Jump to content

Help in correlating timing to z-frames


Recommended Posts

It will have to remain a mystery - but we'll all be taking a look at 'As it HAPPENED' shortly. Maybe 35 minutes explains the poor quality of the alteration. Even if the alleged third man was genuine, it fails to explain the man squatting - which I brought to Jack White's attention 4 years ago.

You could bring a stain where some careless moron sat their water glass on a copy print to Jack's attention and it would somehow be turned into an alteration. Also, Muchmore's film doesn't show anyone there either.

One side note ... I have often wondered how it was that someone could look at the stars and by merely seeing no more than three in a row that they could come up with some elaborate image. I think you have demonstrated here how that process is accomplished.

By the way, what they are claiming to be a car parked back in the RR yard in Mary's photo is the top of a tree. There is not a chance in the world that with her upward angle that she could capture a car sitting back in the RR yard.

The car has nothing to do with why I posted the photo. And the Muchmore film NOT containing the man on the steps is one of the reasons for the thread.

Here's another no-one on the steps from Muchmore.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I still believe that much has been altered.

For instance, take a Couch frame and a Darnell frame.

Darnell films at street level on the South side of Elm.

Couch films from the street, on the seat top of a convertible.

The Darnell film shows what appears to be the bush/tree behind the wall, not a car.

The problem is revealed in the animation.

It's playing quickly on purpose. So you can see how the left side of the wall aligns, and the right.

We have 2 professional cameramen, and both shoot films at the same angle.

Neither of which is level to the horizon.

Did they both go to the same filmographers school?

BTW, that's a 5 degree camera tilt.

One camera man is standing and the other sitting down in a car ... not much difference between camera heights, but the rotation of the pyracantha bush to the shelter shows obviously different angles to the knoll IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another no-one on the steps from Muchmore.

chris

Hi Chris - not sure what that is - but it's interesting.

Here's the gist of it. Used your Muchmore frame and a high quality Moorman frame which I received from a good source for the comparison.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chris - not sure what that is - but it's interesting.

Anyone consider the light spot as sunlight making it through a break in the foliage in Muchmore's film?

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe that much has been altered.

For instance, take a Couch frame and a Darnell frame.

Darnell films at street level on the South side of Elm.

Couch films from the street, on the seat top of a convertible.

The Darnell film shows what appears to be the bush/tree behind the wall, not a car.

The problem is revealed in the animation.

It's playing quickly on purpose. So you can see how the left side of the wall aligns, and the right.

We have 2 professional cameramen, and both shoot films at the same angle.

Neither of which is level to the horizon.

Did they both go to the same filmographers school?

BTW, that's a 5 degree camera tilt.

One camera man is standing and the other sitting down in a car ... not much difference between camera heights, but the rotation of the pyracantha bush to the shelter shows obviously different angles to the knoll IMO.

Pyracantha bush lined up.

Top of walls lined up.

Pergola corners vertical, marked by straight red lines.

If there is a rotational difference, that square green box between the red lines should show it.

It doesn't. There is NO difference in camera angle between Darnell and Couch.

What are the chances?

There is a difference in lens settings, obviously.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe that much has been altered.

For instance, take a Couch frame and a Darnell frame.

Darnell films at street level on the South side of Elm.

Couch films from the street, on the seat top of a convertible.

The Darnell film shows what appears to be the bush/tree behind the wall, not a car.

The problem is revealed in the animation.

It's playing quickly on purpose. So you can see how the left side of the wall aligns, and the right.

We have 2 professional cameramen, and both shoot films at the same angle.

Neither of which is level to the horizon.

Did they both go to the same filmographers school?

BTW, that's a 5 degree camera tilt.

One camera man is standing and the other sitting down in a car ... not much difference between camera heights, but the rotation of the pyracantha bush to the shelter shows obviously different angles to the knoll IMO.

Pyracantha bush lined up.

Top of walls lined up.

Pergola corners vertical, marked by straight red lines.

If there is a rotational difference, that square green box between the red lines should show it.

It doesn't. There is NO difference in camera angle between Darnell and Couch.

What are the chances?

There is a difference in lens settings, obviously.

chris

Suspend your disbelief for a moment. Suppose there was a car in that location.

It is plainly seen in Nix. Suppose that the car was connected to the assassination.

Suppose the car was the HONEST JOE PAWN SHOP vehicle as some researchers

believe, and it was there to supply/hide guns. Suppose retouchers replaced the

car with tree folliage, when there is no tree there but railroad tracks. There was

testimony that the Honest Joe vehicle drove into the parking lot. OK. Now

go back to believing whatever you want.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris...you are onto something, but I am not sure what it is.

Make a comparison to Moorman, as I just did, attached.

Some things seem from the same exact viewpoint, but other

things seem wildly different.

If anyone does not understand my analysis, I will be glad to

explain further. White lines show points that are same. Color

markings show differences of same points, except blue line

show Newman and Altgens heads at same height below hedge.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pyracantha bush lined up.

Top of walls lined up.

Pergola corners vertical, marked by straight red lines.

If there is a rotational difference, that square green box between the red lines should show it.

It doesn't. There is NO difference in camera angle between Darnell and Couch.

What are the chances?

There is a difference in lens settings, obviously.

chris

Do you not notice the bushes against the wall rising and falling so much between films ... do you still want to say the two filming angles are the same? I can't!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris...you are onto something, but I am not sure what it is.

Why does Jack's response not surprise me. Just what this forum needs is another alteration claim based on a lack of understanding concerning perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pyracantha bush lined up.

Top of walls lined up.

Pergola corners vertical, marked by straight red lines.

If there is a rotational difference, that square green box between the red lines should show it.

It doesn't. There is NO difference in camera angle between Darnell and Couch.

What are the chances?

There is a difference in lens settings, obviously.

chris

Do you not notice the bushes against the wall rising and falling so much between films ... do you still want to say the two filming angles are the same? I can't!!!

Bill,

It might help if I size them for you. Rising bushes are caused by len's setting's.

As I said before, the lens settings were different, not the angle.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find odd about the remark above is that regardless if you have seen the NBC show 'As it Happens" which shows Moorman's photo as it was still in her possession only 35 minutes after the shooting ... all three men are on the steps. You may not be able to ID them as to who they are, but seeing them standing there is quite obvious. How you figure that one of them was added after the fact, presumably by Moorman in the alteration lab hidden inside the lining of her coat, will remain a mystery to me.

NBC 'As it happens' - ripped about 7 frames, total crap on quality. I was forced to create a composite and fool with the contrast a lot to get detail. The man on the stairs is just a blur. Anyway - the photo appears to have aired after 4:00pm CT. Bill - do you have a better copy?

I am also curious to know how you managed to fix that timeframe of 35 minutes and what your point is about the NCS show - not following you. Can you provide the source info? Sure looks to me like we are looking at a minimum of three hours that the photo was NOT in her possession until the time that it aired. What am I missing? Are you suggesting that the polaroid remained in Moorman's possession up until the time that the photo was aired? That was not clear to me at all when I watched the sequence.

I ran to Dealey Plaza, a few yards away, and this is where I first learned the president had been shot. I found two young women, Mary Moorman and Jean Lollis Hill, near the curb on Dealey Plaza. Both had been within a few feet of the spot where Kennedy was shot, and Mary Moorman had taken a Polaroid picture of Jackie Kennedy cradling the president's head in her arms. It was a poorly focused and snowy picture, but, as far as I knew then, it was the only such picture in existence. I wanted the picture and I also wanted the two women's eyewitness accounts of the shooting.

I told Mrs. Moorman I wanted the picture for the Times Herald and she agreed. I then told both of them I would like for them to come with me to the courthouse pressroom so I could get their stories and both agreed. . . . I called the city desk and told Tom LePere, an assistant city editor, that the president had been shot. "Really? Let me switch you to rewrite," LePere said, unruffled as if it were a routine story. I briefly told the rewrite man what had happened and then put Mary Moorman and Jean Lollis Hill on the phone so they could tell what they had seen in their own words. Mrs. Moorman, in effect, said she was so busy taking the picture that she really didn't see anything. Mrs. Hill, however, gave a graphic account of seeing Kennedy shot a few feet in front of her eyes.

Before long, the pressroom became filled with other newsmen. Mrs. Hill told her story over and over again for television and radio. Each time, she would embellish it a bit until her version began to sound like Dodge City at high noon. She told of a man running up toward the now-famed grassy knoll pursued by other men she believed to be policemen. In the meantime, I had talked to other witnesses and at one point I told Mrs. Hill she shouldn't be saying some of the things she was telling television and radio reporters. I was merely trying to save her later embarrassment but she apparently attached intrigue to my warning.

As the afternoon wore on, a deputy sheriff found out that I had two eyewitnesses in the pressroom, and he told me to ask them not to leave the courthouse until they could be questioned by law enforcement people. I relayed the information to Mrs. Moorman and Mrs. Hill.

All this time, I was wearing a lapel card identifying myself as a member of the press. It was also evident we were in the pressroom and the room was so designated by a sign on the door.

I am mentioning all this because a few months later Mrs. Hill told the Warren Commission bad things about me. She told the commission that I had grabbed Mrs. Moorman and her camera down on Dealey Plaza and that I wouldn't let her go even though she was crying. She added that I "stole" the picture from Mrs. Moorman. Mrs. Hill then said I had forced them to come with me to a strange room and then wouldn't let them leave. She also said I had told her what she could and couldn't say. Her testimony defaming me is all in Vol. VI of the Hearings Before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, the Warren Report.

Why Mrs. Hill said all this has never been clear to me -- I later theorized she got swept up in the excitement of having the cameras and lights on her and microphones shoved into her face. She was suffering from a sort of star-is-born syndrome, I later figured."

Mrs. HILL. Featherstone of the Times Herald and --

Mr. SPECTER. Dallas Times Herald?

Mrs. HILL. That's right. . . . [He was] holding her by the arm and her camera. and telling her she had to go with him, I started trying to shake his hand loose and grab the camera and telling him that "No, we couldn't go, we had to leave." . . . I was just wanting to get out of there and to get away and he kept telling me -- he insisted we go with him and . . . he just practically ran us up to the court house, I guess it is, and put us in this little room . . . we couldn't leave. He kept standing in front of the door and he would let a cameraman in or someone to interview us and they were shooting things in our faces, and he wouldn't let us out.(2)

I looked across the street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and I started running over there. By the time I got up to the rail road tracks some policeman that I suppose were [sic] in the motorcade or near by had also arrived and was turning us back and as I came back down the hill Mr. Featherstone of the Times Herald had gotten to Mary and ask her for her picture she had taken of the President, and he brought us to the press room downn [sic] at the Sheriffs office and ask to stay.
Mrs. HILL - There was a man holding Mary's arm and she was crying and he had hold of her camera trying to take it with him.

Mr. SPECTER - Who was that?

Mrs. HILL - Featherstone of the Times Herald and--

Mr. SPECTER - Dallas Times Herald?

Mrs. HILL - That's right. I ran up there and told him we had to leave. She had been impressing upon me for an hour and a half---we hadn't even gone down to see the President that day---we had been doing other things and we got down there and we just decided we would stay, but she had been impressing upon me for an hour and a half, the whole time we had been there, that we had to beat the traffic out of there, and she knows her way around real well, so I knew she could get out and we could beat the traffic, and we were just going to run for the car as fast as we could. It was parked up here on Houston. We were going to run and get out of there before the people started milling around so we wouldn't be in that traffic, and I don't know---we had been talking about it so long and she had drilled me so much that we must get out of here. and when I came back and I found her crying and him standing there holding her camera, and holding her, I mean holding her by the arm and her camera. and telling her she had to go with him, I started trying to shake his hand loose and grab the camera and telling him that "No, we couldn't go, we had to leave." and I guess by that time I was beginning--until then I have no conscious feeling of any scaredness or excitement or anything. I mean, you know, it is just like something that's passing in front of you, and I mean, I wasn't worried or upset in any way until I got back there and then 1 had a sense of urgency, I just knew I wanted to get out of there and all I could think of--and I don't think the full impact of all that had happened really hit me then, because I was just wanting to get out of there and to get away and he kept telling me--he insisted we go with him and he just practically ran us, and he got-they were throwing up a police net around that building at the time, and he just practically ran us up to the court house, I guess it is, and put us in this little room and I don't know why we were so dumb that day unless it was just the sequence of events, that everything was just happening so fast we really didn't even think, but we couldn't leave. He kept standing in front of the door and he would let a cameraman in or someone to interview us and they were shooting things in our faces, and he wouldn't let us out.

Mr. SPECTER - Who was interviewing you---newspaper reporters?

Mrs. HILL - Newspaper reporters and radio and TV people and a man from---- a man named Coker John, or John Coker.

Mr. SPECTER - From where?

Mrs. HILL - As I get it, he is a sort of freelance writer, and I think he was on an assignment then. He came out---I'm not sure---I thought it was for Life or Post, but he came in there and he was shooting pictures for-I think he was shooting them for TV, but he came out to the house about 2 weeks later with this bunch of men, about four of them, three or four came out, and that's the second time I saw him, because he said, "You remember me. I saw you in the pressroom that day."

Mr. SPECTER - Is that Miss Hill or Mrs. Hill? [jackass]

Mrs. HILL - It is Mrs. Hill, and he said "I saw you in the pressroom that day," and I said, "Yes." I remembered him because I saw him more than any---now, I don't remember where I am here.

Mr. SPECTER - You were telling me about what happened to you at the county courthouse, and then you digressed from that to tell me about John coming to see you in your home. Let's go back to the county courthouse and let me ask you if you gave an affidavit to the sheriff that day?

Mrs. HILL - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, did you talk to anybody from the Federal Government that day?

Mrs. HILL - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - Whom did you talk to?

Mrs. HILL - I don't know.

Mr. SPECTER - What agency was the man from, if you know?

Mrs. HILL - Secret Service.

Mr. SPECTER - How many times have you talked to somebody from the Secret Service in this case altogether?

Mrs. HILL - I would say the only time I talked to the Secret Service men was when I was down at the courthouse that afternoon, just before they let us leave, and I think---now, we officially sat down and supposedly were giving a story to the Secret Service men.

Mr. SPECTER - And, did they write down what you were telling them?

Mrs. HILL - I don't think they did.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you sign anything?

Mrs. HILL - Oh, well, I signed my statement that I made over in the sheriff's office.

Mr. SPECTER - Then, how about for the Secret Service men, did you sign anything?

Mrs. HILL - No, I don't think we signed anything over there, because they just took us in a little room---

Mr. SPECTER - What did you tell the Secret Service men?

Mrs. HILL - As well as I remember, we talked to so many that day.

Mr. SPECTER - Well, did you tell everybody about the same thing you have told me here today?

Mrs. HILL - Yes, except that I didn't go into that stuff with the shots because no one ever asked me, no one ever detailed it like that, but they were interested that day in those pictures and they got them all from us.

Mr. SPECTER - And also because you saw this man running away.

Mrs. HILL - That's right.

Mr. SPECTER - Do you think perhaps that you had the impression that that came from the knoll exclusively cause you saw the man running away? And your reaction that that must have 'been the man who did the shooting?

Mrs. HILL - It could have been very well--it could have been.Mr. SPECTER - Now, are there any other factors which led you to think that the shots came from the knoll, factors other than those you have already told me about?

Mrs. HILL - Except that I believe these men thought so that night.

Mr. SPECTER - Well, never mind the men, but focus just on what your reaction was at the time.

Mrs. HILL - That's what I thought. At the time I thought that there was more than one person shooting, as I said before.

Mr. SPECTER - Well, you have already told me about that and you told me about the source of the knoll, and you told me why you thought that was more than one person, and now, what I'm trying to get at is why you thought they came from the knoll---was it first because the way the shot sounded and secondly, because the man ran away, and then I asked you the second question---did you think perhaps they came from the knoll exclusively because you saw the man run away, and you said you thought that might be the case.

Mrs. HILL - Could be.

When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself. I heard three or four shots in all. After the pictures I took were developed, the Picture [sic] of President Kennedy showed him slumped over. When the pictures were developed, they came out real light. These pictures have been turned over to Officers [sic] investigating this incident.
: Did you take any photographs?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Mrs. Moorman, do you presently have in your possession a photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And when was this photograph taken?

A: As the Presidential limousine drew across from me.

Q: Did -- and would you please hand me the photograph?

MR. ALFORD: What is the next number?

THE MINUTE CLERK: Fifty.

MR. DYMOND: Your Honor please, we object to this witness' testimony on the ground that it is irrelevant to the issues in this case.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception making the objection, the testimony of this witness and all the testimony at this point and the reason for the objection and the Court's ruling part of the bill.

BY MR. ALFORD:

Q: Now, Mrs. Moorman, in relation to the photograph you have just handed me and which I have marked State 50, I would ask you to look at this photograph and tell the Gentlemen of the Jury and the Court whether or not the photograph is in the condition it was in at a short period of time after it was taken?

A: No, it is not.

Q: How does this condition now differ from then?

A: It has lightened in color which is due to the film but it also has fingerprints on it.

Q: Mrs. Moorman, how long after you took this photograph did you first see it?

A: Probably a minute or just minutes.

Q: And do you at this time identify this photograph as a photograph you took of the President?

MR. DYMOND: Objection to the leading of the witness.

BY MR. ALFORD:

Q: Where was this photograph taken?

A: In Dealey Plaza.

Q: And did you take it?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Now, Mrs. Moorman, I show you what for purposes of identification I have marked State 52, however prior to showing you this exhibit I would ask you what happened if anything to your photograph after you took it.

A: Immediately after taking this photograph there was a matter of confusion and I did cross the street and a man came up to me and asked me if I --

MR. DYMOND: Object to anything a man may have said.

THE COURT: Don't tell us what anyone told you but you may tell us what you did.

THE WITNESS: I was asked to remove --

MR. DYMOND: I object to what was asked, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is a good objection. Someone said something to you and what did you do as a result of what the person said to you?

THE WITNESS: I removed the picture out of the camera.

BY MR. ALFORD:

Q: What did you do then with the picture?

A: I looked at it.

Q: Did this photograph remain in your possession from the time you took it until today?

A: No, it did not.

Q: Whose possession other than yourself has this photograph been?

A: A reporter and the Secret Service and the FBI that I know of.

Mrs. MOORMAN advises that the photograph she took showing the police motorcycles preceeding President KENNEDY's car and also showing the Texas School Book Depository Building was given by her to Secret Service Agents JOHN JOE HOWLETT and BILL PATTERSON shortly before 4:00 p.m. November 22, 1963. The second photograph taken at the time she heard the shots showed the President slumping sideways in the automobile. She furnished this photograph to Bureau Agents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the best I can do with this crap - toss $28.95 + shipping into the hole. However, I am satisfied personally that the man on the steps is still there - in which case, 11/22/63 in the afternoon - which is good enough for me. Fort Worth Star Press, Jack White's copies, Four Days in November, NBC news, etc. The Boston Travellers Moorman as reprinted by Trask - great for supporting the nonsense involved with the cover-up - that weekend.

Pay no attention to that man... on the stairs. The Great Oz has spoken.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

It might help if I size them for you. Rising bushes are caused by len's setting's.

As I said before, the lens settings were different, not the angle.

chris

Chris, can you cite a data source for your remarks? I don't buy the wall and other landmarks lining up and not the bushes. Did you not notice the spacing of the sunlight on the fence from the Hudson tree to the corner of the fence being different. Does not one small trunked tree show up beyond the Hudson tree from one picture to another ... I believe it does.

In post #86 ... IMO ... running a flash clip faster than what the average eye can keep up with only conceals - not reveals information. But even at that I can see the east-most wall of the pedestal turning - the notch in the wall changing, not to mention several other things, thus the angle that each camera man took his images at was different from the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is where we can pick up the .60 of a second missing.

If we examine Roberts again, he's clearly off on the three wheeler. But what would make him think one of the three men 'allegedly' seen on the stairs, was a photographer? Where do we see anyone ducking their head and running away with the Police in close pursuit?

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...