The frozen lamppost!

[Michael Walton]

David, I know we don't agree on this case, and I look at your hero Vince as a man who lucked out on the Manson case and then sold his soul to the (corporate) devil for cash and to mouth the corporate line.

But I do agree with you on the complete zaniness and craziness of some of these so-called "theories." A frozen lamp post....really?  I mean, Jesus.

Anyway as I've always said, good job on your video collection.  And by the way, one of the hardest to find clips is that color reenactment film shot I believe by the FBI.  They used a Queen Mary limo and it's through a rifle scope.  The Kennedy stand in has a chalk mark drawn on his back (not his neck as Gerry Ford wanted us to believe). Do you have that in your collection? Can you send the link? If not, do you have any idea why it's so hard to find?

[David Von Pein]

Michael,

I've got 2 minutes of color clips from the 5/24/64 re-enactment. It's lousy quality, but at least it's something....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/jfk-assassination-reenactment-film.html

I've also got some still photos from the '64 re-enactment, here....

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/11/kennedy-gallery-268.html

And if you fast-forward to 2:34 in this video below, you'll find another brief color clip from the re-enactment (filmed from the Sniper's Nest)....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLpVfi1PJe0

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Walton]

Your two-min clip on your page doesn't work for me.  It says you need the Flash player so I'm guessing the source file is .FLV?  Or is it .MP4?  If it's .MP4 would you mind sending me the direct link to it so I can download it?

Wow they sure filmed that color reenactment fast. It whizzes by and you'd think maybe they'd do it at normal speed like the real limo was going. Or do it fast and then slow.

 

[David Von Pein]

50 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Your two-min clip on your page doesn't work for me.  It says you need the Flash player so I'm guessing the source file is .FLV?  Or is it .MP4?  If it's .MP4 would you mind sending me the direct link to it so I can download it?

Yes, that version is a FLV (Flash) version. But it should still play in all major browsers. Can't understand why it won't. ~shrug~ (I hate dead links and broken players. Hate 'em!! )

But since this came up today, I decided to convert it to a WMV file and add it to my Google Drive Index (even though the quality sucks). Here's the new link for it (with an extra minute added that I didn't even know I had)....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxIcnlBWWtpaWgtVlE/view

Edited March 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Walton]

Thank David. Yeah, in Chrome it says you need to download the Flash player.  That's what my browser is showing.

It's too bad your version is not clear.  I found an extremely clear version of it and made some freeze frames from it a while back and then downloaded it from YTV.  But then I deleted the film and now I can't find it any more on YTV which is weird.  You can see one of those clear freezes in here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view

Just skip to the end and don't read any of the text since I know you won't agree with any of it

 

[David Von Pein]

Michael,

Here's a little more....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpZa_2bdfRM

 

[Karl Kinaski]

That parallax movement of the lamppost compared to the firewall while following with your cam a moving object on Elm Street  (a car), is a natural effect. This natural effect is absent in the Zapruder Film. The Zapruder Film does not show any lamppost movement as a result of the natural law of parallax movements. The Zapruder Film is is a fake. 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

Pumped: Everyone with any cam standing on Zapruders pedestal can prove, that the Zapruder film is a fake ... 

•  
• That parallax movement of the lamppost compared to the firewall while following with your cam a moving object on Elm Street  (a car), is a natural effect. This natural effect is absent in the Zapruder Film. The Zapruder Film does not show any lamppost movement as a result of the natural law of parallax movements. The Zapruder Film is is a fake. 
• 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

18 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Pumped: Everyone with any cam standing on Zapruders pedestal can prove, that the Zapruder film is a fake ... 

•  
• That parallax movement of the lamppost compared to the firewall while following with your cam a moving object on Elm Street  (a car), is a natural effect. This natural effect is absent in the Zapruder Film. The Zapruder Film does not show any lamppost movement as a result of the natural law of parallax movements. The Zapruder Film is is a fake. 
• 

If you watch that film below, when the lamppost comes into sight, compare it to the firewall. There are dark spots on the firewall. When the lamppost first appears, there is one dark spot (of the firewall, actually holes in that wall) to the left side of the top a the lamppost, when the cam is further following the car, and the lamppost disappears to the left, there are three dark spots at the left side of the lamp. The lamppost is moving to the left ... thats the parallax effect. A natural law. You can't see that natural law in the Zapruder film. The Zapruder film is "supernatural". A fake. 

 

[Karl Kinaski]

 Maybe for anomalies like the "frozen lamppost" etc. the ARRB Zapruder Film test shooting ( November 1997) was sabotaged. It's a funny story. 

Perpetrators: 

David Marwell

Jeremy Gunn

Rollie Zavada

Tom Samoluk 

 

Quote: David Lifton PIG ON LEASH:

Horne Requests Test with Orignial Cameraⁱ

 

Doug Horne knew what needed to be done: that film should be run through

the Zapruder camera, in a test conducted at Dealey Plaza, preferably when the

lighting was the same, and such test film be compared with the Zapruder film. It didn’t take a photo expert to understand why this should be done: a match

between the test film and the Zapruder film would be powerful evidence that the Zapruder film was a genuine original; contrarywise, any mismatch might be probabtive, even definitive, on the issue of whether the film in evidence was not taken by the Zapruder camera.

Neither David Marwell nor Jeremy Gunn wanted to do any such tests.

Marwell looked with complete disdain at the notion that the Zapruder film

might be a forgery. He said he had experience in college, either on the

newspaper or in a photography club, with contact printing, and he just didn’t see how the film could be inauthentic. He kept bringing up the small size of an 8 mm film, saying: “You’d need engraving tools.” As Doug observed later, he simply failed to inform himself about optical editing technology.

Gunn was a different matter. When Marwell left the ARRB, and the problem

was passed to Gunn, the problem was political. Gunn did not have good

relations with the five Board members, who—Doug tells me—thought of him as a closet assassination buff (and he was, in some ways). The Board members were essentially conservative, and Gunn knew they would never approve doing a test in Dealy Plaza; that their fear would be a New York Times headine, “ARRB Suspects Zapruder Film Forgery”.

Doug thought their fears were completely exaggerated. It was well within the

rights of the ARRB to investigate the provenance of any assassination record, and “record” could be more important that the visual record of the Zapruder film? When Marwell departed as Exec Director to take outside employment Gunn became Exec Director as well as General Counsel. This was the autumn of 1997. One day, Doug locked horns with Gunn on this issue.

 (...)

 

Samoluk Goes to Dallas

But let‘s return to Samoluk in November, 1997. It was November, 1997 when Samoluk went to Dallas, tasked with the job of taking pictures from Zapruder’s perch on November 22, something he really didn’t want to do, because Dealey Plaza can be a zoo on assassination anniversaries.
Meanwhile, Rollie had sent a camera via Federal Express; it was loaded with
film, and with directions, in a box to the ARRB in Washington; and now, in
Dallas, Samoluk retired to his hotel room, and opened the box.
He pulled out the camera, pressed the trigger, to make sure it would run, and
nothing happened. He tried again. Nothing. Experimenting a bit in the hotel
room, Samoluk became convinced that the camera was jammed, and gave up on the project.
Upon returning to Washington, Doug ran over to him when he appeared at
the ARRB offices, and asked excitedly (“like a puppy dog,” recalls Doug): “Did
you conduct the test?”
“With a sheepish look on his face,” recalls Doug, “he replied, ‘No, I didn’t,
the friggin’ camera jammed.’”
“What do you mean it jammed?” said Doug.
“Well, either it jammed or the batteries were no good!”, replied Samoluk.
“What do you mean, batteries?” said Doug, growing increasingly upset. “This
camera doesn’t have batteries, you wind it with a big gigantic key that is on the side of the camera.”
“And his jaw dropped open, his eyes got big, he got this ‘oh xxxx’ look on his
face.”
Doug called Rollie and confirmed that there were no batteries, and that Rollie
had not wound the camera before he sent it to the Review Board.
Rollie had sent a long list of operating instructions; but nowhere did it say
”Wind the camera.”ii
“This was keystone cops, man, USG style,” says Doug, reflecting on the
experience.

Close Quote

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

On 4/9/2010 at 7:01 AM, John Dolva said:

Not necessarily, Karl. It's an intriguing observation. There are ways that the horizontal parallax can stay stationary while filming. Zapruder could move as well so that the pan, to the extent of resolution and angle of movement, keeps the shift so one can't readily discern it. Of course parallax occurs in all directions and I think I see a slight dip that shows a shift in the vertical where the ornamentation on the lamp mount meets the dark area.

John was right. If Zapruder shifted his position just 4 inches(Assuming that is how far he panned the camera) it would completely negate the parallax. Zapruder rotated his stance to the right as he panned. he was facing East then rotated around to the West as the limo passed by. This is visible in the Nix film. To rotate he would lean slightly to the left as he took the weight off his right foot so he could swing it backward allowing him to bring his left foot around to face West. That initial lean to the left would have negated much or all of the parallax. His rotating stance shows up in the Z film as a slight retrograde motion of background objects around frame 300 but he still could have started the shift around frame 260.
    The lamppost was about half as far away from Z as the wall in the background was from the lamppost, so 4 inches of panning would cause about twice as much parallax. If you look closely at the shadows in the bushes just left of the lamppost you will see that several inches of parallax is happening.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Davidson]

While filming, I consciously never moved my feet on the pedestal.

Was trying to assimilate a tripod setup, as close as I could.

Instead, I rotated my torso moving east to west.

Somewhat uncomfortable after the cars had traveled past my perpendicular position.

fwiw