Jump to content
The Education Forum

Unveiling The Limo Stop


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 366
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 10/7/2021 at 6:42 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Wiegman comes through with flying colors showing us the 2nd cameraman/film, his location

and

PedestalCameraman.gif

 

Moorman will show you the third camera person.

Just look at the same dark objects(close to the same height) which cross both Z and Sitzman's faces.

I believe that is her right hand holding her camera up to her face.

My guess is there is a 1.3° camera angle difference between them.

A good reason why we never get a clear photo/film footage of them upon the pedestal.

Moorman.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

John,

It's best to stabilize the elements within the extant Zfilm first, and then analyze them.

Here's Jackie for you playing at approx 17fps.

It may take a bit of time to load.

Jackie3.gif

 

There is a light glare that replaces for the most part her right hand.  That glare might be from white gloves.  There is this photo just as she was exiting the plane at the airport.

Jackies-dress.jpg

Later photos show that she is not wearing gloves.  If they had become really bloody, she would have removed them.  White gloves or not during frames Z 371 to Z 389 I couldn't say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Moorman will show you the third camera person.

Just look at the same dark objects(close to the same height) which cross both Z and Sitzman's faces.

I believe that is her right hand holding her camera up to her face.

My guess is there is a 1.3° camera angle difference between them.

A good reason why we never get a clear photo/film footage of them upon the pedestal.

Moorman.png

 

This is absolutely an expression of wonderful, out of the box thinking.  Both Zapruder and Sitzman filming at the same time.  Who would of thought of that?  Nobody for 58 years, except one.

So, that is 3 cameras.  If 3 cameras are being used by the co-conspirators (I have always thought of Zapruder as one) then there is the possibility of more.

Thanks for this vindication of what I have thought all along.  More than one film was used to put together the Z film.  I first got this idea looking at the people shown on the Southwest corner of Houston and Elm in Zapruder and Elsie Dorman.  Zapruder and Dorman don't match on the number of people there before the Zapruder Gap and afterwards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris D.,

I thought I had noticed something new, but as most of the time someone has already thought about the idea.  I noticed that Zapruder was shorter then Sitzman.  And, it some cases she looks like a man from the waist up.  I've looked at Moorman, Willis, Betzner, and Bronson.  You can't really tell whether Sitzman is behind or beside Zapruder.   They do seem to be filming together in Moorman.

Mary-Moorman-Photo-z-and-s-filming.jpg

This was posted in 2009 by Fetzner:

"By Guest James H. Fetzer,
March 11, 2009 in JFK Assassination Debate

I left another--similarly dangling--issue in this post when I made the

following observation: "Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess

to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area

that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was

not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was

made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done

so much to obscure." I believe that Jack may have hit on the crucial

reason--or, at least, one of the reasons, since there may be more--for

fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically, which has

to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not

have been there at all. Consider Jack's studies.

In (Z1) the Betzner, Sitzman is 69" tall and Zapruder is 62". In (Z2)

the Moorman, their heights are now 66" and 58". In (Z3) the Nix, she

is 70" tall and Zapruder (who is now wearing a hat) is 68". In (Z4)

the Willis, Sitzman is 71" tall and Zapruder 64". And in (Z5) Bronson

she is 65" tall and Zapruder 57". Now Sitzman cannot be 69" tall and

66" tall and 70" tall and 71" tall and 65" and be one person at one

location in real time. However, her image could have been introduced

into those photos and films to create a presence that was not actually

at that place and time. Similarly, for Zapruder, who cannot be 62" tall

and 58" tall and 68" tall and 64" tall and 57" tall. Something very odd

is taking place here, for the discovery of which we, once again, have

Jack White to thank. Perhaps Zapruder did not take "the Zapruder film,

because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn't even there!"

If these calculations can be believed, then more likely than not there is something going on with Zapruder and Sitzman.  Could Zapruder and Stizman not be there?  I don't think so.  But, there is now good evidence that there was filmed more than 1 Zapruder film.  Maybe, a case for 3 films so far.

The government had their hands on every film and photo in Dealey Plaza.  I can only think of one that may have escaped their quest to tell their story.  That is the AMIPA film.  And, I am sure someone will say what about Robert Croft he went back home.  Yes, he did, but the FBI tracked him down at his home and took his film material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking of more than one Zapruder film filmed at the same time as Zapruder brings up the Doug Horne story of the documenting of the early history of the Zapruder film.  Is this CIA disinformation?  Did Brugioni and McMahon tell a tale for the public after all those years that simply leads one down a meaningless, controversial trail for the CIA?

If there was more than one Zapruder film filmed by Sitzman and some man behind them then what does one make of that Horne/Brugioni/McMahon tale?  If there was more than one Zapruder film filmed from his location then that film or film could have been at Rochester, New York as early as a jet could fly there.  Maybe by 5:00 or 6:00 PM on the day of the assassination.

Earlier films could have been made mapping the area in preparation as a base for the actual information coming into the Hawkeye Works from the multiple Zapruder/others films that no one new anything about.  These early base films could have been there as a base film by perhaps 2:00 PM.

John Costella said at one point that the Zapruder film may have been built from the ground up.  He indicated that all that was known about the Zapruder film was about 30 frames used in briefing boards and Life Magazine.  The rest of the extant film could have been prepared later.  I think this may be the case because a tremendous amount of information had to be reconciled with other films such as Muchmore, Nix, and others.

Other than briefing boards and life magazine what did people know of the Zapruder film?  Select individuals were allowed to see the film and we have their memory and veracity for what they saw.  What they said may have been subject to coercion as so many other witnesses were coerced by the Secret Service, FBI, and Dallas authorities.  The record of dead JFKA witnesses is appalling.      

 

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t forget that the Jamison film company had all of the technology on site in their Dallas facility to edit the Zfilm as effectively as any film lab in the US (they were known as “the Hollywood of the midwest” after all).  The necessary edits could have been done right in Dallas, within an hour of the shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven Kossor said:

Don’t forget that the Jamison film company had all of the technology on site in their Dallas facility to edit the Zfilm as effectively as any film lab in the US (they were known as “the Hollywood of the midwest” after all).  The necessary edits could have been done right in Dallas, within an hour of the shooting.

Thanks Steven,

If that were so it would give more credence to the notion that the testimony of Brugioni and McMahon is CIA disinformation designed to further obfuscate what really happened.  This would be kind of like a Nixonian "modified limited hangout".  Their testimony has always bothered me in the sense that those two were long term employees of the CIA and just how truthful could they be even if they were willing to tell all.  Taken Richard Helms, David Phillips, and E. Hward Hunt as  examples, could you really trust what a CIA agent says?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2021 at 9:47 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Throw in an example of:

The vertical difference in background objects reflecting the height difference between Shaneyfelt(more than likely) and Zapruder both filming from the pedestal.

Wallholes.gif

 

 

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.

Or, you can look closely at the gif above using the darkened wall holes from the re-enactment and locate those same dark holes in the extant zfilm.

KGB-240.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason for enlarging would be to accommodate angle changes.

The 3.13° slope of Elm is exactly the angle I used to align this next gif, besides scaling it.

I suggest watching the faint grass&curbline that appears in the re-enactment as the Zfilm disappears.

Then ask why a true grassline/curbline doesn't appear in the reenactment.

Notice JFK's head position/alignment among both frames, along with the other passengers.

Z-KGB-369.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2021 at 10:44 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Now that you know the method by which an 18.3fps original at certain spans becomes a 16fps version, just apply that to the total frame count of 604:

16/18.3 = .875 x 604 = 528.5 fames

604-528.5 = 75.5frames

75.5 - 42(see previous posting for that iteration) = 33.5frames

33.5frames = Myers increased speed of the Towner camera fps for his sync to work, which I have previously shown many times to be B.S. And, does not include the total missing Towner splice frames.

The WC/FBI knew the Z fps rate on Dec6 which is approx 1 1/2 months before Hoover's FBI letter.

They had a shooting sequence film that contained 33 x 18.3fps = 604frames approx

If you understand the 18.3/16fps conversion concept, you can move forward with more frame bracketing combos to arrive at the final destination.

Added on edit: I'm quite sure the Z frame rate was known well before Dec6, 1963. That's just the earliest documentation we have for it.

Back to some more numbers.

One indicator of those 75 excised frames.

Look no further than the frame span from extant Z132/133(splice)-Z207/Z208(splice) = 75 frames

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which does not include the frames before 133.. the turn… about 85 more frames…

If I remember correctly.  The color motorcycle is placed in front of the Pos A B&W stand-in car in the bottom image.  And the angle of departure from the curb of the still images of Pos A seems to require that leftward adjustment Truly describes of them almost hitting the curb.

This was my best guess at the actual turn….   
 

Love ur work Chris… great ongoing job with this…

DJ

563780541_1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_PositionAsmaller.thumb.jpg.e39f9ce2c9444693a87ed982e2004f1d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Which does not include the frames before 133.. the turn… about 85 more frames…

 

 

 

Thanks David,

Let me give you a more precise number for this, in a mild brain-busting manner.

We have a somewhat analagous Towner film (not including total missing frames) to extant Z

We know Z started filming the limo around the Houston/Elm St corner.

Use the 207/208 frame count splice in the context of a film beginning.

Or, use Doug Horne's research and find a block of continuous frames unaccounted for.

Then, subtract 75(see previous postings) from that total.

2ft7inches = 2.5833...ft of 8mm film

80 frames = 1ft of 8mm film

2.5833...ft x 80 = 206.666 total frames

Doug-Horne.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2021 at 9:50 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Wall1.png

Sorry to bother Chris…. Wouldn’t a camera back by the fence need a difference focal length to match the image size of the closer Zap camera at a higher zoom… OMG… 

Does that account for the zoom in after the 207 splice? The switch to the other film taken at 48 fps as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Thanks David,

Let me give you a more precise number for this, in a mild brain-busting manner.

We have a somewhat analagous Towner film (not including total missing frames) to extant Z

We know Z started filming the limo around the Houston/Elm St corner.

Use the 207/208 frame count splice in the context of a film beginning.

Or, use Doug Horne's research and find a block of continuous frames unaccounted for.

Then, subtract 75(see previous postings) from that total.

2ft7inches = 2.5833...ft of 8mm film

80 frames = 1ft of 8mm film

2.5833...ft x 80 = 206.666 total frames

Doug-Horne.png

 

As we discussed many moons ago…. It all hinges on the frame numbers assigned by Shaneyfelt becoming the 2nd legend and the arbitrary assigning of frame numbers starting with 133, which if I understand you was actually frame 207 in the contiguous film.

moving 208 back to where it was actually filmed at extent 133 at 48fps effectively removed the wide turn and that virtual stop with 207 renumbered to 133 and in pops the limo.

At this point, z133, the counter at 18.3 FPS on Zap should be 2’7” from the start of the film and represents frame 208…

or am I mucking this all up… lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...