Chris Bristow

I don't believe that work was in any way comprehensive, it seemed to be very selective. So his opinion is not the be all end all in the Z film debate.

I'm not interested in going round and round about my factual statement regarding the history of claims in the zapruder film. Maybe I will look at the arguments you currently make and change my opinion from 9 out of 10 to 6 out of 10, time will tell. But I reject your notion that my own understanding of photographic analysis is insufficient, especially when looking at the gif that Chris posted. You have stated that Chris Davidson's work was very hard to understand and even with your background in math you had a hard time. So you might understand that the rest of us aren't just going to look at his whole body of work and immediately grok it. But I am confident in my own understanding of the photogrammetric principles involved in the analysis of that gif. So regardless of your reputations I questioned it. We had a long discussion in a previous topic of yours about a photographic comparison of Oswald's head in 2 photos. I felt the point I made about the differences in head tilt and turn refuted your argument. That was my considered opinion and so I don't just accept all of your work out of hand. I do have my own opinion after about 25 years of involvement in the field of Optics and about 10 years of private study in photogrammetry. I don't have a degree in Optics but at least have passed the state boards in order to be licensed by the state to work in the field of ophthalmic lenses and then continued my learning as a hobby. Chris Davidson's work is complicated but now since he has posted that gif the point he is making is Consolidated into a simple visual example. We are expected to look at that gif and understand his point. The problem is we're never really told exactly what the point of the GIF is. We are supposed to guess and figure out exactly what the point is. We need more than hints. What we need is a simple straightforward explanation of the point he is trying to make then we can debate it through the visual analysis. Again when it's reduced to a gif the answer is right there in front of us and we should, regardless of our lack of mathematical prowess, be able to decipher his point. Is it about the limo changing in relationship to the curb, the white patch, Foster, who knows? It certainly can't be about the two limo positions relative to the white patch because the white patch is only from frame 315. The two images of Foster in a single frame show us that there is an overlay going on, so of course it doesn't move while the limo does. What is the point here? Please explain since you understand the work.

If I see this correctly your'e using frame 306 and 315, and for purposes of comparison frame 306 is a partial transparency allowing the patch in 315 to be seen in both frames of the gif, as the white patch doesn't exist in frame 306. It almost looks by the Shadows on the grass that the white patch remains in the same spot relative to the grass in both frames. Of course the grass shifts about 6 ft to the left from 306 to 315. I assume the transparency is about 50% and we are seeing the same Shadows from frame 315 in both frames, the color image and the black and white. It makes it very hard to see that the limo and the curb and the grass all jump upwards as a result of frame 315 tilting downward a bit more than 306. So I think if we're talking about the fact the limo and the curb is jumping while the patch remains stationary it is because we are seeing the limo from the two different frames while the white patch could only be from frame 315, so of course it doesn't move in the gif. We are also seeing Mary Moorman remain in the same position because she is also from frame 315 and doesn't appear in Z frame 306. The limo also changes a bit relative to the curb from 306 to 315 but that is minor.

I made a very awkward mistake in the second sentence of my post. I said I really examine those issues closely but intended to say I really DON'T examine those issues closely. I have to apologize for that, it really screws up the meaning. I do find most of the claims put forth about evidence of alteration in the Z film don't stand up to scrutiny. Some of them are old and debunked many times over. That is just the lay of the land. That's the history and I'm not saying it to make a case for or against any particular claim or against alteration theory as a whole. I know Linda Willis's question about why the Pullman cars in the train yard weren't visible in Willis 5 is an old question. It had prompted some speculation of alteration. But as far as I know that wasn't answered until recently. The line of sight from Willis 5 simply didn't allow for review of any of the train cars. That's a fresh answer to an old question. I have not looked into the Rowley story or the automatic counter. If I find them compelling I put them on the list of subjects I feel strongly supports alteration. There's room on my list for that. But I might disagree.

The provenance of the film and the accounts surrounding the Hawkeye works are compelling. But I really examine those issues closely. So I'm not saying that there isn't multiple problems in the film, I just stick to the low hanging fruit that has a possible photogrammetric answer. So about 9 out of 10 of the things I look at are explainable. The guy who spreads his legs apart in one frame around frame 183 is one of those. The stickman who's running away in those latter frames is also explainable by the way Shadows are negated through camera motion blur. The couple that is seen in the Nix film that appear to line up with the franzens, but don't show up in the Z film has a logical answer too. In fact you can see their feet at the top of the frame in the Z film behind Bothun. They were actually about 40 ft southeast of the Franzen family. I think there is value in debunking some of the many false claims. I think that's important to do to get to the bottom of the issue. Jack White claimed Mormon was not in the same place as shown in the Z film. He used that overlay of the Z film and a photograph he took with a limo in the street. But when you compare that with the X on Elm his limo was in the wrong position. It was also claimed that her line of sight to the pergola windows does not match her official position. What I see is they just made a mistake about which window they were seeing in the film. Mary Mooman's line of sight to the right side of Z's pedestal and where it meets the pergola is the definitive line of sight and puts her in the same location as the Z film. John Costello's observation of the lamp post on Elm and the lack of parallax has a rational possible explanation. He had to change his stance from facing towards the stemmons sign to facing pretty much South. When you do that you have to transfer your weight to one leg to start the turn. I tested that and if you transfer your leg to your left foot as you're panning the camera to the right The Parallax is neutralized for a moment. He would have to start by switching his weight to his left foot and then move his right foot, and do so about the time he was panning past to that light post on Elm. I tested that and it works out very well. That it's just my observation but it is not proof in itself. I saw a recent claim about the Shadows on Greer and Kellerman being inconsistent with the lack of Shadows on them as they were about to turn on the Houston. They said the asthma of course couldn't change that much so it was evidence of fakery. But the limo was facing 45° farther south at the point on Elm in question. That totally explains the observation. There's a claim that there were Shooters in the pergola but the trajectory does not work for the shot to Connally that was supposedly fired after 313. The trajectory for that shot would have to pass right through the center of the piracanthus bush. That would mean they had no view to Connally at the time the shot was supposedly taken. The other part of the pergola claim is that we could see the muzzle blast of the shot to JFK at 313. The direction of that supposed muzzle blast he's pointing upward and would be aimed about 15 ft above his head. I personally think they were alterations to take out the limo stop. That's based on the witness testimony especially the four bike cops. So I'm not making an argument against alteration in the film, but I think it's important to sort out the claims that don't add up.

I think John Costello's observation of the lack of pin cushion in the Stemmons sign has Merit. Skeptics claim it was the panning of the camera and the changing of that lens position that caused the appearance of the pole to lean left. That was completely backwards. If Z moves his camera to the right and the pole is leaning away then the pole moves with the camera motion not against it as in the Z film. The pole would have to be leaning toward the camera for that to happen. That is exactly the way the demonstration put forth was set up. The author even stated so in the thread. I think his other observation about the lack of motion blur on the limo when it comes out from behind the sign is also pretty solid. I think Chris Davison's bobblehead gif that he recently posted is crazy and unexplainable. It's one of the most interesting things I've seen. I think just based on testimony that the limo stop was somehow removed. but I don't have any photo grammatic evidence of it I do not think these other subjects are hijacking my thread as I think it was resolved. I don't have any problem with the thread taking a different direction once the main talking points are exhausted.

I think I can give a reasonable answer now. Here's a darkened and contrasted close up . Inside the orange circle there is a grid line visible that is within the Double Image I posted before, so the grid is also duplicated and offset the same as the rest of the doubled image. The little irregular shaped batch of grid lines is a simple glitch from digitization. Maybe as simple as a JPEG artifact or another processing filter. That linear feature leaves no doubt that we are seeing a duplicated image. I believe it is an image that was duplicated due to a digital memory problem that assigns two separate locations to the same set of pixels. looking at the photo I just uploaded I'm afraid of lost a bit of the lower grid.

Thanks.

Maybe a compression program could go Haywire and just start repeating patterns. I don't know really, the only compression I am aware of is when it takes a specific group of connected pixels that all share the same grayscale number and remember the dimensions and positions of that block. That takes far less memory than remembering the position and scale number of each pixel independently. One error in the location data and the block of pixels appears in a different location or is a different size. That doesn't seem to account for what is in the photo as I understand compression. But maybe there's more complicated versions.

Mark, that is the same photo. In working with my copy I had to save it several times and jpg photos do degrade the more copies you make. Making a newer copy for people to look at is beneficial though, thank you.

You don't have to be sorry because there absolutely is a duplication there. It does not matter to me what conspiracy theory could relate to this. I'm simply making an observation and looking for a logical answer. I'm certainly not going to waste my time on a conspiracy theory when someone might post a logical answer regarding the Optics.

Yes obviously digitized and likely some other filters applied. But I can't think of any process that would duplicate the image. I suppose it could be tampered with and faked, but I'm not sure why some one would go to the effort of making this tiny alteration that would most likely go unnoticed. I find 9 out of 10 alteration claims in the Z film have rational answers. Every time one gets debunked I learn something new about photogrammetry. So if someone can offer a definitive explanation I would benefit by it.

The grass in this copy is clearer than I've ever seen. I believe the photo was printed in a newspaper the day of the assassination so I can't see how this would be an artifact of alteration but I can't explain it as yet. This copy can be found if you search the article written by Clifford spiegelman. If you expand the image and look between the two white lines just below the wall I think it is undeniable that the same slice of the grass appears twice. Two horizontal slices of the grass lay between the white lines. They are on top of one another and slightly offset. There are three or so very obvious similarities, but as you look closer there are many more. If you save the image you might be able to expand it more. Additional magnification allows you to see a dozen or more matches before it gets too blurry.

The position of the limo on Elm is so well documented by Nix, Z, and Muchmore that we can place it within a couple inches. What we see of the limo in 312 would relate to frame 302, about a 7 ft difference in the position of the limo. We also know right where Z was on the pedestal and so the only other option is that the limo had to be turned. If the film was altered then Anything Goes. The vanishing point lines through the limo include the two rear antenna, the back of JFK seat, the crossbar, the two window posts and the top of the windshield. They all verify the angle of the limo to Z. If the limo had been straight the zero point or vertical Point Vanishing line would be right at JFK. But that line is at the windshield and also shows the limo was about six degrees crooked in the street. That shifted the zero point line about 7 ft forward from JFK to the windshield. All in all I don't think there's any other option possible. Although Nix and Muchmore can really nail down the location of the limo they are less accurate than the Z film when it comes to that six degree angle. They seem to confirm it but only within about 3°.

Sherry Fiester is the only other person I know of that has acknowledged that the limo was crooked in the street at 313. She has said it was 3° crooked but I'm pretty sure it was closer to 6°. Usually Zapruder's angle to JFK is represented as being between 89 and 90°. if that were true then the relative positions of the forward posts of the side windows would look very different. He would have seen the post on the left side of the car to the left of the post on the right side. Frame 312 is much clearer and shows from Z's position the post on the left side of the car is forward of the post on the right side. The curvature of the windows can throw things off so you have to look at the base of the posts. This is empirical proof that the car was turned several degrees relative to Elm St. It makes sense since Greer looked over his shoulder and likely pulled the steering wheel to the right. In earlier images like Altgens 6 the limo is not crooked. I guess people could also theorize that it is due to a cut and paste of the limo from an earlier frame. The implications for Sherry Fiesters South knoll theory is that six degrees would Place her shooter a little closer to the railroad tracks. Six degrees also makes the storm drain Theory even crazier. That bullet would either hit Kellerman or come within Maybe an inch of his ear. It doesn't make any difference for JFK's positioning because we generally judge that relative to Zapruder not the angle of the limo. I don't know who gets credit for the first observation of this but it is an overlooked and possibly boring fact. But it is a factual element of the case. WILLIS 5: On a completely separate issue Linda Willis has questioned why the trains in the yard are not visible through the Colonnade in Willis 5. She is sure that they were visible to her and her father. The fact is their lines of site at Willis 5 show that the Pullman cars were not visible to them. But she also States they walked about 20 to 30 ft forward to take the last photos. From either of those positions you would be seeing the Pullman cars in the yard. So I think the theories about the Pullman cars being removed from the photo can be put aside.

Deleted post and photo to hopefully free up my attachments limit

Yes the camera barely moved between shots and the wind didn't seem to be blowing when the photos were taken, but no conclusions can be drawn from those facts.

My problem with getting a good 3d effect from the background is related to the fact that the camera barely moved. The most obvious shift of background is the roof of the house in the background against the top of that post next to Oswald. The distance between those two objects is about 30 or 40 ft. I'm confident a stereoscopic viewing of the top of the post and that roof would give a good 3D image. The roof appears at a different position in each of the three backyard photos and in itself demonstrates they are not the same photo.

The black dog nose looks strange but I can't say it's anything other than just a photographing defect. Can't see any logic to manipulating that part of the screen. His head has a little tilt to it but I don't see that as odd. I have recreated the dimensions of the backyard with the positions of the camera and Oswald and I don't see any problems with the Shadows. Even the shadow under his nose is correct. The only thing I find very odd is his lean in 133a. If you accurately duplicate his stance you're either on the verge of falling over or have Fallen. The position of his feet and hips is crucial to accurately duplicating The Stance and I've never found a way to make it work.

The top of the post is about 5 ft 8 in. Oswald is a little closer to the camera than the post and is why he appears about 4 in taller than it. The rise on each stair is 8 in and the post intersects with the stairs between the 8th and 9th step. The large head in 133a has been attributed to the fact that the camera is tilted down which causes some magnification towards the top of the photo. 133b is tilted slightly above the level plane and causes opposite magnification at the bottom of the photo. Some photographic testing was done by the WC using a dummy head to demonstrate the basic principle. I think it is somewhat exaggerated and doesn't really give a satisfactory answer Imo. I recently used a stereoscopic viewer to see how Oswald would show up. His torso and arms cannot provide any stereoscopic effect because they moved to very different positions between photos. There is a bit of stereoscopic effect on his head and knees. It is not a real effect, it is just the result of him moving to a slightly different position so the background lines up differently in both photos. That mimics The Parallax we see when we switch from one eye to the other. slight shifting of the background allows our brains to create the 3d effect regardless of whether the camera has moved or the subject has moved. The 3D image below can be viewed with the stereoscopic viewer placed right on the screen. The image of the two houses should be sized to 63 mm across for best viewing. The image on the left sides is of the pillars in front of the tsbd. It has a very clear and easy to see 3D to it. All it takes to create the very strong 3D is to place the two identical images of the TSB pillars at slightly different positions relative to the house in the background. Within the photo the pillar and brick wall behind it don't have any 3D effect. That is because both pictures are the same pasted image. So the bricks and pillars within the photo don't have any 3d effect. The second set of photos with the vase in front of the Martian landscape book does not have a 3d effect relative to the background. That is because they are both pasted to basically the same location relative to the house. But within the photo the vase is clearly a 3D image in front of the book. Just placing the vase in a different location in each photo creates the 3D between the book and the vase. Making a single 3D object from existing photos is easy but making all the objects in the yard 3D would be much harder. Objects in the foreground would have to be displaced more than objects behind them. The biggest problem is moving an object leaves a blank space where it was moved from. There's no other photographic information you can use to fill in that blank space because in the original photo we can't see what was behind the object being moved. The only way around that is to have two photos from different directions, but if have photos from off angles you don't need to make a fake 3D image in the first place.

The slowing of the limo is more obvious in the Nix film but it is still moving about 8 miles an hour. That does not seem slow enough to explain the statements of Hargis, Cheney, Martin, and Jackson. The four bike cops had to monitor the speed of the limo very closely through the entire parade in order to maintain their position near the rear bumper. If the limo slowed to 2 mph for just 3 seconds and the bike cops didn't react, they would be out in front of the limo. If they mistakenly thought the limo slowed to 2 miles an hour and they reacted by slowing down to match it they would have ended up behind the Queen Mary. Very hard to Fathom how slowing from 12 to 8 miles an hour would be mistaken by them as the limo stopping or almost stopping.

133a, 133b and 133c do not have the same background. The camera is a bit lower and tilted down more in 133a. If you look at the top of the stairway post on the right side you can see where the roof line of the house next door meets the post. It is a little different in all three photos because the camera height had changed. This is not due to any type of distortion and shows the background is not the same in any of the backyard photos. The camera height change is apparent in other aspects of the photos too, but most obvious where the post meets the roof line. I Know Jack White claimed that they just Keystoned the same photo but that would not change where the roofline meets the post. It is a fact that the camera tilt will cause exactly the effect that he saw. Tilting the photo in the enlarger will create the exact same effect as tilting the camera when the photo was taken. So when Jack White tilted the photo in the enlarger he was doing the exact process necessary to correct/reverse the keystoning that occurred naturally from tilting the camera in the original photo. All you have to do is tilt it in the opposite direction. When you tilt the camera down below the level plane it causes straight vertical lines on the left side to lean out to the left at the top. Straight vertical lines on the right side of the photo will lean out to the right. If you tilt the camera above the horizontal plane the opposite effect happens and the vertical lines appear to lean inward towards the top of the photo.

Yeah, skeletons so we can see rib cage and spinal column, that would be nice. With JFK we could determine the exact amount of hunching he needed to match the official entry and exit. It would be great to have views that are directly above and directly on the side too. I've noticed in pretty much every overhead diagram the ratio of the width of the torso to its depth is way off. Taking those measurements from average people and then drawing it from directly above gives you a torso that looks freakishly thick. But that's the way it measures out. It seems there's always something lacking in 3D simulations and diagrams.

Sandy, the ability for our visual system to take two separate inputs from our eyes and fuse those into one image is twice as hard for a vertical displacement Than the horizontal. The tolerance for unwanted prism displacement in a pair of eyeglass lenses is 6/10 of a diopter in the horizontal plane but only 3/10 in the vertical. A diopter is a measurement of the power of the lens. One diopter of power will bring light to a focus at one meter, two diopters a half meter, Etc. Our eyes are physically designed to converge in the horizontal axis as the reading material gets closer. But the actual fusing of two separate images into one is done in the brain. The brain is always converging images that are separated on the horizontal due to the distance between the eyes. But it has little experience trying to converge objects that are vertically displaced. So it might have been easier on your eyes to rotate it 90° so your brain can fuse images in a manner similar to your normal vision.

A counter lean is when the person leans their upper body in the opposite direction of the lean. In Oswald's 133a you can draw a straight line from the base of the throat at the clavicle, down over the fly flap or belt buckle and to a location between his feet on the ground. When there's is a counter lean you can't draw one straight line from clavicle to the feet. You have one line from clavicle to the belt buckle, and then the line has to deviate to follow the lean of the legs down to that spot between his feet.