Chris Davidson

Blair, I use the footage from the program "Beyond the Magic Bullet" if you are speaking of his grassy knoll coverage. If you can't find it you can PM me, and I'll send it to you. chris

Chris, thanks for inadvertently coming up with a good Wiegman frame that shows Zaspruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. For years we have been saying that Weigman's film was so blurred that it made anyone on the pedestal look to not be there ... You're showing of one of the clearer frames proves my point. Bill Miller Bill, Sorry, I didn't inadvertently come up with it. I always provide the best of what I have. Perhaps you can point out Zapruder and Sitzman for us, and then tell us who that third figure is. The one which is much more in focus than the other two. The one who's proportions quite easily match a modern day photo. If your trying to convince others about light through the trees creating this image, why can't your same theory be applied to other photos chris

Jack, you did good by posting the details of Crawley's testing of your work, so please don't ruin it by posting such nonsense from a terribly blurred image. Bill Miller What's YOUR explanation for what the Wiegman frame shows? To me it looks like a man in a white shirt and black pants in an awkward position. What does it look like to you? And WHY is it not in other frames? Not nonsense at all. Jack Jack, Exactly. Another point. If Zapruder is supposed to be in front of Sitzman, where do his legs attach themselves to the pedestal. This is quite clear with the other two bodies (legs to the pedestal) that are on the wall. chris Chris...what is the distortion? ...and please check post #6 and give your opinion. Thanks. Jack Jack, I used the "barreling" filter in Photoshop along with an aspect ratio adjustment. Here is a animation of your comparison frames. They are 1/2 second apart in the movie. Not sure I have an opinion as the one frame is quite deformed. chris

Comparison. chris

Jack, you did good by posting the details of Crawley's testing of your work, so please don't ruin it by posting such nonsense from a terribly blurred image. Bill Miller What's YOUR explanation for what the Wiegman frame shows? To me it looks like a man in a white shirt and black pants in an awkward position. What does it look like to you? And WHY is it not in other frames? Not nonsense at all. Jack Jack, Exactly. Another point. If Zapruder is supposed to be in front of Sitzman, where do his legs attach themselves to the pedestal. This is quite clear with the other two bodies (legs to the pedestal) that are on the wall. chris

Chris, that looks like Dave Wiegman running with the camera, so can you tell me how long has transpired since JFK's limo has entered the underpass? Bill Miller Couldn't tell you, Bill. Too many cuts/stops in multiple films to put together a continuous timeline. But, since Wiegman's film contains the limo before the underpass and Wiegman appears in Bell, while Wiegman's film lasts a specific period of time, a reasonable guess could be created. chris

Who was criticizing Jack's work? Eliminate as many variables as possible. Perhaps you can pass this photo onto an expert who knows nothing about the assassination, and ask what is on the wall? Or send it to Crawley for his opinion. chris

"The shapes of three people appeared in Moorman's photo and the question was, and still is, if they aren't people, what are they? So far, no one has offered any proof that the shapes are not people. And I have seen nothing to make me change my mind that they are people." Gary Mack The only footage I know of, that comes close to Moorman's LOS is the Couch movie. Since he films the same area as Moorman a little after the assassination, can the light coming through the tree's in Couch, be compared to the figures which appear in Moorman? chris

There is obviously something wrong with the perspective in the "bench" photo. I am surprised it drew no discussion. Jack Jack, Changed aspect ratio and tilted 2 degrees CCW to get it this close. Could parallax be causing the differences? chris

A different perspective. chris

The amount of people still on the corner might indicate a time earlier than 12:43. Anyhow, window positions for comparison with Murray photo. chris

Thanks Chris. Great frame ! I can't help noticing how much "darker" the womans sweater looks in that frame compared to Darnell. I have seen some of that footage before somewhere, but never with such clarity. Great stuff, and "good eyes" do you have any more frames in that quality which you could email me. Robin. Robin, You can download the movie clip here: http://76.89.77.141:8400/5A4E1/1.mov I tried sending you an email but got a rejection notice. Might be an old address. chris

Robin, Frame is from video footage in "Beyond the Magic Bullet" at 21 min/33 sec. Note center frame. It was filmed through a car windshield. chris

No Pull Down Frames. Not Enlarged. I believe I did lighten the shadow areas. Wall is somewhat stabilized, from what I remember. Better copies always welcome. chris

Part of email from Gary Mack: "I just stood outside on the northwest corner of Elm & Houston and sighted directly back to Bell’s location through Brennan’s spot on the wall. There is no discrepancy, Chris, just your inability to understand the spatial differences from the two photographer locations. It’s the same problem you’ve had with other of your alteration claims and why I keep teasing you about keeping your day job." Gary, You are CORRECT. I am WRONG. I finally came up with a photo comparison that gave me a better perspective. I'd been searching the past couple of days but didn't find anything of value, until this one. The pursuit continues!!! chris

Bell and Dorman movies stabilized and the composite photo again. Notice the movement of Railroad Man in each. I would say his movements appear to match, using the blue dress woman (in front of Rosemary) as a timing marker. How can Bell be on the low side of Railroad Man, who is on the low side of Brennan (see Dorman Film), while Railroad Man ends up on the high side of Brennan in Bell's movie. Impossible!!! One other point. The wall is either concave or convex, depending on what side you are viewing it from. From Bell's movie, is the shape concave or convex? chris

Go into it all you want, David ... each time you do you end up covered in doo-doo! Info received from the Gary Mack ... "The Bell and Dorman frames do not match because they are 1.25-1.5 seconds apart in time (Bell is earlier) and some bystander movement is to be expected. The overhanging tree branch is in shadow because another tree and/or branch is casting a shadow upon it. The Dorman camera was not “zoomed in” because it did not have a zoom lens. The cheap Brownie camera (which is in the Museum’s collection) had a poor lens that could not resolve the subtle changes within the concrete areas not exposed to full sunlight. The film was underexposed and was the grainy, inferior 3M brand, not Kodachrome II like everyone else used (except Towner)" Bill Miller If you want to believe these frame comparison's from Myer's are 20-24 frames apart, go ahead, but I would beg to differ. Rosemary Willis's position tells a much different story. So either Myer's sync is wrong and all of his film sync's are wrong, or Gary's wrong and we need to find at least 1.25-1.5 seconds of extra film. Let's see: Towner at 16-18 FPS or Towner at 23 FPS. I think that would include some extra film footage. chris

Thanks Robin. Here's a rough composite showing Bell's position within the Dorman composite. Once again, Brennan is higher up Elm than RRman, according to the expansion joint in the sidewalk. This is not what is depicted in Bell's movie. Jack, Took the horizontal flip and inserted it to fit. chris

Looking for those holes!!!!! chris

Jack, That is correct. You have simplified what I tried to explain in my other topic. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=156011 Brennan and RRman are in the wrong positions when comparing Bell and Dorman's films. Supplied is Bell's filming position. Also, if the sun is behind Bell, how can the tree branches be in shadow? chris

As in certain shadow conditions plus bad camera and angle obscuring the holes detail? Sure sounds reasonable to me Kathy...what do you think Chris? Dorman camera was zoomed in. Holes should be HUGE, regardless. Rosemary's shadow points where?. Is there sun coming through the visable holes? Rosemary is where in relation to the non visable holes? chris

Denis, Let me put any doubts to rest. chris

Denis, Take a look at the Bell frame from post 1. That's a backside view of the wall. chris

The background photo is a frame from the documentary "Murder in Dealy Plaza". It was filmed from Dorman's location in a recreation. The inset is a frame from Dorman's movie. Registering the two frames with the wall in alignment should give you a better understanding of the alterationist "holes in the wall fiasco". Since it was a nice SUNNY day with the sun behind Rosemary Willis, I see no reason why those wall holes do not appear next to her. Even in the recreation documentary, on what looks like a cloudy day, the wall holes are visable. chris

The red arrow points to the same gentleman ON the wall from Dorman and Bell. Look at the holes in the wall in each photo, in relation to the gentleman on the wall. Or in this case, the holes NOT in the wall That's the easiest proof of alteration I can supply. chris