Chris Davidson Posted May 9, 2008 Author Share Posted May 9, 2008 Just what film/version are we talking about? 15 seconds of film, we're missing the other 11 seconds. 5 seconds from point of first impact til the limo reaches the underpass, which actually takes 15 seconds, according to the fiasco passed off as the official film. Looks like they included too many facts. Please do send along more articles. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 9, 2008 Author Share Posted May 9, 2008 If a 2 frame (101+167) matched series is hard to swallow, how about a 12 frame series.All frames on bottom have been rotated 1 degree CCW, and then superimposed over the top frames. I think the odds have just Decreased tremendously for that handheld cameraman. IMO I think you will have to click on the animation to play it, as it is quite large. Enjoy. chris I personally find nothing odd about someone having several background reference points to align their camera with and keeping their camera within a few degrees of the horizontal plane, especially when there is little to no panning required. What Zapruder didn't do was keep his left to right plane the same. Just a reminder for those with any doubts. A difference of 3 frames with no stops. 1/3 second time span. I wasn't able to match Z. Anyone care to try with their camera? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 LEADING into frames 160-165 approx (the alignment frames), there is an appearance of film damage at frame 154+157.Why does Jackie's hat appear twice in frame 157? Looks like 2 distinct individual hats, no blurring involved. Another coincidence!!!! chris I am surprised that David Healy doesn't want to answer your question, but seeing how he isn't interested in helping people understand things ... let me give it a shot ... The film was broken - it had to be spliced back together - in doing so they overlap one broken frame over another and glue it into place. Because the limo advanced forward in those frames ... we see the top of Jackie's hat in both frames and side by side. Coincidence ... no! Common sense ... yes! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Just what film/version are we talking about?15 seconds of film, we're missing the other 11 seconds. 5 seconds from point of first impact til the limo reaches the underpass, which actually takes 15 seconds, according to the fiasco passed off as the official film. Looks like they included too many facts. Please do send along more articles. chris Is it your opinion that the person writing the article had actually seen the film and put a stop watch on it ??? If you are going to reply on initial reports from various early news sources, then you will be entertained for a long time to come. There had only been a limited showing of the film by the time this article was written, thus unless the reporter was present at the time ... the information has been passed along by word of mouth. Trying to make something out of that seems like a waste of time, but what the heck ... you obviously have lots of time to waste. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Just what film/version are we talking about?15 seconds of film, we're missing the other 11 seconds. 5 seconds from point of first impact til the limo reaches the underpass, which actually takes 15 seconds, according to the fiasco passed off as the official film. Looks like they included too many facts. Please do send along more articles. chris Is it your opinion that the person writing the article had actually seen the film and put a stop watch on it ??? If you are going to reply on initial reports from various early news sources, then you will be entertained for a long time to come. There had only been a limited showing of the film by the time this article was written, thus unless the reporter was present at the time ... the information has been passed along by word of mouth. Trying to make something out of that seems like a waste of time, but what the heck ... you obviously have lots of time to waste. Bill you obviously have lots of time to waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 The film was broken - it had to be spliced back together - in doing so they overlap one broken frame over another and glue it into place. Because the limo advanced forward in those frames ... we see the top of Jackie's hat in both frames and side by side. Coincidence ... no! Common sense ... yes! Bill[/b] Sounds like an alteration was made. Broken, spliced, overlap, broken frame and glue. I'm glad such good care was given to the most important film in the 20th century. Was it sent out to Fotomat 1hr photo developing. All films and photos for $.99. Justify it if you must. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 Is it your opinion that the person writing the article had actually seen the film and put a stop watch on it ??? If you are going to reply on initial reports from various early news sources, then you will be entertained for a long time to come. There had only been a limited showing of the film by the time this article was written, thus unless the reporter was present at the time ... the information has been passed along by word of mouth. Trying to make something out of that seems like a waste of time, but what the heck ... you obviously have lots of time to waste. Bill Bill, Why don't you find the writer/reporter and find out if they viewed the film. (Common Sense) I'll waste my time presenting photos for all to see. (Just love it) This way, you can waste your time responding. I think forum members have enough (Common Sense) to make up their own minds. Still waiting for that 95% telephoto reproduction, among many others. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Bill,Why don't you find the writer/reporter and find out if they viewed the film. Seems like a fair challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Bill,Why don't you find the writer/reporter and find out if they viewed the film. (Common Sense) By the time the article was written ... the Zapruder film had a select showing that only a hand full of people had attended. I seem to recall that this information has been detailed in both of Trask's books. That reporters name isn't among them. So is it not fair to say that he had not watched the film, but had gotten his information second hand? In other words ... how would you go about solving this problem .... 7 + ? = 12 ... get my drift! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 you obviously have lots of time to waste. How do you figure that, Jack??? You create illustrations that must have taken considerable time, which takes only a fraction of that time to pick out the flaws in what you've written. So who has the most time to waste! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 Bill,Why don't you find the writer/reporter and find out if they viewed the film. Seems like a fair challenge. micro-managing these days, or simply vetting posts for Miller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 (edited) micro-managing these days, or simply vetting posts for Miller? "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years" Edited May 11, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 (edited) Information I obtained through Gary Mack .... "Hi Bill, Unfortunately, the Associated Press article does not mention the name of the reporter who saw the film and reported on its contents. But whoever it was saw and explained an extremely important fact: 15 seconds elapsed from the beginning of the assassination to when the car entered the triple underpass. Is that true? Let's check. The story refers to JFK being hit in the neck (no direction is implied) and later entering an underpass. The frames from when JFK first appears to have been hit vary from 210 to 223; therefore, the math is simple: 486-210=276 divided by 18.3 frames per second = 15 seconds. Using the later frame, 223, works out this way: 486-223=263 divided by 18.3 frames per second = 14.4 seconds. So the reporter's 15 second interpretation is deadly accurate and confirms that, as of November 25, no film frames or limo stops had been removed as of that date. And the 15 second length of that section of the film is the same today as it was then. The Associated Press reporter's early report proves beyond any question whatsoever that the intact, uncut, unedited film viewed by reporters on Monday, 11/25, is the same film we all see today. There is no known hard evidence of any other explanation. Gary Mack" Edited May 11, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 12, 2008 Author Share Posted May 12, 2008 (edited) Unfortunately, the Associated Press article does not mention the name of the reporter who saw the film and reported on its contents. But whoever it was saw and explained an extremely important fact: 15 seconds elapsed from the beginning of the assassination to when the car entered the triple underpass. Is that true? Let's check. I refer everyone to post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144830 Might want to reread the article and pay special attention to what's in the red boxes. Then compare it to what is in post 177 and the quote at the top of this post. chris Edited May 12, 2008 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Unfortunately, the Associated Press article does not mention the name of the reporter who saw the film and reported on its contents. But whoever it was saw and explained an extremely important fact: 15 seconds elapsed from the beginning of the assassination to when the car entered the triple underpass. Is that true? Let's check.I refer everyone to post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144830 Might want to reread the article and pay special attention to what's in the red boxes. Then compare it to what is in post 177 and the quote at the top of this post. chris Actually, there is considerable information in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now