Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

[Michael Crane]

Bruno describes about a 4 foot halo that is taller & lasts longer in frames than what we see online.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Michael Crane

[Cliff Varnell]

16 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

And Cliff - several posts back I said it looks like you think all photos and films are faked.  Remember your reply? It was "EXCUSE ME?"

Well, here we are - you DO seem to think everything is faked here without taking it for what it is - evidence proving conspiracy without reverting to the far more Intellectually lazier way to go by screaming everything if FAKE!!! 

You're delusional.

I said Fox 5 was fake, the rest of the autopsy photos suspect.

[Cliff Varnell]

I argue for the authenticity of frames 186 to 255 of the Zapruder film, as well as Betzner #3 (Z186), Willis #5 (Z202), and Altgens #6 (Z255).

And the neck x-ray.

Covers the period of the throat and back wounds.

I'm agnostic about the rest, pretty much.  Don't care...

Edited December 9, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Walton]

11 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're delusional.

I said Fox 5 was fake, the rest of the autopsy photos suspect.

 

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I argue for the authenticity of frames 186 to 255 of the Zapruder film, as well as Betzner #3 (Z186), Willis #5 (Z202), and Altgens #6 (Z255).

And the neck x-ray.

Covers the period of the throat and back wounds.

I'm agnostic about the rest, pretty much.  Don't care...

Haha - very funny Cliff.  I'm delusional but all you have to do is look at your two comments above. You're arguing whether the items you mention are real or not.

With that said, is there anything else you think is fake?

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

 

Haha - very funny Cliff.  I'm delusional but all you have to do is look at your two comments above. You're arguing whether the items you mention are real or not.

With that said, is there anything else you think is fake?

I can only prove the Fox 5 "back of the head" autopsy photo is fake.

Happy?

[Michael Walton]

On 12/8/2017 at 11:53 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Then please explain (with regards to the extant Zfilm) how someone gets shot in their front right temple (100ft away) with a violent snap back of the body, without rear damage or ejected brain matter on film.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1px9bmzIAYJDddknrtuRc6PQuTf4vadf5/view?usp=sharing

The camera movement between z313-z314(see sprocket holes) may help.

Chris - nice job on that clip. The moving sprockets are because when the person who stabilized this clip, they did so on the head or people in the car.  When you do that, something will not be as stabilized and in this case it's the sprocket holes.  If you take those frames and unstable and just put them together as they came out of the camera, then the footage would be much jerkier.

As for brain matter, this is also simple to explain. We cannot expect to see too much detail in this footage. The BH camera and its lenses were not super high res equipment filming at 1,000 FPS - if it had been then, yes, we would have seen a lot more detail including the matter ejection.  As a matter of fact, there is a demo video I made on here that shows a gunshot wound to the head * and it was actually filmed at a high frame rate and you can see all of the horrible results of it.

One bit of good news though to confirm the rear matter ejection is Jackie herself, in shock, climbed onto the trunk to grab a piece of Kennedy's head. So the proof is in Jackie's reaction.

* I'm not posting it here because one of the more sensitive members of the forum reported me for posting it a while back, even though I posted it not for the thrill of it but for educational purposes.  Ironically, this same member fails to understand that if he's so concerned about the dead people in these films and how their families would react to it, what do the Kennedy and Oswald families think about the endless posting of the autopsy photos and Z film.

 

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

 

As for brain matter, this is also simple to explain. We cannot expect to see too much detail in this footage. The BH camera and its lenses were not super high res equipment filming at 1,000 FPS - if it had been then, yes, we would have seen a lot more detail including the matter ejection.  As a matter of fact, there is a demo video I made on here that shows a gunshot wound to the head * and it was actually filmed at a high frame rate and you can see all of the horrible results of it.

 

 

Start with this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TeIgXpOHhDje9ghxu2G1HBllFdRJkyZD/view?usp=sharing

End with this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14v9SJHVZk4SePjqkMssMKICeAbYh3DtG/view?usp=sharing

Shot through the front, rear matter appears.

Shot through the back, front matter appears.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Chris - nice job on that clip. The moving sprockets are because when the person who stabilized this clip, they did so on the head or people in the car.  When you do that, something will not be as stabilized and in this case it's the sprocket holes.  If you take those frames and unstable and just put them together as they came out of the camera, then the footage would be much jerkier.

 

 

I stabilized the clip.

The time difference between two Zframes@ 18.3fps = .0546 sec.

A bullet traveling at 2020fps for 265ft = .131 sec (CE560) 

.131/.0546 = 2.39 Frames.

So Zapruder reacted to a headshot before the shot occurred.

https://ibb.co/nv9JQG

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Chris Davidson

[Michael Walton]

Hmm, I don't know if it's a good idea to make that assumption, Chris.  We're talking the blink of an eye * and it's an awfully big leap to say that he "...reacted to a headshot before it occurred."

People were yelling and clapping, the previous shots has already gone off, the motorcycles were right there - a lot was going on. He could have twitched, he could have jerked a little trying to pivot to follow the car. Just my IMO...

* The average time it takes for a complete human blink is about 300 to 400 milliseconds or 3/10ths to 4/10ths of a second. Of course this is an average only and can differ from person to person.

[Chris Davidson]

On 12/8/2017 at 2:52 PM, Michael Walton said:

Pat - what are your thoughts on this. The only thing that does make me wonder is the line has to go upward to get it to come out as a tangential wound.  And I think you are right with that BTW and I also think Kemp was too:

 

Extending it to the sewer.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

LOS plotted.

[Chris Davidson]

SS/FBI documentation.

[Chris Davidson]

View from sewer 2004.

After road paving buildup.

[Roger DeLaria]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

View from sewer 2004.

After road paving buildup.

Any photos showing 1963 pavement level before the add-on, giving a much wider opening? I'm pretty sure I've seen a photo somewhere showing older and newer pavement put on top.

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Roger DeLaria said:

Any photos showing 1963 pavement level before the add-on, giving a much wider opening? 

A wider opening. Yes, I do have one.

Nowhere near 1963.

But, before I post it, take into consideration this wall.

Just the wall, disregard the cameraman's angle. The sewer side wall does not allow that same angle (at least with the frame I have).

Note the previous "LOS plotted" posting.