Chris Davidson

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you station yourself at first? Were you at the corner, you say?

Mr. WILLIS. At the corner of Houston and Main.

Mr. WILLIS. I remained there until I got the shot of the President approaching the turn onto Houston Street, and being a personal friend of then Vice President Lyndon Johnson, we were anxious to get him in one, and did. Then I took a picture as they turned onto Houston Street. Then another one from the rear after they proceeded down Houston approaching the turn they were to make onto Elm. Then I immediately ran across the plaza, raced over to Elm Street and stationed myself on the curb in front of the Texas School Book Depository.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were there when the motorcade made a left turn on Houston and went down Elm Street; is that correct? 


Mr. WILLIS. Yes; and I photographed the President. I was standing in front of the curb, as is shown in Life magazine, on the edge of the street, and I photographed the presidential car at not more than 10 feet because I didn't get the front or the rear of the car. I just got the occupants in the center. I was that close.

So Willis is at the corner of Houston/Main when he takes #3.

Myers did a in-depth sync comparison among the various films.

The frame we have from Muchmore with Willis in it, Myers has occuring at 26.77 sec. before frame 313.

Which means: Willis has 16 seconds to get to his position at frame 133 in Zapruder's film, from the time he takes picture#3 on the corner of Houston/Main.

All preliminary of course.

Doesn't take into account any frame excision's from Zapruder.

Distances needed!!!

chris

I was not aware of Myers' chart.

The block is 200 feet, as I recall, plus about 30 feet west on Elm.

200 feet in 16 seconds = 12.5 feet per second.

Does anyone have Bond 1, 2 and 3? Cutler shows them made of this scene.

Jack

Jack,

1 mph=1.46 ft per sec.

So not counting the extra 30+ ft on Elm, I believe that's about 9mph running.

Pretty sure Willis shows up in the Bell and Martin films. Will check that tomorrow.

chris

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you station yourself at first? Were you at the corner, you say?

Mr. WILLIS. At the corner of Houston and Main.

Mr. WILLIS. I remained there until I got the shot of the President approaching the turn onto Houston Street, and being a personal friend of then Vice President Lyndon Johnson, we were anxious to get him in one, and did. Then I took a picture as they turned onto Houston Street. Then another one from the rear after they proceeded down Houston approaching the turn they were to make onto Elm. Then I immediately ran across the plaza, raced over to Elm Street and stationed myself on the curb in front of the Texas School Book Depository.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were there when the motorcade made a left turn on Houston and went down Elm Street; is that correct? 


Mr. WILLIS. Yes; and I photographed the President. I was standing in front of the curb, as is shown in Life magazine, on the edge of the street, and I photographed the presidential car at not more than 10 feet because I didn't get the front or the rear of the car. I just got the occupants in the center. I was that close.

So Willis is at the corner of Houston/Main when he takes #3.

Myers did a in-depth sync comparison among the various films.

The frame we have from Muchmore with Willis in it, Myers has occuring at 26.77 sec. before frame 313.

Which means: Willis has 16 seconds to get to his position at frame 133 in Zapruder's film, from the time he takes picture#3 on the corner of Houston/Main.

All preliminary of course.

Doesn't take into account any frame excision's from Zapruder.

Distances needed!!!

chris

Jack,

Here's 2 frames from Dorman, since the frame with Willis (red arrow) is really poor. Inset is Willis#2.

Also, from Muchmore, I believe this is Willis crossing her LOS to shoot his #2. As this occurs about 2 seconds before the limo gets to where it is in Willis#2.

A confirmation would help.

chris

Jack,

Very interesting.

First question to all, if known.

Is this Willis taking his #3 from Muchmore's movie?

The (inset) is Willis' #3.

chris

Request of Chris for better images comparing these two frames.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

In the group of people on the right side, I count 10 in both photos.

The other photos didn't show that white double sign pole on the right side.

chris

It appears to me that they are not the same ten people. In Muchmore

I do not see the three guys in white uniforms.

Jack

Jack,

Here's a 5 frame composite from Bell.

chris

Duncan,

Are there any elements in this post assassination frame that either support or hinder your discovery?

chris

Who was feeding Rather his information? And, when did he obtain it?

Interesting!!!

chris

The top arrow with ? appears to show a tall man in Dorman, who does not appear in Muchmore.

Look closely and the other arrows point to common people in both photos.

chris

P.S. Jack, if the roofline on the car at left is as tall or taller than the truckbed at right, then we have problems. Hard to tell because the autos are at an angle.

I find it interesting that real research like this study draws no replies.

Jack

Jack,

This is how I would line it up.

It appears that the Betzner photo is troubling.

Can't find those ? labeled in Dorman, appearing in Betzner, although they appear in other's including Hughes.

chris

Request of Chris for better images comparing these two frames.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

In the group of people on the right side, I count 10 in both photos.

The other photos didn't show that white double sign pole on the right side.

chris

The difference in height might be the result of some people standing on the curb and others standing on the street in front of the garage entrance...

Also -- using an interlaced frame for comparisons is futile. Chris -- you need to make sure you've got progressive frames. The interlacing throws off what you are doing.

Honestly, to my eyes (which aren't always good, so take it for what it is worth), the wedding party seems to be a case of false attachment, but I'll look at it more and post when I get done with work (I don't have access to my files right now).

Frank,

Is there a difference between these two versions?

I tend to think they are both cr---py.

How does interlacing change the size comparison?

thanks

chris

Take your pick!!!

Either a group of Giants or a bunch of Midgets.

Simple explanation would do.

chris

A little clearer, I hope.

Duncan is correct.

chris

Nobody lied, Professor Fetzer. You have simply chosen to interpret certain witnesses’ words to suit your purposes.

Well, you're the expert, sir. Here's Chaney himself on the afternoon of the assassination:

From: Richard Trask. That Day in Dallas: The Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass: Yeoman Press, expanded edition, 2000), p.115 & p.119:

At about this time Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney, recording his activities for a broadcast over WFAA television. Chaney recalled of the motorcade incident:

“I was riding on the right rear fender. We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and, uh, I looked back over to the left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then the, uh, second shot came, well then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we’re being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the – to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re going to have to move out. [The shot,] it was back over my right shoulder” (24).”

(24) Bill Lord interview of James Chaney for WFAA-TV, 11/22/63.

Chaney did get ahead of the presidential limousine, and said so himself: "I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." So who is being selective here? It isn't Fetzer, it's you. The films don't show Chaney's true progress because the films are co-ordinated fakes.

Witness statements on the day of the assassination. Most important.

Paul has provided Chaney's.

Who else do we have on that day?

Not 5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 years later.

Chaney says he sees Kennedy get struck in the face.

Curry, 5 years later:

"I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something

happened back there and he said, `Yes,' and I said, `Has somebody

been shot?' And he said, `I think so.'" (12H28)

I think so!!!

So according to Curry, Chaney was not completely sure. Hard to believe.

SS Agent Winston Lawson:

"As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud, sharp report and in

more rapid succession two more sounds like gunfire. Both the

President's car and our lead car rapidly accelerated almost

simultaneously."

According to the Bell film, the lead car doesn't enter the underpass until the limo has almost caught it.

If both cars simultaneously accelerated, how quickly did Curry slow down afterwards and how far had he gone, as Bell doesn't agree with this.

SS Agent Forrest Sorrels:

"and I saw some confusion, movement there, and

the car just seemed to lurch forward. And in the meantime, a

motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief

yelled to him"

Lurch: An abrupt unsteady, uncontrolled movement.

Meantime: simultaneously, concurrently.

While the limo is lurching, Chaney is reaching Curry.

Officer Chaney:

"I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. I went on up ahead of the – to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re going to have to move out."

If we are to believe this happens near the Stemmons freeway at some point, Curry's car would have to be in front of the limo again. The Daniel's film shows the limo out in front as the film ends.

So Curry, Lawson and Sorrels pass the limo but they still don't view/know the damage in the limo as they wait for Chaney to catch up and describe what happened.

Then Chaney states he went on up ahead of the ? to notify the officer leading the escort, I guess they didn't look back either.

Yet Travis Ellis states there is a plan in place if something tragic occurs:

"All right, we're going to Parkland," I said. This had been the prearranged

plan in the event that someone was shot or injured; it was normal procedure.

We can cherrypick all we want, how about same day statements?

chris

Bill,

I'm trying to keep the views as close as possible, with what I have.

Here's the opposite end.

chris

If someone appears out of the shadows on the 5th floor, what appears out of the shadows on the 6th floor.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Window.png

chris

Pat,

In reference to CE354, here's brief testimony from Altgen's:

Mr. LIEBELER - Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 354, we have placed you at No. 3 on that picture.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

I think you are well aware of where Altgen's appears in the Z film.

Many thanks to Tom Purvis for this revelation.

chris

What's taking so long, fellas??? Normally you post replies within seconds without bothering to actually think things through. In the wording attached to the crop - the angle change in the wall doesn't change pitch under the flash, but rather over the word "behind" ... around the 'b' and 'e' to be more exact. I am still awaiting your brilliant responses!!!

Bill,

I believe that rise in the wall you describe is from the effect of an enlarged digital file.

When I was there, I took both 35mm digital and film photos.

The photo supplied is a digital photo.

At 100% viewing, you can see the same rise I believe you are pointing out in Moorman, that we have supplied.

View at 200%, and it is even more pronounced.

The 35mm paper photo I have, shows a straight wall. It is from a slightly different angle, but I don't believe it matter's.

I will scan it at work tomorrow and post it.

The corner/apex of the wall that Duncan and Miles have pointed out is correct. imo

I haven't found another explanation for the rise, but I believe this duplicates what is being seen.

chris

In regards to the Moormon animation I created with YOUR photo inset, I DID NOT change the aspect ratio purposely. If I had, no one would see the point I was making. Obviously you did see Yours was wrong, and if you did a size check, what I supplied was 1.33/1.

Let's see, the original Moormon is 2.875/2.125 =1.35/1

Bill's was 2.95/1.

I just love wasting time proving your little accusations are a bunch of B.S.

chris

No one said you did. As Duncan said before - aspect ratio is not important when talking about what is seen within a single image. Aspect ratios are important when using images set inside other images like with the two Gordon Arnold's posted in this thread.

As far as your email from Mack ... I had said in my initial response was that Mack had emailed you on this subject. You denied it and asked that I prove it. It's been proven. Whether you ever received it might be another matter, but was a non-issue if you read the responses more carefully.

Bill,

As I said before, I will admit when I'm wrong. And in this instance, I AM.

My apologies to Gary and you.

Gary's email went directly to junk-mail, which I very rarely check.

He sent it FROM a different address than he normally does.

No deception intended, an honest mistake.

chris

Why not supply photos with the proper aspect ratio, first.

As is always stressed by Gary and you, Bill.

Your guilty of the same carelessness that you berate others for.

And I suppose this will show us what the other supposed lousy reproductions don't?

chris

Chris ... I merely copied the image from an email ... I have no tools on this guys computer to do anything but type text. How many times must this be said ... even someone of little intelligence would get that point after the second time it has been posted. And by the way, did you not get the email I posted at your request ... oh it doesn't matter - you have it posted in this thread now so like Miles ... you can say something isn't so, but it appears that you were in error.

And let me say that I didn't insert that photo crop into another image or else I would have made them exactly the same. Which aspect ratio is correct ... and why seeing how it is you who placed it against another Moorman image that YOU didn't make them the same? You see, aspect ratios only mean anything when taking an image from one picture and inserting it into another, which is what you did in your post - not mine. Its such a shasme that you waste so much time on nonsense instead of doing the things necessary to do the job right.

Bill,

If that is a copy of the email directly from Gary to me, how did your comments become part of it?

First you do a doubletalk about it, then you say I'm in error. I don't create scenario's where I have to doubletalk my way out of it, I just admit I'm wrong.

In your case, I guess that's not in your vocabulary.

If you want a photo of emails and trashed emails received by me, before and after the SUPPOSED one sent by Gary, not a problem, then we'll all know who the story-teller is, to put it mildly.

In regards to the Moormon animation I created with YOUR photo inset, I DID NOT change the aspect ratio purposely. If I had, no one would see the point I was making. Obviously you did see Yours was wrong, and if you did a size check, what I supplied was 1.33/1.

Let's see, the original Moormon is 2.875/2.125 =1.35/1

Bill's was 2.95/1.

I just love wasting time proving your little accusations are a bunch of B.S.

chris

Well Bill,

Since you're the one who stated you received the email, and it's in your possession, why don't you forward it to me or the forum, as previously asked.

Gary has my address, and has sent emails relating to other topics, the LAST in regards to my animation thread.

Chris, I deleted Gary's email to me after reading it ... I believe I had posted that I had to email him again asking that he send it to you. It appears he has now sent me another copy of several email exchanges we have had. Below is such an email ...

From: Gary Mack

Sent: Thu 1/24/2008 9:18 PM

To: Chris Davidson (chris@3125.us)

Subject: The Gordon Arnold Competition, Terms & Conditions Apply

Chris,

What's wrong? Your interpretation of the picture. The answer is simple: shadows. Nothing more than shadows from the tree branches and leaves.

Gary

Here is yet another email Gary sent me pertaining to where the top of the wall meets Arnold's body as seen in 'good prints' ...

Bill

The version below comes from a UPI print I found on the net somewhere. It's darker than most. Arnold's torso can be seen in good copies of Moorman all the way down to the top of the wall.

Gary

And still another email ...

Bill, regarding the image Chris posted in #974, that picture, from the old Discovery Channel program, was taken AFTER the fence was replaced and installed about two inches farther to the east than the original fence. I certainly wouldn't use it for a Moorman comparison.

Gary

And while your at it, please send us that quality copy of Moormon, with straight lines, you so describe.

You must have 'Duncan-itis' whereas simple messages are very hard for you to understand. I don't have my laptop and its programs that allow me to do illustrations or it would have been done immediately like all the many other times I have had to create illustrations to show the pitiful ridiculous mistakes that end up on this forum ... and usually by the same individuals.

On my end, photos have been taken, posted.

None relevant to the points that have been made, I might add.

Why not supply photos with the proper aspect ratio, first.

As is always stressed by Gary and you, Bill.

Your guilty of the same carelessness that you berate others for.

And I suppose this will show us what the other supposed lousy reproductions don't?

chris

Right Bill,

I'm sure there are Gary Mack and Chris Davidson clones you correspond with.

I don't really think that there are clones ... I think you're just loopy. But I did email Mack a little while ago reminding him of the email he forwarded me and how you claimed not to have received it. I requested that he consider sending it to you once again.

I am not sure what you are trying to get at by showing that the top of the wall forms a straight edge against the background behind it. The point I have made is that the poor degraded Moorman image that you jokers have used doesn't offer such detail and that Duncan didn't get his line correct. I had Mack check this and he also reached the same conclusion as I and did in fact email me where I saw a message where he said the same to you. You not getting it or not remembering it doesn't mean that I didn't get such a message any more than your use of the poor Moorman image means that Duncan got his lines correct. If you or Duncan wish to challenge this statement, then feel free to email Gary Mack and let him repeat it to you.

He can be reached at GMack@JFK.ORG

Well Bill,

Since you're the one who stated you received the email, and it's in your possession, why don't you forward it to me or the forum, as previously asked.

Gary has my address, and has sent emails relating to other topics, the LAST in regards to my animation thread.

And while your at it, please send us that quality copy of Moormon, with straight lines, you so describe.

The one without shadow/highlight contrast corrections.

Throw in the original Z film too.

I won't hold my breath waiting, though.

On my end, photos have been taken, posted.

On your end, NOTHING.

chris

Bill,

No!! Gary has not contacted me.

Why should he.

He can just have you pass on the information to the forum.

As of yet, you still have not supplied this forum with any photo to support your claim, with regards to straight wall lines.

So until you do, I'll just post a few more, and other's can draw their own conclusions.

This one has shadows on the side wall for you.

Bill's quote:

"It's like math ... if you are ignorant as to how it works ... then all you see is numbers which means nothing to you. I can only assume that is why you failed to understand the purpose of the image."

And the shortest distance between two points is a STRAIGHT line.

chris

Hi Chris, ..Do you know how much width the shadows added to the thickness of the side of the wall in your photograph? 6 inches? a foot? This might help Bill with his future calculations. I think if he multiplies the shadows by 2 and then subtracts the glare of the sunspots, and divides by the foliage he might come closer then we have managed.

Duncan

Duncan,

Your formula rivals Einstein's theory of relativity.

Add the slope-intercept element to it, and it's ready for peer-review. imo

chris

Bill,

No!! Gary has not contacted me.

I'm sorry, Chris ... the email I was forwarded not too long ago must have been from a different Gary Mack pertaining to a different Chris Davidson in this thread. Sorry about the confusion.

Right Bill,

I'm sure there are Gary Mack and Chris Davidson clones you correspond with.

Why not post a snapshot of that email with time/date included, which you received.

In the meantime, here's another for you.

Shot by a professional for that Discovery Channel Special.

chris

Bill,

No!! Gary has not contacted me.

Why should he.

He can just have you pass on the information to the forum.

As of yet, you still have not supplied this forum with any photo to support your claim, with regards to straight wall lines.

So until you do, I'll just post a few more, and other's can draw their own conclusions.

This one has shadows on the side wall for you.

Bill's quote:

"It's like math ... if you are ignorant as to how it works ... then all you see is numbers which means nothing to you. I can only assume that is why you failed to understand the purpose of the image."

And the shortest distance between two points is a STRAIGHT line.

chris