Chris Bristow

What is billed as the French copy of the Z film has some interesting differences from the official WC version of the Z film. It does not have a chain of evidence and could just be a hoax. It would not be hard to take existing frames and alter them to make this extra frame 312a. Here is frame 312a and a link to the French version on Youtube. https://youtu.be/gMMNq99JQ4E?list=FLs5NVkPUrBDPE3U03TTXkmg Here is a Video I did on frame 312a https://youtu.be/jHHh6l9gpGw Here is frame 312a Two things you will see in 312a is the position of the limo and officer Hargis demonstrate that this frame comes after 312 and before 313. you will also see in 312a the limo only advances about 4 inches which makes the limo appear to stop for a brief second. The second thing you will see is Kennedy's head tucks downward just before the head shot(The head tuck in 312a represents about one third of the total head tuck in by 313. The head tuck is hard to see due to blood spay). Another more subtle difference exist in frame 350. The blurred curb that occurs in some frames is considered to be 'in camera' motion blur. The oddity is that it exists in the French copy but not in the official version. But the strangest difference is the yellow portion of curb. From frame 349 to 350 all of the background, witness's, grass, and curbing move left as the camera pans right. But the yellow portion of the curb remains in place from 349 to 350!!. It has been said that the yellow portion is just missing due to compression loss. However the gradient edge of the yellow image looks exactly like the edge in 349 which is in its correct position and is considered authentic. A compression loss is a square block of pixels not a gradient change. Secondly the portion of curb where the yellow is missing in frame 350 still shows the curb underneath. There is a shaded area extending past the gradient edge of yellow curb. It extends about 5 inches to the seam between curb sections(you may need to look at a higher resolution image to see it). Not only does that indicate that the data for that section was not lost, it shows the shaded area and the curb seam to be in position related to 349 not 350. By frame 351 the yellow curb jumps ahead a distance equal to two frames and becomes consistent with frame 351 of the official copy Here is a comp of frame 349 and 350

This is a recreation of the event.

Ever notice how large Hill's right hand looks in that frame? So what is up with the Windshield image?

Yes that is frame 17, Chaney can be seen just to the right of the image. In that frame no other cop has entered yet. I mistook the image for Chaney when trying to measure where his front wheel would be, that was before I realized it was a stationary image that never moved off her. To verify it was other than a bike cop I started at around frame 42 where you can fully identify all the cops by their movement, then ran the frames backwards to frame 17. It is frustrating that the image is so small and does not show the chin strap in many versions. But the image I posted at the top of the thread has such a strong similarity to the actual image of Chaney i.e. the shape of the helmets dome, the chin strap and leather collar , that even if it is not reproduced in most other copies, I still find it remarkable, not to mention Chaney's image finds and merges with it. That is one hell of a pair of coincidences

Chris, I see parts of the image but there is a red splotch in the face and chin strap area I think may be from enhancement. Every enhanced version I see blends the face and black strap into a single reddish image. I tried to upload a high quality version of the frame I posted the other day but it is too large to load well. Here is the website http://hdblenner.com/nixframes.htm. It is frame 17# that best shows the chin strap Here is a frame from M. K. Davis. No officer has entered the frame yet. I added some saturation, contrast and exposure to the M.K image. The full outline of the helmet is visible, even the top and the whiter color of the helmet is visible, however the chin strap and face is just a red blotch. The front of the helmet can look as if it is the shadow of Newman's arm against her side but it is too far in to match her body. In this enhanced version the face is also obscured by a reddish blotch.

Robin, thanks for the input on this thing. The first frame you show is the frame where the lead cop(You have labeled Hargis) has merged with the image. That is frame 19 in the set I have. I believe the cop labeled Hargis in the top photo is actually Chaney. In your second photo, three frames later, have you have labeled the second cop from the right as Martin. Does the label refer to the the helmet directly above the label or the front wheel just above it? I believe that front wheel has to be Martin's as it is the second bike to enter on the camera side of the limo. That means the order of cops in the second photo from left to right should be Chaney, Hargis, Hargood. I have posted 5 consecutive frames from 18 thru 22 The first frame below is 18 and shows Chaney about to merge with the image on Newman's blouse. The second is frame, 19, it shows Chaney merging with the Newman image and Hargood can be see to the right as he enters the frame. The 3rd photo is frame 20 and shows Chaney and Hargood with a trace of the blouse image in between them. Hargis's front wheel has just emerged past Moorman. Skip to the last frame, 22, and you can see Hargis's helmet emerging from behind Moorman's head. Hargis is too low in the photo to have come in contact with the Newman blouse image above it. Directly below that you can see Martin's front wheel, his helmet is not visible yet.

Chris Davidson, Although the image is small and only well focused in one or two frames, it is visible from about the second frame(depending on which copy you use). Do you see the similarities of these two images? By the way my video was rather confusing, I was not clear about it. the video has been reworded to clearly make its point

Chris, yes just enlarged it to see better(old browser) and the image is there. I have looked at several versions and found it in all of them. Some files enlarge better than other smaller ones and that seems more important than enhancing with this image. NOTE: The yellow arrow on the far right is Chaney making his first entrance

There are two overlapping coincidences in the Nix film that, to me, seem implausible to say the least. The image at top center is Chaney's face and helmet as he passes by(in front of) Mrs Newman's light colored blouse. Her blouse is the white image surrounding Chaney's helmet. The black blob below Chaney is Mary Moorman in the foreground. The image on the top right is marked "Nobody" because although it looks just like a cops helmet with the dome, angled chinstrap and horizontal leather collar at its base, no officer has reached that position by that frame. The image that looks so much like Chaney is on her blouse in all the frames prior to Chaney or any other motor cop entering the picture! So it is marked "nobody" Having that similar image on Newman's blouse can be a coincidence. Hey maybe she was wearing a Officer Chaney fan club shirt. But then when you watch Chaney's image ride right into and merge with the other image the coincidence gets harder to accept. There is an alteration theory regarding the Z film, if I have it right, that states that after removing frames, witnesses in motion were reintroduced using single frame images to mask the broken movements that the removing of frames would cause. According to that theory Jean Hill is stationary because they used a single frame image, when she claimed she was waiving her arms. Strong supporting evidence for this type of alteration would be finding the single frame that was duplicated from another location within the film. If they used a single frame from a different part of the film and it was not edited out of the film, it should be there. Well it is possible the "Nobody" images is a single frame of Mrs Newman taken from the very moment Chaney was passing by. This would explain why the "Nobody image appears in her blouse long before Chaney arrives in frame. And secondly it explains why Chaney rides right into the image and replaces it.(That is the image/frame above center marked Chaney). So it makes me wonder about the odds here. Not only is this anomalous "nobody" image so close in size and shape, but then Chaney's image comes to occupy the exact same location as it. If you were shown the two images could you tell which one is the real cop? Thanks I have a Youtube video available here. It includes the sequence of frames when Chaney approaches and merges with the Nobody image. https://youtu.be/btmKeIrpN5M

Kathy, i guess it would. The angle of the road changes relative to the frame. Even if you keep the frame level you still you have to start looking downward which would change the perspective.

Thanks Chris and Kathleen, it looks like several things are happening in that panorama. Parallax is causing the lamp post to change its left/right position relative to the background. The lamp post also changes its lean but unlike the Stemmons sign and xacto knife the background changes its tilt right along with the lamp post. In other words the lamp post and its background are consistent, unlike the pincushion corrected zapruder film and the xacto knife which develops a lean relative to the background. I think the tilting is related to vanishing point changes as you rotate to face an object that was off to the side.

One more note. Leaning the shaft forward, as he stated he did earlier in this thread, creates a lean that goes to the same side as costello's signpost which appears correct, Camera moves left, image leans right and visa versa. But the Stemmons sign leaned away from Zapruder, not towards him as the shaft does. Reverse that and you reverse the direction it leans, Camera left, image leans left and visa versa.

I am not saying whether it was intentional but the leaning of objects does not happen with parallax. It does happen because of vanishing point perspective. The photo implies that parallax creates that leaning of the foreground object but i think it has already been pointed out that it is not consistent with known optical theory. It is easy to test. Put a couple of drinking glasses on a table and separate them by a couple of feet, then just make your viewpoint level with the table(match your eyes to the height of the table) then shift a foot or so to each side and note the parallax between the glasses. Anyone can verify in a few minutes that the leaning does not happen. If you stick something under the front glass and cause it to lean forward about 20 degrees directly toward the camera you will see how the leaning effect was created.

I have recently enquired on another forum about refuting John Costello's findings on the Stemmons sign and received the article linked at the beginning of this thread from Mr Lamson. It included this example of parallax that showed tilting of the foreground object. It appears the only reason the tilting occurs here is because that vertical shaft(The xacto knife handle) is leaning forward about 18 degrees straight at the camera. I have tested it and this fully accounts for the perceived tilting. The 18 degree forward tilt can be seen and measured at the top of that shaft. The roundness of the top can be measured to determine the angle off the camera. When compared with the angle off the top of the can below it there is about a 20 degree difference and the can should show more of its top than the shaft, but the opposite is happening here. You can probably already see the big difference between the top of the can which is oval and the top of the shaft which is almost round. The shaft also appears 4% wider than the top because it is closer. (already checked Xacto knife shafts, they are straight.). I am impressed with the fact that after 6 years there is no solid evidence to refute theses claims by Mr Costello. You would think if it was flawed the work would have been shredded by the JFK community years ago.

I am an Optician with interests in optics and film making.