Chris Davidson

On 2/8/2023 at 10:49 PM, Chris Davidson said:

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

 

I re-recommend listening to the short clip of Dino from the above link.

These are extant zframes 215/217, I left out z216 for accentuation purposes. Z216 has the same approx angle change as extant 217.

When viewing this, use bobblehead mentality.

iow, Individual pieces of a moving film.

17 hours ago, David Josephs said:

3.13 degrees

David,

What do you believe is the angle change in the lower sprocket shown below?

Don't even waste your time relayering it, because it's unnecessary for a common sense answer stated previously.

Now you know why ( I hope) there was a height difference used between cameras when shooting any/all reenactments from the pedestal, along with the different physical locations of the camera people.

Hopefully the concept hits Chris too.

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

The photo I unskewded and rotated is a Barnes photo, I think, and the guy on the pedestal was Shanyfelt? If so Shanyfelt is standing where the Barnes photo was taken from.
 I think a camera making multiple passes from the same exact location is easier to envision that two cameras running concurrently that day. Trying to combine two images from slightly different location is very limiting. Although a cut and paste of just the ladies without any of their background would work like we see it in 205/206. If the bobbling is a result of a cut and paste from a 2nd camera the 206 ladies would be taken from a position 5 to 7" above Z's lens.
 

Sorry, I think I mis-identified that as Shaneyfelt on the pedestal, as he was known to wear hawaiian shirts and appears to have grey/white hair in other videos. The other photo of the hat man, in the same position as I mis-identified Shaneyfelt, is Barnes I believe. Irregardless, we agree they are in the same location upon the pedestal.

Is it possible for you to estimate the difference in camera height between these two frames:

Thanks,

What I find completely fascinating/coincidental is the re-enactment footage of Shaneyfelt(1st/starting frame shown) filming upon the pedestal and its angular relationship to the pre-limo footage at extant z186 and the supposed pre-limo blur frame at extant z89.

btw, the downward slope of Elm St was 3.13°

What degree of angle rotation do you believe I used for the z186 alignment in this gif?

Referring to a different camera height and bobblehead movement.

Think in terms of before and after limo is on film.

19 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

His position is the same as I get for Barnes.

I assume you mean Shaneyfelt. If so, agreed. Excellent

I come across as an LN sometimes but that is just because I attempt to apply that scientific methodology of scrutinizing any new evidence from as skeptical a view as possible.

Never got that impression, personally. In fact, I appreciate someone with vast photographic experience scrutinizing what is being presented. It is my responsibility to convert you into becoming a non-skeptic, once I'm finished with the material.

But my core assumption about the film is that it is altered.

Appreciate that. Moving forward let's see if we can change the assumption to a belief.

All 4 bike cops seeing it stop or almost stop, the account of Chaney's ride forward missing from Nix and Dr Costella's observation on the Stemmons pincushion issue, and issues surrounding Parkland put me firmly in the CT camp.

All legitimate reasons. imo

I have wondered about the opportunity they had when the plaza was closed down for the survey. If they still had possession of Z's camera it would be easy to re film it from the exact same position(Maybe using a tripod for perfect height matching), maybe choosing a time to duplicate the azimuth and elevation as close as could be done.

I'm fairly sure now David Healy nailed it, previously,(multiple passes filmed almost concurrently before the vehicles enter onto Elm.St) or was very close, if we consider two cameras.  More to come on that aspect.

Regarding the contrast on the right pole I think there might be a non alteration explanation. The darkest shadow is on the sign with a lighter shadow next to it on the pole and next to that is the bright part of the pole. Adding a little contrast darkens the lighter middle shadow and that part of the pole disappears into the dark shadow on the sign causing the pole to get skinnier from on its left side only. Add more contrast and the right side starts to shrink. I think the initial disappearance of the left side contributes or is fully responsible why the mismatch.

The contrast adjustment was to mainly signify the widening of the signpost from the extent original. A match(in terms of width) with the reenactment frame. The widening concept will become much clearer.

Responses in red.

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

What else might the reenactments reveal in terms of alternative methods used to convince us of the official story?

From Above: Add some contrast to the original frame and the right signpost spreads.

Layer the reenactment frame over the contrasted original frame and the rightside signpost is the same size.

Where else can we find an occurance of the spread? Extant Z186

The signposts(that's plural) were never going to align from the reenactment to the original.

Same reason for not using the correct camera height in the reenactments.

We do know that the camera was higher in the reenactment and who was taller, Sitzman/Zapruder or ?

Look at the cut frame I created from the reenactment, aligning the sign/curb segment that extends in front of the sign.

Notice where the leftside signpost ends up.

After that, look at where the bottom edge of that cut frame ends up in relationship to the black line on the original sign, among other quite interesting original sign markings.

Down below:

Steven, I believe you were interested in horizontal movement. I like the substitute term parallax better.

You could almost believe that extant z186 lighting is reminiscent of a start up frame from a different camera/position with all that parallax movement occurring.

Betzner takes his photograph at extant z186, previously supplied in the overlay gif with Wiegman.

Coincidences!!!

Not

Then, referring back to the previous plat, along with the Betzner/Wiegman composite, the physical position of Shaneyfelt is much closer to the following gentleman:

So, I'll ask again, who and how many were filming?

Keeping in mind, that parallax could be created by either one person moving to different locations or two people within close proximity filming.

And, if you still believe the official story, I highly recommend not following this topic any longer.

The red X is approx where the camera person filming Shaneyfelt (in black upon the pedestal) is.

What else might the reenactments reveal in terms of alternative methods used to convince us of the official story?

Chris,

Thanks for the adjustment.

The signs orientation to the person filming is what I'm most interested in.

Here's the copy I am using, resized using 145%W/149%H/2° CW, layered over your corrected version.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the bobblehead effect appears on the same side as the Costella post lean.

30 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

The top of the pedestal is about 2 1/2 feet square.  If I recall correctly, my feet were planted 90 degrees to the street and I pivoted at the waist to record the transit of a car and keep it in frame from Houston to the underpass.  I did shift the position of my feet at one point and noticed that the pedestal doesn't have a flat top, so it was a little unnerving to move my feet up there (without a secretary behind me to keep me steady).  Interesting note about the position of the Newman family.  They were near the curb and standing, so the limo would have to be far into the left lane to be filmed without catching the tops of their heads (at least).  Maybe Zapruder was just trying to avoid filming the backs of their heads and panned so far up that the limo almost drops off the bottom of the frame right around the head shot.  Sure.

Steven,

That was one idea we tested (that's my 5'9" brother down at the curb) but found he rose up a little above the top of the tires.

On 2/14/2023 at 1:24 PM, Chris Davidson said:

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.

Let's match the filmer's orientation from the Barnes photo(via the StemmonsSign)with the extant Z frame.

Horizontally flip Barnes, adjust the sign angle since it was flipped and overlay it.

I believe that right side, sign post angular movement, is similar to what John Costella discovered many years ago.

Don't forget those mounting holes.

11 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Which film/photo is the one with the arrows Chris?

 

Dave Wiegman

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.