Chris Davidson

6 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Thus, if Vinnie Barbarino is assessed a five-point penalty, for example, Arnold Horshack has no right to know that. 

Expected response from the Sweathogs:

"But,but,but, Mr.Kot′ter, Mr.Kot′ter, Mr. Kot′ter′′ only the way Horshack could convey it!!!!

Natural sun lighting of course:

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That blacked out area is what the husband and wife team of the Wilkinsons has been hunting down for years on end.

They are making a documentary about it.

 

Perhaps you can obtain his opinion on the topics covered in the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F3aQOCkSK8&t=2s

7 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris Davidson

Will you share specifics that cause you concern and prevent you from betting the farm?  Do you see holes in the argument?

Me sharing my specifics doesn't serve a purpose, regardless of what I believe the strengths/weaknesses are, at this time.

Me sharing my arguments is idle chit-chat leading nowhere.

One person's "idle chit-chat" is another dozen researchers' concerted effort toward a permanent take down of the official version of the assassination AND identification of who killed JFK.   Not a parlor game for me.

My speculation has nothing to do with others and their research.

Rephrased.

33 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris Davidson I wasn't familiar with your key role in the process.

Will you share specifics that cause you concern and prevent you from betting the farm?  Do you see holes in the argument?

FWIW, @Roger Odisio contrary to those who might allege I'm solidly in the camp that scoffs at PM simply because I'm posing questions, I'm on the fence but leaning toward the conclusion Oswald couldn't be effective standing outside.

It wasn't a key role. I fortunately had acquired material that was helpful in that situation. In fact, I wasn't interested in Sean's research at all.

I don't think it serves much purpose any longer, regardless of what the strengths/weaknesses are, at this time.

It's idle chit-chat leading nowhere.

The Bell frame I supplied earlier might be a more interesting investigative subject, at least for now.

I have other fish to fry.

41 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris Davidson

Did the PM hypothesis fill a void at a critical juncture? Grasping at straws to advance conspiracy hypothesis, so Oswald outside the building served as a touchstone, a revitalization of the conspiracy argument?

Sean's original email inquiry to me had nothing to do with the figure we refer to as PrayerPerson. He was looking into the Altgen's photo and the peculiarity of Lovelady within it. He asked for my help and I supplied him with the frame from a 2005 documentary, in 2007. At a later junction(don't know how much later) the hypothesis was formed. This was/is not grasping at straws to advance/revitalize a conspiracy theory as there is a very good argument that it is Oswald. 

But, I wouldn't bet the farm on it either.

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Catch 22: Murphy and others were never going to get the original films no matter how long they kept quiet about why they wanted them.

Think there might have been a better chance approx 12/15 years ago. Just my opinion.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Nice post, Jeremy. I wish you'd had that at the ready a decade or so ago, when certain people were endlessly arguing that the photos were confiscated and faked via a CIA photo alteration lab set up in the parking lot next to the TSBD. 

Ask the right question: When is the first comparison of extant assassination film/s correlated to the extant Zfilm presented? What year?

The time would be better spent finding out who the 2nd figure on the steps with a long sleeve red shirt/jacket is. The one I discovered in Bell as the limo is passing in front of the TSBD.

As to acquiring better generations of Darnell/Wiegman, that's never going to happen. When I pointed out that person(Wiegman film) in the shadows back in 2007 to Sean Murphy and later Robin Unger(Darnell film), Sean and others developing the theory that the person was possibly Oswald should have kept quiet about it until after they actually acquired the better quality copies. In other words, they inadvertently tipped off the wrong people. End of story.

What's the probability of two red shirted people on the steps as the limo passes by, while the red shirted sniper is up in the 6th floor SE window?

The "dog/pony" show put on by the WC will keep you chasing your tail for eternity, or, at least approaching 60 years.

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I would love to see the source of the frames, that frame, for myself.  I don't question his integrity, I just cannot give him 100% without knowing more about the provenance of that frame.

How he has a frame from the original film, unaltered, is beyond me; but he obviously does.  Maybe he will be so kind as to let us know about it and where he was able to acquire it... or then again it may be best not to at this point.

I take him at his word.  Sorry I couldn't be more help in that area, yet this little exercise which I did spontaneously has helped me understand the possible process employed.

DJ
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DJ,

Check your forum mail from March 22.

No Chris,

The latest frames I posted side x side are the same as in the gif.

The side x side frames are not composited, layered or any other combination thereof.

They are two individual frames from two versions of the zfilm.

The white object cannot be in the same location relative to the limo/Greer's head, while Tony Glover in the background lands where she does, relative to the white object.

Chris,

Try this way instead:

More clearly stated,

Move the shooter, as he is facing the limo, to the right of the TSBD and to the right of the limo.

The Bronson flash is the approx 240ft straightline(added on edit) plotted distance to the elev. 418.35 headshot from behind.

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Paul,

The early reenactments placed JFK's position at Elev. 418.35, which was later moved east up Elm to 418.48 to make us believe that an adjustment of 418.48 -418.35 = .13 x 18.3 = 2.37ft horizontal difference mistake was made. Robert West didn't make that change.

The 421.75 elev. entered on CE884 is just a 3.27ft elev added for JFK's height above the street. Which, once again, was used in every single CE884 entry. As far as I know, JFK didn't get hit in the same location on his body throughout the entire shooting.

In essence, the horizontal distance of 2.37ft was the distance between two shots.

Look back at the white object gif, and ask yourself how fast do you believe the limo is traveling between those two frames.

Remember, according to the "Stopping Distance Calculator" that's the minimal distance it would take for the limo to stop at 7.47mph, not including the driver's reaction time.

This might help you appreciate some of the math that was being used to create the final z masterpiece.

 

 

 

 

Basic Conversions:

7.47mph = 10.95ft per sec (using 1.466) as the mph conversion

10.95ft x .71sec(time between two shots) = 7.77ft

.71sec x 18.3fps = 13 frames @ 7.47mph

From previous post above, distance between two shots = 2.37ft/.71sec = 3.338ft per sec / 1.47 = approx 2.27mph. = .182ft per frame

2.37ft / .182ft per frame = 13.02frames

Referring back to Chris B:

"The position of the limo on Elm is so well documented by Nix, Z, and Muchmore that we can place it within a couple inches. What we see of the limo in 312 would relate to frame 302, about a 7 ft difference in the position of the limo. We also know right where Z was on the pedestal and so the only other option is that the limo had to be turned. If the film was altered then Anything Goes."

I would say 7ft vs. 7.77ft is fairly close, along with the same amount of frames for the extant 7.47mph and 2.27mph scenarios, based on the acoustical time via Thomas.

I have changed the word 'frontal" to "another" to describe the first of two shots for now.

Sorry about that.

This doesn't mean I believe it didn't come from the front, just not sure about the exact location.

The location of the 2nd shot, the extant rear headshot didn't come from the TSBD as listed by Thomas. imo

It did originate from approx 240ft away.

As you read the excerpt, the way it is phrased, picture where the person at 240ft would be in relationship to the person at 265ft as they are trying to connect this back to the TSBD.

Or, to paraphrase, the 240ft shot was to the right of the 265ft shot, and to the right of the silhouette.

If the previous post makes sense, you could see how that distance between shots, coupled with Donald Thomas's acoustical results, might indicate the approx/actual speed of the limo during those shots.

In other words, 2.37ft/.71sec = 3.338ft per sec / 1.47 = approx 2.27mph.

I used .71 instead of .7(Thomas' Entry)for a specific reason, don't worry about it for now.

Take a look back at what DJ and Tim tell you the speed of the limo is, leading up to/including the extant shots.

And, take note of the two shot sequence, via location from(Thomas' work). 

Another frontal shot is missing from the extant film.

PS. I could be terribly wrong, but the math doesn't lie.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Greer's head-turn, and the conflict between his words and his action as caught on film.  He was staring directly at him as he was killed, crawling ahead at less than 3mph. Citation provided.

 

 

More support for DJ.

Paul,

The early reenactments placed JFK's position at Elev. 418.35, which was later moved east up Elm to 418.48 to make us believe that an adjustment of 418.48 -418.35 = .13 x 18.3 = 2.37ft horizontal difference mistake was made. Robert West didn't make that change.

The 421.75 elev. entered on CE884 is just a 3.27ft elev added for JFK's height above the street. Which, once again, was used in every single CE884 entry. As far as I know, JFK didn't get hit in the same location on his body throughout the entire shooting.

In essence, the horizontal distance of 2.37ft was the distance between two shots.

Look back at the white object gif, and ask yourself how fast do you believe the limo is traveling between those two frames.

Remember, according to the "Stopping Distance Calculator" that's the minimal distance it would take for the limo to stop at 7.47mph, not including the driver's reaction time.

This might help you appreciate some of the math that was being used to create the final z masterpiece.

BTW,

David J. deserves much of the credit for bringing the white patch in the extant film to my attention with his concerns that something was amiss.

Tim(engineer, retired I believe)has allowed me to post some of his results, which I have in the past.

Here is just a snippet of what is being conveyed with the white patch.

Although I do not agree completely with the exact frame removal process he describes, based on other math work,

the important aspect is to realize the relationship he refers to, between the limo and the background.

29 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

Unfortunately, for me, Chris's gif's often leave me even more confused.  I remember the "bobble head" gifs, but was never sure I was getting the full implications or even any conclusion reached.  I think I get it--indication of two different films, or cameras, or "step" processing mistakes?

The gif Chris posted just earlier--I can make a guess as to his point, but why not just spell it out?  I'm guessing he was pointing to the fact that, in spite of the two widely separated frames, body positions in the frames had not changed.  If this is true, that would be indicative of a matte process used in Z alteration, would it not?

Your post David was helpful.  It confirms that I have been getting the general gist of what Chris has done.

Chris B quotes:

"The position of the limo on Elm is so well documented by Nix, Z, and Muchmore that we can place it within a couple inches. What we see of the limo in 312 would relate to frame 302, about a 7 ft difference in the position of the limo. We also know right where Z was on the pedestal and so the only other option is that the limo had to be turned. If the film was altered then Anything Goes."

"If I see this correctly your'e using frame 306 and 315, and for purposes of comparison frame 306 is a partial transparency allowing the patch in 315 to be seen in both frames of the gif, as the white patch doesn't exist in frame 306."

Paul,

I know the presentation method I use can be frustrating. Hang in there, you are doing fine.

David J., as he so rightly has been doing, offers a nice description of the process, which I am most grateful for.

The white patch is on both frames. It is a stationary object

If the limo is moving at the speed in which we are led to believe, at that time, it is moving at an average of .6ft per frame = 7.47mph.

7.72mph according to Itek, based on the Nix film, so close enough.

In the first gif with the white patch laying on top of itself(stationary), how far does the limo move?

How far does the background woman move?

That relationship.

Now, reread Chris' quotes above.

You are getting the general gist of this.

I don't want to engage in a general conversation about the alteration of the film itself, because that's been a big time-waster for many years. That being the main reason I decided to approach it from the math angle.

And, I apologize to Chris B for somewhat hijacking this thread. So, if you have comments to convey, feel free to post them on my "Unveiling The Limo Stop" topic, unless Chris wants this to continue here.

23 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I'm not sure if you realize what the supplied gif is showing, but, if you read your comment below and understand the white object above Greer is registered to itself, in both frames within the gif, it might give you a better concept of your actual comment.

Chris,

Perhaps this more separated version will help.

Thanks for trying, David.

In the near future, there is more math(hint hint) I believe you will find fascinating.

Chris,

I'm not sure if you realize what the supplied gif is showing, but, if you read your comment below and understand the white object above Greer is registered to itself, in both frames within the gif, it might give you a better concept of your actual comment.

5 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

Having worked for the Lottery for many years, the "/1" is assumed 🙂

If that was what you meant by:

... as ratios can be many things.  Ratio's as differences in relation to what?  I assumed you meant to a single frame, 
the /1.

the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.  e.g. "the ratio of computers to students is now 2 to 1"

Sorry if this wasn't clear.

The same ratio reflecting the differences in frame total spans, previously provided.

Let me rephrase this part too:

"The 41-42 frames we speak of has nothing to do with the time between two shots, it has everything to do with missing frame segments."