On 22 Feb, 23:52, Raymond <Bluerhy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:41=EF=BF=BDpm, Walt <papakochenb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Jan, 17:16, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > The photograph taken by AP photographer, James Altgens at the
> > > equivalent of Zapruder frame, 255, provides us with an excellent,
> > > objective means to timestamp many critical witness recollections
> > > related to the timing of theshots.
>
> The camera was not filming at 18.3 frames per second, and as the Bard
> would say, " Herein lies the rub."
Even if Zapruder's camera were running at 18.3 fps if the film has ben
altered then it cannot be used to verify the chronology of events seen
in the film. I've refrained from using the Z film to verify the
chronology because I believe it's worthless as way of proving what
happened when. I'm absolutely sure that the Lincoln did NOT maintain
a steady speed from the corner of Houston and Elm streets to the
stairs leading to the pergola on the north side of Elm street. Many
years ago, I plotted the position of the car on Elm street using many
photos to determine where it was at a given time. There's no doubt
that the car slowed and may have come to a complete stop when it was
directly in front of The Newman family who werestanding on the north
curb of Elm street.
>
> THE CAMERA WAS FILMING AT 16 FRAMES PER SECOND AS IT WAS
> DESIGNED TO DO and this adds 15% to every calculation offered by the
> Warren Wizards
> .
> The FBI also did some math and that is where the 18.3 FPS figure
> was originally born:
>
> They viewed the film on a PROJECTOR that was showing the film at
> 18.3 FPS. A camera and a projector do not always run at the same
> speed
> especially in 1963. Six projectors may give six different results
>
> THUS 486 FRAMES DIVIDED BY THE 26.5 seonds it took to view =3D 18.339622
> FRAMES PER SECOND.
>
> FROM SA SHANEYFELT TESTIMONY;
> =C2=A0 MR. SPECTER: HOW WAS THE SPEED OF THE CAMERA ASCERTAINED?
>
> =C2=A0 WE OBTAINED FROM MR. ZAPRUDER, MR. NIX, MRS. MUNCHMORE THEIR
CAMERA=
S
> FOR EXAMINATION, AND IN THE FBI LABORATORY EXPOSED FILM IN ALL THREE
> CAMERAS AIMING AND FOCUSING THE CAMERA ON A CLOCK WITH A LARGE SWEEP
> SECOND HAND... =C2=A0READ VOL. 5, p. 159-160.
>
> Since the Zapruder camera was filming at 16 fps, it would have taken
> 30.375 seconds to film 486 frames. The difference in time between 16
> fps and 18.3 fps.=3D3.875 seconds or 14.6% to every calculation reached
> by the
> FBI and the WC.
>
> The difference would have made the shots possible within the time
> frame involved. At 18.3 fps only 1.8 seconds is involved , allegedly
> too short of firing time for the shooter to reload and fire . At 16
> fps it would have been easy shooting.
>
> What is often not appreciated is that ANY lone-gunman shooting
> scenario requires us to believe that one of the shots completely
> missed the entire limousine. How could even an average marksman have
> missed the whole limousine with any of his shots?
>
> Most WC sup****ters now claim that the Carcano's firing time has been
> reduced to 1.66 seconds per shot. Says Gerald Posner,
>
> According to the Warren Commission, the fastest he [the alleged lone
> assassin] could have fired all three shots was 4.5 seconds. However,
> that minimum is now out of date. CBS reconstructed the shooting for a
> 1975 do***entary. Eleven volunteer marksmen took turns firing clips of
> three bullets at a moving target. None of them had dry runs with the
> Carcano's bolt action, as Oswald had had almost daily while in New
> Orleans. Yet the times ranged from 4.1 seconds, almost half a second
> faster than what the Warren Commission thought was possible, to
> slightly more than 6 seconds, with the average being 5.6 seconds, and
> two out of three hits on the target. Based on its 1977 reconstruction
> tests, the House Select Committee lowered the time between shots on
> the Carcano to 1.66 seconds, with the shooter hitting all the targets.
> (Posner, CASE CLOSED, p. 318)
>
> And, at least the Commission admitted it was hard to believe the
> alleged lone gunman could have missed the entire limousine with his
> first and closest shot, and the Commission also noted that the first
> shot was usually the most accurate. =C2=A0At Zapruder 160 the
sixth-floor
> gunman would have been firing at the limousine from a distance of less
> than 140 feet, and from 60 feet up and with a target moving away from
> the shooter. How could even a mediocre rifleman have possibly missed
> the entire car from such a distance? One can imagine that the gunman
> could have completely missed Kennedy: Perhaps he fired at Kennedy's
> head and just missed the target by a fraction of an inch. But the
> entire limousine? How?
>
> Besides, were there really three shots fired from the TSBD ?
>
> The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels
> the
> conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed
> previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital
> and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile,
> which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came
> from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.
>
> The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was
> provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges
> which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that
> fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the
> assassin carried AN EMPTY SHELL in the rifle and fired only two
> shots,
> with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot.
>
> Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the
> scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was
> widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be
> subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the
> conclusion
> that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the
> evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the
> Commission
> to conclude that there were three shots fired.
>
> Warren Comm Re****t pp 110-111
>
> Many people know about this discrepency, but are not sufficiently
> interested in the JFK coup to get involved. Those that like to argue,
> without doing their own sincere research , always refer one to Ronald
> Zavada, a well known name in the discussion. Don't waste your time
> with Ron . You will get a lot of double talk =C2=A0I sure did. Ron
bought
> six
> used cameras like Zapruder's and used "loop" testing. One camera
> was defective and the results of the remaining camers were used to
> create an average at the same 18.3 frames per second as the WC.
> How odd that he could manage that with six used cameras and one
> not working. Hmmmm !
>
> I could also if I was paid enough...
> .
> Don't take my word . Do the research yourself. It will take
> considerable
> time but there is a great deal of evidence to prove that the camera
> was not filming at 18.3 frames per second.
>
>
>
> > Bob, I know that you're aware that there is a problem with stating
> > that James Altgens took that photo concurrent with frame 255 of the Z
> > film. =EF=BF=BDDPD motorcycle officer, James Cheney is directly beside
t=
he
> > right hand side of the Lincoln in James Altgen's photo, but he is NOT
> > there at frame 255 of Zapruder's film. =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDI believe
the =
Altgen's photo
> > is proof that the Z film is not authentic..... =EF=BF=BDYou can
believe =
what
> > ever you want, but you should at least deal with the FACTS.
>
> > > This works because a number of witnesses who are visible in the
> > > photograph, described hearing two gunshots after events that we can
> > > see, had not yet happened when the picture was taken. Here are some
> > > examples.
>
> > > 1. SA Hickey said he was looking to his left when he heard the first
o=
f
> > >threeshots. He said he then turned to his right, partially stood up,
> > > and looked directly to the rear. He taid he then turned back to the
> > > front, just in time to hear twoshots, one of them striking the
> > > President.
>
> > > But at Z255, we can see that Hickey is still turned, fully facing
the
> > > rear. He is yet to turn to look at the President and is yet to hear
> > > those twoshots.
>
> > > 2. SA Warren Taylor said he heard one shot, and shortly afterward,
> > > stepped out of the car. He said just as his foot hit the pavement ,
he=
> > > heard two moreshots.
>
> > > But at Z255, we can easily see that although the door is wide open,
he=
> > > has not yet taken that step. He has yet to do so and is yet to hear
> > > those twoshots.
>
> > > 3. Hwy Patrolman Milton Wright, the driver of the mayor's car said
he
> > > heard twoshotsafter turning off of Houston onto Elm and then
> > > traveling about 30 feet.
>
> > > In the Altgens photo, the mayor's car, which is next in line after
the=
> > > car Taylor was in, is nowhere to be seen. It has yet to make that
turn=
,
> > > and Wright is yet to hear those twoshots.
>
> > > 4. SA Glen Bennett said he was looking at the crowd to his right
when
> > > he heard heard one shot, and then turned frontward to see the
Presiden=
t
> > > just in time to hear a gunshot, which he (mistakenly) believed
struck
> > > Kennedy's back. He said the fatal head shot then followed
> > > "immediately".
>
> > > But in blowups of the Altgens photo, we can see that Bennett is
*still=
*
> > > turned to his right as he said he was before those finalshots, and
as
> > > we can see him in earlier photos. He will turn to the front later,
and=
> > > then hear those twoshotswhich he thought struck the President's back
> > > and head.
>
> > > Of course, these are only a few of the witnesses whom we can
timestamp=
> > > through the photos and films. For example, every nonvictim in the
> > > Presidential limousine said he turned to examine either the
President
> > > or Gov. Connally, and *then* heard multipleshotsor in Jackie's case,
> > > "terrible noises". In each case, we can see that those turns were
not
> > > carried out until the Z250's or later.
>
> > > Combined with the overwhelming majority of witnesses all throughout
DP=
> > > who said the finalshotswere bunched closely together, these
witnesses
> > > form a very solid consensus proving in a multitude of different
ways,
> > > that the finalshotswere bunched closely together.
>
> > > And finally, we can pinpoint at least one of the finalshots, inthree
> > > different ways.
>
> > > 1. Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez's determination
tha=
t
> > > there was a loud noise that startled Abraham Zapruder at frame Z285
> > > (Alvarez guessed that a siren may have been the cause).
>
> > > 2. Statements by Charles Brehm, corroborated by four witnesses
standin=
g
> > > near him, that a shot was fired just as the President passed
directly
> > > in front of him and was just 15 feet away. This is *exactly*
> > > where Kennedy was, relative to Brehm at Z285. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > =EF=BF=BD3. Beginning 1/3 of a second after Z285, every nonvictim in
t=
he
> > > =EF=BF=BDlimousine either ducked, dropping his/her head by 30 or
more =
degrees,
> > > =EF=BF=BDand/or spun rapidly around, all beginning in the same 1/6th
o=
f a
> > > =EF=BF=BDsingle second. The
>
> ...
>
> read more =C2=BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
