be due to blurring in some frames of the film.
> I can't tell which it is.
I think it just means the coat got pushed forward
until it happened to overlap the tie. Both the
coat and tie are dark and once the coat gets
pushed over far enough, it's hard to tell where
the coat ends and the tie begins.
In frame 223, we can see Connally's shirt, next
to the tie, on both the right and left side.
The "right side" mean's Connally's right side.
The "left side" mean's Connally's left side.
If a camera blur at frame 224 "washed out"
the "right side", why didn't it also
"wash out" the "left side"?
**************************************************
If it's a shadow, what is it a shadow of?
It can't be a shadow of the crossbar, since that
would cause a horizontal shadow.
Judging from Don Roberdeau's map:
http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img160/7642/dpjpg110508mb6.gif
the sun was about 30 degrees to the left of
straight ahead. So it can't be a shadow of
one of the vertical supports of the crossbar.
The right crossbar casts a shadow outside the
limousine. The left crossbar's shadow won't
reach Connally.
**************************************************
The leftward rotation of Connally's torso
should make it easier for the sunlight to
strike his shirt there.
If it was a shadow, why did it last only about
a tenth of a second?
How is it that the shadow happened to remain
parallel with the coat and to grow from our
left to our right, mimicking perfectly the
coat bulging forward? Then the shadow shrinks
from our right to our left, mimicking perfectly
the coat returning to it's original position.
**************************************************
If that is a shadow, it's amazing how well it
fools us. It grows right next to the coat,
growing from our left to our right. It doesn't
leave any white space to our far left, which
would make it clear it was not the coat moving.
Then the shadow shirks from our right to left,
again, mimicking the appearance of the coat
returning to it's regular shape.
All in all, it's almost as unlikely that shadows
would mimicked the movement of the coat as is it
would be if shadows cast on Connally's white
shirt mimicked Elmer Fudd pursuing Bugs Bunny
with a shotgun.
**************************************************
In any case, I think taking a look at
Don Roberdeau's map at:
http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img160/7642/dpjpg110508mb6.gif
(Is this his latest map? I don't know.
But it's pretty good.)
About a third of the way down, of the left side,
level with the overpass the limousine passed
under leaving Dealey Plaza, is a compass card
showing the sun direction. That will give one
a good idea of the exact directions the shadows
would be falling. The sun would be roughly
thirty degrees to Greer's left, as he faces
forward (as he did from time to time while
driving).
Dave Reitzes
> > There are frames where it appears that the
> > Governor's tie and the dark area occupy the
> > same space, suggesting that the darkness is
> > a shadow; however, this could just as easily
> > be due to blurring in some frames of the film.
> > I can't tell which it is.
>
> I think it just means the coat got pushed forward
> until it happened to overlap the tie. Both the
> coat and tie are dark and once the coat gets
> pushed over far enough, it's hard to tell where
> the coat ends and the tie begins.
>
> In frame 223, we can see Connally's shirt, next
> to the tie, on both the right and left side.
> The "right side" mean's Connally's right side.
> The "left side" mean's Connally's left side.
> If a camera blur at frame 224 "washed out"
> the "right side", why didn't it also
> "wash out" the "left side"?
>
> **************************************************
>
> If it's a shadow, what is it a shadow of?
I know, that's one of the things I'm wondering.
These are all good points.
Dave
WhiskyJoe
> There are frames where it appears that the
> Governor's tie and the dark area occupy the
> same space, suggesting that the darkness is
> a shadow;
I'm not certain by what you mean by
"tie and the dark area occupy the same space".
Looking at Pamela's animation, I do see, I think
at frame 224, just to our left (Connally's right)
of the tie, a grayish area. This could be
interpreted as some sort of brief shadow.
But it could be a result of the coat moving
while the film for that frame was exposed.
When the frame was first exposed, the coat
was moving but hadn't quite covered that area.
By the time shutter closed, that part was now
covered by the coat. Perhaps during most, but
not all of the ~ 25 ms, the shirt was covered
by the coat. If that happened, we could see a
dark gray area to the (our) left of the tie.
And I think that is what happened.
If it is a shadow, I don't know what cast that
shadow, why the shadow fell at the perfect spot,
and vertically, to make it appear the coat moved.
And why the shadow appeared and disappeared so
quickly, perfectly mimicking a brief coat bulge
caused by a bullet. And this mimicked coat bulge
corresponding perfectly with the camera jiggle
at Z227 and JFK's and Connally's reactions to
being wounded then. If it was a shadow, the gods
had it placed perfectly in time and space to
fool us.
Dave Reitzes
> > There are frames where it appears that the
> > Governor's tie and the dark area occupy the
> > same space, suggesting that the darkness is
> > a shadow;
>
> I'm not certain by what you mean by
> "tie and the dark area occupy the same space".
>
> Looking at Pamela's animation, I do see, I think
> at frame 224, just to our left (Connally's right)
> of the tie, a grayish area. This could be
> interpreted as some sort of brief shadow.
> But it could be a result of the coat moving
> while the film for that frame was exposed.
> When the frame was first exposed, the coat
> was moving but hadn't quite covered that area.
> By the time shutter closed, that part was now
> covered by the coat. Perhaps during most, but
> not all of the ~ 25 ms, the shirt was covered
> by the coat. If that happened, we could see a
> dark gray area to the (our) left of the tie.
> And I think that is what happened.
Right. Very possible.
> If it is a shadow, I don't know what cast that
> shadow, why the shadow fell at the perfect spot,
> and vertically, to make it appear the coat moved.
> And why the shadow appeared and disappeared so
> quickly, perfectly mimicking a brief coat bulge
> caused by a bullet. And this mimicked coat bulge
> corresponding perfectly with the camera jiggle
> at Z227 and JFK's and Connally's reactions to
> being wounded then. If it was a shadow, the gods
> had it placed perfectly in time and space to
> fool us.
I can't imagine what would have caused a vertical shadow like that. I
wouldn't mind seeing Pamela defend her interpretation of the evidence,
but she seems to have fallen quiet.
Dave
cdddraftsman
> I think Governor Connally's lapel is moving. It's not just a shadow
> (as some people have theorized).
>
> Although, due to the apparent movement of that same part of Connally's
> jacket at a point which I believe was PRIOR to the bullet passing
> through JBC's body, I've revised my thinking on the "lapel flip" over
> the years.
>
> I now feel it's quite possible that a combination of the wind (which
> was gusty that day) and Oswald's CE399 bullet are causing the movement
> of Connally's lapel that we see in the Zapruder Film.
>
> Something appears to be happening with the right side of John
> Connally's suit coat in this Z222-Z223 toggling clip:
>
>
> And then we get the bigger "bulging out" (for lack of a better term)
> of that same area of Connally's jacket at the precise instant when I
> think the bullet is striking Connally (at Z224). There is no way this
> is only a shadow, IMO:
>
>
> In the final analysis, the "lapel flip" or "jacket bulge" is probably
> the LEAST compelling evidence on the Z-Film that proves the SBT is
> occurring at precisely Z224. There are multiple other indicators that
> show JBC is "reacting" to an external stimulus just after Z224, e.g.:
>
> JBC opens his mouth at Z225 (his mouth is closed at Z224), and a
> startled (or pained) look comes over his face; his shoulders "hunch"
> up, or flinch, starting at exactly Z225.
>
> This "hunching" is extremely important, IMO, because it's showing us
> an involuntary reaction on the part of the Governor. So we don't need
> to depend only on the CLOTHING (the lapel) of Connally to prove the
> SBT. Connally's OWN BODY is telling us that the bullet has just
> pierced him. Just look:
>
>
> Here's another clip showing the very noticeable (but often overlooked)
> "hunching" of Connally's shoulders and the distressed look that
> crosses his face at Z225:
>
>
> And then there's also the very important "hat flip" of JBC's, which
> begins just an instant later, at Z226:
>
>
> I challenge anyone to look at that last Zapruder Film clip above a few
> times in a row and arrive at the following conclusion:
>
> There's NO WAY that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were
> struck by the same bullet! No way!
>
> Anyone who could utter the above words after watching that Z-Film clip
> must either be blind or closely related to Oliver Stone.
>
> http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
Maliciously gullible would do fine also :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u_4B6JDcgE&feature=related
I must say DVP excellent work !
You've probably stopped millions of CTer's from 'Flipping' out over
the years , no pun intended .
tl
cdddraftsman
> I saw something just a
> couple days ago that says some modern video equipment is capable of
> capturing a mind boggling 10 million frames per second. Given the
> limitations of Zapruder's camera, 1/18 of a second is about as precise as
> we will ever be able to get in pinpointing the moment of the SB strike
>
>
UPDATED MUSIC 1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made
by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKR4atl8h-I&feature=channel
By 1945 the USG had developed the 'Rapidtronic' camera (Or
'Rapatronic') capable of 6 million fps . based upon a (then)
conventional swirling drum arraingement and small aperature lens ,
capable of recording a still image with an exposure time as brief as
10 nanoseconds , invented by Harold Edgerton and colleagues built by
EG&G :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/652px-Tumbler_Snapper_rope_tricks1.jpg
http://simplethinking.com/home/rapatronic_2.shtml
Big Bomb Book - Michael Light - 100 Suns: 1945-1962 ...
The concept of "100 Suns" is to take one-hundred of the more
remarkable US nuclear weapons test photographs and package them as a
high concept "coffee table book". The book is printed on heavy paper
stock (and I do mean heavy -- this book is a load) and printed in "art-
book" glossy style. The result is intriguing and pleasing although not
without flaw.
The subjects are single photographs of US atmospheric nuclear tests
between 1945 and the early 1960s. With a few exceptions the
detonations themselves are featured. There are, perhaps five of the
hundred that show test preparation, effects or observer reactions.
Although the complier made a conscious decision to show the photos
exactly as they were found in the US archives, sometimes damaged and
often with hamfisted markings on them, the results are spectacular. My
personal favorite show is the US IVY MIKE shot creating it's own
lightning storm. Some of the ultra-high speed "Rapidtronic" photos
showing very early fireball structure are here too.
There is an introduction and historical commentary rather in the
leftie "oh-wasn't-all-of-this-just-so-regrettable" mode which I could
have done without. No great damage here, though. Captions are also
provided, although strangely, to my way of thinking, segregated in the
back of the book.
I do have a number of rather trivial problems with this book. First is
the layout. Many of the photos are spread over two pages and
significant detail is lost in the gutter between the pages. (Did you
know that place where the pages of a book go into the binding is
called the gutter? Good for you!) Gatefolds! I want gatefolds! I would
have paid extra for gatefolds.
Next: there are far too many photos with the theme "bunch of guys in
50's era Army uniforms looking up at the bomb."
OK.
There were tests where people were exposed to radiation.
Maybe, in retrospect, this wasn't such a hot idea.
We get it.
Enough, already.
OK?
One picture of this theme would have been plenty. Especially when
you're limiting yourself to a universe of one-hundred photos.
That's another thing, while many (at least 40%) of these shots are new
to me, and I am rather an expert, many are old hat...but the
presentation of the old warhorses is nice....
Next quibble: The above-mentioned caption oddness. I would also have
liked to see a picture or two of test preparation and one shot of an
actual device would have been nice (CASTLE BRAVO or GREENHOUSE ITEM
would have been my picks.)
For an "art-book" the price of this book is quite reasonable but an
interest in the subject matter is required, I think.
The flaws here are generally outweighed by the positive attributes.
recommended for nuclear weapons fans and, I suppose, for well-heeled
activist types who enjoy wringing their hands about the "Nuclear
Threat." Are there any people out there still like that?
Recommended:
Yes
----------
Nuclear detonation from the "Tumbler Snapper" test series showing
fireball and "rope tricks" by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The photograph was shot by a Rapatronic camera built by EG&G. Since
each camera could record only one exposure on a sheet of film, banks
of four to 10 cameras were set up to take sequences of photographs.
The average exposure time was three millionths of a second. The
cameras were last used at the Test Site in 1962.
A paragraph from Michael Light's book 100 suns which includes this
image and provides insight to the origin of such photos follows here:
"At the still picture branch of the United States National Archives at
College Park, Maryland, head archivist Kate Flaherty was unfailingly
helpful during all aspects of research at that great institution, as
were her staff members Theresa Roy and Sharon Culley. Roger Meade,
chief archivist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico,
went above the call of duty to make material available and help
identify some of its more arcane aspects. At Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California, archivists Steve Wofford, Beverly
Bull and Maxine Trost helped with image research. Nick Broderick,
classification analyst at Lawrence Livermore, kindly provided final
identification of notoriously difficult to attribute ultra-high-speed
Rapatronic images made by E.G.&G. Thanks as well to filmmaker Peter
Kuran for additional identification help with Rapatronic images." :
http://simplethinking.com/home/rapatronic_photographs.htm
Nuclear explosion photographed by rapatronic camera less than 1
millisecond after detonation. From the Tumbler-Snapper test series in
Nevada, 1952. The fireball is about 20 meters in diameter in this
shot. The spikes at the bottom of the fireball are known as the rope
trick effect.:
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
More :
http://www.vce.com/AtomicGallery4/movies/film.html
:31/2:28
Rapidtronic images from 'Atomic Filmmakers'
Up close fireball
Squinty Magoo
The shadow would obviously have to come from his hat, which is
flipping up in front of him, between Connally and the sun. The shadow
rises and falls as does the hat.
Why do you all deliberately pick fixed objects which clearly would not
cause a sudden shadow? Just so you can say when those items clearly
cannot be the source, "must be the lapel flipping."
All the while you ignore the only thing moving relative to the sun and
the governor. Everyone needs to squint a little more.
Squinty Magoo
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 23, 10:03 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I saw something just a
>> couple days ago that says some modern video equipment is capable of
>> capturing a mind boggling 10 million frames per second. Given the
>> limitations of Zapruder's camera, 1/18 of a second is about as precise as
>> we will ever be able to get in pinpointing the moment of the SB strike
>>
>>
>
> UPDATED MUSIC 1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made
> by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit :
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKR4atl8h-I&feature=channel
>
That's fun, but why do we need the music? And what do you think it is
supposed to prove? At least Doc Edgerton shot interesting objects.
bigdog
> On Apr 23, 10:03 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I saw something just a
> > couple days ago that says some modern video equipment is capable of
> > capturing a mind boggling 10 million frames per second. Given the
> > limitations of Zapruder's camera, 1/18 of a second is about as precise as
> > we will ever be able to get in pinpointing the moment of the SB strike
>
> UPDATED MUSIC 1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made
> by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKR4atl8h-I&feature=channel
>
> By 1945 the USG had developed the 'Rapidtronic' camera (Or
> 'Rapatronic') capable of 6 million fps . based upon a (then)
> conventional swirling drum arraingement and small aperature lens ,
> capable of recording a still image with an exposure time as brief as
> 10 nanoseconds , invented by Harold Edgerton and colleagues built by
I find all this stuff to be at once fascinating and mind-boggling. My
professional life was spent as a mainframe computer programmer so I
feel I am fairly astute in the area of technology, but some of this
stuff just blows me away. The guys who came up with this stuff had to
be on an entirely different intelectual plane than anything I am
familiar with.
WhiskyJoe
> The shadow would obviously have to come from
> his hat, which is flipping up in front of him,
> between Connally and the sun. The shadow
> rises and falls as does the hat.
Clearly this is not true. To cast a shadow on
his coat, the hat has to be held higher than
the shadow on the coat.
Looking at the individual frames at:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
At z224, where the alleged shadow occurred, the
hat is so low I can't tell if it is visible at all.
In any case, it is lower than where the 'shadow' is.
Only by Z226 do we see the hat high enough to cast
a shadow on the coat. But that is too late to
explain Z224.
Gerry Simone
(Note: Robert Harris pointed out the N/E direction that the dresses of
female bystanders on the south side of Elm were blowing in his explanation
for brain & blood matter forcefully hitting the motorcycle cop to the left
rear, being in the opposite direction).
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b520a1a0-baa2-4d81...@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Wasn't the wind moving in the opposite direction?
>
>(Note: Robert Harris pointed out the N/E direction that the dresses of
>female bystanders on the south side of Elm were blowing in his explanation
>for brain & blood matter forcefully hitting the motorcycle cop to the left
>rear, being in the opposite direction).
>
Hargis was not hit "forcefully."
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Squinty Magoo
By 226 the shadow has progressed to the Governor's nose. Or is his
lapel flipping over his face too?
Squinty magoo
WhiskyJoe
> Wasn't the wind moving in the opposite direction?
The limousine was heading into the wind.
This can be seen at:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
In frame 305, Mary Moorman's coat is clearly
being blown to our left. From the effects on
her coat it has been estimated that the wind
was blowing at 10 to 15 MPH. Since the
limousine was moving at 9 MPH at z312, the
wind relative to the limousine and the
motorcycles, was about a 20 to 25 MPH
head wind. Any bloody mist would have been
blown backwards unto the motorcycle cops at
20 to 25 MPH, or about two feet per Zapruder
frame.
Dave Reitzes
I'm a bit torn here. I think "Magoo" has made a striking observation
about the hat. But I also agree that the shadow is coming from the
wrong direction for 12:30 PM. Still, something does seem to be
throwing a shadow on Connally's face, and it does seem to correspond
to the movement of the hat.
Dave
David Von Pein
Don't know if this has been mentioned before or not (it probably has),
but it looks to me as though there is ALREADY A SHADOW covering
portions of John Connally's shirt and tie even BEFORE his jacket
bulges outward at Z224. You can easily see the varying degrees of
"white" on Connally's shirt in this clip of Zapruder frames 222-223:
Anthony Marsh
> On 26 Apr 2010 17:27:52 -0400, "Gerry Simone"
> <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't the wind moving in the opposite direction?
>>
>> (Note: Robert Harris pointed out the N/E direction that the dresses of
>> female bystanders on the south side of Elm were blowing in his explanation
>> rear, being in the opposite direction).
>>
>
> Hargis was not hit "forcefully."
>
It doesn't matter is he really was or not. Just that he THOUGHT he was.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 4/26/2010 5:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2010 17:27:52 -0400, "Gerry Simone"
>> <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wasn't the wind moving in the opposite direction?
>>>
>>> (Note: Robert Harris pointed out the N/E direction that the dresses of
>>> female bystanders on the south side of Elm were blowing in his explanation
>>> for brain& blood matter forcefully hitting the motorcycle cop to the left
>>> rear, being in the opposite direction).
>>>
>>
>> Hargis was not hit "forcefully."
>>
>
>It doesn't matter is he really was or not. Just that he THOUGHT he was.
>
No, he never said that.
This factoid goes back to Tink Thompson. Thompson honestly uses quote
marks to show that Hargis really said, but later generations of
conspiracy writers have dishonestly accepted Thompson's interpretation
as what Hargis actually said.
John Fiorentino
generation.
The "shadow" on Connally's face referred to by Dave is in fact NOT there.
I'll try and post some of these frames as I find them. I have much of this
on another computer, so give me a little time.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9874b87b-29e1-478b...@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
pjfk
> Don't know if this has been mentioned before or not (it probably has),
> but it looks to me as though there is ALREADY A SHADOW covering
> portions of John Connally's shirt and tie even BEFORE his jacket
> bulges outward at Z224. You can easily see the varying degrees of
> "white" on Connally's shirt in this clip of Zapruder frames 222-223:
>
That is just silly. There is no 'bulging' of the jacket. Has it
occurred to you that there may have been a shadow from more than one
source? Probably not.
Gerry Simone
could've been concrete. Then he says he thought he was hit.
Therefore, I think 'forceful' is a valid interpretation.
Hargis originally testified to the WC that he's splattered with blood when
the President is struck by the lethal bullet, and not from riding through
the splatter.
He later reports that he rode through it but I think his thinking has
changed on this so that he doesn't 'go against the wind' (pun intended) by
permitting another possible scenario.
But at the end of the day, he doesn't rule out a shot from the front.
Incidentally, that frame from the Muchmore film shows the right side of the
black and red raincoats worn by those infamous ladies to be blowing in a
northeast direction, opposite to Hargis' location.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4bd605fd....@news.supernews.com...
Gerry Simone
thought he was hit himself. I think the interpretation is acceptable, but
no, he never actually used the word 'forceful'.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4bd758b9....@news.supernews.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "There is no 'bulging' of the jacket." <<<
Of course there is. The bulging jacket is obvious.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> The copy of the Z-film Pamela has used is probably 3rd 4th or what ever
> generation.
>
> The "shadow" on Connally's face referred to by Dave is in fact NOT there.
>
> I'll try and post some of these frames as I find them. I have much of this
> on another computer, so give me a little time.
>
> John F.
That would be very useful.
Dave
WhiskyJoe
> The copy of the Z-film Pamela has used is
> probably 3rd 4th or what ever generation.
This could be true. Perhaps it's from the
film Pamela viewed in New York in 1964.
In any case, in Pamela's film, it does
look like there is some gray to (our) left
of the tie.
But looking at:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
and frame 224, the gray area is not there.
The 'shadow' to (our) left of the tie is
exactly the same black shade as the coat,
because it is the coat, not a shadow.
> The "shadow" on Connally's face referred to
> by Dave is in fact NOT there.
I have to agree. I don't see shadow on Connally's
face, except for the shadows one would expect
from the sun angle.
> Don't know if this has been mentioned before
> or not (it probably has), but it looks to me
> as though there is ALREADY A SHADOW covering
> portions of John Connally's shirt and tie even
> BEFORE his jacket bulges outward at Z224.
> You can easily see the varying degrees of
> "white" on Connally's shirt in this clip of
> Zapruder frames 222-223:
Yes, the lower part of Connally's torso is in
shadow throughout z222-225. But this shadow
only causes Connally's shirt to change from
bright white to gray. This shadow does not
cause the white shirt to look black.
Of course, up to now, my posts have not referred
to the obvious horizontal shadow that covers the
lower part of Connally's torso, turning his white
shirt to gray, but to the alleged vertical
'shadow', matching the shade of Connally's coat
perfectly, matching the shape of the (our) right
edge of Connally's coat perfectly, giving us the
allusion that Connally's coat either moved
sideways or, more likely, bulged forward.
This video clip also shows coat movement between
z222 and z223. As to be expected. Dr. Lattimer's
experiments in the 1990's showed the coat bulge
should take place a tenth of a second after the
bullet passes through the coat. So the bullet
did not strike at z224 nor z223 but at z222.
This is also consistent with the camera jiggle
at z227.
With the bullet striking at z222, it is
to be expected to see some coat movement
during z222-223, as well as z223-224, as
well as a camera jiggle at either z227 or
z228, just at the bullet at z312 caused
a camera jiggle at z318.
tomnln
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bd764b9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4bd67ce3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
David Von Pein
>>> "This video clip [shown again above] also shows coat movement between
z222 and z223. As to be expected. .... So the bullet did not strike at
z224 nor z223 but at z222." <<<
So then, per your explanation, Joe, the bullet strikes at Z222, with the
right side of Governor Connally's jacket then RETURNING to its "unbulged"
condition at Z223, which was 1/18th of a second AFTER the bullet has gone
through the coat.
And then, with the coat now seemingly in a FLAT or "not bulged out" state
at Z223, the jacket then makes its huge "bulge" between Z223 and Z224.
Sorry, I can't buy into a Z222 SBT bullet strike. In my opinion, the
bullet is going through Connally's torso (and his jacket) at exactly Z224.
I'll have to assume the gusty wind blowing through Dealey Plaza at that
time (coming from the north or northwest, I believe) is causing any jacket
movement that we see in the Zapruder Film prior to Z224.
Question for WhiskyJoe:
Why didn't Connally's jacket continue to bulge outward from the force of
the bullet between Z222 and Z223? Instead, the coat seems to fall back
down into place again, making the right side of Connally's shirt more
visible in Z223:
jfk...@gmail.com
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/hargis,%20bobby.htm
>
>
> news:4bd67ce3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > On 4/26/2010 5:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 26 Apr 2010 17:27:52 -0400, "Gerry Simone"
>
> >>> Wasn't the wind moving in the opposite direction?
>
> >>> (Note: Robert Harris pointed out the N/E direction that the dresses of
> >>> female bystanders on the south side of Elm were blowing in his
> >>> explanation
> >>> for brain& blood matter forcefully hitting the motorcycle cop to the
> >>> left
> >>> rear, being in the opposite direction).
>
> >> Hargis was not hit "forcefully."
>
> > It doesn't matter is he really was or not. Just that he THOUGHT he was.
McAdams likes to create the impression that he was present and
therefore is authorized to determine what really happened.
jfk...@gmail.com
> >>> "There is no 'bulging' of the jacket." <<<
>
> Of course there is. The bulging jacket is obvious.
No it is not. It is a speculation imposed on us by Posner. It does
not take into account the fact that there are much more reasonable
explanations. The idea falls prey to the fallacy of false
alternatives.
tomnln
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bfa7ceb-2e79-4fe4...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
really haven't done your homework.
John F.
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6ea2f80-631b-4c43...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
WhiskyJoe
>>> "There is no 'bulging' of the jacket."
>> Of course there is. The bulging jacket
>> is obvious.
> No it is not. It is a speculation imposed
> on us by Posner.
I'm afraid I have to side with the CTers on
this issue. The apparent bunching of JFK's
coat was actually caused by shadows.
WhiskyJoe
> Question for WhiskyJoe:
> Why didn't Connally's jacket continue to bulge
> outward from the force of the bullet between
> Z222 and Z223? Instead, the coat seems to fall
> back down into place again, making the right
> side of Connally's shirt more visible in Z223:
Actually, coat movement during z222-223 is
something I heard about, possibly from CTers
who argued the z222-223 movement proves the
coat movement could have nothing to do with
a bullet at z224 nor z223.
But looking closely at:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
I can't say I see much difference between z222
and z223. The main difference is that z222 is
more blurry than z223. I think that z222 is so
blurry, I can't tell if during z222-223 the coat
started to bulge outward, became flatter, or
didn't move at all. More white is visible to
(our) left of Connally's tie, all right, but
could this be caused by z222 being blurry?
I leave it to others to decide if the difference
between z222 and z223 is clearly caused by coat
movement, or if z222 is too blurry for us to tell.
What is apparent, is the coat did move during
z223-224. I can clearly see the white of his
shirt to the (our) right of his tie, but not
to the left.
Everything fits with the coat movement being
caused by a bullet.
* the strong camera jiggle at z227. The bullet
at z312 caused a strong camera jiggle at z318.
So the camera jiggle at z227 implies a bullet
during z220-222.
* Dr. Lattimer's experiments in the mid 1990's,
using models of JFK's neck and Connally's torso,
caused a coat bulge in 4 out of 5 tests. And the
coat bulge, when it did occur, occurred
0.1 seconds after the bullet struck.
This corresponds with z222.
* The simultaneous reactions of JFK and Connally
during the z220's
all support a bullet striking at about z222,
causing the coat bulge at z224.
Now, I don't know. Maybe the coat movement was
a coincidence. A gust of wind moved coat, by
coincidence, at the perfect time. Or less
likely, there was no coat movement, a shadow
or something, makes it appear the coat moved,
by coincidence, at the perfect time. But most
likely, it is no coincidence. Too many other
things support the apparent coat movement being
caused by a bullet.
**************************************************
Question for David Von Pein
If the bullet struck at z224, why wasn't their
a strong camera jiggle at z229?
Why did the camera jiggle happen at occur at z227?
**************************************************
As an aside, on a minor point, it could be
argued that the camera jiggle at z227 implies
a shot at z221, not at z222. But I would
imagine a camera jiggle does not always occur
precisely 307 ms after the sound. It is probably
something that may very a little, even with the
same person holding the camera. Also, the bullet
strike at z312 occurred right at the end of z312.
So the camera jiggle at z318 is more accurately
described as occurring 5.75 frames after the
bullet struck, not 6.0 frames later.
I think the tests of Dr. Lattimer probably
provided us the most accurate measure of when
the bullet struck. His tests showed the coat
bulge reaches it's maximum 100 ms after the
bullet strikes. This test does not depend
on a person's reaction time which may vary.
Anthony Marsh
Well, he has admitted that he was standing behind the fence.
David Von Pein
>>> "If the bullet struck at z224, why wasn't their a strong camera jiggle at z229? Why did the camera jiggle happen at occur at z227?" <<<
Well, I'll admit, I think we could (perhaps) be over-analyzing this
thing to death here. ;)
You and I both know that a single bullet (Commission Exhibit Three-
Niner-Niner to be precise) went through both limo victims in the early
Z220s. No question about that fact.
As for the "jiggle" analysis -- that type of analysis only gets you a
"range" of frames for the actual thing that caused the jiggling of Mr.
Z's camera. And Z224 is certainly not a million miles away from your
preferred SBT frame of Z222.
In the post linked below, I was making fun of some of the conspiracy
theorists at Duncan MacRae's JFK forum (which is a very good [and very
busy] forum too, btw), accusing them of "hairsplitting" with regard to
Dale Myers' excellent 3D computer animation. But now here I am
engaging in some pretty good "hair-splitting" of my own with respect
to the SBT's precise timing.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3fef8926a0f3ffd9
Oh, well. Nobody's perfect, I guess. Not even DVP or Whisky Joe
Elliott. (Right, Joe?) ~wink~
John Fiorentino
here also, which I can't seem to find in the Google archives.
Anyway, while I work on this here's Lattimer's description of his
experiments:
"Experimental Duplication of the Important Physical Evidence of the Lapel
Bulge of the Jacket Worn by Governor Connally When Bullet 399 Went Through
Him" by John K. Lattimer, M.D., et al, The Journal of the American College
of Surgeons, May 1994
REENACTMENT OF THE WOUNDING OF GOVERNOR CONNALLY (FRAME 224). As
with any study of small photographs (movie frames), it is desirable
to try to verify the findings by duplicating the situation as
closely as possible, using the exact same type of rifle,
cartridges, clothing, necks, ribs and radiuses, as at Dallas. In an
attempt to verify and study this phenomenon further, a duplication
of President Kennedy's size 16 neck and of Governor Connally's
chest and jacket were tested to see exactly what would happen. A
size 16 neck simulation was created, using fresh pork muscle, with
the bone removed and the skin still in place. A rack was prepared
to hold a rib cage at a distance of 24 inches from the Kennedy
neck. A white dress shirt and tropical worsted jacket were placed
over the rib cage on a special rack. A necktie was tied in place to
simulate the clothing Governor Connally wore at the time of the
shooting in Dallas. An array of radiuses (arm bones), encased in
simulated forearms, was arranged in front of the right lapel of
Governor Connally and a bullet trap was mounted beyond this array.
Bullets of the Western Cartridge Company 6.5 millimeter ammunition
of the same lots used by Lee Harvey Oswald were fired from a
Carcano carbine exactly like the one used by Oswald. We knew from
our previous experiments [as described in Lattimer's book "Kennedy
and Lincoln"] that our test bullets would almost certainly "tumble"
and would strike our "Governor Connally back" at about the point
where he was actually struck. Our test bullet also struck a rib
(just as in Governor Connally), removing 4.5 centimeters of the rib
and exited in the area that would have been under his right nipple.
The flying fragments of rib, marrow and soft tissue, accompanying
the exiting, tumbling bullet, caused a large ragged hole in the
shirt and the jacket lining and plastered them with fragments of
rib and soft tissue, just as in the Governor's instance. The bullet
exited under the right lapel, still tumbling, making a 3 centimeter
transverse bullet wound in the cloth. It then struck one of the
forearms arrayed in front of the jacket. The bullet was captured in
a bullet trap beyond this point. A videotape of the motion of the
jacket was obtained, along with frames from a rapid-firing 35
millimeter camera. These revealed that the jacket bulged out about
6 inches and then snapped back. The lapel flipped over against the
neck area. The forward motion of the bulging jacket was completed
in 3/30th of a second, whereupon the backward snap began on our
static model. This was completed by 16/30th of a second from the
shot. After this, the jacket and lapel were again back in normal
position. While the rib and soft tissue fragments caused a large
ragged wound in the shirt, just as described in Governor Connally's
shirt, the exit hole of the bullet in the front of the jacket was
elongated to a length of 3 centimeters (almost exactly the length
of the tumbling bullet). The large shirt wound and the bulge of the
jacket were more related to the hail of fragments of rib and soft
tissue. The bullet then struck one of the radiuses mounted in front
of the jacket. The bullet from this experiment was flattened on one
side and bent from hitting the rib and radius while traveling
sideways, just as bullet 399 was flattened and bent for the same
reasons (399 is definitely not "pristine"). Lead extruded from the
rear of our bullet as with bullet 399. The radius was fractured and
tiny fragments of lead were left adherent to the periosteum,
exactly as in Governor Connally. One of the most dependable
features of this Kennedy and Connally mockup was the characteristic
manner in which these Carcano bullets turned sideways (tumbled)
after exiting the neck of Kennedy.
THE BULLET MUST TRAVERSE THE NECK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY FIRST OR NO
JACKET BULGE OCCURS. In an effort to determine what would happen if
the bullet did *not* go through the neck of Kennedy first, but hit
Connally primarily, we fired a bullet through our Connally jacket
and thorax preparation without running it through the model of
Kennedy's neck first, so it did not tumble. The jacket did *not*
bulge out and the lapel did *not* turn over. The shirt collar
flipped briefly. With the bullet going straight ahead, wounds to
the rib, shirt and jacket were punctate and the rib fragments
were not enough to bulge out the front of the jacket. This made
it seem even more likely that bullet 399 had gone through the
neck of President Kennedy first, turned sideways and caused the
very obvious jacket and lapel distortions, which we have
recorded herein and which occur in frame 224. If the bullet did
*not* go through the neck of Kennedy first, the jacket bulge and
lapel flap did *not* occur.
SUMMARY
By duplicating the wound to the neck of President Kennedy, which
caused bullet 399 to turn sideways, and having it *then* hit a
Connally-type rib cage with shirt and jacket, we reproduced the
right-sided bulge of the jacket worn by Connally, with lapel
eversion, which is so significant in frame 224. The extensive
damage to his shirtfront was from the hail of rib fragments and
soft tissue, exactly as described with his own shirt. Our tumbling
bullet then went on to fracture a radius and be recovered intact
except that it was somewhat flattened and bent and had lead
extruded from the rear, as did bullet 399. Fragments of this lead
were scraped off on the ragged bone-ends of some of our fractured
radiuses, just as with Governor Connally's radius. It is believed
that this duplication of the jacket and lapel bulge of Governor
Connally, which occurred dependably, when we reproduced the
circumstances at Dallas, confirmed this very important detail in
this technical demonstration of the findings in the shooting of
President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
The bulge and the lapel eversion of the jacket worn by Governor
Connally, starting in Zapruder frame 224, does indeed establish,
beyond any shadow of a doubt, the exact moment when bullet 399 went
through him. The right arms of both men were seen to react
simultaneously, immediately thereafter. It also permits us to
establish that there was plenty of time (three and one-half
seconds) between the first two shots (frames 160 to 224) and even
more time (five seconds) between the last two shots (frames 224 to
313), for Oswald to reload, reacquire the target (the head of
President Kennedy) plus two full seconds to lock onto it. If the
bullet does not traverse the neck of President Kennedy, it does not
cause Governor Connally's jacket and lapel to bulge. The lapel
bulge is a very important bit of actual physical evidence in
establishing the fact that one bullet hit both men and that Oswald
had plenty of time to hit the President, first in the neck and then
in the head. These experiments confirm the mechanism of the lapel
bulge and the behavior of the bullet.
---
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:179b7940-c5e8-46a4...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
WhiskyJoe
> As for the "jiggle" analysis -- that type of
> analysis only gets you a "range" of frames
> for the actual thing that caused the jiggling
> of Mr. Z's camera. And Z224 is certainly not
> a million miles away from your preferred
> SBT frame of Z222.
If the jiggle at z227 was caused by a shot
at z224, it means Mr. Zapruder sometimes
reacted within 170 ms to a loud shot and
at another time, the jiggle at z318, it took
him 310 to 330 ms to react. This seems to me
to be a very wide range. I'm certain a person
doesn't always react with a very narrow range
of time, like always between 307 ms to 312 ms
after a loud noise, but I find it hard to
believe the time delay could range from
170 ms to 310 ms.
The camera jiggle at z227 is a strong argument
against a shot right at z224. It could be that
the jiggle at z227 was not caused by a loud
noise, he just happened to jiggle the camera.
And, for some reason, the loud shot did not
cause him to jiggle the camera at z229 or z230.
Possible, but not likely.
> Oh, well. Nobody's perfect, I guess. Not even
> DVP or Whisky Joe Elliott. (Right, Joe?) ~wink~
No. Pamela's video gave me the impression that
the coat bulge took place over at least two
film intervals. But looking at better quality
stills, I only see clear coat movement between
z223 and z224. I find myself changing my mind
a lot on different issues.
**************************************************
Actual, it occurred to me after my last post,
the one question I should ask is:
Why do you think that z224 is the frame the
bullet struck JFK and Connally?
Why not frames z221, z222, z223 or z225?
**************************************************
WhiskyJoe
> I'm still looking for my photo work on this.
> I know I posted several things here also,
> which I can't seem to find in the Google
> archives.
I would be interested to see photographs from
Dr. Lattimer's experiments, duplicating the
coat bulge. I'm surprised he described both
a coat bulge and a lapel flip. I would guess
only a coat bulge would happen. I would be
curious to see how clear his film shows the
lapel flip.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> The fact that you believe ANY of this was "Posner's" idea, shows me that you
> really haven't done your homework.
Posner popularized it. Feel free to illuminate us on your take.
>
> John F.
>
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
David Von Pein
>>> "Why do you think that z224 is the frame the bullet struck JFK and
Connally? Why not frames z221, z222, z223 or z225?" <<<
225 is certainly too late. JBC is already reacting at 225 (shoulder-
hunching & open-mouthed "startle").
Z222 is too early, IMO. No reactions seen on JBC in 223 or 224. And an
involuntary reaction, per the HSCA's FPP "would have occurred almost
simultaneously with the injuries" (and Connally's initial reaction-- open
mouth, grimace, shoulders hunching--are most certainly "involuntary",
IMO).
Quoting from Vol. 7 of the HSCA:
"At issue is the time delay between bullet impact and the observable
reactions of each man to his injury, which in turn is determined by many
factors, including whether or not their reactions were voluntary or
involuntary. If involuntary, they would have occurred almost
simultaneously with the injuries." -- HSCA Volume 7; Page 179
Z224 fits perfectly.
John Fiorentino
acceptable description.
Cyril Wecht actually was first to promote this idea "officially" to the
Rockefeller Commission. He got it from an associate of his whose name
escapes me at the moment.
However, all of this was much more apparent to many after Groden's work on
the Z-film. (Which, while Groden himself is a looper, was quite well done)
John F.
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:318479fe-db51-42eb...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, apparently you've changed YOUR take. "Popularized" might be an
> acceptable description.
No. I stand corrected. It did not occur to me that anyone other than
Posner would give any credibility to such a silly idea. I was wrong.
>
> Cyril Wecht actually was first to promote this idea "officially" to the
> Rockefeller Commission. He got it from an associate of his whose name
> escapes me at the moment.
>
> However, all of this was much more apparent to many after Groden's work on
> the Z-film. (Which, while Groden himself is a looper, was quite well done)
>
Does this mean you are going for an appeal to the masses? Groden's
work on the Z-film(s) came years after my viewing of a copy of it in
NYC in 1964. None of the SB scenario makes sense to me, particularly
not one involving the 'hail mary' called the 'lapel flip'.
Anthony Marsh
You may be able to find some with Google Images.
But you may also be able to find some on an uncensored forum which
allows binary files to be displayed.
Anthony Marsh
>
Do you think that Zapruder was reacting to the muzzle blast or the shock
wave?
WhiskyJoe
> Do you think that Zapruder was reacting to
> the muzzle blast or the shock wave?
Likely the muzzle blast. He was over seventy
feet away from any of the bullets at their
closest approach, so I'm not certain he could
even hear the shock wave from the bullets.
WhiskyJoe
> 225 is certainly too late. JBC is already
> reacting at 225 (shoulder-hunching &
> open-mouthed "startle").
Agreed, z225 is too late.
> Z222 is too early, IMO. No reactions seen on
> JBC in 223 or 224. And an involuntary reaction,
> per the HSCA's FPP "would have occurred almost
> simultaneously with the injuries" (and
> Connally's initial reaction-- open mouth,
> grimace, shoulders hunching--are most
> certainly "involuntary", IMO).
It's too hard to predict how soon a person might
react to being wounded. Perhaps nerves will be
stimulated directly, causing a very fast reaction.
Perhaps a "Hot Stove" type of reaction will occur
where pain impulses could travel to the spinal
cord and the spinal cord itself might send a
message back to pull muscles. Or, most commonly,
the pain impulse will travel to the brain where
the brain will mull it over and then send a
command to certain muscles.
We can't tell, from JFK's or Connally's reactions,
precisely when a bullet struck. The command to
move a muscle may originate from the brain,
or possibly from the spinal cord or maybe from
the nerves themselves. If from the brain, there
is no telling how long the brain may take before
deciding what to do. It depends a lot on if the
reaction is a non voluntary reaction or a
voluntary reaction.
We can't tell if JFK's or Connally's arm movement
would start 1, 2, 3 or 4 or more frames after the
bullet strike. It depends on what type of response
it was, which is unknowable. Were the nerves to
JFK's arms, which the bullet passed close to,
directly stimulated causing a very fast
(1 Z-frame?) response? Did the spinal cord, which
the bullet passed close to, generate a signal to
the arm muscles causing a fast (2 Z-frames?)
response? Did neither occur but instead the signal
from the wound went to the brain which generated
the arm movement, which may be involuntary
or voluntary causing a more normal (4 or more
z-frames?) response? Who can tell?
The only two reactions that he have any hope of
providing us with precise timing is the coat
movement and the startle reaction, causing a
camera jiggle. Dr. Lattimer's experiments show
the coat bulge reliably reaches a maximum after
100 ms.
The startle reaction time should not vary much.
It is always, a signal from the ear to the brain,
a quick involuntary response by the brain,
followed by a quick muscle pull to the arms
that jerks the camera up. Experiments show
the startle reaction varies from individual
to individual, getting slower with age, but
with the same individual takes roughly the
same amount of time each time a person is
startled by a loud noise.
The coat bulge indicates a shot at z222.
The camera jiggle indicates a shot at z220-z222.
Both of our best methods of pin pointing the
time of the bullet are in good agreement with
each other. I would guess the coat bulge is the
most reliable indicator. I think z222 is the
best guess.
> Z224 fits perfectly.
Not with the coat movement it doesn't. The coat
cannot move that fast. If the bullet struck at
z224 than the coat bulge has to be unrelated to
the bullet strike. It's movement, or apparent
movement, is just a coincidence.
If we take that approach, maybe Connally's torso
jerk was just a coincidence. Maybe Connally
jerking his wrist up to the level of his chin
was a coincidence. Maybe the camera jiggle at
z227 was just a coincidence. Which would all
mean we can't tell if Connally was wounded
about the same time as JFK.
WhiskyJoe
> Z222 is too early, IMO.
I should mention that people should check out
Vincent Vandevoorde excellent website at:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
**************************************************
In particular:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
provides an excellent treatment of the SBT.
**************************************************
And the following webpage discusses z222-226.
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
Note the top picture sequence, between z222-z223.
Connally's left shoulder clearly moves. It jerks
upwards. I would guess this could be from Connally
being hit by the bullet and his right shoulder is
driven forward and down. In any case, I would be
surprised if Connally's muscles would react that
fast to a bullet at z222.
Also, Vandevoorde argues the hand may have been
shoved forward between z222-z223, exposing the
entire tie in z223. Since z222 is pretty blurry,
I think this is hard to tell, but I think he may
be right. He makes the point that the stripes of
the tie can be seen in z223 but not in z222.
Of course, maybe the stripes cannot be seen in
z222 because z222 is more blurry.
In any case, it certainly does appear that his
right cuff is clearly visible in z222. But in
the more clear z223, it's no where to be seen,
as if the right hand has been pushed forward
and down.
**************************************************
Vandevoorde also argues that what we see in z224
is a lapel flip, not a coat bulge.
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/Lapel-eng.htm
I thought the bullet struck too low on the coat
for a lapel flip. But the bone exiting the wound
may have struck near the lapel, perhaps flipping
the lapel. I don't know.
Well, in any case, z224 shows clear coat movement,
of some sort.
Note: His text refers to "Kennedy's coat" but
he clearly means "Connally's coat".
David Von Pein
>>> "Not with the coat movement it doesn't. The coat cannot move that fast." <<<
Since Connally's coat is not connected to a human brain, and therefore
not subject to the same "It's Got To Take XX Number Of Z-Frames To
React To A Bullet Hitting It" rules that a human being's body parts
must abide by, I disagree with your assessment that JBC's jacket
"cannot move that fast".
WhiskyJoe
Connally's coat is not connected to nerves and
not subject to the same sort of delayed reaction
like muscles are. But it does contain a good
deal of mass and inertia and Dr. Lattimer's
tests of the mid 1990's show that it does take
about two Zapruder frames for a coat to reach
it's maximum movement.
In the tests by Dr. Lattimer, the coat only
moved at 3 MPH, moving about 6 inches in 100 ms,
or about 2 Zapruder frames. Something like this
is to be expected, since the coat weights many
times as much as the bullet and only a fraction
of the original momentum of the bullet gets
transferred to the coat.
To push the coat 6 inches within half a Zapruder
frame, the coat would need to push the coat at a
minimum of 12 MPH. So, if as the shutter opened
at z224, by the time the shutter closed, the
coat would move 6 inches, resulting in roughly
what we see. But the Lattimer tests don't show
anything like that.
If a test can be run where within 25 ms,
we get a coat bulge like that we see in z224,
then one can say the coat bulge at z224 may
have been caused by a z224 bullet. But, until
such a test is demonstrated, we have to go
with Dr. Lattimer's results, which show that
maximum coat movement takes place 100 ms after
a bullet strike, not 0 ms nor 25 ms later.
Anthony Marsh
Very good. It depends on the trajectory of the bullet and what it hit.
You can calculate the cone of the shock wave from the muzzle velocity.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> > Z222 is too early, IMO.
>
> I should mention that people should check out
> Vincent Vandevoorde excellent website at:
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
>
> **************************************************
>
> In particular:
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
>
> provides an excellent treatment of the SBT.
>
> **************************************************
>
> And the following webpage discusses z222-226.
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
>
> Note the top picture sequence, between z222-z223.
> Connally's left shoulder clearly moves. It jerks
> upwards. I would guess this could be from Connally
> being hit by the bullet and his right shoulder is
> driven forward and down. In any case, I would be
> surprised if Connally's muscles would react that
> fast to a bullet at z222.
>
***Are you witnessing an optical illusion? Soft/sharp, Z222/Z223.
Jackie's left shoulder looks like it is moving up, as well. Her hat
appears to shrink.
***Ron Judge
David Von Pein
>>> "If a test can be run where within 25 ms, we get a coat bulge like
that we see in z224, then one can say the coat bulge at z224 may have been
caused by a z224 bullet. But, until such a test is demonstrated, we have
to go with Dr. Lattimer's results, which show that maximum coat movement
takes place 100 ms after a bullet strike, not 0 ms nor 25 ms later." <<<
WhiskyJoe,
I'm just going by what I'm SEEING in the Zapruder Film. And what I am
seeing is a portion of Governor Connally's suit coat which appears to be
lying FLAT against his chest in Z223 (i.e., the coat/lapel is not in a
"bulged out" state at all in Z223), and then we see that the coat has
moved significantly (bulging outward) just one frame later, in Z224.
It's fairly obvious to me (when looking at a good-quality copy of the
Z-Film clip in question, such as the one I've linked below), that Governor
Connally's coat/lapel is moving (quite a bit) within the span of just ONE
single frame of the Zapruder Film:
So, unless my eyes are deceiving me, then WhiskyJoe is wrong when he
said this on April 30, 2010:
"The coat cannot move that fast."
Governor Connally's coat DID, however, "move that fast" on 11/22/63,
from Z223 to Z224. And, IMO, the above Z-Film clip proves it.
YMMV.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> I'm still looking for my photo work on this. I know I posted several things
> here also, which I can't seem to find in the Google archives.
The problem I'm running into is that all the images of Z frame
enlargements I can find seem to be digital captures from the official
DVD, and the resolution simply isn't adequate to make any
determination with confidence. High resolution scans of the individual
frames might be another story.
Dave
John Fiorentino
Give me a little more time...............but a suggestion in the meantime,
view Groden's rotoscope work. I know it's on several JFK specials, the
names of which escape me at the moment.
But, it's very apparent in his enlarged film work.
I think the film should also be viewed in motion, as opposed to simply
frame by frame.
JFK and JBC are reacting in unison.
I also did a reverse image of JBC for two frames and posted here, several
times. I assume it would be on Google, but I can't seem to locate it.
Perhaps that other forum, which is alt..........something for the photos?
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:822feee7-dd63-4a0d...@q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 11:21???am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
WhiskyJoe
> Are you witnessing an optical illusion?
> Soft/sharp, Z222/Z223. Jackie's left shoulder
> looks like it is moving up, as well. Her hat
> appears to shrink.
I don't see any chance in her hat. Her left
shoulder moves a fraction as much as Connally's.
Look at the last video on this page:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT_2-eng.htm#Sommet
showing frames 222 through 226.
Clearly Connally's torso is moving a lot while
Jackie's barely moving. It's no illusion.
And much of Connally's torso move occurs
during z222-z223.
WhiskyJoe
> I'm just going by what I'm SEEING in the
> Zapruder Film.
All right. Let's ignore the Dr. Lattimer's
coat bulge/lapel flip tests. Let's just look
at the Zapruder film.
> And what I am seeing is a portion of Governor
> Connally's suit coat which appears to be lying
> FLAT against his chest in Z223 (i.e., the
> coat/lapel is not in a "bulged out" state at
> all in Z223), and then we see that the coat
> has moved significantly (bulging outward) just
> one frame later, in Z224.
It is impossible to tell if the coat is lying
flat against his chest at z223. Looking at
Vincent Vandevoorde's website, I think the both
a coat bulge and a lapel flip may have occurred.
The lapel flip may have flipped the lapel
90 degrees during z222-z223 and a further
90 degrees during z223-224.
During z222-z223, the coat bulge may have swung
the coat like a door, exposing a bit more of the
shirt to view. By z224, the full lapel flip
could have covered his shirt up to his tie.
**************************************************
But let's ignore the coat movement for now.
What about Connally's torso movement.
Look at the first video of this page:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
showing z222-z223.
Question:
*** Is it not apparent that Connally's left
shoulder jerks up about an inch?
**************************************************
Look at the last video on this page:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT_2-eng.htm#Sommet
showing frames 222 through 226. Clearly the
shoulder hitch of z222-z223 is part of the
sudden movement of Connally's torso during
z222-z226.
Questions:
*** Did Connally suddenly hitch his shoulder a
tenth of second before being hit by a bullet
at z224?
*** Is not the movement of Connally's torso
during z222-z223 a strong indicator of a bullet
at z222, or possibly before?
*** Is the apparent movement of Connally's
torso and coat during z222-z224 all just
a coincidence, unrelated to the bullet
strike at z224?
Anthony Marsh
Exactly. What's the point of our paying $16M for the film and we are not
allowed access to the original?
tomnln
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:f6f97b35-3bd6-4813...@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Dave:
>
> Give me a little more time...............but a suggestion in the meantime,
> view Groden's rotoscope work. I know it's on several JFK specials, the
> names of which escape me at the moment.
>
> But, it's very apparent in his enlarged film work.
>
> I think the film should also be viewed in motion, as opposed to simply
> frame by frame.
>
> JFK and JBC are reacting in unison.
I have no doubt about this. I saw it the first time I viewed the IMAGE OF
AN ASSASSINATION DVD.
My question is simply whether Piziali and the others were wrong about the
lapel flip. If so, it would only mean that the bullet could have struck a
frame or two (or maybe three) earlier.
Viewing Z223 and 224 in isolation, the lapel flips seems obvious. But
viewing them in tandem with 225 and 226 raises some questions in my mind.
I wish I had a better quality GIF than Pamela's to evaluate.
> I also did a reverse image of JBC for two frames and posted here, several
> times. I assume it would be on Google, but I can't seem to locate it.
> Perhaps that other forum, which is alt..........something for the photos?
>
> John F.
>
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
David Von Pein
Dave Reitzes,
The lapel of Connally's jacket becomes obscured (i.e., blocked) by
Connally's own right arm/hat just after Z225. You can't even see the
lapel of the coat in the frames immediately following Z225, because of
Connally's involuntary "hat flip":
John Fiorentino
IOW, are you asking specifically whether or not the "lapel" actually
"flipped"?
As I stated before, and Lattimer also stated, a "coat bulge" may indeed be
more appropriate.
I always thought, and still do, that it would be almost impossible to
demonstrate that the lapel itself actually flipped over.
As I said, I did some work myself where I reversed the images, from that a
better case could be made for a flip, but I still think it is a
combination of the coat bulge and a displacement, (at the very least) of
the lapel.
I think the best you can get is 223-224.
Personally, I don't see anything at 222, neither does anything at 225-226
change my mind.
I think one thing that may be relevant, is the bullet itself may have
traversed the jacket, followed by a very slight delay in the visible bulge
as pressure built up, and more internal ejecta from JBC exited.
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5858ff89-6636-4aa6...@l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 7:50???pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
WhiskyJoe
> tomnln:
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
I saw that picture a long time ago. And it did
make me think that what we see in z224 was not
a lapel flip, but a coat bulge.
However, looking at the following pictures:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/Lapel-eng.htm
of both Connally's coat and shirt, I'm not
so sure. The bullet hole in the coat is
way low. But in the shirt, it is much higher,
clearly right under where the lapel was.
This makes sense because the exit wound
was near Connally's right nipple.
I'm a little perplex how the bullet came out so
low on Connally's coat. I guess this shows how
inaccurate it is to locate wounds based on bullet
holes in coats, which we learned with JFK's coat.
I guess Vandevoorde is right, the coat was
several inches from his chest and with the
bullet going down, the bullet hit the coat
at a lower point than one would expect.
But the organic material and bones that exit the
wound won't have to follow the path of the bullet
exactly. This material may have been traveling
horizontally and struck the coat right under
the lapel. And this could have caused either the
coat bulge or the lapel flip or possibly both.
In any case, I find it a curious coincidence
that the exit wound on Connally's chest and
the bullet hole in his shirt, just happens to
lie underneath the right lapel.
**************************************************
I should mention, that your website only has
a picture of the coat, not of the shirt.
Inevitably, if there are two pieces of
evidence, like the picture of the coat and
the shirt, you will show the coat, but not
the shirt, implying that the wound was no
where near the lapel, when the overall
evidence shows it was.
If you feel the overall evidence is again the
lapel flip, why didn't you show both the coat
and the shirt?
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> I wish I fully understood your question. That's probably my fault.
>
> IOW, are you asking specifically whether or not the "lapel" actually
> "flipped"?
>
> As I stated before, and Lattimer also stated, a "coat bulge" may indeed be
> more appropriate.
>
> I always thought, and still do, that it would be almost impossible to
> demonstrate that the lapel itself actually flipped over.
I'm not arguing about the lapel vs. the coat. When viewed in
isolation, there's no doubt in Z223 and 224 that JBC's lapel or coat
appears to bulge forward. (Not everyone is convinced this is due to a
bullet, of course; Vince Bugliosi, for example, has severe doubts.)
What concerned me was a GIF of Z223-226 posted by Pamela in which it
appears that the apparent movement of the coat could be nothing more
than a shadow that continues to move in Z225 and 226:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif
However, today someone e-mailed me a GIF of Z220-230 that has
significantly higher resolution:
http://www.jfk-online.com/tempz.html
What I see is that the coat bulges outward, and then in Z225 and 226,
there appears to be a narrow dark shape directly to its right (on
JBC's shirt) that may be a shadow. But it is quite obviously a
separate entity from the much darker shape of the coat.
I think that the experts (such as Piziali) got it right, and I think
Pamela's argument has been refuted by superior source material.
But I remain open to persuasion. Pamela? Do you have any other
evidence to support your hypothesis?
> As I said, I did some work myself where I reversed the images, from that a
> better case could be made for a flip, but I still think it is a
> combination of the coat bulge and a displacement, (at the very least) of
> the lapel.
>
> I think the best you can get is 223-224.
>
> Personally, I don't see anything at 222, neither does anything at 225-226
> change my mind.
>
> I think one thing that may be relevant, is the bullet itself may have
> traversed the jacket, followed by a very slight delay in the visible bulge
> as pressure built up, and more internal ejecta from JBC exited.
>
> John F.
>
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5858ff89-6636-4aa6...@l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 7:50???pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Dave:
>
> > Give me a little more time...............but a suggestion in the meantime,
> > view Groden's rotoscope work. I know it's on several JFK specials, the
> > names of which escape me at the moment.
>
> > But, it's very apparent in his enlarged film work.
>
> > I think the film should also be viewed in motion, as opposed to simply
> > frame by frame.
>
> > JFK and JBC are reacting in unison.
>
> I have no doubt about this. I saw it the first time I viewed the IMAGE OF
> AN ASSASSINATION DVD.
>
> My question is simply whether Piziali and the others were wrong about the
> lapel flip. If so, it would only mean that the bullet could have struck a
> frame or two (or maybe three) earlier.
>
> Viewing Z223 and 224 in isolation, the lapel flips seems obvious. But
> viewing them in tandem with 225 and 226 raises some questions in my mind.
> I wish I had a better quality GIF than Pamela's to evaluate.
Dave
John Fiorentino
BTW, what does Bugliosi think, since I've yet to read the book?
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:24b594e1-1be5-48f8...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> I wish I could see what you mean in 225-226, I just don't.
>
> BTW, what does Bugliosi think, since I've yet to read the book?
>
> John F.
Bugliosi believes the shot occurs while JFK and JBC are both behind
the sign; he thinks JBC is already reacting as early as Z222. He
relegates the lapel/coat issue to an endnote, suggesting the bulge may
be due to wind.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 4, 9:00�am, "John Fiorentino"<johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>> I wish I could see what you mean in 225-226, I just don't.
>>
>> BTW, what does Bugliosi think, since I've yet to read the book?
>>
>> John F.
>
>
> Bugliosi believes the shot occurs while JFK and JBC are both behind
> the sign; he thinks JBC is already reacting as early as Z222. He
> relegates the lapel/coat issue to an endnote, suggesting the bulge may
> be due to wind.
>
Bugliosi doesn't know what he really thinks. He can't make up his mind
whether a SBT happened at Z-210 or Z-224.
John Fiorentino
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ca5c2335-041e-44a5...@h11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4be05c81$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Loo0k at tyhe Great distance between the bullet hole and, the lapel..
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4be0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Squinty Magoo
> > tomnln:
> > SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> I saw that picture a long time ago. And it did
> make me think that what we see in z224 was not
> a lapel flip, but a coat bulge.
>
> However, looking at the following pictures:
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/Lapel-eng.htm
A conspiracy has been proven, inasmuch as this website identifies the
coat as "Kennedy's." If he had a bullet hole that low in the front,
no SBT could account for that.
Squinty Magoo
David Von Pein
>>> "A conspiracy has been proven, inasmuch as this website identifies the coat as "Kennedy's." If he had a bullet hole that low in the front, no SBT could account for that." <<<
LOL. Good one, Squinty.
cdddraftsman
> On Apr 25, 11:21 am, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 10:03 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I saw something just a
> > > couple days ago that says some modern video equipment is capable of
> > > capturing a mind boggling 10 million frames per second. Given the
> > > limitations of Zapruder's camera, 1/18 of a second is about as precise as
> > > we will ever be able to get in pinpointing the moment of the SB strike
>
> > UPDATED MUSIC 1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made
> > by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKR4atl8h-I&feature=channel
>
> > By 1945 the USG had developed the 'Rapidtronic' camera (Or
> > 'Rapatronic') capable of 6 million fps . based upon a (then)
> > conventional swirling drum arraingement and small aperature lens ,
> > capable of recording a still image with an exposure time as brief as
> > 10 nanoseconds , invented by Harold Edgerton and colleagues built by
> > EG&G :http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/652px-Tumbler_S...
>
> > Big Bomb Book - Michael Light - 100 Suns: 1945-1962 ...
>
> > The concept of "100 Suns" is to take one-hundred of the more
> > remarkable US nuclear weapons test photographs and package them as a
> > high concept "coffee table book". The book is printed on heavy paper
> > stock (and I do mean heavy -- this book is a load) and printed in "art-
> > book" glossy style. The result is intriguing and pleasing although not
> > without flaw.
>
> > The subjects are single photographs of US atmospheric nuclear tests
> > between 1945 and the early 1960s. With a few exceptions the
> > detonations themselves are featured. There are, perhaps five of the
> > hundred that show test preparation, effects or observer reactions.
>
> > Although the complier made a conscious decision to show the photos
> > exactly as they were found in the US archives, sometimes damaged and
> > often with hamfisted markings on them, the results are spectacular. My
> > personal favorite show is the US IVY MIKE shot creating it's own
> > lightning storm. Some of the ultra-high speed "Rapidtronic" photos
> > showing very early fireball structure are here too.
>
> > There is an introduction and historical commentary rather in the
> > leftie "oh-wasn't-all-of-this-just-so-regrettable" mode which I could
> > have done without. No great damage here, though. Captions are also
> > provided, although strangely, to my way of thinking, segregated in the
> > back of the book.
>
> > I do have a number of rather trivial problems with this book. First is
> > the layout. Many of the photos are spread over two pages and
> > significant detail is lost in the gutter between the pages. (Did you
> > know that place where the pages of a book go into the binding is
> > called the gutter? Good for you!) Gatefolds! I want gatefolds! I would
> > have paid extra for gatefolds.
>
> > Next: there are far too many photos with the theme "bunch of guys in
> > 50's era Army uniforms looking up at the bomb."
>
> > OK.
>
> > There were tests where people were exposed to radiation.
>
> > Maybe, in retrospect, this wasn't such a hot idea.
>
> > We get it.
>
> > Enough, already.
>
> > OK?
>
> > One picture of this theme would have been plenty. Especially when
> > you're limiting yourself to a universe of one-hundred photos.
>
> > That's another thing, while many (at least 40%) of these shots are new
> > to me, and I am rather an expert, many are old hat...but the
> > presentation of the old warhorses is nice....
>
> > Next quibble: The above-mentioned caption oddness. I would also have
> > liked to see a picture or two of test preparation and one shot of an
> > actual device would have been nice (CASTLE BRAVO or GREENHOUSE ITEM
> > would have been my picks.)
>
> > For an "art-book" the price of this book is quite reasonable but an
> > interest in the subject matter is required, I think.
>
> > The flaws here are generally outweighed by the positive attributes.
> > recommended for nuclear weapons fans and, I suppose, for well-heeled
> > activist types who enjoy wringing their hands about the "Nuclear
> > Threat." Are there any people out there still like that?
>
> > Recommended:
> > Yes
> > ----------
> > Nuclear detonation from the "Tumbler Snapper" test series showing
> > fireball and "rope tricks" by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> > The photograph was shot by a Rapatronic camera built by EG&G. Since
> > each camera could record only one exposure on a sheet of film, banks
> > of four to 10 cameras were set up to take sequences of photographs.
> > The average exposure time was three millionths of a second. The
> > cameras were last used at the Test Site in 1962.
>
> > A paragraph from Michael Light's book 100 suns which includes this
> > image and provides insight to the origin of such photos follows here:
>
> > "At the still picture branch of the United States National Archives at
> > College Park, Maryland, head archivist Kate Flaherty was unfailingly
> > helpful during all aspects of research at that great institution, as
> > were her staff members Theresa Roy and Sharon Culley. Roger Meade,
> > chief archivist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico,
> > went above the call of duty to make material available and help
> > identify some of its more arcane aspects. At Lawrence Livermore
> > National Laboratory in California, archivists Steve Wofford, Beverly
> > Bull and Maxine Trost helped with image research. Nick Broderick,
> > classification analyst at Lawrence Livermore, kindly provided final
> > identification of notoriously difficult to attribute ultra-high-speed
> > Rapatronic images made by E.G.&G. Thanks as well to filmmaker Peter
> > Kuran for additional identification help with Rapatronic images." :http://simplethinking.com/home/rapatronic_photographs.htm
>
> > Nuclear explosion photographed by rapatronic camera less than 1
> > millisecond after detonation. From the Tumbler-Snapper test series in
> > Nevada, 1952. The fireball is about 20 meters in diameter in this
> > shot. The spikes at the bottom of the fireball are known as the rope
> > trick effect.:
>
> I find all this stuff to be at once fascinating and mind-boggling. My
> professional life was spent as a mainframe computer programmer so I
> feel I am fairly astute in the area of technology, but some of this
> stuff just blows me away. The guys who came up with this stuff had to
> be on an entirely different intelectual plane than anything I am
> familiar with.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
They (EE&G) developed the camera (film) emulsion also .....
Get the 'Atomic Filmmakkers' video if you haven't already .....
Must see along with 'The Atomic Bomb Movie' ....
tl
cdddraftsman
> On Apr 27, 12:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't know if this has been mentioned before or not (it probably has),
> > but it looks to me as though there is ALREADY A SHADOW covering
> > portions of John Connally's shirt and tie even BEFORE his jacket
> > bulges outward at Z224. You can easily see the varying degrees of
> > "white" on Connally's shirt in this clip of Zapruder frames 222-223:
>
> >http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/137a.+ZAPRUDER+FILM+Z2...
>
> That is just silly. There is no 'bulging' of the jacket. Has it
> occurred to you that there may have been a shadow from more than one
> source? Probably not.
Was that the official 'K-Mart Conspiracy' statement on the matter ?
tl
cdddraftsman
> madams VALUE IS SEEN here>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
>
>
Like that rear end kicking ya got tomnln ?
Your point ?
Attract attention to your web site ..... obviously .....
tl
cdddraftsman
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
>
You seem to have a 'Catch Every Day' tomnln ?
You seem to have 'Catched Every One' who didn't kill
Kennedy ?
You seem to think everyone who fired shots that day got away ?
Any chance you'll 'Catch' Ozzie ?
Didn't think so ....
tl
cdddraftsman
> Would YOU follow John?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
>
>
If confusion was the goal we'd all be following you !
tl
cdddraftsman
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
>
>
tomnln thinks JBC was shot from the front !!!! ????
Following the time honored wounds ballistic fact that bullet entry
holes make ragged gapping wounds !
Go figure ....nuff said .....
tl
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7cdd9548-7c27-4bb7...@42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
WhiskyJoe
> Do YOU want a chance at "The Champ"? ? ? ?
Has Len Osanic of Black Op Radio invited you
to debate a LNer on his radio show? Has any
host of a radio or TV show, who strongly
believes in conspiracy in the JFK assassination,
invited you to debate a LNer on their show?
Are you 'The Champ' in your own mind only?
Did Len Osanic pass you over to choose someone
else to debate John McAdams? If Len Osanic
doesn't think your the champ then why should
we believe that you are the champ?
Yes, it's true, Anton Batey had you debate
John McAdams. But Anton Batey is neutral on
the JFK assassination question. He doesn't
care if the LNer or the CTer does better in
a debate. So where is your invitation from a
CTer to debate a LNer on his show?
tomnln
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:925f540d-c519-4a3e...@j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
> Do YOU want a chance at "The Champ"? ? ? ?
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
>
>
> news:7cdd9548-7c27-4bb7...@42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 3:26 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Would YOU follow John?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
>
> If confusion was the goal we'd all be following you !
>
> tl
We only need to change one letter in "Champ".
bigdog
I have accepted Rossley's challenge several times to debate him on Batey's
show but then he can't seem to get it arranged. Apparently, he has lost
credibility with Batey, assuming he ever had any to begin with.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:508b4f93-6d70-4c81-baef-
I have accepted Rossley's challenge several times to debate him on Batey's
show but then he can't seem to get it arranged. Apparently, he has lost
credibility with Batey, assuming he ever had any to begin with.
if Anton DIDN'T THINK I HAD ANYTHING TO OFFER HE WOULD NEVER HAVE
MODERATED THE second DEBATE BETWEEN McAdams & I.