Chris Davidson

Next animation shows frame 155 (with top splice moved as a whole unit, to align background people) aligned with original frame 157. This is the closest fit so far. Since these are 2 frames apart, cars/people in motion should move forward. Problem: The cars move, the cycle cops move, Clint does not move and neither does Jackie's hat. It would appear that these elements are from 2 different frames. Since I moved the top splice as 1 unit, how do elements apparently within the same frame, not move accordingly? chris

This animation shows the ghost wheel in frame 157 is actually from frame 158. Previously thought it was from 157. Notice the matching black line shadow which runs through the bottom of the tire in both. At this point it appears damaged (upper splice area) frame 157 consists of 3 frames minimum. 1.White car from frame 155 2.Cycle cops from frame 157 3.Ghost tire from frame 158 Still have the cycle cops alignment problem. chris

Very interesting, Chris. I looked at it for 20 minutes, with my cursor placed on certain places with results I have not yet figured. Using dots like I have done to simulate a stationary cursor, please do another gif and watch the dots dance around. Strange. Thanks. Jack Jack, I think this is what you requested. Can you do the same with the version in which I moved the top slice only, as this aligns the background people. thanks chris Remarkable, Chris...Only the two cops and Hill move. Everything else stays the same, fore and back. I checked this using a stationary cursor. More later when I have time. One anomaly noticed: a vertical line on the wall of the Records Bldg near Brennan...THERE IN ONE FRAME, NOT IN THE OTHER. Do a gif of just that tiny corner of the frames. Thanks. Jack Jack, That vertical line looks like it was created when Groden duped his copies. Those lines are all over the place in multiple frames. chris

One frame doesn't match the other. The still objects can be aligned with subtle differences, but the moving objects have advanced. The shadows seem to be fine to me. By the way, are the two frames being used from the same film source or have you created this gif from two different film copies??? If the latter is how I suspect it is ... the film ratios are not the same. Bill, The whole point is to compare the damaged frame with an undamaged frame and find out what was done. Yes, they are two different frames. Yes, there is a slight difference between them. The bottom part of the frames when compared look good. The top part (above the splice/black line) is the question. In order to align the people in the TOP of the splice, I selected the whole top spliced portion and moved it over so the people would align. In doing so, this causes the cops to mis-align. ***In the original damaged version, the cops line up with Grodens original without any frame manipulation by me. That tells me that part of the original damaged frame above the splice is 157, the cops at least. Also in the background (above the splice/black line), is part of frame 155, the white car for instance. So where was and what did the splice consist of? chris

Very interesting, Chris. I looked at it for 20 minutes, with my cursor placed on certain places with results I have not yet figured. Using dots like I have done to simulate a stationary cursor, please do another gif and watch the dots dance around. Strange. Thanks. Jack Jack, I think this is what you requested. Can you do the same with the version in which I moved the top slice only, as this aligns the background people. thanks chris

The only difference between these next two animations is the repositioning of the upper splice(above the limo) aligning people in the background. When the background people are aligned, the cycle cops and Clint do not. The other animation which shows background people mis-aligned, does show the cycle cops aligned. (close enough). Jack, The ghost tire appears to be from frame 157. So it appears damaged frame 157 was composited with at least frame 155. My question would be: If 155/157 (possibly more) were composited as 1 frame, why after moving the upper splice, is there not complete alignment among all objects? At the moment, it appears that multiple slices are involved. chris

Sure Jack, Try this one. Take a look between the bottom 2 arrows also. Looks like extra body shadows in the street, but no-one has moved between frames. chris

This is a follow-up to my previous topic "Zfilm Revisited". I believe that the slice/damage at frame 157 is suspect, leading into the aligned frames previously posted, I figured I'd try to recreate frame 157 into what we see from MPI. Since Groden created a copy of an undamaged version of the original (???), I used frame 157 from that copy, for comparison against the MPI damaged version of the original. Damaged frame 157 appears to be a combination of frame 157 (bottom half of splice) and frame 155 (top half of splice). The problems are indicated by the red arrows in the animation. One arrow points to the movement of hands by the gentleman. I have found no undamaged frames which shows his hands exposed and raised as they appear. The next arrow points to the front tire of a car which is not present at the moment, in reality it is from a different frame than 155, yet their are 2 left front tires in the same frame. The last arrow shows the incorrect placement of the motorcycle cops between frames. Fairly obvious. Now, if you look at the 3 red arrowed objects as 1 unit or movement, it appears they could sync with each other, but from an entirely unknown frame. One other notation. Before I recreated frame 157, I was somewhat puzzled by the alignment of Jackie's hat and the cycle cops between frames. Now in the animation, her hat lines up between frames but the cycle cops are way off. So, I'll be real interested to hear the process used for putting frame 157 back together after it was damaged. In other words, MPI frame 157 is a combination of MORE than 2 frames, and quite possibly, added frames from the "actual original". imo chris

Could the damaged frames (154-157) be an adjustment, setting up the alignment frames to come thereafter. Notice the movement between 154+157. BTW, I did not rotate the frames for this comparison, as I have done with the previous posts. They are within 1 degree of each other. chris

Bill, I referred to what the arm is holding, not what it's holding onto. Rephrased: What is between the arm and the door frame? chris

Tom, You are more than welcome. chris

Thanks Lee, I think that says it all. chris

Unfortunately, the Associated Press article does not mention the name of the reporter who saw the film and reported on its contents. But whoever it was saw and explained an extremely important fact: 15 seconds elapsed from the beginning of the assassination to when the car entered the triple underpass. Is that true? Let's check. I refer everyone to post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144830 Might want to reread the article and pay special attention to what's in the red boxes. Then compare it to what is in post 177 and the quote at the top of this post. chris

No swearing necessary, Bill, just an enlargement of the relevant hand. Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams, Murder from Within (Santa Barbara, Ca: Probe, 1974), Chapter 3, “Execution”: Late in the same chapter, the authors offer more on the subject: So, was Taylor a) hailing a taxi? a sinister version of Dr. Strangelove? or c) firing a distraction shot from the rear, precisely as Newcomb and Adams alleged? All that needs to be done to refute N&A, surely, as I noted above, is to post an enlargement of Taylor’s arm and hand? Over to you, Bill, or, indeed, anyone interested in disproving the notion. Paul, Keep up the good work. What's the arm holding, as usual, we'll probably never know. chris

Is it your opinion that the person writing the article had actually seen the film and put a stop watch on it ??? If you are going to reply on initial reports from various early news sources, then you will be entertained for a long time to come. There had only been a limited showing of the film by the time this article was written, thus unless the reporter was present at the time ... the information has been passed along by word of mouth. Trying to make something out of that seems like a waste of time, but what the heck ... you obviously have lots of time to waste. Bill Bill, Why don't you find the writer/reporter and find out if they viewed the film. (Common Sense) I'll waste my time presenting photos for all to see. (Just love it) This way, you can waste your time responding. I think forum members have enough (Common Sense) to make up their own minds. Still waiting for that 95% telephoto reproduction, among many others. chris

The film was broken - it had to be spliced back together - in doing so they overlap one broken frame over another and glue it into place. Because the limo advanced forward in those frames ... we see the top of Jackie's hat in both frames and side by side. Coincidence ... no! Common sense ... yes! Bill[/b] Sounds like an alteration was made. Broken, spliced, overlap, broken frame and glue. I'm glad such good care was given to the most important film in the 20th century. Was it sent out to Fotomat 1hr photo developing. All films and photos for $.99. Justify it if you must. chris

I personally find nothing odd about someone having several background reference points to align their camera with and keeping their camera within a few degrees of the horizontal plane, especially when there is little to no panning required. What Zapruder didn't do was keep his left to right plane the same. Just a reminder for those with any doubts. A difference of 3 frames with no stops. 1/3 second time span. I wasn't able to match Z. Anyone care to try with their camera? chris

Just what film/version are we talking about? 15 seconds of film, we're missing the other 11 seconds. 5 seconds from point of first impact til the limo reaches the underpass, which actually takes 15 seconds, according to the fiasco passed off as the official film. Looks like they included too many facts. Please do send along more articles. chris

LEADING into frames 160-165 approx (the alignment frames), there is an appearance of film damage at frame 154+157. Why does Jackie's hat appear twice in frame 157? Looks like 2 distinct individual hats, no blurring involved. Another coincidence!!!! chris

Frank, This next set includes part of the adjacent frames, so I believe this is a different version than MPI's. Also, I went ahead and paired up 2 photos from Groden,rotated 1 degree CCW and everything lines up. Normally don't use Groden's frames because the sprocket holes aren't included. But since I did, take a look at the black-hat man and the lady to his right. The top frame has the side of his face washed out, while the lady's legs has a distinct flesh tone. The bottom photo shows just the opposite. But the kicker is black-hat man's hairline when the animation is playing. His hairline moves, but the hat is perfectly still. Watch closely. More problems with hat-man. Please view all at full size. chris

If a 2 frame (101+167) matched series is hard to swallow, how about a 12 frame series. All frames on bottom have been rotated 1 degree CCW, and then superimposed over the top frames. I think the odds have just Decreased tremendously for that handheld cameraman. IMO I think you will have to click on the animation to play it, as it is quite large. Enjoy. chris

So let me see if I understand you correctly ... You find it odd that a camera with a shutter opening and closing 18 times per second and pointed in a certain direction ... that it should never reach the same plane it did at anytime during a 2 second interval - did I understand your logic correctly??? Bill, "Supposedly" Z stopped filming the lead motorcycles ( after frame 132) and started filming the limo at frame 133. You know fully well there was a significant amount of time which lapsed between 132 and 133. It is a lot longer than the 2 seconds you have mentioned. As it is well known, the lead motorcycles came first, then Curry and the Limo followed. If one takes a look at the Hughes film, they will see Curry's car was about a block ahead of the limo, which means the lead motorcycles in Z's film are even farther ahead. Time between Curry and the Limo is approx 10 sec according to the running-time films. Distance between lead motorcycles and limo much greater than 10 seconds. We are led to believe Z stopped filming for some 20+ seconds and when he started filming again, he's 1 degree from perfection. That would be the logic, which is illogical. chris

Its really a no-brainer IMO. Zapruder's camera zoom worked by setting it manually ... he believed that he had it set all the way out, but a simple check of another camera who is set on full zoom has told a different story. So let us think for a moment ... Zapruder films Mrs. Rogers at the office before going out to the plaza ... then Sitzman and the Hesters nearby in the Plaza ... all at different distances. Then Zapruder gets up on the pedestal and does some test pans and gets his camera prepared to film the President. Zapruder is asked at what setting he had his camera at and he thinks it was set at 100%, when it may have been let's say (95%). It seems insignificant to me. Let someone who claims to have a camera like Zapruder's test it and recreate the field of view if they like ... all I have heard so far is that when they filmed at full mode ... their film had a slightly wider field of view. Now rotate the zoom back a fraction of a turn and you may realize what Zapruder had done. Bill Miller Or, maybe it's a matter of correcting the pin-cushion effect, as I had previously shown with black-hat man and now with this post. Would seem to make more sense. I'm sure Bill knows, the B/H 414 lens selector is controlled by a thin metal rod which rotates clock/counterclockwise depending on which lens setting is chosen. Of course, you could also tell us that Z used the power zoom button on top of the camera for control, but comparisons tells me it was still on telephoto. And, when choosing the telephoto setting, you have to rotate that metal rod down until it STOPS, it's not as if it takes rocket science to accomplish this. Bill, you were the one that brought up the theory of it not being on telephoto setting. Now, back to the original post #1. Somebody starts filming, somebody stops filming, starts filming again and approx 34 frames later, within 1 degree, he is back in perfect alignment. Same guy who gets dizzy, might have vertigo and has his assistant supporting him. Live rounds being fired, and he doesn't miss a beat, filming. O.K. !!! chris

Hi Bill, Having read Zapruder's WC testimony (which is one of the strangest conversations even in a world of confusion) he states on two separate occassions about having a telephoto lens. including "Yes, they are frame by frame and they weren't very clear, for the simple reason that on the telephoto lens it's good to take stills--when you move did you ever have binoculars and every time you move everything is exaggerated in the move that's one reason why they are kind of blurred--the movement. Now, you want me to identify whether these are my pictures?" Does it not seem a little odd that he misremembers the camera settings....yet with great clarity, explains exactly why he had those settings?? Furthermore, given Chris Davison's footage using a similar camera and settings, it seems that there are notable discrepancies in the film field of view (I'm sure there is a better term but I hope this makes sense)...do you know the settings used on the day or have any experts in the field determined these settings with any degree of accuracy. Has anyone (expert or otherwise) been able to broadly recreate Zapruders film footage for field of view, centred areas, illusion of uphill etc. using the B/H camera? If so could anyone supply a link to view or download. Thanks Gary Could everyone please review a lot of their recent posts in this thread and seriously consider whether that post is contributing or detracting from the thread? I think everyone has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the thread is maintained especially with respect ot those who have worked to positively contribute to it. Please. Gary, Thanks for bringing this up again. Bill has said (or agrees) that Zapruder was wrong when he referred to having his camera lens on the telephoto setting. Yet, he doesn't supply anything to support it. I have provided statement's from Zavada's report and Marsh, along with one other and all say Z was shooting on telephoto. Also provided examples from personal experience. chris

Jan, I think "black-hat" man is problematic. Here he is with constraints around him. Does his size change (along with the people to his left) or is this an optical illusion? chris P.S. If you contact me by email, I will send you a link to the Zfilm. chris@3125.us Thanks to Dr Costella's pin-cushion corrected frames, I believe the size of black-hat man is fine. Will also check on the frames from the 2 different spocket-hole film versions. chris