Unveiling The Limo Stop

[Jonathan Cohen]

49 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I sorry Jonathan to add to your confusion from time to time.  Dealey Plaza seems to be a confusing place for you.  Maybe you should have taken my earlier advice and limited your reading of what was going on in Dealey Plaza, if this is so confusing for you.

Besides Chris' wording, the only thing that's confusing is your wild and unsupported speculation about massive film alteration.

[David Andrews]

More than ever, we need the evaluation by editing and special effects people working in the 1960s that Doug Horne promised to organize.

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Answers above in red text.

P.S. The math doesn't lie, you just need the proper conversions and equations.

Chris I think the white thing in the red box on the left under Hill's arm is Officer Martin's front fender and just above is his headlight. There are many other frames of both Hargis and Martin that give a good comparison of the headlight/fender image .
 Hargis's front fender, headlight and windshield also give us a map to determine where Martin's front fender and headlight would be relative to his windshield,  and it is imo a perfect match.

[Chris Davidson]

A match is between the cycle headlight and curbline, both occurring in the main frame and between the sprocket holes.

The only way this is possible is if the second cycle is directly behind the first, which he is not.

The cop cycle in front has his fender poking up just above the limo(red arrow) which shows the relationship between  fender, curbline and headlight.

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

David Andrews writes:

Quote

More than ever, we need the evaluation by editing and special effects people working in the 1960s that Doug Horne promised to organize.

Is that the Wilkerson thing? I've been reading for years that a super-detailed scan was being examined by special-effects experts, and that it would provide definitive proof of fakery that would blow the case out of the water.

As with some end-of-the-world prophecy that limps past its deadline, we're still waiting for the apocalypse to arrive. Does anyone know what happened to that particular effort to prove that the film was faked? If those experts had actually found anything, I'm sure we would have heard about it by now.

The Zapruder-film-is-a-fake speculation has been going on for - what? - twenty years, maybe longer, and there's still no proof.* All we have is a collection of apparent anomalies, almost all of which have turned out to have plausible, innocent explanations. Mary Moorman was standing in the street! Oh wait, she wasn't. The lamp posts look kinda strange! Oh wait, they don't. And so on.

The problem is that this anomaly-hunting can go on forever. There are plenty of copies of copies of copies of copies of the Zapruder film floating about, with each copy adding a new collection of strange-looking artefacts.

And of course there's no shortage of people who can pounce on these artefacts. These people may not know much about photography, but they do like the idea of a vastly complicated conspiracy. I've found a blob in a 17th-generation copy of the Zapruder film! I can't think of how that blob might have got there! That means it's a forgery!

The crazy thing is that the Zapruder film is perhaps the strongest piece of documentary evidence to contradict the lone-gunman explanation. But who cares about that if you've got the chance to indulge your taste for ridiculously elaborate conspiracies?

* Not only is there no proof, but there isn't even any agreement on what is wrong with the film, or why this or that part might have needed to be altered. A frame or two in this section were tweaked! No, a few frames in that section were removed! No, the whole thing was reconstructed from scratch! That disagreement by itself is a pretty good clue that it's all just the product of over-active imaginations.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Jeremy Bojczuk

[Chris Davidson]

23 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Let's try to take these one by one.

Out of curiosity, let's say the alleged Sitzman film had slightly more color saturation than Zapruder's, or slightly more image bleed into the sprocket holes, or slightly more camera jiggle. How would the forgers account for variations like that?

 

Let me show you just another example of what you seek.

Extant Z212 was supposed to be a combination of two frames, one on top and one on the bottom because damage was done to the film at some point.

That's a great explanation until you  re-align the stationary objects.

The tree, Rosemary Willis but Robert Croft is missing something.

He is missing something that should appear in the lower MAIN frame.

It's really not incumbant upon me to provide the method by which the alterations took place. Only to show that they are present.

Should the ground color saturation appear the same underneath Croft's missing feet in extant z212, as it does in extant z166, which is where I took the inset from?

You see, that would only be a 2.5sec difference between the two frames.

So, putting this in perspective:

You have (at the least) a compound problem not including the 1.3° rotation that was more than likely started at this SPLICE because of what was going to be corrected as the film advanced toward the head shots/limo stop.

Compound usually means at least two.

In this instance, either two or more films or the same film with alterations in essence creating another film.

Pick your poison!!!!

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Chris Davidson
Added limo stop

[Chris Davidson]

On 10/17/2021 at 3:10 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The variation starts at Station# 2+00.
The parallel track is 100ft from Station 2+00 to 3+00 (extant Z133) = 208 frames
The altered(forwarded) track is 100ft @166frames

Relink in case you forgot from what document you saw the 100ft/166frame split:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CiFoD500L2lnrkEPnWZ4RTgZk6hdLyfT/view?usp=sharing

100ft/208frames = .48ft per frame
100ft/166frames = .60ft per frame
                                .12ft per frame difference created by a 42 frame total difference.

 

 

 

Since we are/were discussing analogies, here's one with numbers dealing with the z208 splice.

603(+/-1) total frames - 208 beginning frames = 395 remaining frames

395 remaining frames - 42 limo stop/head shot frames = 353 remaining frames

Extant Zfilm z133- z486 = 353 remaining frames

Macro View = Reality

[John Butler]

50 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Since we are/were discussing analogies, here's one with numbers dealing with the z208 splice.

603(+/-1) total frames - 208 beginning frames = 395 remaining frames

395 remaining frames - 42 limo stop/head shot frames = 353 remaining frames

Extant Zfilm z133- z486 = 353 remaining frames

Macro View = Reality

JC seems to be confused by your calculations.  Even when you post something simple which even a low math ability fellow like me can understand.  

Thanks for your good work.  Particularly, with what you showed in the Weigman film.  For me and Zapruder frames, my biggest interest is in how many frames were there between Z 132 and Z 133.  I don't believe there is a way to count them other than making a good guess.  I expect to hear from JC with his count which is Zero.

Edited October 19, 2021 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

On 10/17/2021 at 12:08 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Allow me to answer this way:

Imagine that the spliced extant z212 frame(supposedly 212 is the bottom part and 208 the top) was actually two 1/2 frames from two different films.

And, when they were filming Shaneyfelt and cohort upon the pedestal, that other film was from a location/LOS similar to the person filming Shaneyfelt.

We then needed to keep our 1.3° to 3.13°(street slope) angle rotation relationship.

Scale it and move the top half (supposedly extant 208) down to accommadate for the parallax effect.

What would it look like:

 

 

 

 

 

These designated yellow curb markers were approx 30ft apart.

The distance in terms of extant zframes equals approx z300-z350

What are the odds that between these markers, this SS recreation footage had a difference in camera angle of 1.3°?

The SS footage was shot at 24fps with the car moving an average of 15mph, so the time to film that 30ft stretch was 1.36seconds.

Note the difference of a 1.3° angle in background perspective relative to the curb, between frames.

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 10/18/2021 at 9:58 AM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Out of curiosity, let's say the alleged Sitzman film had slightly more color saturation than Zapruder's, or slightly more image bleed into the sprocket holes, or slightly more camera jiggle. How would the forgers account for variations like that?

 

There was so much camera jiggle the film edge marking itself was intermittingly rotating 1.3° too.

[Chris Davidson]

On 10/13/2021 at 10:45 AM, Chris Davidson said:

After the Stemmons sign, the re-enactment film is enlarged within one frame(might want to ask yourself why) moving forward at the new size.

Appearing in the enlargement frame is a reminder of the same residual affect from the extant Zfilm.

 

Starting from the approx same position(using JFK's relationship to the background tree) here is a comparison between an FBI copy(at least this was used in a Robert Frazier interview) and a WC re-enactment copy.

As you can see, the string of angled frames(note film edge markings) from the FBI copy start before the enlarged frame from the WC re-enactment version.

I labeled the last two FBI frames so you have an idea of what that angle change is, at that point.

Which is  where JFK's location is(comparing frame counts), when the WC-re-enactment frame enlarges.

Please note the difference between the film angles, using the plants along the wall makes it easier, until the last frame.

The change back from 1.3°  to a straight film edge marking gives us an angle match among the plants in the last frame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Besides the snakes (in the grass) that disappear within a four frame span and the grass saturation difference.

The relationship between sprocket hole and main frame angle.

If it's not apparent, the angled frame is missing an accommodating portion at the top.

[John Butler]

Gots to be them thar disappearing reptils.  No shadors thar.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2021 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

20 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Besides the snakes (in the grass) that disappear within a four frame span and the grass saturation difference.

The relationship between sprocket hole and main frame angle.

If it's not apparent, the angled frame is missing an accommodating portion at the top.

Truing up the sprocket holes from the angled frame above.

How compound angles create a 1.3° change.

btw, the slope of Elm St. is 3.13°

3.13° - 1.83° = 1.3°

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 10/19/2021 at 9:32 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Let me show you just another example of what you seek.

Extant Z212 was supposed to be a combination of two frames, one on top and one on the bottom because damage was done to the film at some point.

That's a great explanation until you  re-align the stationary objects.

The tree, Rosemary Willis but Robert Croft is missing something.

He is missing something that should appear in the lower MAIN frame.

It's really not incumbant upon me to provide the method by which the alterations took place. Only to show that they are present.

Should the ground color saturation appear the same underneath Croft's missing feet in extant z212, as it does in extant z166, which is where I took the inset from?

You see, that would only be a 2.5sec difference between the two frames.

So, putting this in perspective:

You have (at the least) a compound problem not including the 1.3° rotation that was more than likely started at this SPLICE because of what was going to be corrected as the film advanced toward the head shots/limo stop.

Compound usually means at least two.

In this instance, either two or more films or the same film with alterations in essence creating another film.

Pick your poison!!!!

 

 

 

Besides missing Croft's legs in extant z212, what other problems arise?

How is it possible that Clint has the background(red box) from extant z208 appear in front of him?

Which coincidentally, is inline with the double image angling Stemmons sign post between the sprocket holes.

Advanced film editing 101!!!