Z-film, JFK Forward Motion @ 230
marki...@yahoo.com
that I prepared for discussion. The clip shows frames 223 to 240,
inclusive, and shows it first in real time, then 50% speed, then 25%
speed. Each clip repeats 5 times. JFK's very abrupt forward motion begins
at 230, and concludes at 234. I used the secret service hand- hold bracket
to align each frame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI
Respectfully submitted,
~Mark
WhiskyJoe
I think the head does nod forward a bit starting at frame 230. But the
real noticeable and significant movement is the raising of the arms, which
starts at frame 226. The arms are then held in this position for the next
4 to 5 seconds. Clearly, the raising of the arms is the significant
reaction. And it starts at frame 226.
I am not certain why he would raise his elbows like that, while not
wounded, then get wounded, and decide to keep the arms where they are. In
all probability, it is the arms movement that shows when he first starts
to physically react.
Herbert Blenner
Your field of view excludes surrounding passengers and prevents us
from seeing that you have correctly represented the intrinsic
movements of the President.
Herbert
curtjester1
For one thing, we can be sure of, it's not a neuro-muscular spasm or
reaction. You might want to consider Gil's scenario, in, 'Was JFK
Trying To Cough Up A Bullet'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd1o0UTb3oc
CJ
Anthony Marsh
> I think the head does nod forward a bit starting at frame 230. But the
> real noticeable and significant movement is the raising of the arms, which
> starts at frame 226. The arms are then held in this position for the next
> 4 to 5 seconds. Clearly, the raising of the arms is the significant
> reaction. And it starts at frame 226.
>
Dr. McCarthy found that Kennedy had already been reacting at least 4
frames before Z-225.
Anthony Marsh
First, I notice that you use the worst possible quality frames you can
find. You can not draw any conclusions from poor quality. Your loaded
terminology is incorrect. Kennedy is not THRUST. He is moving voluntarily.
The impact of a bullet can not cause this movement.
HPW...@gmail.com
In 1963 there was in existence an umbrella weapon which fired a
flechette.
JFK is reacting to a hit in the throat from this type of weapon.
clarkw...@hotmail.com
This is correct. The response to choking is to raise the elbows and lean
forward. JFK is engaged in a classic response. You can even see him inhale
before coughing into his right hand. However, Gil is incorrect to imply
that JFK is "trying to cough up a bullet." There is no bullet in his
throat to "cough up". He is trying to clear his throat of blood that has
seeped into it from the throat wound.
The reason no one will accept such an obvious conclusion is because there
is an interval of time that passes between when the bullet passes through
the neck, when the blood begins to flow, and when JFK responds. At 18
frames per second, a large number of frames can pass between when the neck
wound is inflicted and when JFK responds. This doesn't allow us to fix
when JFK was hit, only to fix when he responded.
Initially, the thought was "three shots equal three hits" with JFK hit in
the back first, then JBC second, and JFK third. But three hits also equal
"three bullets" and we only have two. There is also the question of the
time between the first and second shot. If JBC and JFK were hit by
separate bullets then they were hit at least 2.3 seconds apart (the
shooting speed of the rifle). 2.3 seconds before JBC is hit, JFK is
behind a tree. We find ourselves placing the first shot circa Z160 for
JFK's back wound. In spite of LNer claims to the contrary, there is ZERO
evidence of a shot fired here (It doesn't mean it didn't happen but
there's no evidence of it.). Posner tried to make this claim and fell
flat on his face (just like his book). With no evidence of a shot fired
before the tree and only two bullets recovered, the SBT was offered to
explain. But it has its problems too. JFK can't be choking that fast and
how did Oswald miss the limo with his other shot?
Twenty years from now, this will still be being argued.
Sometimes,. we have to look at other evidence to find our solutions.
::Clark::
marki...@yahoo.com
> First, I notice that you use the worst possible quality frames you can
> find. You can not draw any conclusions from poor quality. Your loaded
> terminology is incorrect. Kennedy is not THRUST. He is moving voluntarily.
> The impact of a bullet can not cause this movement.
I got that version of the Z-film from this site:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
If you have a better source for the Z-film, other than the MPI
version, please direct me there, and I'll remove that program from
youtube, and recreate it. Respectfully, I have difficulty in accepting
a voluntary motion. I believe that a very plausible explanation (no
disrespect for other interpretations) is that he is getting shot in
the back in that clip.
~Mark
marki...@yahoo.com
> This is correct. The response to choking is to raise the elbows and lean
> forward. JFK is engaged in a classic response. You can even see him inhale
> before coughing into his right hand. However, Gil is incorrect to imply
> that JFK is "trying to cough up a bullet." There is no bullet in his
> throat to "cough up". He is trying to clear his throat of blood that has
> seeped into it from the throat wound.
I'll accept that as a possibility. I hadn't considered seepage of
blood as an obstruction. It still seems peculiar why he remained
essentially motionless between Z-235 to Z-312 though. If it was a gag
reflex, it could have continued to cause similar abrupt motions beyond
the initial motion that begins at Z-230.
I directed some friends a few nights ago to my youtube clip, and their
13-year old son watched it. I did not say anything to him prior to
viewing it, only that I wanted them to watch it and tell me what they
think is happening. This young man watched it several times and said,
"It looks like he's getting shot in the back." I reminded that group
that the slow-motion versions will deceive their brain into slowing
down their perception of time, and the most important version is the
real-time speed, as the camera and the eye sees it actually happen.
> We find ourselves placing the first shot circa Z160 for
> JFK's back wound. In spite of LNer claims to the contrary, there is ZERO
> evidence of a shot fired here (It doesn't mean it didn't happen but
> there's no evidence of it.).
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
The above website contains two excellent clips showing both JFK and
JBC turning abruptly left to right, and it can be easily interpreted
that they heard a shot. If so, the shot missed. Missing frames that
were spliced out are included and certainly bolster the position of a
missed shot at that point.
> Sometimes,. we have to look at other evidence to find our solutions.
Yes, and be flexible enough to discard our own preconceived notions.
THANKS! ~Mark
clarkw...@hotmail.com
> On May 14, 9:57 pm, clarkwilk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > This is correct. The response to choking is to raise the elbows and lean
> > forward. JFK is engaged in a classic response. You can even see him inhale
> > before coughing into his right hand. However, Gil is incorrect to imply
> > that JFK is "trying to cough up a bullet." There is no bullet in his
> > throat to "cough up". He is trying to clear his throat of blood that has
> > seeped into it from the throat wound.
>
> I'll accept that as a possibility. I hadn't considered seepage of
> blood as an obstruction. It still seems peculiar why he remained
> essentially motionless between Z-235 to Z-312 though. If it was a gag
> reflex, it could have continued to cause similar abrupt motions beyond
> the initial motion that begins at Z-230.
What, exactly, would you expect in those 4 seconds?
If you cough, and your throat clears, how long before it plugs again?
If you wish to claim LN theory is correct, how come JFK doesn't regain
control of his arms in those 4 seconds?
>
> I directed some friends a few nights ago to my youtube clip, and their
> 13-year old son watched it. I did not say anything to him prior to
> viewing it, only that I wanted them to watch it and tell me what they
> think is happening. This young man watched it several times and said,
> "It looks like he's getting shot in the back." I reminded that group
> that the slow-motion versions will deceive their brain into slowing
> down their perception of time, and the most important version is the
> real-time speed, as the camera and the eye sees it actually happen.
We've all seen the film. It's useful only for showing when responses
occurred and not when bullets hit.
>
> > We find ourselves placing the first shot circa Z160 for
> > JFK's back wound. In spite of LNer claims to the contrary, there is ZERO
> > evidence of a shot fired here (It doesn't mean it didn't happen but
> > there's no evidence of it.).
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
>
> The above website contains two excellent clips showing both JFK and
> JBC turning abruptly left to right, and it can be easily interpreted
> that they heard a shot.
They turned to the right to wave to the people on the right. It's
what they do. The people on the right are IN THE FILM. Why aren't
they turning abruptly to their left at the sound of a shot?
The "Z160" evidence is totally imaginary. Dave Reitzes has tried to
support this claim of Posner's. Check out his evidence. Then compare
it to the actual film and the testimony of the fifth floor witnesses.
The fifth floor witnesses describe quite clearly when the first shot
was fired. Are they liars? The film shows the crowd's heads. Is
everyone except JFK and JBC deaf?
Just a thought.
::Clark::
clarkw...@hotmail.com
>
> > This is correct. The response to choking is to raise the elbows and lean
> > forward. JFK is engaged in a classic response. You can even see him inhale
> > before coughing into his right hand. However, Gil is incorrect to imply
> > that JFK is "trying to cough up a bullet." There is no bullet in his
> > throat to "cough up". He is trying to clear his throat of blood that has
> > seeped into it from the throat wound.
>
> I'll accept that as a possibility. I hadn't considered seepage of
> blood as an obstruction. It still seems peculiar why he remained
> essentially motionless between Z-235 to Z-312 though. If it was a gag
> reflex, it could have continued to cause similar abrupt motions beyond
> the initial motion that begins at Z-230.
In those 4 seconds, JFK has cleared his throat on the first cough.
How long until the second?
>
> I directed some friends a few nights ago to my youtube clip, and their
> 13-year old son watched it. I did not say anything to him prior to
> viewing it, only that I wanted them to watch it and tell me what they
> think is happening. This young man watched it several times and said,
> "It looks like he's getting shot in the back." I reminded that group
> that the slow-motion versions will deceive their brain into slowing
> down their perception of time, and the most important version is the
> real-time speed, as the camera and the eye sees it actually happen.
We've all seen the film. They indicate response times andnot when
actually hit.
>
> > We find ourselves placing the first shot circa Z160 for
> > JFK's back wound. In spite of LNer claims to the contrary, there is ZERO
> > evidence of a shot fired here (It doesn't mean it didn't happen but
> > there's no evidence of it.).
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
>
> The above website contains two excellent clips showing both JFK and
> JBC turning abruptly left to right, and it can be easily interpreted
> that they heard a shot.
They both turned to the right to wave to the crowd on the right.
Their heads are in the film. If a shot was fired here, why doesn't
crowd react the same as JFK and JBC?
They're in the film. Tell me who turns?
>If so, the shot missed. Missing frames that
> were spliced out are included and certainly bolster the position of a
> missed shot at that point.
They bolster nothing but silence occurred at this point. Why do you
suppose Posner's book failed?
Just a thought.
::Clark::
Andrew Mason
All good points. More to consider:
- why did no witness say that immediately after the first "horrible
ear-shattering noise" (as described by Mary Woodward), JFK and Jackie
turned to the crowd on their right and smiled and waved?
- why did at least 16 witnesses say that JFK reacted immediately by
bringing his hands to his neck and moving left? (see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
- why did no witness say that the first shot occurred before z186?
- why did at least 22 witnesses say that the first shot occurred after
z186? (see: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_location_witnesses.pdf )
- why did at least 48 witnesses distinctly recall that the last two
shots were in rapid succession noticeably closer together than 1 and 2?
Since JFK is reacting 5 seconds before the last shot, this evidence is
inconsistent with a first shot miss. (see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf )
- why does JBC not turn his head to see JFK until after z230? How can he
possibly be trying to see JFK around z190?
Andrew Mason
>
>
> Just a thought.
>
> ::Clark::
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Although some people actually claim that they can see exactly when the
men were hit by the bullets.
>>> We find ourselves placing the first shot circa Z160 for
>>> JFK's back wound. In spite of LNer claims to the contrary, there is ZERO
>>> evidence of a shot fired here (It doesn't mean it didn't happen but
>>> there's no evidence of it.).
>> http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
>>
>> The above website contains two excellent clips showing both JFK and
>> JBC turning abruptly left to right, and it can be easily interpreted
>> that they heard a shot.
>
> They both turned to the right to wave to the crowd on the right.
> Their heads are in the film. If a shot was fired here, why doesn't
> crowd react the same as JFK and JBC?
>
I don't see how the crowd can react if they are not hit exactly as JFK
and JBC were hit. I am the only simpatico I know who actually feels
exactly the same pain as someone injured.
yeuhd
> The "Z160" evidence is totally imaginary. Dave Reitzes has tried to
> support this claim of Posner's. Check out his evidence. Then compare
> it to the actual film and the testimony of the fifth floor witnesses.
> The fifth floor witnesses describe quite clearly when the first shot
> was fired. Are they liars? The film shows the crowd's heads. Is
> everyone except JFK and JBC deaf?
Look at the Ike Altgens photo taken at Z-255 :
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
At least one, probably two shots have been fired at this point, and JFK's
fists are clutching in front of his throat. Yet no one in the crowd looks
puzzled, confused, or startled. They are smiling and applauding. Of the
several dozen people in the photo, the only persons who are not looking at
the president or the vice-president are two Secret Service agents in the
follow-up car, who have turned and are looking back at the TSBD.
Is everyone deaf? From this photo, you would think so.
And enough with the rhetorical "Are they liars?" People can be honestly
mistaken without being "liars". Bonnie Ray Williams, who was also on the
fifth floor, testified “...After the President’s car had passed my
window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know – it
seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw
him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his
hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot...” JFK
is indeed brushing his hair back at Z-133, just after he has passed by
Williams' window.
marki...@yahoo.com
> In those 4 seconds, JFK has cleared his throat on the first cough.
> How long until the second?
I see no second cough nor any physiological response that could be
interpreted as such between Z-235 to Z-312.
> > I directed some friends a few nights ago to my youtube clip, and their
> > 13-year old son watched it. I did not say anything to him prior to
> > viewing it, only that I wanted them to watch it and tell me what they
> > think is happening. This young man watched it several times and said,
> > "It looks like he's getting shot in the back." I reminded that group
> > that the slow-motion versions will deceive their brain into slowing
> > down their perception of time, and the most important version is the
> > real-time speed, as the camera and the eye sees it actually happen.
>
> We've all seen the film. They indicate response times andnot when
> actually hit.
I agree, although interpretations will vary per viewer. With respect
to the young man's interpretation, his common sense told him that he
thought it was a response to getting shot in the back. He's a bright,
straight A student in school.
> >http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
>
> > The above website contains two excellent clips showing both JFK and
> > JBC turning abruptly left to right, and it can be easily interpreted
> > that they heard a shot.
>
> They both turned to the right to wave to the crowd on the right.
> Their heads are in the film.
I agree in part with this statement. JFK indeed resumed waving,
although his abrupt head turn happened and there was a brief
interruption in his waving. Connally's head turn appears even more
rapid than JFK's.
>If a shot was fired here, why doesn't
> crowd react the same as JFK and JBC?
I cannot answer that question. Although a portion of a plausible
answer may include the crowd's mesmerization of seeing the president
up close, and may also cite the crowd noise and vehicle noise. Perhaps
not all people's startle reaction to perceived rifle fire would result
in a head turn in the direction of the source.
> They're in the film. Tell me who turns?
Rosemary Willis.
> >If so, the shot missed. Missing frames that
> > were spliced out are included and certainly bolster the position of a
> > missed shot at that point.
>
> They bolster nothing but silence occurred at this point.
Perhaps you are correct. However, I believe that there was more than
one shooter, and acceptance of a missed shot at circa Z-160 does not
threaten that belief at all.
> Why do you
> suppose Posner's book failed?
That depends on how you define failure. I've read his work, and some
of it has credence. The clips on Dave Reitzes' site certainly convince
me that a shot occurred near Z-160, whether or not he attempts to
legitimize Posner's overall research. Am I correct when I say that I
don't think Posner was the first to interpret a shot at that point? I
find it quite peculiar that a splice occurred at that specific point
in the extant Z-film. Groden interpreted it the same way, and supports
his conspiracy scenario by saying that those excised frames near there
are blatant evidence of that. (I understand that Groden's reputation
in this forum is not exactly guilded, although his interpretation of
the Z-film is the first, best that I've come across.)
Posner's book was quite successful at gaining notoriety and money for
Posner himself. His book failed quite miserably at convincing me of
the SBT and of Oswald acting alone.
Thanks, and respectfully,
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
> On May 22, 4:07 am, clarkwilk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> The "Z160" evidence is totally imaginary. Dave Reitzes has tried to
>> support this claim of Posner's. Check out his evidence. Then compare
>> it to the actual film and the testimony of the fifth floor witnesses.
>> The fifth floor witnesses describe quite clearly when the first shot
>> was fired. Are they liars? The film shows the crowd's heads. Is
>> everyone except JFK and JBC deaf?
>
> Look at the Ike Altgens photo taken at Z-255 :
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
>
> At least one, probably two shots have been fired at this point, and JFK's
> fists are clutching in front of his throat. Yet no one in the crowd looks
> puzzled, confused, or startled. They are smiling and applauding. Of the
> several dozen people in the photo, the only persons who are not looking at
> the president or the vice-president are two Secret Service agents in the
> follow-up car, who have turned and are looking back at the TSBD.
>
> Is everyone deaf? From this photo, you would think so.
>
Selection bias. You are looking at only a narrow sample.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***As part of JFK's reaction to being shot, his head tilted up
momentarily and reversed back down again.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> WhiskyJoe wrote:
> > I think the head does nod forward a bit starting at frame 230. But the
> > real noticeable and significant movement is the raising of the arms, which
> > starts at frame 226. The arms are then held in this position for the next
> > 4 to 5 seconds. Clearly, the raising of the arms is the significant
> > reaction. And it starts at frame 226.
> >
>
> Dr. McCarthy found that Kennedy had already been reacting at least 4
> frames before Z-225.
>
***Kennedy's left arm was at his side at Z224. Immediately after, it
jumped up. At Z224, JFK's right hand was not yet clenched. Immediately
after Z224, it did.
***Ron Judge
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On May 22, 4:07 am, clarkwilk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> The "Z160" evidence is totally imaginary. Dave Reitzes has tried to
> >> support this claim of Posner's. Check out his evidence. Then compare
> >> it to the actual film and the testimony of the fifth floor witnesses.
> >> The fifth floor witnesses describe quite clearly when the first shot
> >> was fired. Are they liars? The film shows the crowd's heads. Is
> >> everyone except JFK and JBC deaf?
>
> > Look at the Ike Altgens photo taken at Z-255 :
> >http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
>
> > At least one, probably two shots have been fired at this point, and JFK's
> > fists are clutching in front of his throat. Yet no one in the crowd looks
> > puzzled, confused, or startled. They are smiling and applauding. Of the
> > several dozen people in the photo, the only persons who are not looking at
> > the president or the vice-president are two Secret Service agents in the
> > follow-up car, who have turned and are looking back at the TSBD.
>
> > Is everyone deaf? From this photo, you would think so.
>
> Selection bias. You are looking at only a narrow sample.
All right. Try to find anyone in any still photographs or films who
appears to be reacting to any gunshot before the head shot. I can see
only (1) JFK and John Connally, (2) Rosemary Willis, and (3) the
Secret Service agents in the follow-up car.
I've yet to see a photograph of anyone else in Dealey Plaza visibly
reacting before the head shot.
Z-227: One, probably two, shots have been fired, but people on both
sides of Elm Street are applauding and waving.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z227.jpg
Z-245: Two viewers on the south side of Elm turn their attention to
the vice-president's car.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z245.jpg
Z-285: More applause for the president, more than three seconds after
he has been shot:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z284.jpg
Z-300:
Mary Moorman snaps a photo, but Jean Hill looks at the rest of the
motorcade.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z300.jpg
Anthony Marsh
> On May 23, 9:59 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> yeuhd wrote:
>>> On May 22, 4:07 am, clarkwilk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> The "Z160" evidence is totally imaginary. Dave Reitzes has tried to
>>>> support this claim of Posner's. Check out his evidence. Then compare
>>>> it to the actual film and the testimony of the fifth floor witnesses.
>>>> The fifth floor witnesses describe quite clearly when the first shot
>>>> was fired. Are they liars? The film shows the crowd's heads. Is
>>>> everyone except JFK and JBC deaf?
>>> Look at the Ike Altgens photo taken at Z-255 :
>>> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
>>> At least one, probably two shots have been fired at this point, and JFK's
>>> fists are clutching in front of his throat. Yet no one in the crowd looks
>>> puzzled, confused, or startled. They are smiling and applauding. Of the
>>> several dozen people in the photo, the only persons who are not looking at
>>> the president or the vice-president are two Secret Service agents in the
>>> follow-up car, who have turned and are looking back at the TSBD.
>>> Is everyone deaf? From this photo, you would think so.
>> Selection bias. You are looking at only a narrow sample.
>
>
> All right. Try to find anyone in any still photographs or films who
> appears to be reacting to any gunshot before the head shot. I can see
> only (1) JFK and John Connally, (2) Rosemary Willis, and (3) the
> Secret Service agents in the follow-up car.
>
Silly. You just found a couple more yourself. If you took the time to
examine all the photos and films you'd find more.
> I've yet to see a photograph of anyone else in Dealey Plaza visibly
> reacting before the head shot.
>
Because you refuse to look. You added Rosemary to your list. Keep looking.
> Z-227: One, probably two, shots have been fired, but people on both
> sides of Elm Street are applauding and waving.
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z227.jpg
>
So what? Many witnesses said they did not recognize the first sound as a
shot.
Surely you are not going to argue that no shots at all were fired before
the head shot?
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. Look at Dale Myers diagrams. He shows both hands up at Z-223. Are
you calling Dale Myers a liar?
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I am calling the Zapruder film the truth.
Dr. McCarthy is mistaken. If Dale Meyers animation showed JFK's right
hand clenched at Z224, he made a mistake.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
Duh, you think?
> ***Ron Judge
>
yeuhd
> > All right. Try to find anyone in any still photographs or films who
> > appears to be reacting to any gunshot before the head shot. I can see
> > only (1) JFK and John Connally, (2) Rosemary Willis, and (3) the
> > Secret Service agents in the follow-up car.
>
> Silly. You just found a couple more yourself. If you took the time to
> examine all the photos and films you'd find more.
I see. "If you took the time to examine all the photos and films you'd
find more" translates to, "I don't know of anyone else. But I'll blow
smoke in the hope you think I do."
So I'm challenging you — name anyone else. Or admit there is no other.
> > Z-227: One, probably two, shots have been fired, but people on both
> > sides of Elm Street are applauding and waving.
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z227.jpg
>
> So what? Many witnesses said they did not recognize the first sound as a
> shot.
> Surely you are not going to argue that no shots at all were fired before
> the head shot?
No, and you know I'm not saying that. I am saying — contra to what you
said above, "The film shows the crowd's heads. Is everyone except JFK and
JBC deaf?" — that going by all the photographic evidence, you might
think "the crowd" were deaf, because no one in the crowd but Rosemary
Willis is seen to react to gunshots before the head shot. Out of dozens of
spectators seen in the photographs.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 25, 3:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> All right. Try to find anyone in any still photographs or films who
>>> appears to be reacting to any gunshot before the head shot. I can see
>>> only (1) JFK and John Connally, (2) Rosemary Willis, and (3) the
>>> Secret Service agents in the follow-up car.
>> Silly. You just found a couple more yourself. If you took the time to
>> examine all the photos and films you'd find more.
>
> I see. "If you took the time to examine all the photos and films you'd
> find more" translates to, "I don't know of anyone else. But I'll blow
> smoke in the hope you think I do."
>
> So I'm challenging you — name anyone else. Or admit there is no other.
>
More bullshit. You yourself added more names. So much for your hollow
challenges. You don't even have Pictures of the Pain.
>
>>> Z-227: One, probably two, shots have been fired, but people on both
>>> sides of Elm Street are applauding and waving.
>>> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z227.jpg
>> So what? Many witnesses said they did not recognize the first sound as a
>> shot.
>> Surely you are not going to argue that no shots at all were fired before
>> the head shot?
>
> No, and you know I'm not saying that. I am saying — contra to what you
> said above, "The film shows the crowd's heads. Is everyone except JFK and
> JBC deaf?" — that going by all the photographic evidence, you might
> think "the crowd" were deaf, because no one in the crowd but Rosemary
> Willis is seen to react to gunshots before the head shot. Out of dozens of
> spectators seen in the photographs.
>
In the photographs YOU have looked at.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Yes.
Wasn't it you that was arguing with me some time ago that both of JFK's
hands were clenched at Z224, as an indication he reacted prior to Z224?
JFK's right hand was still open at Z224, with the fingers bent inward
somewhat. In the next frame, the hand was clenching. JFK's left hand was
clenched at Z224, but as i pointed out, in clear frames of the MPI
version, i could see that his left hand was clenched prior to him going
behind the sign.
***Ron Judge
marki...@yahoo.com
> No, and you know I'm not saying that. I am saying that going by all the photographic evidence, you might
> think "the crowd" were deaf, because no one in the crowd but Rosemary
> Willis is seen to react to gunshots before the head shot. Out of dozens of
> spectators seen in the photographs.
Respectfully, perhaps you should explain what sort of "reaction" you are
expecting to find. Are you looking for gasps of horror? Does looking in
any direction other than straight at JFK's limo count? I understand that
you seek photographic evidence of reaction to gunfire prior to the
headshot, although multiple witnesses claimed that they looked in the
direction of the perceived sounds prior to Z-313, i.e. Howard Brennan and
Marion Baker. Phil Willis claimed that he snapped one of his images as a
startle reaction well before Z-313.
~Mark
yeuhd
> So much for your hollow
> challenges. You don't even have Pictures of the Pain.
Well, I'm still waiting. And you're still blowing smoke, and avoiding
answering the question.
Here's the question again: Can you point out anyone in "the
crowd" (your words) in Dealey Plaza, besides Rosemary Willis, who can
be seen reacting to any gunfire before the head shot?
If you could, you would have said so by now. You can't.
cdddraftsman
> I think the head does nod forward a bit starting at frame 230. But the
> real noticeable and significant movement is the raising of the arms, which
> starts at frame 226. The arms are then held in this position for the next
> 4 to 5 seconds. Clearly, the raising of the arms is the significant
> reaction. And it starts at frame 226.
>
> wounded, then get wounded, and decide to keep the arms where they are. In
> all probability, it is the arms movement that shows when he first starts
> to physically react.
More likely he's heard the sound of the first bullet that missed the
limo completely and these are semi-involuntary movements in responce
to that noise .
tl
cdddraftsman
> On 9 May, 18:55, markina...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I'm interested in seeing how the group interprets the following video clip
> > that I prepared for discussion. The clip shows frames 223 to 240,
> > inclusive, and shows it first in real time, then 50% speed, then 25%
> > speed. Each clip repeats 5 times. JFK's very abrupt forward motion begins
> > at 230, and concludes at 234. I used the secret service hand- hold bracket
> > to align each frame.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI
>
> > Respectfully submitted,
> > ~Mark
>
> reaction. You might want to consider Gil's scenario, in, 'Was JFK Trying To
> Cough Up A Bullet'
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd1o0UTb3oc
>
> CJ
'Was JFK Trying To Cough Up A Bullet' ..... Hahahhahahahaa !
After Gil no one will be able to accuse the critical community of not
having a healthy sense of black humor . The only sad thing is that he
half way believe's his own non-sense .
BTW who has the more magical bullet(s) in this case ? LNer's that have
proven that bullets can remain undamaged after transiting two body's
or CTer's who have to have a bullet that strikes JFK in the back (*)
and one in the front of his neck to posit confusion needlessly ? Very
odd behaviour .
(*) And then falls back out the same entrance wound ? That would make
it a WBT (Weak Bullet Theory) .
cdddraftsman
The only one that is trying to cough up anything are people with vision
problems . JFK's hands are clenched , one above the other , under his chin
, elbow's raised at a 45 degree angle to his body .
These are all classic signs of 'Thorburn position' ! No question about it
.
Many neurological impulses can cause this classic position (*) to be taken
. But just like everything else in this case that's fouled up , overactive
imaginations have to invent something new to explain JFK's movements .
Past reactions noted as far back as the Civil War are not good enough
evidence to attribute to one as immortal as JFK ...eh ?
It's all just a bunch of people acting silly .
tl
(*) I personally witnessed along with another person , a friend of mine
die of a heart attack , sitting upright in a chair . He did exactely what
JFK did , except the only difference is , is that his eye's rolled back in
his head before he collapsed to the floor , deader than a door nail .
cdddraftsman
>
>
> Why do you
> suppose Posner's book failed?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> ::Clark::
You really didn't expect the general public to admit they had been conned
and hoodwinked by the critical community did you ? Embarrassment of the
disclosure of the dishonest tactic's of Conspiracy theorist's by Lattimer
, Posner , Bugliosi has started to seep in though and the pendulum is
slowly going in the other direction because of many factors that include
but are not limited to :
a) "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not
be posited without necessity." The words are those of the medieval English
philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham . CTer's break all the
rules and especially 'the principle of parsimony' in their quest for
conspiracy . When a crime occurs in the real world the list suspects
motives etc. is pared down as evidence works to exculpate the innocent and
incriminate the guilty. When this crime was hi-jacked by conspiracists ,
the list suspects , motives etc. ALWAYS EXPANDED AND CONTINUES TO EXPAND
TO THIS DAY . Why ?
b) JFK Truthers Finally Losing Ground Nov. 16, 2007
"Before the 9/11 truthers came the JFK truthers . Fantasies about dark
machinations surrounding the death of President Kennedy laid the spiritual
groundwork for today's claims of bizarre plots behind the events of 9/11 .
In both cases , the obviously guilty culprits are ignored in favor of more
desirable and expediant political targets"
c) "GWB in an August 2006 speech, which declared that terrorism springs
from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation ," and that "terrorists
recruit effectively from population's whose information about the world is
contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by CT's . The distortions keep
alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular
prejudices and self-serving propaganda . He "strongly criticized" the
endorsement of CT's by the US left-wing , alleging that it was a sign of
"theoretical emptiness ."
d) "Critics of these Conspiracy Theory's say they are a form of
conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic events in which
CT's emerge as a mythic form of explanation" (Barkun, 2003). A related
criticism addresses the form of research on which the CT's are based.
Thomas W. Eagar, an eng. prof. at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse
scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data
that doesn't fit their conclusion & then hail their findings as the only
conclusion."
e) "Difficulty in Debunking Myths Rooted in the Way the Mind Works," by
Shankar Vedantam.
Excerpts:
"The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad
information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies
show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can
paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.
Denials inherently require repeating the bad information,. which may be
one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.
Indeed, repetition seems to be a key culprit.
Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory and one of
the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are
true.... In politics and elsewhere, this means that whoever makes the
first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who
denies it later.
The experiments...illustrate another basic property of the mind--it is not
good at remembering when and where a person first learned something.
People are not good at keeping track of which information came from
reputable sources and which came from less trustworthy ones, or even
remembering that some information came from the same untrustworthy source
over and over again."
end .........
The problem with the critical community in a nutshell ! No other possible
way to explain their absolute failure which has made the discussion of
JFK's death , the greatest single mass failure in thinking ever recorded
by humans on any one given subject .
tl
yeuhd
> Respectfully, perhaps you should explain what sort of "reaction" you are
> expecting to find. Are you looking for gasps of horror? Does looking in
> any direction other than straight at JFK's limo count? I understand that
> you seek photographic evidence of reaction to gunfire prior to the
> headshot, although multiple witnesses claimed that they looked in the
> direction of the perceived sounds prior to Z-313, i.e. Howard Brennan and
> Marion Baker. Phil Willis claimed that he snapped one of his images as a
> startle reaction well before Z-313.
Someone else in this thread used the lack of a visible crowd reaction
at a certain point in time as an indicator that no shot occurred at
that time. My point is that lack of visible evidence of crowd reaction
to any shot does not mean the crowd did not hear a shot.
Indeed, we know from the testimony of several witnesses that they did
hear pre-Z313 shots, even though we see no obvious reaction from those
same individuals in the photographic evidence.
cdddraftsman
> (I understand that Groden's reputation
> in this forum is not exactly guilded, although his interpretation of
> the Z-film is the first, best that I've come across.)
>
>
I suggest picking up the 'Secret KGB JFK Assassination Files' where for
once instead of Groden doing his act in his usual self created atmosphere
void of opposition based upon minimal common sense , the producers hired
professional ballistic , forensic and surveying experts to see if the
shots could of come from the TSBD (SBT) and determine if the location of
the alleged Grassy Knoll sniper could of been the source that inflicted
the fatal (Head Shot) .
Groden who has no training in any field (copy machine repair man) ,
especially photography , is continually corrected as to his 'Hollywood
Version' of events and the look on his face as he's put in his place 'Is
priceless' . He sat there glumly , brooding over the fact that his version
and interpretation of the Z-film was non-sense , he had been called on it
and he was told so in no uncertain manner . A glorious day for the truth
No doubt now who contributed to Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK' .... A movie
that contained '100+ major historical inaccuracies and distortions of the
truth , is there ? That man's name is Robert Groden . A person who has as
much use for the truth in the JFK Assassination as a alley cat would have
for a marriage license .
>
>
>
> Posner's book was quite successful at gaining notoriety and money for
> Posner himself. His book failed quite miserably at convincing me of
> the SBT and of Oswald acting alone.
>
> Thanks, and respectfully,
> ~Mark
Posner's book was quite successful in poking huge holes in the rented
goodyear blimp that was unopposed , and sailing above our heads
advertising logical absurdity's of the most astonishing and astounding
types in JFK's death for the personal profit and self glorification of
it's pilot and occupants . That blimp has now been grounded permanently .
A careful review of the so-called error's in his book reveiled that
conspiracy theorists were no more accurate and forthcoming about what
Posner had actually said in his book , than they were about the
assassination itself .
As I recall there were 8 or 10 minor errors that didn't distract from his
overall thesis , that indeed basically says the only conspiracy involved
in JFK's death has been and continues to be perpetrated by this so called
critical community (?) .
Their followers who are now bewildered at there being 12 firing locations
, baffled by as many as 15 shots fired that day , confused that 218
alleged assassins and helpers can't be found on any film taken that day
and confounded to find 44 major backers , entity's , institutions and
organizations involved in Camelot's demise , are finding it hard to keep
all the marbles in a straight line , let alone in the same basket .
All of this fuss and feathers for the cause of a disparate group of
piratical journalist who distort the issues , using weak , non- existent ,
and when that fails , bogus and fabricated evidence , to stay in a battle
they lost in 1963 , because they never learned how to investigate a crime
properly in the first place , have no intention of doing so now at this
late date and have made this tragic event a unspeakable National disgrace
. If I were a 'Islamic Fundamentalist' and read Jim Marr's 'Crossfire' , I
would of turn in my berka and turbin and join the CIA !
BTW if anyone is still interested in the truth , the Democratic party JFK
belonged to has changed so radically from what it stood for in 1963 , that
it's estimated JFK and his policies would of been kicked out of that party
(today) in less time it took him to motorcade through Dealey Plaza .
tl
Anthony Marsh
> On May 22, 12:08 am, clarkwilk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Why do you
>> suppose Posner's book failed?
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> ::Clark::
>
> You really didn't expect the general public to admit they had been conned
> and hoodwinked by the critical community did you ? Embarrassment of the
> disclosure of the dishonest tactic's of Conspiracy theorist's by Lattimer
> , Posner , Bugliosi has started to seep in though and the pendulum is
> slowly going in the other direction because of many factors that include
> but are not limited to :
>
The majority of the general public thought it was a conspiracy from day
one, long before any conspiracy writers wrote anything.
> a) "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not
> be posited without necessity." The words are those of the medieval English
> philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham . CTer's break all the
> rules and especially 'the principle of parsimony' in their quest for
> conspiracy . When a crime occurs in the real world the list suspects
> motives etc. is pared down as evidence works to exculpate the innocent and
> incriminate the guilty. When this crime was hi-jacked by conspiracists ,
> the list suspects , motives etc. ALWAYS EXPANDED AND CONTINUES TO EXPAND
> TO THIS DAY . Why ?
>
Ridiculous. Occam's Razor applies to mathematics and science, not
politics, not conspiracies, not assassinations.
> b) JFK Truthers Finally Losing Ground Nov. 16, 2007
>
> "Before the 9/11 truthers came the JFK truthers . Fantasies about dark
> machinations surrounding the death of President Kennedy laid the spiritual
> groundwork for today's claims of bizarre plots behind the events of 9/11 .
> In both cases , the obviously guilty culprits are ignored in favor of more
> desirable and expediant political targets"
>
CIA propaganda.
> c) "GWB in an August 2006 speech, which declared that terrorism springs
> from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation ," and that "terrorists
> recruit effectively from population's whose information about the world is
> contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by CT's . The distortions keep
> alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular
> prejudices and self-serving propaganda . He "strongly criticized" the
> endorsement of CT's by the US left-wing , alleging that it was a sign of
> "theoretical emptiness ."
>
CIA propaganda. The US government is the biggest sponsor of terrorism.
> d) "Critics of these Conspiracy Theory's say they are a form of
> conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic events in which
> CT's emerge as a mythic form of explanation" (Barkun, 2003). A related
> criticism addresses the form of research on which the CT's are based.
> Thomas W. Eagar, an eng. prof. at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse
> scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data
> that doesn't fit their conclusion & then hail their findings as the only
> conclusion."
>
Stupid.
> e) "Difficulty in Debunking Myths Rooted in the Way the Mind Works," by
> Shankar Vedantam.
>
Real name?
> Excerpts:
>
> "The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad
> information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies
> show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can
> paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.
>
> Denials inherently require repeating the bad information,. which may be
> one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.
>
> Indeed, repetition seems to be a key culprit.
>
> Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory and one of
> the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are
> true.... In politics and elsewhere, this means that whoever makes the
> first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who
> denies it later.
>
You mean like Bush and Cheney repeating their lies?
Anthony Marsh
It's risky for you as a WC defender to admit that. His clenched hands
under his chin prevent any exiting bullet from hitting Connally at Z-224.
Anthony Marsh
Stupid.
Anthony Marsh
Even you, a die-hard WC defender could see that? But not Myers? I think
not. He simply lied.
> ***Ron Judge
>
marki...@yahoo.com
> You must be joking ?
No.
> I suggest picking up the 'Secret KGB JFK Assassination Files'
Perhaps you can upload the pertinent sections to youtube for us to
view.
> shots could of come from the TSBD (SBT) and determine if the location of
> the alleged Grassy Knoll sniper could of been the source that inflicted
> the fatal (Head Shot) .
I have not viewed this documentary. I created this post for discussion of
Z-230 to Z-234. What did the experts in the documentary you cite conclude
about JFK's abrupt forward motion in those frames? Also, I've made no
claims regarding the GK headshot. I do not believe that the Z- film will
ever reconcile other researchers' claims of a GK headshot at Z-313,
although numerous very qualified researchers insist on the GK headshot.
This is why I focus on Z-230 to Z-234, because it's much easier to
convincingly demonstrate to others the high probability, IMO, of
conspiracy.
> Groden who has no training in any field (copy machine repair man) ,
> especially photography , is continually corrected as to his 'Hollywood
> Version' of events and the look on his face as he's put in his place 'Is
> priceless' . He sat there glumly , brooding over the fact that his version
> and interpretation of the Z-film was non-sense , he had been called on it
> and he was told so in no uncertain manner . A glorious day for the truth
Regardless of your personal opinion of Groden, his interpretation is that
JFK is exhibiting signs of taking a bullet in the back at exactly Z-230.
> No doubt now who contributed to Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK' .... A movie
> that contained '100+ major historical inaccuracies and distortions of the
> truth , is there ? That man's name is Robert Groden . A person who has as
> much use for the truth in the JFK Assassination as a alley cat would have
> for a marriage license .
So I was correct when I said that his reputation in this forum isn't
exactly guilded. I try to not lower myself into expressing disdain for
other researchers. I respect their viewpoints, and appreciate their
offerings. George Carlin used to make a joke, "Somewhere in the world is
the WORST doctor, by process of elimination. The scary part is that
someone has an appointment with him tomorrow." I say that because even the
worst doctor can occasionally be guilty of a correct diagnosis. The flip
side of that comment is that the best doctor can make a mistake.
> Posner's book was quite successful in poking huge holes in the rented
> goodyear blimp that was unopposed , and sailing above our heads
> advertising logical absurdity's of the most astonishing and astounding
> types in JFK's death for the personal profit and self glorification of
> it's pilot and occupants . That blimp has now been grounded permanently .
In what ways? The official gov't position remains from the HSCA's
conclusion that JFK's murder was probably the result of a conspiracy. I
don't believe that has changed, nor public sentiment concerning that a
majority of people believed at the time, and now, that there was indeed a
conspiracy.
> Their followers who are now bewildered at there being 12 firing locations
Twelve firing locations?
> alleged assassins and helpers can't be found on any film taken that day
I remain very interested to see the Babushka Lady's film, but I can't
because it was confiscated and cannot be found.
> organizations involved in Camelot's demise , are finding it hard to keep
> all the marbles in a straight line , let alone in the same basket .
Conspiracy theories vary, and I find most of the conspiracy-oriented
persons posting in this newsgroup to be very organized and well-
informed.
> BTW if anyone is still interested in the truth , the Democratic party JFK
> belonged to has changed so radically from what it stood for in 1963 , that
> it's estimated JFK and his policies would of been kicked out of that party
> (today) in less time it took him to motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
I remain interested in the truth. Could you explain the differences in the
Democratic party in '63 versus today?
Respectfully,
~Mark
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I broused YouTube last night and came accross a segment of a
History Channel program with the Meyers animation, from various
angles. From the left side angle, i watched the movement of JFK's
left arm. As i mentioned before, clear frames in the 180's or 190's
showed JFK's left hand in a fist. I believe he was holding his left
arm in a stationary position. In the Meyers animation, in the frames
leading up to the gunshot reaction, the left arm was moving around
somewhat and the hand was not clenched. The arm was not visible while
JFK was behind the sign, thus i think Meyers was being interpretive of
unseen action, as opposed to lying. Not having the left hand
clenched, i think was a lack of attention to detail.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
Absurd. JFK's left hand was never in a fist until he was hit by the
bullet, which came AFTER the 180's and 190's.
> arm in a stationary position. In the Meyers animation, in the frames
> leading up to the gunshot reaction, the left arm was moving around
> somewhat and the hand was not clenched. The arm was not visible while
> JFK was behind the sign, thus i think Meyers was being interpretive of
> unseen action, as opposed to lying. Not having the left hand
> clenched, i think was a lack of attention to detail.
>
Myers admits being interpretative when the men are hidden behind the sign.
I don't object to that. But when he shows something that we can see for
ourselves did not happen, the word for that is LYING.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Again, it has been some time since i viewed the MPI dvd, but i noted
there were one or two clear frames in which JFK's left arm and hand were
in about the same position in the 180's or 190's as they were as he
re-appeared from behind the sign. The left hand was closed before he
reached the Stemmons sign.
***Ron Judge
burb...@yahoo.com
Here! Here! I came into this issue with a vague "feeling" that there
was more than one gunman an therefore a conspiracy BUT decided to play
make-believe juror and just read/review testimonies/document/pics and
see where all the info would lead me....Weeeelllll...to date, I have
not found the "smoking gun" to supoort there was a 2nd smoking gun on
the GK AND that all forensic eveidence points to a lone, rear shooter.
In as much as Americans want to either, believe that only a great
politician as Kennedy could only be brught down by an equally great
plan, or to bolster their own egos into forming scenerios which
display their depth of intellect in any mystery, they are defending/
perpetuating the CT to no end and without hard evidence to support it.
If a lowly Canadian free-lance writer can come to this decision viv-a-
vis the actual, provable facts, why can't the CT'ers do this?
I suggest everyone in this issue drop all their recipe cards, file
folders and cross-referenced data-bases and go back to square one and
JUST OBJECTIVELY LISTEN TO WHAT THE EVEIDENCE IS TELLING YOU - I think
this murder mystery would be no more.
Just one person's thought....Burb
Anthony Marsh
NO. Show us.
> ***Ron Judge
>
yeuhd
> > ***Again, it has been some time since i viewed the MPI dvd, but i noted
> > there were one or two clear frames in which JFK's left arm and hand were
> > in about the same position in the 180's or 190's as they were as he
> > re-appeared from behind the sign. The left hand was closed before he
> > reached the Stemmons sign.
>
> NO. Show us.
You know, "show us" is what I asked you in this very thread, re
whether anyone else in the crowd other than Rosemary Willis can be
seen reacting to any pre-Z313 shot. Your answer: "If you took the time
to
examine all the photos and films you'd find more."
Maybe that should become the standard reply to any of your requests
for evidence.
Anthony Marsh
Maybe you should go out and buy Pictures of the Pain and do your own
homework.
yeuhd
> Maybe you should go out and buy Pictures of the Pain and do your own
> homework.
Actually, I do have a copy. And there are *no* photos of anyone else
in the crowd visibly reacting to any shot before Z313. Repeat, *none*.
But you are the one claimed there are. So, which photo on what page?
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Z193.
***Ron judge