Chris Davidson

1 hour ago, Paul Bacon said:

I can't believe there is still any debate about Dino Brugioni's memories or credibility.  His memories are clear, as would be anyone's recollections of a horrifying and impressive event shown in a film.  He was amazed, at the time, of the cloud of brain matter that shot into the air.

Did he also mis-remember having, in the middle of the night, to wake up a film equipment supplier to provide an 8 mm film projector?  Has anyone here even seen the video interview Doug Horne did with Brugioni where, in real time, Brugioni discovers that there were two NPIC events?

In my view, the two NPIC events make complete sense, when one understands that the first one was done to provide an expert opinion on what was actually seen in the film, and that the second one was done to see if the altered version would pass muster.

The existing copy at NARA clearly shows alteration when scrutinized.  Yes, there were at least two shots to Kennedy's head--one from behind (Z312), and another, instantaneously, from the front (Z313) which throws Kennedy back and left.

Would love to have viewed those still photos:

15 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

I dont remember anyone ever stating what should be obvious ie that slugs almost always veer inside a body/jelly/wax.

I reckon that the SBT can invoke say 8 deg of veer (i think upwards) in say 8" while in jfk's neck/back. Why hasnt veer been mentioned/invoked?

8 deg of veer would also explain why the (stainless steel i suppose) thin probe at autopsy would not go all the way throo to the throat.

There is an alternative variation related to 8°

2 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

which would have missed Connally or hit him farther to the left.

So, the exploration of paths could only be used to disprove the SBT unless a path is found that enters JFK's back, exits his throat and the points to Connally.

 

 

Moving Connally leftward, I believe Knott's Lab was trying to show something like this alignment.

So why not use what the WC provides.

JBC was approx 1" lower in height (WC testimony) sitting in the limo, than JFK was. Use your imagination for the downward path.

Much more faith in Dr. Shaw than the WC.

On 11/23/2023 at 3:12 PM, Chris Davidson said:

I find it more interesting to piece together the WC BS story and then use it against them:

Those pesky boxes.

The man in the gif is placing a pylon at would equate to the limo front at extant z235.

This would put JFK's physical position in the limo 15.1ft back from there.

If you care to look at CE884 entry for z235, it will show you a station # of 396.8

15.1 ft back from 396.8 = 381.7

The WC determined the SBT occurred at station # 381.3 = 4/10ft difference in placement.

Robert Shaw said No No, there was a Connally shot at approx extant z235/236 according to his viewing of the extant zfilm and his experience with bullet trajectories through the body. But, from the west end of the TSBD.

The final WC method was to survey JFK's actual physical location in CE884.

Do you understand how using the limo front and JFK's physical location in the limo would confuse the truth as to not enough time in between for those shots?

PS. The WC also documented a shot that was at approx extant z203.

3 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I am angry that this research seems to have been cocked up and hope it can be resurrected. I firmly believe there is useful irrefutable evidence. The analysts need to stick to what is not in dispute.

I find it more interesting to piece together the WC BS story and then use it against them:

20 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Here's an (Optical Flow) example from FinalCutPro.

This segment from the extant zfilm is 14 frames.

The gif consists of 33 frames for the same segment with each frame consisting of movement.

I sped up the playback rate to have it approximate what the extant zfilm naturally looks like.

Take the same 33 frame gif above and apply a frame removal sequence to end up at 14 frames again, below.

Note the difference in movement between foreground/background between the two gifs.

Now take a look at a completely different extant z version and compare that same foreground/background relationship to the two gifs.

I wonder how the WC went about adjusting for the alignment problem.(see page bottom)

Why don't we just vary the limo's path from where the professional surveyor had plotted JFK every 25ft.

Credit to Tom purvis:

1 hour ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

@Chris Davidson, Gotcha - When transferring film to a digital format, some software may use interpolation to smooth out the footage. This process can sometimes create additional frames or alter existing ones to produce a more fluid motion in the video. While this can improve the viewing experience, it's important to be cautious as it might also introduce artifacts or alter the original content of the film.

Here's an (Optical Flow) example from FinalCutPro.

This segment from the extant zfilm is 14 frames.

The gif consists of 33 frames for the same segment with each frame consisting of movement.

I sped up the playback rate to have it approximate what the extant zfilm naturally looks like.

5 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

About 7 or more years ago there was a YouTube video claiming to reveal a dramatic slowing of the limo. Between 312 and 313 the limo's speed was cut in half. Long story short, someone had created/added an extra frame (312a). It was apparently made with a frame interpolation program. The program can take 2 consecutive frames and create an intermediate frame in which anything that moves from frame 1(312) to frame 2(313) is recreated to appear in a location in between those two positions.
 

Not sure when Keyvan's frame was created.

In Final Cut Pro you can create new(in-between) frames using "Optical Flow".

The example I'm providing is an "interlaced" frame on the left side(notice the horizontal lines through Jackie's face).

The right side is the same frame(using Photoshop) with a gaussian blur of 2 pixels, followed by an unsharp masking with an amount of 500 and radius of 1.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 The evidence brought before the Warren Commission provided clear and concrete reasons to believe there was more than one shooter, and that Oswald was not among them. To assume the evidence was all sculpted to bring them to a false conclusion is ridiculous, IMO, and lets them off the hook. 

The Warren Commission created their own false evidence.

Start with CE884 and JFK's head height at extant z313.

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Either way, the big difference between this and Lovelady-in-Wiegman is that this man is right close to natural shadow. Mr. Lovelady is nowhere near the shaded area of the doorway. And the weird 'shadow' sticks to him as he steps down

 

 

 

Agree completely.

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Mr. Davidson, I think he just takes a step forward, bringing his right arm/shoulder out of the natural shadow

 

 

I don't see any movement on his part.

Maybe a slight torso twist to the east bringing that side out of the shadow?

Hard to tell.

Jones bending over, a lot easier to see.

Obviously later than Wiegman.

First few frames have a shadow, not covering as much of Lovelady? as we see in Wiegman.

Large gif is approx. five frames apart.

As the cameraperson moves slowly past the steps, the shadow disappears.

It's the same man in Willis.

Speaking of comparisons:

Clean lines can be another problem for "touch up" artists.

In fact, just look for someone within the same photo to use for a comparison.

Besides the impossible shoulder dilemma appearing, you can decide what that (red arrow) area is.

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The next artist "touch up" mask is for the crossing elbows.

From the crossing elbow "touch up", follow the arm that runs back through the top half of the shadowed face and into Lovelady's head. Note the indention in Lovelady's head where they meet.

Next up:

Straight down(at the photos bottom) under the "dso" in Davidson is the mask for the woman who is shading her eyes with her right arm/hand.

See previous gif.

The next artist "touch up" mask is for the crossing elbows.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Chris,

What do you mean by "an object's mask?" What is a mask, in your context?

I believe that Carl Jones's face was added to the original Altgens 6 photo, possibly to cover up (or "mask) the coke bottle he was drinking from. Is that what you mean by mask?

 

The Carl Jones touch up mask is straight down from the letters avi in the word Davidson.

Once you realize that aspect, look at the whole metamorphosis again, but from a "touch up" alterationist artist perspective instead.

Lovelady's favorite song I believe was "Stuck in the Middle With You"

Take some time to grasp the entire picture (double entendre). If you still don't understand what is being presented, I'll help with the details in a little while.

Photos are just individual film frames. You stabilize film frames by aligning the same object in multiple frames.

Sometimes, you can apply that same concept to individual photos that have been (touched up) altered.

In terms of a photograph, it would be the object and its mask that align.

The Carl Jones mask was the first, obvious clue for me.

18 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

From a Towner stabilization by Mr. Chris Davidson-------------taken from (subject to correction by Mr. Davidson) the Lost Bullet documentary (perhaps via Mr. Robin Unger).

 

They can start with this back/forth stabilization. Wasn't taken from anyone.

On 11/5/2023 at 9:23 AM, Paul Bacon said:

For at least a decade I've been wondering what's up with Tie man's white shirt on top of Lovelady's? (thanks Chris D.) face and shoulder.  I always just took it for granted that there was something I didn't understand to explain it--user error--I even asked my wife if she could help me reason through it.  She couldn't either.  Now I realize that Altgen's 6 was manipulated--it wasn't just me after all.  And there's still work that needs doing, ie. was Lovelady? actually LHO, how many times was the photo manipulated, when, where, how, etc.  

 

Whole heartedly agree.

Place cursor on outside shoulder edge(red shirt)while it plays.

Imagine that part of the shoulder shielding objects behind it.

If you don't like the Poser? models (I didn't create it) body orientation, use the person next to Lovelady?

No Sandy,

I've never wavered on my position.

You can read my previous response to Paul and apply that position to the latest gif I presented.

If you still don't understand what is being shown, then I can't help you with this angle.(no pun intended)

Increased speed:

On 11/5/2023 at 5:24 PM, Alan Ford said:

Nicely done, Mr. Davidson.

Remove that impossible shadow, and other 'enhancements', and we'd be looking at two men instead of one!

Let's not forget about its sibling "the impossible shoulder" either.

It's all about the body orientations relationship to the cameraman.

Sometimes it helps to consider the horizontal flipping of photos for comparisons.

Compare ALL shoulders carefully.