Chris Davidson

It's only wacky to those who are close-minded. Try: Evaluating True and Perceived Speed

Back in the 90's, we created separations with a Crosfield drum scanner. Back in the 60's: Motive, Means and Opportunity:

It's easier to prove alteration using the above with other methods.

The comedy shop in Dallas. The quote at the bottom is from Phil Chamberlain

Surely there is and surely they were: Summary To achieve the result of changing the apparent speed of the car from mph to mph, is the primary technique you would use. The method mainly affects the appearance of and does not significantly impact the speed of the . Therefore, the change in between the and the from your original result is primarily due to , not the method. What you see is not what you're getting.

Now, when did Muchmore advise that the physical length of her film was approx 4-5ft? The FBI added some of their own additional information about her film, after the fact and included it in her later statement. Why would they do this? Hmmm!!! Of course, this would mean the FBI already knew the limited(Houston St) content of her actual film. Which is exactly what she described only filming in her earlier Dec. statement.

Or, You might realize that the Feb14 statement assigned to Muchmore was some 2 1/2 months after her earliest Dec4 statement(haven't found anything earlier). And, since you want to rely on that version, how did she know that her film consisted of some 4-5 ft of film? Sounds more like information the FBI ascertained attempting to disqualify her earlier statement. Was Muchmore some type of film buff who usually referred to her filming events in terms of film length instead of time? What are the odds? Because, according to UPI: "Reinhardt hurried to the office and set about shaking Miss Muchmore’s confidence in the value of her film by asking if she was positive that she was filming at the very moment of the assassination, if the film was in focus, if the exposure was right. UPI would be pleased to develop the film and see if it was any good and then make an offer, Reinhardt said, or, if Miss Muchmore preferred to play it safe, UPI would make a blind cash offer. Miss Muchmore chose to play it safe and accepted a check for $1,000." So, according to UPI, Muchmore didn't know Jck-Sht about the physical film itself. More amazing is that supposedly, with all the excitement, she had the wherewithall to remember the length of film she took. Simply fluxxing amazing.

No one is questioning that she sold her film to UPI. The film she sold didn't consist of the assassination scene as she described so bluntly in her statement. The assassination scene was most likely filmed my the man in the black suit, who (more than likely) was standing next to both of them before Muchmore vacated the premises:

He doesn't have to. Muchmore told you herself:

You need to reconsider your sync calculations:

The WC synced the subterfuge using .9ft per frame(z161-z313) as their average 136.1ft/152frames. This is rather obvious in their initial listings(z161-166)and(z168-171) from both CE884's where the limo traveled a total of .9ft The total distance span of the early SS plotting vs the later Itek findings was approx 5.409 ft. At .9ft per frame using the WC average, 5.409ft/.9ft per frame would amount to approx 6 frames. There is quite a bit more to all of this, but hat's enough hi-jacking for now. My apologies to Kevin.

The simple fact that there are two versions of CE884 should be quite troubling to most. The fact that the speed difference between these two CE884 versions(1.5mph) for a short span of frames matches the Itek speed difference in sets of four frames between each other, is even more troubling as the WC has the limo traveling 2.24 and 3.74 mph It's not only the mph that are important as the limo was not traveling anywhere near those documented speeds in the extant film at the designated frames, it is the missing adjusted distance too.

Then refer back to the early SS survey of Dec5, 1963 where it was determined JFK was shot, plotted at street elevation 418.35. Later moved to 418.48 by the WC. Creating a distance difference of 2.379ft. We now have a distance difference of approx 2.379ft + 3.03ft (Itek) = 5.409ft between the initial SS plotting and the later Itek plotting of the extant z313 headshot with the WC in between.

Apply the Shaneyfelt vertical 10" adjustment to the z313 survey and what we get is the Itek affirmation of approx 3ft short of extant z313.

Add to it the Shaneyfelt 10" vertical adjustment which should have indicated a distance traveled on CE884(z161-166) of 15.25ft instead of .9ft:

Next is the distance difference:

Let me guess, Gerald Ford the advisor to the HSCA was responsible for telling Itek not to use the standard frame count. There are a number of clues to what this is all about. First the speed difference in a four frame span between two sets of four frame spans.

I just relieved the burden. Read previous postings. Frame removal is alteration. Prove me wrong by supplying a Nix version that contains the extra Itek frames. Been waiting for years and no-one has obliged.

Another way of looking at the Itek/Nix missing frames is just to add it to the back end (instead of the front end) after z313. Assume the Nix/Z sync does start at extant Z291. Sort of the way Breneman and Dino described the extra missing head shot frames. Notice that Itek did not assign frame numbers to the report, they only specify it was the frames prior to the extant headshot. Such as 291-319 instead of 285-313.

And who did a study of the Nix film back in 1967? The study they completed consisted of a version that possessed 28 frames prior to the extant z313 frame. Meyers starts syncing Nix to Z starting at Z291. 313 - 291 = 22 frames. Where are the Nix frames used by Itek that are absent from every Nix version in existence today? Once you find those then a new conversation can ensue.

Fairly certain Breneman knew nothing of Dino/NPIC when the interview took place in 1978. https://vimeo.com/964934452?share=copy

Recognize the conflation: