Cold Case: JFK – NOVA program now online

[William Seger]

206. Bell & Howell 414PD

... which has a rotating disk shutter with an open sector of about 170 degrees.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I made about the direction of the blur.

If the two frames are aligned such that the right end of any one of the blur streaks in 313 lines up with the right edge of the unblurred image of the same object in 312, then ALL the motion blurs in 313 will be toward the left of those same objects in 312. That's because the camera's motion will have the same effect on the entire frame, not different effects on different parts of the frame. If that logic isn't good enough for you, then please note that the gif shows white lines on FOUR blur streaks that are all toward the left, so the alignment could have been done with any one of them.

If you understand that principle, then you should understand why the forward snap of JFK's head cannot be explained by camera motion blur, because that would imply an impossible blur streak toward the right.

Furthermore, the PROOF is that if Thompson were correct, then we would see exactly the same "illusion" of a forward snap of Connally's head, but we don't. We can clearly see the leftward motion blur of the back of Connally's head, as expected.

I claim that this is simply valid reasoning based on sound facts, "Ace," and I claim that even we "anonymous ideologues" can do that properly, and I claim that all I'm trying to "obstruct" is the propagation of bullshit. If you think you can refute what I'm saying, have at it, but judging by your performance on the Creative Speculation board, you will now want to continue a never-ending thread where you completely ignore each of these points and instead keep repeating the same irrelevancies over and over and over in the mistaken belief that you're not wrong as long as you refuse to admit it. If that's what you want to do, then please don't pollute GD with it; bring it over to CS.