Chris Davidson

Try here For Sitzmans interview with Joshia Thompson. It gives a full account of her recolections of the assassination.

link is dead...

David try this link instead.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sitzman.htm

chris

uh-uh-UH..... is that part of your, "There can be no doubt IMO"? You can prove the 3.6/18ths from the headshot, eh? If so, that IS new, you're now the only person in the world that claims the exact timing of the Moorman 5.

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

Here's a scenario....Not necessary for another camera (not impossible a second B&H414 camera may of been on the pedestal) in or around the pedestal... matching up *not so perfectly* is a optical printers problem, ask Ray Fielding, that's what Roland has him there for...

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

Zapruder went on TV and indicated the shots came from behind him. He also indicated that there may have been a third shot, AFTER the head shot. There is no reason to think he was involved in anything insidious, outside of making BANK off his winning lottery ticket.

And Ashton, Zapruder did flinch. The blur analysis of William Hartmann for the HSCA indicated that Zapruder's strongest flinch prior to the head shot was around frame 190. The largest response in fact comes right after the response associated with the head shot, indcating that this is when the third shot occurred. Hartmann, who was probably not familiar with the plethora of earwitness testimony indicating there was a shot just before or just after the head shot wrongly interpreted this response as Zapruder's crying out. The blur/jiggle caused by Zapruder's crying out came a second afterwards. IMO.

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

Two questions.

1, Where did the dog come from? Jackie certainly doesn't have it at Love field. Nor do any of the retinue appear to be carrying a dog.

2, Where did the dog go to after the assassination, it couldn't have simply disappeared.

I have no doubt that Jean Hill saw something that she took to be a small dog, but in all the excitement who could quible about a misidentification.

Stephen,

God knows if this is germane, but your question reminded me of this curio from the testimony of a Scotsman on Elm, Robert Henderson. Reportedly a Glaswegian WWII veteran holidaying in Dallas. With wife and daughter, took grandson, Roddy, to see presidential motorcade:

“I Saw the Kennedy Killing,” The Weekly News (Manchester), 30 November 1963, p.8:

“We settled for a spot on Elm Street. There weren’t all that many people around and it was easy to get a place by the kerbside…The President was sitting in the side of the car nearest us…The car stopped momentarily [after first shot – PR]…Then everything seemed to happen at once”

“A stray dog wandered into the roadway” before shooting began. After shooting, “The dog that had been wandering about in the road was still there.”

A cynic might wonder if this was part of an early - and early abandonned - attempt to explain the stop on Elm.

Fortunately, I am not a cynic.

Two questions.

1, Where did the dog come from? Jackie certainly doesn't have it at Love field. Nor do any of the retinue appear to be carrying a dog.

2, Where did the dog go to after the assassination, it couldn't have simply disappeared.

I have no doubt that Jean Hill saw something that she took to be a small dog, but in all the excitement who could quible about a misidentification.

Stephen,

God knows if this is germane, but your question reminded me of this curio from the testimony of a Scotsman on Elm, Robert Henderson. Reportedly a Glaswegian WWII veteran holidaying in Dallas. With wife and daughter, took grandson, Roddy, to see presidential motorcade:

“I Saw the Kennedy Killing,” The Weekly News (Manchester), 30 November 1963, p.8:

“We settled for a spot on Elm Street. There weren’t all that many people around and it was easy to get a place by the kerbside…The President was sitting in the side of the car nearest us…The car stopped momentarily [after first shot – PR]…Then everything seemed to happen at once”

“A stray dog wandered into the roadway” before shooting began. After shooting, “The dog that had been wandering about in the road was still there.”

A cynic might wonder if this was part of an early - and early abandonned - attempt to explain the stop on Elm.

Fortunately, I am not a cynic.

I remember now why I thought it relevant:

Stephen Barber, “President Kennedy Is Assassinated,” Daily Telegraph, Saturday (4 am edition, reprint), 23 November 1963, p.1:

“A woman witness, Mrs. Jean Hill, said in a radio interview that the President and Mrs. Kennedy were looking at a dog in the middle of the road, near an underpass, when the shoots rang out. She said: “There were three shots. He grabbed his chest and fell over his seat, and Jackie fell over him.”

“Murder Charge Lodged,” Dallas Times Herald, 23 November 1963, p.8:

“The President passed directly in front of us on our side of the street,” Mrs. Hill said.

For those that would like to hear Jean Hill's first interview, which was broadcast on NBC at 1:21 P.M Dallas

time on the day of the assassination, approx. 51 minutes after the shooting occured.

Here is a link to my instant web page.

http://cpe-70-95-198-200.san.res.rr.com/~steamn/

I believe there are other points in this interview that might need to be addressed.

chris

I thought that we had about beaten Jean Hill's LITTLE WHITE DOG to death

when Chris Davidson emailed me yet another dog sighting. When enlarged

very big, I immediately saw yet another little white dog...the REINCARNATION

of my childhood pet Sissy, a white Toy Spitz (Samoyed). Note the close

facial resemblence!

Jean Hill saw "a little white dog". "Miller" and others see "white flowers".

I see a "little white dog". Chris sees a different dog. Who is to say which of us

is right or wrong? Each witness may have a slightly different interpretation.

Shall we let "Miller"decide for everyone? Or shall we try to find what

it was that Jean saw? She did SEE SOMETHING. What she saw is difficult

to decide, based on evidence and tampered evidence. But I know this:

Jean was NOT LYING about seeing a "dog".

Jack

Jack, thank you for posting that. I totally agree.

She either saw a dog or thought she saw a dog. And as I stated previously, how close to the limo would she have to be to see this?

thanks

chris

Ghost image.

chris

What frame is that, Chris...and what is your interpretation?

Jack

Jack, frame (429 Costella) or (428 MPI).

It's someboby's face. If you superimpose this over John's panorama, the figure is at the end of the Z wall.

chris

Ghost image.

chris

What a waste of time. John starts a thread on Jean Hill, and it's hijacked after less than one page. All that I learned about the JFK case in reading pages 2 and 3 is that Gary Mack's wife left him. (Reminds me of the joke about a guy whose wife ran off with his best friend. The guy didn't know it was his best friend until his wife ran off with him.)

It's time to engage once again the forum's post blocking option, which I will do forthwith. It worked great the last time I used it. As soon as I blocked all posts from David Von Pein, he disappeared. But of course that was just another coincidence, since VP actually left, or rather was banished, because he has some fear of or aversion to cameras. How lucky can we get?

Back to Jean Hill,

In her audio interview broadcast by NBC approx. 51 minutes after the shooting. I believe her first since the shooting:

She describe's seeing a dog in the middle of the seat.

How close would she have to be to the limo to view this, considering Zapruder (high up) doesn't pick it up on film, and it's most likely on the seat, between two people.

chris

P.S. Anyone know why I'm limited to 63K for posting, please help. I'd like to post her audio interview as a mp3 file, for those that haven't heard it.

'Bill Miller' wrote:

JFK goes from an upright position eventually falling on his left side toward Jackie, which will take up more of Jackie's side.

How much room/time does Jackie have to climb back to her seat, lift up Jack's head/body and sit down?

I ask this as it seems strange that Jackie eventually ends up on the floor, as Bill points out .

At this point, what does she do to free herself from Jack?

What position might Jack end up in?

How much room does this leave Clint?

I am not sure what difficulty you are having ... photos looking down into the limo shows the amount of room the back seat had. The blood running down the front of Jackie's seat must have gotten there as the President bled all the way to Parkland.

I would like to know where you got the idea that Jackie ended up on the floor? jackie simply bent forward and craddled her husbands head and tried to hold his head on just as she testified to. She remained in this position all the way to the hospital. I recqall reading where she was still holding her dead husband and had to be asked to allow the SS to remove him from the limo and get him into the ER.

Bill Miller

****************

perhaps the questions have not been answered fully?

Bill, Sorry I misquoted you on Jackie's position.

The backseat had a lot of room which means it was fairly wide, I assume.

Any ideas on how Clint gets from the bumper to the back seat as I see nothing to grip and hold, with the car traveling at a high rate of speed?

Where is Jack as Clint steps into the back of the limo with his left arm gripping the far left side of the vehicle?

thanks

chris

Bill, if you sincerely believe that's Jackie's hat, then she is crouching down on the floor directly behind the jump seat. If this is true then we have every reason to believe JFK fell on the floor. Which supports the possibility it was his foot over the side of the limo.

Crouching down on the floor??? Jackie is sitting at about a 45 degree angle to the seat. (see Jackie's back in the Newman photo.) She is still in the same 45 degree position in the Miller photo. The WH garage photos show where the blood from the President's head had ran down the front of the bench seat where she had JFK's head in her lap. The jump seats were very close to Jackie's seat. (see below)

There is no evidence that the President ever had any motor functions from the moment his arms dropped in Dealey Plaza to the point of arriving at Parkland. The only time that anyone's foot ever came into play was when Hill slid up to the back seat and hooked his foot over the side of the car. (see below) When Hill tuurned his knee inward ... his foot slid along the side of the car from one location to another. Hill said that he hooked his foot over the side of the limo ... so if that is JFK's foot, then where did Hill's foot go? While I supposed that anything is possible or so they say, but in this case - what you have suggested is not supported by the evidence IMO.

There is a lot of blood on Jackie's side of the seat.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Limousine/blood01.jpg

In Z frame 392 which sync's with Altgen's last photo of the limo, (imo) Jackie climbs back into her seat.

This sequence takes about 30 frames/1.67 seconds.

JFK goes from an upright position eventually falling on his left side toward Jackie, which will take up more of Jackie's side.

How much room/time does Jackie have to climb back to her seat, lift up Jack's head/body and sit down?

I ask this as it seems strange that Jackie eventually ends up on the floor, as Bill points out .

At this point, what does she do to free herself from Jack?

What position might Jack end up in?

How much room does this leave Clint?

Just a few thoughts in trying to figure out possible body positions,

chris

WRONG...THAT IS THE BACK OF THE THUMB.

Jack

OK, Jack ... if you want to dance, then let's dance. Below is a graph and I will use letters to locate two main reference points. I will reference them accordingly ........ A - the lower part of the thumb, B - lower part of the palm.

The outer profile line on the two known hands and one alleged hand from the lower thumb joint all the way down to the wrist can be followed in all three images. Now with that being said, there is still the matter of the large blob (the underside of the sole of Clint Hill's shoe) that is blocking the outer half of the alleged JFK palm and wrist. I say 'blob' because in the copy prints I am seeing used in this thread ... it is little more than a blob. However, the Post print makes the overturned shoe sole rather obvious. This means that regardless of how the illusion of the sun's glare off the side of the polished shoe of Clint Hill has given the appearence of a hand, the sole of his shoe being between the alleged hand and the camera means you guys have once again misread the image or the photo is also retouched, thus making it unreliable.

Those who have said they have seen the first generation prints of the Miller photo have claimed that it was clearly a foot. Those who have been using lesser quality prints have been seeing a hand ... much the same way that you (Jack) were seeing a black woman in the Bronson slide who was actually a white woman by her own admission. One would think that after you have seen how you were fooled by using poor prints on one matter ... that you'd apply that to other photos like this one. I think it was Kennedy that I heard say that 'a mistake isn't a mistake unless you refuse to correct it'. Maybe you should consider those words and apply them to your interpretations concerning the poorer quality prints that seem to end up in these threads.

Bill Miller

Bill, does the first generation print show Clint's black sock extending from his pant leg into his shoe?

Can someone tell me who the person in the inner red circle is?

chris

[

I want to start off by saying hello to everyone.

I hope as time goes on, I'll be able to contribute to this forum, as all of you have before me.

Even though I have not interacted with most of the members, I hope they will not take offense if I respond

to them using their first names.

If it is offensive, please inform me and I will address them properly.

On with the show,

Initially I thought the object was a shoe. That would be the object as a whole. As I enlarged it about 15 times its original size, the hand part became more pronounced. This is what the animation solely represents.

The back part of this object is a right hand which sticks out of a jacket sleeve. imo

The front part I have no idea.

For a quick test, try placing your hand in the same position as the animation displays. If you follow the contour of your hand from thumb end to wrist, it matches the original. imo

With that said, how the rest of a body connected to that right hand is oriented within the limo, is not clear to me.

Any ideas,

chris

Chris,

The image does resemble a hand if you discount the "front part" - but if you DON'T discount the "front part" it looks like a shoe, in my opinion.

Doesn't it look like a shoe to you? Forget about a hand just for a moment. Look for a shoe. Do you see one?

Not to mention the fact that JFK's body was on the *other* side of the back seat, with his head facing the other door.

MV

Mark, as I stated earlier initially I thought it was a shoe. As a whole, it does look like a shoe.

I took some pictures with my shoes flipped upside down in the approx. position and superimposed them over the photo. The problem I have with the shoe is the contour from thumb to wrist. It's not there.

Where as with my hand, it is.

Another question I have is: who or what is this?

thanks

chris

Nice work, Chris. Gee... something that actually looks like something...

Yes, great job that Chris did. Now can someone get him to show how merely laying his hand and wrist on a leather seat can make half of it disappear? And to the 'it must be a shadow from the rear seat' thinkers or non-thinkers (which ever the case may be) .... show one photo without Clint Hill on the limo that shows the seat doing what some have alleged. I'll start it off ...

[initially=6932]

It didn't cast such a shadow here with the sun shining down from the drivers side of the limo. The reason it didn't do it is because the seat doesn't rise high enough in the air, nor is it close enough to the edge of the limo to account for what is seen in the Miller photo.

Bill Miller

I want to start off by saying hello to everyone.

I hope as time goes on, I'll be able to contribute to this forum, as all of you have before me.

Even though I have not interacted with most of the members, I hope they will not take offense if I respond

to them using their first names.

If it is offensive, please inform me and I will address them properly.

On with the show,

Initially I thought the object was a shoe. That would be the object as a whole. As I enlarged it about 15 times its original size, the hand part became more pronounced. This is what the animation solely represents.

The back part of this object is a right hand which sticks out of a jacket sleeve. imo

The front part I have no idea.

For a quick test, try placing your hand in the same position as the animation displays. If you follow the contour of your hand from thumb end to wrist, it matches the original. imo

With that said, how the rest of a body connected to that right hand is oriented within the limo, is not clear to me.

Any ideas,

chris

I work for the San Diego Union Tribune (13 years) in their Prepress department.

I've been in the graphic arts field for over 20 years.

Have lived in San Diego for 40.

My interest in joining the forum is driven by a desire to learn the truth, in the assassination of JFK. I'm mainly interested in the photographic research of this case.