Chris Bristow

I've never seen a recreation that sends such a strong blast of debris backwards and downwards. You don't see that in the Z film either. Generally a test using a rifle shows most all of the debris going up and forward. This test looks more like an explosion emanating from underneath the skull.

Does anyone know the purpose of the tank and the line running from it to the bottom of the ladder?

I don't think there's anything fake about the moon landings but I bet they put a 10-second delay on the audio of Aldrin and Armstrong's descent to the surface. Can't imagine the bad PR of millions and millions of people hearing the live descent as it goes wrong. Hearing them scream as they tumble to the ground is inconceivable. They would push a button and switch to elevator music.

18 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

This is truly scary. But we know it’s coming. 

Yes and I don't think that could be overstated. It's coming and even the AI people can't predict where it's going. Scary

What strikes me as a bit odd is that she seems to be talking very freely. What I recall about her interviews and statements is that she is careful in her choice of words. When people are considering what they say as they say it they seem to speak a little slower and put more emphasis on certain words. There are those moments when we can see that a person is searching for the right word. When they get it they put an emphasis on it and more of a pause before it. Again just from memory, she seems to be speaking more words per second than any interview I recall. People also seem to speak slower as they age and I think it is her rapid talk that gives me the same impression as you, that she sounds younger. Nowadays computers can clean up people's speech and I think they can put the words closer together too.  they can make a boring speech pattern sounds a little more interesting by compressing it. New technology is making it harder to evaluate anything

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Chris,

Try this way instead:

So your your original gif was frame 306 and 315. now I see a black and white composite on the left. At the bottom you have the top of frame 307. Next up is the limo, Mary Moorman, Foster and the legs of the people behind her from frame 306. At the top you have the limo from frame 305 Finally you still have the white patch from frame 315 added to frame 306.

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Chris B quotes:

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

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

Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

How far does the background woman move?

That relationship.

Now, reread Chris' quotes above.

You are getting the general gist of this.

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

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

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

The essence of my confusion is how can you use the white patch in both frames to compare with Foster or anything else when the white patch was not part of frame 306? The limo does shift forward and upwards between the two frames of the gif because the tracking of the limo changes slightly between the two frames. The vertical movement is just him dipping the camera slightly. Everything in the background including Foster and the grass shift in exactly the same way. In the GIF it's sort of looks like the background grass does not move, but that is simply the transparency image from 315 and some dark spots on the grass from that frame appearing in both frames of your GIF due to the transparency.

How far Foster moved from 306 to 315 gives us a very accurate idea of how far the camera was panned.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have to worry about hijacking the thread. I don't think it's inappropriate to change the subject if the initial subject has played out. At least I have no problem with that in my threads, I can't speak for others.

The fundamental problem I have about the white patch is that it is not an alignment of anything in the two frames because there is no white patch in 306 as it has not entered the frame yet. So I see no way to use it for any comparison  between other objects that appear in both frames.

From one of your responses above you said

"With the white patch laying on top of itself(stationary) how far does the limo move?

How far does the background woman move?"

 I'm not sure what we're measuring here. if the white patch was an actual stationary object that existed in BOTH frames you could lay it over itself in the gif. Then it would be a really good reference point. And if Foster was stationary we could measure the distance of her to the white patch in each frame and short of any very slight parallax from Z's camera pan it should be the same. But because there is no white patch in 306 it is not two images laid over each other.  The transparency in that frame is allowing the white patch to appear in both frames of the gif. Therefore we cannot compare any object  in those two frames relative to  the white patch . The other part is that Foster steps forward between 306 and 315. So I'm not sure how we make any subtle comparison there. 

 So without getting too much into the weeds and making it very confusing my basic question is this. What are we using as the reference point for any comparisons of the limo movement or Foster's movement from 306 to 315?

We can't align the white patches and use that because there is only one white patch and that exist in frame 315. We can't lay one patch over the other when there's no patch in 306. It would also be difficult to use Foster relative to the limo since she is stepping forward and the camera panning shifts her 7 ft.

This last question is not really related specifically to the gif  but I was also wondering about the limo being crooked in the street. Frame 312 proves the limo was not perpendicular to Z and was traveling crooked within the lane markers to about six degrees. Does the limo traveling at the angle have any effect on your overall measurements of the limo moving down Elm? The crookedness seems to start around frame 300 and continues well after the headshot. 

10 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Two words: Roland Zavada.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm

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.

8 hours ago, David Josephs said:

If you haven't examined the issues I mentioned, then the above statement only applies to ancient history.

I you haven't taken the time to understand Davidson's work, the above statement is truly an unfounded opinion based on impression of analysis for which you have no insight - yet.

When you take the time to address what has been discovered in the last 5 years about the film, as well as the counter issue, the Rowley film issue, NPIC compartmentalized projects with different briefing board results, the blatant lies of Shaneyfelt and the creation and immediate removal of the Gauthier Dealey Plaza model showing the last shot hitting at the foot of the steps well past 313 - but as a WCR exhibit, that was hidden.

In the following I go into how the FBI would have created this model by using the information available to them at the time...  you might this quite illuminating, and while not nearly as correct or up to date as Davidson's subsequent work - I wrote this many years ago - I think it makes some decent points.  

Below that is the link and description page for WCD 298 innocuously called: Commission Document 298 - FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure and rightfully so for it lays out the 3 shot scenario Hoover described on day 1 but which had to be changed to 2 shots.  This is CE585 which is the revised 2 shots hitting scenario supporting the Silly Bullet Theory.

Debunking 30 year old hypotheses does not equate to "9 of 10 explained away"...  You're too good at this Chris not to thoroughly acquaint yourself with present day analysis.  I'd be interested in how you "explain away" these things as easy as Moorman in the street...

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsFBIZ313.pdf   and part 3

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsWDC298.pdf 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=1 

 

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.

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Thanks for trying, David.

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

Chris,

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

 

 

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.

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I brought up much more than Hawkeyeworks - ie where did the Rowley film go after Rowley... and where is it now?
how does an automatic counter skip a number without explanation?
And what about Max's note?

Chris, instead of dealing with the ancient zfilm anomalies we've already debunked repeatedly over the years... Deal with what I posted please.

Can you address any of the issues I specifically point out or we just going to ask and answer our own questions now?

Explain the 4 or 5 things in my post...  and maybe go read Chris Davidson's threads and work to understand what he's accomplished.  He discussed Costella's work as well.
(Costello was the guy who worked with Abbott; Costella help us better understand the zfilm given us was not from Zapruder)

I majored in math and statistics and made my career on same and STILL had to work especially hard to understand his work...

His grasp of the mathematics involved is unrivaled.  And how he illustrates what the FBI/SS did to insure one thing matched another is superb. 

If you are dismissing this work without fully appreciating it, I think you do yourself a disservice.

Respectfully.

DJ

 

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.

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Let me also ask you about this film sent by Max PHILLIPS

It gets to Rowley the evening of the 22nd/early 23rd... then what?

Can you offer us anything that then traces this film beyond Rowley that night?

If not as I assume, what's to say this was not actually 0184 then sent to Hawkeyeworks, then brought to Dino Sat night?

edit:  0183 does not even appear on the "original" film nor is it in the right place if reproduced accurately, in the SS copy... only 1 SS copy.

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.

6 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Not to derail your OP but what was the 1 out of 10 Z film alterations that you could not explain away?

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.

On 4/27/2023 at 1:10 AM, Gerry Down said:

This was useful. I thought Altgens was out on the street. Now I know better.

Thanks.

34 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I'm sorry about not reading your post more carefully. The repeating patterns are clearly there, so (unless they can be explained as compression artefacts), it seems likely that someone (digitally) retouched that area of the image.

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.

2 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

There's a better version here, without the lines.

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.

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Chris, this photo has been digitized and tampered with so many times it's hard to say what was in the original and what got added in later. 

FWIW, Tink once posted a photo of the photo taken in the mid-60's if I recall. Here it is:

 

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. 

21 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don't follow your point on Z312. I looked and it is as you say, the post on the left side of the presidential limousine is forward of the post on the right side. But why does that mean the limousine is "crooked" in the street instead of simply slightly forward from Zapruder's vantage point in filming at Z312 as the limousine passes. Naturally when the limousine passes Zapruder the posts are going to look that way. How does Z312 prove the limousine was "crooked"? Thanks.

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

14 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I am having a hard time with "the camera barely moved" and another issue. Here is what I posted last night on the "Marina Oswald" thread:

So Marina takes the first picture, hands the Reflex camera to Lee to advance the film, takes it back from Lee and shoots another picture. This would be 133a and 133b.

When you compare these pics the backgrounds look pretty much the same. Kind of interesting that on a late March day that the records show a 12 mph wind, the vegetation looks identical. 

 

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.

2 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I am admittedly going on memory but didn't you earlier say that you were unable to create a stereoscopic view of the background which would indicate that the backgrounds are basically the same? Wouldn't that indicate fakery?

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.