Search
Display results as :
Advanced Search
Latest topics
Fair Play For Brian DoyleYesterday at 4:06 ambarto
More Tabloid TrashMon 10 Dec 2018, 8:06 amMick Purdy
Back Yard PhotographyMon 10 Dec 2018, 1:53 amJake Sykes
Amos Lee EuinsSat 08 Dec 2018, 9:48 ambarto
Judith McCullyWed 05 Dec 2018, 4:17 ambarto
No Shots Fired From The TSBDTue 04 Dec 2018, 3:18 ambarto
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website
RSS feeds

Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 
Like/Tweet/+1
Affiliates
free forum
 



Share
Go down
Posts : 25
Join date : 2017-11-11
View user profile

Does anybody cite the "lapel flip" as evidence anymore?

on Mon 13 Nov 2017, 3:50 am
There are basically two ways a spot in a film can change appearance.  The actual surface that is exposed there can change, e.g., a jacket swings open revealing a shirt, or the illumination can change.  It did not take me long to conclude long ago that the "lapel flip" was really illumination change and not clothing movement but it took a really long time to understand just the basics of what is happening there.  I think I have a reasonable case that what is seen in 222-224 is illumination from somewhere around the base of the windshield is traveling parallel to the side of the car and illuminating the frame of the small window, the vertical part of the handhold mounted in front of Connally, and Connally's chest through the space in between.  Things change because the car is turning slightly.  I think it has to be a double reflection off curved surface(s) or something like that for the reflection to change as much as it does with the car turning as little as it does,  I actually can't detect that it is turning there but it is turning left shortly after that.  I can make a very simple case that suggests that illumination is the cause and that would be more of a case than anybody has ever made for clothing movement.  The only one I have ever heard is "What else can it be?"  I pursued this off and on over the years because I wanted to know what the hell was happening there and because I thought it had great embarrassment value.  I am afraid most of the embarrassment value is gone, but it does appear that there may be a delicious irony.  This might place Connally too far to the outside for the SBT to work there.
avatar
Admin
Posts : 5174
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 60
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Re: Does anybody cite the "lapel flip" as evidence anymore?

on Mon 13 Nov 2017, 7:27 am
David Wimp wrote:There are basically two ways a spot in a film can change appearance.  The actual surface that is exposed there can change, e.g., a jacket swings open revealing a shirt, or the illumination can change.  It did not take me long to conclude long ago that the "lapel flip" was really illumination change and not clothing movement but it took a really long time to understand just the basics of what is happening there.  I think I have a reasonable case that what is seen in 222-224 is illumination from somewhere around the base of the windshield is traveling parallel to the side of the car and illuminating the frame of the small window, the vertical part of the handhold mounted in front of Connally, and Connally's chest through the space in between.  Things change because the car is turning slightly.  I think it has to be a double reflection off curved surface(s) or something like that for the reflection to change as much as it does with the car turning as little as it does,  I actually can't detect that it is turning there but it is turning left shortly after that.  I can make a very simple case that suggests that illumination is the cause and that would be more of a case than anybody has ever made for clothing movement.  The only one I have ever heard is "What else can it be?"  I pursued this off and on over the years because I wanted to know what the hell was happening there and because I thought it had great embarrassment value.  I am afraid most of the embarrassment value is gone, but it does appear that there may be a delicious irony.  This might place Connally too far to the outside for the SBT to work there.
David, these types of things are not often discussed here, but we do have a professional photographer as well as a television cameraman as members, so if any of us can respond with confidence, it would be those guys.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
Posts : 25
Join date : 2017-11-11
View user profile

Re: Does anybody cite the "lapel flip" as evidence anymore?

on Mon 13 Nov 2017, 9:53 am
The first sentence of that post was supposed to be-- I think the lapel flip is one of the silliest things in all of JFK assassination lore.  I have a special hatred of it and really would like to kill it dead.  It seems most people have accepted that, even if it is clothing movement, it isn't evidence.  But it isn't even clothing movement.
avatar
Admin
Posts : 5174
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 60
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Re: Does anybody cite the "lapel flip" as evidence anymore?

on Mon 13 Nov 2017, 10:00 am
David Wimp wrote:The first sentence of that post was supposed to be-- I think the lapel flip is one of the silliest things in all of JFK assassination lore.  I have a special hatred of it and really would like to kill it dead.  It seems most people have accepted that, even if it is clothing movement, it isn't evidence.  But it isn't even clothing movement.
Thanks for clarifying David.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
Sponsored content

Re: Does anybody cite the "lapel flip" as evidence anymore?

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum