It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by ThreadTrekker
Hey there ThreadTrekker, thanks for that great, thought-out post!
I do have to say though I disagree with some of what you said. Like this for example:
One thing I note about Oswald is that over and over again people mention that he was not an expert with a rifle. I don't know what most people consider an expert to be, but in my opinion, Oswald would most defintely qualify as an expert.
Oswald was trained in the Marines yes, and he did acquire the level of "sharpshooter" but he was anything but an expert. My goodness he wasn't even close. Hell, he was often teased and called names I can't repeat here due to the terms and conditions by the other marines because of his poor skills with shooting a weapon.
In regards to reaching the level of sharpshooter, well, yes he did do this. But only by a mere 2 points. The level of sharpshooter being the second of 3 grades of marksmanship so It's not like he blitzed the test. He barely made it at all.
Sure he was trained to shoot a weapon, that's undoubtedly true. But he was certainly no expert let along particularly good. But don't take my word for it, there's plenty of sources out there citing comments from his marine buddies. One of the most well known from the beginning of the documentary Rush to judgement where Nelson Delgado is interviewed by Mark Lane.
He's also showed signs of being less than adequate with guns. He did shoot himself at one point while in the marines remember. And again, he was often teased for his relatively poor skills.
I think it is a safe assumption that he COULD have accomplished the shooting
I think it all depends on the timing of the shots really.
After all if there really was a shot at frame 285 for example, which there appears to be and this is also when Connolly says himself he was struck, then there's simply no way he could've accomplished a shot at frame 313 - the head shot.
I'm wondering if anyone else saw the documentary produced a few years ago where they recreated a 3D model of the Dealey Plaza in the computer and animated it and included the shots recorded from the motorcyle. They also created, with considerable effort, human torso models and put them in a the same arrangement as Kennedy and Connally -- then shot them. The results were very similar to what was concluded in the official report.
Ahh yes, the work of Dale Myers. Here's the video:
I'm still not convinced though. And I highlighted exactly why in my opening posts. To accept this computer animation would be to reject other parts of the case which have to be considered..
I'm curious to know which other parts of the case you think need to be considered....
Mr. Harris makes the foolish claim that he can measure a two dimensional still frame of a computer rendering of the presidential limousine and it’s occupants (as culled from the Discovery Channel program, “Beyond the Magic Bullet”) and determine the angle of a three-dimensional trajectory from the sniper’s nest. Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the underlying principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it is impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human science, Mr. Harris is able to do both.
"What Mr. Harris doesn’t know is that the two renderings (wireframe and solid form) depict THE SAME MODEL [Myers' emphasis]. "That’s right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been “jammed together” in order to mislead the American public and perpetuate the cover-up, is the EXACT SAME MODEL [Myers' emphasis] (and in the same position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts Kennedy and Connally correctly.
Chapter 12c is a discussion of Myers' animation. It shows why I think it was nonsense, and includes Myers' response to my claims. It's pretty conclusive, IMO.
There are so many problems with his animation it's tough to summarize. But let's start with this one...
From chapter 12c:
Since Myers had admitted his lack of interest in accurately depicting the bullet holes on Kennedy's clothes, it occurred to me that he would deliberately ignore other aspects of the shooting as well, should they not fit in with his agenda. I decided to watch his animation in slow mo and see if it depicted Kennedy's head snap between frames 193 and 198 of the Zapruder film. Not surprisingly, it did not. The sequence of the film of which HSCA photographic panel spokesman Calvin S. McCamy had noted "At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next" was left off Myer's animated version of the shooting, and replaced by Kennedy smoothly waving to his right and calmly turning to face straight ahead just before being shot.
I re-read Myers' website to see if this omission had an explanation. Like most people, I'd assumed he'd created his animation by drawing over the frames of the Z-film, and had meticulously compared his animation to the film in order to spot any inaccuracies. In his award-winning program Beyond Conspiracy, Peter Jennings had, after all, spouted that "Myers has generated an exacting computer simulation of the Zapruder film. He began by constructing a 3-Dimensional scale model of Dealey Plaza...On top of the Zapruder film, he then animated the movements of President Kennedy and Governor Connally, frame by frame." computer Graphics World, in January 2004, had, after all, said much the same thing, reporting: "After building the models and the background, Myers worked frame by frame.." and then quoting Myers' claim that, once he determined the precise positions of Kennedy and Connally in the car, and enlarged the portion of the film showing both men in center frame, "we had a frame-for-frame digital match of the Zapruder film."
And these were not the only claims that the film was re-produced frame for frame and was exact. In March 2004, Broadcast Engineering jumped on board, informing its readers that, as early as 1995, Myers' wire-frame models "matched each frame of the only real-time visual record of the event"...the Zapruder film. The importance of this "exactness" to the popular acceptance of Myers' work, and the programs in which it's been featured, moreover, can not be overstated. To this day, Tivo summarizes the program Beyond Conspiracy as "An exact computer simulation of the famous Zapruder film offers surprising results."
Well, it turned out that this "exactness", like so much of the hype about Myers' animation, was not exactly true. On his website, Myers admits:
"The clearest frames of the Zapruder film were sought for positioning JFK and JBC in order to minimize any errors. Key frame positions were generally placed at half-second intervals throughout the recreation, although tighter keying patterns (1-5 frame intervals) were employed during Zapruder frames 220-238, and 312-330.
The resulting animation was spot checked against the original Zapruder film to insure an accurate representation. Where "drifting" was detected, additional key frames were used to nail down the action.
It took six weeks to complete the key frame process, after which a test render was produced. The resulting animation was a computer generated "hand-held" version of the Zapruder film. In essence, the key frame process had created a motion file of Zapruder's camera in 3D space. Stepping through each frame of the animation revealed how Zapruder held his camera while trying to follow the limousine as it moved down Elm Street."
Yes, you got that right. Myers' supposedly precise re-creation was only compared against the film every nine frames (or "half second") prior to frame 220! My, ain't that convenient! The HSCA photographic panel said they believed Kennedy was hit just before he went behind the sign, well before frame 220, but Myers either never saw fit to intensely study this part of the film or deliberately avoided studying it because it would destroy the illusion he'd tasked himself with creating.
It's not as if Myers was unaware of the HSCA's conclusions. As pointed out by Milicent Cranor in her excellent essay on Myers entitled Lies for the Eyes, in 1994 Myers wrote an article for a magazine called Video Toaster User, and claimed "The House Select Committee on Assassinations interpreted the blurry images between Z-189 and Z-197 as an indication that JFK had been shot... It appeared... that JFK's right hand 'froze' at this point. However, the computer re-creation reveals something else -- a sharp, abrupt continuation of JFK's turn to his right... it is clear that the president was tracking the women at curbside."
This is not only hard-to-believe, it is truly disgusting. Apparently Myers was so intent on studying individual frames of the film--Kennedy's right ear in frame 198 can indeed be confused with his nose--that he forgot to study the pictures in motion--which make it abundantly clear Kennedy suddenly turned to his left (and NOT right) at this point. That Myers attributed this non-existent turn to the right to Kennedy's womanizing is, furthermore, suggestive of a dislike for JFK, and indicative that perhaps this dislike had clouded his vision and led him to conclude the HSCA photography panel had simply been seeing things.
Speaking of seeing things... Myers' discussion of his methodology makes it clear that he picked out a frame from sometime before Kennedy went behind the sign, and then another as Kennedy emerged, and created a nice, flowing, COMPLETELY IMAGINARY depiction of what happened in between. He then convinced the media that this depiction, pulled straight from his imagination, somehow debunked the HSCA's conclusion that Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign. Simply incredible!
1. He always claims to be an agnostic about the Kennedy assassination, and only interested in the photographic evidence. And yet, here he offers up a rare bit of info, that only those who've studied the case would know, which is unrelated to the photographic evidence. Either he's studied the case more than he'll admit, or someone tipped him off.
2. That bit of info is that there's a reason Myers' Connally appeared to be a midget in the animation used in Beyond the Magic Bullet. And the reason is that the producers of the program filmed Myers' animation off a monitor...from the side! This changed the relative proportions of Kennedy and Connally.
3. By offering up a "sigh" Craig suggests that the Connally midget is a harmless anomaly, when it is almost certainly a deliberate deception. When I first brought up the Connally midget some years ago, Myers responded in a similarly condescending manner, and suggested that only an idiot would not realize that the producers of the program--for no good reason whatsoever--would FEATURE an animated depiction of the Kennedy assassination filmed at an angle off a monitor. Fortunately, a few of Myers' biggest defenders, including David Von Pein, admitted that they too had been fooled, and that they had never suspected that the close-up views of the animation--in which the the borders of the monitor had been cropped off--had been filmed at an angle.
4. Craig also fails to admit that, by admitting the animation was filmed at an angle, he is admitting that the single-bullet shot doesn't align. You see, the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet added a digital trajectory line over the distorted animation, and GUESS WHAT--it pointed back to the sniper's nest! Even die-hard lone-nutters should be able to see that this means that the trajectory would not align if the figures had not been distorted.
You can be surprised if you'd like. I'm only addressing the work of Meyers and ignoring eye witness testimony and recollection because most of it seems to conflict and we all know that memories cannot be relied on for accuracy.
The fact that you don't care what Meyers says is a pretty good indication that you've made up your mind and aren't willing to entertain opposing viewpoints and/or data that may conflict with your opinion. How can you remain objective with that sort of mind set?
Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Blarneystoner
So we're to ignore the opinion of the person who was actually struck inside of the limousine? That's nothing short of ridiculous. As investigators the one and only opinion we should take absolutely seriously would be Connolly's.
With all due respect but I have a sneaking suspicion you're doing pretty much the same thing, but in favour of Meyers and his animation. He's fooled a lot of people with that unfortunately.
The funny thing is I even think the single bullet theory is actually quite possible, perhaps even plausible, when I think about it. Did this shot come from the Texas school book depository 6th floor window though? No, absolutely not. In the Meyers animation Connolly had to be placed much closer to Kennedy and he was changed from the big man he was, to a man much smaller than Kennedy to make it work.
A shot from the dal-tex building second floor however would give us a perfect angle to make the theory work - Of course though that doesn't fit with the Sole assassin theory therefore it's immediately rejected. One single career criminal was arrested that day in Dealey plaza also, this was Jim Braden inside the Dal-Tex building as highlighted in this video. All of this being so I still don't buy it mainly because we can see clear reactions inside the limousine from a shot at around frame 285 of the Z-film and a shot at this time fit's perfectly with Connolly's own recollection of the assassination - a recollection he's always maintained. Nellie also. In fact here's a video on youtube that was posted literally hours go now, It's worth taking some time out to give it a watch.
To ignore Connolly's own recollection, this being a man who was inside the limousine and is at the heart of the single bullet theory, is a huge mistake. No true investigator would ignore him just because it doesn't fit with the official story.
Ok... then how do you account for JBC's testimony stating that: "I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd..." which occured at frame 157 of the Zapruder film.
Again, I have no idea where anyone can see a clear reaction at Z-285. It's obvious to me that they are already reacting to the shot that struck the President and JBC at Z-223-224
OK... let's try to keep this civil. Accusing me of not playing fair and deliberately trying to deceive or sway opinion n using dishonorable tactics is not going to get you anywhere. I'm merely offering counter points to your assertion that Meyer's aimation is invalid. Most of those arguments come directly from Meyer's websites.
IIf you feel you must insult anyone who offers counter viewpoints then I'll leave you to your insulated opinions....
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by Rising Against
No worries... I apologize as well. I wasn't aware that there was more to the quote because it was taken directly from Meyer's site. Happy New Year friend.
I cannot tell you how mezmorized I am by the murder of JFK. I have read many books on the subject, including Marrs.
Furthermore, I believe your declaration of being "on the fence", is disingenuous because there is no way that you could delve into all of the material that you have so graciously laid out for all of us and remain ambivalent.