Separate Realities on the SW corner of Elm and Houston

[Chris Scally]

John,

 

In 2014, I carried out some fairly detailed research into the elapsed time between Z-132 and Z-133. In summary, I established that the gap between those two frames was a minimum of 18.43 seconds, and a maximum of 22.75 seconds. This, as I recall, would require the removal of about 4 feet of film if it is being suggested that the 'frames' between Z132 and 133 were removed from the film. However, a far more reasonably explanation, to my mind, is that when he realized that the limo was not immediately behind the leading motorcycle escorts, Zapruder stopped filming, rewound his camera, and started filming again when the limo appears around the corner onto Elm. It should be remembered that Zapruder's camera would, when fully wound, record for approximately 75 seconds on a 'full wind' - he had already been filming (a few frames of setup footage, followed by footage of Marilyn Sitzman with Beatrice Hester and her husband) for just over 18 seconds when he exposed Z-001, so I think it possible if not indeed likely that he used the time between the arrival of the lead escorts and the appearance of the limo to rewind his camera to 'full' again. Using my own B&H 414PD Director Series camera, I checked how long it would take to rewind the B&H camera - having first filmed for 18 seconds - from stopping the camera, rewinding it to full, focusing on a subject and starting to film again, and in a series of repeated tests, I averaged between 19 and 21 seconds - almost exactly the duration of what I believe was Zapruder's stop in filming.

 

Hope this helps ...

 

Chris.  

Edited February 28, 2017 by Chris Scally

[John Butler]

I've read some of the arguments on whether he stopped filming or there is simply missing frames.  I think the arguments are inconclusive.  I don't know. 

There is a gap and it lasted about 20 seconds.  A little longer with my rough approximation perhaps.  I kind of favor the missing frames argument due to Zapruder not filming the President's passage through the intersection of Elm and Houston.  That's my speculation.

That length of time gives people time to transit the Houston block to the SW corner of Elm.  That is some people.  I'm still reserving judgement on Philllip Willis being there regardless of what the Z film shows.  That is what photo editing is all about.  Telling a different story than what occurred.  If you look at the Dorman frames there are two strange men, at least unidentified by me, on the last of the payment just before the grassy area.  It was suggested in a photo frame of that area one was labelled as Allman.  They have cameras.  They don't show up in Zapruder.  One of these guys is my candidate for the Willis Slides. 

If you go back and look for cameras in the Dorman frames then you will see 13 or so people with cameras.  We only get to see the film output of 5 people.

Edited February 28, 2017 by John Butler

[John Butler]

While working on this idea on what's happening on the SW corner, I made this note about Harold Weisberg.  I have read that some people considered Weisberg a shill for the CIA.  I don't know.  He sounded fairly straight forward.  But, he did miss what I consider things he should have picked up on.  Here's the Note:

Harold Weisberg On Elsie Dorman

In Whitewash III, 1967 pp. 49-52, Harold Weisberg talks about Elsie Dorman and her “taking pictures”.  Basically, what he says there is that the FBI and the Warren Commission suppressed Elsie Dorman’s film and testimony for many years.

• Weisberg says that Elsie Dorman on the 4^th floor of the TSBD had the best vantage point for “taking pictures” of the presidential motorcade.  This would be from the Main and Houston intersection to the Triple Underpass on Elm Street.

• Weisberg notes that the FBI report does not say what type of “pictures” she was taking.  He speculates that if it was a film or slides she was taking it would be very important for determining things about the assassination.  He further speculates that if her camera was taking a film and had a zoom lens it would be very important.

• Weisberg states that the WC suppressed the FBI report and her “pictures” and by not calling on her to testify suppressed her testimony of what she saw that day.

• Weisberg did note that Elsie Dorman said she heard 3 shots from the direction of the Courts Record Building and not from her left and 20 feet above her from the sniper’s nest.

• It is interesting that Weisberg caught this but, did not take it to its logical conclusion.  He didn’t compare this to the testimonies of Harold Norman, James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams, Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, and Dorothy Garner.

• If he did he would have known you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone fired a shot from the 6^th floor sniper’s nest.  5 of these 7 witnesses, the preponderance of the witnesses, said they heard shots from somewhere else than the 6^th floor sniper’s nest.

• One of the star, arranged witnesses (James “Junior” Jarman) blew up in the face of the future President Gerald Ford at at the WC by saying he heard shots from low and to the left.  That’s not what he testified to earlier.

If this treatment was not bad enough someone, perhaps the FBI photo lab, they get blamed for a lot, butchered her film by spraying black paint to obscure images, created distortions, and cutting out segments of frames to remove what happened in front of the Court Records Building.  These later frames appeared to be magnified to give a normal appearance to the film.

Even with this heavy handed attempt to make the Dorman film useless for information on the assassination the film still contains valuable information when compared to the Zapruder film.

Someone once said Elsie Dorman made the worst film ever.  Not so!  Elsie Dorman, perhaps to protect her life, took what she saw and knew with her and never revealed it publicly.

 

[John Butler]

Chris Scally,

We agreed on about 20 seconds.  About 20 seconds for the gap can be arrived at another way.  This is calculating how fast a person can run the distance from the NW corner of Main and Houston to the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  Based on the average speed for a middle aged person it's possible to do that.

However, Phillip Willis stayed long enough on the corner of Main and Houston to take Willis slide 3 which shows the presidential vehicle about to pass in front of the Court Records Building.  I don't believe this gives Willis enough time to get to the corner of Elm and Houston.

[John Butler]

Chris Davidson   

• Super Member
•  
• 
• Members
•  
• 2,409 posts

 

Posted Tuesday at 01:39 AM · Report post

John,

This is the John Martin film.

The very first frame has a man rounding the concrete structure (left side of film).

That could be Phil Willis. (Does he have enough time to get from there to where he is seen in Z ?)

You can cross check that with the Bell film I supplied earlier, as it appears that same man and the two succeeding people (daughter/father possibly) are in both films. imo

I'm not  sure who the person in the red box is.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ORmdrYUJaMzhzOUk/view

The person in question appears to be too tall, too thin, and is not balding as Phillip Willis is portrayed.  Still, it is interesting to know who this person was.

[John Butler]

Chris Davidson,

Chris Davidson   

• Super Member
•  
• 
• Members
•  
• 2,409 posts

 

Posted Tuesday at 01:56 AM · Report post

And,

This could be Croft from the Dorman film.

 

It would be interesting to know who this is but, who can say?  There are unidentified men in Dorman that appear to have cameras.  I believe there records were suppressed.  I also think their work shows up as Croft and Willis.  If, as I believe Willis is an inserted object, based on Z frame 157-Phillip's extra long leg, then someone has to have taken photos accredited to him. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by John Butler

[George Sawtelle]

John

Excellent work. More proof that the Zap film was altered. You have an eagle eye buddy keep up the good work.

[Michael Walton]

Chris Scally, I  agree with  you 100% about the gap. Z started filming, realized it was too soon, didn't  want to unwind his camera, stopped filming, then started when the car was already  coming  down Elm.

There's  no mysterious  "missing gap"between  those  two sequences  of film.

Thanks  for  being  a  good  voice  of  reason  on this thread.

[John Butler]

Thanks George,

I get very few agreements here due to my ideas being somewhat out of the box.  Once again I appreciate your comments.

[Michael Walton]

What are you exactly trying to prove here, John?  If you're talking about people missing in one movie sequence and appearing in another (hence your Lady in the High Castle thread title) and, thus, the films have been altered, why does it seem so difficult for you to understand that angles play a huge role in how film or video is perceived?

And notice I did not use the word "see" above.  Because as often happens in this case, different people perceive different things.

The Dorman film is one of the more interesting angles - from way up on top looking down from the TSBD - so this angle is going to show how wide open or close together people were standing when the car went by. The Z film angle is much more flat and parallel with a street view, which is going to make people up in that corner area look schrunched together.

I've sent posts in other threads to you about photo techniques and that kind of thing and I'm guessing nothing has really taken with you, that you still want to see what you *want* to see vs what was really there.  In other words:

John:  "Oh, look.  There seem to be fewer people standing around on the corner in the Z film vs the Dorman film so therefore, there just has to be some shenanigans going on.  The Bad Guys altered one or the other films to make it so..."

And then you have to ask yourself - which film was altered?  The Z film?  But how do you know that?  What about the Dorman film?  If your theory is to prove alteration, why would the Dorman film be altered?  Why would they remove people standing around in Dorman way up on the corner?

But anyway, here's yet another link about photos from different angles:

http://themetapicture.com/famous-photos-from-a-different-angle/

Look at the pyramids photos on the above link.  They look very close together in the on-the-ground photo but they're very far away from looking down.  Further, if a smaller pyramid was behind one of the large ones in the on-the-ground photo, it'd be very easy to miss simply because the larger one is hiding it.  There's no Man in the Castle mystery though.  It's still there and you'd see it from the from looking down photo.

Here's a "fake" Z film I made a while back showing genuine forgery in it (a huge irony of term usage here).  Can you find what's fake about it?  The more experienced and eagle-eyed researchers will definitely find it.  Can you?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRDVUT3ROS2psbTg

I don't think you're thinking out of the box here at all, John. I've said numerous times on this forum that not everything about the assassination was a conspiracy.  The Bad Guys were NOT omnipotent - they couldn't just wave a magic wand and magically make film frames disappear. It would have taken an enormously coordinated effort to have done so.

The only thing that I will say about this coordinated effort about people who were there on the ground that day is what happened to the film taken of the so-called Babushka lady?  She was right there filming the entire sequence looking out onto the knoll area and possibly beyond.  I find it very hard to believe that that film has, to this day, not surfaced for all to see and like Cecil Stoughton said when he saw Al Thomas winking at LBJ after the swearing in, I do consider it "sinister" that that film has gone missing.

[George Sawtelle]

Michael

I don´t want to talk too much about an altered Zap film. This thread is much too important to hijack. I´ll state this and then leave it with you.

The WC received an incomplete Zap film for it´s analysis. Frames were missing.

As such, the missing frames can be considered to be the first evidence of Zap film alteration.

[John Butler]

George,

I see Michael is keeping his post clean.  He's already been reprimanded once for wanton stupidity in breaking the rules of the forum in his posts.  I have nothing to say to him.

Edited March 4, 2017 by John Butler

[Michael Walton]

Yeah, John, and I just reported you as well just now for your most recent post.  We'll see how that goes though I don't have my hopes up with the people who run this forum.

George - hijack?  Why don't you read what I posted and post a rebuttal to convince them otherwise?

[James DiEugenio]

HIjacking is when you completely alter the subject of a thread.

Hijacking is not offering counter arguments to the subject of a thread.

If a thesis is strong enough, it should be able to withstand the counters.

 

[Chris Davidson]

10 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris Scally,

We agreed on about 20 seconds.  About 20 seconds for the gap can be arrived at another way.  This is calculating how fast a person can run the distance from the NW corner of Main and Houston to the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  Based on the average speed for a middle aged person it's possible to do that.

However, Phillip Willis stayed long enough on the corner of Main and Houston to take Willis slide 3 which shows the presidential vehicle about to pass in front of the Court Records Building.  I don't believe this gives Willis enough time to get to the corner of Elm and Houston.

Actually 16.6 seconds @200ft = 8.2mph

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Chris Davidson