Excellent website in progress
Dave Reitzes
wanted to draw some further attention to it. It's the work of a
researcher named Vincent Vandevoorde, and it contains, among other
things, some skillfully constructed animated GIFs depicting JFK and
Gov. Connally's reactions to the "SBT" bullet strike, and a very clear
image of the forward motion of JFK's head (and no one else's) between
Z312 and 313.
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
Dave
Gerry Simone (O)
(nobody else seems to move beyond the inserted white line marks which appear
fixed).
But look at the bottom left zoomed image. Focus on the back of Kennedy's
head.
In Z312, you see the sunlight reflection at the top of JFK's head.
At Z313, behind (at boh) where that reflection was, don't you notice an
avulsion (like a mouth that's just opened)?
[I think I've seen these pages before but perhaps at some earlier state.]
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183442226.1...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
well that's debatable... All the owner/creator of the website has to
do is validate the Zapruder film! Should be a piece of cake, eh?
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein referred to a page of this site in a recent post, but I
> wanted to draw some further attention to it. It's the work of a
> researcher named Vincent Vandevoorde, and it contains, among other
> things, some skillfully constructed animated GIFs depicting JFK and
> Gov. Connally's reactions to the "SBT" bullet strike, and a very clear
> image of the forward motion of JFK's head (and no one else's) between
> Z312 and 313.
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
Look carefully at his points of alignment. Notice the one in the middle,
the reflection of the window knob. Notice how his point of reference
keeps moving around. Notice the width of the window knob in Z-313. That
is blur.
Again, the WC defenders shoot themselves in the foot.
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
>
> Dave
>
>
Kenneth A. Rahn
I used one of these excellent clips in my presentation at the Warren
Commission symposium in Washington a couple of years ago. In the audience
was Josiah Thompson, who saw the whole thing and after my presentation
refused to admit that the head went forward. I was stunned, because it so
obviously does. Reminds me of the new NAA guys...
Ken Rahn
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183442226.1...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
pjsp...@aol.com
225 but then jerk back up. This supports the possibility that Kennedy
was hit at both 190, where the eyewitnesses and jiggle analysis place
the shot, and 224.
On Jul 3, 5:49 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
Andrew Mason
pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
I was glad to see he caught that Kennedy's hands are moving down at 225 but then jerk back up. This supports the possibility that Kennedy was hit at both 190, where the eyewitnesses and jiggle analysis place the shot, and 224.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> I was glad to see he caught that Kennedy's hands are moving down at
> 225 but then jerk back up. This supports the possibility that Kennedy
> was hit at both 190, where the eyewitnesses and jiggle analysis place
> the shot, and 224.
>
You'll have to explain this. Which witnesses said that JFK was hit at
Z-190? And why do you need for Kennedy to be hit a second time at Z-224?
Anthony Marsh
> Dave,
>
> I used one of these excellent clips in my presentation at the Warren
> Commission symposium in Washington a couple of years ago. In the audience
> was Josiah Thompson, who saw the whole thing and after my presentation
> refused to admit that the head went forward. I was stunned, because it so
> obviously does. Reminds me of the new NAA guys...
>
And I showed you my meticulous frame by frame analysis at your symposium
which proved that everyone was moving forward and yet you still refuse to
admit that simple fact. Even after looking at David Wimp's GIF you refuse
to admit that Kellerman moved forward. I am stunned, because it is so
obvious to any reasonable person.
Rankles
> Dave,
>
> I used one of these excellent clips in my presentation at the Warren
> Commission symposium in Washington a couple of years ago. In the audience
> was Josiah Thompson, who saw the whole thing and after my presentation
> refused to admit that the head went forward. I was stunned, because it so
> obviously does. Reminds me of the new NAA guys...
>
> Ken Rahn
>
>
> news:1183442226.1...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > David Von Pein referred to a page of this site in a recent post, but I
> > wanted to draw some further attention to it. It's the work of a
> > researcher named Vincent Vandevoorde, and it contains, among other
> > things, some skillfully constructed animated GIFs depicting JFK and
> > Gov. Connally's reactions to the "SBT" bullet strike, and a very clear
> > image of the forward motion of JFK's head (and no one else's) between
> > Z312 and 313.
>
> >http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
>
> >http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> >http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
>
> > Dave
As supported as I am of the WC conclusion, from that video alone that
frame could simply have been Kennedy lurching forward. I firmly believe
however that a shot to the skull will NOT send the head in the direction
of the bullet, but as done in the tests by that spanish sounding guy whom
my drunken mind forgets proved that a neurological spasms/jet propulsion
theory sent the head backwards.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Yes, in your first link's sublink entitled "2. Headshot", that's correct
> (nobody else seems to move beyond the inserted white line marks which appear
> fixed).
>
> But look at the bottom left zoomed image. Focus on the back of Kennedy's
> head.
>
> In Z312, you see the sunlight reflection at the top of JFK's head.
>
> At Z313, behind (at boh) where that reflection was, don't you notice an
> avulsion (like a mouth that's just opened)?
All I see in that area is a lot of blur. There are clear frames of the
BOH after the head shot, though. (I never can find any evidence of a
BOH wound in any of these frames, but of course some people disagree.)
Dave
> [I think I've seen these pages before but perhaps at some earlier state.]
>
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Mitch Todd
just before the so-called "flip." And a nice gifimation of it, too.
feelin'-vidicated MST
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
HUH? JFK was only hit twice, at Z224 and Z313. There was no strike at
Z190. There was no shot at Z190.
What I liked about the website is that it runs the critical frames in
real time, forcing the view to focus on the instant the bullet hit.
Too often we see the Z-film in slo-mo or freeze frame. While this is
useful for some analysis, it can create a distorted picture as well.
In slow motion, Connally's movements following the bullet strike do
not seem all that dramatic in slow motion and one could conclude he
has not been hit until later in the sequence. Just looking at Z230,
JBC does not look like he is in any sort of distress. He is facing
forward in a normal posture. However when the Z-film is run at normal
speed, one can easily see that Z230 is part of some obvious gyrations
JBC began virtually simultaneously with JFK's raising his fists in
front of this throat. I don't know how anyone can look at that film in
normal speed and conclude anything other than that both men were hit
at the same instant.
Gerry Simone (H)
It may be blurry but not so much that you should lose the delineation or
shape of the head.
Groden first talks about this in High Treason, at frames Z326 as showing an
outward tuft of hair at the back of the head (posterior to lateral view),
then Z335 and Z337 showing a lateral view of an avulsion.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183507776.2...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Economics
> On Jul 3, 3:06?pm, "Gerry Simone \(O\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Yes, in your first link's sublink entitled "2. Headshot", that's
correct
> > (nobody else seems to move beyond the inserted white line marks which
appear
> > fixed).
> >
> > But look at the bottom left zoomed image. Focus on the back of Kennedy's
> > head.
> >
> > In Z312, you see the sunlight reflection at the top of JFK's head.
Colonel Lester Prouty says when Life magazine published photos from the
Zapruder film, the magazine reversed some of the photos to make it seem like
the shots came from a different direction.
Andrew Mason
> It's nice to see that someone else has noticed the jacket movement
> just before the so-called "flip." And a nice gifimation of it, too.
>
> feelin'-vidicated MST
So how can both 'flips' be from the bullet? How can we rule out arm
movement as the cause of the jacket movement?
Andrew Mason
Alex
would never pretend being a researcher, and "in progress", as....well, I
haven't done anything serious on the site since at least 2 years, so if
progress there is, let us say it is at a sloooow pace :-)
But thanks for the appreciation. It is nice to see people thinking this can
be useful.
Vincent
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1183442226.1...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Alex
>>
>
> Look carefully at his points of alignment. Notice the one in the middle,
> the reflection of the window knob. Notice how his point of reference keeps
> moving around. Notice the width of the window knob in Z-313. That is blur.
> Again, the WC defenders shoot themselves in the foot.
Anthony, read carefully the text on that page that explains exactly how the
alignment is done:
"When aligning the frames, I have made a deliberate choice the the blurring
would be put backwards. I made this choice because some people pretend the
head dos not move forward, and that it is all an illusion due to blurring.
Well, here is the proof of the contrary : my alignment eliminates any
possibility of forward blurring that would induce this kind of error: the
forward movement is NOT a blurring effect."
All the blur is behind, any forward move can only be an actual move. QED.
How is you foot Anthony? :-)
Dave Reitzes
> Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> > Dave,
>
> > I used one of these excellent clips in my presentation at the Warren
> > Commission symposium in Washington a couple of years ago. In the audience
> > was Josiah Thompson, who saw the whole thing and after my presentation
> > refused to admit that the head went forward. I was stunned, because it so
> > obviously does. Reminds me of the new NAA guys...
>
> And I showed you my meticulous frame by frame analysis at your symposium
> which proved that everyone was moving forward and yet you still refuse to
> admit that simple fact. Even after looking at David Wimp's GIF you refuse
> to admit that Kellerman moved forward. I am stunned, because it is so
> obvious to any reasonable person.
Is there a URL for your frame-by-frame analysis?
It's been some years since I viewed David Wimp's study, and it seems
to have disappeared from the Web, along with the rest of Ron Hepler's
website. Do you know where I can find it online?
Dave
> > "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Anthony Marsh
> Mitch Todd wrote:
>> It's nice to see that someone else has noticed the jacket movement
>> just before the so-called "flip." And a nice gifimation of it, too.
>>
>> feelin'-vidicated MST
>
> So how can both 'flips' be from the bullet? How can we rule out arm
> movement as the cause of the jacket movement?
>
So if someone finds a lapel flip out at Love Field that means that
Connally was shot out at Love Field?
Anthony Marsh
> "Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1183507776.2...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 3, 3:06?pm, "Gerry Simone \(O\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, in your first link's sublink entitled "2. Headshot", that's
> correct
>>> (nobody else seems to move beyond the inserted white line marks which
> appear
>>> fixed).
>>>
>>> But look at the bottom left zoomed image. Focus on the back of Kennedy's
>>> head.
>>>
>>> In Z312, you see the sunlight reflection at the top of JFK's head.
>
> Colonel Lester Prouty says when Life magazine published photos from the
> Zapruder film, the magazine reversed some of the photos to make it seem like
> the shots came from a different direction.
>
This is very old. Two frames were mislabeled and reversed. At the head shot.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 3, 3:15 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> I was glad to see he caught that Kennedy's hands are moving down at
>> 225 but then jerk back up. This supports the possibility that Kennedy
>> was hit at both 190, where the eyewitnesses and jiggle analysis place
>> the shot, and 224.
>>
>> On Jul 3, 5:49 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> David Von Pein referred to a page of this site in a recent post, but I
>>> wanted to draw some further attention to it. It's the work of a
>>> researcher named Vincent Vandevoorde, and it contains, among other
>>> things, some skillfully constructed animated GIFs depicting JFK and
>>> Gov. Connally's reactions to the "SBT" bullet strike, and a very clear
>>> image of the forward motion of JFK's head (and no one else's) between
>>> Z312 and 313.
>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
>>> Dave- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> HUH? JFK was only hit twice, at Z224 and Z313. There was no strike at
> Z190. There was no shot at Z190.
>
> What I liked about the website is that it runs the critical frames in
You like to see things that agree with your preformed conclusions.
Gerry Simone (O)
"Economics" <eco...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:k_idnVHjpLFB1hbb...@comcast.com...
Dave Reitzes
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 3:06?pm, "Gerry Simone \(O\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Yes, in your first link's sublink entitled "2. Headshot", that's
> correct
> > > (nobody else seems to move beyond the inserted white line marks which
> appear
> > > fixed).
>
> > > But look at the bottom left zoomed image. Focus on the back of Kennedy's
> > > head.
>
> > > In Z312, you see the sunlight reflection at the top of JFK's head.
>
> Colonel Lester Prouty says when Life magazine published photos from the
> Zapruder film, the magazine reversed some of the photos to make it seem like
> the shots came from a different direction.
Lester Prouty is one of my favorite commentators, along with Tink
Tonkin and Kevin Posner.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> There are two much too kind words in Dave's message: "researcher", as I
> would never pretend being a researcher,
Your website displays meticulous scrutiny and analysis of some of the
information presented in the Zapruder. Sounds like research to me, and
very good responsible research at that.
and "in progress", as....well, I
> haven't done anything serious on the site since at least 2 years, so if
> progress there is, let us say it is at a sloooow pace :-)
I've barely touched my website in several years, but some of the
recently published papers and books have rekindled my interest a bit.
Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. \:^)
> But thanks for the appreciation. It is nice to see people thinking this can
> be useful.
>
> Vincent
Your work is very useful and informative indeed. I congratulate you on
your hard work and careful analysis.
Dave
tomnln
Did they put a black bar at the bottom of the frames?>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
Please tell us WHY?
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1183589188.4...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> You're posting this at the wrong forum, Healy...the CT'ers that post here
> are a little more sensible than the regulars at acj. and probably
> unanimously agree that the Zfilm is authentic.
>
> Since you told me the other day that you're not even sure Zapruder filmed
> anything that day, it's hard to see what would convince you that his 8mm
> film is real and unaltered.
Economics
And, it seemed Col. Prouty had much knowledge of how things worked inside
the US government back in 1963
Anthony Marsh
Everyone is moving forward. The blur makes it appear to some that JFK's
moved 2.3 inches forward. It was not that far. It is an illusion caused
by the blur.
Anthony Marsh
> There are two much too kind words in Dave's message: "researcher", as I
> would never pretend being a researcher, and "in progress", as....well, I
> haven't done anything serious on the site since at least 2 years, so if
> progress there is, let us say it is at a sloooow pace :-)
>
> But thanks for the appreciation. It is nice to see people thinking this can
> be useful.
>
> Vincent
>
Vincent?
Alex?
Dave?
Hotmail?
Mitch Todd
>> It's nice to see that someone else has noticed the jacket movement
>> just before the so-called "flip." And a nice gifimation of it, too.
>
> So how can both 'flips' be from the bullet? How can we rule out arm movement
> as the cause of the jacket movement?
Neither may be the flip of a lapel, not does it really matter whether
there was a flip or some other motion. The edge of the coat moves about an
inch to Connally's right between 222 and 223, then moves two or three
inches to the left between the next two frames, lapel flip or not. It's a
more complex motion than the lapel being directly pushed over by a bullet
as is commonly assumed, and it's a stiking development on the film.
[double pun not intended, but appreciated just the same]
Connally's hat doesn't begin to move until 225-226, nor can his arm be
seen to be moving before 225, so It's hard to see how arm movment could
account for such an abrupt displacement.
MST
ps. Back when the 'flip' first came to everyone's attention in the early
'90s, a couple of posters mentioned that Failure Analysis personnel noted
the flip whiles studying a very high quality copy of the z-films, and that
they claimed that the film showed that the lapel flip really was a lapel
flip. I'm not sure if that is the true story, and I have no reason to
believe it without seeing for myself.
Vincent
CpCdnb6o4a7f7hHb...@comcast.com...
> Vincent?
> Alex?
Vincent is Alex (a nickname I have been using here and there). I was having
trouble with the news account, I think it should be ok now, including re the
adress.
Andrew Mason
> "Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
>
>>Mitch Todd wrote:
>
>
>>>It's nice to see that someone else has noticed the jacket movement
>>>just before the so-called "flip." And a nice gifimation of it, too.
>>
>>So how can both 'flips' be from the bullet? How can we rule out arm movement
>>as the cause of the jacket movement?
>
>
> Neither may be the flip of a lapel, not does it really matter whether
> there was a flip or some other motion. The edge of the coat moves about an
> inch to Connally's right between 222 and 223, then moves two or three
> inches to the left between the next two frames, lapel flip or not.
What are you doing to measure this? z222 and z224 look bout the same to
me.
> It's a
> more complex motion than the lapel being directly pushed over by a bullet
> as is commonly assumed, and it's a stiking development on the film.
> [double pun not intended, but appreciated just the same]
>
> Connally's hat doesn't begin to move until 225-226, nor can his arm be
> seen to be moving before 225, so It's hard to see how arm movment could
> account for such an abrupt displacement.
I am not sure why you say that Connally's arm cannot be seen to move
before z225. It is apparent to me that his hand moves down from z222 to
z223 and up from z223 to z225.
Andrew Mason
Alex
Anthony, in the 312-313 animation:
- the head of JFK is moving forward
- the rest of the body (see shoulders and back) of JFK is virtually
motionless (very small move forward)
- Jackie doesn't move forward at all
- JBC doesn't move forward at all
- JBC's wife doesn't mave forward at all
- all the blur of 313 has been put behind by a proper alignment.
I am not sure ignoring the facts brings anything.
Dave Reitzes
If you mean "Lester" knew about the crashed flying saucers, you're
absolutely correct.
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100whox.html
Dave
aeffects
> Dave,
>
> I used one of these excellent clips in my presentation at the Warren
> Commission symposium in Washington a couple of years ago. In the audience
> was Josiah Thompson, who saw the whole thing and after my presentation
> refused to admit that the head went forward. I was stunned, because it so
> obviously does. Reminds me of the new NAA guys...
Simply apply the *jet effect* to the Z-313 headshot, from the grassy
knoll! Still stunned?
> Ken Rahn
>
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183442226.1...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
Anthony recalls Richard Pryor's famous line (re: his wife catching him
in bed with another woman):
"Who are you gonna believe -- me or your lying eyes?"
Dave
al...@maine.rr.com
forward from the first shot - and than the HEAD SHOT pushes him
backward - even with my aging, corrected-lense eyes I can see that -
you guys must be attending the Mac Wallace School of Imaginary Images
- how would he move in such a slight way forward from the impact of a
bullet exploding through his head?
give me a break -
Anthony Marsh
A cite which you praise because it uses your favorite tactic of
innuendo. Trying to link Prouty to Holocaust deniers.
Anthony Marsh
Between Z-312 and Z-313, everyone in the limousine moves forward.
Dave Reitzes
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a crit dans le message de news:
> CpCdnb-o4a4C7xHbnZ2dnUVZ_vCkn...@comcast.com...
The animated image at Vincent's website bears out his analysis 100%.
Nellie blurs. Governor Connally blurs. Jackie blurs. Kennedy's head
MOVES, as demonstrated very clearly by the additional length of
Jackie's pink sleeve that becomes visible in Z313.
Dave
Anthony Marsh
So, neither is your real name?
Anthony Marsh
So what? He was still a kook? Did you ever talk to him? I had lunch with
him. He did not pass my test of his bona fides.
Vincent
Alex wrote:
>> Anthony, in the 312-313 animation:
>> - the head of JFK is moving forward
>> - the rest of the body (see shoulders and back) of JFK is virtually
>> motionless (very small move forward)
>> - Jackie doesn't move forward at all
>> - JBC doesn't move forward at all
>> - JBC's wife doesn't mave forward at all
>> - all the blur of 313 has been put behind by a proper alignment.
>> I am not sure ignoring the facts brings anything.
> Between Z-312 and Z-313, everyone in the limousine moves forward.
Uh?
Then would you be kind enough to indicate us on this animation who exactly
is moving forward and compared with what?
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm
Of course, as they are all in a car that is moving forward, they are all
moving forward, but I guess this is not what you mean.
I guess we can agree that the concept of "moving" relates here to movements
using the the car as our reference.
OK, so we have this animation with the four passengers in a car, a fixed
reference point in the car (the doorknob), and there is only one passenger
that is moving forward compared to that reference point.
So the logical conclusion seems to be that only that person is moving
forward.
Now, can you please explain us how you reach another conclusion?
Vincent
Vincent
>>
>> Vincent is Alex (a nickname I have been using here and there). I was
>> having trouble with the news account, I think it should be ok now,
>> including re the adress.
>
> So, neither is your real name?
Vincent is my real name. Alex is a nickname I have been using.
Mitch Todd
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> Mitch Todd wrote:
>> "Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
>>>Mitch Todd wrote:
>>
>>>>It's nice to see that someone else has noticed the jacket movement
>>>>just before the so-called "flip." And a nice gifimation of it, too.
>>>
>>>So how can both 'flips' be from the bullet? How can we rule out arm movement
>>>as the cause of the jacket movement?
>>
>> Neither may be the flip of a lapel, not does it really matter whether there
>> was a flip or some other motion. The edge of the coat moves about an inch to
>> Connally's right between 222 and 223, then moves two or three inches to the
>> left between the next two frames, lapel flip or not.
>
> What are you doing to measure this? z222 and z224 look bout the same to
> me.
Look again. In 222, you can easily see some shirt between the tie and the
right lapel. In 223, you can see more shirt. But on the next frame, the
right side of the shirt completely disappears behind the right lapel.
>> It's a more complex motion than the lapel being directly pushed over by a
>> bullet as is commonly assumed, and it's a stiking development on the film.
>> [double pun not intended, but appreciated just the same]
>>
>> Connally's hat doesn't begin to move until 225-226, nor can his arm be seen
>> to be moving before 225, so It's hard to see how arm movment could account
>> for such an abrupt displacement.
>
> I am not sure why you say that Connally's arm cannot be seen to move before
> z225. It is apparent to me that his hand moves down from z222 to z223 and up
> from z223 to z225.
That bright spot you see in frame 222 is not Connally's hand. Connally is
holing his Stetson (like any good Texan would) at this point. Now, look at
Connally's hat. It doesn't move between 222 and 223. If the hat ain't
moving, then the arm isn't doing much, either.
MST
Andrew Mason
How do you know that? It looks like it must be the cuff, to me. If that
white spot is not the cuff, what is it?
> Connally is
> holing his Stetson (like any good Texan would) at this point. Now, look at
> Connally's hat.
Where is his hat in z223? I can see his cuff and what I think is the
hat in 222 but it has dropped out of sight in 223. Remarkably, his
jacket front follows the hand and opens up. In 224 the hand is moving up
again and you can see it in z225. Again, remarkably, the jacket front
follows the hand and closes up.
See:http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
It doesn't move between 222 and 223. If the hat ain't
> moving, then the arm isn't doing much, either.
I see the hand moving down between z222 and 223 and up between 223-225.
Perhaps I am missing something.
Andrew Mason
>
> MST
>
>
>
Dave Reitzes
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a crit dans le message de news:
> pdednWkzhfVjpRDbnZ2dnUVZ_oHin...@comcast.com...
>
> Alex wrote:
> >> Anthony, in the 312-313 animation:
> >> - the head of JFK is moving forward
> >> - the rest of the body (see shoulders and back) of JFK is virtually
> >> motionless (very small move forward)
> >> - Jackie doesn't move forward at all
> >> - JBC doesn't move forward at all
> >> - JBC's wife doesn't mave forward at all
> >> - all the blur of 313 has been put behind by a proper alignment.
> >> I am not sure ignoring the facts brings anything.
> > Between Z-312 and Z-313, everyone in the limousine moves forward.
>
> Uh?
> Then would you be kind enough to indicate us on this animation who exactly
> Of course, as they are all in a car that is moving forward, they are all
> moving forward, but I guess this is not what you mean.
\:^)
> I guess we can agree that the concept of "moving" relates here to movements
> using the the car as our reference.
> OK, so we have this animation with the four passengers in a car, a fixed
> reference point in the car (the doorknob), and there is only one passenger
> that is moving forward compared to that reference point.
> So the logical conclusion seems to be that only that person is moving
> forward.
> Now, can you please explain us how you reach another conclusion?
>
> Vincent
Good luck. I've been trying to get Anthony to explain his eccentric
claims for years. (Dave Ferrie involved with MKULTRA "mind control"
experiments! Clay Shaw a CIA "sugar daddy"! A CIA agent named Gerry
Droller firing a fatal shot from the grassy knoll! Etc. Etc. Etc.)
Dave
Vincent
468da8f7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> Look again. In 222, you can easily see some shirt between the tie and the
> right lapel. In 223, you can see more shirt. But on the next frame, the
> right side of the shirt completely disappears behind the right lapel.
>
of the shirt).
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
Dave Reitzes
> Vincent wrote:
> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a crit dans le message de news:
> > CpCdnb6o4a7f7hHbnZ2dnUVZ_vDin...@comcast.com...
>
> >> Vincent?
> >> Alex?
>
> > Vincent is Alex (a nickname I have been using here and there). I was having
> > trouble with the news account, I think it should be ok now, including re the
> > adress.
>
> So, neither is your real name?
You'll have to excuse Anthony, Vincent. He sees spooks behind every
tree.
Dave
tims...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Marsh,
Say, you had lunch with Lester Prouty, eh? Did he have any news on
Harvey Lee Oswald?
Well, just checking, Marsh. I can't quite figure out whether you
concluded ol' Les was a kook or not. :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
"Newsgroup Commentator"
tomnln
JBC's Dr's said he was hit at 236. >>> Volume IV page 114.
bigdog Rejects his own Report.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:468de2f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Mitch Todd
"Vincent" <Alex...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:468dda9c$0$13858$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
I'm talking about the space between the upper half of the tie and the
right (Connally's right ) lapel. I'm not sure what the bight area is. It's
only visible in frame 222.
MST
Anthony Marsh
Alex Hidell?
Anthony Marsh
Vincent wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> a =E9crit dans le message d=
e news:=20
> pdednWkzhfVjpRDb...@comcast.com...
> Alex wrote:
>>> Anthony, in the 312-313 animation:
>>> - the head of JFK is moving forward
>>> - the rest of the body (see shoulders and back) of JFK is virtually=20
>>> motionless (very small move forward)
>>> - Jackie doesn't move forward at all
>>> - JBC doesn't move forward at all
>>> - JBC's wife doesn't mave forward at all
>>> - all the blur of 313 has been put behind by a proper alignment.
>>> I am not sure ignoring the facts brings anything.
>=20
>> Between Z-312 and Z-313, everyone in the limousine moves forward.
>=20
> Uh?
> Then would you be kind enough to indicate us on this animation who exac=
tly=20
> is moving forward and compared with what?
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm
> Of course, as they are all in a car that is moving forward, they are al=
l=20
> moving forward, but I guess this is not what you mean.
You guess? Maybe because you have never bothered to read anything I have
ever written. Obviously I have always made the point that they are moving
forward in relation to their previous positions in the limo.
> I guess we can agree that the concept of "moving" relates here to movem=
ents=20
> using the the car as our reference.
In reference to fixed objects of the limousine.
> OK, so we have this animation with the four passengers in a car, a fixe=
d=20
> reference point in the car (the doorknob), and there is only one passen=
ger=20
> that is moving forward compared to that reference point.
Wrong. Not just one person.
> So the logical conclusion seems to be that only that person is moving=20
> forward.
> Now, can you please explain us how you reach another conclusion?
>=20
Just look at some of the other animations which have been posted. You can
see that Connally's head starts behind Nellie's head and moves past it.
Look at Kellerman. You can see that Kellerman moved forward a few inches.
Everyone moved forward.
Anthony Marsh
The animations at Vincent's website bear out my points 100%.
> Nellie blurs. Governor Connally blurs. Jackie blurs. Kennedy's head
Nellie moves forward.
Governor Connally moves forward.
Jackie moves forward.
Kennedy moves forward.
Everyone moves forward.
So, were they all shot in the back of the head simultaneously?
aeffects
> On Jul 3, 2:08 pm, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 5:49 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > David Von Pein referred to a page of this site in a recent post, but I
> > > wanted to draw some further attention to it. It's the work of a
> > > researcher named Vincent Vandevoorde, and it contains, among other
> > > things, some skillfully constructed animated GIFs depicting JFK and
> > > Gov. Connally's reactions to the "SBT" bullet strike, and a very clear
> > > image of the forward motion of JFK's head (and no one else's) between
> > > Z312 and 313.
>
> > >http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
>
> > >http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> > >http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
>
> > > Dave
>
> > do is validate the Zapruder film! Should be a piece of cake, eh?
>
> You're posting this at the wrong forum, Healy...the CT'ers that post here
> are a little more sensible than the regulars at acj. and probably
> unanimously agree that the Zfilm is authentic.
>
> Since you told me the other day that you're not even sure Zapruder filmed
> anything that day, it's hard to see what would convince you that his 8mm
> film is real and unaltered.
my goodness Chuck Schuler if that bothers you then don't read the
postings... Frankly, not one person here (or everywhere else on the
USNET/internet forums) can VALIDATE the Z-film as authentic, including
you! Stay on topic Schuler....
Mitch Todd
I'm not entirely sure, but to me it looks like it could be a sun flare off
of the edge of the vertical part of the rollbar (not sure if it really is
a rollbar, but a better description escapes me at the moment) or the top
of the door. If it were his cuff, we should see the hat very close to it
as well.
>> Connally is holing his Stetson (like any good Texan would) at this point.
>> Now, look at Connally's hat.
> Where is his hat in z223?
On the left side of Connally's body. You see sunlight reflecting off of it
in 222, 223, 225, and later, but it's not as obvious in 224. Can't say
why, maybe because it quickly fell into and out of shadow.
> I can see his cuff and what I think is the hat in 222 but it has dropped out
> of sight in 223. Remarkably, his jacket front follows the hand and opens up.
> In 224 the hand is moving up again and you can see it in z225. Again,
> remarkably, the jacket front follows the hand and closes up.
> See:http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
All I have to say is ??????????????????????????????????????????? No. Wait.
That was an absolute, stinking, total lie on my part. Sorry. You can't
even see his hand here. The best you can do is the cuff of his shirt, if
it really is the cuff, and even that only appears in one frame. Yet you
have his hand flitting about the cabin like an escaped parakeet!
MST
Vincent
>
> Just look at some of the other animations which have been posted. You can
> see that Connally's head starts behind Nellie's head and moves past it.
> Look at Kellerman. You can see that Kellerman moved forward a few inches.
> Everyone moved forward.
Anthony, I don't have access to your animation right now, but frankly, I
doubt they would show anything interesting. Bear in mind we are all working
with the same images. So if your animation shows a movement of Connally's
head, it can mean 2 things:
- You did not take correctly account of the blur and your images are
incorectly aligned (please check the doorknob)
- you are confusing a movement forward with the movement Connally is doing
at that moment, i.e. at the same time turning left and falling behind, a
movement that ends up on the lap of Nellie. There is a rotation of the head
of Connally between 312 and 313 (see the place of his nose).
As far as Kellerman is concerned, no, he is not moving until after 313. See
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration2-eng.htm
Vincent
>
> Alex Hidell?
Not even the most remote connection with it. I was using Alex as a nickname
on internet well before I started getting interested in the JFK case.
Vincent
468f1532$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> All I have to say is ??????????????????????????????????????????? No. Wait.
> That was an absolute, stinking, total lie on my part. Sorry. You can't
> even see his hand here. The best you can do is the cuff of his shirt, if
> it really is the cuff, and even that only appears in one frame. Yet you
> have his hand flitting about the cabin like an escaped parakeet!
I have developped something further about this cuff thing here:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
The only thing I am just a bit unsure is the fact that we cannot SEE the
hand in z222. There seems to be something, but we cannot really see it, so I
guess it is a bit hidden by the rollbar there and also a bit in the shadow.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> i9udndli_ogoSxPb...@comcast.com...
>> Just look at some of the other animations which have been posted. You can
>> see that Connally's head starts behind Nellie's head and moves past it.
>> Look at Kellerman. You can see that Kellerman moved forward a few inches.
>> Everyone moved forward.
>
> Anthony, I don't have access to your animation right now, but frankly, I
Maybe you are new to the Internet. I said nothing about my own
animations. I don't do cartoons.
I was talking about other animations of the Zapruder film that we've all
seen millions of times before.
> doubt they would show anything interesting. Bear in mind we are all working
> with the same images. So if your animation shows a movement of Connally's
> head, it can mean 2 things:
Again, I said nothing about my animation. I don't have no stinkin animation.
Are you claiming there is something wrong with YOUR animations?
> - You did not take correctly account of the blur and your images are
> incorectly aligned (please check the doorknob)
> - you are confusing a movement forward with the movement Connally is doing
> at that moment, i.e. at the same time turning left and falling behind, a
> movement that ends up on the lap of Nellie. There is a rotation of the head
> of Connally between 312 and 313 (see the place of his nose).
>
> As far as Kellerman is concerned, no, he is not moving until after 313. See
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration2-eng.htm
>
The fact remains that everyone in the limousine was moving forward both
before and after the head shot. So, your conclusion must be that they
were all shot in the back of the head?
>
Vincent
i9udndhi_ojfRBPb...@comcast.com...
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>> Nellie blurs. Governor Connally blurs. Jackie blurs. Kennedy's head
>
> Nellie moves forward.
> Governor Connally moves forward.
> Jackie moves forward.
> Kennedy moves forward.
> Everyone moves forward.
> So, were they all shot in the back of the head simultaneously?
I think I got it.
It is some kind of prayer, is it?
I mean, there is no point in LOOKING at the facts because you have the
TRUTH, hu?
I am sorry, Anthony, I am here to discuss facts, not to hear about your
religious beliefs.
tomnln
JBC's Dr's said he was hit at 236>>> Volume IV pagte 114.
The hole in the jacket was No where near the lapel>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:468b1246$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> It's nice to see that someone else has noticed the jacket movement
> just before the so-called "flip." And a nice gifimation of it, too.
>
> feelin'-vidicated MST
Anthony Marsh
I am the person who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/zapruder.htm
WhiskyJoe
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
This is a very good website.
It offers conformation of what Larry Sturdivan said in the book "The JFK
Myths", that the bullet struck JFK and Connally during Z221-222, because
of:
* Dr. Lattimer's "Coat Bulge" test showed that the bulge reaches it's peak
one tenth of a second after a bullet strike, so the "Coat Bulge" at Z224
shows a bullet strike at Z222.
* The camera jiggle at Z227 implies a bullet strike at Z221 or Z222.
Now, this website shows other actions between Z222 and Z223, like
Connally's right wrist being pushed down.
**********
It's interesting that back in the 1980's, Dr. Lattimer thought that
Connally's right hand was resting on his left knee. This would allow him
to push off the knee to turn more sharply right. And the wound locations
were consistent with this.
But this website makes it clear that his right hand was well off the knee
and it was just a coincidence that the wounds to his wrist and thigh ended
up being where they were.
******************************
JFK's forward movement being caused by a sudden braking of the limousine
was never a serious theory. Typically, a vehicle with good brakes can
decelerate at about 0.5 G's. JFK's sudden head movement, from being still
up till Z312, then suddenly moving forward 2.3 inches between Z312 and
Z312, shows a change of speed of 2.2 mph within 1/18.3th of a second and a
deceleration of 4.0 G's, clearly way beyond the braking power of the
limousine. If the brakes were this good, the limousine could go from 87
mph to 0 mph in one second.
Anthony Marsh
The message said Col. Prouty. I had lunch with Fletcher Prouty at one
of the conferences.
> Well, just checking, Marsh. I can't quite figure out whether you
> concluded ol' Les was a kook or not. :-)
>
I did not say that my test of his bona fides was to determine if he was
a kook or not. I had already determined that. Same with Morrow.
It's like the guy here who claims to be a CIA officer, but doesn't even
know what Yankee Blue means.
Andrew Mason
Well, it is not the window glass or frame supporting the roll bar and it
is not the roll bar. It is above the side of the car so it is something
in the car. I agree with Vincent. (he has posted some new GIFs on this
issue at: http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
It has to be JBC's cuff. So if that is his cuff, his hand must be close by.
>If it were his cuff, we should see the hat very close to it
> as well.
Do we know that his hat was in his right hand at that point? I thought
there was some suggestion that he was just switching it from his left to
his right hand there.
>
>
>
>>>Connally is holing his Stetson (like any good Texan would) at this point.
>>>Now, look at Connally's hat.
>
>
>>Where is his hat in z223?
>
>
> On the left side of Connally's body. You see sunlight reflecting off of it
> in 222, 223, 225, and later, but it's not as obvious in 224. Can't say
> why, maybe because it quickly fell into and out of shadow.
>
>
>
>>I can see his cuff and what I think is the hat in 222 but it has dropped out
>>of sight in 223. Remarkably, his jacket front follows the hand and opens up.
>>In 224 the hand is moving up again and you can see it in z225. Again,
>>remarkably, the jacket front follows the hand and closes up.
>>See:http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
>
>
> All I have to say is ??????????????????????????????????????????? No. Wait.
> That was an absolute, stinking, total lie on my part. Sorry. You can't
> even see his hand here. The best you can do is the cuff of his shirt, if
> it really is the cuff, and even that only appears in one frame. Yet you
> have his hand flitting about the cabin like an escaped parakeet!
It isn't that difficult if his hand is visible in z222 but not in 223
but it is in 225!. His hand had to go down from 222-223 and up from
223-225! How is that flitting? It is just down and up.
Andrew Mason
>
> MST
Vincent
>
> The fact remains that everyone in the limousine was moving forward both
> before and after the head shot. So, your conclusion must be that they were
> all shot in the back of the head?
Wathever. As I said yesterday, now that it is clear that I am just
opposing mere facts (look at the pics) to your faith ("they are all
moving"), I will let you with your little prayer.
Anthony Marsh
Well, obviously you can't answer a simple question, so you demonize.
Vincent
Vincent wrote:
>> I think I got it.
>> It is some kind of prayer, is it?
>> I mean, there is no point in LOOKING at the facts because you have the
>> TRUTH, hu?
>> I am sorry, Anthony, I am here to discuss facts, not to hear about your
>> religious beliefs.
>>
>
> Well, obviously you can't answer a simple question, so you demonize.
Not at all, I have the greatest respect for religious beliefs, wathever
they are :-) But they are religious beliefs, not to be discussed here.
BTW, I think you usenet client is incorrectly settled, as my clinet
apparently cannot sort out how to quote your messages. Would it be set to
sending message in HTML? That might be the issue.
Anthony Marsh
Vincent wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> a =E9crit dans le message d=
e news:=20
> XLednXkwMaWwwQzb...@comcast.com...
> Vincent wrote:
>>> I think I got it.
>>> It is some kind of prayer, is it?
>>> I mean, there is no point in LOOKING at the facts because you have th=
e=20
>>> TRUTH, hu?
>>> I am sorry, Anthony, I am here to discuss facts, not to hear about yo=
ur=20
>>> religious beliefs.
>>>
>> Well, obviously you can't answer a simple question, so you demonize.
>
> Not at all, I have the greatest respect for religious beliefs, wathever
> they are :-) But they are religious beliefs, not to be discussed here.
>
I was not talking about religious beliefs. I was talking about
scientific facts.
> BTW, I think you usenet client is incorrectly settled, as my clinet
> apparently cannot sort out how to quote your messages. Would it be set to
> sending message in HTML? That might be the issue.
HTML is not used in this newsgroup. Occasionally you may see some strange
messages with strange characters and may be from people cutting and
pasting from a word processor with enhancing codes. Sometimes HTML codes
will get translated into equivalent ASCII text.
Most newsreaders are able to automatically quote and prefix the original
message with some standard character such as ">." You may need to go into
OPTIONS to change that character.
Vincent
>
> Most newsreaders are able to automatically quote and prefix the original
> message with some standard character such as ">." You may need to go into
> OPTIONS to change that character.
My newsreader is set to that option, but I was having a problem with some
of your messages, hence I thought it might be due to the format of your
newsreader. But on this message for instance, no problem, so I am clueless
as to what may have happened.
tomnln
Your request is HERE>>>
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183587803....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 4, 1:49?am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>> > Dave,
>>
>> > I used one of these excellent clips in my presentation at the
>> > Warren
>> > Commission symposium in Washington a couple of years ago. In the
>> > audience
>> > was Josiah Thompson, who saw the whole thing and after my presentation
>> > refused to admit that the head went forward. I was stunned, because it
>> > so
>> > obviously does. Reminds me of the new NAA guys...
>>
>> And I showed you my meticulous frame by frame analysis at your symposium
>> which proved that everyone was moving forward and yet you still refuse to
>> admit that simple fact. Even after looking at David Wimp's GIF you refuse
>> to admit that Kellerman moved forward. I am stunned, because it is so
>> obvious to any reasonable person.
>
>
> Is there a URL for your frame-by-frame analysis?
>
> It's been some years since I viewed David Wimp's study, and it seems
> to have disappeared from the Web, along with the rest of Ron Hepler's
> website. Do you know where I can find it online?
>
> Dave
>
>
>> > "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1183442226.1...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> >> David Von Pein referred to a page of this site in a recent post, but I
>> >> wanted to draw some further attention to it. It's the work of a
>> >> researcher named Vincent Vandevoorde, and it contains, among other
>> >> things, some skillfully constructed animated GIFs depicting JFK and
>> >> Gov. Connally's reactions to the "SBT" bullet strike, and a very clear
>> >> image of the forward motion of JFK's head (and no one else's) between
>> >> Z312 and 313.
>>
>> >>http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
>>
>> >>http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>>
>> >>http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
>>
>> >> Dave
>
>