Chris Davidson

Duncan, I hope you don't mind a minor addition to your animation chris

Do you not notice the bushes against the wall rising and falling so much between films ... do you still want to say the two filming angles are the same? I can't!!! Bill, It might help if I size them for you. Rising bushes are caused by len's setting's. As I said before, the lens settings were different, not the angle. chris

Jack, After creating this animation (set to play quickly on purpose), I don't see anything too much out of the ordinary. Moorman was west of Darnell, so I would expect a little bit of image shifting between frames. What do you think? chris

One camera man is standing and the other sitting down in a car ... not much difference between camera heights, but the rotation of the pyracantha bush to the shelter shows obviously different angles to the knoll IMO. Pyracantha bush lined up. Top of walls lined up. Pergola corners vertical, marked by straight red lines. If there is a rotational difference, that square green box between the red lines should show it. It doesn't. There is NO difference in camera angle between Darnell and Couch. What are the chances? There is a difference in lens settings, obviously. chris

You could bring a stain where some careless moron sat their water glass on a copy print to Jack's attention and it would somehow be turned into an alteration. Also, Muchmore's film doesn't show anyone there either. One side note ... I have often wondered how it was that someone could look at the stars and by merely seeing no more than three in a row that they could come up with some elaborate image. I think you have demonstrated here how that process is accomplished. By the way, what they are claiming to be a car parked back in the RR yard in Mary's photo is the top of a tree. There is not a chance in the world that with her upward angle that she could capture a car sitting back in the RR yard. The car has nothing to do with why I posted the photo. And the Muchmore film NOT containing the man on the steps is one of the reasons for the thread. Here's another no-one on the steps from Muchmore. chris

Jack, I too believe Nix was altered. But Moorman is down at street level looking up at the wall. I think if a car is to be seen in Moorman, it has to be right next to the wall or much closer than what I am providing. Lee, Here is something similar to what you supplied. The photo shows the car position from the animation. chris

I don't believe you can see the car from Moorman's position. Agree from personal experience. View photos provided. Yes, I understand these aren't perfect, but reasonable. I still believe that much has been altered. For instance, take a Couch frame and a Darnell frame. Darnell films at street level on the South side of Elm. Couch films from the street, on the seat top of a convertible. The Darnell film shows what appears to be the bush/tree behind the wall, not a car. The problem is revealed in the animation. It's playing quickly on purpose. So you can see how the left side of the wall aligns, and the right. We have 2 professional cameramen, and both shoot films at the same angle. Neither of which is level to the horizon. Did they both go to the same filmographers school? BTW, that's a 5 degree camera tilt. chris

My apologies if you don't have the correct decoder for the video. If not, you can try to watch/download it here: http://76.89.67.73:6900/08678/Pedestal.mov chris

Roger, Speaking of an amateur film-maker, here is a pass of what I shot while on the pedestal. I whole-heartedly agree with Lee that no-one could shoot as off centered a film, as the Zfilm film appears to be. chris

I think that you have forgotten that the limo is in high acceleration & in increasing acceleration as it approaches the underpass. Miles, I believe the speed of the limo from frame 445-454 would be about 27.3 mph. Using the light pole as a stationary marker, the limo travels it's length (estimated 20ft.) in these 9 frames. chris

Thanks Jack. I guess that will bring me back down to earth. Still think something is wrong, and will keep working on it. chris

Thanks Don, The only way to get the Hudson tree closer to that fence in the same frame, similar to Z, is a wide angle lens or a size change between photos. This, I also took from the pedestal, but with a different lens setting. I think you get the picture. chris

Same camera, same lens setting, shot on the pedestal. Where's the Hudson tree in my frame? Unless the Hudson tree was uprooted and moved, we have big problems. And for those interested, another photo, which shows the field of view this camera can cover from the pedestal. Yes, that is the Hudson tree on the left side of my photo. Can you say Doctored! cheers chris

That's a good point , Pat. I'm amazed that more of them on the overpass don't appear in Zapruder, as they do in Altgen's. Those pesky trees/branches. chris

Pat, A shadow from what? If someone fires a weapon, would the smoke show up on film? The animation appears to be in the same general area as 449, it's a time lapse of 5 frames. Z449-457 chris

I believe gentleman #3 would be of significant interest, if I could figure out what that black object is, extending from his face, pointing towards the ground below. chris PS Wonder if that's why some of the frames are rather blurry, at this point in the film.

The insert is unaltered, while the enlargement has been enhanced. Description of body parts(or lack of) that might cast those shadows. Red shirt man with half a foot. Runaway man with a white (right footed) sneaker. Hudson with a suspicious right arm. No wonder why the shadows are whacky. chris

Hudson's account is rife with conflicts with regard to the official 'record' - this too must be taken with a grain of salt, since the 'evidence' is clearly tampered with and in control of individuals who sought to cover up the truth of the matter. Lee, Glad you pointed this out. Once again, here is Hudson stabilized in Muchmore ( I believe I missed a few frames). Hudson(Hill and Moorman on the opposite side) is the only one that does NOT react. Yet, approx 5 seconds later, Hudson is still standing,turning towards the top of the stairs. If Hudson didn't react to the 313 headshot, what is he reacting to some 5 sec. later. Shots have long passed, supposedly. My goodness, if this isn't the mightiest of delayed reactions, I don't know what is. Yes, something stinks. chris

Lee, Your photo sync's are within the 3 frame tolerance. imo Only 2 men on the steps in Willis, agreed. Here's the problem: Hudson is wearing light colored pants in Muchmore. If that's supposed to be Hudson in Willis, where are the light pants? Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right explanation needed, chris

Lee, This is from Myers. If you feel it has validity. If you want to download his PDF go here. The link is under the photo. http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm Was there ever a conclusion drawn that Hudson is or isn't visable in Willis? I know the forum had this discussion awhile back. John D and Frank A did some in-depth research on Nix/Z sync. chris

_____________________________________ Thanks Chris. (Unfortunately Commission Exhibit No. 1118 is too small for most of the words in the diagram to be readable...) --Thomas ____________________________________ Thomas, A little bit clearer. chris

First two links are for the exhibits requested. Last link is a starting point. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0119b.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0058a.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm chris

Alaric, Would this be a close representation of your Dal-Tex shooter's position, according to your graph? chris

The 2 frame animation shows reflections on the trunk. IMO In frame 300, I have cloned Mary Moorman in, to the LEFT of Jean Hill, as we view it. I did this so Moorman would coincide with the reflection designated (red arrow) on the trunk. Jean Hill's red outfit faintly shows on the right. In frame 303, we now have Jean Hill's reflection and Mary Moorman's reflection, side x side. Who/What is casting the reflection in frame 300, similar to Moorman's reflection in frame 303, when in reality, nothing is there? chris

Not that difficult since Altgens could not have even seen JFK at the time of the Z313 impact, even if he were looking. Which he was not, as he was re-focusing his camera to the 15 foot distance setting. Tom, If Altgen's didn't see the 313 headshot, he is then describing the last shot nearest him, in both his testimony and the previous video I supplied. But he contradicts himself by saying JFK was in a "upright position and tilted" in the video, while his testimony states he wasn't upright, but at an angle. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Did Altgen's just mis-speak. The animation shows a moment when JFK moves forward, still leaning along with JBC moving in sync. chris