Chris Davidson

11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

How apropos.

Leading us into the next gif:

 

What was the official story again?

44 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I have often pondered Zapruder's precarious position on the pedestal. He seems to have switched his stance from the Willis 5 position facing toward the Stemmons sign to a position about 45 degrees to his right by the Moorman photo. If that is correct he had to switch his stance while looking through the viewfinder. He could not see were to place his feet and his balance must have been compromised because he could only see the tiny landmarks through the viewfinder.
 Did you find it necessary to pivot while you panned?. I tried to test a changing stance during the pan and found switching your weight to the left foot as you pan to the right momentarily cancels out any parallax. I found the switching of stance happened right about the time I would be panning past the lamppost. I considered it may be the reason we see no parallax from the lamppost and background in the Z film.
  I am not positive on this but standing in front of the pedestal would cause the Newman's to block the view to JFK. I measured it and it is a close call but it is likely Newman would have blocked at least part of the view.

This was the 2nd time ever filming with a B/H 414. First time, I used one roll for test shooting at home.

Didn't move my feet at all, while up on the pedestal, only rotated my torso.

That was for all filming segments.

https://vimeo.com/800442739

4 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

  Not sure how to account for Mr. Zapruder's expressing such a clear image from the future - as if it came straight through his camera. It did look that way on the film that was eventually developed, so Mr. Zapruder's account was certified correct, after all, right?  Food for thought.

How apropos.

Leading us into the next gif:

On 2/17/2023 at 2:15 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Another would be any subtle differences between when the extant Z iteration was filmed and one with a very similar LOS within 1-2 days of Nov22,1963.

And being that they are both the left-side StemmonsSign post, as one is from extant Z98, notZ104(sorry about that), I'll leave you to ponder the difference between the two.

Once you recognize the difference, then apply that knowledge to help you gain a better understanding of how many ways that difference could have been created. 

Then, enjoy a happy President's Day.

One way to convert the mounting holes to the opposite side of the same post?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1HrO2W6w-4

Another would be any subtle differences between when the extant Z iteration was filmed and one with a very similar LOS within 1-2 days of Nov22,1963.

And being that they are both the left-side StemmonsSign post, as one is from extant Z98, notZ104(sorry about that), I'll leave you to ponder the difference between the two.

Once you recognize the difference, then apply that knowledge to help you gain a better understanding of how many ways that difference could have been created. 

Then, enjoy a happy President's Day.

And, without skipping a beat, the reenactment photo would show us the alignment objects that were used to perfect the extant Zfilm.

If you really want to exact that left-side post position, just take a look at where the extant zframe signpost-top snugly fits into the alignment marker on the reenactment(hence the contrast added).

One other alignment object on the leftside would be the curved white line(starting where the red line ends) on the reenactment photo. Signifying where the top edge of the sign would be and the post location in the extant zfilm.

I think that's good for now.

But, moving forward later:

There are a few simple solutions to the signs orientation difference, when viewed from the filmer's location, among both frames.

One is as easy as looking in a mirror, as you watch the sign teeter-totter in the gif.

Reenactments are fine when the aim is for truth seeking, not deception.

Moving to the left side, let's align JFK (using the extant 207 splice frame) with the signpost from the reenactment of Dec2-5, by the SS I believe.

Notice the offset between the two left-side posts and where the splice frame 207 post lands, if we were to attach it to the reenactment frame.

Look at Costella's example in the previous post for the same concept.

On 2/10/2023 at 11:49 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Speaking of that lower sprockethole.

This next gif should help you conceptualize the sleight of hand.

What part of the StemmonsSign is in unison with the Bobbleheads?

Give your eyes a few seconds for adjusting to see its true movement.

 

 

Credit to John Costella for the following:

There's more to come, but hopefully you understand the significance of what is being shown here.

In fact, if you take a closer look at the gif, you might be able to see the signpost remnants iteration.

On 2/11/2023 at 5:22 AM, George Govus said:

The Kennedy imagery seems the same in both frames when it should not be. The frame border rocks up and down and I cannot say which sooner. Yet the top of the Stemmons sign does not rock, many elements do not rock. Some hop up and down. Funky. Math, never my strong suit. I may need Cliff's Notes.

George,

You don't need much math with this, just perceptive observation as with your previous comments.

A solid sign can't move independent of itself(or segments thereof) no matter how many ways you film it.

23 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

A vertical comparison using the difference between the so called damaged z207 frame and the Shaneyfelt height factor. 

 

 

Speaking of that lower sprockethole.

This next gif should help you conceptualize the sleight of hand.

What part of the StemmonsSign is in unison with the Bobbleheads?

Give your eyes a few seconds for adjusting to see its true movement.

On 2/2/2023 at 12:09 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Yes, the camera was higher in the reenactment than the original. Why?

I'm quite sure it was done intentionally.

By May of 64 (among all the other prior reenactments) had they not ascertained Zapruder's camera height? Why?

They had his physical position on the pedestal well established and Zapruder was still available for height sizing.

Shaneyfelt surely knew the importance of this as he shot the reenactment from the pedestal using Z's camera.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A vertical comparison using the difference between the so called damaged z207 frame and the Shaneyfelt height factor. 

22 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

In case you forgot, ballistically, JFK within the limo has to be in the correct physical location for the SBT magical mystery tour to succeed. 

The parked limo on the rightside is supposed to represent the location of JFK when the magic bullet struck.

The two red parallel lines represent both the WC(dots) and Robert West(+ sign)physical location for JFK.

As the plotted position of JFK according to the WC at z222, flashes, is the parked limo more reflective of the dot positioning by the WC or the + positioning of Robert West?

And, since Newcomb/Perry arrived at frames missing where the WC melded two shots, one being a 10.2ft adjustment behind the StemmonsSign, while the tire chalking photo supports the reduced speed and/or limo stop as the plat plots a leftward moving limo behind the sign, it's no wonder Brehm might have conflated the events just a slight bit with regards to when the limo traveled 10-12ft.

The last time I checked, 10.2ft would be between that estimation.

Charles Brehm (on south side of Elm Street, close to the President at the start of the shooting), November 24, 1963: “Brehm expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President’s car only seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain.” [FBI re­ port: CE1425: 22H837]

In case you forgot, ballistically, JFK within the limo has to be in the correct physical location for the SBT magical mystery tour to succeed. 

The area that needed fixing was the StemmonsSign, etc.

Why?

" DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that "…at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped."

TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly---after the first shot "…I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop(Extant Z135?) somewhere down in the area…[it stopped] for a second or two or something like that…I just saw it stop." [3 H 221, 266];

Dallas Morning News reporter Mary Woodward (Pillsworth)---"…Instead of speeding up the car, the car came to a halt."; she saw the President's car come to a halt after the first shot.

"DPD D.V. Harkness---". . . I saw the first shot and the President's car slow[ed] down to almost a stop…I heard the first shot and saw the President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents [were] piling on the car." [6 H 309];

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I've added back what I purposely left out from the original plat, plus the angle/lines at which the dots connect from z208-231.

If you connect the dots from z231-z313(not shown) it is a straight line.

After you listen to Dino for less than a minute, imagine on the plat above where the limo started veering leftward.

https://vimeo.com/797251262

On 2/6/2023 at 12:59 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Apply simple math (if it disinterests you I understand, but I think you'll be greatly missing out) to the previous posting:

10.2ft/21frames = .48ft per frame x 18.3 frames(1sec) = 8.78ft per sec/1.47(1mph) = 5.98mph

Parameters being (+/-) .3frame, because of full frame(18fps) vs partial frame (18.3fps) count

 

On 2/6/2023 at 9:08 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Newcomb and Perry had some of it figured out.

Start by replacing their 10ft/21 frames with 10.2ft/21frames

Tony Krome, are there some tire measurements we should release?

Below is an excerpt from Newcomb and Perry's book "Murder From Within"

 

 

Back to Newcomb/Perry:

Credit to Tony Krome for directing me to this photo: https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/29149/black-and-white-photograph-of-fbi-reenactment-of-assassinati

He started the following conversation(below)with astute observations of the chalked tire.

It's a fairly quick read and I'll follow up with the Newcomb/Perry support in the next post.

On 2/6/2023 at 2:15 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The graphic below is an excerpt from what I provided Tony.

The scale is 1" = 10ft so each individual line is 1.25ft.

When I originally sent him the plotting results, I used 1.875ft as the distanced travel, but 1.875 was reflective of the individual measuring lines.

Hence the reason that equation is in red type.

So, 5.3mph(shorter frame span) vs 5.98mph so far.

Fairly close, and it will get tighter.

 

 

 

I've added back what I purposely left out from the original plat, plus the angle/lines at which the dots connect from z208-231.

If you connect the dots from z231-z313(not shown) it is a straight line.

11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The following is from Tom Purvis and his discussion with Robert West regarding the limo angular change relating to the CE884 entries from the previous post.

 

The excerpt is from the Clay Shaw trial. The witness is Robert West. He is the surveyor hired to handle the survey work for the WC and all the other official reenactments. I have added the graphic with the dot path connected vs a straight line path, beginning from where the bogus limo speed entry at z161/168 begins, to approx extant z225/226.

If you read West's responses, please ask yourself why there are objections.

Then, take a look at the graphic and ask yourself if there is a lateral angle that is created, connecting the dots.

19 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

So, 5.3mph(shorter frame span) vs 5.98mph so far.

Fairly close, and it will get tighter.

 

 

 

For use as a reference:

2.24mph = .18ft per frame

3.74mph = .30ft per frame

5.98mph = .48ft per frame

2.34ft/5.5frames = 5.3mph from graphic above

2.34ft + .30ft per frame(3.74mph)= 2.64ft

2.64ft/5.5frames =.48ft per frame = 5.98mph

or a little more than 1/2 frame removed will yield the same result.

2.34ft/4.87frames = .48ft per frame

I guess my parameter should be  +/- 1 frame instead of .3frame.

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

 

 

For use as a reference:

2.24mph = .18ft per frame

3.74mph = .30ft per frame

5.98mph = .48ft per frame

The following is from Tom Purvis and his discussion with Robert West regarding the limo angular change relating to the CE884 entries from the previous post.

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Apply simple math (if it disinterests you I understand, but I think you'll be greatly missing out) to the previous posting:

10.2ft/21frames = .48ft per frame x 18.3 frames(1sec) = 8.78ft per sec/1.47(1mph) = 5.98mph

Parameters being (+/-) .3frame, because of full frame(18fps) vs partial frame (18.3fps) count

 

I don't want to dwell on this area too much, but for a little context, I have to with a few posts.

There should have been no reason for creating TWO versions of CE884, and yet, here's an excerpt from the graph below.

The limo speed combined, using both CE884 documents equals the limo speed set forth by Newcomb/Perry using the distance the WC used(10.2ft) to move West's plotting of a shot at extant z207/208 down to station# 381.3 = extant z218 approx,(behind the StemmonsSign)  

Remove the .9ft BS distance entry, and combine the total frame span involved from both documents or in essence, z161-z171 =10 frames.

That span puts us fairly close to (at the least) the eleven surmised by Newcomb/Perry.

The graphic below is an excerpt from what I provided Tony.

The scale is 1" = 10ft so each individual line is 1.25ft.

When I originally sent him the plotting results, I used 1.875ft as the distanced travel, but 1.875 was reflective of the individual measuring lines.

Hence the reason that equation is in red type.

So, 5.3mph(shorter frame span) vs 5.98mph so far.

Fairly close, and it will get tighter.

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Newcomb and Perry had some of it figured out.

Start by replacing their 10ft/21 frames with 10.2ft/21frames

Tony Krome, are there some tire measurements we should release?

Below is an excerpt from Newcomb and Perry's book "Murder From Within"

 

 

Apply simple math (if it disinterests you I understand, but I think you'll be greatly missing out) to the previous posting:

10.2ft/21frames = .48ft per frame x 18.3 frames(1sec) = 8.78ft per sec/1.47(1mph) = 5.98mph

Parameters being (+/-) .3frame, because of full frame(18fps) vs partial frame (18.3fps) count