Plus, the following clip from the Zapruder Film is always worth
posting several times a day. It's a moving two-frame picture of a man
named John Connally who is IN DISTRESS at Z225. Now, considering the
fact that that same man (John B. Connally Jr.) was shot in the upper
back by a bullet at just about this exact same time in Dealey Plaza,
what are the odds of this reaction being displayed by Mr. Connally
being the result of SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES THE RIFLE BULLET THAT HIT
HIM IN THE UPPER BACK AT ALMOST THIS EXACT SAME INSTANT ON NOVEMBER
22, 1963?:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/110aZ224-Z225TogglingClip.gif?t=1272285697

>>> "I would tend to agree with you David. you make a reasonable case. The problem for you is that there is no way that Connally's [right] armpit is to the left of JFK's midline. Connally is not far enough to the left of the jumpseat or twisted to the right for alignment to occur. So a win for the single bullet. But it was not fired from the TSBD." <<<

You're wrong, Colin:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/112SnipersNestImageFromDaleMyersCom.jpg?t=1272290089

The above image is based almost exclusively on THE SAME FILM that
conspiracy theorist Colin Crow says is showing John Connally too far
to JFK's right when the SBT occurred. Dale Myers has done computerized
"key framing" in order to synchronize the Zapruder Film to his 3D
computer animation.

In other words -- What we see in the above "From The Sniper's Nest"
image is exactly what Abraham Zapruder would have seen and filmed with
his Bell & Howell camera if he had been taking his movie from the
Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

Myers' entire computer model is LOCKED IN to the Zapruder Film,
regardless of the particular angle we are looking at at any particular
time. The 3D computer imagery allows us to leave Zapruder's pedestal
and look at the limousine and the victims from any vantage point in
Dealey Plaza--including the above POV through Oswald's rifle in the
Sniper's Nest.

And Connally's right armpit area is perfectly in line to accept Bullet
CE399 at Z-Frame 224 after that bullet exits John Kennedy's throat.
Myers has the crosshairs aimed a little bit too low on JFK's back in
the above image, however. The entry wound in Kennedy's back wasn't
quite that low, as we can easily see here:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_3.jpg?t=1272292239

And for additional SBT confirmation (of a more "low tech" variety),
we've got my all-time favorite Warren Commission exhibit--CE903--which
is an exhibit that I never get tired of talking about, mainly due to
the fact that this single photograph taken on May 24, 1964, by the
FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt totally destroys the persistent myth spouted
by conspiracy theorists that has the evil Warren boys deliberately
misrepresenting the location of JFK's upper-back wound in order to
support the SBT.

But such an allegation/myth is just simply not true, and it NEVER WAS,
as CE903 clearly illustrates -- because Arlen's Specter pointer is NOT
being placed in the "neck" of the JFK stand-in here. In fact, if
Specter had moved the metal rod UP INTO THE NECK of the stand-in--and
still maintained the 17.72-degree downward angle of the rod that was
required in order to approximate the angle leading back to Oswald's
window (subtracting the 3.15-degree street grade of Elm Street for
this picture in CE903, since the car here wasn't sitting on a street
with a 3.15-degree slope to it)--it would have meant that the exit
point for the bullet would have been around JFK's chin, instead of the
correct "tie knot" exit location.

CE903:
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/CE903.jpg?t=1272291340

>>> "Hi David, is Dale [Myers] able to show us this [SBT] frame from the Zapruder position? That would resolve the issue. I would be convinced then. If its a true 3D model it should be possible. Until then I'll be convinced by the vision of Jackie's pink sleeve. You can see it quite clearly in the graphics you posted. I have used correctly scaled versions of JFK and JBC in their positions over the HSCA scale model. Both men had similar shoulder widths. That was the problem with Dale Myers' image overhead. JFK's shoulders were 25% wider than JBC. Grossly inaccurate. .... http://i863.photobucket.com/albums/ab192/col_crow/sbtatz223-2-1.jpg" <<<

Yes, Colin, I would certainly think that such a view would be
available via Dale Myers' computer animation.

Here's a freeze-frame screen capture taken from Dale Myers' DVD
preview. This image would equal Z-Frame 225:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/DMyersAnimation.jpg?t=1272294679

Myers was supposed to release his "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation on
DVD. On his website, Dale still says it is "planned for the near
future":

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

I'd very much like to see more of Dale's animation, with the
interactive ability to be able to see the Z-Film frames from a variety
of different perspectives in Dealey Plaza. Hopefully it will come out
on DVD sometime down the road (maybe for the 50th anniversary).

A few additional brief snippets from Dale Myers' animation project can
be glimpsed in this "DVD Preview":

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/video_preview.htm

>>> "So we have basically come to the conclusion (some have anyhow) that Myers' animation is off. So how exactly does this prove that the SBT did not happen? Frankly it doesn't." <<<

>>> "Connally was taller than Kennedy. What this tells us is that the "accurate" modelling of the 2 men [in Dale Myers' computer model] is not that accurate. I have also determined that from the 'top down' view [of Myers' animation] Kennedy's shoulders are 25% wider than Connally's. In real life, Connally's were slightly wider. The question is: why did Myers do that and what does it do for his analysis?" <<<

>>> "I see a way-too-big JFK in [Dale Myers' model]. His head's too big and he's too tall. Connally's the larger man in real life. You have to ask yourself: why would he [Myers] make JFK so large? Did he need him to be for his animation to work?" <<<

Allow me [DVP] to take this opportunity to post a few important
comments concerning Dale Myers' 3D computer model ("Secrets Of A
Homicide: JFK Assassination"). The following comments come from Dale
Myers himself in 2008, in response to criticism about various aspects
of his computer animation, which was criticism that was coming from
two conspiracy theorists in particular--Pat Speer and Robert Harris.

I'm quite sure that none of this information imparted by Mr. Myers is
going to be believed by any hardline conspiracists of Planet Earth,
but I felt the need to provide Mr. Myers with at least a little bit of
"equal time" here in this thread at the JFKAssassinationForum, as some
of these things being discussed by Myers below relate to the material
in this forum thread:

=================================================

Thursday, May 8, 2008
Con Job: Debunking the Debunkers
by DALE K. MYERS

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/con-job-debunking-debunkers.html

"It’s been thirteen years since I released my preliminary computer-
generated JFK assassination reconstruction and five years since an
updated version was broadcast world-wide, although you’d never know it
given the frequency with which the History and Discovery Channels re-
broadcast the two programs my work appeared in.

And consequently it’s no wonder that conspiracy theorists continue to
hammer at my work in the hopes of convincing mainstream America that
my computer reconstruction is nothing more than a carefully
constructed sham designed to further a supposed cover-up in the murder
of President Kennedy.

The newest crop of debunkers push their warped ideas about my work
with graphic illustrations and self-produced YouTube videos which
purport to show the “obvious” lies and distortions these theorists
have supposedly discovered among sequences of my work aired by the
History and Discovery Channels.

One of the more vocal and equally off-base debunkers is Patrick J.
Speer, a self-acknowledged wanna-be poet, turned wanna-be-musician,
turned record buyer for the music industry who eventually became
“obsessed with recent American history.”

Mr. Speer’s graphic intensive website promises “a new perspective on
the Kennedy assassination” and while some newcomers to the subject may
be impressed with the eye-candy, there’s nothing really there that
rises above the same old, tired arguments and misinformation kicked
around by conspiracy theorists for better than four decades.

It’s the same old shoe with new laces.

There are plenty of identical websites that offer up the same kind of
misinformation for those who don’t know any better and if visitors to
these kinds of websites are willing to get their facts about American
history from wanna-be poets and the like, who am I to spoil the party?

In fact, I’ve largely avoided confronting this army of wackiness,
outside of addressing a few of their more frequent allegations,
because doing so proves time and again to represent a colossal waste
of time.

It doesn’t take long to figure out that one could waste a lifetime
attempting to hammer a little common sense into these people who for
one obsessive reason or another find it their calling to opine about
something they know very little about, or in the case of Mr. Speer,
know absolutely nothing about.

I’m referring of course to the multitude of vile and reckless charges
concerning my computer reconstruction of the Kennedy assassination
which are featured as part of Mr. Speer’s “new perspective” on the
case.

Utilizing screen grabs lifted from the two television programs I
participated in, Mr. Speer pretends to debunk my work using graphic
overlays that break every rule of photogrammetry accompanied by
childish headlines like Dale Myers’ House of Mirrors; Murder by
Cartoon; and Cutting the Crap.

I pointed out Mr. Speer’s photographic follies on my FAQ page over
three years ago (without using his name in order to save him
embarrassment), yet Speer continues to use the same deceptive
photographic techniques to – get this – claim that he has evidence of
my deception.

For instance, Speer uses overlays of images taken from two different
angles and claims that because they don’t align I am being deceptive;
or, Speer draws lines of trajectory on a two-dimensional image of a
three-dimensional scene and claims that because the two-dimensional
line doesn’t line up with the three-dimensional scene (an
impossibility due to the basic rules of photogrammetry) that I am
being deceptive.

Forget about convincing Mr. Speer that one cannot draw a rational
conclusion from an irrational premise; I’ve tried. Suffice it to say
that Mr. Speer prefers to live in a land of illusion where physical
realities don’t hold a candle to obsessive conspiracy theories.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time here pointing out the ridiculous
nature of each and every one of Mr. Speer’s goofy assertions. But here
are just two to make the point, as well as the truth of the matter:

Charge: Myers shrunk the model of Governor Connally and his jumpseat
25% in order to get the single bullet theory to work.

Truth: Mr. Speer used a frame grab from the Discovery Channel’s
“Beyond the Magic Bullet” to make his point, but failed to note that
the image he used was taken from a portion of the program in which my
computer work was being displayed on a computer monitor which was at a
significant angle to the camera – the effect being that the computer
images of Kennedy and Connally were compressed horizontally and
consequently the Connally image appeared smaller than the actual
model.

When Mr. Speer was informed that wide-angle sequences from the
Discovery program showed the relationship of the computer monitor to
the program camera (and therefore the fallacy of his argument), he
wrote on his website, “I must admit I did not realize this footage was
shot at an angle. I mean, why would they do that?” Believe it or not,
Mr. Speer than proceeded to claim that the producers of the program
and I conspired to deceive viewers (and presumably the hapless Mr.
Speer) about the true alignment of the single bullet theory by
purposely shooting the monitor on an angle!

In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. Speer writes, “No
one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever
suggested the images were distorted because the animation – the
animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet
trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle from a computer
monitor.”

Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world there is
no need to acknowledge something that is self evident – namely, that
Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation being given
from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the presentation
screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program sequences that show
a wide-angle view of the studio in which the presentation was being
given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and now claims that the
Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to deceive everyone about
the single bullet theory.

Can it get any sillier? I’m afraid it can.

According to Mr. Speer, “By admitting the images used in the program
were distorted, Myers is as much as admitting that his whole
presentation in 2004's Beyond the Magic Bullet was irrelevant. No,
it's actually much worse. Since the program's creators added a
trajectory angle onto Myers' distorted figures that lined up perfectly
with their wounds, Myers is as much as admitting that the single-
bullet theory--which he set out to prove some years ago--and which he
calls the 'single-bullet fact,' does not work on undistorted figures.”

The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the
unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the
presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the
alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And
the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by
Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to
the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms,
the path of the bullet) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-
dimensional lines into three-dimensional space.

It’s unfathomable to me that anyone could swallow Mr. Speer’s
illogical rationale for dismissing the breadth of my work on the
single bullet theory, but in the world of conspiracy theorists bent on
embracing anyone and anything critical of the single bullet theory,
such idiocy is common place. (The UK’s Education Forum’s
administrator, John Simkin, applauded Speer writing, “Congratulations.
I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this
area.”)

Charge: Myers misplaces Connally’s jumpseat in order to ensure the
alignment of the single bullet theory.

Truth: The location of the jumpseat has no bearing on the alignment of
any trajectory plotted in my computer reconstruction. The figures of
JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film perspective, not to the
location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could eliminate the entire
limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments of JFK and JBC
would still be valid since their position in space is based on
Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC, and
their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings.
In short, the position and size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the
single bullet theory.

All of this means little to Mr. Speers who now writes, “As he is now
asserting that the limousine model had nothing to do with his
positioning of Connally, only measurements taken from the Zapruder
film, I decided to put the seat in the correct location on Myers'
undistorted over-view, and see how it matched up with Connally….”

Does it matter that Mr. Speer cannot really move the jumpseat to the
“correct” location within my computer rendering (i.e., move a two-
dimensional image in three-dimensional space)? Apparently not, because
Mr. Speer then proceeds to once again break the Cardinal Rule of
photogrammetry (i.e., draw two-dimensional lines on a three-
dimensional image) to “demonstrate” that Connally doesn’t align with
the single bullet trajectory, concluding, “Myers undoubtedly knows
this. Which fuels my suspicion that the distorted animation used in
‘Beyond the Magic Bullet’ was no ‘mistake’.”

Mr. Speer further complains that the animated sequence I produced in
which Connally is shown sitting inboard of Kennedy by six inches is
equally deceptively because it shows Connally and the jumpseat moving
in unison. I explained in a recent email that Connally and the
jumpseat were moved as one for clarity.

According to Mr. Speer, “This is as good as a confession that Myers
knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he created
animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door… I wonder how many
[millions of viewers] would feel deceived to find out that Connally's
sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a Myers
invention designed to ‘clarify’ things for them? Some might call this
an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.”

I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated six
inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit. Connally’s
jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the limousine,
the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5 inches from
the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced by Hess &
Eisenhardt Company.

To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and inaccurate)
drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in front of
Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their actual
positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other photographs, the
models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a single unit during
presentations for ABC News and the Discovery Channel.

The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are identical in
both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in unison was simply
easier than moving the two separately given the television time
available – especially given the fact that the position of the
jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single bullet theory.

But for Mr. Speer, focusing on inconsequential minutia is better than
acknowledging his own obvious mistakes in photographic analysis and
logic. It also allows him to play the marytyr for his fellow
conspiracy theorists and pretend he has actually proven something,
writing, “While I've given Myers a hard time, and have received a
substantial amount of abuse in return, I believe Myers' acknowledgment
of the failure of his animation to demonstrate the single-bullet
theory, was probably worth it. Now we can all stop pretending the
alignment of Kennedy and Connally, and thus the likelihood of the
single-bullet theory, has been ‘proven’.”

One can only feel sorry for Mr. Speer after reading such nonsense. The
only one being conned by such addled thinking is Mr. Speer himself who
despite all efforts is determined to prove just how thick-headed
conspiracy theorists can truly be.

Anyone who wants to pretend my reconstruction work is false or doesn't
matter is free to do so. As I’ve said before, in the final analysis,
the truth doesn't require anyone's belief.

I don't respond to posts on the many Internet newsgroups because of
the sophomoric nature of the vast majority of the postings (and I know
many respected experts on the assassination who feel the same way). It
is the insipid name-calling and disrespect for honest research and
work that I (and others) find the most appalling. It is worse than a
kindergarten sandbox.

Too bad. The Internet promised to bring people of common interests
together. Instead, it gives a global soap box and a megaphone to those
who have the least amount to say.

On occasion, I feel the need to defend my work against these childish
armchair detectives if only to plant a little sanity in a field of
nonsense. Unfortunately, whenever I speak up, it only seems to bring
more nuts out of the woodwork for yet another round.

It's a never ending cycle of lunacy; one ridiculous argument after
another to see who can be the top fool.

Congratulations, Mr. Speer! You’re tops with me."

Posted by Dale K. Myers at 4:05 PM [05/08/2008]

=================================================

Monday, August 18, 2008
YouTube Pied Pipers
by DALE K. MYERS

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/08/youtube-pied-pipers.html

"I’ve gotten more than one email in the last few days asking about a
video posted on YouTube over the weekend claiming to debunk my
computer animation work on the validity of the single bullet theory.

This latest video posting, entitled “Dale Myers or Voodoo Geometry
101,” arrives courtesy of conspiracy advocate Robert Harris who
manages to prove how little he knows about my computer work,
photography and geometric relations, and the Kennedy assassination in
general in less than six minutes.

The crux of Mr. Harris’ argument is that yours truly (that’s me)
falsified the geometric positions of Kennedy and Connally in order to
make it appear that the single bullet theory was valid and that the
single bullet shot traced back to Lee Harvey Oswald’s firing position
on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. In short,
according to Mr. Harris, my computer work is a transparent lie.

Never mind that Mr. Harris’ charges have been made numerous times in
the past by equally ignorant detractors and rebutted in detail on my
own website (see, FAQ: Computer Reconstruction of the JFK
Assassination) and here in this forum (see, Con Job: Debunking the
Debunkers).

The modern day pied pipers of the YouTube generation count on the
short attention spans and general ignorance of their audience to sell
their own brand of snake-oil and promote themselves as reliable
purveyors of truth via video on the Internet.

Of course, anyone can point a webcam at their own mug a pretend to be
someone of knowledge and responsibility. Hence, the wisdom of the
ancient axiom, “You get what you pay for.”

In this case, those who buy Mr. Harris’ free offerings are getting a
pig in a poke.

For instance, Mr. Harris makes the foolish claim that he can measure a
two dimensional still frame of a computer rendering of the
presidential limousine and its occupants (as culled from the Discovery
Channel program, “Beyond the Magic Bullet”) and determine the angle of
a three-dimensional trajectory from the sniper’s nest.

Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the underlying
principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it is
impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two
dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and
angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human
science, Mr. Harris is able to do both.

Conspiracy guru Jack White found out the lessons of photogrammetry the
hard way when he took a beating in 1978 while trying to convince the
House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that multiple press
photographs of Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle depicted multiple
rifles of differing lengths. The “proof” Mr. White offered of the
multiple rifle cover-up were measurements he made on two-dimensional
press photographs.

As the HSCA photograph experts called to rebut Mr. White rightly
pointed out, the former advertising photographer failed to take into
account the relationship between the camera making the photograph and
the tilt of the rifle in three dimensional space. In fact, White had
never heard of the principle of photogrammetry.

Apparently, Mr. Harris never heard of Jack White’s boo-boo, because he
makes the same error. And he makes it more than once.

For instance, Mr. Harris claims that a comparison of a photograph of
the presidential limousine made early in the parade route with a
computer rendering of my limousine model shows that “Myers has jammed
the two men much more closely together than they really were.” Mr.
Harris claims that the distance between the back seat where the
president was seated and Governor Connally’s jumpseat were compressed
in my computer model by “a little over fifty percent.”

What is the evidence for the charge that I manipulated the dimensions
of the limousine to better serve the single bullet theory?

Mr. Harris offers nothing more that his own self-proclaimed expertise
at visually aligning two different photographs made from two
completely different angles in three dimensional space – a virtual
impossibility – along with an unsupported declarative statement:
“There is no way JFK’s legs could have been up against the back of
Connally’s car seat.”

In fact, Mr. Harris’ credibility on this last point is effectively
destroyed by the existence of numerous photographs taken throughout
the motorcade (a photograph on the back dust jacket of Bill Sloan’s
JFK: Breaking the Silence to name one) which shows exactly the
opposite to be true – Kennedy’s knees were comparatively tight to the
back of Connally’s jump seat.

In addition, Mr. Harris’ claim that “when the House Select Committee
on Assassinations depicted the victims they had to move Connally
considerably [more] to his left” than he appeared to be in other
photographs suggests that Mr. Harris doesn’t know that the HSCA
Photographic Panel mistakenly based Connally’s position on a line of
sight as seen in a photograph made by Hugh Betzner and that the HSCA
analysis failed to take into account the fact that Connally’s right
shoulder was below Betzner’s line of sight (as proven by the Altgens’
photograph) and hence Connally might have been seated further right
than the HSCA believed. My three dimensional analysis of the Zapruder
film bears this fact out.

Most importantly, Mr. Harris states, “The next scene from [Mr. Myers’]
presentation includes an amazing sleight of hand or pixels or
whatever. Watch closely folks, as Mr. Myers tries to hide the evidence
of his deception by slipping the victims back into a proper position.”

Here, Mr. Harris shows a clip from the Discovery program which
features my computer work in which the moment of the single bullet is
shown in wireframe and in solid form as the camera circles the
limousine and its occupants.

Mr. Harris then adds this, “Okay, notice two things here. First the
car and the background are all wireframes. Also, he still has Kennedy
and Connally close together, so that 18 degree bullet trajectory looks
pretty reasonable. But as the car rotates, notice that something
happens. The wireframes disappear and right in the middle of the
rotation, Mr. Myers switches to a totally different video. In this
video he positions President Kennedy and Governor Connally correctly.”

What Mr. Harris doesn’t know is that the two renderings (wireframe and
solid form) depict the same model.

That’s right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been
“jammed together” in order to mislead the American public and
perpetuate the cover-up, is the exact same model (and in the same
position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts
Kennedy and Connally correctly.

For you tech junkies, the model of the single bullet moment was simply
rendered in a 360 degree rotational view multiple times with a variety
of surface settings (wireframe, solids, etc.), and then combined with
simple dissolves pulled between the various layers.

At the end of his presentation, Mr. Harris proudly boasts, “People
like Myers have been playing this same game for years, misconstruing
the positions of the President and Governor Connally to make it appear
that the shot was fired from the sixth floor of the depository. But
the angles from there just don’t work.”

Of course, the only game players in this case are the conspiracy
diehards like Mr. Harris who refuse to accept the reality of what
happened in Dealey Plaza and prefer instead to prey on the young and
naïve who are more than happy to follow any video pied piper willing
to tell them whatever they want to hear about the Kennedy
assassination – truth be damned."

Posted by Dale K. Myers at 3:37 PM [08/18/2008]

=================================================

DALE MYERS ADDED THIS RELATED COMMENT TO HIS BLOG ON AUGUST 25, 2008:

"Part of the process of aligning the model with the film involved
creating a frame-by-frame match of the wireframe models to the
Zapruder film. This alignment sequence has been seen by a number of
individuals including the team from Z-Axis Corporation who vetted the
process.

Other points of view matching other films and still images were also
created during the reconstruction process.

I have not made these sequences available on the Internet due to
copyright restrictions.

While making these sequences available would certainly aid those
having a tough time visualizing in three dimensions, I don't believe
the die hard conspiracy crowd would be among them."

Posted by Dale K. Myers at 12:19 AM [08/25/2008]

=================================================

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 27, 2010, 8:25:09 AM4/27/10

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2330.msg42165.html#msg42165

The only thing Martin did is to slide JFK to the right in that photo
[linked below]. That's all. Nothing else. Big deal.

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/myersfraud1.gif

So, what is that supposed to prove? Esp. since we all know that JFK
was sitting three inches higher than JBC.

Connally is also much more "scrunched up" in that awful jump seat that
he had to sit on during the Dallas motorcade, giving the false
impression that JBC was smaller than he really was.

Just take a look at this photograph of the SS-100-X limousine and
imagine the large frame of John Connally sitting on this jump seat.
Heck, he was practically sitting on the car's floorboard:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/35JFKsLimousineAtTheWhiteHouseGarag.jpg?t=1272365945

>>> "Yeah, I don't see why we need a 3D animation at all really. This is easy stuff. Apparently no professional 3D expert is willing to take the job on of showing us exactly where that shot came from. Too bad, as I am sure we would all like to know how it ends up." <<<

Seeing as how the only shots came from Oswald's sixth-floor window in
the Book Depository (and the wounds on both victims--not to mention
the THREE spent bullet shell casings found right underneath Oswald's
window--fully bear this out) -- the only place any accurately-rendered
3D animation could conclude the shots came from is the sixth floor of
the TSBD.

More CTers ought to read how detailed and accurate Dale Myers'
animation truly is. For Pete sake, he used the actual blueprints of
the TSBD, Dealey Plaza, and the limousine! How much more accurate
could anyone hope to get?

Read:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm

>>> "You have to appreciate the significance of changes to both men [in Dale Myers' computer animation]. Particularly the downsizing of JBC (or upsizing of JFK)." <<<

The difference in the sizes of the two victims (JFK & JBC), in real
life, wasn't all that much. Kennedy was 6-feet, 0.5-inch tall (72.5
inches). Connally was apparently 6-feet-2. (I'm relying on unconfirmed
CT reports on his height, which probably isn't a good idea for
ANYTHING, but the 6'2" figure sounds about right.)

Plus: Dale Myers' animation was originally done without any of the
facial features or other physical characteristics of the victims being
included in his model. It was a "wireframe" version of the model that
Myers started with in 1995. He later added the clothing and all of the
physical/facial features to his animation, just to make it look nicer.
But those physical features, for the most part, are meaningless and
not required at all.

In addition, as Myers himself has told his critics in the past, you
could literally REMOVE the limousine from the animation too. It
wouldn't make a bit of difference if the two victims were faceless
blobs of animated clay and it wouldn't matter a bit if the Lincoln
limousine was eliminated entirely. The computer still knew the most
important details (based on the fact the animation was "key framed" to
the Zapruder Film itself) -- the trajectory of the bullets and the two
"blobs" (victims) in the path of those two bullets.

>>> "Did you say Z-Axis did the proofing on this.....does Z mean ZZZZzzzzzZZZZzzzz" <<<

I didn't say it. Dale Myers did. I was quoting Myers.

Are you saying "Z-Axis" is a crappy outfit, Colin?

If not, then what's your point of bringing up Z-Axis at all?

>>> "How do we explain a "gross inaccuracy" in the car.....using scale models and all?" <<<

There is no "gross inaccuracy", Colin. That's merely an allegation
coming from conspiracy theorists (like you) who think you can achieve
TO-THE-INCH, 3D accuracy when looking a flat, 2D photos and screen
captures.

You surely aren't implying that YOU know more about computer animation
and photogrammetry than Dale K. Myers....are you Colin?

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 27, 2010, 11:19:40 AM4/27/10

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2330.msg42260.html#msg42260

>>> "My suggestion would be that you show us something from your vast knowledge that you think we do not know." <<<

Heck, you CTers can't even figure out the super-easy stuff, like:

Oswald shot Tippit.
Oswald shot Kennedy.
Oswald shot at Walker.
Oswald told many provable lies after his arrest.

Is that enough "new" stuff for you today, Ian?

You don't believe a single one of those 4 things, do you Ian? If you
believe in even ONE of the four, I'll faint from the massive shock.

>>> "So, there were three Magic Bullets then!" <<<

The CTers of the world are the only people with any bullets with any
"magic" in them.

In fact, the conspiracy nuts have at least FOUR magic bullets when you
think about it for two seconds:

1.) The bullet that CT-Kooks think entered JFK's upper back but never
exited.

2.) The bullet that CT-Kooks think entered JFK's throat but never
exited.

3.) The bullet that hit JBC but was never entered into the official
record.

4.) The bullet that hit JFK in the head from the front, with every
single portion of this bullet also vanishing, leaving behind
(incredibly) portions of a bullet FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE in the front
seat (CE567 & CE569).

And, if you feel like crawling into bed with a nut named Fetzer--you
can add at least TWO MORE "magic bullets" to the above list:

5.) The SECOND bullet that Fetzer says hit Connally and disappeared.

6.) The SECOND bullet that hit JFK in the head, leaving behind,
incredibly, only Oswald-incriminating Mannlicher-Carcano fragments
(which is a gun Fetzer insists could not possibly have been involved
in the assassination AT ALL, because Fetzer--being the mega-kook he
is--likes to pretend that Oswald's MC rifle was too "low powered" to
cause the damage to Kennedy's head that was done to his head).

This is despite, of course, the various MC tests that have been
performed by the WC [at Edgewood Arsensal by Dr. Olivier] and tests by
Dr. John K. Lattimer in the 1970s, which all prove that Oswald's MC
rifle could easily do the type of skull damage that was done to JFK's
cranium on November 22nd, 1963.

Now, what were you saying about "magic" missiles?

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 27, 2010, 1:35:03 PM4/27/10

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2330.0.html

>>> "Brennan saw a dark complectioned [man] there in the window." <<<

Stop making things up, Chris. Howard Brennan saw a WHITE MAN, SLENDER,
ABOUT 165 POUNDS.

Brennan never said he saw a "dark" man in the window.

You're probably thinking about Amos Euins or Arnold Rowland. [EDIT:
The conspiracy kook I'm conversing with here did, indeed, correct his
mistake in a later JFKAssassinationForum.com post. The kook meant to
say Arnold Rowland instead of Brennan.]

Euins, btw, said he saw a "white" man (not a black man) in his
Sheriff's Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63 (below):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0494a.htm

>>> "David, is this the Dal-Tex shot?" <<<

What Dal-Tex shot?

You mean the Dal-Tex shot that conspiracists have made up? The one for
which there is ZERO supportable evidence? Is that the one?

>>> "Who says there was a bullet entering the throat [of JFK]?" <<<

Almost every single conspiracy theorist on the Internet. That's all.

You know, the ones who love to prop up Malcolm Perry's initial
thoughts about the throat wound being a wound of "entrance" (with the
bullet, amazingly, then curving up into JFK's head and blowing out the
back of the head, according to Dr. Perry's initial [and obviously
quite inaccurate] theory about the President's wounds).

BTW, I've uploaded a new 3-hour video series to my YouTube channel,
comprised of KLIF-Radio coverage from 11/22/63. And in that audio/
video series there is discussion by the KLIF reporters about the never-
seen afternoon press conference that was given by Dr. Kemp Clark and
Dr. Malcolm Perry, with Perry saying that the bullet "could have
either gone in or gone out" the large hole in the back of JFK's head
(that's the BOH hole that never existed, of course, but most of the
Parkland people thought it did exist).

Anyway, that's just an interesting side note concerning the KLIF
footage.

Dr. Perry, of course, also said in front of the Warren Commission that
the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit wound.

"KLIF -- Eleven-Ninety -- With 50,000 watts of fun!" .....

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/klif-radio-coverage-11-22-63.html

>>> "The SBT was necessary since James Tague was hit from a bullet fragment that missed the limo." <<<

Nope. Wrong again. The SBT wasn't deemed absolutely "necessary" by the
Warren Commission at all. You'd better read page 117 of the Warren
Report. Obviously, you've never seen it before:

WCR; Pg. 117:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

>>> "...an explanation for the fake S.S./intelligence agents on the knoll..." <<<

Oh, goodie! More conspiracy myths that refuse to die.

There were no fake Secret Service or intelligence agents in Dealey
Plaza on November 22nd.

That particular myth/mystery can be summed up in two words:

James Powell.

>>> "When you get a quiet moment check this out: http://ctka.net/2010/dvp.html " <<<

Perhaps you should check out my four "Rebutting DiEugenio" articles
instead. They're much more interesting:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a3ac48b4703ba1b1

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/78e762a534fa835a

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ba615dc23ce85e44

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/496efe3b34542770

aeffects

unread,

Apr 27, 2010, 2:10:27 PM4/27/10

On Apr 27, 10:35 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

trying to impress .john is a losing proposition for a lone-nut KOOK
such as yourself. He already own Dave Reitzes.... don't give up the
KFC monthly stipend your brother pays you, shithead........ eventually
you'll have to move out of the house, perhaps Rosemary will rent you
her garage?

--and--

NO advertising moron.... you know the rules....

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 27, 2010, 3:59:55 PM4/27/10

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2330.msg42325.html#msg42325

>>> "When the 2nd bullet hit Tague, which bullet hit the manhole cover and which the windshield and which the frame then?" <<<

The second bullet definitely didn't hit Tague. You picked the ONLY
shot that couldn't have struck Tague--the 2nd shot, which was the SBT/
CE399 bullet, of course.

And there was definitely no "manhole cover" bullet. No bullet hit any
manhole, and nobody can prove otherwise. Not every "mark" in the Plaza
was caused by a bullet (despite what CTers believe).

The windshield and chrome strip were struck by CE567 and CE569, which
were the fragments that came out of JFK's head after Oswald's third
bullet hit Kennedy's head, killing him.

Hence, we have TWO damaged limo areas in the front of the car, and TWO
bullet fragments (from Oswald's rifle) in the same front-seat area. A
perfect fit.

Tague was hit by either the first or third shots. I favor Shot #1,
which was probably deflected by the oak tree. But if it was Shot #3,
it would have been a large fragment that exited JFK's head and then
hit the curb/Tague.

BTW, Dr. John Lattimer did many tests with Oswald's type of 6.5mm MC/
WCC ammunition. Lattimer fired about 700 rounds from the four lots of
bullets exactly like Oswald's, and Lattimer found that "the jacket of
the bullet usually separated from the core" after striking a very hard
object, like the various test skulls that Lattimer used in his
shooting experiments in 1974 and 1975.

[The above quote comes from page 253 of Dr. Lattimer's 1980 book,
"Kennedy And Lincoln".]

http://Kennedy-And-Lincoln.blogspot.com

It's not unreasonable, therefore, to believe that Oswald's first shot
could have struck the oak tree in front of the TSBD, with the core and
jacket becoming separated, with the lead core striking the Main Street
curb (resulting in James T. Tague's slight cheek injury), while the
copper jacket portion of the bullet hit Elm Street behind the
limousine (hence, some witnesses reported seeing "sparks" coming off
the street to the rear of the car).

Also -- If the telescopic sight attached to Oswald's Carcano rifle was
really misaligned at the time of the assassination (with the first
shot ending up "high and to the right" of the intended target, as was
the case in post-assassination tests with the scope), this fact could
conceivably be a very strong reason for Oswald missing with his first
shot, with that bullet striking the tree, which was, after all,
located to the RIGHT of the target at the time (at circa Z160), as we
can see in this Warren Commission exhibit:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0051a.jpg

aeffects

unread,

Apr 27, 2010, 4:24:23 PM4/27/10

On Apr 27, 12:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising moron!

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 28, 2010, 3:15:34 PM4/28/10

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3e64f95c6aa2553a/5343028c3d35c840?#5343028c3d35c840

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/110bZ222-Z223TogglingClip.gif?t=1272481244

>>> "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:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/110bZ222-Z223TogglingClip.gif?t=1272481244

aeffects

unread,

Apr 28, 2010, 4:24:07 PM4/28/10

On Apr 28, 12:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

Rosemary.... he's talking to himself, AGAIN! Bring your magic
*Bugliosi* curative powers to be into play here, hon... David Von
Dipshit Pein needs it, desperately!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 29, 2010, 12:21:42 AM4/29/10

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2330.msg42601.html#msg42601

>>> "Any chance you can point out errors in this analysis [linked below] yet?" <<<

http://i863.photobucket.com/albums/ab192/col_crow/speer.jpg

Well, Colin, my best guess would be this (take it with a grain of salt
if you like):

The overhead view from Dale Myers' animation is showing JFK's
shoulders wider than Connally's because Kennedy is CLOSER TO THE
VIRTUAL CAMERA.

Connally is further away because he's sitting lower, on the jump seat.
That distance is only 3 inches, granted, but it would make some
difference in the relative size of the two men in Myers' overhead view
of Kennedy and Connally, now wouldn't it?

Again, that's just a guess on my part.

But once again I'll stress the things that Mr. Myers has said in the
past concerning the "cosmetic" nature of parts of his 3D computer
model:

The animated model started out with no physical features or clothing
attached to JFK or JBC at all. Those things were added in by Myers
years later. But the most important things about Myers' work have
never changed at all -- i.e., the trajectory of the bullet that leads
straight back to Lee Harvey Oswald's window on the sixth floor of the
Book Depository, with that bullet trajectory slicing through both
victims in the President's limousine at Zapruder frame 223.*

* = I prefer Z224 myself, but I'm not in the mood to quibble about a
difference of only one Z-Film frame. Besides, it's really the same
thing as saying JFK was struck in the head at Z312, even though in the
Z-Film it's obvious the bullet hasn't actually hit him as of Z312. But
I can understand the sophistication of needing to "back up" the "hit"
frames to Z223 and Z312, even though we're actually seeing those
things occur in the film at Z224 and Z313.

Anyway, it certainly looks like today is the day when every member of
the "Hairsplitter's Club Of America" has gotten together at Duncan
MacRae's JFK forum in order to try and rip to shreds the perfectly
reasonable (and 10-years-in-the-making) animated representation of the
Single-Bullet Theory authored by Dale K. Myers.

Are there any more hairs you guys care to split before the Grand
Poobah of the Hairsplitter's convention tells you to break for dinner?

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

http://JFKBallistics.com/articles.html

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 29, 2010, 12:58:23 AM4/29/10

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3e64f95c6aa2553a/812984b71a7f1000?#812984b71a7f1000

>>> "If the bullet struck at z224, why wasn't their a strong camera jiggle at z229? Why did the camera jiggle happen [to] 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.
Zapruder'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 "hairsplitting" 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~

aeffects

unread,

Apr 29, 2010, 3:32:00 AM4/29/10

On Apr 28, 9:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

Dale Myers? ROTFLMFAO!

0 new messages