Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
THIS IS AN OUTSTANDING WEBSITE
128 views
Skip to first unread message
BOZ
May 5, 2016, 5:22:14 PM5/5/16
to
bigdog
May 6, 2016, 3:30:37 PM5/6/16
to
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:22:14 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory
For me, this is the clincher for the SBT, not that there was much doubt
about it before I saw it. The enhanced close ups of JFK and JBC show that
both of them reacted at precisely the same time, Z226. That is when we see
both of their right arms start upward in perfect unison, as if two puppets
being pulled on the same string. Prior to seeing this I had always
believed that JFK was already reacting when he came into view and that
Connally reacted a split second later at Z230. However comparing the
position of JFK's right hand which is visible in Z224 even though his face
isn't to where it is in Z225 shows that his hand was still moving downward
at Z225. He didn't raise it until the next frame, precisely when JBC's arm
also flips upward. Since these reactions would likely occur about 200
milliseconds after the bullet strike, that would be 3-4 Z-frames earlier,
placing the strike at Z222-223.
We can pretty much count on Marsh chiming in with his bogus claim that we
keep changing the frame number but in reality it is simply a recognition
that given the tool we have to work with, precision to within one frame is
about as good as we can do. Most people would say placing the shot to
within 1/18th of a second is pretty good precision because most people
aren't anal enough to demand better.
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory
For me, this is the clincher for the SBT, not that there was much doubt
about it before I saw it. The enhanced close ups of JFK and JBC show that
both of them reacted at precisely the same time, Z226. That is when we see
both of their right arms start upward in perfect unison, as if two puppets
being pulled on the same string. Prior to seeing this I had always
believed that JFK was already reacting when he came into view and that
Connally reacted a split second later at Z230. However comparing the
position of JFK's right hand which is visible in Z224 even though his face
isn't to where it is in Z225 shows that his hand was still moving downward
at Z225. He didn't raise it until the next frame, precisely when JBC's arm
also flips upward. Since these reactions would likely occur about 200
milliseconds after the bullet strike, that would be 3-4 Z-frames earlier,
placing the strike at Z222-223.
We can pretty much count on Marsh chiming in with his bogus claim that we
keep changing the frame number but in reality it is simply a recognition
that given the tool we have to work with, precision to within one frame is
about as good as we can do. Most people would say placing the shot to
within 1/18th of a second is pretty good precision because most people
aren't anal enough to demand better.
BOZ
May 7, 2016, 11:42:57 AM5/7/16
to
film is a fake even though Anthony Marsh proved it was surreal.
Anthony Marsh
May 7, 2016, 4:32:28 PM5/7/16
to
On 5/6/2016 3:30 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:22:14 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory
>
> For me, this is the clincher for the SBT, not that there was much doubt
> about it before I saw it. The enhanced close ups of JFK and JBC show that
> both of them reacted at precisely the same time, Z226. That is when we see
> both of their right arms start upward in perfect unison, as if two puppets
> being pulled on the same string. Prior to seeing this I had always
> believed that JFK was already reacting when he came into view and that
> Connally reacted a split second later at Z230. However comparing the
> position of JFK's right hand which is visible in Z224 even though his face
> isn't to where it is in Z225 shows that his hand was still moving downward
> at Z225. He didn't raise it until the next frame, precisely when JBC's arm
> also flips upward. Since these reactions would likely occur about 200
> milliseconds after the bullet strike, that would be 3-4 Z-frames earlier,
> placing the strike at Z222-223.
>
> We can pretty much count on Marsh chiming in with his bogus claim that we
> keep changing the frame number but in reality it is simply a recognition
> that given the tool we have to work with, precision to within one frame is
I don't expect you to get as accurate as me saying 312.6. Just pick a
> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:22:14 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory
>
> For me, this is the clincher for the SBT, not that there was much doubt
> about it before I saw it. The enhanced close ups of JFK and JBC show that
> both of them reacted at precisely the same time, Z226. That is when we see
> both of their right arms start upward in perfect unison, as if two puppets
> being pulled on the same string. Prior to seeing this I had always
> believed that JFK was already reacting when he came into view and that
> Connally reacted a split second later at Z230. However comparing the
> position of JFK's right hand which is visible in Z224 even though his face
> isn't to where it is in Z225 shows that his hand was still moving downward
> at Z225. He didn't raise it until the next frame, precisely when JBC's arm
> also flips upward. Since these reactions would likely occur about 200
> milliseconds after the bullet strike, that would be 3-4 Z-frames earlier,
> placing the strike at Z222-223.
>
> We can pretty much count on Marsh chiming in with his bogus claim that we
> keep changing the frame number but in reality it is simply a recognition
> that given the tool we have to work with, precision to within one frame is
frame number at random and stick with it.
> about as good as we can do. Most people would say placing the shot to
> within 1/18th of a second is pretty good precision because most people
> aren't anal enough to demand better.
>
stevemg...@yahoo.com
May 7, 2016, 10:20:16 PM5/7/16
to
simulation overwhelmingly support what the Warren Commission - using 1960s
technology (almost stone age compared to today) - argued happened.
If the conspiracy advocates want to disagree then do something similar.
Use modern technology to prove you're right. John Armstrong is reportedly
a wealthy man. Have him do it. Olive Stone made millions. Have him do it.
Stop poring over the testimony and affidavits to try to find discrepancies
or gaps. You need to support whatever you claim with hard, physical
evidence.
Of course if they do that and it shows they're wrong they'll just say all
of the evidence they're using is faked or altered so their results will be
corrupt.
Same old same old. Fifty years plus of this.
Anthony Marsh
May 7, 2016, 10:20:54 PM5/7/16
to
I proved that it is authentic. Maybe that's why the Nazis hate me as
much as the Alterationists do.
So last week you guys were happy with 224, then you said 226, and today
it's 222-223. At least you are learning to hedge you bets by naming a
RANGE of frames, so you are making progress. But you guys still can't
agree on just one frame.
Keep working on it. And get back to us in the next century when you've
agreed on a frame.
OHLeeRedux
May 8, 2016, 5:49:32 PM5/8/16
to
Anthony Marsh
[snicker]. There is a frame 312. There is a frame 313. There is no frame
in between them. The images are quantum in nature. An image is on one
frame or another. You could say frame 312.1, 312.7, 312.9999999, etc., and
it would make no more sense -- and certainly would be no more "accurate"
-- than saying 312.6.
Now is your cue to spew out more nonsense in a lame attempt to rationalize
your silly assertion. Not that you will take my advice, but you should
just let it go. You forget it and I will too. The more you sputter and
stumble around desperately trying to misdirect the reader, the more
ridiculous your argument becomes.
On 5/6/2016 3:30 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:22:14 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory
>
> For me, this is the clincher for the SBT, not that there was much doubt
> about it before I saw it. The enhanced close ups of JFK and JBC show that
> both of them reacted at precisely the same time, Z226. That is when we see
> both of their right arms start upward in perfect unison, as if two puppets
> being pulled on the same string. Prior to seeing this I had always
> believed that JFK was already reacting when he came into view and that
> Connally reacted a split second later at Z230. However comparing the
> position of JFK's right hand which is visible in Z224 even though his face
> isn't to where it is in Z225 shows that his hand was still moving downward
> at Z225. He didn't raise it until the next frame, precisely when JBC's arm
> also flips upward. Since these reactions would likely occur about 200
> milliseconds after the bullet strike, that would be 3-4 Z-frames earlier,
> placing the strike at Z222-223.
>
> We can pretty much count on Marsh chiming in with his bogus claim that we
> keep changing the frame number but in reality it is simply a recognition
> that given the tool we have to work with, precision to within one frame is
I don't expect you to get as accurate as me saying 312.6.
Which of course is ridiculous. There is no such thing as frame 312.6
> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:22:14 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory
>
> For me, this is the clincher for the SBT, not that there was much doubt
> about it before I saw it. The enhanced close ups of JFK and JBC show that
> both of them reacted at precisely the same time, Z226. That is when we see
> both of their right arms start upward in perfect unison, as if two puppets
> being pulled on the same string. Prior to seeing this I had always
> believed that JFK was already reacting when he came into view and that
> Connally reacted a split second later at Z230. However comparing the
> position of JFK's right hand which is visible in Z224 even though his face
> isn't to where it is in Z225 shows that his hand was still moving downward
> at Z225. He didn't raise it until the next frame, precisely when JBC's arm
> also flips upward. Since these reactions would likely occur about 200
> milliseconds after the bullet strike, that would be 3-4 Z-frames earlier,
> placing the strike at Z222-223.
>
> We can pretty much count on Marsh chiming in with his bogus claim that we
> keep changing the frame number but in reality it is simply a recognition
> that given the tool we have to work with, precision to within one frame is
I don't expect you to get as accurate as me saying 312.6.
[snicker]. There is a frame 312. There is a frame 313. There is no frame
in between them. The images are quantum in nature. An image is on one
frame or another. You could say frame 312.1, 312.7, 312.9999999, etc., and
it would make no more sense -- and certainly would be no more "accurate"
-- than saying 312.6.
Now is your cue to spew out more nonsense in a lame attempt to rationalize
your silly assertion. Not that you will take my advice, but you should
just let it go. You forget it and I will too. The more you sputter and
stumble around desperately trying to misdirect the reader, the more
ridiculous your argument becomes.
Allan G. Johnson
May 8, 2016, 8:36:03 PM5/8/16
to
the SBT (fact) wrong.
BOZ
May 9, 2016, 1:23:20 PM5/9/16
to
bigdog
May 9, 2016, 9:36:45 PM5/9/16
to
Well played.
Anthony Marsh
May 9, 2016, 9:51:52 PM5/9/16
to
Anthony Marsh
May 9, 2016, 10:00:36 PM5/9/16
to
Silence. Maybe the word you were trying to remember from kindergarten
was INTEGER.
> frame or another. You could say frame 312.1, 312.7, 312.9999999, etc., and
> it would make no more sense -- and certainly would be no more "accurate"
> -- than saying 312.6.
>
> Now is your cue to spew out more nonsense in a lame attempt to rationalize
> your silly assertion. Not that you will take my advice, but you should
> just let it go. You forget it and I will too. The more you sputter and
> stumble around desperately trying to misdirect the reader, the more
> ridiculous your argument becomes.
>
>
more ridiculous.
Allan G. Johnson
May 10, 2016, 10:08:47 PM5/10/16
to
0 new messages