Chris Davidson

On 10/3/2023 at 2:59 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Perhaps the picture you saw included one of the two red clothed individuals we see here?

https://vimeo.com/870842433?share=copy

The same as we see in Hughes:

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Are you out to lunch?

I saw a better picture which you did not see. 

Is that plain English?

 

Perhaps the picture you saw included one of the two red clothed individuals we see here?

https://vimeo.com/870842433?share=copy

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Try it on another frame from a different source.

Is there some-one there?

41 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

 

 

His presence was known for a while it seems. 

 

 

 

Yes David,

That document was around long before I located "J" in Wiegman.

Except no-one knew about this document afaik(made it public), until Bart gained access to Blunt's collection and revealed it many years after 2007.

12 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Gee Greg, you just pulled your previous response questioning my integrity.

You really should check the sources you are using and ask why the information you seek is not there.

All your answers have been well-documented by me in the past.

19 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You discovered the existence of a person in the Darnell Prayer Man’s position in Weigman, Chris?

Why is it on all the photos of the Weigman stills on Bart Kamp’s website that I checked, I can’t see any person there, only that spot of light?

Are you sure anything of a person is there other than that light? Explain please? Using a photo(s) of Weigman alone please?

I suggest you research the answers to your own questions.

56 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I know that’s the book cover but that’s my question: not could it be a different person in the Weigman film, but is it certain there is a person there in Weigman at all? How is that known? 

Discovered that person in Wiegman for Sean Murphy way back in 2007, then used what's called "shadow contrast" to enhance the image.

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi Chris,

Thank you for posting. As usual your posts leave me confused, but to try and answer your questions;

1. How many frames would the real Zfilm consist of, if Z had started filming as the limo started turning around the corner, just as the Towner film does?

This is a wild estimate but I'd say another maybe 3-4 secs more for a slow wide turn (50 - 70 frames?) as I think you believe occurred. Should I be allowing for later frame removal as well?

Not wild at all. Yes, later frames removed.

2. Where/How did the FBI obtain a 33 second (assassination footage) Z version?

I have not read , but think you have quoted, that the FBI had a longer film than the extant Z film.

It's from the link attached in my previous posting. From the WC298 document.

My best guess is that they would get it from Life, but I am going to take some convincing the FBI used one film while the CIA modified another. That is incredibly incompetent.

3. What are the odds that the total frames difference ratio between the FBI 33 second Z version and the extant Z version,.......

Sorry but that sounds obvious. To synch films, showing the same initial footage, is always going to take the same 'frame difference ration' isn't it?

I didn't say apply the ratio to the same initial footage, I said apply it after using it on the total frame amounts.

Eddy,

How many frames in a 33 second film at 18.3 frames per sec?

How many total extant Z frames are there which include the pre-limo DPD motorcycle segment?

Divide those two numbers with the larger being the numerator?

What is the ratio?

Multiply that ratio by the extant Z frame rate of 18.3

Locate the frame rate for Towner/Martin's camera in Myers multisync project?

What's the total frame difference between a 33 second film and the extant zfilm?

11 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

 I would also assume that, somewhere the FBI refer to  Z frame numbers, so can't we see a frame numbering mistake in the documentation? to indicate later frame removal (or is that simply achieved by ignoring later Z frames in later documents?)

 

 

Start with these questions:

How many frames would the real Zfilm consist of, if Z had started filming as the limo started turning around the corner, just as the Towner film does?

Where/How did the FBI obtain a 33 second (assassination footage) Z version?

What are the odds that the total frames difference ratio between the FBI 33 second Z version and the extant Z version, when applied to the extant zfilm frame rate, would equal the approx frame rate Myers applies to the Towner/Martin films in order for his (multi film sync) project to work?

Keep in mind that the Towner/Martin films were shot with different 8mm cameras.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thank you Chris D. This is important because if there is a falsification it is a service to all concerned and saves time to find out early rather than later, like Edison is said to have said about his 100th failed attempt to find a filament that would work for a light bulb: it is progress by ruling out something that is a deadend.

A key issue is could a standing DCM and Umbrella Man have been visible to someone in the storm drain. From your photo on the left, it does not look like it.

However I have read that the opening of the storm drain was wider (meaning here in vertical depth) in 1963 before some kind of road improvement or repaving was done post-1963 reflected in that photo. I do not know the status of that claim's verification (do you?). Can it be excluded that a person inside a storm drain with a possibly greater-vertical-depth opening in 1963 could have seen the umbrella of Umbrella Man? Note the angle of eyesight in your photo at left is not positioned to the far right of the opening of the storm drain looking east on Elm, which is the question at issue. 

If, say, the lower part of the storm drain opening in your photo on the left, which looks like road pavement, was not there or lower in Nov 1963, could that open up the possibility that JFK's upper body and head, of JFK sitting in the back of the limousine, could be visible from the storm drain earlier than Z353? (Also, as long as considering all possibilities, is a shot at Z353 excluded?)

One could also consider a modification to the hypothesis: on the hypothesis that there was a shooter in the storm drain requiring a signal: maybe the signal did not come from the umbrella/DCM but from one of the persons on the south side of Elm across the street from the storm drain, by some prearranged signal of movement, say with a camera or a piece of clothing or whatever. In that case no purpose would be served for a storm drain shooter by Umbrella Man pumping the umbrella, which would be unrelated. 

Other fish to fry.

Good Luck.

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Umbrella Man, Dark-Complexioned Man (DCM), and a shooter in the storm drain: an hypothesis

I'm going to make a stab at interpreting DCM and Umbrella Man. I am skeptical of the Chamberlain appeasement symbol explanation. The motions of Umbrella Man and DCM, the what appears to be a radio with DCM, the sitting the way they do, and neither of them coming forward in any form until Witt in the 1970s, and the striking position exactly where JFK was shot driving by, add up to suspicion this was part of the assassination.

My analysis. Fact one: Umbrella Man is Witt, because the appearance matches as well as the confession.

Often the reason someone comes forward with something not previously disclosed is because it is going to come out anyway. The standard rule, e.g. with politicians, is when embarrassing or negative information is about to be disclosed from a hostile source, better to do so oneself first, "get in front of the story". The reason Witt came forward then, but not earlier, would be because he believed or realized he was going to be outed.  

Fact two: it is unlikely Witt would have been witting to any assassination plot details in advance. If he was, it would be expected that he would either have been killed unless he was able to disappear into hiding, but neither happened.

Speculation: Witt was asked, and either did as a favor, or perhaps for pay (doesn't matter), to do the umbrella signal when JFK's limousine was arriving at a certain position on Elm, and asked to keep it confidential, prepared in advance to give some other reason. The "some other reason" Witt had prepared or suggested to him from the beginning would be the appeasement symbol. What Witt actually was told was perhaps a photographer explained to Witt he needed the signal from Witt at a certain location to know when to start taking photos or film footage, but also gave some reason to Witt why he did not want that reason or his identity revealed and obtained Witt's agreement to confidentiality. The "cover story" of the appeasement-symbol was agreed at the outset as Witt's explanation if anyone asked at the time (no one did).

Witt successfully stayed under the radar unidentified until he came forward (to preempt being outed) to HSCA in the 1970s.

The reason Witt might not come forward following the assassination, or, when about to be outed years later did not tell truthfully to HSCA that a "photographer" whom he either did or did not know had arranged with him as a favor to signal when the limo was at a certain point, might be explained for two reasons. First, because that would force Witt to identify the photographer friend or associate to whom Witt had promised confidentiality, to which may or may not be added fear of consequences depending on who it was. So Witt stuck to the planned cover story. The other reason would be Witt would come under intense scrutiny, likely for life and possibly with criminal prosecution consequences, as suspected of being part of the assassination enhanced by his failure to come forward earlier with what he knew. Simpler to give the standby appeasement-symbol explanation, sounds plausible.

If Witt was asked to do so to assist a photographer, that opens the possibility that it might not really have been about a photographer needing a signal.

A conclusion from reasoning: Witt was innocent of advance knowledge of the assassination as related to his actions. If he was told and believed it was for a photographers' signal purpose Witt might or might not have continued to believe that after the assassination, viewing it, just as many others than Witt today view it, as a freak coincidence that JFK had been shot in the head a moment later.

Fact three (a further conclusion from reasoning): It is likely Witt did not know DCM (as Witt said he did not), but DCM is another story, and DCM may have been witting to the assassination. That is, Witt was innocent and doing what he thought was for a confidential, but innocent, purpose for a photographer. Witt did not choose to have DCM near him, but DCM chose to be near Witt.

Four (conclusion based on the radio with DCM): DCM is witting to the assassination.

Five (from reasoning): the movements of both DCM and Umbrella Man functioned (unwittingly in the case of Witt, no pun intended) as a signal seen by a shooter, who was prepared to shoot but not in a position to see the approach of the presidential limousine himself.

Six (from reasoning): the hypothesized shooter must be in line of sight to Umbrella Man and DCM (which is not saying much since they could be seen from nearly all directions, however not all directions could see Umbrella Man and DCM but could not also see the presidential limousine approach).

With that foundation, the Proposal or Hypothesis: the signal was to an assassin shooting from the storm drain. Prepared for one shot, able to see both Umbrella Man and DCM, but not able to see the approach of the presidential limousine (for such a shooter, a signal such as given by Umbrella Man and DCM was necessary).

Forget crazy ideas of an assassin crawling through drainage pipes 3 feet in diameter to exit somewhere else. Just forget all that, not reasonable. Those notions are not necessary to consideration of a storm-drain shooter. All that needs to be supposed is a lifting of the manhole cover, a man descends, the manhole cover is replaced. The shot is fired, one single shot. The assassin remains in place, perhaps as long as until nightfall, then makes his exit again via lifting of the manhole cover and letting it back down. 

Because that storm drain (referring to the one just ahead of JFK's limousine on the north side when JFK was shot in the head) is in public view, there must be, in such a scenario, some mechanism for subterfuge disguising the fact that a man was let down into that manhole cover surreptitiously. In fact, such a thing happened the morning of the assassination: a truck was stalled, stopped right on the sidewalk, in at least approximately and plausibly the exact location, of the manhole cover. Forget all the debates over claimed witnessing of Ruby as driver or a man with a cap walking up the Grassy Knoll with something that someone thought could have been a rifle. The hypothesis is that it was all about getting a man into the storm drain surreptitiously, full stop. The truck was stalled quite a while before it was repaired and moved. Just a couple of hours before JFK was shot in that approximate location on Elm Street. 

The activity of that stalled truck could be a mechanism for a man to have been let down surreptitiously into the storm drain and the manhole cover put back on, however the specifics of the subterfuge worked.  In such a way that that could have happened in broad daylight with police officers in the vicinity and members of the public, other traffic driving around, and no one noticed. 

Man in place, the truck is fixed and leaves, in time for the presidential parade to proceed.

Forget stories of Roselli in the storm drain. Just nonsense. It would not have been Roselli. Focus first on analysis of viability of a shooter in the storm drain itself, and forget trying to identify him until it is first established credibly that one could have been there. 

The most serious objection to the storm drain shooter idea has been that at the position of JFK at Z313 (the head shot), there is not line of sight or fire from the storm drain--the limousine was not close enough, was too far back by, what, maybe 10-20 feet or so. This has been shown and photographed and appears a fairly compelling argument that a JFK head shot at Z313 is ruled out from the storm drain on that grounds alone (apart from any other arguments or issues). 

However, there have been recurring proposals that there was an additional shot at ca. Z328 or 330, after the Z313 head shot (or two shots at Z312-313 if there were two then a split-second apart, as some think). 

The reconstruction of the shots and their points of origin, and harmonization with the medical evidence and so on, is over my head in terms of present research ability or conclusions to know. So I do not know whether these conjectures are viable in terms of the larger picture of evidence. If they are clearly and definitively falsified (e.g. a shot at ca. Z328-330) the hypothesis fails. All I know is these are conjectures on the table set forth independently, and a couple of them become of much interest if they are viable (in terms of other physical evidence), in terms of the present hypothesis.

The two key points I noticed and put together, to form this hypothesis, are these:

• A shot at Z328-330 would allow just enough time for forward movement of the presidential limousine to give a perfect shot for an assassin shooting from the storm drain, if one was there. The objection that Z313 is not close enough to be viable, is removed at ca. Z328-330.
• There has been a history of independent argument that there was a shot at ca. Z328-330 (primarily drawing from blur analysis, and some witness accounts of a post-Z313 shot).
• The trajectory of a shot fired from the storm drain at ca. Z328-330, if there was such a shooter, would go somewhat upward and be from a little to the right--the shot would miss the windshield, and assuming Connally was not in the way (he had fallen over by that time?), could have hit JFK in the throat--the notorious entrance wound to the throat that it looked like--and exited through the rear of JFK's head at the place where reports located a wound near the EOP. Because of the unusual violent backward motion--and to the left--of JFK's head from the shot(s) at Z312-Z313--a shot at ca. Z328-330 from the trajectory of the storm drain could be about right for a through-and-through shot, entrance the throat, under the brain, out the back of the head near the EOP.
• Again, this is out of my league to know if that shot is medically (or trajectory) viable. However I did read in Pat Speer's chapters on the shots, that Cyril Wecht had at an early stage supposed exactly that trajectory for one of the shots--entrance at the throat, exit the lower back of the head--although Wecht then abandoned it. (Speer himself argues for the same through-and-through trajectory between those two points but in the opposite direction, entrance rear of the head and exit the throat. Much of Speer's discussion is therefore of interest, just the hypothesis here is the early Wecht view of going in the opposite direction from Speer's reconstruction.) Without claiming to know for sure on these matters myself, my reasoning is that if someone with as much forensic pathology experience as Wecht could have originally found a throat-to-ca. rear EOP shot trajectory plausible, well then, maybe it is plausible.
• The notion of the throat wound of JFK being an entrance has all along seemed appealing in terms of the reported witnesses' shape of that wound, with the main objections to the front shot being a perceived inability to explain where, if so, the bullet went, and why it did not end up in the back seat of the limousine. But most such notions assume a downward or horizontal trajectory from say, the overpass area. Few have considered a sloping upward trajectory from the storm drain which would pass through JFK's neck and head in a thrown-back unusual position, with the bullet then passing over the rear seat of the limousine, possibly still headed slightly upward. The problem of what happened to the bullet if there was a shot from the front--not in JFK's neck, and not in the back seat of the limousine--is removed.

The argument for this hypothesis is some things seem to fit or mesh. The argument is vulnerable in that it has several key moving parts all of which must be true and it is over my head to know for sure whether all stand.

Just as the narrowly failed ambush attempt on de Gaulle--a conspiracy to assassinate de Gaulle by crossfire--so a shooter in the storm drain would be perfect in a similar conspiracy to shoot JFK, for concealment, and if timed right, a perfect shot.

Back to Umbrella Man and DCM. They function to signal to the assassin in the storm drain. He gets one shot, takes it, hits JFK in the throat. 

A storm drain shooter would explain one of the most puzzling witness reports, from many witnesses: smelling smoke in the vicinity of the limousine.

And reports of a shot fired very close to the limousine (misunderstood by Newcomb and Adams early on as being from the driver!--but a storm drain shooter would account for the same evidence). 

If there was an assassination in broad daylight such as at Dealey Plaza, there aren't too many ways to work the shooters without being seen. From the storm drain would be one such. Some have suggested a decoy shot from the Grassy Knoll, to draw attention to the sound.

Just as the conspiracy to assassinate de Gaulle failed, the Dealey Plaza attempt on JFK's life could also have failed. Some attempts work, some don't. One risk with a storm drain shooter would be if some law enforcement thought to look in that storm drain and would see a person there. But for whatever reason that did not happen. (There is no known report of any officer saying they looked in that storm drain and confirmed no one was there.)

But just in case with that risk, maybe someone--an accomplice--could be outside the storm drain, perhaps set to decoy or interfere or draw an officer's attention away from the storm drain if an officer did look like showing interest there. With that in mind ... notice DCM not only sitting near the storm drain, but looking around with the storm drain in his eyesight. Maybe it means nothing.

In this reconstruction, the man in the storm drain, due to all the people milling around, might be imagined to remain there with a thermos of coffee and some sandwiches until nightfall. Then in the dead of night some van or truck comes through Dealey Plaza, something happens, the man is retrieved and they are out of there, mission accomplished and body intact. 

DCM never came forward, and although there have been a few conjectures, there is no secure photo identification of DCM. But in this reconstruction: 

• there would have been an assassin in the storm drain, responsible for a shot at ca. Z328-330 which hit JFK from the lower right and front in the throat; that shooter successfully escaped, identity unknown.
• DCM was party to it, identity also unknown.

Its a conjecture. I don't claim its more than that.  

Viewing limitation is the eastern sewer side/wall.

Earliest viewing opportunity would be approx extant z353 depending on JFK's height above the street.

U= Umbrella Man

D = Dark Skinned Man

X =JFK in limo

Willis approx extant z203

Bronson approx extant z231

Not for timing, only for positioning because of the extant z207 splice

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm

On 8/7/2023 at 1:40 PM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Please can you expand on these posts to make sure we all understand. Are you saying the head shot was at the frame we know as 327? and that this is demonstrated by the limo alignment to the lane markers?

Don't believe what you see when viewing the film.

That's why I asked "Which version do you believe is closer to representing the true events" while providing the WC elevation dilemma.

Isn't it amazing how one study can start at a 1ft lower street elevation(18.3ft horizontal) than the other and use a more correct head height measurement above the street, yet when compared to the WC version, the horizontal distance between the two is approx 1.65ft.

5 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things.
Mr. GENZMAN. What did you hear at that time? Did you hear voices?
Mr. WITT. I don't recall any voices at that particular time. After I finally became aware that something had happened, you know, something terrible had happened, I just sat down. I was standing on the retaining wall, and I just sat down, just right straight down, and apparently--I don't know if I had laid the umbrella down or dropped it or what I did. Nevertheless, I think it ended up on the sidewalk and I just sat there. Some of the things that I recall, one of the things I remember seeing while standing, there was a couple, I looked down to the right and there was a man and a woman, and they were covering some children, they were lying down and they were covering the children with their bodies and this may have caused me to sit down or I may have just sat down because I was stunned. Because there for a few minutes or for a few seconds at least I didn't seem to be able to collect my thoughts. Sometime later after the cars moved out, this is when all this activity in the cars stopping and the cars moved out, I recall a man sitting down to my right and he said something like: They done shot them folks. He repeated it two or three times but it was repetitious of him saying the same thing.
Mr. GENZMAN. What was he saying?
Mr. WITT. They done shot them folks--something to this effect.
Mr. GENZMAN. Can you describe this man?
Mr. WITT. I remember him as being a Negro man. I don't know if I ever actually looked at him for any length of time or not.

 

He then follows up with re-enforcing the previous description(limo stopping) and adds another action to it.

Mr. WITT. No, sir. I--my view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella being open. And my--the next time I saw the car after I saw it coming down on my left traveling west, the next time I saw the car was when this activity of the car stopping, one car rushing up on another, the motorcycle patrolman stopping, there was this screeching of tires, this sort of thing. One thing I recall there was a movement in the President's car. By this time--I don't recall seeing the President. He must have--I am sure he was down. The only thing I recall was the--there was a sort of a pink movement, and it was--that was Jackie Kennedy, I think, wearing a pink dress or something. This pink thing stood out in my mind, and all of this happened in very rapid order. The--as soon as the one car ran up behind this one, a man jumped off and I think the first car was pulling out about the time he had jumped on the back.

Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things.
Mr. GENZMAN. What did you hear at that time? Did you hear voices?
Mr. WITT. I don't recall any voices at that particular time. After I finally became aware that something had happened, you know, something terrible had happened, I just sat down. I was standing on the retaining wall, and I just sat down, just right straight down, and apparently--I don't know if I had laid the umbrella down or dropped it or what I did. Nevertheless, I think it ended up on the sidewalk and I just sat there. Some of the things that I recall, one of the things I remember seeing while standing, there was a couple, I looked down to the right and there was a man and a woman, and they were covering some children, they were lying down and they were covering the children with their bodies and this may have caused me to sit down or I may have just sat down because I was stunned. Because there for a few minutes or for a few seconds at least I didn't seem to be able to collect my thoughts. Sometime later after the cars moved out, this is when all this activity in the cars stopping and the cars moved out, I recall a man sitting down to my right and he said something like: They done shot them folks. He repeated it two or three times but it was repetitious of him saying the same thing.
Mr. GENZMAN. What was he saying?
Mr. WITT. They done shot them folks--something to this effect.
Mr. GENZMAN. Can you describe this man?
Mr. WITT. I remember him as being a Negro man. I don't know if I ever actually looked at him for any length of time or not.

Moving it under one umbrella:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27278-the-harvard-crimson-admits-we-debunked-ce-399/?do=findComment&comment=509779
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27278-the-harvard-crimson-admits-we-debunked-ce-399/?do=findComment&comment=509995
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27278-the-harvard-crimson-admits-we-debunked-ce-399/?do=findComment&comment=510206

Transitions:

https://vimeo.com/852394389?share=copy

The top graphic is from "The South Knoll Gunman" study.

Which version do you believe is closer to representing the true events.

I suggest taking a look at the previous gif posted.

On 7/21/2021 at 6:28 PM, Chris Bristow said:

Does anyone have any ideas on what a 3D computer Recreation of Dealey Plaza and the limo movement could reveal?

  A few months ago I noticed that frame 312 definitively shows that the limo was not aligned with the direction of the Lane markers. The proof is in the relative positions of the small side window frames. The one on the left side of the car sits slightly to the right of the one on the right side of the car. This is only possible if the car was either about 6 to 8 feet farther east than is depicted in the film, or the limo is turned six or seven degrees to the right of the direction of Elm Street at that point. It's possible that Greer veered to the right a bit as he looked over his right shoulder.

The biggest implication of the limos position is that the shot from the West End of the Knoll fence no longer works. Other than Sherry Fraser's Theory I have never seen the limo represented as being at an angle in the street.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Chris Bristow

On 7/21/2021 at 8:13 PM, David G. Healy said:

yeah, if you took a lower third film layer of the limo and elm street to where the grass meets the upper curb and all things inside the limo then rotate it a bit around the *Y axis, say 5-7 points, blow it up a tad, re-frame it.... ya might have something.... least I thought I did.... frankly no one gave a damn....  an example is in this essay (link below)I did over 20 years ago.... can't remember the exact page, but it's in there....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UB-0H4xpIXce-kW7EdCWAVppl7srdf5v/view

 

 

White sign says 313. The right extended foot is the alignment marker.

The orientation of objects to filmer are:

Extant z323 for the convertible support bar. Extant z327 for the back seat. (+/-) 1 frame

Film Credit To Harry Livingstone

Muchmore:

P.S. Notice any changes in the blob!!!

On 7/14/2023 at 5:39 PM, David Josephs said:

No Joe, the front red lights were blinking, not the rear brake lights...

 The front blinkers also tell a different story about the extant Z film.

https://cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/zthesis.html

I did arrive at a different amount of missing frames based on the average from the 49 frame span Hughes gif vs Morningstar(z133-182) study, but the process he used is invaluable.

In real time, the Hughes 49 frame segment lasted 2.7 seconds for a 18.14fps rate.

PS. So no, I don't lie. I may make mistakes, but that is the extent of it.

David,

Here's a bookend for yours.

On 7/10/2023 at 7:22 AM, Charles Blackmon said:

What in the world is that red smudge you have pointed to at the rear of the limo?

A sequel to "The Blob", coming to a theater near you.