Chris Davidson

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.

Michael, you can reach me at chris@3125.us Then I'll pass on my phone # to you. Bill, I'm giving you the story. The frame is from Groden's version of the Bell movie. Sitzman and Zapruder appear about 10 frames later walking away from the wall. They had doubles/standins of them. Please go back and look at the Betzner from Life magazine that I posted. The hat and eyes match the hat and eyes of #2 in Bell. The lady in Bronson who I said is filming with white sleeves and a dark dress is #3 in Bell. The guy labeled #1 has a vest on. I believe he is the white shirted guy in Wiegman. Take a look at that photo, fill in the rest of his shirt area and you could have the vest. Least sure about this guy. There's never a clear picture of Sitzman/Zapruder on the pedestal, this is why. It's no coincidence, It's what was done. chris P.S. There is no exact time sequence for photos/movies after the shooting. Remember, Bell's film was cut. But not in this sequence. Z/Sitz are off the wall about 10 frames after the frame I have supplied.

They used a combination of these people in the other photos. Look at the eyes on the hat man #2, they match the Betzner eyes in the photo from Life magazine. Her dress is black, she has white sleeves, which matches the Bronson I posted. Don't know who #1 is. Their in the same spot where ducking man appears in Nix. Here it is again with some distortion enhancement. chris

Remember, Zapruder and Sitzman are off the pedestal. If you want to double check, be my guest. Look at #2 and what's he wearing atop his head. I count 3 people. The old switcharoo was in motion. cheers Chris Davidson

I think the sunspots bend in the same manner. What direction do the sunspots move in Groden's version? 2 different films, same spot moves in opposite directions. And for those interested, here's another version of our running lady and that incredible arm and sliding sleeve. Or is it glare from the tire rim. I'm a little confused. chris

The camera movement has bent the sunspots on the shelter wall between frames. This has given off the illusion of movement. Look to the right of the box in your clip and watch the same thing happen to the illuminated parts of the colonnade. I'm sorry, I should have compared it to another version. Let's take a look at both. Oops, my guy moves in the opposite direction as the sunspots do. O.K. Let's also take a look at a woman in the audience. She's running so quickly, her arm is falling off. This is a few frames before my guy Joe ducks for cover. What a coincidence. chris

Hey Joe, get down. Why? Nix might get you on film. Don't worry about it, we'll just say it's lights and shadows. OK. Keep doing your pushups. RIGHT chris

It is one thing to believe the films and photos are altered, but making moronic errered observations by way of the poorer quailty images to choose from makes you look incompetent. For instance, what kind of ridiculous statement was that you made about proving what colored dress Sitzman wore in the Bronson slide which shows the woman in deep shadow due to the angle at which she was photographed in relation to the sun? Do you know that you can take a photo of the same person from the same location with two cameras and have their clothing to appear to be different colors just because of the difference in film stock that they used? Let me offer a proof of alteration using your logic ... In sunlight the limo is blue, but in shadow while passing through the underpass it is black ... this must mean the film has been altered! How more silly can one be about it! Bill could you please post a full frame of the Bronson slide in question? Also I need to clear up a little history about the Bronson slide. IIRC is it correct that the original slide was quite under-exposed? Did someone create a lightened dupelicate slide? Thanks Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME. Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were from my copies. The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.) The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica) at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area). If I had the ability to post images here, I would post a good image of the entire slide, showing the excellent color quality. Perhaps Chris will post it for me. I sent him a scan from one of my slides. Chris...it is OK with me if you post the full Bronson slide here. Researchers need something better to examine than they have seen before. Convert the TIFF I sent you to JPG in order to post it. Jack Not a problem, Bronson photo contributed by Jack White. thanks chris

The single most shameful and contemptible post I've yet seen on an assassination website. Paul, what it means is that Jack didn't look at the Bronson slide and start misreading it 30 to 40 years ago. All this started when he went on some sort of 'alteration witch hunt'. I also see that Chris is following suit. What kind of joker looks at Sitzman in deep shadow and says that she is now wearing a different colored dress than what she wore in the Zapruder film before the motorcades arrival? We are consistently seeing a few people who are asking things like why can't we see something in a poor image that we see in a good one ... well dah!!! Yes, I sure do believe this cr--p has been altered. Please prove what colored dress she is wearing in your supplied Bronson photo. post2 I have asked over and over for Bill to post his quality stuff so there is no doubt about what we are seeing. I guess what he supplied in post2 is his quality stuff. chris

The photos may be cropped to the same size, but the people seen on them are not scaled accordingly. As I have done in post 33, I took all 3 photos into photoshop, layered/registered Zapruder, created a animated gif of the layers. Now, if you would like me to post all 3 individually, that's fine, just request it. If not, here's a suggestion for those that don't enjoy photo layering. Take the areas Bill has suggested don't fit and put a finger on the distance between, as the animation plays. What changes? NOTHING BECAUSE THEIR ALL THE SAME SIZE. Forget about some silly measuring rule he supplies of ONE photo. I'm showing 3 photos, one layered exactly over the other, and they fit LIKE A GLOVE. chris

The hell you say! Your scaling is do goddamned far off that you have different lengths between images between Zapruder's elbows to his shoulders and also from his waist to his shoulders. Now do I need to point out some more obvious flaws or do you wish to admit that you showed us nothing - AS USUAL! Bill, post 33 is there for everyone to disect. The aspect ratio has not been changed. All 3 photos are the same size. Pretty clear to see. chris

John, Here's both photos with your camera in the same position. I used my original because it gives separation to the hat and face. Your positioned camera is nowhere near his face or eyes. chris

Chris, I didn't say that you tried to decieve anyone, but rather you didn't scale your images correctly which is more of a sign of incompetence than deception. Bill As usual, I showed what was done, how it was scaled correctly, and overlayed them for others to see. As usual, you showed nothing. chris