Chris Davidson

_____________________________________ 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

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, Tom, Trying to reconcile the statement with the video. thanks chris

A slightly different perspective. B/W inset is around 1967. chris

Jack, In the previous post, Skaggs is the top photo. Bell is on the right, under the red arrow in both photos. He should be filming at this point. Is he? Can't see the lightpost because of Skaggs' angle, I believe. I believe the bottom photo is from Skaggs also. chris

Looks like a winner Jack. If I can find the copy of Wolper's Four Days in November I had transferred to DVD [which I lent to someone who hasn't returned it], I can post multiple frames of Jackie receiving Lambchop at Love Field. Very clear frames. Thus far, I am content personally with every observation made by Jean Hill in the Whitewash. - lee Lee, Do you remember at what point Jackie receives lambchop? This video to start with, is after she was done with the initial welcoming line. thanks chris

Bell films the limo as it turns from Main to Houston, and travels down Houston. Skaggs photograph shows Bell up in his pedestal position. Is there someone filming as the limo turns the corner? I believe the other is from Skaggs also, but am not totally sure. chris

Jack, That frame was from video taken on Sunday the 24th. I was showing Bell's pedestal position in relation to the mystery sign on Houston St.(Red Lines) I'm sorry I referred to it as a picture previously. chris

Thanks Jack. We now know for sure there is only the one huge lightpost on Houston. I'm not sure about the perspective, on the sign in question. This picture shows Bell's position when he took it, sorry you can barely see the signs. Still looking for better/other photos. Gary says the Skaggs photo shows Bell in it, but it doesn't show the sign, which is why I supplied this one. He also said take a look near the end of the Bell movie. Which I did, and I wonder what the cop is doing in relation to our lightpole in question. Rather interesting. chris

Craig, I misunderstood you I guess. Initially, I thought you were describing 2 huge lightposts on Houston St. Gary Mack pointed out it was near the Main/Houston St. corner, just couldn't find a shot from that angle, until now. thanks to all, chris

Here's another one similar to the previous. Not as good but I still see only one huge lightpost. chris

Whats great about it Jack? With all due respect, Chris still has no clue what he is looking at. It appears you too are in the same boat. Great work Jack. Craig, Here is a shot from the other end. I only see 1 huge lightpost. Jack, Thank you for the platt. chris

Craig, The sign in question is closer to the corner of Houston/Main. In Hughes, it's closer to this corner as it's on the left side of the huge lightpost. Also, the background from Bell with the sign in it, puts it closer to the Houston/Main St. corner. Here is a span from the huge lightpost, down towards the TSBD. There is nothing else between these two. chris

Craig, If I move closer to the Houston/Main St. corner, this is the only other lightpole that I can find. This one has a signal light attached, so it can't be this pole. Moving the other direction, the next one over is the really tall one. chris

Something is wrong in signland. Besides the endcap problem, the bottom edge of the top signs are a different shape. chris

A different angle. This would appear to match the b/w frame from previous post. It was taken in June/1964. chris

Bell and Hughes movies appear to agree with each other. What's strange is the endcap (arrow) on the pole is below the top sign. Whereas on Sunday Nov 24, 1963 (black/white frame), the 2 signs are below the endcap. The b/w footage was taken while people on Houston St. were waiting for Oswald's transfer. chris

Jack, From Muchmore. I will have to search harder for the shadow caster. chris

How does a ladies handbag turn from white to dark? Or is that lambchops that changes color. Something's wrong in puppetland. chris

From Hughes' film. chris

It would appear, at least according to the Hughes film, that the limo was traveling approx 8mph on Houston. Myers calculates the national press pool car at 7.8 mph. 28 Hughes frames to traverse it's length. Using roughly the same method, I came up with 27 Hughes frames for the limo to traverse it's own length. The press pool car is 17.5 feet long. I believe the limo is a little longer, therefore a little more speed needed. I think this is a reasonable estimate. chris

Picture shows Willis in Martin's film. He's off the steps and according to Myer's is 12.68 sec. from frame 313. Willis has a total of 16 sec. to run from his last photo#3, to get to where we see him in Zapruder 133. So from his position in Martin, he has approx 3.2 sec to get to where we see him in Z133. If 200 ft. approx, is the distance from the Houston corner to where we see him in Martin, he ran to it in 13 sec. approx. This equates to 15.3 ft. per sec, or 10.43 mph. chris