DR Costella's leaning lamppost

[Chris Davidson]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

Your presentation of Phil and Linda running down the walk to the SW corner defeats your whole argument.  If you show the whole frame or do one of questionable gifs based on data from 4 or 5 seconds or 70 frames of the Martin film you will see the limo is there when your version of Phil Willis is on the walkway.  You will see the limousine is already on Elm past the TSBD doorway approaching the SW corner of the TSBD when you have Phil and Linda still running for the SW corner on the walkway.  Dorman shows both Linda and Rosemary arriving long before that. 

 

You don't understand what is being presented.

I told you Phil Willis was figure#1( Robin/Gerda gif) in Bell. The first person down the steps rounding the corner. 

Figure #2 is bald spot man.

Figure #3 and #4 who you appear to believe are Phil Willis and Linda, are not.

Rosemary and Linda went up the Houston St sidewalk to Elm St.

All one has to do is look at the beginning of Bell, spot Rosemary, then look to the other side and locate bald spot man and realize Phil has just rounded the corner before him and is ahead of the approaching limo.

 

[Michael Cross]

Chris and Robin, nice work. 

[Chris Davidson]

On 6/1/2019 at 4:51 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Willis runs across the plaza and towards Elm St where Hughes captures him.

Willis had to run 192.5ft 200ft to his location on Elm St and the limo had to travel 229.8ft  219.8ft from Willis' last photo.

This is measured to z133(Station 2+99.0) since this is the first frame we see Willis in Z.

Since the limo is just rounding the corner of the TSBD, 

Willis is the larger figure viewed first (red box) than the latter (red box) seen down the stairs. imo

The time equals 17.84 seconds discounting any delay(missing frames) created by the Towner and Z133 splice.

192.5ft/17.84 sec = 7.34mph  200ft/17.84 sec = 7.62 mph

229.8/17.84sec = 8.76 mph  219.8ft/17.84 sec = 8.38mph

Added on Edit: The limo started turning from the crosswalk not the County Records Building corner. This is a difference of 10 ft reflected in the corrected distance above.

Added on 2nd Edit: Bald spot man is not Willis. Phil was approx 7.5ft closer to the Main/Houston St corner.

Willis is the latter (red box) and bald spot man is in the former (red box).

 

Thanks Michael/Ron,

If so inclined, take a look at Hughes above and the Robin/Gerda gif I previously labeled with #1,2,3 and 4 and match up Willis rounding the corner first in both, while bald spot man runs second.

Then look at the position of the limo in the full Bell frame gif I just provided, with Rosemary in the red box.

These are very close sync points, within a few frames, because of the difference in camera angles between Bell and Hughes.

 

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

We are still on topic.  The topic is whether or not the Zapruder film is a fake.  John Costella used the leaning lamppost as an indicator of the falseness of the Zapruder film.  Chris was out to debunk that.  I suggested there was better material to debate the falseness of the Zapruder film.  Other films/photos either back up or confound the Zapruder film and need to be discussed.  That's what we are doing.  Do you understand now? 

 

The topic was the leaning lamppost.

You followed an entry after David Healy brought up some valid points along with the link to Dr. John Costella's research.

Chris replied "I will have to reproduce the situation in miniature and see if I can duplicate the change of angle. ( I usually do that before posting, oh well)If I can't reproduce it I will consider that I made a mistake, and the change in vanishing point perspective I theorized would cause the change of angle is not enough to even measure. Thanks for the input." and left off with revisiting an aspect of his results.

I am still waiting for Chris' update, but since you turned this into other Z film alterations, instead of starting a new topic, we are where we're at.

The alteration you are looking for is there, you just have to put the right pieces together.

As it stands right now, you've made quite a good argument for the film not being altered.

P.S. I'm sorry Chris/David for inadvertently hijacking this thread.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Chris Davidson

[John Butler]

Davidson,

You are certainly entitled to your thoughts, statements, and research.

So, you are saying the Zapruder film is a true record and unaltered?  Are you saying things occurred as depicted in the Zapruder contrary to all the evidence presented here and all the evidence presented by others?

[Ron Bulman]

Not Hardly.

[Ray Mitcham]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Davidson,

You are certainly entitled to your thoughts, statements, and research.

So, you are saying the Zapruder film is a true record and unaltered?  Are you saying things occurred as depicted in the Zapruder contrary to all the evidence presented here and all the evidence presented by others?

Read Chris's post again, Butler, and you will get your answer.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

Mitcham and Bulman,

You gentlemen have not shown yourselves very well during the course of this thread.  What have you contributed other than despiteful, personal attacks?  At least Davidson has made presentations based on what he considers intelligent and rational arguments.  I find his assumptions and work questionable.

This topic is about alterations in the Zapruder film.  Chris Barstow was attempting to debunk things that John Costella said 16 years ago.  He was immediately answered by David Healey and then dropped out of the debate.  Go back and read what was said.

David Healey:

" Ya gonna have to make a better argument than this. 

Who is Barnes, why *his* footage, and where can his footage be found, the camera and lens Barnes imagery used, the media recorded on?

In you example are you using footage where pin cushion distortion has been removed? Thanks ahead of time for your input.

 

Here's a link too Dr. John Costella's presentation at the University of Minnesota in 2003 regarding his Z-film analysis with his 'proofs', the entire presentation: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1B3_sICTAc" 

Chris Barstow said:

"I don't have the info on the camera Barnes used but I wanted just to point out that every copy of that image I have seen is very distorted.
 It is strange just how much change there is in the Ytube video. I will have to reproduce the situation in miniature and see if I can duplicate the change of angle. ( I usually do that before posting, oh well)If I can't reproduce it I will consider that I made a mistake, and the change in vanishing point perspective I theorized would cause the change of angle is not enough to even measure. Thanks for the input."

Edited June 6, 2019 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

22 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Mitcham and Bulman,

You gentlemen have not shown yourselves very well during the course of this thread.  What have you contributed other than despiteful, personal attacks?  At least Davidson has made presentations based on what he considers intelligent and rational arguments.  I find his assumptions and work questionable.

 

All I and others  have done in the course of this thread is point out your numerous erroneous posts.

In the post above, in answer to your question,  I suggest you re-read Chris Davidson's post where you will see he said "The alteration you are looking for is there, you just have to put the right pieces together."

Edited June 6, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

Mitcham,

Why should I re-read Davidson's post?  I didn't agree with it in the first place.  Since, you guys like to avoid answering questions you find uncomfortable or unanswerable can you answer this for me directly.

Do you think the Zapruder film is a true and accurate record that reflects the reality of Dealey Plaza?  If not, can you provide me with examples where the Zapruder film is false?

In the matter of Chris Barstow. He started this thread on May 25th about 2 weeks ago.  I don't think he could "reproduce it".  My interpretation of what he said is that he would be unlikely to further his argument and dropped out of the thread. 

No matter how you and your ilk bluster this topic is about the Zapruder film and the alteration of it.

OBTW, about the film splice in Z frame 157 resulting from a torn frame.  Any fool can see that the frame has been spliced.  All you have to do is look at Phil's long leg not being joined correctly.  There are other splices involved.  The splice involving Phil's leg does not run straight across the frame.  It follows the contour of the presidential limo.  I believe that is significant sign of photo editing.

I know a few things about film splicing and torn film.  My brother, as a teenager, ran the projection booth in the theater in our small town for several years.  I often helped him out.  It was the only way I could get to sit in the balcony area.  White people were not allowed to sit there unless they were working the projection booth.  The balcony was reserved for black people during the days of segregation. 

The films we received for the theater were generally used in other theaters across the country and came to us fairly well used.  Film tearing was common and you had to be speedy to get the film spliced and the movie going again.  A two man splicing team was faster.  We generally cut straight across the film frames and spliced those together.

I bring this up to tell you and others I don't see any sign of the film being torn.  I do see signs of multiple splicing there.  See the red lines.

I asked where was the reference for frame 157 being torn and spliced.  I didn't get an answer.

I also asked were films 156, 158, and 159 torn and also spliced.  They show the same long leg.  I didn't get an answer on that either.

I guess I am just an awful person who doesn't listen and learn.

I think I will add another content problem is the list of content problems in Z 157.

 

Edited June 6, 2019 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

32 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Why should I re-read Davidson's post?  I didn't agree with it in the first place.  Since, you guys like to avoid answering questions you find uncomfortable or unanswerable can you answer this for me directly.

 

Because you asked a question which he  had already answered. I know it's difficult for you but please try.

 

33 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I guess I am just an awful person who doesn't listen and learn.

I won't be drawn to comment on that statement.

[Chris Davidson]

30 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Mitcham,

Why should I re-read Davidson's post?  I didn't agree with it in the first place. 

I think I will add another content problem is the list of content problems in Z 157.

 

Ray's quote: "In the post above, in answer to your question,  I suggest you re-read Chris Davidson's post where you will see he said "The alteration you are looking for is there, you just have to put the right pieces together."

Butler's response above that he doesn't agree with it in the first place.

Your response would lead me to believe that you don't believe in zfilm alteration.

Which is exactly how you are trying to portray the "gangs" beliefs.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

A few more pieces.

Does anybody believe "now" that Robert Croft is bald spot man?

I don't.

 

[David Josephs]

4 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Your response would lead me to believe that you don't believe in zfilm alteration.

The Z film was ALTERED?????

Hey Joe - say it ain't so....  ya mean cause it's in 9 pieces at the archives and doesn't even have "0183" stamped on it....

Mind blowing

 

 

[John Butler]

"As it stands right now, you've made quite a good argument for the film not being altered."

and,

"Your response would lead me to believe that you don't believe in zfilm alteration."

Talk about spin doctoring?  Black is white and white is black.  My whole argument about the many problems with Z frame 157 is about film alteration.  Are we up to 10 content problems in Z 157 now?  Answer some of my questions rather than making personal attacks.  Those personal attacks just make you guy look foolish and stupid with not having an adequate response.  I know I am getting through to you guys when you start up the personal attacks again in a major way.  Gentlemen, and I use that term derisively, it is like water off a duck's back.

You can't defend the undefendable. 

Mitcham, are you on the same boat as Bulman?

"I won't be drawn to comment on that statement.  " 

Edited June 6, 2019 by John Butler