[Ben Holmes]

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

(01-01-2017, 12:40 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You tried to explain why there's no apparent slowdown in the Zapruder film.

No I didn't. Go back and read what I had written. I clearly state that the Limo slowed down, and probably slowed down more that what the average viewer may percieve.

Then all your "explanations" why a side view of the limo would not have shown it's true speed was simply talk with no goal in mind.

Okay.

But the "average" viewer can't see a slowdown in the Zapruder film that matches the eyewitness accounts of a dramatic slowdown and/or stop.
 

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:This fact simply cannot explain the lack of a slowdown being seen in the extant Zapruder film. It's much like arguing that the limo was heavier due to it's speed, and while precisely true, means absolutely nothing.

Ditto with your "explanation" of why the limo's speed wasn't visible in the Zapruder film.

I'm sorry Ben, I just don't know how to respond to this. This comment is just silly.

There is slowdown evident in the Zapruer film Ben, and your analogy is not accurate at all.

Sadly, you can't cite a SINGLE source stating that there was a slowdown "evident" in the Zapruder film that pre-dates the Alvarez frame by frame measurements that detected a slowdown.

That's a fact that demolishes your assertion.

 

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:...where you raise the suspicion of alteration, then spend the rest of the post refuting it.

Um, no. I am not refuting that. I am just merely pointing out the slight speed distortion evident in the changing angle. This is something to consider. The Zapruder Film could be altered, or this could be just another disinformation rabbit-hole like Badgeman.

The fact that it can be synchronized with the Nix and Muchmore Films makes one wonder if frames were removed at all, or that all three Films were altered. These both should be considered in my opinion.
One could easily turn the speeds into real numbers and graphs and compare them. 

So you admit the possibility of alteration...

Good.

Nice to have you on record as stating that.

Now, explain the lack of "First Frame Flash" at Z-132/133 in terms other than alteration...

I predict you won't...

Nor will you explain why there's a slowdown quite evident in the Nix that cannot be seen in the extant Zapruder film. Indeed, you claim that these two films show the same thing.

 

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Have you ever filmed a passing train within a span of a few hundred feet, and noted that it's speed wasn't consistent with what was seen with the naked eye?

No I havent. But looking that the train traveling at a constant speed, the apparent speed can change. Would you not agreee that the train appears to be travelling faster when it is two feet away at 0 degrees that when it is 600 ft away at 60 degrees?
It's not that the Zaparuder Film shows less speed, it is that the Zapruder film has an apparent speed differential because of the perspective, and when the maximum apparent speed was supposed to be at the maximum (orthogonal), the Limo was actually at it's lowest true speed. 
If you don't want to understand this and keep misframing my posts in the most ridiculous fashion, than whatever.

The next time you claim I'm "misframing" your posts without documenting it, I'm going to label you a liar. I'm quoting your EXACT WORDS, then responding to EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE SAID.

Your argument is nonsense... the CLEAREST view of a limo stop is going to be when the object is even with the viewer, and not far forward or far back...

You clearly agree that the most accurate view is going to be directly alongside the limo - AND THAT IS THE POINT WHERE PEOPLE AGREED THAT IT SLOWED DOWN OR CAME TO A STOP.

And despite your claim to the contrary, such a dramatic slowdown as reported by the eyewitnesses cannot be seen by the casual viewer of the extant Zapruder film.

This would be easy to prove... simply get a group of people who've never viewed the film before... and show it 10 times in both full speed and in slow motion, then ask them to write down everything they believe they saw. You'll never see anyone describing either a dramatic slowdown or a brief stop - as several dozen eyewitnesses did.

But you'll never perform such an experiment... because you know what the results would be, don't you?

That you can't even admit this fact tells the tale, doesn't it?

 

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:I don't. Nor have I stated that I did... yet you imply that I have... why is that?

You said "most people would agree you", or that "most people would agree that I haven't made a point" or some arrogantly disparaging crap like that a few posts ago.

You confidently asserted what most people would think about my post.

The fact that you keep snipping the content shows that you know you're lying, wouldn't you say?
 
Why not quote me saying what you claimed I'd said?

Can't?

Why not?

I predict you'll refuse to answer this point.

Because unless you can quote me saying what you've claimed I said, everyone can tell who's "misframing" posts.


P.S. Interestingly, you snipped and refused to answer my challenge from my last post to explain what you were trying to do in the first post. Looks like I was absolutely correct.