Chris Davidson

Alan, Quote from Gary: "Groden's film is missing the first two seconds of the first sequence." If it's missing the first 2 seconds, it's missing more than that. If you compare Groden's version to the version they showed on television 11-22-63, you will discover where the missing film is in the first sequence. It is not at the beginning of Groden's film. It is after approx. 13 seconds into the film that there is a change between the two. That's why I supplied the spliced frame, previously. After that point, for approx 86 frames, there is footage on the original, that is not on Groden's. 30 FPS at 86 frames= almost 3 seconds. Groden's version is approx 33.5 seconds + almost 3 seconds of new original footage = approx 36.5 seconds. chris P.S. I've just gone through this with both films side by side.

****************************************************** "BTW, as I've said before, Mary Moorman was a babe." She definitely was one of the prettier girls Dallas is noted for. But, I don't remember any mention of the head wound as having transpired at that point, in the transcript. I can understand Moorman's overall view of the scene having been compromised through the narrow F.O.V. from which she was focussing her camera. But, Jean Hill didn't make mention of it, either. At least, in that transcript. Maybe, it was erased? Although, they do make mention of the first one or two shots, the slowing of the vehicle, and the race to get out of there. Apparently, they were too shell-shocked [no pun intended] to comprehend the following fusillade, as it was occurring, accompanied by the head shot and spray of brain matter. Maybe, it was too traumatic, or too graphic, and they simply blocked it out. Once again, A Jean Hill interview, less than 1 hour after the assassination. Earliest I have come up with. Added: Interview with Bill Newman that day chris

Alan, Gary also sent an email to me, conveying his apology. Now back to Wiegman: At a little more than 13 seconds into the Groden version, there is a film splice.(Frame Provided) Until that splice, they sync well. Agreed The version that was broadcast on 11-22-63 on T.V. shows approx. 36.5 seconds. (Quality lacking). I previously supplied a stabilizied version of Bell, in which Wiegman is filming the Hesters.(Supplied). Along with Wiegman's footage of the Hester's. I was told that what I showed are two different points in time, separated by a few seconds. Mr.Hester pushes off Mrs.Hester once and only once, and it is quite clear to see his arm extend in both movies. I call that syncing. I was hoping someone would explain how it doesn't. Once again: How can Wiegman's footage of the Hester's be stabilized, when in the Bell movie, Wiegman drops his camera down to his chest? Where's the camera movement reflected in Wiegman's footage of the Hesters. Wiegman in a later interview says he planted his feet, took the camera off his chest and filmed the Hesters. (supplied .mp3) chris

Thank you Chris, first off, I didn't mean to de-rail your thread onto the Bronson photo, I never really talk about the Bronson photo, I just wanted to give my opinion on it & I still believe that the differences in it can be explained in two words........ "Amatuer photography" but I could be wrong. Thanks again for the Bronson photos but the crop from Robin's page I posted previously is of superior quality, why don't you try to get a blow-up of DCM from what you posted & compare it. Jack says what I posted are inferior to his copy of the original & he then refers me to items that are inferior to what I posted. Like I said zoom in on DCM & compare them, if you have a better blow-up of him or any of the spectators further from the camera please post them. Okay Wiegman. He stops filming the Hesters & runs down the knoll to the Newman's, that's the first thing I realised, there is no footage of the run down back to the street. Marcel Dehaeseleer has a very interesting essay on the film, please make sure to read Gary Mack's comments at the end, the exposed film runs for 36secs yes but there are breaks in the original film & the one on Groden's "Assn' Films" has been edited. http://www.copweb.be/Dave%20Wiegman%20film.htm Regards, Alan "Pictures Of The Pain" by Richard B. Trask - page 373 "The Wiegman film sequence of the activity around the shooting scene lasts approximately 36½ seconds. It is filmed in real time without any breaks in the sequence." Gary Mack's email response to me on this topic: Chris, Trask's 36.5 second timing refers to the first sequence Wiegman shot, from turning the corner onto Elm until the last frame of Hester inside the colonnade. His second sequence showed the Newmans, and his third shows the approaching motorcade and Cheryl McKinnon dropping to the grass. Some say she stood once, then dropped a second time, btw. Gary Mack The only time frame I know of the Wiegman film is 36.5 seconds in it's entirety. I have 33.5 seconds of it, and that includes the Newman and McKinnon sequence. I also have about 2 to 2.5 seconds of what isn't in my 33.5 second clip. A total of approx. 36 seconds. At the 24 second mark, the Newman's are being filmed. At the 31 second mark, McKinnon is on film. If there is additional footage, I'd like to see it. chris

Chuck, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I believe most photographer's try to shoot with object's level to the horizon. Yet both the Bell and Nix films have to be angled about 5 degrees, (one clockwise, the other counterclockwise) to level that pergola against the horizon. Coincidence? chris

Alan, Supplied by Jack White

Hi Chris, with respect, the Bell frame you posted was extreemly blurred above the wall, I have captured a sharper frame showing the same scene within a second of the one you posted & all we can see is part of what people have come to conclude as a white car in the parking lot. http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7867/bellcropgx3.png This is very similar to people seeing Sitzman's "legs" in frames of the blurred Wiegman film, although in that case, it's much harder to get a sharp look at anything. Imo I think it's important that people keep looking at the photographic evidence for possible signs of tampering but sometimes, or rather in most cases, there are other more plausible explainations for why things look different from film to film. Now this is only my opinion & I'm entitled to it, despite me having no formal training in photography but, I would never use the Bronson film to get a good description of who or what was going on on the pedestal, why? Because it is extreemly poor quality in that regard & cannot pick out fine details in the distance. I am not surprised the figures on the pedestal in that film look terrible, to me it would be much more suspicious if they looked sharp & detailed. Yes I do realise how bad they look & I appreciate people studying it but I personally don't think it's signs of alteration. The Bronson film is not that great when it comes to detail, to me, it's that simple. I hope one day in the near future Robert Groden will produce a true DVD quality compilation of his film & photo collection, I think his DVD's are extreemly valuable as a resource but things have moved on from VHS. I think we need something better anyway & I pray he has plans to do this for the benefit of all of us. Alan Alan...you are wrong about Bronson. I copied the "ORIGINAL" slide and the detail is exceptionally good. The Bronson FILM, however, is less good because it is only 8mm. Jack Jack, to be honest I was just going from memory, (I lost all my collection of old threads & photos last year but I did remember you had the best blow-up of the pedestal from Bronson, for some reason I remembered it as a frame from the film, sorry about that) I was however referring to that good blow-up of yours though yes. Could you remind me how good the detail is on the Hester's or anyone of the spectators on the side-walk please? Alan A few days ago Chris posted one of my good Bronson slide copies, but I forget which thread. Maybe Chris will repost it for you. Jack Alan, Here's one from Jack and one from me. chris P.S. In Trask's book "POTP" page 373 Wiegman film is 36.5 seconds long. It is filmed in real time WITHOUT any breaks in the sequence. What does one consider a break in the sequence?

Here's our favorite players, all in the Bell movie. Remember, Couch has already started filming before this point, according to Wiegman's movement's. You might have noticed the two cops in the Bell movie also. Well, they are in the Couch movie previously supplied. Watch the beginning of the film, on the extreme left side is the cycle cop, in the middle is the cop on foot. chris

Bronson takes a photo of the Hester's as the limo approaches. (Photo included, Thanks Jack). Mr. Hester is sitting down on a park bench, Mrs.Hester is standing, holding a WHITE NEWSPAPER. The shooting occurs, and then we have the aftermath. What happens in the aftermath: Malcolm Couch is filming the knoll, where Dave Wiegman is seen running down it. (See stabilized Couch movie included). At the end of the movie, who rises up with a WHITE FOLDED NEWSPAPER in their hands? Common sense would say it's one of the Hester's. But wait, it can't be, because this occurs as Dave Wiegman is running down the knoll,as he just finished filming the Hester's getting off the ground and moving towards the colonnade. Oh, I made a mistake, it's the Chism's with their child in arms. You might take a close look at how the child folds like a NEWSPAPER. (last movie frame). Added: By the way, I haven't even mentioned that Z/Sitz are nowhere to be found in this movie, and if that is not Mr/Mrs.Hester with the newspaper, where are they. chris

Michael, The Couch/Moorman comparison may be a little closer. chris This animation is Moorman/Couch. Malcolm Couch is sitting in a car, in the street, closer to the pergola than Moorman, when he films. You judge where his line of sight is in relation to Moorman. Anything wrong? chris

Photo provided by Jack White. mp3 track of Dave Wiegman interview. He describes his filming activity. Does it match the animation previously provided? Listen/Watch and compare chris Hi Duncan, I should have posted Wiegman stabilized first and then commented. In this 11 frame animation, Wiegman is stabilized. In the first few frames, the camera is up to his face, then he drops it down to his chest, just as he states in the mp3 file I supplied. (Previous post). All this time he is filming the Hester's. Why no camera movement in the Hester footage, if someone moves the camera from face level down to chest level, as they are continuously filming? Also, watch Tom Craven in the lower right part of the animation. He is filming towards the Hester's, and then in 4 frames, he turns his head and is walking forward. That's impossible. Yes 4 frames Bell, who's film we are watching has a Kodak 8mm movie, don't know the FPS on it, a guess would be about 16 FPS. Which means Craven does his movement in about one quarter of a second. Where is Tom Craven's film? Craven is also shown in pictures filming the Newman's, just like Wiegman. I will post a comparison from Wiegman's film and a Cancellare photo later. In Couch's movie, Wiegman is seen running down the knoll, but in the area where the Hester's appear, someone rises at that point. (Timing) Have to look at Couch a little closer though, to make sure it's not the Chism's. got to run chris Duncan & Chris, You've both made some mistakes here. First, Duncan, you identified the figure behind the Stemmons sign in the Bell film as a black man carrying a baby. By that you mean John Chism carrying three year old son Ricky. It wasn't John and Ricky, however, but rather NBC's Dave Wiegman still filming the Hesters. John, Ricky and Faye Chism were standing in the grass just below shelter #4 with Ricky in Faye's arms. Second, Chris, you identified a man in "the lower right part of the animation" of the Bell film as CBS cameraman Tom Craven. Actually, it's most likely White House cameraman Tom Atkins who left camera car #1 at about the same time as Wiegman. Craven remained in their car until sometime after the President's limo went through the triple underpass. You can see Craven's late arrival on the knoll clearly in several photos and in the Martin film. You can also spot him arriving late at the beginning of the Couch film, if you look closely, along with Atkins who continues to move toward the Newmans as Wiegman sprints down the knoll after filming the Hesters. This also means that Craven did not film the Hesters at this point in time. Ken Ken, thanks for clearing that up. I was also wrong about Atkins movement in a quarter second. It's Bell's panning that gives the impression of Atkins moving so quickly. I did find both Craven and Atkins footage of the Newman's. Do you know if there is more to either of their films than this? I still believe the animations of Wiegman/Hester are the same point in time. thanks chris

Photo provided by Jack White. mp3 track of Dave Wiegman interview. He describes his filming activity. Does it match the animation previously provided? Listen/Watch and compare chris Hi Duncan, I should have posted Wiegman stabilized first and then commented. In this 11 frame animation, Wiegman is stabilized. In the first few frames, the camera is up to his face, then he drops it down to his chest, just as he states in the mp3 file I supplied. (Previous post). All this time he is filming the Hester's. Why no camera movement in the Hester footage, if someone moves the camera from face level down to chest level, as they are continuously filming? Also, watch Tom Craven in the lower right part of the animation. He is filming towards the Hester's, and then in 4 frames, he turns his head and is walking forward. That's impossible. Yes 4 frames Bell, who's film we are watching has a Kodak 8mm movie, don't know the FPS on it, a guess would be about 16 FPS. Which means Craven does his movement in about one quarter of a second. Where is Tom Craven's film? Craven is also shown in pictures filming the Newman's, just like Wiegman. I will post a comparison from Wiegman's film and a Cancellare photo later. In Couch's movie, Wiegman is seen running down the knoll, but in the area where the Hester's appear, someone rises at that point. (Timing) Have to look at Couch a little closer though, to make sure it's not the Chism's. got to run chris

Photo provided by Jack White. mp3 track of Dave Wiegman interview. He describes his filming activity. Does it match the animation previously provided? Listen/Watch and compare chris

Michael, The Couch/Moorman comparison may be a little closer. chris

Chris....I looked at the animation several times before noticing that BEATRICE IS FACING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS AT THE SAME TIME in the two clips. Please do a SLOWER animation cropping in tighter on just the Hesters as he strokes her butt. In Wiegman her head is to the south; in Bell it seems to be to the north. Am I wrong? The animation flashes a little too fast to be sure. Jack Here it is a little bigger and slower. This is 11 frames. Notice the gentleman in the lower right corner walking. Appears to walk naturally. Wiegman is doing belly heaves. Too much movement for a steady film. I've looked at the Wiegman many times, there is only one time he pushes off Mrs Hester and extends his arm, and that point is shown in the animation. Before we get to my animation point in the film, Mrs.Hester is sitting upright. With Mrs Hester not appearing upright in the Bell movie, my time sync is correct. (Thanks Jack) Or please provide Wiegman footage to the contrary. One other point to keep in mind: Wiegman is still continuous filming even after the animation period I have shown. He films Mr. Hester running to the colonade. thanks chris

Wiegman filming. chris

There's the Hester's in Wiegman's film. (8 frame animation) Wiegman's in the Bell movie filming that. (Span of 8 frames) If you think the sync is off, watch Mr.Hester extend his hand from Mrs.Hester in both animations. Notice Wiegman's movement in the Bell movie, in the span of those 8 frames, as he films the Hester's, and the quality of the clip that's produced. I'll leave it at that for now. chris

Oh yeah ... forget that one arm is twice as long in one photo as in the other - Chris says that measuring is silly, so it must be. That's like a capenter telling you that he made two book cases the same size for your den, but don't worry that one is 40 to 50 percent taller then the other ... that's just a silly measuring glitch. We are talking about 2 different items. I said I didn't rescale the ZAPRUDER photo. I did not. My original point was the hat/face in Betzner didn't fit the body. Wasn't trying to rescale it. You said I didn't rescale ZAPRUDER TO FIT BETZNER, that is correct. That's clear now. Here is Moorman scaled to Betzner. 2 full lenghth bodies scaled to each other. The other Betzner photo is what you labeled as the height of the hat and shoulders with the dotted line. I still contend that the face/hat do not fit the body in Betzner. Also included is the photo of Zapruder, supplied by John Dolva in a earlier response to this or another thread. Is this the only photo we have of Zapruder wearing his hat? chris

Chuck, the south pasture sloped downward, so yes - Bell was higher elevated and looking directly at the colonnade on a more even plane whereas Moorman was at the curb on Elm Street and looking upward at the same structure. This is why we can see the RR cars in Bell's film and not in Moorman's. This is simple perspective that not only we were taught in grade school, but it is also something that can be duplicated by the simpliest of means right at home. Not long ago someone on this forum thought they had a Muchmmore frame matched up to the Morman photo. The fact was that Muchmore was just off to the right of Moorman's line of sight and when the two images were overlaid ... they appeared to look close, but the background had shifted. In the example Chris made - the windows inside the colonnade shelter have shifted because the two photographers were not on the same line of sight. The RR car fills up most of the windows, thus making them appear to be blacked out. The one window that Chris draws attention to is one that I have had trouble finding on Groden's copy of the Bell film because of its poor quality. On my Bell film I can see two windows and the break in the wall that separates them. The frame Chris has opted to use is blurred just enough that the two windows have merged into one. This is why I asked that he or someone else capture another frame or two so we could make a comparison. So far this has not been done and it seems obvious to me why it hasn't. I, as well as many other researchers, have been to the plaza and seen these views for ourselves and I am telling you that using these crappy looking frames to make claims of images being in synchronous harmony is misleading to someone who doesn't know any better. I mean look at where this has gone now ... It has taken 44 years for someone like Chris to take a poor degraded Bell frame that is filled with digital artifacts to proclaim that Zapruder and Sitzman had stand-ins. Now how insane does that appear to you! Moorman's photo is much clearer than the dark Bell frame and Mary's photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination and there are no people seen in the shelter doorway. But some boob will ignore this and continue playing games with the poor degraded image. Its like telling someone who is looking through a dirty window and thinks they see all these oddities and you offer them a view through a clean window and they say, "No thanks, I prefer using the dirty window because looking through your window isn't as much fun!" What is being done here that sickens so many other CT's is that John Kennedy's murder is being turned into a 'Gong Show' and what I am saying is shame on those who support such a piss poor level of research that is turning the purpose of this forum into a laughing stock. I mean, its OK for someone not to understand perspective, angles, film stock differences, and so forth. But it is not OK to not be smart enough to understand why someone would want to use a good image for accuracy over a poor image. Bill Miller I understand your concern about artifacts and their interpretation. I also see where you are concerned about the quality of the images used. I still do not understand how two different perspectives produced images which, for all intents, can merge almost flawlessly. This is not, I believe, a product of artifacts or quality of images. I still do not understand how film, shot from different locations, produce images which are seemingly shot from nearly identical locations. It must be something I am incapable of understanding as I truly wish I could understand what seems to me to be an impossibility. Chuck, Bill makes it sound like I'm trying to somehow fool others while posting blurry photos. I post what I discover. If other's don't have access to this material, by all means, ask me if I can post something with a better frame for comparison. The frame I used for the Bell/Wiegman comparison is the same one I used to show the 3 people on the stairs to the pergola. Is it blurry, sure it is. By the way, this is Groden's version I'm using. As I have asked before, if others have better material, please post it. Here is another comparison with a better frame. chris

Jack, I have posted countless times explaining that Sitzman's dress looks black in Bronson's photo because of the distance he is from the subject in relation to the sun as Zapruder is casting a shadow over her. The same thing happens in the Bell film when you look at all those people on the south pasture. Part's of them that are in direct sunlight shows the color of their clothing while the rest of them being shaded looks black in color. ask yourself why it is that the street in sunlight looks gray, but the parts of it in shadow looks black! So the fact is that I have addressed this over and over and you continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over so to make something look altered when it isn't. This is exactly why Groden said what he did in the email I shared with this forum. Groden said that you are always wrong and that you have caused a great deal of damage to the researech community over this alteration nonsense. As far as Moorman's photo fitting exactly with the Bell film - this simply is not true, but rather you playing the "close enough" game. Bell was much higher elevated than Moorman was and Bell was off to the side of Mary's line of sight. We should know this when we align any two points of the same from both film sources and note that the background isn't seen the same way between photographer locations. You dopes keep using inferior images to where you start outlining artifacts to the point you start imagining images. It is this type of behavior that Groden commented on concerning the damage you have caused the research community by making CT's look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. If the things you jokers were saying was remotely so, then you'd be on CNN shouting these claims to the world, but you don't - why? The reason why you don't follow through with these alleged ground breaking discoveries is because you know them to be ridiculous and only worth polluting a forum such as this one with them. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your disregard for sound basic research practices. It has become a childs game for you boobs and so much so that one of you would say, "They're coming out of the woodworks." Bill. Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall. chris Wow, Chris...she is sitting in this frame and the guy in the white shirt is standing. This work needs to be carried further! Jack Looks good. thanks Jack

Jack, I have posted countless times explaining that Sitzman's dress looks black in Bronson's photo because of the distance he is from the subject in relation to the sun as Zapruder is casting a shadow over her. The same thing happens in the Bell film when you look at all those people on the south pasture. Part's of them that are in direct sunlight shows the color of their clothing while the rest of them being shaded looks black in color. ask yourself why it is that the street in sunlight looks gray, but the parts of it in shadow looks black! So the fact is that I have addressed this over and over and you continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over so to make something look altered when it isn't. This is exactly why Groden said what he did in the email I shared with this forum. Groden said that you are always wrong and that you have caused a great deal of damage to the researech community over this alteration nonsense. As far as Moorman's photo fitting exactly with the Bell film - this simply is not true, but rather you playing the "close enough" game. Bell was much higher elevated than Moorman was and Bell was off to the side of Mary's line of sight. We should know this when we align any two points of the same from both film sources and note that the background isn't seen the same way between photographer locations. You dopes keep using inferior images to where you start outlining artifacts to the point you start imagining images. It is this type of behavior that Groden commented on concerning the damage you have caused the research community by making CT's look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. If the things you jokers were saying was remotely so, then you'd be on CNN shouting these claims to the world, but you don't - why? The reason why you don't follow through with these alleged ground breaking discoveries is because you know them to be ridiculous and only worth polluting a forum such as this one with them. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your disregard for sound basic research practices. It has become a childs game for you boobs and so much so that one of you would say, "They're coming out of the woodworks." Bill. Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall. chris

*************** It certainly did... ......Thanks Jack, Your photo..... B.. Nice catch Jack, They're coming out of the woodworks. Pertaining to Bell's position, Not sure what to think of that, yet. I'm hoping other's will join in to scrutinize this. thanks, chris

This animation shows the alteration of evidence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. As I had described in my previous topic, there were doubles of Zapruder/Sitzman. They appear in Bell, Betzner, Bronson and in Wiegman as I have previously pointed out. The Bell movie gave the alterationists troubles. I'm pretty sure Bell filmed the 3 people behind the wall, on the steps to the pergola, as well as up on the pedestal at the same time. This was a big problem. What did they do to the Bell movie. They got rid of the people on the pedestal and blurred the 3 people on the stairs. Don't believe it, watch Bell and notice when the camera jiggling/blurring occcurs. It happens gradually leading into Z/Sitz walking away from the wall. If you take a look at the animation, they didn't get the wall lined up and they darkened up the background. More importantly, the pergola light opening in Bell, is not a light opening at all. It is a cutout window used to register pieces of film. Besides being nowhere near the Moorman light openings, watch as the figures on the pedestal fade out and the cutout fades in. What does the cutout encompass from the Moorman picture. Notice the notch in the cutout, fits nicely over the Moorman figure. Old style graphic arts, its what I've done for along time. cheers chris P.S. Do all the rescaling, resizing, reblurring, re re re you want. It's not going to help.

Thanks Jack, There were people on the pedestal, just wasn't Z/Sitz. Just to difficult to tell the difference with the photos we had to work with. chris P.S. Included is the original from the Bell movie. I'm sorry I didn't post that first with the other. Chris, you are getting poor Jack's hopes up over something that doesn't exist. While I can appreciate your at least recognizing sunspots on a wall as Zapruder and Sitzman are walking away from the pedestal ... I must point out that Bell filmed those same sunspots for quite some time after the assassination even after the crowds had made their way up the walkway. Even the motorcade has long since left the plaza and the regular street traffic is moving down Elm Street. Many of them later passes Bell made of that same spot are clearer than the image you chose to use so to imply that a woman was standing on the wall. If you guys do not wish to have this forum viewed as one consisting of a bunch of nuts, then try and check your observations out thoroughly by thinking them through before posting them to the forum as factual. Bill Bill, I'm sorry that all you'll ever see is sunspots. Next you'll tell me that it's not a hat/face in Betzner that I pointed out. Which by the way shows 3 people on the wall. Another coincidence. It's too bad you have some preconceived notion about what is and isn't the truth. It's called following the masses. People can judge for themselves. Later this afternoon, I'll put together a little collage of my sunspots and the matching photos that go with them. chris

Thanks Jack, There were people on the pedestal, just wasn't Z/Sitz. Just to difficult to tell the difference with the photos we had to work with. chris P.S. Included is the original from the Bell movie. I'm sorry I didn't post that first with the other.