The Charlotte News

Saturday, February 8, 1941



Site Ed. Note: As to "Free Air", Mr. Cash should have lived so long...

For the original editorial to which "A Correction" pertains on the wages of plumbers in defense industries, see "Too Far", January 19, 1941.

Those are not the same plumbers, incidentally, who were working in national defense industries at the Watergate Apartments in 1972 and who intended to blow up the Brookings Institution in 1971.

And by the way, Mr. Neanderthal Skinhead, if you want to listen to old Gordo on the radio, then you go right ahead and listen to him. You go right on in there with him, down into that cooley, right on into the Watergate, the floodgate, the control of the rushing river, right on into Larry O'Brien's office, and all because you are paranoid that they might have the straight dupe, you see, on a certain assassination in 1963--and that it would inevitably compromise Bossman Potus. (Hint: Bajia de Cochinos as a contingency plan was the brainchild of Bossman Vipotus in 1959.)

Or are you just too dumb to realize that? O. H. Lee did that one, right, kid?

Kind of like the Easter Bunny leaves you silver dollars at Easter, ye-ah?

Oh, I see, Gordo will make you one of his lieutenant-majors in the New Army for Freedom To Do Whatever the Hell We Want To Do and will get you off that job as a bagger at the grocery store. Now, I understand. Well, like I say, Rushin-mouth and Gordo, They're the Ones. Right, perfect employers for you. Go right ahead. Keep Right> Right, kid?

Pardon us, all that free, unpolluted air is getting us a little heady.

And by the way, just because we're sick and tired of hearing re-hashed propaganda for the last decade over this thing, not because it relates, strictly speaking, to anything on this page, shall we quickly dispose of a myth put forward in facile terms in Case Closed, that 1993 lone-nutist re-hatchnik book? The President's head did not snap forward between frames 312 and 313. The perspective of the camera changed, obviously in response to the shot from the front right. That is plain. Why? If you have access to the frames, which you can find many places on the internet, take out a caliper or some other precise measuring instrument which measures in thousandths of an inch. Measure from the same point on the crown of the head to the peak of the hat in both frames and you will find that the measure is equidistant. Measure any point of reference you choose between one edge of the frame and the vehicle or its occupants and you will see that there is a discrepancy in the measurements between the frames. The reason is that the camera was jolted slightly right and slightly upward in between the two frames, north by northeast as 'twere, providing the optical illusion of a slight forward movement. It is a movement of the whole image area, not just the President's head. The blurring of frame 313, compared to a relatively sharp 312, confirms the point. The effect is something on the order of a combination of the Müller-Lyer illusion No. 1 and "The Conjuror", (a.k.a. "The Magician"), by Hieronymus Bosch. Or, perhaps more to the point, the Herring illusion. The rest of that is "I remember this" and "I remember that". Okay, we remember, too.

Look with thine ears... 1

Object Lesson

But Even This Will Probably Not Budge Our Isolationists

What's happening in France becomes increasingly clear.

First, Pétain's government at Vichy "accepted" the "mediation" of Japan in the dispute between Thailand and Indo-China. And, as was prophesied in these editorial columns, it turned out that Japan had won a major victory and has now solidly established herself much closer to Singapore--probably will establish herself closer still in short order.

On top of that Pétain yielded to the Nazi demand that Laval be restored to the Cabinet. Then, according to the New York Times, Darlan returned from conference with Laval to report that Laval's terms (which is to say, Hitler's terms) were that he be given the absolute command of foreign relations, and the French police, that the French naval bases and ports on the Mediterranean coast be turned over to the Axis, and that the Axis be given the right to transport troops through Tunisia to oppose the British in Libya.

The one thing omitted from the demands is the use of the French fleet by the Axis. But Laval desires it, will have absolute power under the arrangement outlined, and so it will follow as a matter of course.

All this was to be expected, and would not be worth dwelling on were it not the final object lesson for our own isolationists-appeasers. A defeatist, the old Marshal could not believe the worst of Hitler despite the record, could not believe that he cannot be dealt with as a civilized man whose word would be kept, could not believe that the only terms Adolf Hitler ever really accepts in the end are complete capitulation.

(NOTE: General Maxime Weygand Thursday denied troops would be allowed to pass through Tunisia.)

Free Air

In Which All Men Have Their Rights, However

In his current best-selling autobiography, "Out of the Night," Jan Valtin describes a visit he made to Narvik from Trondheim (both in Norway, of course) on a little steamer. On the third class deck he was crowded together with fishermen, peasants, worn old country clergymen. As they passed to the coast all spoke bitterly of the steamers which were now passing in great numbers around Norway to the White Sea ports of Russia. The steamers discharged burnt oil, killing the fish, they said.

Presently, Valtin had a good insight into that. A steamer had just discharged its waste and bilge over a wide area of the Norwegian territorial waters. For miles the sea was covered with dead birds, which had drowned when their wings became fouled with the oil.

It somehow reminds us of the smoke situation in Charlotte. Most people, it develops, are willing to co-operate, but there are a few who are cold to the whole project of smoke abatement. They stand on their rights. The air is free, isn't it?

Yes, it is free. But to all men. And no individual or group has any right at all to foul what all men must breathe.

The kind of individualism which pollutes seas and streams and the air, which turns the beautiful earth into a black wasteland, is everywhere being repudiated by mankind, for the simple reason that it is obviously incompatible with a decent life for man on this planet. And whoever insists on talking about his rights in the connection is merely wasting his breath. He has no such rights. They don't exist.

Fading Caesar

His Empire in Libya Is Rapidly Nearing Its End

With the fall of Bengasi, in incredible time, the main part of the Italian empire in Africa is already practically reduced to the shreds Winston Churchill promised in December.

What remains to Italy is somewhat over half the total territory of Italian Libya--the district of Tripolitana. But this vast region is mainly desert, contains only one port of any value, that of Tripoli itself. And only one other fertile district of any extent--the Fezzan district, where General De Gaulle's army of "Free French" and Masked Tuaregs is already largely in control. Moreover the Fezzan natives have always been more than half-independent of Italian control and are not to be counted on to rally to Duce's support.

Whether the British will continue their march overland all the way to Tripoli remains to be seen. If they do, the city is likely to be Graziani's Dunkerque--without the rescue.

However, the enterprise calls for a march of about 400 miles across the desert from the base of Bengasi. That in itself is no more of a feat than the march from Sidi Barrani to Bengasi--much less in fact, in view of the absence of other principal fortified places and the destruction of the main part of the Italian army and equipment.

The case is complicated by the nearness of Tripoli to the German air force in Sicily. And there is always the possibility of a German army advancing through French Tunisia to bolster the Italians.

It is far from certain, however, that Hitler will care to risk that, even if the French consent. German troops, fresh from the northern Winter, would be totally unfit for the desert. And the terrific speed and striking power the British have developed might well give even the Fuehrer pause.

A Correction

Plumbers Generally Do Not Demand Increased Wages

On January 19, The News published an editorial entitled "Too Far," in which the opinion was expressed that General Hershey, acting director of the draft, was right in ordering a local California draft board to recall its threat to take men at the Ryan Aircraft plant out of deferred classification if they went on strike. It added:

"But labor has not one whit more right to take undue advantage of the national emergency... than a manufacturer--and there are some instances of that, certainly, as witness the plumbers who are demanding $150 a week for their labor in the building cantonments."

Reference was to the fact that news report had it that a Memphis contractor was offering $150 a week for plumbers on such work.

United Association of Plumbers and Steam-fitters in this locality objects to that, on the ground that it puts plumbers in a false light. Union wages are actually $1.25 an hour. And plumbers in this region, they say, had been accepting work at these rates, without demanding an increase, even though it means leaving town and subjecting themselves to extra inconvenience and cost. No plumber, to their knowledge, has been making as much as $150 a week. A few have made as high as $82, but only by working overtime at the request of the contractors and the Government.



1 While we're about this horrible thing, let us confirm this notion again utilizing some old stuff propounded on the wrong premises.

The 1978 HSCA Report, Vol. VI, Sec. II, subsection B.3, titled "THE PANNING ERROR--BLUR ANALYSIS OF THE [________] FILM" stated the following:

"89. Specifically, [________] reported that his camera was fully wound when he started filming the motorcade as it turned onto [____] Street. In 1964, the FBI tested the camera and found that during the first 30 seconds of its operation (after being fully wound) [________]'s camera ran at between 18.0 and 18.5 frames per second, with the average estimated to be 18.3. Note that the range 18.0 to 18.5, indicates a range of 3 percent uncertainty in all time intervals measured from the [________] film. [Footnote omitted.]

"90. Fragmentary material from the President's head is seen flying upward and outward in frames 313 and 314. The fragments are already airborne and in motion in frame 313. Extrapolation backwards indicates that the explosion began in frame 312 rather than 313, since this would be the frame nearest to the moment when the fragments left the head. Other scientific evidence, such as wound measurements, and trajectory analysis, indicated that the fatal head shot was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle located in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. [Footnote omitted.] The distance from that window to the limousine at frame 312 is approximately 265 feet. [Footnote omitted.] Since a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet travels at approximately 2000 feet per second, [footnote omitted] the bullet flight time would have been 0.13 second, or the passage of approximately 2.4 frames in [________]'s camera. Subtracting these two frames from frame 312, it is apparent that the fatal shot was fired at approximately frame 310.

"91. Using frame 310 as the time of the trigger pull, it is possible to determine that the sound from that shot would have reached [________] at frame 313-314: [________] was standing approximately 270 feet from the Texas School Book Depository window, sound travels slightly more than 1,100 feet per second, [footnote omitted] and the sound of the shock wave from the bullet itself reached [________] slightly before the sound of the muzzle blast from the window. Finally, the pattern of jiggles that was discovered was compared with the results of the committee's acoustics study. The correlation between the jiggle analysis and the acoustics test is treated separately in an addendum to this report."

All of this analysis of course has as its premises the origination of the shot at the infamous open window and the speed of the bullet from the infamous gun. (And it also assumes the cameraman's testimonial accuracy in relating that he re-wound the camera.)

But--in point of fact, the data above in HSCA paragraphs 89-91 confirm that the shot could not have come from as far away as 265 feet from the limousine and 270 feet from the cameraman, the point of the infamous open window, but had to originate closer to the cameraman. Why?

Each frame of the film takes about .054 seconds to travel across the aperture of the camera. The bullet travels a little less than twice as fast as the sound of its firing. The Committee also indicated in paragraph 96 of the same subsection: "Startle reaction times in response to the sound of gunshots were measured in the experimental work of Landis and Hunt in 1939. [Footnote omitted.] For 'head movement,' 'movement of neck muscles,' and 'initiation of arm movement,' Landis and Hunt found that the reaction time was 0.06 to 0.2 second (i.e., 1.1 to 3.7 frames). [Footnote omitted.] Thus, these much earlier experimental findings support the conclusion that the film actually records [________]'s startled reaction to the fatal shot immediately after [________] heard the sound of the shot and saw the head impact through his viewfinder." If all of this held true to form, as the Committee assumed, the origin point of the shot had to be during frame 310 for the bullet to travel 2.4 frames worth of time to its depicted impact point in between 312 and 313. The sound, however, would take nearly twice as long, 4.5 frames, to travel to the cameraman, (not as assumed by the Committee at paragraph 91 above, three to four frames), viz. 265/2000 = .1325 seconds of travel of the bullet = 2.4 x .054 (actually closer to 2.5 frames), 270/1100 = .245 seconds of travel of sound = 4.5 x .054. If minimum reaction time were 1.1 frames, then no blur reaction should be evident until 5.6 frames from point of origin of the shot, or until frames 315-316.

Yet the blur plainly begins at 313.

Even discounting entirely the Landis and Hunt reaction time, the shot necessarily originated closer to the subject holding the camera than 270 feet as the blur would not occur in reaction to sound from 270 feet away prior to 314-315, 4.5 frames after the assumed firing point at 310--indeed, that which would have to have coincided with the firing time for the shot to hit as it did between frames 312-313, assuming the bullet was traveling at 2000 feet per second from the open window 265 feet away.

Now then, continuing to discount the Landis-Hunt reaction time, as the first frame in this Main Sequence to evidence a blur is coincident in terms of stopped frames of time with the first frame showing the wound, the same being frame 313, then the travel time for the sound to the travel time for the bullet must be on a ratio of something very close to 1 to .55, that is 1100 feet per second for speed of sound divided by 2000 feet per second for speed of the bullet (assuming again the infamous gun as the source). Put another way, the distance from point of origin of the shot to the cameraman must be approximately .55 that of the distance from the point of the origin of the shot to the President.

The notorious window therefore, requiring a 1 to 1 ratio, cannot be the origin for this shot as the distances are nearly the same, 270 feet from window to cameraman, 265 feet from window to the President, as indicated in paragraphs 90-91, above.

Add the minimum Landis-Hunt reaction time and the ratio is even higher as the reaction time gives the bullet at least another .06 seconds of travel, equal to about 120 feet at 2000 feet per second. In other words, at least 1.1 more frames would be expected to run through the camera without evidence of blurring before the sound plus reaction time catches up to the cameraman, a total, after the bullet has hit, of at least 3.1 frames, at 315-316, not as the blurring first appears in fact at 313. Thus, even with the fudge factor thrown in of the "shock wave of the bullet itself" which reached the cameraman "slightly" ahead of the sound of the muzzle blast, the blur should be expected no earlier than 315.

But if we move the shot to the point from which its origin obviously was, at the golden-locked Pickett, a distance of about, shall we say, 65 feet from the President, give or take, and assume the approximate same travel time for the bullet (or likely faster), then we need only divide the time frames above by four.

Thus, instead of 2.4 frames in reverse from 313 for the origin point of the shot vis á vis the film, it is about .6 frames, a shorter time interval than could be captured in a frame, somewhere between 312 and 312.4, in the interstitial clear space, as it were, the unoccupied zone.

Likewise, assuming the camera was about 45 feet from the Pickett, then you've about one-sixth of the time for the sound to travel from the muzzle to the point of the cameraman. Thus instead of about 4.5 to 5.6 frames for the sound to travel, there would be only about half to two-thirds of a frame, almost precisely the time for the bullet to travel its arc from the marked point at Pickett, thus stimulating the right, upward jolt by the cameraman just a hair before or after frame 313 begins its travel across the aperture.

(Bear in mind that a movie camera operates like a still camera running a continuous strip of film by the aperture; that is, the shutter is continuously opening and shutting in precise synchronization with the advance of the film such that each frame is fully in front of the aperture as the shutter opens. Each frame is separated by a thin interstice which generally speaking has little if any exposure on it, as it is deliberately left uncoated with silver nitrate, the light sensitive chemical used in photography. Each opening and shutting of the shutter in this case takes .054 second, the same time it takes for each frame to pass the aperture. Thus, speaking in terms of partial frames is somewhat misleading, as this refers to the film's continuous advance to the next full frame while the shutter is closed after the instant frame is exposed. The opening and closing of the shutter would take, presumably, precisely the same time and so we need only divide the total passage time in half to render a .027 time the shutter is open and likewise the same time closed for each frame. The movement of the film, however, remains continuous. Thus, when we talk of the unoccupied zone, we are speaking of the instant when the shutter is closed, the inside of the camera is dark, as the film advances to the next frame, the instant in which the camera blinks, too fast for humans to perceive. A movie, as we know, is simply a series of still photographs which is later continuously projected based on this principle of inadequate human perception. We do not perceive even the existence of the unoccupied zone unless the film is stopped or slowed down. But the unoccupied zone is not on film. We see only what the shutter sees when open, effectively an illusion of reality, as fully half the action being filmed is in the unoccupied zone. Our mind simply fills the void sequentially. Here, the fatal shot hit the President within this unoccupied zone, after frame 312 was exposed, during the blink of the shutter before 313 was exposed. The movement causing the blur began either in the unoccupied zone before 313 was exposed or during the exposure of 313 as blurring is caused by movement which is faster than the speed of the film moving through the camera while the shutter is open, and to begin such bumped movement while the shutter is open in a given frame would produce a blur in the frame, even though started within the period of that frame's passage in front of the open aperture--just as the same occurs with a still camera.)

To avoid unnecessary complexities, the foregoing analysis continues to leave aside the Landis-Hunt findings of 1939 for the moment because it is unclear where the time frame for the reaction begins on the arc of movement, (here exhibited plainly in frames 313 through 318, lasting about one-third of a second), in reaction to the sound of a gunshot. In other words, if all parameters were held equal for the assumptions made on these facts, can the approximation of time of reaction be reduced below the minimum .06 seconds found in the earlier study? Plainly, regardless of anything else, the estimate of 1.1 to 3.7 frames for reaction time does not coincide with the origin point being the open window.

But could it work with the Pickett? If we adjust our estimates for distance some, it could. Factoring in .06 seconds or 1.1 frames for reaction time in addition to the time necessary for sound to travel, the distance from the point of origin to the President would likely need to be about six times that of the origin to the cameraman. The six factor assumes taking thirty feet as the distance from Pickett to cameraman. It would then take .027 seconds (30/1100) for the sound to travel this distance plus another .06 seconds for minimum reaction time, a total of .087 seconds for blurring in reaction to sound to be evident. The bullet would travel 174 feet in that same period at 2000 feet per second. Thus, on these assumptions of distance, including the instant for minimal reaction time, for the bullet to hit and the blurring to start in the same unoccupied zone, the camera's blink between 312 and 313, the distance between the President and the origin of the shot must be about six times the distance between the origin and the cameraman, not the roughly co-equal distances from the open window.

The 6 factor is not a constant, however, but is the most likely under all the circumstances. Algebraically, the constant ratio is .55 x to x + 120 where x is the distance the bullet travels during the same time it takes the sound to reach the hammer of the cameraman and 120 the feet of travel of the bullet during minimal reaction time; (put another way, x + 120 = 1.818 y + 120 where y is the distance from Pickett to the cameraman). Then .55 x is necessarily the point of the cameraman, not 1 to 1.

The distances and the determination of spots for placing Lord Snowden's Knight as well as the cameraman, dupe though he likely was, could be precisely pre-determined with little if any notice by a surveyor's transit set up at Pickett days or weeks in advance by persons posing as contractors engaged in work on a municipal project or, more likely, simply done late at night in the shadows, where at such an hour as 1:00 a.m., even today, one would find little if any foot or vehicular traffic. "Marking" these spots is simple without trace. Simply align a picket point with a fixed point across the way, a column, a vertical edge of a wall, then align the desired intersecting points for positioning with similar fixed points in different directions, all of course based necessarily on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, leaving thereby not a dangling particle of evidence, with conscience maintained at a minimum since, as in war, it was all fatalistically in the stars after all--had to be done to accommodate unfortunate but necessary sacrifice to the heavens. Then tip it and chase the rabbit.

Obviously as nutty as nuts could be, but we are, after all, dealing here with nuts in a shell game--a coo co. coo, a company obviously too dumb to spell that about which it was.

All of this analysis does not eliminate the potential reality that the cameraman reacted in response to what he saw in the viewfinder before reacting to what he heard; but if so, then one would still not expect a blur, based on the Hunt-Landis notion of autonomic muscular reaction time, until at least 314, 1.1 frames after the camera's blink at just before 313 when the cameraman viewed the result of the shot. But hold--what of the same problem with respect to delayed reaction to sound? Assuming the shot was fired as frame 311 was exposed, at 311.3 or thereabouts, then the bullet reaches the President at 312.9, 1.6 frames after it is fired from 174 feet away, taking .087 second to travel. Thus the wound is exposed for the first time at the opening of the shutter at 313, having actually occurred while the shutter is closed at 312.9. The sound plus the reaction time has taken the same amount of time to reach the cameraman and produce the blur, the same therefore starting at 312.9 as the shutter is closed and hence first evident as the shutter opens to expose 313. The problem vis á vis the open window as the source therefore persists except as resolved by the scenario most likely from viewing the film as a whole, continuous action.

So if it is 30 feet from Pickett to the cameraman and 174 feet from the Pickett to the President or the same or similar ratio of adjusted distances, the shot is delivered on time, precisely, in coordination with the moving arms of Lord Snowden's Knight across the way.

And the Herring illusion combined with the Landis-Hunt phenomenon thus automatically served their purpose to blur reality and convince in seeming hyper-technical terms the contrary of the obvious.

At Pickett, as you will Note further, it all runs together of a sick, hellish piece.

--February 28, 2003, a fortieth anniversary, cf. front page of Charlotte News, (something we did not realize until three days after we began writing this bit of analysis, four days back--a mere decade into this life). There are reasons for everything, but murder and other malevolence, aimed at the body, the mind or the reputation, are not based on reason. No truer was ever spoken than that there must be an end to "the cruel disease of discrimination" and that "[e]quality before the law has not always meant equal treatment and opportunity". It is also true, as Justice Black stated in response to oral arguments held forty years ago today, that over the last 2,000 years, "the greatest years were when the government didn't force the Bible on people, and the worst years were those when some government official forced it on them." And "troublemakers", known as such to the police, who were arrested for innocently demonstrating, clapping their hands, stamping their feet, and singing both "The Star Bangled Banner" and the spiritual "I Shall Not Be Moved" at the South Carolina state capitol, had their convictions overturned by the Supreme Court on February 24, 1963, and properly so, notwithstanding the self-actuating prophecy of the city manager of Columbia who testified that "a dangerous situation was building up". It was, indeed, but just why that was we have yet in forty years to understand. That opinion, incidentally, decided by a vote of 8 to 1, was written by Potter Stewart, who served the Court well from his appointment in 1958 through 1981. We also have appearing on February 24 the story of the "spilled milk" inquiry, as Mississippi Senator Stennis labeled it--a comedy of errors, as it were, unworthy of further investigation--, an inquiry, sponsored by Illinois Republican Senator Dirksen, into Bajia de Cochinos and the possibility that four American airmen were killed--while attempting to provide air cover in unmarked U.S. B-26 bombers. As someone once said, "Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan." Meanwhile, the day before, a headline from the A. P. screamed, "McNamara: 'We'll Eliminate Castro'". In actuality, as the article stated, the notion came from Georgia Senator Richard B. Russell, who stated that in a behind closed doors meeting with the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense McNamara "made it very clear that we are pursuing a policy that will result in the elimination of Castroism and Communism from Cuba". The specifics, he said, were classified. All of this in response to Soviet Defense Minister Malinovsky's warning the day before that if the U.S. attacked Cuba, the Soviets could "wipe off the earth all targets, industrial and administrative--political centers of the United States". Senator Russell dismissed this statement as the usual "blast and bluster" of the Soviets and stated further that he hoped "we can avoid any nuclear war because it would kill tens of millions of Americans while we are eliminating them". Senator Thurmond called Malinovsky's statements "pure propaganda" as "[t]he Russians know we could destroy them if they ever start World War III". Senator Stennis, also of the Committee, advocated that the U.S. "wipe out all Soviet-dominated governments in this hemisphere". And sometimes, when we see things as they are, and were, the truth hurts, but it shall also make you free.

Framed Edition
[Go to Links-Page by Subject][Go to Links-Page by Date][Go to News Framed Edition]
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.