Chris Bristow

13 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

I couldn't even believe you were saying that; that's why I kept asking for clarification!  Well, I got it.  

I am not an anti alterations as I just mentioned in another post.

1 minute ago, Matt Cloud said:

Zapruder's equipment did not permit an 11 degree field of view.  End of story.  If the math on the frame shows 11 degrees, the Zapruder Film has had telephoto work done on it.  There's no other way around it.  That would be something that the blow-up technicians at NPIC (Homer McMahon) could do, with their enlarger.  Enlarge the 8mm frame, take a bigger picture of that and then re-insert a cropped image back into the 8mm strip.  That's it.  11 degree FOV  was not within Zapruder's capability.  Nothing more to say.  I'll accept your math.  Well done.

"Zapruder's equipment did not permit an 11 degree field of view.  End of story. "
 Provide proof other than your assumption based on a scopes FOV and you opinions. If alteration was so easily proven by the 11 degree field of view it would have been discovered many years ago. John Costello was an optical Physicist who has thoroughly examined the film and pointed out some good evidence of alteration. If the 11 degree field of view was proof of alteration why did the physicist miss it? He was very qualified and weighed in on the size of the Stemmons which appeared to be a few inches too wide when seen in the sprocket area. However he modified that the it was pointed out that the sprocket area is more magnification than the main field of the frames. If the 11 degree FOV was proof of alteration he certainly would have found it and proven fakery. He is well qualified to speak but you do not seem to be. 
  Just to clarify I do not argue against alteration but your claim about the lamppost was just wrong. The provable 11 degree FOV completely explains why we don't see the lamppost. It is not because the other evidence was altered to misrepresent the location of the lamppost.

21 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Do you have any experience with photography?  Or just all abstract calculations.  An eleven degree FOV is not possible -- not even within the range of possibilities.  Not without film alteration that is. 

Not abstract calculations. Photogrammetry is a hobby I have been studying for maybe 13 years. Prior to that I was an optician and passed the state boards on optics to be licensed. In the 70's I studied film and tv production at a community college followed by a year at a private film school.
 It seems obvious to me from your responses that is is you who is lacking knowledge of basic principles of topics and perspective. 

Just now, Chris Bristow said:

"That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment."
it is photographically provable in any Z frame that shows objects at each side of the frame. That 11 degrees is the reason the lamppost does not show up near the sign. At this point You must be assuming the Z film is fake because it does show the 11 degree FOV. But even if fake that 11 degree FOV is the reason the lamppost is not seen in the same frames as the sign. Real or fake you assumption about the lamppost is explained and debunked by the provable 11 degree FOV.
   

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

For the last time:  You are using what I contend is altered imagery to find measurements to say that the imagery isn't altered.  Your methods are totally unsound.  Full Stop.  You made my point.  You claim an eleven degree FOV.  That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment.  The math may indicate 11 degrees is the correct FOV at the frames you have measured.  But that does not in any way and indeed cannot in any way dispute or refute the claim of alteration.  Your work fails.  Utterly.  And without question.  Thanks for the clarification. 

"That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment."
it is photographically provable in any Z frame that shows objects at each side of the frame. That 11 degrees is the reason the lamppost does not show up near the sign. At this point You must be assuming the Z film is fake because it does show the 11 degree FOV. But even if fake that 11 degree FOV is the reason the lamppost is not seen in the same frames as the sign. Real or fake you assumption about the lamppost is explained and debunked by the provable 11 degree FOV.
   Your theory about the lamppost is debunked by the measurable 11 FOV we see in Z whether that 11 degrees is real ar fake the lamppost was out of frame and your theory is debunked.

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

I have a great deal of respect for your work that challenges alterationists. Not because I'm an anti-alterationist, but because I do accept alterationism when warranted, but at the same time don't want to be mistaken in my alteration beliefs.

Because of that, I want to know precisely your position on the items we've discussed.

Please bear with me. I know you have already answered my questions. Like with this one:

 

 

That is very clear and so I understand your position. Thank you.

But the next one appears ambiguous to me:

 

 

Because when you say, "The 4 bike cops all mistakenly thinking the limo almost fully stopped or fully stopped for a brief moment is very compelling," it sounds like you're saying that it is compelling that the cops are mistaken.

But when you say, "Can't fathom all of them making such a huge miscalculation,"  it sounds like you're saying that it's hard to believe the cops are mistaken.

Do you see how the two bold phrases are contradictory?

I considered the possibility that you intended for your two sentences to contradict, meaning that possibility A is compelling, but possibility B also had its merits... where A and B are opposites. But I'm not sure.

So will you make your position on this more clear for me?

 

 

Just one more thing:

What is your position on the gaping wound centered at the right temple as seen developing in the Z-film? The wound that no witness ever saw?

 

Oh crap that was very misleading of me. Take out the word "mistakenly". I think I was referring to the LN explanations before editing the sentence.

 The gaping wound at the right temple in Z should be as fake as the rear O.C wound because it was not reported by almost everyone at Parkland. 
Although I don't know if the pressure may cause blood to rush back out of an entry wound in the right temple. So maybe the Z image is partially real. I don't know but accept the alteration of the O.C and consider the alteration of the limo stop real but can't figure out how that could be done well.

25 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

No you didn't.  You only said that it could be done.  You also seem to have no conception of the absurdity of your work -- if it is indeed yours.  An 11 degree field of view is preposterous.  You'd be lucky if you got anything other than Kennedy's head in the frame with that kind of FOV.  It's on it's face laughable.  11 degrees!  

The fact that you cannot grok how to fund the field of view proves you are talking beyond your knowledge base. Just making comparisons to a sniper scope is still your assumption. The math proves an 11 degree field of view. Learn some photogrammetry principles and the you will get it. I am done with this subject unless you can make a case built on understanding the very basic math there is no reason for me to keep trying to educate you on the matter.

24 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

No you didn't.  You only said that it could be done.  You also seem to have no conception of the absurdity of your work -- if it is indeed yours.  An 11 degree field of view is preposterous.  You'd be lucky if you got anything other than Kennedy's head in the frame with that kind of FOV.  It's on it's face laughable.  11 degrees!  

What is crazy is your assertion about the field of view. It is measurably 11 degrees from start to finish. If you knew how to determine that you would have understood that knowing Z's location and the location of the objects at each side of a single Frame was enough info to draw the field of view on an overhead map. 
 Z was 63 to 65 ft from the limo at 312. The limo was 21.4 feet long but in 312 we only see 13 ft of it. Do the math and you will see that is also an 11 degree field of view from 63 ft away. 11 degrees shows 13 ft of the limo. You assumptions would only show JFK's head is so far off it demonstrates you don't understand how to figure it out.

7 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

An 11 degree field of view is like an ultra telephoto lens.  It'd be like looking down a paper towel tube.  Do you understand that?  Zapruder had the 35 mm film equivalent of a 35 mm lens on his 8mm film camera -- no speculation, that's documented.  Here are typical specs for a 35 mm lens:

 

35mm

Lens      54.4

Horizontal    37.8 Vertical

63.4 Diagonal

 

How do you get an 11 degree FOV for a lens that has roughly a 64 degree FOV in the diagonal?  Further, at what frame of the Zapruder film are you doing your "measuring?"  At the beginning?  When it's wide? Or when it crosses over past the Stemmons sign, when it gets more narrow, more telephoto-like?  Many complications here; you haven't explained squat. 

Told you a couple times how you can find the field of view by knowing Z's location and identifying stationary objects at the opposite edges of the main frame(Not including the sprocket area.) If you can't figure it out from that it is not my problem. 

7 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Look.  I'm not interested in going back and forth with you.  This format doesn't work for that.  The material is too complex and I'm out of image-posting space.  I'm not going to do this with text-only rebuttals.  My position is clear.  Have at it.  

 

Some parting points from me, however:

- The best images to use are those which do not implicate the actual events of the assassination, as those are the most likely images to have been altered if they were indeed.  Better to use images from days just before if possible or lesser known panoramics or whatever.  

- most of what you have written is red-herrings.  Google Earth has nothing to say about the position of the sign or the lamp post.  So drop it.  

- "The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8." That is not an answer to my question where did you get the dimensions from.  Period.  It is also not made out of plywood.  Period.  

- As to the Chisms, yes, it's Willis 5, and if as you say he's 25 feet from the 77 sign, closer to the camera, he should be taller, not shorter, and all the more so because yes Elm street slopes down, away from the camera.  These points by you are not valid, at all.  No point is in fact.

- A very diligent researcher, using photographs, achieved a replica of the plaza which looks nothing like what you insist it looked like based on the Zapruder film.  The Smithsonian shows it at their website.  I think that guy got it right.  I've looked into the pictures quite a bit, and my understanding of the layout, and most especially the two landmarks most necessary for z-film analysis, the lamp post and the sign, align with what this fellow from Scandinavia did.  Is he irrational too?  Take it up with him.  

- We can test what I claim, yes.  We can move the lamp post back to where it was, and set up the sign where it was, then use zapruder's camera and lens to film the sequence again.  If it lines up, then Z-film not altered in ways I have claimed.  If it doesn't, then maybe it has.  

 

Get to work.

 

 I will address a few points but, yes,  the "back and forth" has exhausted itself.

 There is a fair amount of plaza photos that predate the assassination including some overhead photos that are easy to Google. They do support the position of the lamppost before it was moved to the north side of the sidewalk.
  Those older images allow for placement of the original lamppost in Google Earth images.

 I said :"The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8."
You: "That is not an answer to my question. where did you get the dimensions from..  It is also not made out of plywood.  Period. "
You must have some proof it was not plywood since you are so confident. You might share that proof with the forum. I already gave an explanation for my measurement of the sign. 
   You ask me how I could know Z's field of view even after I explained it. It is not difficult and is the type of thing you need to know if your are doing analysis of your suspicions about alteration. 

Chism was standing at a spot about 3 ft lower than Willis due to the 3% slope of Elm. The relative altitudes are found on Google Earth and the survey map and  also show up in images of the plaza. So the line of sight from camera to Chism's head is about a 2 degree downward slope dropping at .4 inches per foot. That means in the 22 ft from Chism to the sign the slope angle line of sight continues to drop another 9 inches. The grass starts about 6 inches higher than the sidewalk as seen by the curb at the north side of the sidewalk. Add another 6 inches because the grass slopes up from that curb to the sign. So an approximate adjustment has to be made of 9 inches for the slope angle and another 12 inches for the height of the ground at the sign. Chism being 22 ft from the sign puts him 12 inches higher up from the slope of Elm.  So subtract maybe 9 inches(The 3 degree slope lessens at the point where the angle of Elm cuts across the Plaza slope) and Chism's head should appear 13 inches lower than reality. I put the top of the 77 sign at 4 ft so the Willis 5 shows Chism's adjusted height 5 ft. That is an approximate answer but it demonstrates Chism is not as odd as it looks. I put Willis and Chism at the same height for this comparison but willis may be 6 ft tall and Chism 5'5". I don't know, but it is one of many approximations needed. Those factors all have to be considered if trying to evaluate his height relative to the sign.   You are willing to consider that all that evidence has been altered which I think is impossible. That is the main reason we can't discuss the subject further.

"We can test what I claim, yes.  We can move the lamp post back to where it was, and set up the sign where it was, then use zapruder's camera and lens to film the sequence again.  If it lines up, then Z-film not altered in ways I have claimed.  If it doesn't, then maybe it has."
  If you actually did all that you would have some evidence to back up your assumptions. But your assumptions are based only on observations that do not employ any adjustment for perspective.
"Get to work" Ending with  a command like that is a transparent attempt at asserting dominance.   If you had real evidence and actually included the photogrammatic techniques to test and back up your claims they would have some weight. As you, I also do not want to waste any more image allotment for claims/ assumptions that are not backed up with anything but your convictions.

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

I was just looking at Mark Taylor’s EXCELLENT Motorcade63 video and figured that Zapruder stop filming for at least 20 seconds. I think he wanted to save film and perhaps not have to rewind his camera.

Yes motorcade 63' is a nice reference tool. I wonder about certain parts of it like how long it took BDM and the other 4 witnesses on the patio to flee north into the parking lot. How much of that was an estimate and was any of it seen in films or photos. 

3 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

I don't rule out alteration across many or even all of the images, including those you cite, to create a uniform appearance more or less as between the sign and the post in one versus the rest.  Going over that however is too cumbersome in this format.  But I will say the Smithsonian re-creation -- which was done by someone in Scandinavia if I am not mistaken, not the Smithsonian itself -- was evidently quite painstakingly worked over.  Based on a large amount of data.  And as you and I both agree, it is quite substantially different in the placement of at least those objects.  I would go in and critique the methodology used there, first, before simply asserting that because the Smithsonian recreation does not look like the pictures, it is therefore wrong in its placements. 

The rest of what you write, here ...:

"As to the size of the sign it was a 4x8 piece of plywood. Knowing the Z field of view as 11 degrees and the distance to the sign as 50 ft, confirmed by all that other photographic evidence,  you could test the size of the sign. If the sign is fake it still is the correct size in the Z film.
 Goggle Earth, the West map, and the Cutler map can all be used as a baseline and they match all the other photographic evidence."

... is completely circular in logic (you circle back to other images that may be suspect) except for when it is entirely speculative.  Where for example do you get the dimensions of the sign from?  Or the material?  Where do you come by the Zapruder field of view?    

However the case, there are many indications of anomalies across many images.  It is a problem for identifying any baseline.  

 

One interesting example:  Here:

 

https://time.com/3430022/never-before-seen-photos-of-jfks-final-minutes-in-dallas/

 

Scroll down to the bottom and find the image looking down Elm Street right in line almost with the lamp posts.  You can see the Stemmons sign.  What's interesting about it?  The "P" in the "KeeP Right" has lost it's paint evidently.  That's on Sunday.  Other pics on Sunday don't show that.  A pic from later in the week also shows it, IIRC.  Anyway, spending time on these photos only highlights problems; it doesn't resolve them.  That's a bad sign, pardon the pun.

"I don't rule out alteration across many or even all of the images, including those you cite, to create a uniform appearance more or less as between the sign and the post in one versus the rest. "

 To consider all the images could altered is beyond any rational consideration for me. This makes agreeing on a baseline impossible. But I did include Google Earth on that list and certainly you are not claiming it is faked too?  There are also numerous tourist videos posted on Youtube which I have used for reference. One good one where a tourist climbs up Z's pedestal and shows his feet centered on it before reproducing Zapruder's panning from east to west. Are those tourist videos altered too?

"Where for example do you get the dimensions of the sign from?  Or the material?  Where do you come by the Zapruder field of view?    

I think I already explained how to find Z's field of view. At many points in the film we can see stationary objects on the edge of each side of the frame, objects that are still there today. Any overhead view of the plaza like Google Earth or the survey map can be used to plot Z's view to those stationary objects. That is used to measure the angle or the field of view from Z's pedestal. Objects like the north side of the northern most reflecting pool can be used. You can look at that same thing from many street view angles as well as overhead to check for accuracy of its location. You can check that against many many tourist videos.  There is a point when it becomes ludicrous to believe all those images are fake. So I would not call it circular logic to rely on the consistency of so many different images. 
 "Anomalies" like Mr Chism looking "very odd" because he appears at the level of the 77 north sign can be tested. He is 25 ft from the sign, and the photo(I think you mean Willis 5.) is taken from several feet higher in the plaza. consider the slope angle from Willis' camera to Chism's head and then continue it the 25 ft to the sign and it accounts for his head lining up with the 77 sign. Of Course if you don't accept the photographic evidence as trustworthy then you can not test your own theories. All you can say is it looks weird to you without being able to check it. 
  The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8. But I had to test that for myself and knowing the distance from Z to the sign and Z's field of view are all you need to measure the sign. You can assume all the imagery is fake and question the signs dimensions but all you can say is it looks odd. You have no imperial way to test you perceptions that something that looks weird is indeed incorrect or altered.
   Do you think one of the most famous photos like Willis 5  would have such a blatant mistake about Mr Chism being only 4 ft tall and that would go unnoticed for the last 60 Years? It would be like someone claiming they read this line in a Bible that no one else has read yet! 
   Many of the anomalies you see have rational answers but if you reject any answer based on photographic evidence there is nothing to be discussed. You have beliefs that you can't test.

5 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

If any parts of the Zapruder film had been filmed at 48 frames per second, it would have been blatantly obvious when it was first projected at normal speed in Dallas or on the projector that was purchased by NPIC for viewing what everyone agrees was the camera original Saturday night.

No one who watched the camera original made any remarks of any portions of the film being in slow motion.

Very good point. It also seems nonsensical for Z to run at 48 frames when he was reportedly or likely to be concerned about having enough film. At least it has been claimed he stopped filming till the limo was a ways down Elm.
Having to keep track of how many seconds of film you have already used must have been a hassle. Then guessing as to how long it will take the limo to run all the way down Elm without knowing just how fast it may travel complicates it even more.
 

14 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

You're not following.  You can't use the Zapruder film to show that the Smithsonian re-creation is in error because the issue is whether the Zapruder film is accurate at all.  That goes for both the Stemmons sign -- overly large in my opinion -- as well as the placement of the lamp-post.  You have not established any baseline and the Z-film -- which, again, is the main piece of evidence at issue, cannot provide that.  

the "baseline" is all the other photographic images. If the Z film is false it was made to match all the other images of the sign and lamppost. Willis 5, Beltzner, Bothun, Rickerby, Nix, 2nd Towner segment, several reporters 16mm footage from seconds after the assassination, and others as well.
  I think the Z film was altered but the positions of everything in the plaza is consistent in every piece of photographic evidence of the lamppost or the sign. 
 As to the size of the sign it was a 4x8 piece of plywood. Knowing the Z field of view as 11 degrees and the distance to the sign as 50 ft, confirmed by all that other photographic evidence,  you could test the size of the sign. If the sign is fake it still is the correct size in the Z film.
 Goggle Earth, the West map, and the Cutler map can all be used as a baseline and they match all the other photographic evidence. 

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

I appreciate the work that you do. And I certainly would never discourage it, nor discourage others from considering it.

But just like there can always be a flaw in somebody's insistence of there being a film alteration, there could just as well as be a flaw in one of your (or anybody else's) debunkings. Or, for that matter, in one of your accepted possibilities of an alteration.

Here's the way I think about alterations: When 45 witnesses see a gaping wound in the back of the head... there is indeed a gaping wound in the back of the head. And if the Z film doesn't show it, it is because of something wrong with the film. For example, perhaps the head is turned in a way that the shading from the sun makes it impossible to see the wound. Or, maybe the film has been altered to cover the wound.

Next, the Z film clearly shows a huge wound centered around Kennedy's right temple. Not a single witness saw this wound. Even the autopsy photos don't show such a wound. What this tells me is that the wound was somehow painted onto in the Z film. I wouldn't care if 1000 Chris Bristows had debunked every conceivable way such an alteration would be made, I would still insist that there is an alteration... that somehow it was made. Because of the overwhelming evidence that there was no such actual wound of the head.

 

Basically agree with everything you stated. The back of head witnesses accounts  are too numerous and substantiated for them all to be wrong. The 4 bike cops all mistakenly thinking the limo almost fully stopped or fully stopped for a brief moment is very compelling. They were just a few ft away and trying to pace the limo throughout the parade. Miscalculating even a very short stop or extreme slowing would put them about 30+ ft off their position at the rear bumper. Can't fathom all of them making such a huge miscalculation. 
 I try and recheck all my work and look for holes in it. But I can and have made mistakes too. When it comes to issues like the lamppost location it is documented in so many photos and verified by so many researchers I am extremely confident in it, and Parkland too. If there were 1000 me debunking anything I bet all 1000 would make the same mistake.  

6 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

The Smithsonian recreation h ad it about right, imo.  You can see the placements here:

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?q=zapruder's spot dealey plaza&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com%2FS7kWaVctUOtm4Q3RMLGUeDIz4t4%3D%2F1000x750%2Ffilters%3Ano_upscale()%3Afocal(235x125%3A236x126)%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Ftf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffiler%2F20131122100105JFK-3d-model.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smithsonianmag.com%2Finnovation%2Fan-interactive-3d-model-of-the-jfk-assassination-site-grassy-knoll-and-all-180947812%2F&docid=M96XmXZf_58shM&tbnid=sZb8XSCkwnWuGM&vet=12ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA..i&w=470&h=251&hcb=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA

 

Also, FWIW, Sylvia Meagher, in Accessories After the Fact, 1967, p. 33, thought the Stemmons sign had been moved. And later authors thought it happened the night of the assassination.  

 

There are many inconsistencies in the Stemmons sign between pictures taken on 11/22 and 11/24.  There may even be the possibility that the lamp post itself was moved in this time frame.  Sidewalk alterations (newer concrete) still visible today indicate the lamp post at issue, when positioned on the curb, was in two different places at two different times.  

 

The point remains, I contend, that from Zapruder's field of view it would be impossible to frame a shot with a normal lens that had the Stemmons sign on the left of the frame and not have the lamp post also in the frame, on the right, if not more towards the center.  That's the issue.

"The point remains, I contend, that from Zapruder's field of view it would be impossible to frame a shot with a normal lens that had the Stemmons sign on the left of the frame and not have the lamp post also in the frame, on the right, if not more towards the center.  That's the issue."

I think there are hard facts that show the lamppost would not have appeared with DCM.
1.) Z's field of view looking east on Elm,  then looking at the wall behind the lamppost, and the later view of the Fort Worth sign, all show a narrow field of view of around 11 degrees.
(Speculation about what lens he used is not needed because we have those 3 examples of his 11 degree field of view.)
 
2.) The positions of the lamppost and Stemmons sign match in all photographic evidence of them taken during the assassination, just after, and the weekend of 11/22. When adjustments for perspective are taken into account, photos like the Nat Geo photo,  are consistent with the other evidence. That evidence puts the lamppost 20 degrees away from DCM as seen from Z's position on the pedestal. That can be measured on the survey map and tested in Google Earth too if you go through the hassle of finding the pedestal under the trees and use the original position of the lamppost. 
 
So Z's field of view was very narrow and only extended out 5 to 6 degrees to each side. The photographic evidence puts the Lamppost 20 degrees to the right from Z's position. Adjusting for vertical and horizontal perspective is required when comparing all those different photos taken from different positions. Unless there is a case to be made for the photographic evidence being wrong, there is no reason to think the lamppost should be visible anywhere near the sign or DCM. .

 The 3D plaza you linked from the Smithsonian has a serious and easily documented flaw regarding the lamppost. (I know that sounds like the type of cheap rhetoric people spout without evidence, but this is provable.) I added a frame of the 3D view below too my previous comp image(bottom right.)
  Smithsonian used the white silhouette at the bottom to represent Z. Notice the sign is just slightly misaligned with the record building windows when compared to the Z film. The Z line of sight has to be moved to about 2 ft in front of the pedestal to correct that. It is a small error.
   The lamppost however is way way off. The Z film shows it at the far right end of the wall where the peristyle meets the wall. The 3D recreation shows the lamppost only half way down the wall. That is a 30 ft difference along the wall. When you line up the lamppost in the 3D to its actual background in the Z film, the camera position is 20 ft left of Z. The 3D is completely contradicted by the lines of sight in the actual Z film, provably wrong when it comes to the lamppost location.
 I'm just repeating what I stated earlier now. So if you have a specific case to make about the inaccuracy of the photographic evidence from the weekend of 11/22, or I have a mistake in my analysis I am open to hearing it.
 

21 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Is this a joke?  

 

In any case - geez it's unbelievable the way people here want to argue with those supporting their points -- um ... at the very bottom of that very imformative picture you posted you can see the B&W pic that shows the lamp post relative to the Stemmons sign.  They are almost lined up with each other, as you can see.  That alignment is not reflected whatsoever in the Zapruder film.  Thanks!

21 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

The Stemmons sign is hidden behind the trees, but it's right by where the guys are standing on the grass.  Right next to the lamp post.

I'm glad you clarified that before I responded. The direction that photo is taken from is not going to give an accurate measurement of the distance in question. If the camera was directly above the sign we would get a correct measurement, but the camera is at about a 35 degree angle and cuts the visible distance down by more than half. 
  Since we can make out the vertical dimension of the Stemmons sign through the trees it can be used to find where the bottom of its poles meet the ground. As you can see in the color "Rickerby" photo the poles are about 1/3 longer than vertical dimension of the sign. Using that you can find where the poles meet the ground in the photo from the map.  The blue horizontal lines show the size of the sign and where the poles should meet the ground. I have done that on both the map photo and an FBI recreation film on the left.
That is a truer representation of where the sign is mounted into the grass but the distance from there to the lamppost along the sidewalk is still cut almost in half due to the 35 degree angle of the camera in the 6th floor window. We can't use the sign or the people standing there to help measure the distance along the sidewalk because they are vertical and the sidewalk lays on a horizontal surface. They have different angular perspectives
But we can use the Lincoln in the FBI photo on the left. The car lays on the same horizontal surface/angle as the sidewalk and is at a point in the road where the distance is very close to the sign and lamppost. You can see in that FBI image that the distance along the sidewalk from where the Stemmons poles meet the ground to the base of the lamppost is just slightly longer than the length of that Lincoln (It was not a stretch limo like JFKs car, it was jus 18 ft long.). That comparison takes all the perspective issues into account and shows the distance from the base of the sign to the lamppost was just over 18 ft.
   HERE IS A SIMPLER PROOF:
 You may disagree with my placement of the sign and poles but the Rickerby photo itself is proof the lamppost is almost 18 ft from the sign. Since that photo is almost perpendicular to the lamppost's length, you can use it to measure the distance along the sidewalk to the Stemmons sign. The line along the sidewalk from the lamppost to the sign is at a bit of an angle to the camera so its length is minified some. But even the 13 or 15 ft high lamppost length in the Rickerby photo is shorter than the minified gap between it and the sign. Two very solid proofs in the Rickerby photo alone that puts the lamppost about 18 ft west of the sign. I would say even before any measurements it  very evident by just looking at the rickerby photo that the lamppost is well west of the sign.

15 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Chris, do you think that, if the film was shot at 48 fps, that that would have aided in frame removal to produce an authentic looking 16 fps?  You'd have more frames to work with to produce the "new" film...

Iv'e wondered about that. It may help if trying to combine some matte work with some actual frames. I don't know if the combining of matte and actual single frames is really viable. It is just the only thing I could think of after considering the problem for some time. But an extra frame from the 48 fps placed next to an 18 fps one would cause the limo to suddenly move at 1/3rd the speed. So there are severe limitations to mixing those frames.

6 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Two points;

 

1. In addition to the sharp shadows, many of the shadows are deep black, "crushed blacks" as videographers say without seemingly any detail left on the ground overwhich the shadows lie.  The Charles Brehm shadow for instance is particular egregious in this regard.  This suggests some persons were simply cut and pasted-in and their shadows drawn-in, in black.

 

2. About ten feet beyond the Stemmons Freeway sign was a lamp post all the way out at the edge of the curb.  "Dark-complected man," when he waves/signals his hand, based on some still images, stands evidently between the sign and the post.  But the Z-film, at frame 232 for instance, shows no lamp post although it would be expected to be seen at the right-hand edge of the frame by about that frame at least.  It's not until frame 261 that the lamp post finally enters the picture.  Of course, today, the Stemmons sign is no more, having been taken down in spring 1964.  All of the lamp posts have been moved from their 1963 positions, back away from the curb edge to now on the grass edge.  (The entire width of the sidewalk at least in other words.)  That positioning of the lamp post at issue, now, not surprisingly, corresponds much better to where the Z-film shows it, but of course that is not where that lamp post was on 11/22/63.

 

 

I have never seen any photographs or film of the plaza that contradicts the position of the lamppost on Elm or of the Dark Complected Man. Willis 5 can make it look like DCM, the Stemmons sign and the lamppost are close together but Willis' angle to those objects cut the distance between them in half, perspective wise. DCM was about 22 ft east of the lamppost and from Z's view the lamppost was 20 degrees to the right of DCM. But Z's camera being at full Zoom is showing no more than a 15 degree field of view to background objects. Z would not have seen DCM and the lamppost in the same frame. Where Z does see it relative to the wall above matches the map and Google Earth overheads of the plaza. 
 The West Roberdeau map is very good and shows the correct positions of willis, DCM, the Stemmons sign and the lamppost and matches all the images of these objects I have seen. Here is the map at below .
  Regarding the darkness of the shadows I can't say that it is not just due to the ASA of Z's film. Dark  objects that were not in direct Sunlight like the front of Bothun's and Altgens suit pants  also lack detail. I think I see some variation  of the yellow grass vs green grass in the shadows. But then looking at frame 341 the running guy behind Bothun has what appears to be a large patch of yellowed grass around him which is not there in frames 340 or 342. You could call that an artifact of alteration of a defect in the processing of that frame. I don't know what it is but it does nor appear in the Groden version.


 

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Chris,

What more needs explaining in the extant Z film other than the following:

1. The gaping wound in the back of the head seen by nearly every witness, but not seen in the Z film.
2. The gaping wound in the right temple as seen in the Z film, but not seen by any witness.
3. The stop or near-stop of the presidential limo seen by dozens of witnesses, but not seen on the Z film.

Regarding #1, the color logarithmic scans proves for a fact that the hole in  back of the head was painted over.

Regarding #2, it seems likely that the "blob" and gaping wound in the temple area were simply painted in. IMO, there is no question about this.

Regarding #3, it seems that in the commotion, several witnesses could have gotten wrong what the thought they saw. For example, maybe the limo slowed down but didn't stop. Maybe some witnesses thought they saw people run between the limo and the car following it, when in reality no such thing happened other than Clint Hill running and jumping on the back of the limo. And that, finally, to remove the slowdown, all that we needed was to remove a few frames and touch up some motion blur to make it look natural. Or, ADD motion blur to the whole frame to hide anything that looked unnatural.

Don't you think that those three things were the only things needed to explain the known major discrepancies?

 

"Don't you think that those three things were the only things needed to explain the known major discrepancies?"
 I think those suggest alteration, especially regarding the back of the head. 
 My approach is to look at specific claims of alteration and see if I can test them. If I find a plausible explanation that may debunk an alteration claim then that is what I state.
  I think it is important to separate the wheat from the chaff and eliminate alteration theories that can be debunked or have possible solutions. Other times I find the skeptics answers fall short and can be debunked.
  I have found people new to the CT side who are convinced simply because there are so many claims of alteration that they must be real. I personally think after 60 years most agree there are many false alteration theories that have been floated. Those muddy the waters and I think it is beneficial to debunk the ones that don't hold up to scrutiny. I think the debunks add significantly to our overall understanding of photographic manipulation. The more we know the better we can evaluate the mountain of alteration claims.

  HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SUPPORT FOR AND DEBUNKING OF ALTERATION THEORIES.

   Airbrushing is a tried and tested technique that goes way back in the 1880's.  Covering the wound with a dark shadow instead of trying to simulate hair would also make it much easier to pull off. As I mentioned earlier the Z film has the only angle that allowed for a direct view of the rights O.C area and the only film that needed serious work. Skeptics often claim you would have to alter all the films but this is not true for the O.C wound. 

 Some people have looked at the lack of parallax of the lamppost(Z frames 261/281), first noticed by Dr Costella, and are completely convinced it is absolute proof of alteration. I also found it very compelling. After placing it on the back burner for a year I realized a possible answer for it. Not saying it is debunked, but there is a plausible answer.
  From the time we see Z in Willis 5 to the Moorman photo he has turned his stance by about 90 or more degrees. If he initiated that pivot by moving his right foot first he would have to start by shifting his weight onto his left leg. That moves his torso and the camera lens an inch or two to the left while at the same time Z was panning to the right. That shifting of weight cancels out the rightward pan and the parallax effect in that moment.  I tested this by reproducing Z's panning  and shifting of weight while capturing an image of a pole and background that match the distances of the lamppost and bushes in the background. I found the parallax was very effectively cancelled out as my weight shifted. This is not a debunking but to me it means the missing parallax has another possible explanation. Prior to that finding I was considering the theory could be  a definitive proof of alteration but now there is room for doubt.
  I have also heard many people on Facebook who stood behind the knoll fence and decided they would be too easily be seen by the witnesses on Elm. This one factor caused them to claim they knew for sure there was no gunman there. But besides the 5 ft fence hiding most of the individual, they did not realize the tree at the fence left only a 5 inch tall gap between the fence top and the trees leaves and branches on 11/22. The Shadow of the tree would also have left a shooter in shadow at 12:30. A shooter firing over the fence and under the tree would mean they would be hunched over to aim through the sites leaving even less of them visible. The angle to frame 313 would allow them to be tucked  up closer to the fence. People claim Z would have seen a shooter there but the first tree from the corner on the east facing fence completely blocked Z's view to a knoll shooter location. This is proven by the last frames of the Z film when he looks directly at the theorized knoll shooter position. I don't know if there was a shooter there but I know if there was they had much better coverage than people assume.

When it comes to the limo slowing lets say it slowed to 2mph. You could take out 3 out of every 4 frames and a 2mph speed would become 8 mph. That is doable. But when it comes to the deceleration part taking frames out fails.  Say  that during the deceleration the speed first drops by 25%. How do you make the limo look like it is going 25% faster? The intuitive answer is take out every 4th frame but that does not work. If you tried to take out frames 4 and 8 it would be 25% less frames. But from frame 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 the speed would not change. If you took out frame 4 the limo would travel twice as far from frame 3 to frame 5, so the speed would appear to double. The limo would end up lurch down the road in an unrealistic manner. 
  Using just a traveling matte process would also fail after a few frames as the perspective/angle to the limo and the angle of the curb from the vanishing point would quickly become mismatched. Prior to frame 313 the vanishing point of the street makes the curb angle upward to the left side of the screen. At 313 Z is perpendicular to the street and the curb looks level in that frame. Then after 313 the curb starts angling up to the right/opposite side of the frame. That constantly changing vanishing point perspective of the street means you can't mismatch the angle from the limo to Z and to the background by more than a couple feet. And you can't just rotate the frame without making all vertical objects like people start leaning. A Limo stop or extreme slowing would have made for a 40+ ft difference in the limo to the background by the time it re accelerated. That is too much for the matte process. I think there might be a way to use a combination of matte and frame removal to solve those problems but it would be tricky. How they could remove a Limo stop is a bit of a mystery to me but. It would not be a simple process. 

The manipulation needed of just a few frames around 313 is huge and it would be far easier to  manipulate the actual Z film. Now you are saying the 2nd film would be used from fr 269 to 330. That is absolutely absurd. Maybe you should put me on ignore because you are spouting completely crazy stuff now.

1 hour ago, Richard Bertolino said:

The second photographer's material would not be needed for the whole film. And I don't see how you can say that the Zapruder film all had to have been taken from the Zapruder pedestal. Minor differences in perspective can be adjusted for in production if there are no obstructions at those points. The critical area of the film, around the head shot and limo stop has no obstructions. I think you should reconsider.

"Minor differences in perspective can be adjusted for in production".
  Any image taken from the pergola would mean cutting and pasting Mary Moorman and Foster and the people behind Foster into a different location by about 3 ft. It also means adjusting the relative size of the limo to Moorman and the others in the background. The pergola film would have a 4 degree difference in angle to the limo. Modifying that is much more complicated than just skewing the perspective of the image in post production. As an example the side window on the passenger side lines up to the same window on the drivers side in a specific way. Every part of the limo that has a matching component on the far side would have to individually altered otherwise the vanishing point would be off. That means the angle of the crossbar and the antenna on the rear trunk and the angle of the windshield and the angle of the back seat would have to be individually altered to different degrees to keep the lines of sight through the limo correct.
 Just manipulating Z's film would be less cumbersome than trying to adjust a 2nd film to match Z even if just a few frames around the headshot. Trying to use a second film from a different location is nonsensical. 

14 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

You make a good point about head shot alteration, but more extensive alteration including more films would have been facilitated by having another film to contribute Zapruder film footage. That is, if there were two "Zapruder film photographers" in similar locations, then these nearly impossible alterations could have been more easily achieved. Film contributed by a photographer in the pergola shelter or in the Black Dog Man location could have made these alterations feasible. Then the other films could have been matched to the resultant Zapruder film by simpler alterations.

I have to disagree on this 2nd photographer theory. Even standing a few feet behind Zapruder would significantly alter many lines of sight as he panned the camera.  If a 2nd film was taken directly behind Z, let alone many feet behind him in the pergola, then only one line of sight would line up in both films. People post videos on YouTube and say they filmed it from Z's location. But the lines of sight easily prove they got lazy and just stood behind the pedestal. Only a couple feet difference but easily measurable in their lines of sight in he plaza
  In the Z film we can see the subtle parallax effects as he pans his camera to the right This matches his location throughout the Z film. Any frame that give clues to his location, like the alignment of lampposts to the background verifies his location as being on the pedestal which is less than 24" wide. Any variation on Z's location would verify a 2nd cameraman. But I have tested the lines of sight throughout the film and they all lead back to Z.
  Maybe a 2nd film could be made to assist with alteration but it would have to be taken from Z's pedestal. 11/22 was  29 days before the solstice. if you wanted to make a 2nd film to assist with alteration and it was taken 29 days after the solstice on Jan 19th the the Sun's elevation and azimuth would match if taken at 10:30 am on Jan 19th. 

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

The close up photo was taken some time after the other photo. I say that because of both the angle of the shadows and the brightness of the light on the boxes. In the close up photo, the angle is consistent with the sun being positioned further west and of lower luminosity despite being closer to the window.

Using the tool below, I estimate the earlier photo was taken about 3:00 PM. The second photo has a shadow about 10 degrees different which may have been as late as 4:00 PM.You can play around with the tool’s slider bar at the top to change the time and get the solar elevation and azimuthal angles at that time.

Local sunset was 5:23 PM.

https://www.suncalc.org/#/32.778,-96.7962,10/1963.11.22/12:58/1/0

Yes I noticed the close up shows a different angle that suggests it was taken later. But as far as the accuracy of the measurement there are a couple variables. Because that close up photo was taken at maybe a 45 degree downward angle to the box the perceived angle of the shadow is skewed a bit. It will appear to be at more of an angle than it does when photographed from directly above. Directly above the box would give the most accurate result.
  The photograph matches the angle in the Sun calculator but the distortion of the 45 degree angle photo to the box means the real angle should be  less than a 3:00 clock Sun.
The camera is also at an angle to the wall and the window. that gives the wall 4 degrees of vanishing point angle. That may cancel out the distortion of the 45 degree downward camera angle to the box and put the time back to 3:00 pm.
An example of the angular distortions is seen in the box in the originally posted photo vs the close up. there is a 10 degree difference in the angle of the box in those two photos. But at the same time the vertical aspect of the window is almost exactly the same in both those photos. So the difference of 10 degrees is a matter of both time of day and angular distortion. As you drop the angle of the camera the totally vertical and totally horizontal lines will not distort at all but everything between vertical and horizontal will get distorted and bent towards the horizontal. I  am splitting hairs but the time may be closer to around 2:30.

13 hours ago, Richard Bertolino said:

This is correct, but it does not disprove alteration. Alteration is proven in many other ways.

I am not trying to debunk alteration theory, just looking at each claim individually and trying to give it an honest evaluation. I would say the back of the head in the Z film is very likely altered. Based on the testimony of the 4 bike cops I would say maybe a limo stop was removed. Very very hard to do that as just removing frames or using a traveling mat will fail badly. 
 Skeptics argue that you could not have altered all those different films of the assassination but at least when it comes to the head wound, that is a straw man.
  Removing the right occipital head wound was not needed for the Hughes, Bell and  Paschell films because none of them their films show the head with any clarity and start well after frame 313. Nix and Bronson had no view to JFK's right occipital parietal because his head was turned about 25 degrees left. Even Muchmore had a very limited mostly side on view of that part of the head. But Muchmore's view is also blocked by Hill, then Hargis and Moorman just 2 frames after the headshot. So it is very unlikely Muchmore would have filmed the 4th shot anyway. Moorman was taken too soon after the headshot to have recorded a 4th shot even if it happened 1/4 second after the headshot. Taking out a head wound would have to have been done on the Z film but that is about it.
 Another strawman argument claims they would have to alter the actual 8mm film which sounds way too small to airbrush. But a technique used in animation projects the frames onto a table with a large, maybe 8" square cell, aligned to the projection. They draw or airbrush onto the cell using the projected image overlay as a reference. Then that cell is reduced and integrated into an 8mm copy with an optical printer. 
 It is also claimed the tractor feed marks on the sprocket area of the Z film perfectly match Z's camera so it must be a camera original. But they, FBI/SS, had possession of the camera and could have run the film stock for their altered copy through Z's camera. Considering the people who are suspected of faking the film are the ones who provide us with the full provenance of the film it is hard to know what they could have gotten away with that weekend.
 But even though I am a CT with regard to alteration and to Parkland, there are many claims that can be debunked. No surprise really. JFK's assassination is the most popular whodunit in the last century and people love to solve a whodunit.