Chris Davidson

Jack, I think the Crawley photo may be missing a few south facing palings. It's hard for me to tell where the actual corner is. Maybe with this comparison, you can point it out to me. chris

I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location. Bill Thank you Chris, I've got them now Chris, could you tell us anything you noticed about the positioning of the Crawley photo from your work on the overlay? We know he used Mary's camera with the same lens & had the focal setting calculated, it looks pretty good to me, not perfect but who needs perfect? What is perfectly obvious to me, is that Nigel Turner seems to have stood in the place "they" thought Arnold stood, nothing to do with sizing the figure up to Moorman at all. Turner et al never noticed the size difference & still don't today, but Crawley did. That's why he puts all these characters way back in the car lot. I say he puts them back there, if they were real he would. Since Craig has now posted in this thread I wonder if he wouldn't mind giving us his honest opinion of the value of Chris's overlay above? I know you probably think that we are all wasting our time here Craig but could you just pretend that the Arnold figure was a possiblity for a minute & comment on how Nigel Turner is three times the size of that Arnold figure in an overlay when almost everything else seems to line up? Can we take anything positive away from a comparison like this in your opinion? Thank you Alan Alan, Far right side doesn't register, but is the same size. (pergola, wall) The first gif labeled (Pergola Shift) shows the pergola difference. Parallax The second one ( Comparison.gif) is both pictures aligned. Everything looks good even the steps. It's not perfect, but awfully close, discounting the parallax affect. chris BTW, many thanks to Robin for figuring out a solution to our posting problems. That was the most important discovery of all.

I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location. Bill Thank you Chris, I've got them now Chris, could you tell us anything you noticed about the positioning of the Crawley photo from your work on the overlay? We know he used Mary's camera with the same lens & had the focal setting calculated, it looks pretty good to me, not perfect but who needs perfect? What is perfectly obvious to me, is that Nigel Turner seems to have stood in the place "they" thought Arnold stood, nothing to do with sizing the figure up to Moorman at all. Turner et al never noticed the size difference & still don't today, but Crawley did. That's why he puts all these characters way back in the car lot. I say he puts them back there, if they were real he would. Since Craig has now posted in this thread I wonder if he wouldn't mind giving us his honest opinion of the value of Chris's overlay above? I know you probably think that we are all wasting our time here Craig but could you just pretend that the Arnold figure was a possiblity for a minute & comment on how Nigel Turner is three times the size of that Arnold figure in an overlay when almost everything else seems to line up? Can we take anything positive away from a comparison like this in your opinion? Thank you Alan Alan, Far right side doesn't register, but is the same size. (pergola, wall) The first gif labeled (Pergola Shift) shows the pergola difference. Parallax effect The second one ( Comparison.gif) is both pictures aligned. Everything looks good even the steps.

I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location. Bill Thank you Chris, I've got them now Chris, could you tell us anything you noticed about the positioning of the Crawley photo from your work on the overlay? We know he used Mary's camera with the same lens & had the focal setting calculated, it looks pretty good to me, not perfect but who needs perfect? What is perfectly obvious to me, is that Nigel Turner seems to have stood in the place "they" thought Arnold stood, nothing to do with sizing the figure up to Moorman at all. Turner et al never noticed the size difference & still don't today, but Crawley did. That's why he puts all these characters way back in the car lot. I say he puts them back there, if they were real he would. Since Craig has now posted in this thread I wonder if he wouldn't mind giving us his honest opinion of the value of Chris's overlay above? I know you probably think that we are all wasting our time here Craig but could you just pretend that the Arnold figure was a possiblity for a minute & comment on how Nigel Turner is three times the size of that Arnold figure in an overlay when almost everything else seems to line up? Can we take anything positive away from a comparison like this in your opinion? Thank you Alan Alan, Far right side doesn't register, but is the same size. (pergola, wall) The first gif labeled (Pergola Shift) shows the pergola difference. Parallax effect The second one ( Comparison.gif) is both pictures aligned. Everything looks good even the steps.

Not sure what happened, but move down to post 384. chris

Difference between Arnold at 1.33/1(U.S.) and 1.57(U.K.). Arnold.gif file If it helps. http://66.75.7.97 chris

Chris...I should mention that the CRAWLEY PHOTO I POSTED WAS CROPPED TO SAVE FORUM SPACE. It is not useful to use it to study aspect ratio! Though taken IN THE MOORMAN CAMERA, it has a much wider field of view and aspect ratio. If you wish, I can EMAIL you the full image! Jack Jack. It has been said before on this forum that the film that was used in Mary's camera for that shoot by Crawley had over twice the resolving potential comapared to the film that Mary used. Would you care to comment on that? Did Crawley compensate for this in anyway? As for what you have shown us of that photo thus far, it wasn't good enough to see Turner above the wall. Everyone missed him, even you who were there. So, can you show us a high quality crop of above the wall that really does show the "resoving power of the camera"? Alan PS: Chris, that second link doesn't work for me either sorry. Alan, In setting up a quick alternative to the Simkin forum for downloads, I forgot to tell my wife don't shut down the machine. The link is good: http://66.75.7.97 If it's down, try back later. Will try to keep it up and running for as long as possible. chris

Sorry about that previous link. I hope it didn't cause too much frustration. Please download before playing, or you will probably experience slow playback. New link is: http://66.75.7.97 Once again. 35mm(man on stairs) cloned into Moorman for comparison. (4.gif) + other's. chris

Thanks for the time & effort Chris. I can see you did those as honestly as you could. Okay it's obvious that we could get various results depending on which photo we compare Moorman to. It is still highly suggestive however since every modern photo shows real people at or near the wall over twice the size of GIJ. If Bill Newman looked half the size as those woman, then that could help explain why GIJ is so small but it doesn't help that he appears large, it actually suggests that GIJ if a real person is standing a long long way back from the wall. Just a close up of what Chris's Gif showed at the wall & I added in the size of GIJ. Alan Alan, Next: 35mm(man on stairs) cloned into Moorman for comparison. WRONG ADDRESS. See post 293 for correct link. chris

Another one. Comparison of people on the steps. chris

Chris, appreciate your interest & the great photos thank you! Let me ask you something. Were the photos where taken by your good self? If so(& hopefully we you won't get any input from a third part for this next question, until after you've replied) how would you go about matching Moorman's fifth photo exactly? What's the first thing you'd line-up? Please refrain from answering Chris's question for him until he has had a chance to reply. I'm not trying to trick him or anything else. Alan Alan, My brother took the photos when we were back there a few years ago. They were not taken to recreate the Moorman position. But, as they include people in different areas around the wall, thought they might offer a comparative size value between individuals. I would try to line up/size common elements which are furthest away. chris Thanks for the reply Chris. You don't have to respond to this but, don't you find it more than a little persausive that every single photo taken from "the general area" of Moorman shows people more than twice the size of "Arnold" behind the wall, including yours? Jack reminded us that differences are expected but, we not talking about minor differences that can be explained by repositioning people a few feet here & there. If I can line up the south wall with each photo to M5 & every single time it shows someone over twice the size of Arnold, you have to wonder if there is something seriously wrong here, don't you? Bill & Duncan seem to think that the whole idea of doing this is worthless because of how different things look depending on what camera set up you use(not that it ever stopped Bill in the past). The problem I have is that the examples they used both show things at very different distances from the camera. The face of the south wall & "Arnold" are in very close proximity, so the same distant from camera(well according to Arnold supporters they are!) & I can't see how every camera apart from Moorman's shows a giant behind the wall, when in fact they were midgets just like the "Arnold" figure. Can you? On the correct positioning of a replica M5. The message I am getting from this thread is....... even if you do go to the plaza & accurately replicate the Moorman photo, if you place a man in the correct position to line up with the body mass of "Arnold"(& making you the first person to do so) & it doesn't correspond with either a. the Arnold story or b. what is humanly possible, then there must be something wrong with the focal lense you used. Because only if you get the architecture and the hypothetical forms in the blow-ups lined up together can you ever be considered to have accurately replicated Moorman5. Anyway Chris, I think the windows in the shelter are considered by others as one of the first things to line up in any photo that shows them, I'm sure you'd agree though that a few inches in height or width in your M5 position would make very little difference to the size of anyone behind the wall. Alan Edit: added one word nothing changed AH Alan, I'll post a few examples going forward. If I change the aspect ratio, I will say so. chris

Chris, appreciate your interest & the great photos thank you! Let me ask you something. Were the photos where taken by your good self? If so(& hopefully we you won't get any input from a third part for this next question, until after you've replied) how would you go about matching Moorman's fifth photo exactly? What's the first thing you'd line-up? Please refrain from answering Chris's question for him until he has had a chance to reply. I'm not trying to trick him or anything else. Alan Alan, My brother took the photos when we were back there a few years ago. They were not taken to recreate the Moorman position. But, as they include people in different areas around the wall, thought they might offer a comparative size value between individuals. I would try to line up/size common elements which are furthest away. chris

Initial comparison by Jack.

Next 2.

You are spitting in a pretty stiff breeze this time, Duncan. If one increases an image whether horizontally or vertically - they have stretched it. Resize: - change the size of; make the size more appropriate size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size rescale - establish on a new scale Stretch: To become lengthened, widened, or distended. To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction Bill Miller Duncan. Anyone who has worked with images over a period of time will know the difference between stretching something until it becomes out of kilter with reality & resizing it within the boundaries of what one would expect. We all know what "stretching" something means & we don't need a dictionary to explain it. Things of all shapes & sizes are resized or rescaled accurately everyday in all manner of applications but they are not classed as "stretched" not even when they are magnified 500 times or more they are not. It's because when these items are resized everything related to it is resized too & to the same degree. When someone plays dumb like this you know your on the right track. On another point Duncan. You seemed to agree with Bill that by taking the Crawley/Moorman photo & resizing it so that the wall comes close to what is seen in the original M5 photo I am being misled by the size of the man behind the wall in Crawley & I shouldn't make too much of it. Please, if you have time one day, explain to me how what I see might be way off the mark & please don't refer to Muchmore & the limo insanity, that observation has nothing to do with an object in close proximity to the wall. Maybe you can find a plausible example of two objects in close proximity to one another & where one is seen to be twice the size in another photo even though it was taken from the same camera & from the same approximate position give or take a few feet, the photos don't have to be JFK related. Or you could explain it in a few sentences if it's easier. Alan If these help for size perspective among people near the wall. Good. If not, disregard. First 3 photo sequence is the same guy moving from back to front. Next post is 2 photos with people closer to the wall edge. chris

Is it fair to say that there are two different versions of the Nix film??? It appears that in the Gif Chris posted ... that the first frame (the darkest) doesn't show anyone on the walkway through the colonnade. However, once the image is lightened and the pixels are visible .... the appearance of a possible figure (one without legs BTW) becomes visible. Does this mean that there are two versions of that frame or does it mean that the frame was altered until the shadows started to take on part of a human shape. I might add that the two white arrows pointing at this figure looks exactly like the image I had once done (arrows included) in a post on JFK Research. Bill Miller By Bond 4 there is no one there, but this strange [and all to common a] phenomena in JFK research needs more work.....to find out if another example of alteration [accidental or conspiratorial or forgery] or what... I don't get it ... is everyone so bored with the other evidence of the case that they must make things out of nothing??? The frame before and the frame after the one in question shows no one there. The other assassination images showing this location around the same time shows no one there. But let someone adjust the contrast and brightness to the point of causing part of a shape in one frame to appear that could be passed off as human, then we are to feel as though it needs investigated. The image is what it is ... A similar example was when a shadow on a column was thought to be Charles Hester. I also got news for everyone ... when Groden had the lab work on his best Nix copy - there was no one there in that particular frame either. It takes a bit of doing to play with the contrast and lighting of that frame to make it appear that someone is there and that isn't a mystery IMO, but rather an explanation that about anyone should be able to understand. Bill Bill, In other words, if we are working with multi-generational films/photos, there is nothing to be discovered. Everything is enhanced pixels. Strange you should bring this up, for if I didn't lighten the Bell film and stabilize Mr.Hester, we would have never noticed him in the SHADOWS within the red square. Remember this!!! What did I do, I lightened the background. Did I create something that wasn't there before, not at all. And while I'm at it, did I also create the person in shadow, walking through the pergola, by lightening the frames using the same technique as I did on Mr.Hester? no The day the research community has personal access to the best material available, will be the day the analysis of sub-par material ends. Until then, the beat goes on. chris

Jack, I agree. More digging necessary. chris

Sorry about that previous unscaling job on the animation. This is a little more like it. chris

Two different versions of Nix. One appears to match the version that Alan has supplied. Although someone might want to check the shape of that concrete column in question. Looks like its been widened abit. The animation: Please see animation in next post. chris P.S. Bernice, can you send me the unaltered version of what you have?

Have a few from the backside. If it helps chris

Duncan, Is this what you want? chris

San Francisco Chronicle 11-23-63 Jack Bell was 4 cars behind the limo. I believe the whole article is rather interesting. But the area in the box is of most importance. imo Can someone point this out in the Z film? chris

David, The only photo I know of which might be used for comparison I believe the photographer's name is William Allen. Perhaps someone has a better copy. chris

One of Don's links: y BOND #6, Mrs. CHISM is, measurably, 190' away from where we saw her in the WIEGMAN film --halfway between the westernmost last two light poles on the north Elm Street sidewalk-- approaching the TUP with Mr. CHISM. To get an idea of how long it took them from the WIEGMAN film to get to where we see them near the TUP in BOND #6: if Mrs. CHISM continuously trotted at a 4 m.p.h. average while carrying her son (without stopping), it would have taken her 33 seconds to get that far down Elm. After WIEGMAN's filming of the NEWMAN's we can first see the CHISM's start trotting at 32 seconds into the WIEGMAN film (4.5 seconds before the WIEGMAN film ends, which was 30 or 31 seconds after WIEGMAN. heard "his" third audible muzzle blast or mechanically-suppress-fired bullet bow shockwave). Using 4 m.p.h. as Mrs. CHISM's continuous trotting speed timestamps BOND #6 at a minimum of 63 or 64 seconds after the attack ended. (is there any statement(s) or photo evidence that the CHISM's stopped/paused during their trot? If so, a stop, pause, or slowing-down would increase the seconds of the BOND #6 timestamping even longer after the attack) The Chism's do appear to slow down and come to a halt, as they exchange the child from Mrs. to Mr. chris

Don, Hopefully, this is what you're looking for. chris