Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:

John, 

Even an abstract painting would require a subject. What would you suggest the "subject" to be in this photo? Also, keep in mind that I enlarged this portion of the frame because of movement seen in the film.

Craig,

An abstract can simply be an interesting or pleasing arrangement of color.  In my opinion the best abstracts don't have a topic, but they allow one to see his own "topic".

Actually, I didn't want to comment on this, but I first saw Prayer Man taking a two-handed drink of his coke in your first frame.

If you don't mind revealing at this time, what is your point, or what are you saying with the frame? 

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Take a look at David Josephs' post on the first page. That pretty much sums it the point I was trying to make.

This is a part of the Zapruder film that I feel has been largely overlooked by most researchers. There is movement in these frames at the location I enlarged.  

We cannot ignore the fact that witnesses reported seeing a puff of smoke in this area. Nor can we ignore the fact that police officers directed to this location found evidence that someone had in fact been pacing, smoking cigarettes, and at some point had used the bumper of a vehicle and a horizontal fence post to boost themselves up above the top of the fence. 

David also references and syncs the Bell film that included frames of the same location along the fence line which appears to show momentary movement just above the top of the fence, (as one would expect when filming from the north side of Elm St.). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:

John,

Take a look at David Josephs' post on the first page. That pretty much sums it the point I was trying to make.

This is a part of the Zapruder film that I feel has been largely overlooked by most researchers. There is movement in these frames at the location I enlarged.  

We cannot ignore the fact that witnesses reported seeing a puff of smoke in this area. Nor can we ignore the fact that police officers directed to this location found evidence that someone had in fact been pacing, smoking cigarettes, and at some point had used the bumper of a vehicle and a horizontal fence post to boost themselves up above the top of the fence. 

David also references and syncs the Bell film that included frames of the same location along the fence line which appears to show momentary movement just above the top of the fence, (as one would expect when filming from the north side of Elm St.). 

 

I don't know if the shooter had to boost himself up above the fence because the fence from the inside is only 4 ft 10 inches high. I think he may have had to scrunch down a bit.                           Because there was a breeze going on I can't really tell if leaves are moving slightly and changing the reflection coming off the leaf. That position does line up with the shooter though. 10 seconds after the headshot the shooter may have been exiting along the fence heading east which also puts him in the position in question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I've done a lot of target shooting. I am 5' 9" tall. I did a quick test. I stood holding a rifle with the barrel perfectly horizontal, (no upward or downward angle). The bottom of my barrel was at 4' 10" from the floor. Unless the person standing behind the fence was considerably taller, (say over 6'), even a fence less than 5' tall could pose a problem, (especially when you consider there would have been a downward trajectory required).

I do agree that the breeze was moving the leaves quite a bit and caused the same effect regarding the reflected light, but the movement I saw did not appear to be part of the foliage. Like I said previously, there is no right or wrong here. It's just my perception. I admit that my opinion might be a bit subjective. That was my main reason for not describing the photo in my original post. I thought perhaps just asking folks here what they saw might have been the best was to get an objective response. 

Edited by Craig Carvalho
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

The most prominent part of the image in these frames appears to be the head/shoulders of an individual just above the top of the fence that is moving downwards, (ducking beneath the fence), and quickly turning and moving to the right. In frame 475 I believe I have what might be the last frame that shows him in profile view.

The Bell film appears to show the same "ducking" movement as seen from the opposite side of the fence, (filmed from south side of Elm St.). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7A-_eU6vxw

This is a high-def (6 k) Zap copy.  In the comments section, someone speculates that it's a high-def copy of what's in the National Archives.

I must've downloaded it from YouTube, because I have this copy in my JFK files.

Also in the comments section, posted 6 mos. ago, someone noticed the same thing you did Craig:

Dale Lee6 months ago (edited)

Between frames 483 - 485, if you keep your eyes fixed at the top of the grassy knoll fence about 6 feet from corner of the fence towards the triple underpass, you can clearly see the back of a man’s head duck down behind the fence as the limo reaches the triple underpass. I found that if I dragged the video cursor back a few seconds from the end of the film in order to repeat viewing this section of the film multiple times, it becomes easier to see this person’s movement behind the fence. In older versions of the Zapruder film, it was impossible to see this person’s movement due to the level of darkness that existed in this area of the film’s previous lower quality versions. It would great if someone could isolate this section of the film, zoom in on it, and set up a loop in order to possibly reveal more detail.
 
Can someone create a .gif of the frames in question from this copy?  Are you able to Craig?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it. I look at the place that's been highlighted in the gif and the pictures, and then I look at different areas higher up in the tree, and I see the same type of shapes and movement as the leaves and branches moving in the wind. To be clear, I believe there was a conspiracy and that there was someone behind that fence at that time, but - after coming back here several days and looking at all the images and gifs in this thread again (trying to see them with fresher eyes) I still don't see anything that looks recognizably human in the area highlighted.

Only my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 10:01 AM, John Butler said:

John Costella on his website offers a download of all the Zapruder frames in a zip file or you can look at those one at a time on his site.

I know from past references that some folks don't care for Costella's work, but it seems ok to me for use.  I use them all the time in anything to do with the Zapruder frame.  Michael Clark has offered a good source for these frames.

Mr. Carvelho's frames offer nothing usable for commenting on. They are too blurred and out of focus.  Chris Bristow correctly identified the Zapruder film as the source.

The first frame with light and contrast adjusted.  This would make a fair abstract painting.

Capture.jpg

 

I'm afraid Mr. Butler may be correct in his initial response. Although my intentions were honorable, it appears I was grossly mistaken.

My apologies to those forum members who took the time, in good faith, to examine my findings. And many thanks to Mr. Davidson for his fine work on the Zapruder film, (I am well acquainted with his work). In the future I believe I will let the photographic analysis lie in the hands of those who have the technical expertise.

At the very least this thread may give those who perhaps have not seen Mr. Davidson's work an opportunity to pursue it, (I would humbly recommend it).

Regards,

Craig C.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

The two Chris', Bristow and Davidson, are generally always right.  I argue with them from time to time, but they are good and I generally end up eating crow.  The only problem I have with Chris Davidson is I am a math illiterate or perhaps a retard.  His math is a bit much for me.  I just accept what he is saying as true since those pieces of his work that I was able to follow were correct.

Chris Bristow is a reasonable fellow and it is always wise to pay attention to what he says. 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go Craig...

The salient 3 frames... the rest of the image moves with the camera, the man in the hat in the mud is also moving

I've colorized Moorman to show that Badgeman etc is just leaves and sky... but this hat exists between the fence and foliage.... as I see it.

DJ

307803731_Moormanbluesky-noBadgeman-smaller.jpg.990a8581d46aa7166c2949e250e25574.jpg

Man-behind-fence-end-of-zfilm---3-frames-circled-in-yellow.gif.1a8f9fa7877d2c4a97e2f3d2d7f980e8.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...