Chris Davidson

Chris, you could start by using the most magnified images possible rather than the wide frame view which is little more than mud. I will ask you the same questions that I asked 'Sir Ashton the factless critic' .... what happened to the shift that occurred between JFK and his wife in each frame prior to the head shot and please explain why JFK's shoulder blurred in the opposite direction than the limo's did ??? There can only be one reason for all this - I have given you mine - let's have yours. Below is that shift once more in Z311 and Z312. I use the most magnification possible without losing clarity. Despite what John has said about the dropping of the street - the pitch of the President's right ear can be measured against the right shoulder and one will find there is no change. One can draw a thin line from the bottom of JFK's right ear lobe to the tip of his nose and run the two frames over that line - other than the reflective angle change to the sun - the changes in pitch are virtually non-existent. The only noticeable change is the rotation of the limo which allows more of Jackie's arm to be seen coming out from behind JFK's head and shoulder. If someone can see more than this, then I'd like to hear what they have to say and why they are saying it. If we remove the fact that JFK's head pitches forward in Z313, why didn't Jackie's arm become more visible in Z313 than it was in Z312? Bill Miller Bill, Let me know if my assumption is wrong, regarding the origination of your frames. They appear to be from the enlarged version of the MPI DVD. If they are not, please describe where they are from. With the MPI version, there might be another problem to address in this discussion. Supplied is 2 different gifs from that DVD. The small version and the enlarged version, same frames (312+313). The frame movement is different. Small version moves horizontally, enlarged moves vertically. Does someone have a simple explanation for this? If the 2 gifs don't appear in the same post, I'll follow up with the other one in the next post. thanks chris

Chris, I have reviewed your movie very closely despite its very small size and I would like to point out something to you that I have said several times now .... I will use your movie as the example. The limo rotates counter clockwise with each frame, thus if JFK's shoulder was to remain stationary and not moved an inch (remember the dummie reference I used previously), then one would still see more of Jackie's sleeve creases coming out from behind the President. This is a rule of physics concerning perspective and how it is viewed by way of an ever changing angle to the subjects. The reason for it not being seen in your clip is because you positioned your frames in such a way to make the shoulder not appear to move, but in doing so you removed the rotation of the limo which should have caused more of Jackie to become visible between those two frames. In other words, if YOU see no rotation between JFK and Jackie between Z312 and Z313, then it is because of the President's right shoulder moving backwards as the energy of the force of the impact passed down the trunk of his body. Take a moment and consider what I said about the blurring issues. Zapruder moves his camera in a way that causes the forward moving limo to blur to the east. If JFK was stationary, then he too, should blur in the same direction that the limo did. But JFK blurred to the west, which means that his shoulder moved with Zapruder's pan, but only faster. The back of JFK (the east side of his back) did not blur as the front side did because the shoulder moving backwards for that one instant canceled out the rotation between JFK and his wife. Below is a line drawn over the edge of the suit coat of JFK. In Z313 the image blurs, but forget the blur and look where the solid part of the coat has moved to ... Bill Miller Bill, I took 2 frames (312+313), overlayed them in Photoshop using the convertible frame supports of the limo for registration/stabilization, and somehow made the shoulder appear not to move? How would you like me to stabilize 2 frames? The transition frames were made AFTER the 2 normal frames were stabilized using the registration described above? Also, you keep referring to the blurring among the 2 frames. Supplied is a picture of the camera movement of frames 312+313 layered. Notice the edge difference between the frames. Nice steady pan. chris

Let's get a few things straight so we can at least start on the same plane ... feel free to mention any numbered point that you do not understand because each one is important. 1) I count only 7 frame transitions, thus these are not at 10% opacity increments. 2) The limo rotates away from Zapruder's camera with each frame. This is because the angle Zapruder has to the occupants changes with each film frame as the car moves forward. (see Z311 and Z312 example below) This means that even if the occupants were stationary dummies - the crease in Jackie's coat would continue to come out from behind JFK just as the sun would do in relation to the moon as seen from the earth if we were watching a lunar eclipse. 3) The limo blur that you pointed out blurs to the east because Zapruder moves his camera at the same instant. (see below) JFK blurs to the west not because Zapruder moved his camera, but because the President's body has just taken a jolt. So instead of more of Jackie's coat sleeve creases becoming more visible - the instant backward movement of JFK's right shoulder hid the rotation of the limo pertaining to Jackie's sleeve crease, the shade line on the coat drops, and where the suit coat was solid in tone above the red line, which hid JFk's flesh colored neck - it is now flesh colored because the shoulder moved backwards which caused the blur to be seen on the right/to the west. (see below) To recap: the limo blurs to the east because Zapruder moved his camera - JFK's shoulder blurs in the opposite direction because JFK's trunk was jolted rearward as the body absorbed the impact of the bullet. Bill Miller Bill, the movie I supplied starts with a complete frame 312. Their are 9 transition steps until a complete frame 313 arrives. To view this, use Quicktime if possible. Start from the beginning. Use keyboard right arrow and hit it one at a time. Each arrow is in 10% increments. There is a total of 9 increments plus a complete 312 at the beginning and a complete 313 at the end. If you only see 7 increments in my movie, then it's not very constructive to talk about shoulder movement. Do you see shoulder movement in my movie? I don't. chris P.S. I'm not saying there isn't movement, I'm saying I do not see it.

Chris, I understand that there is some motion blur going on between frames, but that clip you posted is not stable ... even the two frames look like a pulsating heart beat when seen in motion. The limo is rotating counter clockwise with each frame Zapruder captures. I mentioned focusing on a certain point(s) in my previous post. The example below shows one such point. I created this clip so that the rotation of the car could be seen in slow motion. The crease in Jackie's sleeves move out from behind the President between Z311 and Z312 just as one should expect them to do. However, despite some motion blur between Z312 and Z313, the President's top right shoulder moves backwards, thus eliminating the rotation of the limo for than instant. In doing so it didn't allow the creases in Jackie's coat to countinue coming out from behind the President. My experience with all of this is that motion blur still allows one to see through the ghost image. (see below) In frame Z313, the top of the right shoulder does slide backwards beyond the ghost image of the motion blur, thus it hides Jack's coat creases which if nothing else - they should have continued coming out from behind the President. Bill Miller Bill, this movie is frame 312-313 in 10% opacity increments. I still don't see a distinction between blurring and shoulder movement. Anyone else? thanks chris

Chris, I am talking about the initial shockwave that drives the President's right shoulder rearward at the same instant that his head rocks forward. Many times I have posted about the rotation of the limo as it traveled left to right across Zapruder's field of view. This gives an illusion that the limo is rotating counter clockwise - simple angle changes that represent perspective. An example of this particulr occurrence could be compared to a lunar eclipse where the sun (Jackie) gets blocked out by the moon (JFK) and as the limo passes with each frame - more of Jackie should appear from behind the President. Watch the clip below showing what happens between Z311 and Z312. Pay close attention to the horizontal plane as the crease in Jackie's jackets inner forearm moves out and down from behind JFK's back as the President is rotating away from the camera. Also note the sun spot on Jackie's chest that also disappears behind the President during the same natural occurrence. Study them for they will be important in my next example .... (see below) Now watch what happens between Z312 and Z313. Instead of the natural occurence of the President rotating away from the camera which would cause the same effects as what I just pointed out about the two prior frames (Z311 and Z312) running in conjuntion with each other - JFK's head goes forward and his shoulder is driven backwards. Al Carrier, upon consulting some experts, once explained this occurence in a more technical way than I was able to do it, but what it boiled down to was the instantaneous absorbtion of the initial shockwave as it passed through the President's body from a bullet hitting the top portion of JFK's head on a downward trajectory from the front. (see below) If you paid close attention to the two places I mentioned in the prior clip and tracked them in this clip, you will have noticed that the sun spot on Jackie's coat continued on its natural path, but the crease in her coat sleeve actually lost ground due to JFK's shoulder being driven backwards. Had JFK's shoulder remained stationary, then the natural roatation of the limo through Zapruder's field of view would have caused that crease in Jackie's forearm to continue coming out from behind the President's back, but all that was momentarily reversed upon the President's body absorbing that initial shock as the shoulder was driven rearward. This occurence happens in one frame just as the bone plate was suspended in midair for that one frame. With the head driven forward as far as it could go - the shoulder going backwards and the head forward at the same instant caused a type of whiplash effect and is why the 35th President of the United States was seen moving back and to the left in the next fraction of a second. Try the same thing with your own body and I think you too, will see how this could naturally happen. I hope these examples have offered a better insight into what I have been saying for the past several years. Bill Miller Bill, It looks as though JFK's shoulder movement from 312-313 is due to camera movement. The movement of objects in the car except for (Jack's head and Jackie) appear to move in coordination with the camera. Here's a gif to show what I'm describing. chris

Those actions happen in the same frame. Sit as JFK was and have someone tap you on the head from the front and you will experience the same motion. The more violent the hit - the more violent the reaction. Bill Miller Bill, what actions happen in the same frame? 313 head moves down 314 right shoulder starts moving upward 315 right shoulder continues upward and head moves backward 316 same motion continues 317 looks as though he is pretty much upright. chris

Do you mean that it has to be a great external force? I'm going to state here what seems extremely simple to me, and entirely consistent with what I see: a shot from the rear and somewhat to the left goes through JFK's skull, slamming his head forward, blowing out the right front of his skull, sending ejecta forward and downward.The last autonomic response of the hopelessly compromised nervous system is to resist the forward and downward thrust, convulsing the muscles to counter that momentum, causing the torso to jerk back and up—at which point all motor controls have been lost, the right arm flopping upward as a result of the now backward momentum, the torso continuing the direction of instantaneously initiated resistance until it falls to rest. I'm including here, inline, an even longer anim set at .02 second intervals between frames. It's large. I don't know if it will make things difficult in the forum, and if so I may have to convert it to a .mov so it's a separate attachement. I haven't put graphics over it, but what I described above is exactly what I see. I have seen and heard nothing that convinces me that any external force at all was needed to create the backward motion, nor have I seen or heard any description of an external force that could, as an external force to the head, cause any such extreme motion of the entire torso. That isn't to say I won't. But so far I haven't. Here's the anim: Ashton Officer B. J. Martin was the other motorcyclist splattered with blood and brain tissue. As Josiah Thompson writes: Officer Martin's partner, riding in the inboard cycle, was even more splattered. "It seemed like his head exploded," testified Officer Bobby W. Hargis, "and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water." (6H294) This debris hit Officer Hargis with such force that he told reporters the next day, "I thought at first I might have been hit." The splash of debris established in his mind the idea that the shot came from the right front. I would think that a shot from the rear would spray most of the matter out the front. Kennedy is hit in the throat and starts to lean forward. As he is leaning forward, Jackie puts her arm on his elbow bringing him downward some more. He gets shot in the back of the head sending his head downward for 1 frame. Why wouldn't his momentum keep sending him downward? I'm not a hunter, but other's have suggested when shot in the head, you drop. chris

Hmmm. Well, I'm a bit more simple minded. I observe the motorcade moving in a direction that necessarily would carry Officer Hargis into a cloud of relatively lightweight particles suddenly dispersing into the air in many directions—particularly on a day with wind (which seems to be uniformly left out of the equation). It's also my understanding from the record that Officer Hargis wasn't the only one in the area splattered with blood and brain tissue. And again we are back to the duality of the ejecta question. You seem to have argued successfully already that Hargis very well could have been hit with ejecta caused by a shot from behind. Officer B. J. Martin was the other motorcyclist splattered with blood and brain tissue. As Josiah Thompson writes: Officer Martin's partner, riding in the inboard cycle, was even more splattered. "It seemed like his head exploded," testified Officer Bobby W. Hargis, "and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water." (6H294) This debris hit Officer Hargis with such force that he told reporters the next day, "I thought at first I might have been hit." The splash of debris established in his mind the idea that the shot came from the right front. Dawn, when you say the President is clearly moving forward before Z313 .... you mean that he is moving forward because the car is moving forward - right? If are saying that the President is moving forward independently from the limo, then I disagree. Below is Z311 and Z312 and I do not see a single change in position of JFK between those frames ... other than the rotation of the limo. Bill Miller Z311 and Z312 In his book Six Seconds in Dallas, Thompson discusses the head shots in detail: THE DOUBLE MOVEMENT I had gone to the National Archives to test the validity of a new way of viewing the Zapruder film. Developed by Philadelphia attorney Vincent Salandria, this technique consisted of using two slide projectors placed side by side and superimposing their images on the screen. By inserting the 35mm slides of sequential Zapruder frames in alternate projectors, it was possible to isolate the movement of people in the presidential car. For by matching up fixed points on the car, then switching from one projector to the other, one could see with the naked eye any movement occurring between frames. This came to be of great importance in studying the movement of the President's body at Z313.... ....Since frame 313 was somewhat indistinct, I decided to try frame 312 as a control frame. I switched between 312 and 313 and found something puzzling: The President's head seemed to move forward, not backward. I tried 312 and 314--hardly any change, but perhaps a slight forward movement. When 312 and 316 were viewed, the head could be seen to move quite obviously backward. Again and again I switched between 312 and 313; it was quite apparent that there was a definite forward movement of several inches between these two frame numbers. And it was just as apparent that there was an immediate sharp backward movement in the frames that followed. What I had discovered was a double movement of the President's head separated by only 1/18 second. What could possibly cause such a movement? A nerve/muscle reflex to the first hit from behing? A sudden braking or acceleration of the car? An almost simultaneous impact of two bullets? Before speculating further I knew I needed a very accurate measure of the magnitude of both movements.... .....With the help of Bill Hoffman, a bright young physicist, and the use of a dissecting microscope, I was able to measure with great accuracy the movement of the President's head. After holding steady for some twelve frames, it is suddenly driven forward between frames 312 and 313. Amazingly, in the very next frame, 314, it is already moving backward, a movement it continues in succeeding frames until the President's shoulders strike the seat cushion at Z321. The graphs on the following page suggest the magnitude of this movement. Its magnitude is substantial. Measured parallel to the axis of the car the President's head has been given a forward acceleration of 69.6 feet per second between frames 312 and 313. One-eighteenth second later, this movement has been reversed and the head has been given an acceleration backward and to the left of 100.3 feet per second. These accelerations are quite large* (a falling body at the earth's surface, for example, accelerates at a rate of 32 feet per second), and what is even more striking is the brevity of the interval in which the movement is reversed. What could cause such a reversal? How could this violent double movement be explained......? *Large though they may be, they are only minimum values. We have every reason to believe that the true acceleration values are perhaps 20 times larger. Our measured values of acceleration are average accelerations for the 56 milliseconds between frames. Since a projectile would pass through the head in 2 or 3 milliseconds (transferring its momentum and accelerating the head in that time interval), our measured values are much too small. Had Zapruder been using a high-speed camera wchich ran, say, at 1,000 frames per second, we would have been able to arrive at more accurate values. But for purpose of analysis the minimum values are sufficiently large to make the point. After a study of the eyewitness reports and rejecting other possible causes for the above described movements, Thompson goes on to conclude that the President was hit by two shots at almost the same instant. It is worth noting that Thompson arrived at these conclusions 40 years ago. Whether or not he has changed his mind over the passing years, I don't know. Michael, this is very interesting. Something else to ponder is: Right before the limo reaches the lamp-post, Jackie pulls Jack's elbow/arm down somewhat. I believe she is weighing him down to some extent, as she moves in closer, and is still in this position when the headshot occurs. According to the film, his head moves downward from 312-313. Then his upper body moves violently backwards /sideways or both in succeeding frames. A great force has to move him this way. If we leave out the theory of 2 simultaneous bullets for a moment, would the car accelerating be the only other moving force to create Jack's backward movement? Once again I am providing Dr.Costella's movie. I put a white background in, so camera movement is viewable. For those interested, compare the camera movement to the car and people within. chris

The back of the shed was attached to the eastmost shelter wall and was nowhere close to the place John has been discussing. Even the car seen in the example photo IS NOT up against the colonnade. There was however a tree behind the colonnade which is seen in many of the assassination photos and films. Below are two such views from above and from Bronson's slide. Those same colonnade windows should also be visible in Willis's photo and for a good blow-up of that photo - see Grden's book "The Killing of a President". B&W Bronson slide There are two probable excuses for the alleged movement thought to be seen in the animation below. One might be that the wind gust were indeed causing the tree branches to move, thus effecting the light areas seen between the foliage. The other possible excuse might be that the slight movement of the Nix camera could be bending the image in a way to make it appear to be moving. When I watch the clip below, I see movement all over the place, not to mention light flashes even above the colonnade. If the Nix camera is moving above and below the horizontal plane as he films, then even straight edges like that of a tree trunk can be made to appear to be in motion. The same thing happens to the tree on the south pasture in Zapruder's film when seen against the concrete wall and background. Because we are talking about a possible alleged shooter seen moving through the second row of colonnade windows, then I just don't buy the idea that all some had to do is stand on a car bumper to achieve such a angle to shoot at the President .... not to mention that there is no evidence that such a shot ever hit the President from that angle. We should always keep in mind that what we see on film is not nearly as clear of an image as what was seen by people who were actually there and looking in that direction. Bill Miller Not that I want to sidetrack this even more, but here's part of the Bronson movie showing the area in question, at the time of the head shot. A better copy of this movie (first generation) would probably confirm or disprove the shooter's position being discussed. chris

John, it is really a simple rule of motion IMO. Zapruder frame 311 not only shows Hill and Moorman blurred, but Toni Foster and the people walking behind her as well. Foster and the people behind her are slighlty less blurred than Moorman and Hill because they are at least moving in a forward/left to right direction ... as the limo was when Zapruder moved his camera. This caused stationary objects like Hill and Moorman to be blurred the most - Foster and the people behind her to be blurred slighlty less, and the limo is the sharpest because it was moving closer to the rate of speed that Zapruder moved his camera. Below is a still frame from a current movie which shows a woman in motion. Notice that the sitting man and the background appear sharp while we can see through the edges of the woman - motion blur. The opposite would have happened (the stationary objects being blurred and the woman being sharp) had the camera of moved with the woman. Unlike Zapruder's camera of the early 60's, todays cameras have a built in stabilization function because people do tend to not hold their cameras perfectly still which would cause noticeable blurring when looking at stills made from the movie. One of the reasons I have previously menetioned Zapruder's camera movements as seen in a stabilized Nix film is because the effects of Abe's vertigo is quite noticeable and it is those camera movements that caused constant blurring of objects in the Zapruder film. What was blurred and how badly it was blurred depended on how well Zapruder held his camera still. Bill Miller If the camera movement is the same or very similar, do the objects in the foreground/background, moving/not moving have to reproduce consistantly? Here are frames 133-325 on a white background to show camera movement. A few of the frames (around 309 where Jean Hill is between the sprockets(count back from 313 head shot) she appears to be more in focus, but the camera movement is mild. chris

John, it is really a simple rule of motion IMO. Zapruder frame 311 not only shows Hill and Moorman blurred, but Toni Foster and the people walking behind her as well. Foster and the people behind her are slighlty less blurred than Moorman and Hill because they are at least moving in a forward/left to right direction ... as the limo was when Zapruder moved his camera. This caused stationary objects like Hill and Moorman to be blurred the most - Foster and the people behind her to be blurred slighlty less, and the limo is the sharpest because it was moving closer to the rate of speed that Zapruder moved his camera. Below is a still frame from a current movie which shows a woman in motion. Notice that the sitting man and the background appear sharp while we can see through the edges of the woman - motion blur. The opposite would have happened (the stationary objects being blurred and the woman being sharp) had the camera of moved with the woman. Unlike Zapruder's camera of the early 60's, todays cameras have a built in stabilization function because people do tend to not hold their cameras perfectly still which would cause noticeable blurring when looking at stills made from the movie. One of the reasons I have previously menetioned Zapruder's camera movements as seen in a stabilized Nix film is because the effects of Abe's vertigo is quite noticeable and it is those camera movements that caused constant blurring of objects in the Zapruder film. What was blurred and how badly it was blurred depended on how well Zapruder held his camera still. Bill Miller If the camera movement is the same or very similar, do the objects in the foreground/background, moving/not moving have to reproduce consistantly? Here are frames 133-325 on a white background to show camera movement. A few of the frames (around 309 where Jean Hill is between the sprockets(count back from 313 head shot) she appears to be more in focus, but the camera movement is mild. chris

Hi Trygve, here's the Darnell footage I have. Compressed about 10%. Don't know if the footage toward the Depository is Darnell's also. Perhaps other's can help. Chris

The blemishes that are circled in red, would they be in the original Moorman photo? Or, is this version a dirty reproduction? I notice what appears to be the faint outline of the fingerprint, yet the motorcycle windshield closest to Moorman, contains none of the fingerprint. thanks chris

Here's frames 165-185 approx. larger size if it helps. http://70.95.198.200:4944/JFK/ chris Hey Chris! Is that your work? Impressive. Any chance of getting the next frames in an animated sequence? Looks like we are back where we were once before - I'm still a bit stuck - is it one ore two persons in the area behind the bush at the stairs? Using Robin's z202 again - cropped at the area of interest. Man in black at left. If we assume he is the one we see running behind the boy in the Martin, Bell and Dorman - then there should only be one individual in the neighborhood of the bushes at the stairs? Does this look right? Is it possible that there are still 2 individuals in the location of the tree? The movement seems to suggest it, but I can't get a handle on it. - lee Thanks Lee, Here's 165-205 approx. in Quicktime format for better quality. Give it a little time to load as it's much bigger than the animated gif. http://70.95.198.200:4944/JFK/ chris

The area in question is one which caught my attention as well. Your compilation has answered some questions I had regarding the unusual movement/actions seen in the Z frames. I had wrongly supposed the area to be one where shots may have originated. The opposing views clearly show there to be no rifle being fired from that area behind the bush as I had previously suggested. Thank you for your work on this. The woman falling backwards, then suddenly righting herself and stepping forward, looks pretty strange to me. It happens in the space of perhaps 5-6 frames? I really don't know what to make of the situation there. Chuck Hi Chuck - thanks for the feedback - I think it may be a mistake however to assume that this was not the location of a shooter. I have no idea, really, however it does make the Rosemary Willis Texas Monthly interview a bit more interesting, where she says a shot came from over her right(?) shoulder. Despite ridicule, it remains my firm opinion there is another individual - which I assume is another child, crouched in the bushes there in the corner - with more characters a bit further down. I worked on that for a long time, but there simply isn't sufficent documentation available to take it much farther. Someone approaches the corner shortly after the headshot is fired and can be seen in the Dorman frames, kicking something or someone. Strange behavior considering that the President's head has just been blown into pieces in front of everyone - and also when you consider [again - sorry] that not one of the 23+ individuals standing opposite have ever been identified [save for perhaps F. Lee Mudd]. Maarten - awesome post. Keep it coming. - lee OK, you've got my interest in this area re-kindled. I forgot to mention what it was in this area that originally caught my attention. I was going through the z-frames one by one when I noticed that there was a rod shaped object coming out of the bush which seemed to be tracking Kennedy. As the limo moved, so, also, moved the object. At one point there is a reddish-pinkish hue right at the end of the rod shaped object. I thought it was curious when I realized that the red-pink hue appeared (z170-z172) when there looked to be just enough open space beween the motorcycle riders and the bystanders for "the rod", if it had been a weapon, to get a shot off at Kennedy. Shadows don't track moving objects. Whatever it is, it is in motion, and therefore...someone must be holding it. This shows the area in question. I believe this is Bill Miller's work. If this is your work Bill, thanks again. Look for the rod I mentioned and you tell me if it is, or isn't, tracking the limo. You can see in this .gif that nearly all the people in the background are moving quickly, as if they have been startled. All, that is, except for our wall sitting, pro-warren commission witness Brennan. He looks to be frozen in time... almost as if he were sitting for a painting. He doesn't, in my opinion, act like someone witnessing the murder of the US President. Here's frames 165-185 approx. larger size if it helps. http://70.95.198.200:4944/JFK/ chris

The area in question is one which caught my attention as well. Your compilation has answered some questions I had regarding the unusual movement/actions seen in the Z frames. I had wrongly supposed the area to be one where shots may have originated. The opposing views clearly show there to be no rifle being fired from that area behind the bush as I had previously suggested. Thank you for your work on this. The woman falling backwards, then suddenly righting herself and stepping forward, looks pretty strange to me. It happens in the space of perhaps 5-6 frames? I really don't know what to make of the situation there. Chuck Hi Chuck - thanks for the feedback - I think it may be a mistake however to assume that this was not the location of a shooter. I have no idea, really, however it does make the Rosemary Willis Texas Monthly interview a bit more interesting, where she says a shot came from over her right(?) shoulder. Despite ridicule, it remains my firm opinion there is another individual - which I assume is another child, crouched in the bushes there in the corner - with more characters a bit further down. I worked on that for a long time, but there simply isn't sufficent documentation available to take it much farther. Someone approaches the corner shortly after the headshot is fired and can be seen in the Dorman frames, kicking something or someone. Strange behavior considering that the President's head has just been blown into pieces in front of everyone - and also when you consider [again - sorry] that not one of the 23+ individuals standing opposite have ever been identified [save for perhaps F. Lee Mudd]. Maarten - awesome post. Keep it coming. - lee OK, you've got my interest in this area re-kindled. I forgot to mention what it was in this area that originally caught my attention. I was going through the z-frames one by one when I noticed that there was a rod shaped object coming out of the bush which seemed to be tracking Kennedy. As the limo moved, so, also, moved the object. At one point there is a reddish-pinkish hue right at the end of the rod shaped object. I thought it was curious when I realized that the red-pink hue appeared (z170-z172) when there looked to be just enough open space beween the motorcycle riders and the bystanders for "the rod", if it had been a weapon, to get a shot off at Kennedy. Shadows don't track moving objects. Whatever it is, it is in motion, and therefore...someone must be holding it. This shows the area in question. I believe this is Bill Miller's work. If this is your work Bill, thanks again. Look for the rod I mentioned and you tell me if it is, or isn't, tracking the limo. You can see in this .gif that nearly all the people in the background are moving quickly, as if they have been startled. All, that is, except for our wall sitting, pro-warren commission witness Brennan. He looks to be frozen in time... almost as if he were sitting for a painting. He doesn't, in my opinion, act like someone witnessing the murder of the US President. Here's frames 165-185 approx. larger size if it helps. http://70.95.198.200:4944/JFK/ chris

Chris, you may need to get use to Jack's way of double talking because one day he will say one thing and then the next time he will unknowingly contradict himself. The reason for the train looking so large in one camera compared to another is a type of foreshortening effect even though that is probably not the correct term to use. The camera lens magnifies the more distant objects and this is why in the Nix film for instance ... the train looks to be parked right behind the fence despite it actually being across the RR yard. Bill Miller I used film footage from Hughes(train/windows) taken behind the pergola. I believe he also used a Bell/Howell camera, not sure what model. Part1 is Nix early segment superimposed over Nix later segment. Part2 is Hughes over Nix early. Part3 is Hughes over Nix later. No resizing of frames, registered the best I could. http://70.95.198.200:4944/JFK/ Hope it helps chris

As one former Naval Officer saluting another former Naval Officer, I must assume that JBC knew full well what the "Left-Handed" salute actually represents. "Tecumseh has become not only the "God of 2.0" -- the passing grade point average at the academy -- but also the idol to whom loyal midshipmen give prayers and sacrificial offerings of pennies. Midshipmen offer a left-handed salute in tribute to Tecumseh" "For those unaware, a left handed salute from Kerry's time in grade was a rebllious insult intended to openly insult the person being saluted. It lowers the stature of the person saluting in that it exposes his belief in a hidden agenda being manifest openly with blatent disregard to any accountabilty." Thomas, I do not believe this was a salute. The governor was taking his hat off. Here's a video of it. http://70.95.198.200:4944/JFK/ chris

JL, Much appreciated. I'll keep this in mind going forward. If I need to post items with no compression/larger file sizes, I'll link others to a ftp site. chris chris

Mark, the first segment of the Bell footage has them. chris

David, are you forgetting about who's side your on ... you've already stated that you have not seen any proof of alteration, thus can we not assume that you read the contents of the book that shares your article - and because of your remarks ... you must not have agreed with the Ph.D. Costella's writings. By the way, that's the Ph.D. that wrote about this large time frame that could have been used to alter Moorman's Polaroid because the dumb-ass didn't bother to learn the subject matter first. Maybe you can start a thread on how a Ph.D. could write a piece on Moorman's photo being forged and not he known that it was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination? In other words ... what good is a Ph.D. if you do not have the facts straight. Bill Miller Bill, do you have that footage of the Moorman photo that was shown on T.V? The first time I see it, is approx 3:15 Dallas time on NBC. (Poor Quality) Was it shown earlier? chris chris

link is dead... David try this link instead. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sitzman.htm chris

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ... Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid. But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film. Bill Miller Bill, Your quote is "In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo." If this is true, what cops cycle is reflective of the ghost image in 313/314? And, what object is the ghost image cycle overlapping? When I refer to "object", I mean the distinct dark appearance of what looks to be the side/rear of the limo. Also, what is the protrusion coming from the limo? chris

I am finding this hard to buy. A film frame is a 2D image and if an object is filmed from two different angles, then I do not think that an optical printer is going to turn one image to match the filming angle of the other. Bill Miller Bill, perhaps if shot from a slightly different angle, and then a method similar to this small film sequence. http://70.95.198.200:4944/JFK/ chris

Pat, in which interview did Zapruder indicate the shots came from behind him. In the interview he gives with station WFAA-TV in Dallas, which I believe is his first, right after the shooting, I don't hear him mention anything about the shot direction. thanks chris