Bob Lilly wrote:Jim,I see what you mean. The muzzle flash is reflecting from lens. Someone suggested that it could be the sun reflecting from the lens but I think not. Note that at 1230 the sun would be high in the southern sky, behind Nix. Also he has to rotate another forty degrees to the left near the end of the film when we see the sun reflect off the door of the Limo. But I suppose this could be a reflection on the lens caused by the super hot gases of the primer. Bob
Right, Bob, if you freeze frame on the three blue streaks & screen capture ( http://www.wisdom-soft.com/products/screenhunter.htm ) & then magnify you get more of an optics effect as of reflected light. The sun reflection off the limo is good comparison which shows lens' optics which confirm the three blue streaks as muzzle flash reflection. If this is correct, then you have hit the VC sniper's scope! BAM! This corroborates the grassy knoll & Jimmy F.
Proof of the Knoll Shot: The Smoking Gun?
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Proof of the Knoll Shot: The Smoking Gun?
Bob Lilly wrote:In the NIX film we can see what looks like the muzzle flash of the knoll shot. There are two versions here. In the longer one the muzzle flash occurs about second number 11. In the shorter version it occures right at the beginning. Set your viewer to repeat. Study the top left corner of the screen (do not look at kennedy until you are comfortable about the flash location). The flash extends from outside the left of screen (behind picket fence?) downward and to the right from the top corner of the wall and tracing across the shadow of the wall. Note that the location, trajectory and timing are all perfect as a split second later a chuck of kennedy's head flies off to the rear. There are other interesting things on this film but is this the prrof, the "smoking gun"?http://www.jfk-online.com/1nix.html
Although I'm convinced the shot came from behind the pergola and the picket fence, this 'muzzle flash' seems too far fetched to me. A gun and a muzzle are round objects. The reflection of a round object is much smaller than if there would have been someone with a large flat object, like a mirror. I'm not much of a film or photography expert, but this looks more like an artifact to me. If you have ever developed a roll of film, you know what can happen. If you accidentally bend or fold the celluloid you can get a typical cone shaped dent in the celluloid. Because of the slight temperature increase (as a result of the dent) colors on the film change. No doubt in my mind this film (like all the others) have been handled improperly, thus causing the dent. Most copies of the Z film seem to have been cut up and altered, the Moorman Polaroid looks like it was shot with a DIN/ASA film close to 1 (one), and even the picture of Oswald being shot by Ruby is retouched in such a way that you can see the gun painted in Ruby's hand. The Nix film has probably been jerked out of the processing machine, or put in the projector in the wrong way. Again, no doubt the 'flash' is not a photography item. Just try to dent an old negative, you'll be able to create your own 'muzzle flash'.
Although I'm convinced the shot came from behind the pergola and the picket fence, this 'muzzle flash' seems too far fetched to me. A gun and a muzzle are round objects. The reflection of a round object is much smaller than if there would have been someone with a large flat object, like a mirror. I'm not much of a film or photography expert, but this looks more like an artifact to me. If you have ever developed a roll of film, you know what can happen. If you accidentally bend or fold the celluloid you can get a typical cone shaped dent in the celluloid. Because of the slight temperature increase (as a result of the dent) colors on the film change. No doubt in my mind this film (like all the others) have been handled improperly, thus causing the dent. Most copies of the Z film seem to have been cut up and altered, the Moorman Polaroid looks like it was shot with a DIN/ASA film close to 1 (one), and even the picture of Oswald being shot by Ruby is retouched in such a way that you can see the gun painted in Ruby's hand. The Nix film has probably been jerked out of the processing machine, or put in the projector in the wrong way. Again, no doubt the 'flash' is not a photography item. Just try to dent an old negative, you'll be able to create your own 'muzzle flash'.
Mark,
Thanks for your comments. So many doubting what we see here. The Proof:
1. The head shot could never have come from the pergola because it would have hit Jackie in the face.
2. The muzzle flash clearly comes from left of the screen on a direct path to kenney's head. Comes from above the picket fence along the tree line. It removes the skull cap as is obviously seen.
3. The flash could travel 150 feet in 1/10 of a second and may have impacted kenedys face with debris as I remember he looked to be about 50 yards away when the shot was taken.
4. Its cone shapped because it is expanding.
5. Keep studying the film. A moment after impact, when kennedy has past the point of being hit, lo and behold along the same trajectory exactly as the flash travelled comes white looking debris at a slower speed. Could this packing wad prove the flash was from a gun?
Thanks for your comments. So many doubting what we see here. The Proof:
1. The head shot could never have come from the pergola because it would have hit Jackie in the face.
2. The muzzle flash clearly comes from left of the screen on a direct path to kenney's head. Comes from above the picket fence along the tree line. It removes the skull cap as is obviously seen.
3. The flash could travel 150 feet in 1/10 of a second and may have impacted kenedys face with debris as I remember he looked to be about 50 yards away when the shot was taken.
4. Its cone shapped because it is expanding.
5. Keep studying the film. A moment after impact, when kennedy has past the point of being hit, lo and behold along the same trajectory exactly as the flash travelled comes white looking debris at a slower speed. Could this packing wad prove the flash was from a gun?
Mark,
Have reread your comments.
Please understand that I am not talking about a reflextion of a muzzle which is round. The muzzle flash is the burning gases and debris that are ejected from the barrel end. Additionally, this could never have been caused by a crease or bending of the film as it prgresses from left to right. Look in slow motion and see the flash expand from left to right. It is animated not etched. Please let me have your further thoughts.
Bob
Have reread your comments.
Please understand that I am not talking about a reflextion of a muzzle which is round. The muzzle flash is the burning gases and debris that are ejected from the barrel end. Additionally, this could never have been caused by a crease or bending of the film as it prgresses from left to right. Look in slow motion and see the flash expand from left to right. It is animated not etched. Please let me have your further thoughts.
Bob
-
Mark de Rooij
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Bob Lilly wrote:Mark,Have reread your comments.Please understand that I am not talking about a reflextion of a muzzle which is round. The muzzle flash is the burning gases and debris that are ejected from the barrel end. Additionally, this could never have been caused by a crease or bending of the film as it prgresses from left to right. Look in slow motion and see the flash expand from left to right. It is animated not etched. Please let me have your further thoughts. Bob
again, I'm not trying to discredit any conspiracy theory bacause am convinced there was one. But the muzzle flash, either reflection or gasses expanding from the barrel, that's just one I do not believe in. A lot of people have been talking of puffs of smoke from a gun. This is not a puff of smoke from a gun, this looks more like the eruption when a canonball is shot from a canon on the Bounty. I was very pleased with the test Wim Dankbaar did on the second part of this great documentary he did for Dutch TV. He tested the Remington Files claimed to have used. It turned out to be very accurate indeed, the bullet was not too hot to bite and, most importantly, there was a very tiny puff of smoke. This surprised me, for many experts have claimed that guns stopped producing smoke since the Civil War. So, there could very well have been 'some' smoke, but not the eruption that your 'flash' produces.
again, I'm not trying to discredit any conspiracy theory bacause am convinced there was one. But the muzzle flash, either reflection or gasses expanding from the barrel, that's just one I do not believe in. A lot of people have been talking of puffs of smoke from a gun. This is not a puff of smoke from a gun, this looks more like the eruption when a canonball is shot from a canon on the Bounty. I was very pleased with the test Wim Dankbaar did on the second part of this great documentary he did for Dutch TV. He tested the Remington Files claimed to have used. It turned out to be very accurate indeed, the bullet was not too hot to bite and, most importantly, there was a very tiny puff of smoke. This surprised me, for many experts have claimed that guns stopped producing smoke since the Civil War. So, there could very well have been 'some' smoke, but not the eruption that your 'flash' produces.
Re: BAM!
Jim Thompson wrote:Bob Lilly wrote:Jim,I see what you mean. The muzzle flash is reflecting from lens. Someone suggested that it could be the sun reflecting from the lens but I think not. Note that at 1230 the sun would be high in the southern sky, behind Nix. Also he has to rotate another forty degrees to the left near the end of the film when we see the sun reflect off the door of the Limo. But I suppose this could be a reflection on the lens caused by the super hot gases of the primer. BobRight, Bob, if you freeze frame on the three blue streaks & screen capture ( http://www.wisdom-soft.com/products/screenhunter.htm ) & then magnify you get more of an optics effect as of reflected light. The sun reflection off the limo is good comparison which shows lens' optics which confirm the three blue streaks as muzzle flash reflection. If this is correct, then you have hit the VC sniper's scope! BAM! This corroborates the grassy knoll & Jimmy F. [/quote] Yes if you have that screenhunter product can you go to second number 15 of the longer version of the Nix Film (top of page link) and see the person(s) behind the fence just to the left of the shadow as the camera pans left. This would be about where the shot originated.
Bob
Bob
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Verification
[quote="Bob Lilly: Yes if you have that screenhunter product can you go to second number 15 of the longer version of the Nix Film (top of page link) and see the person(s) behind the fence just to the left of the shadow as the camera pans left. This would be about where the shot originated.
Bob[/quote]
Yes, on magnification that shows the trajectory line which tallies with the orientation of the blue streaks. Since the line is the same (singular & overlapping) for the bullet trajectory & the streaks, that verifies that the streaks are the refraction of light from the muzzle flash. Laws of optics require this conclusion. Also, this additionally verifies the shot time lapse as corresponding to the blue streaks' appearance & sequencing in the film progression. Locks together like a Chinese block puzzle! The evidence is in & the jury: This corroborates the grassy knoll & Jimmy F.
Bob[/quote]
Yes, on magnification that shows the trajectory line which tallies with the orientation of the blue streaks. Since the line is the same (singular & overlapping) for the bullet trajectory & the streaks, that verifies that the streaks are the refraction of light from the muzzle flash. Laws of optics require this conclusion. Also, this additionally verifies the shot time lapse as corresponding to the blue streaks' appearance & sequencing in the film progression. Locks together like a Chinese block puzzle! The evidence is in & the jury: This corroborates the grassy knoll & Jimmy F.
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Proof of the Knoll Shot: The Smoking Gun?
Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:06.12.2006 - Mr. Bob Lilly Posted this Powerful and stimulating Headline. Bob Lilly is anexcellent researcher who often made great contributions. In my opinion this is oneof them.Much discussion followed with some very strong information and opinions on this subject matter.01.01.2013 - Has anybody analyzed, investigated, read, researched, or studied any more recent material on this subject matter that is worth reviewing here now ?Comments ?Respectfully,BB.
Re: Proof of the Knoll Shot: The Smoking Gun?
Absolute Proof!In an update to the original "Proof of the Knoll Shot" you may be interested in the attached which reviews the Nix film segment by segment. Note especially the section from 8:48 to 9:40 where they focus on the wall area near the fence. In this review you can see the muzzle flash 8 times. It originates from the fence and moves from upper left of frame, down to the right towards Kennedy's head. This is the "Smoking Gun".