Bill Miller

The more I watch this slowed version of the two men - they are much closer to the island side of the street than the opposite side from which they came. It also appears that after passing the running woman who turns her head towards them in passing as if saying something ... the men look like they may have headed for the Island once they passed the rear of the car they were next to.

In the still image below ... the two men look too big compared to the car across the street that was parked along the TSBD, but they do match more in size to the car parked near the tree on the Island.

17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Once again,

Here's an easier choice for you.

All shot from a B/H 414

 

MPI changed the aspect ratio of the frame - I bet if you changed yours, then they would match up really well.

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Chris, thanks for the correction.  Yes, it looks like Zapruder had the lens setting on zoom that day and not wide angle. I changed the original post.

Makes sense seeing how he wanted to film the President

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

What I'm really confused about is why in the world are people here like Brad and Ray and others arguing about what Dan Rather saw and then somehow trying to convince themselves that *this* is the reason why the movie was faked?  It's so crazy because the film - without a single amount of alteration - *shows* conspiracy. And there have numerous outstanding articles here that show that the media and the government was doing everything they can to make their "theories" like the SBT be the only it happened.

It's much much easier to control the message and create subterfuge about a house of cards conclusion than it is to fake an 8mm film from 1963.  But instead many members just have to think that *everything* was faked, causing confusion and, yes, truly crazy and outrageous theories like frames being painted in and Zapruder's original film being filmed at 48 FPS and then 67% of the frames being removed...all for...why?

And they still do not tell us - to this very day - WHY these things were done because the Z film we can see now still shows conspiracy!  These geniuses and masterminds that faked the film had to have been the dumbest Bad Guys in world history.

You got that right!

The Zapruder film picks up the limo before the first shot was ever fired. And could you imagine that had Abe's film stopped because the time on the winding he gave it had quit because he used it up filming Elm Street before JFK was on it .... the accusations against Zapruder would be flying like dung through a scatter gun!

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Bill,

The extant film does show JFK driven forward. 

Head and shoulders.

 

Oh wonderful, Chris!  The head shot occurred in less than 1/18th of a second. It takes stabilized views like these to break down any subsequent moment ....

In this slowed down version ... how much of the distance between JFK's back and the seat do you  attribute to the rotation of the limo as it moves across Zapruder's field of view?  Would you give it about as much as Connally's tie and face against Nellie's head in the background? Not much difference that I can tell, so did Connally's tie move violently forward as well .... I mean really? 

Now that we have seen the super slow stabilized version ... Didn't rather watch the film at normal speed. Do you think for one millisecond that Dan Rather could have seen that kind of detail in 1/18th of a second with the film being played in real time and without the use of stabilized magnified frames to scrutinize. If so, then I expect old Dan could count how many times a hummingbird flaps its wings a second. Utter nonsense in my view.

5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

"May have seen"

Let us not present what I said out of context ... here is what I said, " Rather may have seen the President's car had turned onto Elm Street from viewing the film ".  Seems obvious to me that Rather knew the limo came down Houston Street and Zapruder's film picks it up just after Tina Towner filmed the non-eventful turn from Houston onto Elm, so that would show the President's car had turned onto Elm Street.

"These things are misinterpretations"

They obviously are unless on misinterpretations on Rather's part unless you want to be one of those people that think all the assassination films were altered so to hide the President moving violently forward upon being hit in the head - - - - - which by the way would support a shot from behind.

Sure Bill

So which is it, Ray - Rather was wrong about the President going violently forward or were all the assassination films altered? 

I think I only spoke to his saying that he saw the limo turn onto Elm Street. Rather may have seen the President's car had turned onto Elm Street from viewing the film, but he didn't see the limo actually make the turn onto Elm Street. Rather addressed his error in 1977.

The President was not driven forward with the head shot and Connally didn't fall backwards - Nellie reached out and pulled him back towards her. Those things are mis-interpretations that Rather made.

20 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The next thing to ponder is if there is anything that could cause a problem with the hypothesised run of Baker (small red line in image in previous post) (blue line in following pic) from the point of his 'last step' onwards. This part may be of interest. For ease of reference I shall call them 'Purse Lady', 'Dark Skirt Lady' & 'Light Skirt Lady'

Focus on those three ladies in Sandy's g1. PL is standing (with at least one foot) between the grey and blue line and does not seem to move from that point.

Alistair,

The orange dot on your illustration is in the wrong street. Baker parked his bike on the street Kennedy's limo traveled.

Also, try to remember that these people are being filmed from a skewed line of sight. To say one is 1' from the other has not been established. As I stated earlier - the people in the Zapruder film look to be shoulder to shoulder when in face a photo taken with frontal few shows far more spacing between those people. 

4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Bill Miller, (In red)

"Rather made a statement that was not possible"

Really, Bill, How do you know that? Or are you just saying that because it suits your theory? 

Ray - when did you ever inspect the original Zapruder film? Groden did and he said the start-up frames were there. Gary Mack also confirmed this. When I asked Gary why they were not seen on the MPI version - Gary said, 'they are there, but it was decided to adjust them so all the frames color and lighting would be consistent.'

I have never inspected the original film.Perhaps somebody can post it if it's available. And you believed Gary Mack?

Yes, I believed Gary Mack when one of the main conspiracy people in the field had examined the camera original Zfilm alnd told me the same thing.

And I will say this again, Ray ... Zapruder would let his film out of his possession, so he went to the lab to have a first generation copy made and then two other copies made from the first generation copy. The FBI and the Secret Service got the two copies made from the first generation copy Zapruder had made. Zapruder kept his copy and the camera original. The next day, Life Magazine went to work at purchasing the camera original. The first generation copy remained with Zapruder. There is nothing on the first generation copy of Zapruder's that  is not on the two copies and the original. Both Groden and Zavada have studied the said original Zapruder film and have confirmed it is the real deal.

Now back to Dan Rather - he also said the President was hit in the head and driven forward. Out of all those who was along Elm Street when the President was shot in the head has any of them ever said Kennedy was driven forward. Of all those people who was there and who has since seen the Zapruder film have ever said that it depicts anything other than what they saw. Only Dan Rather made that claim. However, since that time Dan Rather had commented about his blatant error in the reporting he made of the Kennedy assassination. He said in his 1977 autobiography The Camera Never Blinks, Rather said the following in response to why he claimed JFK's head moved forward - "At the risk of sounding too defensive, I challenge anyone to watch for the first time a twenty-two second film of devastating impact ... then describe what they had seen in its entirety, without notes."

So not a theory, Ray ...  you tie your wagon to Dan Rather remark if you like - I stand by the evidence as I know it to be.

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Bill, Allistair, I get it. It's bad form to post like I did. Some members go into great detail with their observations. It is only when I don't go into detail that it doesn't feel right. It does feel good when you provide the documentation and stick with hypotheses that your documentation can support. It's just frustrating when you give the conspirators all the benefit of the doubt when they have the weight of all levels and quarters of the government helping them run. 

To claim conspiracy where there is no evidence of any only hurts the good evidence that supports there was a conspiracy. Each claim of alteration for example should be thoroughly considered. To hold the position that we should remain loyal to everything as being conspiratorial demonstrates we are biased and that are examinations should be suspect because of that bias.

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Dan Rather said he saw the limo turn the corner in the film version he saw. The extant film doesn't show that turn.

Rather made a statement that was not possible

 

Nowhere did Zapruder say he stopped filming until the limo came down Elm Street. The extant film doesn't show a "Start up frame" (poor exposure) that cameras then made when they restarted filming, and should be there after the "splice".

Ray - when did you ever inspect the original Zapruder film? Groden did and he said the start-up frames were there. Gary Mack also confirmed this. When I asked Gary why they were not seen on the MPI version - Gary said, 'they are there, but it was decided to adjust them so all the frames color and lighting would be consistent.'

One more thing ... nowhere did Zapruder say that portions of his recorded film was missing. And I have said it before and I guess it must be said again .... Zapruder kept the first  generation film made from the camera original. The copies that went with the feds, along with the camera original match exactly what the copy Zapruder kept with him shows.

11 hours ago, Brad Milch said:

@Bill Miller

Quote:  'Alteration believers forget that Zapruder kept a first generation copy of the film with him and as far as I can tell it shows everything the original and copies do.'

The problem here is what people were told about the one copy of the Z-film that Dan Rather viewed in Zapruder's office as well as statements made by Abraham Zapruder on live Dallas TV (before his film was developed & copied 3 times) and his attractive receptionist, Marilyn Sitzman, in the TV documentary, 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', Bill.

Rather told a global audience that JFK's limo rounded the intersection of Houston & Elm Street & shortly afterwards, JFK was subsequently struck in his head, causing his head to move violently forward.

Rather didn't lie - shortly afterward can be interpreted to mean within 2 to 10 seconds.

Zapruder told a global audience on Dallas TV he began filming the JFK entourage parade car 'coming in from Houston Street, making its turn' (from Houston St. & onto Elm St.).

He was right - the lead cycles were filmed, but he obviously realized that the President's wasn't immediately behind them, so he took his finger off the button until he could actually see the President coming towards him.

Zapruder's receptionist (Marilyn Sitzman) said the same as her former boss in the TV documentary.

With all the noise and attention being given to the event itself ... Sitzman wouldn't really know when Abe was pressing the switch to be filming or not. All she would know is that he is tracking the parade through his view finder.

What happened to the limo turn reported by Rather, Zapruder & Sitzman, Bill? That scene is not in the remaining Zapruder copies, nor the original. Are not these 3 people talking about a scene not presently in the Zapruder film original or its 3 copies? How could all 3 be wrong (particularly the two people involved in creating the Z-film, Abraham Zapruder & Marilyn Sitzman)?

I stand by my response. Furthermore, when a camera is started - the first frame is the brightest as the exposure is slower for that initial start-up frame before the camera is running at optimal speed. This will occur each time Zapruder pressed the switch to start the camera filming. It happened twice on the original film - with the second being with the President coming into view. Most people see the MPI version where they adjusted the initial frames to match the others that followed.

No single event was ever described being out of the ordinary until the first shot was heard. That shot came after Betzner took his photo at Z186 and before Willis took his at Z202. There would be no motive for altering a film before the shooting started. The turn onto Elm was captured by Hughes and picked up by Tina Towner. The President is smiling and waving at the ladies until the first shot hit him.

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

 

3 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Mike,

I am totally with you on the 'Observations can be helpful in finding truths and eliminating non truths', and I agree that one 'can't eliminate a point or possibility that has not been considered'.

Couple of things from your post that I would like to make mention of (I have bolded them above)...

"LHO said he was on the steps at the time"

I have seen that said by people many times. I have also seen it said that at the time of the shots LHO was out front with Shelley. The thing is I have never actually seen where LHO said those things. There are two things I have seen about where LHO was at the time of the shots - each came from a different 'interrogation' of LHO (more details here)

1) "I was having lunch about that time on the first floor,"
2) He said that before he could finish what he was doing, all the commotion surrounding the assasination took place, so he said, "I just went on downstairs" to "see what it was all about."

The part about 'being out front with Shelley' can be found in the same interrogation, and not long after the 'I was having lunch about that time on the first floor'

And nowhere was it said that Oswald claimed to have been standing outside talking to his carpool pal Frazier when the shooting occurred.

3 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

"No one would be able to put a gun in my car, and tell me it was curtain rods, without me knowing better or at least being suspicious."

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that it would be only if they turned up 'blind' on the Friday morning with the package.

That's not what happened though, and as such, from the point of view of Frazier, he would have no reason to not know better or no reason to be a bit suspicious on the Friday morning, because of what his expectation would be - his expectation on the Friday morning would be that Oswald would have a package with him and that package would contain cutrain roads... Normally Frazier would only give Oswald a lift home (to the Paines) on a Friday after work, and only give him a lift back in to work on a Monday morning. On the Thursday (the day before the assassination) Oswald asked Frazier for a lift home that day, Frazier was actually a bit 'surprised' at such a deviation from the normal routine and actually asked Oswald why, that was when Oswald told him that it was to pick up curtain rods for his apartment. Frazier gave Oswald a lift home (to the Paines on the Thursday after work). On the Friday morning Frazier would expect Oswald to be bringing a package with him and he would expect that package to be 'curtain rods'...

Here is a relevant part of Frazier's testimony...

Regards

That is correct. Frazier did ask what was the package about and Lee gave a satisfactory answer that made sense seeing how Lee was coming  from one location and would be going back to the rooming house.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If anything I said that when Baker begins to cross the street, he is running in the direction his shadow is pointing. Because ALL the people crossing the street are walking or running in the direction their shadows are pointing to. Roughly speaking.

Roughly speaking ... that is nonsense. Peoples shadows are cast by the sun regardless of which direction they are walking. You merely plotted a course on the street from point A to point B without any consideration to the skewed view due to Darnell's location. One would think after the discussion and examples that were posted concerning how misleading Zapruder and Altgens skewed views were when it came to the witnesses spacing to one another Vs. when seen against the Bronson photo ... that this might be considered in your location of Baker in relation to the stairs in Darnell's film.

 I also said the when Baker begins to cross the street you can see his butt. Same as you can see the butt of everybody crossing the street.

That is because of the location of the camera in relation to those people.

In both cases I was going on memory and wasn't sure.

That I am aware of.

I just now checked and you can't really tell if Baker, at the beginning, is running in the direction his shadow is pointing. Because his shadow is obscured by lots of people. However, you can see his butt when he first begins to cross the street.

Seeing any portion of the Patrolman's butt does not tell someone the exact route he ran. The further from the camera Baker travels - the more of his butt will be seen. Many people's backsides are seen and yet just a few degrees difference between witnesses would offer a different path traveled if plotted against two reference points. It's like the difference between two people being turned ... one at 12 o'clock from the camera and 12:03 ... the difference is minimal when starting out at point A, but can make a big difference where they are from each other at 40' further away. Your people and shadows seem close together from Darnell's skewed view, but if you were behind those people then you would see them as being much further apart. Again I reference the Bronson photo against the Altgen's photo and Zapruder film.

The only thing that can be determined is that where Baker's shadow turns upward on the curb wall is where he will cross from the street to the sidewalk. All else is what we used to call Fetzer's claims of Assassination Science = Junk Science. It's like when someone claims that Frazier and Montana didn't see Baker pass by them - it means little if the two witnesses didn't see Baker even cross the street. Yet when a witness does recall seeing Baker go up the stairs, then anyone anti-Baker will immediately take the position that the witness must be lying. And when Frazier says the officer could have came up the stairs while his attention could have been elsewhere such as looking to the west towards the sounds of the shots or sizing up Prayer Man, then Frazier is said to be lying. I honestly think that if someone pulled grandpa's old home movie films out of his closet and found that one of the films was taken of the front of the TSBD at the assassination and from a different angle so to show Baker and Truly doing just what they claimed they had done, then immediately that film would be being claimed to be a fake/altered.

1 hour ago, Brad Milch said:

Quote: 'The insult is someone claiming alteration without even knowing the processes needed to have been done such a thing to know if it was possible or not'.

What is desperately needed to help folks globally interested in this topic understand & decide if the Z-film & its' brother & sister assassination visuals were collectively or individually victims of manipulation is someone on the 'inside' that performed the alleged tasks suspected of the final product. This failure to produce a living witness to the alleged falsification of the Z-film at the CIA's super secret Hawkeye Works film studio was one of the biggest hurdles to Doug Horne's spectacular claims that the government monkeyed with the Z-film the assassination weekend. Alleged by Horne: removal of the limo turn from Houston to Elm Street, removal of the limo stop near the Newman family & removal of the violent forward motion of JFK's head (reported by Dan Rather the assassination weekend on CBS TV news) & thus leaving the after-effects of a 2nd shot.

 

Alteration believers forget that Zapruder kept a first generation copy of the film with him and as far as I can tell it shows everything the original and copies do.

15 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I don't see how his right foot will land on the blue line that is parralel with the grey line... and even if on his last step seen his right foot will land on that blue line, I don't quite understand how his left foot on his next step can also land on the blue path because of his forward momentum.

Alistair -  Did not Sandy say that Baker was running in line with his shadow?  If so, then Baker's right step ... it will step in his shadow and his street shadow is not on the blue line but clearly above it.

And I still want to know why the blue line bends just before the curb???

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

BTW, when Baker's shadow rises the face of the curb, you can see the running woman's left shoe rise up right next to it, just to the right of the shadow on the curb. It's kinda hard to see without single-stepping software because the big guy quickly gets in the way. But I think most patient people can see it.

.

Click to enlarge!

 

Why does your blue line make a turn right before getting to the curb?

5 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

*Of course there is no way of knowing exactly what the deleted comment actually said unless someone was canny enough to take a screen shot of it. lol

His post was up on the board for about 20hrs before I cited one of the sentences from it. Then immediately after that was done - his post was deleted.

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't see how Insulting and labeling people is a way of getting to the truth.

The insult is someone claiming alteration without even knowing the processes needed to have been done such a thing to know if it was possible or not.

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

His reasons for thinking the bone plate was painted onto the Zapruder film have been clearly debunked...

No they haven't.

Really?  Your position was there was no evidence other than the Zapruder film that the bone plate dislodged from there head - I believe you stated that no medical personnel at Parkland noticed such a wound. Dr. Jenkins was filmed discussing it and how big the bone plate was based on the size of his hand.

Then there is Moorman's photo. Did you not see the top of the had missing? Is it your position that Moorman had a photo alteration lab in her coat pocket - while standing in the Plaza - and before a cameraman filmed a close-up of her Polaroid following the assassination?? I hope we are not going to hear any more 'Beautiful Mind' type reasoning. So without going there - tell me how it is you can still say that frame Z313 is a paint job!

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If you go to my proof you'll find a lot of useful gifs that allow researchers to see things.

And, BTW, it is necessary to understand exactly what the red line represens , and to which woman it is ascribed. It is necessary to watch that woman from beginning to end so that you see that she is running to the postal box that is to the right of the TSBD steps.

I disagree, Sandy. You have simply drawn lines on a two dimensional image from a skewed line of sight which leaves a considerable margin for error in my view. The world as I know it is the dimensional. Your two parallel lines don't account for Baker's shrinking in  size by the time he gets to the other side of the street, nor do they tell the viewer how far west of the line is Baker when he starts and finishes his run before the camera moves off of him. In other words - from the camera man's angle .... those lines without accounting for perspective are misleading in my view. Your base line appears to be running towards a location east of the stairs with no reference as to how far in reality is Baker to the west of the line. Both the upper and lower blue lines should be on some path that should eventually meet a horizon point, but they appear parallel - again misleading. Patrolman Baker is decreasing in size quite rapidly which means he is moving away from the camera. I believe if you were to show your animation to a someone who is skilled in Photogammetry that that Baker is far enough west of your blue line to place him on a course with the base of the stairs leading up to the entrance of the TSBD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

On 1/23/2017 at 8:53 AM, John Butler said:

I don’t think anyone fired a shot at the presidential limousine as it passed the Grassy Knoll.  If someone did, then they missed and the shot went into the grass in the grassy area between Elm Street and Main Street.  The best evidence on this is Mary Moorman’s Polaroid.

The line drawn onto the Moorman photo does not start at the Badge Man location. The limo is several feet west from its location at Z312/313.

So much being discussed about from where the shot that killed Kennedy came from as if the bullet was a through and through shot, which it was not. The bullet was a tangential strike to the President's skull. Two things will happen from a tangential strike. One is that the brain will appear to have been shredded instead of having more of a refined bored hole through it. And the other is that the bullet can change direction as it passes through the head. Then there is the possible fragmenting of the lead which can have pieces go on several directions.

Here is a link showing a tangential bullet strike hitting water alone. Start at the 2:50 second mark and watch what happens to the 357 bullet when it hits the water. That bullet shed its energy so fast that it made an abrupt turn in short order. The bullet that fractured the bone plate could have done the same thing inside the President's head and probably did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dihs9JcVt3E

4 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

The shadow appears to move towards the doorway but it is because it has hit the raised curb.

Ok - so let us examine the curb part of your response.

It is hard for me to actually hard for me to even see the top of his shadow reach the curb before the man coming from the right blocks the view to Patrolman Baker's shadow. So let us discuss the lower portion of the shadow leading back to Baker. It is clearly not at the curb

25 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

What difference does it make whether they know or not, strange logic you use.

Nor did anyone of that lot say they saw Baker.

Not Frazier

Not Molina

Only Sanders, who lied and assisted Reid with her BS lunchroom encounter story.

Truly talked to Brennan!!!!!!! 

Bart, I am not interested in your excuse that everyone must have lied nonsense. So don't waste your breath on me unless you have nothing better to do. I am interested only at this time what information can be drawn from the film images. There is no evidence that Baker ran to the corner of the building to look up and down Houston and he never mentions doing that in his re-enactment. No one claims to have seem him do that either, nor run across the street to the Dal-Tex building that I am aware of.  If you have witnesses that saw him shoot past the stairs and did any of those things, then I will hear it. If not, then its all jibber-jabber to me and why I am looking towards the info the Darnell film may have to offer.

Thanks!

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

If anyone would want to make his way up some stairs hurriedly then he would go for the part where there is movement and not where people are standing still.

I would think just the opposite for those people on the right appear to be in a position to see the Patrolman coming and would know to move in a way to let him through. People walking up the stairs with their back to the officer would not even know he is approaching.