Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Animators


Chris Davidson
 Share

Recommended Posts

It would appear that the animators involved in the fabrication of the Z film had problems with this lady. (red arrow)

If she is not levitating, where do her legs/body appear?

Follow the ground between those in front of her. Yes that gap that extends to Houston St. Let me know when you see her legs/feet/shoes/body go by, to match her head.

I believe her size was troubling too.

The two frame animation is a height comparison between this lady and the gentleman's head that obscure's her, at two different points in the movie. ( tiny red lines)

She must have shrunk in about a second.

Maybe she was standing on a step stool.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that the animators involved in the fabrication of the Z film had problems with this lady. (red arrow)

If she is not levitating, where do her legs/body appear?

Follow the ground between those in front of her. Yes that gap that extends to Houston St. Let me know when you see her legs/feet/shoes/body go by, to match her head.

I believe her size was troubling too.

The two frame animation is a height comparison between this lady and the gentleman's head that obscure's her, at two different points in the movie. ( tiny red lines)

She must have shrunk in about a second.

Maybe she was standing on a step stool.

chris

Chris...that must be Tina Towner, who is not by her father on the corner.

She was wearing a light blue sweater. Very odd movements.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that the animators involved in the fabrication of the Z film had problems with this lady. (red arrow)

If she is not levitating, where do her legs/body appear?

Follow the ground between those in front of her. Yes that gap that extends to Houston St. Let me know when you see her legs/feet/shoes/body go by, to match her head.

I believe her size was troubling too.

The two frame animation is a height comparison between this lady and the gentleman's head that obscure's her, at two different points in the movie. ( tiny red lines)

She must have shrunk in about a second.

Maybe she was standing on a step stool.

chris

Chris...in the center of the frame is a FAT LADY IN BLACK and a SMALL LADY

with a red scarf beside her. As I pointed out years ago, they have ONLY

THREE LEGS TOTAL, NOT FOUR.

Please do a study of these two women and see if you can locate the missing leg

with a slow animated gif.

Thanks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that the animators involved in the fabrication of the Z film had problems with this lady. (red arrow)

If she is not levitating, where do her legs/body appear?

Follow the ground between those in front of her. Yes that gap that extends to Houston St. Let me know when you see her legs/feet/shoes/body go by, to match her head.

I believe her size was troubling too.

The two frame animation is a height comparison between this lady and the gentleman's head that obscure's her, at two different points in the movie. ( tiny red lines)

She must have shrunk in about a second.

Maybe she was standing on a step stool.

chris

Hey Chris;

Nice catch on the anomoly there. I do give it a chance that her step was obscured by what is in front of her; i.e. people. As a student of Zapruder, I think any and all avenues to knowledge should be investigated. Have a look at my article Harper Fragment Seen in Zapruder - it's on page three of the forum today. In my conclusions you will read that I straddle the line on alteration. Has Zapruder been changed? Sure - ripping out frames 207 to 211 (at least) is alteration. What I don't get honestly about those I would call "extreme alterationists" is the overall changes that have been made and for what (specific) purpose. In my article you'll read I do entertain the idea of a little hanky panky at frame 313, but even if that did occur; it doesn't seem to have really obscured much - the President's body motions are there and very believable (sidetrack - if you're like me and believe he was hit with a frangible); the splash of blood is congruent with simultaneous shots (as I believe), the skull fragment flying off and drifting under the limousine, proves the veracity of the film - at least in those most important frames. (313-337).

Your expertise with the technical side of things is impressive. Keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the splash of blood is congruent with simultaneous shots (as I believe), the skull fragment flying off and drifting under the limousine, proves the veracity of the film - at least in those most important frames. (313-337).

Something like this Frank? or what combination of directions?

Duncan

2shots.gif

I'm really pretty much open on which precise direction the simultaneous shot might have come from. I don't think Zapruder really gives us that much clarity on it - certainly no one has ever claimed to see a bullet streak (pre impact) in the film. I would go with the 313 from behind, 314 nothing, 315 from the knoll hypothesis put across by, I believe Grodin. In researching my article I was surprised at the amount of North portico evidence. Sorry I can't right now remember where I saw it (Marrs Crossfire?) but there is testimony from rail workers watching from the overpass seeing muzzle flashes in the North portico area. Actually seems like a lack of research in that area. North portico offers access (or exit) to the TSBD; easy access by car (especially a marked DPD one); and several get away possibilities -mixing with the crowd, across the train yard, or a quick walk to the downtown area.

As far as your diagram; yes it's a good possibility. The bit of motion (in the bushes) seen in Muchmore is farther back, farther east (back edge of the bushes) than where you have badgeman. I have problems with badgeman. The guy doesn't look like he's concentrating. His eye (head) does not seem to be close enough to the rifle/sight to be believable as someone firing a rifle. He looks to be holding a rifle in front of his chest rather than up to his eye.

I would certainly like to see a bigger blow up of the guy farther down the fence area (to the west). Could you post that image alone?

Thanks for your time

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that the animators involved in the fabrication of the Z film had problems with this lady. (red arrow)

If she is not levitating, where do her legs/body appear?

Follow the ground between those in front of her. Yes that gap that extends to Houston St. Let me know when you see her legs/feet/shoes/body go by, to match her head.

I believe her size was troubling too.

The two frame animation is a height comparison between this lady and the gentleman's head that obscure's her, at two different points in the movie. ( tiny red lines)

She must have shrunk in about a second.

Maybe she was standing on a step stool.

chris

Chris...that must be Tina Towner, who is not by her father on the corner.

She was wearing a light blue sweater. Very odd movements.

Jack

The Towner family from Dorman's movie.

Tina is wearing dark shoes with white socks. Nice contrast

Mrs.Towner is wearing dark shoes. Socks?

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that the animators involved in the fabrication of the Z film had problems with this lady. (red arrow)

If she is not levitating, where do her legs/body appear?

Follow the ground between those in front of her. Yes that gap that extends to Houston St. Let me know when you see her legs/feet/shoes/body go by, to match her head.

I believe her size was troubling too.

The two frame animation is a height comparison between this lady and the gentleman's head that obscure's her, at two different points in the movie. ( tiny red lines)

She must have shrunk in about a second.

Maybe she was standing on a step stool.

chris

Chris...in the center of the frame is a FAT LADY IN BLACK and a SMALL LADY

with a red scarf beside her. As I pointed out years ago, they have ONLY

THREE LEGS TOTAL, NOT FOUR.

Please do a study of these two women and see if you can locate the missing leg

with a slow animated gif.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

It appears the lady with the red scarf is the problem.

Here is a time lapse animation.

Put your mouse cursor on each leg as it plays.

Lady in black owns 2 legs. Lady with scarf owns 1.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that the animators involved in the fabrication of the Z film had problems with this lady. (red arrow)

If she is not levitating, where do her legs/body appear?

Follow the ground between those in front of her. Yes that gap that extends to Houston St. Let me know when you see her legs/feet/shoes/body go by, to match her head.

I believe her size was troubling too.

The two frame animation is a height comparison between this lady and the gentleman's head that obscure's her, at two different points in the movie. ( tiny red lines)

She must have shrunk in about a second.

Maybe she was standing on a step stool.

chris

Chris...in the center of the frame is a FAT LADY IN BLACK and a SMALL LADY

with a red scarf beside her. As I pointed out years ago, they have ONLY

THREE LEGS TOTAL, NOT FOUR.

Please do a study of these two women and see if you can locate the missing leg

with a slow animated gif.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

It appears the lady with the red scarf is the problem.

Here is a time lapse animation.

Put your mouse cursor on each leg as it plays.

Lady in black owns 2 legs. Lady with scarf owns 1.

chris

Thanks, Chris. Then you agree that a leg is missing?

I think two of the legs belong to the smaller lady and

the big lady just has one.

Could you enlarge it and crop it to just the two ladies

with very slow animation? At that small size it it

difficult to tell. Looks like two THIN legs go with the

small lady.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that the animators involved in the fabrication of the Z film had problems with this lady. (red arrow)

If she is not levitating, where do her legs/body appear?

Follow the ground between those in front of her. Yes that gap that extends to Houston St. Let me know when you see her legs/feet/shoes/body go by, to match her head.

I believe her size was troubling too.

The two frame animation is a height comparison between this lady and the gentleman's head that obscure's her, at two different points in the movie. ( tiny red lines)

She must have shrunk in about a second.

Maybe she was standing on a step stool.

chris

Hey Chris;

Nice catch on the anomoly there. I do give it a chance that her step was obscured by what is in front of her; i.e. people. As a student of Zapruder, I think any and all avenues to knowledge should be investigated. Have a look at my article Harper Fragment Seen in Zapruder - it's on page three of the forum today. In my conclusions you will read that I straddle the line on alteration. Has Zapruder been changed? Sure - ripping out frames 207 to 211 (at least) is alteration. What I don't get honestly about those I would call "extreme alterationists" is the overall changes that have been made and for what (specific) purpose. In my article you'll read I do entertain the idea of a little hanky panky at frame 313, but even if that did occur; it doesn't seem to have really obscured much - the President's body motions are there and very believable (sidetrack - if you're like me and believe he was hit with a frangible); the splash of blood is congruent with simultaneous shots (as I believe), the skull fragment flying off and drifting under the limousine, proves the veracity of the film - at least in those most important frames. (313-337).

Your expertise with the technical side of things is impressive. Keep up the good work.

Thanks Frank,

Should we see her Black Shoes in this animation?

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...