Mark Tyler

That's fine, feel free to quote me.

I agree, I think PM is entirely in the shade. If you look at the direction of the shadows of those on the street, you can see the direction of the sun, which confirms that the PM corner would be in the shade. So it's agreed: it's short sleeves, or possibly rolled up long sleeves?

The sun could indeed be lighting the forearm more brightly, which might explain what we see in the image. The only other thing I would mention is that the flesh tones in the face are very close to those we see in the forearm, which are both much lighter than the darker shirt. However, as you say, the image is of a terrible quality and you wouldn't want to bet your life on a positive ID one way or the other.

Indeed David, the field is wide open on this one! Both guys you identify seem about the right shorter height, although I think the long sleeves on the left would rule him out.

Hi David, I completely agree with you, the so called Prayer Man is so visually ambiguous it could be anyone (perhaps with the exception of LHO who would surely have been noticed by the others on the steps, especially Frazier?). As you suggest, this may even be a woman, and be a misgendering! (perhaps just like the black dog man, who was probably a woman, according to Marilyn Sitzman). If it was a woman, I would say it was a slightly shorter, fuller figured lady with shorter hair, wearing a mid-dark top, with short sleeves. Perhaps like this lady in the foreground of this photo, seen from the rear (who also seems to be adopting a prayer like arm holding position): Ignore the red arrow, that's someone else! By the way, welcome back to the forum!

Yes, the interlacing is the core of the problem when transferring film to video, as it always has the effect of blending different images from fractionally different times (and creating ghost images in a single frame). It's mentioned elsewhere on the web such as here: https://community.adobe.com/t5/after-effects-discussions/how-to-fix-ghosting-double-image/m-p/9481267 In the case of the Zapruder film, because the pan is left/right, the tell-tale sign is the left/right ghosting as @Chris Bristow and @Chris Davidson helpfully showed in their posts. Overall, I don't think there is anything suspicious about what we see in this video. However, as I always say about this case, no stone should remain unturned when looking for the truth.

Hi Sandy I think this is a function of an 18 FPS input film being adjusted for a different output rate (e.g. 24/30 FPS for film/NTSC output). Have a look at this article for an explanation of the "pulldown" and the image blending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:2_pulldown I think @Chris Davidson wrote some things about this a while ago too. The limo doesn't have the same problem because Zapruder is panning so the error isn't so obvious in that portion of the image.

Well done Larry, this is really important. History needs to see the full unvarnished truth, without any skeletons being left in the closet.

I think you are right, Zapruder really did struggle to track the limo (especially Z290-Z320 due to the deceleration). Where we see similar blurring in the background and foreground such as Z310, it's probably where Zapruder is panning slower than the car, so nothing is correctly focused. However, as you say, if there is a frame with perfectly sharp foreground and background then that would be very hard to explain given what we see elsewhere in the film.

Mmm, that's irritating the links died for some reason. Anyway, here are those frames again:

That's not quite right. Z310 is much more blurry than Z312 (note the sun visors and windshield especially): Here are some other Z-film frames for comparison: https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/

The first day evidence is so important, and these very early interviews are like gold dust as they seem to debunk many of the weaker theories. Here is the original radio interview of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman at 1:41:00 in this video: As others have mentioned, Jean Hill is not the most reliable of witnesses, mainly due to her changing her story in her later years. However, her testimony throughout 1963 and 1964 seems very consistent with what dozens of other witnesses independently reported in their statements, so I don't think she can be casually dismissed as wrong about everything.

At time 2:26:10 in this video the Polaroid appears in the NBC broadcast: It's a bit blurry, but it's a good likeness for the image we have all seen many times.

Fair enough John, you don't accept all of my judgements. I'm a free speech, free thinking kind of guy, so I think you have every right to defend your point of view. However, to say I have ignored witnesses is simply untrue as my compiled list of over 400 witnesses testifies (all neatly ordered into a table so you can dissect the work in a spreadsheet program): https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv On the web page above there is a handy search box just above the data, so when you type in "smith" to this box you will see all of the witnesses filtered by that name. To download the data onto your PC click the "Raw" button and save the data via the web browser (typically Ctrl+S). If you think the bike positions are wrong, can you post the photos which prove this? Here are the photos which I think prove the current animation bike formation (3-2-3) is correct: Most of the witnesses are simply too vague to draw firm conclusions regarding the shots fired. Then we have the problem of witnesses changing their minds. For example we have Bill Newman who was interviewed on the day and he was firmly of the view he only heard 2 shots, and he specifically said he didn't hear a third shot as shown by this video at 11:35 (this looks to be about an hour or so after the shooting): Just 2 days later the FBI said he reported a third shot: "He said the President was hit on the right side of the head with the third shot" - 22H843 - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0437a.htm In these cases I take the earliest, firmest, and most complete statement as I think it will be the most accurate and the least tainted by suggestibility (such as from a persuasive TV/FBI interviewer repeatedly telling him there was a third shot). This isn't cherry-picking or ignoring evidence, it's a rational judgement based on evaluating the evidence. If anyone on either side of the debate wants to inform me of new evidence then I'm always willing to listen, and adjust my position if required. My views on this case are not frozen in aspic, and I'm not reading from a script, so I'm always willing to learn. Just to clarify, I'm not defending the official Warren Commission verdict, so someone may see my work as "drivel" from their point of view, but to say "WC drivel" is factually incorrect. In other words, even though I think the photos are authentic, it doesn't automatically mean I am a Warren Commission supporter and think the authorities behaved perfectly.

There are some interesting matches that demonstrate how well things fit together around the time of the shots. Lets start with the Betzner 3 photo at Z186: Just a second later there was the Willis 5 photo at Z202: The timing of both of these photos is known very accurately as both photos show Zapruder filming, and then in the Zapruder film we see Betzner and Willis (along with the cars moving in between both view points). Then there is the Bronson 3 photo which I think was taken at around Z228: The sync point here is the guy who has his arm raised in the centre (the so called Dark Complected Man), near the umbrella man. We see him raising his arm at Z226 and it is fully extended by Z228 to make a nice match with Bronson 3: As per the animation measurements, the limo speed at this point is around 12 MPH, and the positions seem to match this perfectly regarding where the limo was during all of these photos. Next there is the Altgens 6 photo circa Z255: Then we have the Moorman photo taken just after the head shot at Z315: Lastly we have the Altgens 7 photo circa Z400: All of these photos fit together perfectly for the limo speed, with the Zapruder film providing the overall time-clock. The position of the limo in the animation during this time-frame shows that this is all perfectly smooth with no sudden jumps or pauses. The rapid deceleration just after Z255 was probably caused by William Greer momentarily tapping the brakes of the limo just before the head shot (he was looking to the rear for a few seconds which may have caused him to unconsciously slow the car). This frame of the Muchmore film circa Z313 seems to show the right rear brake light is illuminated: I think this rapid deceleration, coupled with the brake lights, and the bikes either side suddenly gaining on the limo, may have caused an optical illusion for some witnesses which is why they think the limo stopped. In summary, the photos above and the films (Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, and Bronson) all dovetail perfectly in the dimensions of time and space. I don't see how any alteration can be accommodated as everything fits so smoothly in the animated reconstruction and the contents of each image are consistent with each other (right down to the gust of wind that blows the coats of Moorman and Hill at Z313, as shown above). By contrast, elsewhere in this case we see deception and evidence destruction, such as James Hosty destroying Oswald's threatening note to the FBI just hours after Oswald was killed (and then not mentioning this to the Warren Commission in 1964). There are so many areas in this case where the authorities should be challenged, but not in terms of the films and photos, and not in terms of George Hickey's behaviour.

LOL! I don't know who is or isn't a government agent, but lest Costella forget that sometimes it's very hard to distinguish MISinformation from DISinformation. Thanks Pat. I completely agree with you, taking together the whole collection of photos and film frames, everything seems to fit hand and glove, with no contradictions. When I started the animation project I wasn't explicitly trying to prove or disprove the alteration theories, but one of the useful by-products is that it does seem to prove the integrity of the photographic record. By contrast the witness evidence is very patchy: some things in the statements are provably correct; other statements are provably wrong; with the remaining statements being moot as there is no independent corroboration either way. It's still worth trying to make sense of these statements if we can, which is why I encourage everyone to visit your list of witness statements in chapters 5-9 of your online book: https://www.patspeer.com/ As I have always said in this case, no stone should remain unturned in pursuit of the truth about what really happened in 1963. It is well worth studying and verifying *ALL* evidence, so I think it's right that people do this regarding the photographic record. However, having spent some considerable time studying the finer details and checking the timings using objective computer software, I am now 100% certain that this part of the evidence is authentic. By implication, if any theory contradicts this evidence then the theory must be wrong (such as the HSCA dictabelt acoustics analysis). Having said that, if anyone thinks I have made a mistake, they are welcome to let me know and I will look into the complaint. Here is the link to the work if anyone needs it: https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html For the EdForum thread with various discussions about the work, have a look here:

I think it's all about how much of this evidence can be put into the "certain" category as opposed to the "possible" or "probable" categories. It is quite noticeable how many witnesses reported smelling gunpowder, including those in the motorcade such as BJ Martin, Dearie Cabell, and Ralph Yarborough. Curiously Earle V. Brown was over 100 yards away from Dealey Plaza towards the Stemmons Freeway, and he also reported the smell. This very wide range of people in different locations does make me wonder whether whether it was actually the smell of smoke or gunpowder, or whether it was just a psychological reaction to the sound of gunfire mixed with real ambient smells (e.g. vehicle exhausts). With the lack of independent or objective proof either way it's hard to be certain, so I would put the smell of gunsmoke into the "possible" category. In terms of the reports of visible smoke in the knoll area it's slightly different as it's much more specific. Several people refer to it in the same location so I do feel there was something in the air floating around, but was it related to a gun? Unless someone was using a musket or a cannon I suspect not. The "smoke" may have been related to the explosion we see in the Zapruder film at Z313, with vapour and debris in the air, or possibly vehicle exhaust fumes drifting towards the knoll as they all roared away (the wind was blowing that day so airborne particles would have moved around). It's hard to be certain of the exact cause, but yes, I'm sure something real did indeed stimulate so many identical witness reports so I say this is "certain", but the actual cause of the airborne material is somewhat moot.

As far as I know Calvery was never interviewed and never gave any more details. It's a great pity as she could well have given more info regarding the bushes she was referring to. I agree, the major failure was the lack of a proper investigation immediately following the events as that would have conclusively proven whether Oswald acted alone or had assistance. Along with the awful autopsy I don't see how anyone can now prove with certainty what really happened as the full truth of the crime scene was never properly established in 1963. Without that information, all theories will struggle to be promoted to "fact", including the lone nut theory.

I think this woman was Gloria Calvery. She was described by JM Smith as "in hysterics", and mentioned specifically by Billy Lovelady: Mr. LOVELADY. I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn’t occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot. Mr. BALL. Who was this girl? Mr. LOVELADY. Gloria Calvary. 6H338 - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Lovelady.pdf This was corroborated by Bill Shelley who said she was crying which matches the "hysterics" description: Mr. SHELLEY. Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said “The President has been shot” and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute. 6H329 - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Shelley.pdf This brief meeting of these few witnesses is featured in my animation and the timings seem to neatly tie everything together on the Elm Street extension where JM Smith, Lovelady, and Bill Shelley seemed to go when they were all seen in the Couch film within 30 seconds of the last shot being fired. This is a very troubling account, and with Weitzman also mentioning Secret Service people this is very odd. The only Secret Service agent I know of in Dealey Plaza was Forrest Sorrels but he went to the hospital first. He didn't return the Dealey Plaza until about 20 minutes after the shots were fired: Mr. STERN. Just a minute. How much time do you think elapsed from the time the shots were fired until the time you returned to the Book Depository? Mr. SORRELS. I don’t believe it could have been over about 20 minutes, because we went to the hospital just as fast as we possibly could, and I wasn’t there very long. And we came back as fast as we could. Of course we didn’t get back as fast as we went out there, because traffic was moving. 7H347 - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Sorrels.pdf

Yes indeed, I take all evidence at face value until it can be proven wrong, and in the meantime I simply point out any conflicts, discrepancies, or ambiguities I have found. I have published a complete list of over 400 witnesses with analysis, and referenced every film and photo in the public domain, so it's not fair to say I have ignored anything. I have been saying for over two years that the current "lone nut theory" with a missed shot at Z160 or before belongs in the garbage can, so to suggest I support the official story is wrong. I don't rule out a three shot scenario involving Lee Harvey Oswald, but the missed shot must have been fired well after the head shot as many witnesses reported this back in 1963. I'm also happy to consider other evidence based theories about the crime scene, so for example I think it's quite possible that two shots were fired in rapid succession during the shooting (thus requiring a second gunman). I accept that by disagreeing with 99% of theories on both sides of the debate I will never be popular, but as I've always said, I do my work without fear or favour (including me correcting my own mistakes when people present evidence or analysis, such as in this very thread).

The timing of the first shot does seem clear thanks to the witnesses, especially those with cameras. Hugh Betzner said he heard the first shot just after he took his photo at Z186. The Zapruder film start shaking and blurring around Z190-Z210. Phil Willis said he heard the shot just before he took his photo at Z202. The other witnesses standing nearby at the intersection, or in the motorcade seem to agree with the timing with no witness unambiguously claiming an earlier shot.

Sure, which merely demonstrates that she was at the interesection when the first shot was fired which I agree with. She never claimed the car stopped at that point though, and the claim of the Mayor's car stopping at that point is your own interpretation. No witness mentions it, and no film or photo shows it. In fact, the Wiegman film directly refutes it as the car is cruising through the intersection at 8-10 MPH just a few seconds after the first shot: Which film, photo, or witness suggests that the car was stopped by the police at the intersection?

Indeed, Cabell's statement matches the animation rather nicely at roughly the time the car stops (Z420-Z450). She mentions seeing the child being thrown to the ground which must have been the Newman family (whose turn is briefly in the Nix film after Z313), and the green dress lady is probably Beatrice Hester. At Z420-Z450 Cabell has a perfect view of both events unfolding: If she was back at the intersection she would have struggled to see all this as her view would have been distracted by the crowd nearby. Here are some Wiegman composites showing the scene including Mr Newman pushing his child to the ground, and the dispersing crowd so Cabell could see Hester falling near the pergola when the car had just stopped:

The Mayor's car didn't stop at the intersection, it stopped well into Elm Street. The Wiegman film shows the Mayors car cruising around the turn and then stopping a few seconds later. The only cars that stopped on the intersection were the camera cars as shown by the Couch and Darnell films. Dearie Cabell referred to the first shot being fired while she was turning on the intersection. Ergo the next two were fired while she was on Elm Street. No films, photos, or witness statements support the notion of the Mayor's car stopping at the intersection.

That is indeed the Presidential limo in the Wiegman frame and is used to triangulate and connect that Wiegman frame to Z447 in the Zapruder film. Sadly there was no film of the Mayor's car stop but we know it happened near Z447 as we see the national press pool car behind it with it's brake lights on indicating that the Mayor's car had stopped or was stopping. We next see the national press pool car in the Bell film (the top image here has it's distinctive rear end on the left hand edge between the sprocket holes): Then the Bell film pans to see Charles Hester duck into the pergola shelter which matches the end of the Wiegman film segment (26 seconds in total, or 15 seconds after Z447, if Wiegman was recording at 24 FPS, or a second or two less if it was 29 FPS). We can deduce therefore than the cars stopped very briefly for a few seconds, and no more, as the cars had both passed the grassy knoll steps well before the Wiegman film ended. The Mayor's car stops for about 4 seconds in the animation, which dovetails perfectly with all of the other action recorded by the films at the time, and even some things that weren't recorded such as Hargis running across the road towards the lamppost. As far as I know there are no loose ends in the animation, and the film evidence matches perfectly with the larger body of witness evidence. Yes, there are the occasional disagreements between witnesses, but overall the continuity of events can be worked out with no sinister loose ends remaining. Dearie Cabell said she was passing the TSBD when the first shot was fired, which fits the animation perfectly if the first shot was fired Z180-Z220. The Zapruder film shows the Mayor's car behind the spectators behind the reflecting pool at exactly Z180 so this part of the sequence is very accurately known. The Wiegman film and the Dorman film prove that the Mayors car didn't stop until it was well down Elm Street and well past the traffic lights as shown in the Z447 Wiegman frame earlier in this thread. The films match each other, and they match Dearie Cabell's testimony. Many parts of this case are unclear or untrustworthy, but this part of the Dealey Plaza sequence is crystal clear and highly reliable thanks to the films and the witnesses.