Re: Z-film, JFK Forward Motion @ 230

On May 22, 3:08=A0am, clarkwilk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> 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 im****tant version is the
> > real-time speed, as the camera and the eye sees it actually happen.
>
> We've all seen the film. =A0They 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 ****tion 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. =A0Tell 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 sup****ts
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