Zapruder Film Exposed

[Brad Milch]

Thomas, I found re-visiting Pat Speer's website & refreshing my memory on what Pat pointed out several years ago about the wrong shot locations early investigators kept changing around & conflicting surveys helpful to try & keep up with Chris's present analysis.

If I read both researchers correctly, early government investigators guided by still photos from the Zapruder film & professional surveyors couldn't figure out where exactly JFK was shot on Elm Street OR some hanky panky was taking place to accommodate the WC's single assassin theory.

Chris is using the science & laws of mathematics to explain what the alleged hanky panky was (in my opinion).

Among several oddities, Pat observed that the Z-313 headshot was marked with a traffic cone several yards closer to the North pergola sidewalk steps than where it appears in the Z-film seen by the public (and currently marked with a historic landmark plaque today). He also points out the 3rd shot is indicated as almost parallel to the sidewalk steps (this is indicated by a string in the model the WC used that is on exhibit at the 6th Floor Museum & also is published in the WC volumes as a photo booklet).

I remember the late visuals analyst, Jack White, also examining limo travel oddities in the Z-film. Like Chris, Jack was intrigued with 'Position A' & a seemingly increase in limo distance travel late in the Z-film unjustified by the amount of frames the Z-film demonstrates the travel distance in. Jack was posting his analysis of those areas here at EF; perhaps his threads still exist & can be read by those following Chris's work?

Both Jack & Chris noticed something that has been in plain view all these years, post-ambush, that slipped past a tremendous amount of people globally interested in the ambush & the initial re-enactments of it by Government operatives. That's why I find his analysis extremely intriguing; I hope he can tell me what was done to the Z-film to 'sell" the 'Oswald did it alone' theory to the public in 1964.

BM

Edited December 14, 2014 by Brad Milch

[Chris Davidson]

Thomas,

My previous posting in regards to Position A is just another indication of the configuring accomplished by the WC using 3.74mph as the limo speed at some point(farther west down Elm) in the assassination scenario.

I've supplied the equation of : 30.2ft/5.5sec= 5.49ft per sec = 3.74mph for that.

Look at it this way, the WC was trying to push events (shot near Altgens location, extant Z351, pushed back to Z313 headshot) back east up Elm St without exposing this on the Z film. If events slow down, more than what you have been led to believe, in essence, you are pushing them eastward, back up Elm St

If you understand this, then what they did with Altgen's while he was testifying, is a little easier to grasp.

Liebeler shows Altgens an aerial view and tells him they plotted his position as the white number 3 (I moved it parallel into the street from its original position). Warning!!! Red Flag time.

They have moved Altgens position much farther east than where he actually was.

Why? Because he said he took his picture almost simultaneously with the sound of a shot.

So, if they moved his position farther east, relationally, he would think that shot occurred farther east also.

In fact, it might convince you it occurred as the 1st shot reaction we see on the extant Zfilm.

I have placed the red number 3 with the diagonal line to indicate where Altgens real filming position was.

I then moved the original placement of Altgens (white colored 3 with red circle) onto Elm St.

The white empty circle is where the WC originally placed him.

Now, just imagine his famous picture taken from his true photo position, and the location of the limo within it, as the (white colored 3 with red circle).

That is the relationship which should have been conveyed to Altgens.

Instead, Liebeler try to confuse the heck out of him, purposely, so we wouldn't think there was a shot at the time he took his picture.

chris

Edited December 14, 2014 by Chris Davidson

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, I found re-visiting Pat Speer's website & refreshing my memory on what Pat pointed out about the wrong shot locations early investigators kept changing around & conflicting surveys helpful to try & keep up with Chris's analysis. If I read both researchers correctly, investigators guided by still photos from the Zapruder film & professional surveyors couldn't figure out where JFK was shot on Elm Street OR some hanky panky was taking place to accommodate the WC's single assassin theory. Chris is using the science of mathematics to explain what the alleged hanky panky was (in my opinion).

BM

Thomas, I found re-visiting Pat Speer's website & refreshing my memory on what Pat pointed out about the wrong shot locations early investigators kept changing around & conflicting surveys helpful to try & keep up with Chris's analysis. If I read both researchers correctly, investigators guided by still photos from the Zapruder film & professional surveyors couldn't figure out where JFK was shot on Elm Street OR some hanky panky was taking place to accommodate the WC's single assassin theory. Chris is using the science of mathematics to explain what the alleged hanky panky was (in my opinion).

BM

Brad,

I have a hard time understanding what the conclusions are of many researchers, including Pat Speer, Chris Davidson, and Robert Mady. Specifically, what their conclusions are regarding the number of shots fired, where they were fired from, the kinds of guns and ammunition used, and the sequence of shots, and in which altered (or unaltered) Z-film frames said shots were fired.

Perhaps you could simplify it for me.

Sometimes it seems to me that they don't want to state their conclusions in an easy to understand way.

I am interested in other areas of the JFK assassination, so frankly I'm not willing to do hours of reading on Speer, Davidson, or Mady, but I would like to know what their conclusions are on the above items. That is if they have any conclusions on them.

Thanks,

--Tommy

[Chris Davidson]

As a follow up, just imagine they have placed Altgens photo position parallel to the Z255 limo spot, on the curb.

If Altgens thinks this is his photo position, where do you think (farther east up Elm) they are trying to convince him the limo was at the time he simultaneously snapped his photo in accordance with a shot?

chris

[Thomas Graves]

As a follow up, just imagine they have placed Altgens photo position parallel to the Z255 limo spot, on the curb.

If Altgens thinks this is his photo position, where do you think (farther east up Elm) they are trying to convince him the limo was at the time he simultaneously snapped his photo in accordance with a shot?

chris

Chris,

It sure would be nice to know where Altgens was standing when he took "Altgens 6" because I think "Doorman" was standing on a top step right next to and just to the left of the hand railing that goes up the middle of the steps, but the angle that Altgens took the photograph from, and the focal length of the lens that he used, made it look like "Doorman" was standing in the upper left corner.

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited December 14, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Chris Davidson]

Thomas,

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; I did not move from fixed position 3. If I moved at all, it would be to step into the curb area to make a picture and back upon the curb because there were motorcycle policemen on either side of the Presidential car and I didn't want to get in their way, but if you will look at this picture----

I choose not to go into the Doorman/Lovelady debate. Only in the interest of supplying the best film material available to me, do I tread lately/lightly. If that is your interest, then by all means, pursue it in the existing threads available.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

As a follow up, just imagine they have placed Altgens photo position parallel to the Z255 limo spot, on the curb.

If Altgens thinks this is his photo position, where do you think (farther east up Elm) they are trying to convince him the limo was at the time he simultaneously snapped his photo in accordance with a shot?

chris

The TSBD was determined to be at elevation 429.7ft at Station # 2+50.

The 2nd shot determination from the SS Dec1963/FBI Feb1964 plat was at Elevation 419.71

This would be an elevation change of (TSBD 429.70 - 419.71 Shot 2) =9.99ft

Remember, each vertical ft = 18.3 horizontal ft traveled. (Did you think the importance of 18.3 was only related to a camera frame rate.)

So, 18.3 horizontal x 9.99ft vertical = 182.81ft from street location Station # 2+50.

182.81ft = the entry from CE901( 181.9ft see attachment) plus .9ft, measured from Station C , not Station # 2+50

Is there a place in the existing CE884 data that has the limo travel .9ft?

Look at Z168-Z171 "station number entry" of those 3 frames. Distance traveled = .9ft.

Or, look at it this way:

Station# 2+50 +182.81ft = Station# 4+32.81.

Station# 4+32.81 + 2.3ft = Station#4+35.1 = "JFK in limo" aligned with the lamp-post at Z272. Distance from Station# 4+35.1 to Station# 4+65.3 (extant Z313 headshot) = 30.2 ft.

30.2ft sound familiar. It's the same distance as the extant Z313 headshot to Z351(the last frame on my SS/Z comparison video.)

2.3ft = distance traveled from CE884 final Z207-208.

Prelim CE884 2.3ft traveled was entered as Z207-Z210

chris

[Patrick Block]

Very interesting stuff. I'm an artist, and am pretty lousy at mathematics in general- can you answer a couple of questions for me? Much of this thread is pretty obtuse to me.

1. Is the ultimate conclusion that this research points towards result in one, two or only the third of the "official" accepted shots happening further down the street?

2. Am I to understand that the traditional frame 313 impact might occur further down the street- closer to the steps than the mark on the street?

3. Have the after-assassination replacement/movement of various signs and possibly lampposts been taken into consideration?

4. Is anyone working with a copy of the film directly from NARA? While the evidence there is clearly not the original camera film, it at least has the pedigree of being accepted as the "official" version, which, one would assume, would keep critics from attacking the work as being the result of having been fussed with unintentionally in the interim before becoming the basis of study here.

[Chris Davidson]

Very interesting stuff. I'm an artist, and am pretty lousy at mathematics in general- can you answer a couple of questions for me? Much of this thread is pretty obtuse to me.

1. Is the ultimate conclusion that this research points towards result in one, two or only the third of the "official" accepted shots happening further down the street?

2. Am I to understand that the traditional frame 313 impact might occur further down the street- closer to the steps than the mark on the street?

3. Have the after-assassination replacement/movement of various signs and possibly lampposts been taken into consideration?

4. Is anyone working with a copy of the film directly from NARA? While the evidence there is clearly not the original camera film, it at least has the pedigree of being accepted as the "official" version, which, one would assume, would keep critics from attacking the work as being the result of having been fussed with unintentionally in the interim before becoming the basis of study here.

Patrick,

At least one shot after the extant 313 shot, at extant Z351 physical location.

Z351shot might actually be what you see as Z313 on film.

The SS video of Nov 27th, 1963 has no changes in terms of landmarks vs what was there on Nov22, 1963 as far as I know.

Is the NARA copy a 16mm/24frames per sec copy. If not, I would be highly suspect of it.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

As a follow up, just imagine they have placed Altgens photo position parallel to the Z255 limo spot, on the curb.

If Altgens thinks this is his photo position, where do you think (farther east up Elm) they are trying to convince him the limo was at the time he simultaneously snapped his photo in accordance with a shot?

chris

Earlier, I introduced two ratios to keep in mind when trying to wade through this.

18.3/24 = .7625 and 24/18.3 = 1.31

The frame span from Z168-255 is 87 frames, with Z168 being the starting point from the CE884 data chart.

87 frames x .7625 = 66.3 frames

If I add those 66.3 frames to Z168, I'm now at Z234.3 or Z235 rounded to next whole frame.

So, using an 18.3frames per scenario, starting at Z168, the Altgens described shot circa Z255 is at approx Z235.

Dr Robert Shaw please.

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Shaw, have you had an opportunity today here in the Cornmission building to view the movies which we referred to as the Zapruder movies and the slides taken from these movies?

Dr. SHAW - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, if any, light did those movies shed on your evaluation and opinions on this matter with respect to the wounds of the Governor?

Dr. SHAW - Well, my main interest was to try to place the time that the Governor was struck by the bullet which inflicted the wound on his chest in reference to the sequence of the three shots, as has been described to us.

(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)

This meant trying to carefully examine the position of the Governor's body in the car so that it would fall in line with what we knew the trajectory must be for this bullet coming from the point where it has been indicated it did come from. And in trying to place this actual frame that these frames are numbered when the Governor was hit, my opinion was that it was frame number, let's see, I think it was No. 36.

Mr. SPECTER - 236?

Dr. SHAW - 236, give or take 1 or 2 frames. It was right in 35, 36, 37, perhaps.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

And,

If I move the shooter location approx 60.7ft 60.4ft west of the WC snipers nest and connect it back to the SS/FBI plat "shot 2" designation, that 19.4 degrees (19 degrees 26 minutes) angle to horizon now matches the CE884 Z235 entry for "angle to horizon".

chris

Edited December 15, 2014 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

Remember,

Why did I move the shooters position 60.4ft to the west.

The final plat lists Elm St at a 3 degree 8 minute slant = 3.13 degrees= 5.46 grade percentage = 1ft vertical for every 18.3ft horizontal.

A 3.3ft vertical change = 3.3 x 18.3 = 60.4ft total horizontal shift = (2)30.2ft spans on the ground and up above.

And, since they have it labeled along with the word "back", from elevation 426.8 to 423.5, which includes the elevation of Z255 in between, I can't help but wonder what they were up to, trying to confuse Altgens with when and where he and the limo were, when he took Altgens 6 and equated that to a shot.

I see, the back shot was 3.3ft up from the ground. I thought the WC was unable to determine the exact location of the first shot. It appears

someone determined it to be at Elevation 426.8 or extant Z208. Can't have it both ways.

chris

[Mark Knight]

Now, if you tie this information in with the John Hunt thread on the photos in the archives ["The Warren Commission Skeleton by John Hunt"], apparently from the time of the Clark Panel, then the wound trajectory depicted in Photo 13, which more closely matches the autopsy photographs than any other, not only becomes a realistic possibility, but one that the SS and the FBI were aware of.

[Brad Milch]

reply to Thomas Graves (post #94):

Thomas, Pat Speer covers his analysis of the ambush in the last chapter on his website. In a nutshell, Pat believes the shooters were located in the TSBD & the Dal-Tex buildings (TSBD 'sniper's nest' & upper floors &/or rooftop of the Dal-Tex) with no shooter on the knoll (a diversionary noise was created there to attract attention so as the rear shooters could escape the 2 buildings), believes Mr. Speer.

Shot #1 was fired from the TSBD sniper's nest at z-frame z188 & struck JFK in the back around z-190.

Shot (or shots) #2 was/were fired from the upper floors or roof of the Dal-Tex building at z-frame 222 & struck JFK in the back of his head at the hairline & exited his throat at z-224. Pat believes the weapon/weapons used were silenced & may have been using sub-sonic ammo.

Shot #3 was fired at z-frame 310-311 from the TSBD sniper's nest & struck JFK near the temple at z-313, a piece of this bullet's core traveled forward to strike the Main Street curb & wound James Tague.

Sound #4 was created at z-frame z-320-z327 in the vicinity of the rear of the North pergola & the railroad yards. Possibly a firecracker or other noise & smoke creating explosive device.

Pat will correct me if I got any of that wrong (lol).

In Chapter 2, Pat explains the very 1st Secret Service & FBI re-enactments beginning 27 Nov 1963 & commencing again on 5 Dec 1963 & how the traffic cones indicating where involved investigators & surveyors placed the shots, particularly the headshot, are not all correct & in sync with he z-film released to the public. I found this analysis quite intriguing & I believe Pat is the 1st researcher to point out all these inconsistencies with the initial re-enactments of the shooting.

I belong to the group that does not believe where the Z-313 headshot is marked in Dealey Plaza indicates the TSBD 6th floor window as the source of that shot. I base this on having visited the site with friends assisting me while I was standing, squatting & sitting on the 'headshot X' & my friends were acting as JFK's guards a few yards behind me (they being closer to the TSBD than I was). Each time we tried this simple experiment, my friends blocked either the entire TSBD 'sniper's nest' window or the lower part of it. I believe JFK's rear guards & the windshield of the 'Queen Mary' blocked a shot to JFK sagging towards his wife at Z-313 where Z-313 is presently marked in Dealey Plaza by a historic landmark plaque. I am willing to concede that if the fatal headshot did indeed originate from the TSBD 'sniper's nest', it missed Agents Ready & Landis & the windshield of the Queen Mary by mere fractions of a few inches.

I believe the SS/FBI/WC realized the headshot was blocked from the TSBD 'sniper's nest' by the JFK guards & their followup car & purposely left representations of them out of their photographic analysis record in an effort not to deal with the issue & also to deceive the public into believing JFK was an unobstructed target to a TSBD 'sniper's nest' shooter when he was struck in the head at Z-313. If JFK was struck in the head from the sniper's nest during the attack, I don't believe it happened at the Z-313 plaque marker in Dealey Plaza today. The further away one gets from the TSBD in Elm Street, the more someone or something 'tailgating' blocks one's view from the TSBD sniper's nest. One need only visit the site, stand on the 2nd 'headshot X' with some friends standing a couple yards closer to the TSBD, note the sharp drop in street elevation & attempt to see the 'sniper's nest' window's lower portion to verify this for themselves.

Had Oswald lived to be tried I do believe his attorneys would have demonstrated to the jury that there was no opportunity for their client to shoot JFK in the head & kill him at the Z-313 location because his guards & their car blocked a line of sight to JFK from the TSBD 'sniper's nest' at that street location. Since there was no trial, it was easy for early investigators to 'pull a fast one' on a trusting public in their distorted & historically inaccurate re-enactments of the ambush, presented without legal challenge (cross-examination).

Where did the fatal headshot originate? I'm open to researchers analysis that places the shooter on the corner of the TOP, the South Knoll area, storm drains, North Knoll fence line, railroad signal tower, North & South pergola cupolas (shelters), cars parked on Elm Street extension (red brick road), trees, Dal-Tex, Records Building, etc.. I would not dismiss SS agents involvement in the crime in some way, shape or form, regardless if photographic evidence exists or not. JFK was fatally shot by someone, somewhere within a 360 degree circle enveloping Dealey Plaza. That is indisputable.

Pat has his opinion, I have mine.

Pat put a lot of useful work into his website that will help humanity understand this crime much better than wading through the quagmire from scratch, IMHO.

Chris is explaining his analysis as he goes along each step he takes in his thread. I'm not about to try & guess where he's going; I'll quietly follow along....

BM

Edited December 16, 2014 by Brad Milch

[Chris Davidson]

Remember,

Why did I move the shooters position 60.4ft to the west.

The final plat lists Elm St at a 3 degree 8 minute slant = 3.13 degrees= 5.46 grade percentage = 1ft vertical for every 18.3ft horizontal.

A 3.3ft vertical change = 3.3 x 18.3 = 60.4ft total horizontal shift = (2)30.2ft spans on the ground and up above.

And, since they have it labeled along with the word "back", from elevation 426.8 to 423.5, which includes the elevation of Z255 in between, I can't help but wonder what they were up to, trying to confuse Altgens with when and where he and the limo were, when he took Altgens 6 and equated that to a shot.

I see, the back shot was 3.3ft up from the ground. I thought the WC was unable to determine the exact location of the first shot. It appears

someone determined it to be at Elevation 426.8 or extant Z208. Can't have it both ways.

chris

Let me work this backwards for you, from the SS/FBI Feb64 plat where they have the 2nd shot listed at elevation 419.71.

The 6th floor ledge height was determined to be 60.7ft @ elevation 429.70

The vertical difference between those locations is 9.99ft.

9.99ft -3.3ft (WC vertical fudge factor) = difference of 6.69 vertical ft.

Since each vertical ft = 18.3 horizontal feet, then 6.69 x 18.3 = 122.4ft

My street alignment with the WC snipers nest is at Station# 2+50 and I add the difference between them in terms of horizontal distance, I now have:

Station# 2+50 + 122.4ft = Station# 372.4 = right between CE884 Zframe207/208.

chris

P.S

Look at the K-R "line of sight distance" from CE884 Z171-Z235. Remember Z168- Z171 has the limo traveling at 3.74mph, according to CE884

The slant distance between them is 60.8ft.