Chris Davidson

54 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

My two cents (FWIW) ... the issues at play today are far more important than who murdered JFK sixty years ago. While that's a reason we post the Forum, many of us know what really happened and where the loose ends are in the assassination story.  I'm with Larry H on this ... those remaining records (if indeed they still exist) pale in comparison to what's at stake in this election.  And character, integrity and ethics are what matters in true leadership. 

Gene

Well stated.

Wholeheartedly agree.

On 8/7/2024 at 5:00 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Alvarez combined with Alvarez equals the WC.
Do you see the limo disappearing, right before your eyes?
 

 

 

 

Excerpt from Nalli study:

"For the target velocity,𝑣2, the speed of the limousine around the time of impact was estimated by Alvarez [10] to be ≈8 mph (≈3.6m/s or 360cm/s),
but there was a rapid deceleration of the limo evident (possibly even braking) [e.g., [6], [5]], so it is possible the limo speed was slower than this at the precise moment of impact."

Add him to the list and apply CE884.

On 8/7/2024 at 5:00 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Alvarez combined with Alvarez equals the WC.
Do you see the limo disappearing, right before your eyes?
 

 

 

 

For those without tunnel vision:

btw, Alvarez was a physicist I believe.

Document CE884

Unpublished version.

Alvarez combined with Alvarez equals the WC.
Do you see the limo disappearing, right before your eyes?
 

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 Maybe the alteration of the Zapruder film isn't such a wacky idea after all!

 

It's only wacky to those who are close-minded.

Try:

Evaluating True and Perceived Speed 

On 7/15/2024 at 11:06 PM, Chris Davidson said:

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

Back in the 90's, we created separations with a Crosfield drum scanner.

Back in the 60's: Motive, Means and Opportunity:

On 7/13/2024 at 9:19 AM, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

 

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

On 7/13/2024 at 9:19 AM, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

 

The comedy shop in Dallas.

The quote at the bottom is from Phil Chamberlain

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There is no good evidence that any of these things were altered or faked, let alone that the people who instigated the assassination were in a position to alter any of the physical evidence, or that they even wanted to.

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.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A sentence written by an FBI agent in a report dated 4 December 1963 is not proof that the Marie Muchmore film is a fake.

Here are some alternatives. Pick whichever you find the most plausible:

• Muchmore, who "panicked after [hearing] this [i.e. the first] shot", genuinely couldn't remember using her home movie camera during the assassination, and couldn't recall that she had recorded three seconds of film while JFK was being shot.
• Muchmore told the FBI agent that because she had panicked, she wasn't sure whether she had been using her camera at the precise time JFK was shot, but the FBI agent misunderstood what she told him.
• Muchmore had not in fact panicked; she had a clear memory, and knew for a fact that she had not used her camera during the assassination. She also knew for a fact that the film attributed to her was a fake. And the FBI also knew that it was a fake, but instead of concealing this incriminating fact decided to give the game away by creating a written document in which Muchmore implied that she didn't film the scene which the authorities claimed she had filmed.

There's no reason to doubt that Muchmore was in a state of panic when the assassination was taking place. She repeated this claim when interviewed by the FBI on 14 February 1964. The report of her interview is dated 18 February, and is included in the Gemberling Report:

There is also no reason to assume that Muchmore was aware as early as the first FBI interview on 4 December 1963 of what her film contained. She had sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination, before the film had been processed, and it was not widely broadcast. For an account of UPI's dealings with Muchmore (and Nix), see Maurice W. Schonfeld, 'The Shadow of a Gunman,' Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 1975 (updated version: https://www.cjr.org/fiftieth_anniversary/the_shadow_of_a_gunman.php).

In other words: there's nothing to see here. This is one more example of seizing on an apparent anomaly, this time textual rather than visual, and building an elaborate scenario based on nothing but speculation.

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:

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

P.S. Is Paul Rigby really claiming that the Muchmore film wasn't taken by Marie Muchmore? And that it is a fake?

He doesn't have to.

Muchmore told you herself:

You need to reconsider your sync calculations:

On 6/24/2024 at 4:03 AM, Chris Scally said:

It was not until one of the HSCA contractors who examined the Nix film used the Itek 1967 numbering system again in 1978 that it was possible to establish what the Itek system actually meant. From a careful study of HSCA internal documents, I have been able to calculate that the Itek numbering system was as follows:

Nix 191 = A; Nix 192 = A1; Nix 193 = A2 … Nix 199 = A8; Nix 200 = B1; Nix 201 = B2; Nix 202 = B3; Nix 203 = B4 … Nix 207 = B8; Nix 208 = B9; Nix 209 = C; Nix 210 = C1; Nix 211 = C2 (the head shot); Nix 212 = C3 … Nix 218 = C9; Nix 219 = D; Nix 220 = D1; Nix 221 = D2, and so on.

 

40 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

 

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.

30 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

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:

3 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

Chris,

There are NO frames used by Itek which are missing from every Nix version in existence today.

Prior to the Itek Study in 1967, there was no official frame count for the Nix film, and rather than counting the actual frames and assigning "proper" frame numbers to each one, Itek chose to use the alphanumeric system you cited. (Why Itek did not do a proper frame count is unknown - perhaps they were told not to do so, perhaps they simply didn't bother to do so - we just don't know!)

Years later, Richard Trask ("Pictures of the Pain") calculated that Nix exposed 122 frames during the shooting sequence on Elm Street; Dale Myers "Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to Acoustics Evidence in the John F. Kennedy Assassination" also calculated that Nix shot 122 frames during the same sequence, while my own manual count of the frames in the film suggest that Nix shot 123 frames (Nix frames 189-311 inclusive) during the same period. The difference of 1 frame is immaterial.

It was not until one of the HSCA contractors who examined the Nix film used the Itek 1967 numbering system again in 1978 that it was possible to establish what the Itek system actually meant. From a careful study of HSCA internal documents, I have been able to calculate that the Itek numbering system was as follows:

Nix 191 = A; Nix 192 = A1; Nix 193 = A2 … Nix 199 = A8; Nix 200 = B1; Nix 201 = B2; Nix 202 = B3; Nix 203 = B4 … Nix 207 = B8; Nix 208 = B9; Nix 209 = C; Nix 210 = C1; Nix 211 = C2 (the head shot); Nix 212 = C3 … Nix 218 = C9; Nix 219 = D; Nix 220 = D1; Nix 221 = D2, and so on.

So, while Trask, Myers and I differ in respect of what Nix frame equates to Z-291 (the Zapruder frame corresponding to the first Nix frame showing the limo on Elm Street), all three are in general agreement regarding the number of frames (122 or 123) shot on Elm Street, and it has now been possible to confirm that Itek's Nix frame C2 equates to Zapruder 313, then the suggestion that the Nix frames used by Itek are missing from all versions of the Nix film currently in existence is incorrect. The frames are not missing - it is simply a fact that Itek (and fortunately, as it happens, a HSCA contractor also) used a non-conventional system of numbering the frames.  

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.