Mark Tyler

That's fine, feel free to quote me.

I agree, I think PM is entirely in the shade. If you look at the direction of the shadows of those on the street, you can see the direction of the sun, which confirms that the PM corner would be in the shade. So it's agreed: it's short sleeves, or possibly rolled up long sleeves?

The sun could indeed be lighting the forearm more brightly, which might explain what we see in the image. The only other thing I would mention is that the flesh tones in the face are very close to those we see in the forearm, which are both much lighter than the darker shirt. However, as you say, the image is of a terrible quality and you wouldn't want to bet your life on a positive ID one way or the other.

Indeed David, the field is wide open on this one! Both guys you identify seem about the right shorter height, although I think the long sleeves on the left would rule him out.

Hi David, I completely agree with you, the so called Prayer Man is so visually ambiguous it could be anyone (perhaps with the exception of LHO who would surely have been noticed by the others on the steps, especially Frazier?). As you suggest, this may even be a woman, and be a misgendering! (perhaps just like the black dog man, who was probably a woman, according to Marilyn Sitzman). If it was a woman, I would say it was a slightly shorter, fuller figured lady with shorter hair, wearing a mid-dark top, with short sleeves. Perhaps like this lady in the foreground of this photo, seen from the rear (who also seems to be adopting a prayer like arm holding position): Ignore the red arrow, that's someone else! By the way, welcome back to the forum!

Yes, the interlacing is the core of the problem when transferring film to video, as it always has the effect of blending different images from fractionally different times (and creating ghost images in a single frame). It's mentioned elsewhere on the web such as here: https://community.adobe.com/t5/after-effects-discussions/how-to-fix-ghosting-double-image/m-p/9481267 In the case of the Zapruder film, because the pan is left/right, the tell-tale sign is the left/right ghosting as @Chris Bristow and @Chris Davidson helpfully showed in their posts. Overall, I don't think there is anything suspicious about what we see in this video. However, as I always say about this case, no stone should remain unturned when looking for the truth.

Hi Sandy I think this is a function of an 18 FPS input film being adjusted for a different output rate (e.g. 24/30 FPS for film/NTSC output). Have a look at this article for an explanation of the "pulldown" and the image blending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:2_pulldown I think @Chris Davidson wrote some things about this a while ago too. The limo doesn't have the same problem because Zapruder is panning so the error isn't so obvious in that portion of the image.

Well done Larry, this is really important. History needs to see the full unvarnished truth, without any skeletons being left in the closet.

I think you are right, Zapruder really did struggle to track the limo (especially Z290-Z320 due to the deceleration). Where we see similar blurring in the background and foreground such as Z310, it's probably where Zapruder is panning slower than the car, so nothing is correctly focused. However, as you say, if there is a frame with perfectly sharp foreground and background then that would be very hard to explain given what we see elsewhere in the film.

Mmm, that's irritating the links died for some reason. Anyway, here are those frames again:

That's not quite right. Z310 is much more blurry than Z312 (note the sun visors and windshield especially): Here are some other Z-film frames for comparison: https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/

The first day evidence is so important, and these very early interviews are like gold dust as they seem to debunk many of the weaker theories. Here is the original radio interview of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman at 1:41:00 in this video: As others have mentioned, Jean Hill is not the most reliable of witnesses, mainly due to her changing her story in her later years. However, her testimony throughout 1963 and 1964 seems very consistent with what dozens of other witnesses independently reported in their statements, so I don't think she can be casually dismissed as wrong about everything.

At time 2:26:10 in this video the Polaroid appears in the NBC broadcast: It's a bit blurry, but it's a good likeness for the image we have all seen many times.

Fair enough John, you don't accept all of my judgements. I'm a free speech, free thinking kind of guy, so I think you have every right to defend your point of view. However, to say I have ignored witnesses is simply untrue as my compiled list of over 400 witnesses testifies (all neatly ordered into a table so you can dissect the work in a spreadsheet program): https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv On the web page above there is a handy search box just above the data, so when you type in "smith" to this box you will see all of the witnesses filtered by that name. To download the data onto your PC click the "Raw" button and save the data via the web browser (typically Ctrl+S). If you think the bike positions are wrong, can you post the photos which prove this? Here are the photos which I think prove the current animation bike formation (3-2-3) is correct: Most of the witnesses are simply too vague to draw firm conclusions regarding the shots fired. Then we have the problem of witnesses changing their minds. For example we have Bill Newman who was interviewed on the day and he was firmly of the view he only heard 2 shots, and he specifically said he didn't hear a third shot as shown by this video at 11:35 (this looks to be about an hour or so after the shooting): Just 2 days later the FBI said he reported a third shot: "He said the President was hit on the right side of the head with the third shot" - 22H843 - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0437a.htm In these cases I take the earliest, firmest, and most complete statement as I think it will be the most accurate and the least tainted by suggestibility (such as from a persuasive TV/FBI interviewer repeatedly telling him there was a third shot). This isn't cherry-picking or ignoring evidence, it's a rational judgement based on evaluating the evidence. If anyone on either side of the debate wants to inform me of new evidence then I'm always willing to listen, and adjust my position if required. My views on this case are not frozen in aspic, and I'm not reading from a script, so I'm always willing to learn. Just to clarify, I'm not defending the official Warren Commission verdict, so someone may see my work as "drivel" from their point of view, but to say "WC drivel" is factually incorrect. In other words, even though I think the photos are authentic, it doesn't automatically mean I am a Warren Commission supporter and think the authorities behaved perfectly.

There are some interesting matches that demonstrate how well things fit together around the time of the shots. Lets start with the Betzner 3 photo at Z186: Just a second later there was the Willis 5 photo at Z202: The timing of both of these photos is known very accurately as both photos show Zapruder filming, and then in the Zapruder film we see Betzner and Willis (along with the cars moving in between both view points). Then there is the Bronson 3 photo which I think was taken at around Z228: The sync point here is the guy who has his arm raised in the centre (the so called Dark Complected Man), near the umbrella man. We see him raising his arm at Z226 and it is fully extended by Z228 to make a nice match with Bronson 3: As per the animation measurements, the limo speed at this point is around 12 MPH, and the positions seem to match this perfectly regarding where the limo was during all of these photos. Next there is the Altgens 6 photo circa Z255: Then we have the Moorman photo taken just after the head shot at Z315: Lastly we have the Altgens 7 photo circa Z400: All of these photos fit together perfectly for the limo speed, with the Zapruder film providing the overall time-clock. The position of the limo in the animation during this time-frame shows that this is all perfectly smooth with no sudden jumps or pauses. The rapid deceleration just after Z255 was probably caused by William Greer momentarily tapping the brakes of the limo just before the head shot (he was looking to the rear for a few seconds which may have caused him to unconsciously slow the car). This frame of the Muchmore film circa Z313 seems to show the right rear brake light is illuminated: I think this rapid deceleration, coupled with the brake lights, and the bikes either side suddenly gaining on the limo, may have caused an optical illusion for some witnesses which is why they think the limo stopped. In summary, the photos above and the films (Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, and Bronson) all dovetail perfectly in the dimensions of time and space. I don't see how any alteration can be accommodated as everything fits so smoothly in the animated reconstruction and the contents of each image are consistent with each other (right down to the gust of wind that blows the coats of Moorman and Hill at Z313, as shown above). By contrast, elsewhere in this case we see deception and evidence destruction, such as James Hosty destroying Oswald's threatening note to the FBI just hours after Oswald was killed (and then not mentioning this to the Warren Commission in 1964). There are so many areas in this case where the authorities should be challenged, but not in terms of the films and photos, and not in terms of George Hickey's behaviour.