David G. Healy

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

[...]

To echo Jonathan Cohen's worthy words, if newcomers come to this forum looking for serious discussion and inquiry concerning the JFK assassination criminal conspiracy, and see this kind of reasoning, what will they think?

[...]

ahhh, wonder why you have to seek solace and hide behind another lone nut, 1964 WCR conclusion excuse maker/cartel, maybe?

When is your book coming out?

33 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

this post has led to a discussion of whether or not there is a Minox in the photo, not whether or not Oswald had a Minox that the DPD recovered from his belongings. That is the way the thread was designed, but maybe it’s not the right question. Lack of photographic proof would weigh in on side of Oswald not having one, but cannot prove it, since it is only a moment in time. I don’t think we have enough information to prove that if the Minox is not in this particular photo then the DPD never took one into evidence, nor that Oswald didn’t own one.

amen, Paul...

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

Douglas this looks like a John Deere tractor out in the water.

looks like a freelancer out of Iowa doing a real short time towing gig... things are a little slow in Dubuque this time of year...

On 4/14/2022 at 12:26 PM, James DiEugenio said:

These guys are shameless.

I just learned from Aaron Good the following:

Buzzanco was given an audio track of the debate. 

He altered that track.  According to Aaron, he added something like a 10-15 minute intro attacking "JFK assassinologists".

Whew, talk about desperation.  He must not want the very few listeners to his show to see how poorly he did against me.

I guess that is kind of a backhanded compliment.

all these classic deeeee-bators on the nutter side are NOT about case evidence, it's  all about the microphone and EGO...

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

David G. Healy writes:

That isn't the main problem you face. Anyone who claims that the film was altered faces two much more fundamental problems: actually proving that it was altered, and working out a plausible reason why it might have be altered. After about 30 years of trying, not much progress seems to have been made with either task.

[...]

 It may surprise some, but rumors exist of case film/photo shenanigans back in the 60's immediately after the Warren Commission Report in 1964 ... and when more case evidence was dissected, specifically the Elm Street events were scrutinized, the conspiracy angle got real legs --

The added photo/film evidence disputes may be simple to understand *create a unique diversion,* with debate? Reason: divert attention to anything other than the case medical evidence.

So, here's the problem: The medical evidence/autopsy evidence regarding this case are a royal mess, everywhere and the WC knew it... so did a few others, notable medical experts. The photographic evidence is an important, yes, but a non-critical sideshow...

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Also, the issue of interpretation of the Minox camera issue has nothing--nothing--to do with defending the Warren Commission, or lone-nut versus criminal conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy. Just to make that clear. 

I would prefer to keep secondary articles out of this and have the focus be on the primary evidence. If my citation of a link of an article which discussed that primary evidence with what I considered of high-quality analysis in that link becomes a flash point, that is regrettable. I urge that discussion not be taken in that direction (it is not productive). Keep the focus on citation of and assessment of the primary evidence, the Dallas Police evidence photograph, the documents, the written reporting, the witness testimonies, and analysis of such, please.

Based on the past 58 years the 1964 WCR and "analysis" of same has proven least productive.

They did get Kennedy's name correct and spelled Dealey Plaza with the 'e', I'll give you that concession. Just to make that clear.

8 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Z filming extra footage is an interesting thought. A second camera has been mentioned somewhere but if it was only one foot away from Z's camera it would have a very different line of sight. The wall behind the Stemmons would appear off by more than 2 feet. Maybe mixing the two would work depending on where they meet. One additional problem with a matte is the curb appears almost level across the frame around 312 but constantly changed as he panned down Elm. That would be another mis match to be addressed.
 I had considered that if you re filmed the background on the weekend of 1/20/64 around roughly 10:30am the azimuth and elevation would match 11/22 at 12:30.
 

re the above: if, there was NO second camera on the pedestal, then might I advance something obvious, Zapruder shot a pan down Elm St. from the pedestal himself, 15-20 seconds before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza...

the curb down Elm? So? That issue (?) will be covered for the most part by a layer above it, ie., original asphalt footage of the motorcade going down Elm St.

and, separate matte artists from a physical film matte black/white overlay of film frame(s). Same for glass artists. A glass artist adds to whats within the confines of a frame, the only restriction is the outer edges of the glass itself, its all art for them. Matte artist adds or deletes components and structures the frame to appear natural with frame-to-frame continuity.

Here's the main problem Z-alteration advocates face, we/they have no idea what version of Z-film they are reviewing, disassembling, re-altering. Assumptions are being made, best case film scenario(s) based on what?

There's a damn good reason as to why nearly no-one can get authentication and verification of Zapruder film prints they are working with. "The in-camera original Zapruder Film is at NARA or the 6th Floor Museum, we taxpayers paid $16 million bucks for that piece of celluloid and derive no benefits and/or no access, PERIOD. And with out THAT, Z-film researchers are just making noise, sometimes very loud noise as we did in 2001-2005/6/7... In fact, most of us on the possible alteration side of things were invited here by John Simkin in 2004... the debates are over, books written, the bells and whistles fading -- but the Kennedy Assassination itself lingers like a very dark cloud... as such we can only dig deeper in search of resolution...

Over the years I have learned there are those that have access close to first day 3 Z-film dupes #0185,6,7 of the "alleged" Zapruder Film #0183. Find #0184. Lest we're stuck with: as Gary Mack so eloquently told me well before his passing, "the in-camera original Zapruder Film will never, EVER appear in a court of law again." He's probably correct... that leaves the original 3 Jamisen film dupes... and maybe, maybe that old camera original isn't just sitting at the bottom of a landfill someplace...

Have a good one, pssst! The *other* Chris, Chris Davidson, did the math on the Z-film and covered a lot of bases, hell of an asset... and understand Adobe After Effects, that software literally, nearly wiped out the "optical film houses" in NYC, Hollywood, Chicago, San Francisco and the rest of America. Prior to Adobe ownership it was called COSA After Effects, it mimicked aerial image printing. bi-pack, and the entire film special effects film printing medium in 1993/4, learn how to use it and you'll have access to the entire, Hollywood film special effects secrets...  nothing is IMPOSSIBLE...

here's a simple defining statement of AAE: "After Effects can be used for keying, tracking, compositing, and animation..." Wikipedia

On 4/12/2022 at 2:03 AM, Chris Bristow said:

The problems with using a matte or just cutting frames are many. But I have a possible method to overcome most of the problems of mattes and frame removal by combining them.
 The problems with mattes is they place the limo against a background that will be a mis match. The wrong angle to the limo would be easily spotted, the reflection on the trunk would not match(Like Mary Moorman or the paristyles behind her) and neither would the shadows. It could be somewhat fixed with additional mattes but not everything, imo.

[...]
 

tremendous amount of work you've done here. I commend you. I took the liberty to highlight a section above. Here is another possible, quite simple solution to the above. Another camera on the pedestal. Or, the Zap camera shooting an additional piece of footage immediately after the lead car drove down Elm Street. Why then? There was nothing on Elm Street except asphalt for 10-15 seconds... (makes no difference what's on the curbs or grass, unless the limo ends up there, then all bets are off for editing a film). An empty Elm Street, same kind of camera (B&H), same film stock, same lighting, same iris opening, same film speed, very same angle to the street... but, zoom out some to be comfortable and not make a mistake. Do a pan down Elm Street only from curb to curb with a little breathing room. You've had the lead car go through, you know roughly what the limo speed will be (so you know how to pan down the street and how fast). Plenty of loaded film... When the pan is complete snap back to the top of Elm Street, zoom all the way in (full tight), roll film, and pick up the lead car turn onto Elm Street, hold and follow the limo down Elm... the rest as they say, "take care of it in post!" 

There is one thing left... some material(s) are going to extend over the south curb... thats where artistry comes in...

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Anyone following this, note carefully: neither DiEugenio nor the Lisa Pease article address the DPD evidence photo. When asked in the conversation in the past to which he refers where is the Minox camera in that DPD evidence photo, DiEugenio became abusive and said he was refusing to talk to me further. That was his response to the question the last time I asked. But never mind the style issue, look at the substance: no addressing the Dallas Police Department evidence photo.

The Dallas Police Department Crime Lab's evidence photo of Rusty Livingston published in 1993, taken before that evidence was given to the FBI, tells what was there. To talk all that smoke and mirrors without addressing this central point and the central question of the title of this topic is just deflection and distraction.

Sorry James DiEugenio. You cannot address this issue without addressing the issue.

Now why would anyone want to give old Ruth the benefit of an ounce of breathing room here? According to you, I see Ruth put in a tough spot here. Now she's got to come up with a camera! And she knows it. And, with that result you wouldn't be jumping through hoops here... wallah -- she delivers. (but, back on topic)

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that a person, or person(s) unknown, of the DPD, removed the camera for a **souvenir.**

Not to mention a little get back at the Washington boy's expense. --Ya took JFK's body away from our jurisdiction, okay, we'll yank your chain, because WE can...

Contrary to broadcast/film media images, SS/FBI were NOT loved everywhere... nor, so the rumor goes, were the other alphabet agencies especially, especially amongst law enforcement units within the USofA's continental boundaries.

This camera nonsense is part of testy PR issue, was Oswald an agent of the US government? After all, ALL Marine grunt losers own 4 cameras, defected to the USSR, married a Ruskie girl whose old man had KGB ties.... wanted to promote Fidel, took solo bus trips to Mexico, did a radio gig, was familiar with US embassies, stayed in upscale hotels when abroad, visited Japanese pillow houses, charged with nothing after promoting possible treason, had his very own FBI contact person -- not bad for a guy making less than a $100 bucks a week, a real grunt Marine who had a SECRET security clearance.... and shot and killed by a Dallas pimp, bar owner with organized crime connections, probable gun runner... 

Think Ruth might get a lick of the Hades treatment? Who might be in-charge of finding ice water? Is there's justice?

Oh, here's another tid-bit, I bet the USMarine Corps wishes, WISHES LHO had been a honorably discharged member of the USCoast Guard... take that Vinnie Bugliosi...

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Wow Pat. I stand corrected. It was about clearing LBJ, suspected the world over already, more than anything. You've convinced me. 

Of course foreign conspiracies needed to be eliminated too, not too hard to do since there never was one to begin with. But putting to rest a domestic conspiracy was #1. You lay out an eye-opening argument.

I looked up the LBJ/Abe Fortas phone call of Jan 11, 1967 you referred to near the end of your sections. The link is here: https://www.discoverlbj.org/item/tel-11333, and the relevant section is at -8:40 to -7:45. I made a transcript, which is pretty stunning. LBJ appears to be talking about the Kennedys and especially Robert Kennedy, although he does not say the name "Robert Kennedy". He calls them by euphemisms, "our friends up in New York", and so on. This section of the phone call follows Abe Fortas telling LBJ how a favorable series done by a reporter for the New York Times on the work of the Warren Commission was spiked by higher management, the story killed. It sounds like Fortas is implying a Kennedy hand in the spiking of that story. That is immediately followed by this below. The stunner is that in this phone call LBJ comes across like a raving conspiracist, accusing the unnamed them which appears to be the Kennedy machine of literally killing anyone who opposes them. Then there is reference to the same them which appears to be the Kennedy machine doing politically targeted prosecutions taking out political enemies. Here is Johnson, and anyone listening to this call can hear the passion and feeling coming through from Johnson as he says the following:

"They started--our friends up there--every one--y'all won't believe this, but every man that crosses them in any way gets murdered. They've started all this stuff. They, they've created all this doubt--its like they have with Manchester, and if we'd had anybody less than the attorney gen--uh the chief justice--I would already have been indicted. That's the way this operation runs. Of course everybody's got skeletons, and it happens that they pick out the ones with the most skeletons first. But they'll get to 'em. Eddie Wiser told me that in 1960. And I just couldn't believe it--I just couldn't think--I was just too naive, thinking anything like that in this world could happen. But I see it just plain as day now, just as clear as anything."

You read this as Johnson saying that if Earl Warren had not been heading the Warren Commission, but someone else (perhaps aligned with the Kennedys?) Johnson could have been indicted. Indicted for what? For the topic of the investigation Earl Warren was head of, the topic of immediate prior discussion to these words, the Warren Commission, the investigation of the assassination of Kennedy. What improprieties related to the assassination or its investigation or aftermath did Johnson have in mind, that someone else running the Warren Commission might have targeted Johnson for indictment? Well, Johnson does not say.

When I read that part toward the end of your above, I thought I have got to fact-check this, see if LBJ really said that and if in context that is being represented and interpreted accurately. But, I don't see how else to read the words than as you presented. I would be interested if others can offer some other reading, but it does read as if LBJ really did say and mean that if it had not been the Earl Warren Commission, but some non-Earl Warren Commission doing the same investigation of the JFK assassination, LBJ could have "already been indicted". Not necessarily for the assassination itself. But something. Or did he mean for the assassination itself. 

Just amazing. That's a game-changer of a piece of analysis Pat. 

Amazing? What's amazing is that someone is amazed, especially after the past 5-10 years. Years of flagrant lying to make "things" look a little less incriminating... LBJ knew, KNEW how JFK's demise was going to look re the general public. And those pesky New Englanders and Democrats in general, not to mention to federal investigators but to those elected officials that knew his LBJ's foibles and tendencies. He was  taking a battering from the anti-war crowd and came to understand the Oval Office could chew you up into small chunks and spit you across the Potomac... not to mention the industrial military complex and of course his best buddy of all time (lmao) RFK was bearing down on his beloved Texan rear end handwriting was on the wall...

And, Abe Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court (1969)under a cloud AND a threat of impeachment (a Wall Street bribe???) the likes of a LBJ would understand...  I wonder why... resignation was in the air I guess...

Maybe things are much simpler than another convoluted, unclear blue-blood conspiracy theory, eh?

14 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Maybe I was bit more naive then.

hey Ron,

Naive is an action word for *HOPE/WISH*.   

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Sandy,

This is one of the reasons, and there are many, that I have tried to drop out of this thread.  Jeremy's outrageous claims and insults have become boring.  There is no answer you can give that will satisfy his need to need to deny that the Zapruder film and others have been altered.

OBTW, I asked Ray what was a "chaser".  To me a chaser is a shot of whiskey after a beer, but thought it might be some Brit slang.  It's a shame he didn't answer.

Another thing I might add is the BB Lady had a fairly large black box camera and the Lady in Blue looks like she has a smaller camera of a different design.

a chaser is the beer AFTER the shot of whisky... 😇

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[...]

The answer is so obvious that even John Butler should be able to work it out, I hope. In the frame John was using, the colours are distorted. The colour of the presidential limousine alone tells us that the colours in John's copy are distorted.

And that's all there it is to it.

[...]

are you speaking from a position of authority, Mr Bojczuk? Explain to us how you divined the above conclusion -or- are you just breaking wind with your prognostications? Your demeaning responses are crafted tight, so tight in fact one becomes very curious as to whose your dog in this discussion?

What is the lineage of the image you made your color distorted determinations from? What distortion, what made the distortion and who made said distortion? However, I suppose you won't clarify because you can't... and simply don't know...

On 3/24/2022 at 3:08 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Eddy Bainbridge wriets:

No, I'm not claiming that the film definitely hasn't been altered. I'm claiming that no-one has yet provided convincing evidence that it was altered. That isn't the same thing.

Correct. If someone is saying that the film has been altered, it's up to them to prove it.

In the same way, if someone is saying that you robbed a bank, it's up to them to prove it. In the absence of such proof, the default setting applies: we should assume, provisionally, that the film is genuine and that you didn't rob that bank. 

Currently, there's no good reason to suppose that the Zapruder film, or the Moorman photo, or the Altgens photos, or any of the other Dealey Plaza images, were altered. In the same way, there is currently no good reason to suppose that the Loch Ness monster exists, or that alien abduction stories are truthful.

If someone does come up with convincing evidence, I'll be happy to claim that the film was altered (or that Nessie exists, etc). But we've been waiting three decades or so, and that evidence hasn't turned up yet. I'm not optimistic that it ever will.

It's more likely that someone will discover the Loch Ness monster. Loch Ness is a very long, very deep lake, and there may be areas that haven't yet been fully explored. If that's the case, it might be conceivable that a colony of unknown-to-science animals has somehow survived in some remote part of the loch.

But the Zapruder film is a tiny 8mm home movie that runs for less than half a minute. It has been examined in detail by many people over the past 30 years or so. There aren't any remote parts that haven't yet been explored.

Given that almost all of the claims of alteration have turned out to be the result of reading too much into visual anomalies in poor-quality copies, what are the chances that anyone is ever going to discover something worthwhile that everyone else has missed up to now?

The search for this particular Holy Grail became a dead end years ago. Plenty of far more promising areas of research are being neglected because people are wasting their time looking for something they are very unlikely to find.

P.S. Does anyone still rob banks? I can't remember the last time I saw a news report about a bank robbery. What do bank robbers do these days? Flower arranging? Knitting? And what happened to all their sawn-off shotguns? Are they in a museum somewhere, with the muskets and longbows?

my-oh-my... we wrote a book on Z-film alteration 20 years ago and listen to you... further that, if someone, someplace is drawing up a court case for some court proceeding anywhere on the map they certainly aren't going to stroke your ego by posting what the do and don't know about optical film special effects...

Based on your own experience, please tell us why it wasn't altered - then I will give you 4 reasons as to why it MAY have been altered...

On 3/22/2022 at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Once again, John Butler proposes something that would be downright impossible with 1963 technology, if not easily spotted as phony by anyone with two functioning eyes. Built from the ground up how? How could any forgers have significantly altered the movements and actions of the occupants of the Presidential limousine? By pasting them over with footage of stand-ins dressed in their identical clothing? As always, there would also be no way for the forgers to be sure other films and photographs of the assassination wouldn't be discovered later, which would immediately contradict their fake Zapruder film and blow the whole operation. Are you also once again implying that Abraham Zapruder was somehow involved in the conspiracy ahead of time?

"impossible with 1963 technology"? please tell us why. I'd love to hear your reasoning.

Then I'll direct you to thousands of Hollywood film periodical articles which seem to suggest otherwise.

Pasting? LMAO! 

On 3/4/2022 at 10:23 AM, Jonathan Cohen said:

John, who are you trying to fool with this false equivalency? Nobody here has ever tried to deny that newspaper photos weren't edited for size or for the purposes of advertisements. You are claiming a level of film and photo alteration that is worlds apart from your average, run-of-the-mill tweak for the purposes of publication and which is frankly impossible given the time constraints not only for Altgens 6 but Mary Moorman's Polaroid.

I believe the first *formal* viewing of the Z-film by the Warren Commission was the end of Feb 1964. More than enough time to make all sorts of changes to the Z-film -- and -- the next 50 years to continue making changes, if so desired...

30 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Matt, this is really hard to read and I can't get it to enlarge.  40,000 Russian troops KIA, MIA, WIA (what does WIA stand for?)  100,000 US troops in Europe, 40,000 under NATO control?

wounded-in-action

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Kirk-

You do not have to pay attention to my changing feelings. 

all this political/intellectual bravado yet Joe's numbers are climbing. Maybe the Putin-ites need to be burped?

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, I notice on the Costella Zapruder film, that background focus such as you cite goes in and out of focus as a recurring phenomenon (blurry --> sharp --> blurry --> sharp), not simply the one instance you cite. I noticed this by quickly starting and stopping the moving film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBJFT-OyDEc

 

Not knowing better, I would just assume as a first reaction some anomaly in the camera or photography or processing of the frames, since it recurs.

How does Zavada explain that? 

You say you are using the Costella Zapruder frames. Do you know if Costella modified those frames from the original?

What does this mean when John Costella writes on his website:

"In 2003 I put together a reference set of all 486 frames of the extant Zapruder film. In 2006 I improved the processing steps and reissued the full set of frames" (http://www.johncostella.com/jfk/). 

What kind of "processing steps" is he talking about? Do those "processing steps" mean the Costella frames differ from or are modified from the unprocessed original?

Would those "processing steps" have affected deblurring, such as the blurring background south of the grassy area beyond (south of) the limousine that is out-of-focus in the original Zapruder due to Zapruder's telephoto being in focus on the limousine?

On a different page Costella tells of his own proprietary development of an "unblurring" program or technique for film frames called "UnBlur: Image deblurring", which he says he developed between 1999 and 2001 (http://johncostella.com/unblur/).

So the question is, is it possible Costella's "processing steps" on the Zapruder frames which he says he carried out in 2006 involved use of his image deblurring program (or some other image processing program)? Could that account for the anomaly you show with the change in blurriness of background figures in the frames?

Have you investigated that, so as to first rule out a mundane explanation for the anomaly before going to conclusion of extraordinary? 

ya might want to check out Dr. John Costella's OWN words on the subject: there's a 10 min interview I did with him during the 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium at Univ. of Minnesota... His entire Z-film presentation is on this YouTube channel site. Back in those days we could only upload in 10 minute segments to YouTube.

And yes, John did correct frames for issues, not sure of all of them at the moment, lens issues, blur, etc if I recall...

10 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

 

I think it’s safe to say multiple copies of the Zfilm were made on day 1…. the 22nd Nov., mere hours after the event, ie. later that day. These copies then went their separate ways to their nefarious destinations. 
Was there enough time (using cranky 1963 technology-scalpels,cut n paste,matte insertions etc.) to alter the master copy before copies were made, when it was in Zap’s possession the entire time?

To my knowledge (not the best), no two different Zfilms have come to light. With multiple copies out there and alterations aplenty this seems strange…..

 

This is a 1975 Geraldo/Groden screenshot. (Search YouTube “Geraldo Zapruder” for the entire slot-interesting) 

This is the mid 90’s cleaned up version.Wouldn’t any 60’s style alterations have been massively apparent during this clean up? 

In a nutshell, I think there wasn’t enough time to alter the original and if it was altered it would be apparent with differing copies or have been discovered in the 90’s clean up. 
There, I said it.

said what?

33 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

We probably agree that it’s certainly a more plausible theory that most of it isn’t altered. Occam’s Razor isn’t always right. If you were on the cover up team, you may bank on that human investigative process using that logic. 

I’ll leave that to somebody here to make that case, and you can disprove them. 
 

My video editing experience is only in using very modern techniques and software, though the principals often come from the original rudimentary techniques. On a fundamental level; video is lots of still frames and each can be edited, spliced, etc. Today, a complete alteration would be easy for editors but, back then, they had very poor resolution going for them, ie alteration could he more crude and it would still look authentic to the layman. 
 

If you have used Adobe After Effects and/or similar type software, you've used the very software that shut down the optical printing houses in NYC, Chicago, LA, San Fran and a few other film centers around the world...

48 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

That's right. People who claim every piece of film and photo evidence taken in Dealey Plaza is altered are not talking common sense, or utilizing it.

 

I'm sure they have. So let's see one of them produce a reasonable facsimile of the Zapruder film that incorporates extensive alteration, while using only technology available at the time. I would wager that such editing would be immediately apparent to anyone with a pair of reasonably functioning eyeballs.

why? some here are well aware of specific Hollywood types of optical film printing. And a very long history of film special effects. Dating back at least 100 years...

Facts being what they are and early 1960 Optical Film Printing techniques, what you see in the current alleged in-camera Zapruder film maybe, just maybe the output of an assassination altered film. And you haven't a clue as to what your looking at...

Get into Raymond Fielding's The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography 1965, find out why Rollie Zavada flew to Florida for explanations after he and I spoke... check out the Bibliography -- no big shakes, educate yourself...

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Regarding Jim D's claim that Kleins could not have received Oswald's order in one day:

Debunking Another JFK Myth - Overnight Mail from Dallas to Chicago (steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com)

duh... You still posting from that Wendy's way up that in the woods.... re your link above, here is a direct quote from a responder to Dear Mr. Roe.

quote on

On 1/19/2022 at 10:48 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

[...]

But I think that they reached the proper conclusion-Oswald was guilty.

[...]

that in and of itself is a conspiracy theory... the entire WC committed the conspiratorial act against Oswald -- and your "proper conclusion," lmao, that sir, is why we have trials, and until that time and place innocent until proven guilty. To opine anything thing else is wishful thinking, an act of PR, of course if you were in Russia you may get away with it...

On 1/15/2022 at 10:53 AM, John Butler said:

Chris,

I'm not catching how you say this shadow is made.  Combination of at least 2 film frames from different sources.  Regardless, great eyes to catch that.

I am continually astounded by the things that can be found in the Z film.  In Z 208 is another anomaly.  It appears to be arms holding something, maybe a camera. 

May be just blurs.  One has to be continually aware that what one sees may just be an anthropomorphic projection.

I'm not the best with perspective analysis, but I've always thought that the SW corner of Houston and Elm was made from at least 3 films.  The Dorman and Zapruder film disagree on who is there and the number of people there.  That's two but what was the third?  There are 14 or more photographers unidentified on Elm and Houston that day.

Using more than one film to make a scene the way you want seems reasonable.  Who is to prove that the Z film in its earliest form, the pre-extent film, shown to the public (in Life mag) was nothing more than that just what aproximately 30 frames.  The rest being edited later to replace all know versions once the latest rendition was made.

Working on 30 or so frames shouldn't have taken that long. 

would there be value having a clean Elm Street pan , say within 10 minutes of the motorcade traversing the same route, filmed from the exact same pedestal Zapruder stands on. using a similar B%H camera nearly the same lens and exact same type of film used in the Zap camera--- for post editing of the scene happening on Elm St. a few minutes later> Lens wide enough to grab the crowd on both sides of Elm St..... could be #0184?