Chris Bristow Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: Then, referring back to the previous plat, along with the Betzner/Wiegman composite, the physical position of Shaneyfelt is much closer to the following gentleman: So, I'll ask again, who and how many were filming? Keeping in mind, that parallax could be created by either one person moving to different locations or two people within close proximity filming. And, if you still believe the official story, I highly recommend not following this topic any longer. His position is the same as I get for Barnes. I come across as an LN sometimes but that is just because I attempt to apply that scientific methodology of scrutinizing any new evidence from as skeptical a view as possible. But my core assumption about the film is that it is altered. All 4 bike cops seeing it stop or almost stop, the account of Chaney's ride forward missing from Nix and Dr Costella's observation on the Stemmons pincushion issue, and issues surrounding Parkland put me firmly in the CT camp. I have wondered about the opportunity they had when the plaza was closed down for the survey. If they still had possession of Z's camera it would be easy to re film it from the exact same position(Maybe using a tripod for perfect height matching), maybe choosing a time to duplicate the azimuth and elevation as close as could be done. Regarding the contrast on the right pole I think there might be a non alteration explanation. The darkest shadow is on the sign with a lighter shadow next to it on the pole and next to that is the bright part of the pole. Adding a little contrast darkens the lighter middle shadow and that part of the pole disappears into the dark shadow on the sign causing the pole to get skinnier from on its left side only. Add more contrast and the right side starts to shrink. I think the initial disappearance of the left side contributes or is fully responsible why the mismatch. Edited February 22, 2023 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 19 hours ago, Chris Bristow said: His position is the same as I get for Barnes. I assume you mean Shaneyfelt. If so, agreed. Excellent I come across as an LN sometimes but that is just because I attempt to apply that scientific methodology of scrutinizing any new evidence from as skeptical a view as possible. Never got that impression, personally. In fact, I appreciate someone with vast photographic experience scrutinizing what is being presented. It is my responsibility to convert you into becoming a non-skeptic, once I'm finished with the material. But my core assumption about the film is that it is altered. Appreciate that. Moving forward let's see if we can change the assumption to a belief. All 4 bike cops seeing it stop or almost stop, the account of Chaney's ride forward missing from Nix and Dr Costella's observation on the Stemmons pincushion issue, and issues surrounding Parkland put me firmly in the CT camp. All legitimate reasons. imo I have wondered about the opportunity they had when the plaza was closed down for the survey. If they still had possession of Z's camera it would be easy to re film it from the exact same position(Maybe using a tripod for perfect height matching), maybe choosing a time to duplicate the azimuth and elevation as close as could be done. I'm fairly sure now David Healy nailed it, previously,(multiple passes filmed almost concurrently before the vehicles enter onto Elm.St) or was very close, if we consider two cameras. More to come on that aspect. Regarding the contrast on the right pole I think there might be a non alteration explanation. The darkest shadow is on the sign with a lighter shadow next to it on the pole and next to that is the bright part of the pole. Adding a little contrast darkens the lighter middle shadow and that part of the pole disappears into the dark shadow on the sign causing the pole to get skinnier from on its left side only. Add more contrast and the right side starts to shrink. I think the initial disappearance of the left side contributes or is fully responsible why the mismatch. The contrast adjustment was to mainly signify the widening of the signpost from the extent original. A match(in terms of width) with the reenactment frame. The widening concept will become much clearer. Responses in red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 23, 2023 Author Share Posted February 23, 2023 Referring to a different camera height and bobblehead movement. Think in terms of before and after limo is on film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 I've barely got a grasp on this, but I'm fascinated. Could this explain why there was so little movement in "manequin row" during the passage of the limo in the extant film?! ...because what we see (the crowd) was actually filmed before the limo entered Elm St.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 23, 2023 Author Share Posted February 23, 2023 What I find completely fascinating/coincidental is the re-enactment footage of Shaneyfelt(1st/starting frame shown) filming upon the pedestal and its angular relationship to the pre-limo footage at extant z186 and the supposed pre-limo blur frame at extant z89. btw, the downward slope of Elm St was 3.13° What degree of angle rotation do you believe I used for the z186 alignment in this gif? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: btw, the downward slope of Elm St was 3.13° What degree of angle rotation do you believe I used for the z186 alignment in this gif? 3.13 degrees Edited February 24, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 On 2/22/2023 at 12:20 PM, Chris Davidson said: Responses in red. The photo I unskewded and rotated is a Barnes photo, I think, and the guy on the pedestal was Shanyfelt? If so Shanyfelt is standing where the Barnes photo was taken from. I think a camera making multiple passes from the same exact location is easier to envision that two cameras running concurrently that day. Trying to combine two images from slightly different location is very limiting. Although a cut and paste of just the ladies without any of their background would work like we see it in 205/206. If the bobbling is a result of a cut and paste from a 2nd camera the 206 ladies would be taken from a position 5 to 7" above Z's lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 24, 2023 Author Share Posted February 24, 2023 4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said: The photo I unskewded and rotated is a Barnes photo, I think, and the guy on the pedestal was Shanyfelt? If so Shanyfelt is standing where the Barnes photo was taken from. I think a camera making multiple passes from the same exact location is easier to envision that two cameras running concurrently that day. Trying to combine two images from slightly different location is very limiting. Although a cut and paste of just the ladies without any of their background would work like we see it in 205/206. If the bobbling is a result of a cut and paste from a 2nd camera the 206 ladies would be taken from a position 5 to 7" above Z's lens. Sorry, I think I mis-identified that as Shaneyfelt on the pedestal, as he was known to wear hawaiian shirts and appears to have grey/white hair in other videos. The other photo of the hat man, in the same position as I mis-identified Shaneyfelt, is Barnes I believe. Irregardless, we agree they are in the same location upon the pedestal. Is it possible for you to estimate the difference in camera height between these two frames: Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 24, 2023 Author Share Posted February 24, 2023 17 hours ago, David Josephs said: 3.13 degrees David, What do you believe is the angle change in the lower sprocket shown below? Don't even waste your time relayering it, because it's unnecessary for a common sense answer stated previously. Now you know why ( I hope) there was a height difference used between cameras when shooting any/all reenactments from the pedestal, along with the different physical locations of the camera people. Hopefully the concept hits Chris too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 24, 2023 Author Share Posted February 24, 2023 On 2/8/2023 at 10:49 PM, Chris Davidson said: After you listen to Dino for less than a minute, imagine on the plat above where the limo started veering leftward. https://vimeo.com/797251262 I re-recommend listening to the short clip of Dino from the above link. These are extant zframes 215/217, I left out z216 for accentuation purposes. Z216 has the same approx angle change as extant 217. When viewing this, use bobblehead mentality. iow, Individual pieces of a moving film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) On 2/24/2023 at 2:06 PM, Chris Davidson said: David, What do you believe is the angle change in the lower sprocket shown below? Well it should be the same 3.13.... Can you explain why this 215/217 looks different that yours? Pincushion effect? The overlay is lined up to the limo Edited July 20, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 25, 2023 Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 4 hours ago, David Josephs said: Well it should be the same 3.13.... Can you explain why this 215/217 looks different that yours? Pincushion effect? The overlay is lined up to the limo The limo's orientation to the sign, with 3.13° in play. I'll be providing you with some examples in a bit. Along with a couple of triangles. A big problem has always been, not being able to compare to similar footage. And even then, the changes are very subtle. That said, and thinking about 3.13° limo lateral adjustments in relationship to the sign, please reread the very few testimony snippets I supplied: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 25, 2023 Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 Subtleness. The curbface or shadow thereof: Give your eyes time to adjust and/or enlarge it on your monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 25, 2023 Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 15 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: That said, and thinking about 3.13° limo lateral adjustments in relationship to the sign, please reread the very few testimony snippets I supplied: The WC shared the lateral adjustment(3.13° plotted with their dots, not Robert West )they needed to coincide with the photographic/film adjustment. Thus the reason for the objection in the Clay Shaw trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 25, 2023 Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 Now that you have the lateral concept in mind, keep repeating to yourself as you watch this gif, "the limo's orientation to the StemmonsSign" before the splice and after the splice. 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