David Josephs Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) In and around Z303 we easily see the movement of Jean and Mary across the limo trunk We also see Ms Foster as a off colored blob againbs the darker background in 312/313/314/315 I contend we SHOULD be able to see the man to Altgens right and Altgens himself move across the limo's trunk... yet it does not appear that they are reflected there... As we've been contending the film was "altered" using a mask just after we see moorman moving off camera and we have the huge expanse of green... and what "appears" to be a reflection of Foster... I am at a loss as to why all the people along the South of Elm are not seem moving over the trunk's reflection as we saw Hill and Moorman... Just seems to me that the limo reflection HAS to be consistent with the background movement... and it appears not to be DJ Edited February 10, 2017 by David Josephs space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 In and around Z303 we easily see the movement of Jean and Mary across the limo trunk We also see Ms Foster as a off colored blob againbs the darker background in 312/313/314/315 I contend we SHOULD be able to see the man to Altgens right and Altgens himself move across the limo's trunk... yet it does not appear that they are reflected there... As we've been contending the film was "altered" using a mask just after we see moorman moving off camera and we have the huge expanse of green... and what "appears" to be a reflection of Foster... I am at a loss as to why all the people along the South of Elm are not seem moving over the trunk's reflection as we saw Hill and Moorman... Just seems to me that the limo reflection HAS to be consistent with the background movement... and it appears not to be DJ Alteration, schmalteration. Why in the world would the bad guys go to all the trouble of altering the Z film if it still was gonna end up showing JFK's head being thrown violently backward and to the right by the/one of the fatal headshot(s)? --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) There is appears to be blood on the trunk of the car after Zapruder frame 318. Edited September 3, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 In and around Z303 we easily see the movement of Jean and Mary across the limo trunk We also see Ms Foster as a off colored blob againbs the darker background in 312/313/314/315 I contend we SHOULD be able to see the man to Altgens right and Altgens himself move across the limo's trunk... yet it does not appear that they are reflected there... As we've been contending the film was "altered" using a mask just after we see moorman moving off camera and we have the huge expanse of green... and what "appears" to be a reflection of Foster... I am at a loss as to why all the people along the South of Elm are not seem moving over the trunk's reflection as we saw Hill and Moorman... Just seems to me that the limo reflection HAS to be consistent with the background movement... and it appears not to be DJ Well, I think you do see Algten's reflection on the trunk. It's clearer to me in the attached thumbnail of Z348. I wish I had better software and the skills to put a circle around what I'm talking about. In almost a straight line down from Jackie's right elbow is a circular reflection, which could be Altgen's head, and just before that, back to the right, closer to Jackie's right elbow, there's a reflection of something shiny which to me lines up with Altgen's camera which is reflecting some sunlight off of it. Now the reflection on the trunk is at an angle, like 7 o'clock to 1 o'clock because the limo has moved down the street and Zapruder has turned that way as he filmed. We don't get a clearer reflection because Zapruder was almost perpendicular to the limo at or near the time of the fatal head shot as were Hill and Moorman on the other side of Elm Street. Also, the elevation of Zapruder's camera, looking down, and into the car, plays a part in this. He's filming the limo better and has it more within the film frame after the shooting. Just one man's opinion. What's really striking to me in the frames you've posted is the freshly painted yellow stripe on the curb of Elm St. on the side where Hill and Moorman were. That was definitely done that morning after it stopped raining. It's amazing no one photographed or filmed, or ever mentioned seeing anyone doing that. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 In and around Z303 we easily see the movement of Jean and Mary across the limo trunk We also see Ms Foster as a off colored blob againbs the darker background in 312/313/314/315 I contend we SHOULD be able to see the man to Altgens right and Altgens himself move across the limo's trunk... yet it does not appear that they are reflected there... As we've been contending the film was "altered" using a mask just after we see moorman moving off camera and we have the huge expanse of green... and what "appears" to be a reflection of Foster... I am at a loss as to why all the people along the South of Elm are not seem moving over the trunk's reflection as we saw Hill and Moorman... Just seems to me that the limo reflection HAS to be consistent with the background movement... and it appears not to be DJ I know you love math...angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 ..in this case on a variably curved and slanted surface. One thing I've done a lot of is looking at just this kind of stuff (including trying to flip and undistort the leflections on the cars in altegns, engione hoods to see how far up the TSBD building one could possibly see anything. I think it is not possible to see past the third or fourth floor but hypothetically if all variables are taken into account on the best hard copy available a correct algorithm may yield something that may or may not be of relevance. ) and it's remarkable how much of 'expected' reflections are often hard to discern and to match whatever eflection to the right thing. Like Craig said it's in the math. Absent a topography of the limo and a careful calculation of angles the easiest short cut is to know what is there that can be reflected and then to view in slow motion a correct film, not Costellas candy, and track/match reflections.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 Tom... back and to the LEFT - right Tom? Cause our man Hoover was going to reverse the frames so that it appeared that he was thrown forward... but got caught... There was only so much that could be changed... and besides... it can be "explained" away... jet-effects.. corset, whatever... but to remove the entire shot sequence was probably no possible and the BEST EVIDENCE was going to be the final word in any case. Joe... I should add that the man to Altgens' right should also be seen.. if that blob is Foster.... if not... then maybe not I agree on your assessment of the agnles and such - I am simply going on the assumption that if we see Hill/Moorman... and Hill very pronounced... why not see a significant presence of Altgens there... RE: the yellow curbs... GMACK emailed me to say it was SOP for curbs to be painted... happened all the time My questions: 1) what is the EXACT distance between the painted curbs 2) where are the yellow marks on the north side of Elm, Main? IOW - other than the fresh paint on Elm... when the crew was out there painting... where else in DP did they put these yellow curbs and what exactly was the need for these curbs on the South side of Elm... what were they helping/doing at those spots? Seems to me - the only way to see these marks and for them to have any use would be from the North side of Elm I wonder what the criteria is for placing these curbs... GMACK? Craig... yes indeed CL... when Z was pointing toward Jean, she was seen in the trunk's reflection... Altgens is standing at very near the same angle/distance from Z>limo>Altgens as Hill... All I am saying is IF there was a composite done, the REFLECTIONS on the surfaces in the images SHOULD all work. Agreed John, Also nice to have more eyes looking at these things... but if all that was done was removal of frames... the reflection should all be fine... Reading again thru the Z timeline... I am convinced there was another 16mm copy available by Saturday morning... EVERYONE says Zapruder keeps the original and best copy EVERYONE states that Sorrels gets the other two copies ONE goes to the FBI, ONE stays in Dallas MAX PHILLIPS sends yet another copy to Rowley When Zavada states that altering a 8mm film was virtually impossible at the time... he makes no mention of 16mm film yet implies that any and all work on film is done at the 16mm level... The splitting or non-splitting of the original after printing is crucial... I do not think it was split, and I believe copies were made on the same source film as was in the camera... Let's also remember that the FBI does not conclude 18.3 for a few weeks... they did NOT have the camera... supposedly. the NPIC that weekend is tasked with identifying frames with shots yet is not understanding why they are to use 18 instead of 16fps On the first page of CIA450 it shows the confusing over 1) how did Life already place the 1st (190) and 2nd shots (264) with accuracy? 2) And since we already have Life's sequence, are these notes from Sat or Sun? 3) Finally... how can one determine the frames and timing when they did NOT have the camera... yet already KNEW - three weeks ahead of time - what the "accepted" speed of the camera would be. Page 1 also asks WHY 16 versus 18? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 There is appears to be blood on the trunk of the car after Zapruder frame 318. This is one of the things that has always bothered me. I cannot see anything fly onto the back of the limo, nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) This is one of the things that has always bothered me. I cannot see anything fly onto the back of the limo, nothing. I believe the shot from the Knoll was from a handgun, not from a high powered rifle. Also, his head cannot explode twice( I believe this shot occurred after the shot which caused his head to explode). Finally, you can see Jackie swiping at a piece of something that is coming off of his skull in this animation. Notice it comes off his skull as his head is thrust backwards. Edited September 4, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 To David Josephs, David, Foster should not be seen. Take the semi flat area of the trunk and expand that out as a horizontal plane. In order for a reflection to occur on that something has to be above it and the sun has to be in the right spot. Foster has already ducked and is about to hit the dirt. He's too low for a reflection. Altgens, and Hill and Moorman are standing up and from the waist up are more or less sufficiently above the horizontal plane of the trunk for a partial reflection of them to appear on the trunk. As your still asking your initial question you're not understanding the math, the angles, where the sun is, where Zapruder is, that the limousine is moving, that Zapruder turns, the topography of Dealey Plaza, that Elm Street has a slight curve in it and ranges downward about 3 to 4 degrees. What Lamson said is true. The limo is not moving on a flat even surface and Zapruder is not filming alongside on a flat parallel surface. As for the yellow marks, Gary "Not My Real Name" Mack, is full of it. There is nothing routine about this. Those yellow stripes were not put there by the City. People have checked. There is no city work order for them, no paperwork for any public employee to paint yellow stripes on Elm St. in Dealey Plaza that day. They are only there on the one side. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 5, 2012 Author Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Joe... As I am gettiong only GMACK's reply to your email...or in reply to this thread... not sure... He keeps harping on these yellow strips here and there in Dallas... I see them equally spaced on Commerce in an overhead of DP from 1967 ... Whether they were there on 11/22, well, that would be a good question... Joe, it's just as plausible a GK shooter would use those marks anyway... whether they were "fresh" is something I'd like to see a bit more proof on... now that I see them on Commerce... My original on this is very large...I thought I uploaded the big one... if you can find it... you too will easily see the yellow curbs (edit: I hear what you're saying re: the trunk... and that may indeed be Altgens for a frame or two... just a thought. regarding math... when CL finally gets the connection between the DATA and the DECEPTION, - that whole "recreation" bs is just that, the data offered was not to substantiate the RECREATION... but the Zfilm itself - we can talk about math... that he doesn't understand the distances, timing, frame #'s etc... is his own fault. it's basic math and all the whining in the world about RECREATIONS doesn't change it.. the theory has been disproven... Altgens is there, or just barely there, or needn't be... fine. Doesn't change what he said, where he was, and where the WCR tell us he should have been.) Edited March 8, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Joe... As I am gettiong only GMACK's reply to your email...or in reply to this thread... not sure... He keeps harping on these yellow strips here and there in Dallas... I see them equally spaced on Commerce in an overhead of DP from 1967 ... Whether they were there on 11/22, well, that would be a good question... Joe, it's just as plausible a GK shooter would use those marks anyway... whether they were "fresh" is something I'd like to see a bit more proof on... now that I see them on Commerce... My original on this is very large...I thought I uploaded the big one... if you can find it... you too will easily see the yellow curbs (edit: I hear what you're saying re: the trunk... and that may indeed be Altgens for a frame or two... just a thought. regarding math... when CL finally gets the connection between the DATA and the DECEPTION, - that whole "recreation" bs is just that, the data offered was not to substantiate the RECREATION... but the Zfilm itself - we can talk about math... that he doesn't understand the distances, timing, frame #'s etc... is his own fault. it's basic math and all the whining in the world about RECREATIONS doesn't change it.. the theory has been disproven... Altgens is there, or just barely there, or needn't be... fine. Doesn't change what he said, where he was, and where the WCR tell us he should have been.) David, Well, 1967 is irrelevant. Either Hill or Moorman commented on getting yellow paint on their shoes. I think others commented on it too. It was fresh paint, it had rained that night and earlier that day. In order for it to be fresh someone put it there that day. I do believe there were there to help the shooters. I only meant about Lamson that angle of reflection does indeed equal angle of incidence. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Uh...small problem for you dave. Altgens got his distances wrong. He was 70 feet, give or take a few inches from the limo when he took 6, not 30 or 40. That's the ONLY place in the plaza to take number 6, so you can write off his "guess" testimony. Edited September 5, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 David, We see a certain number of postings about film alteration here. Mostly from people who have less than a fundamental grasp of photography and / or physics. Let's put aside the numerous interpretations of photos and films downloaded from the Internet, with their assorted jumble of compression artifacts that no doubt look suspicious to the untrained eye. Jack White - bless him - was the master of that line of research. Just look at his chapter in that God-awful book Murder In Dealey Plaza. Ok, here we go ... ... standby for the bleeding obvious. Sit down. If the photographic record was altered, then it must have been altered in its entirety. Otherwise inconsistencies would prove interference. How then was the entire photographic record of the assassination screened and altered where neccessary? It's absolutely ridiculous to suppose that would even be possible. By all means post something that is a little more than idle curiosity and stop wasting everyone's time. Paul. 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