Jump to content
The Education Forum

Unveiling The Limo Stop


Recommended Posts

John Butler writes:

Quote

But, there is now good evidence that there was filmed more than 1 Zapruder film.  Maybe, a case for 3 films so far.

As usual, it's difficult to tell whether John Butler is being serious or is just having a laugh at our expense.

There could be as many as three Zapruder films, apparently. And the deception and forgery don't stop there. According to Mr Butler, almost all of the home movies and photographs from Dealey Plaza have been faked in some way. That includes the Altgens photographs, several of which were somehow altered during the half an hour or so before they were transmitted all over the world. Then we have the three or four Oswalds that Mr Butler has proposed. And presumably each of these three or four Oswalds would have had his own Marguerite.

I dread to think what he will conjure into existence when he finds out about Lifton's body-alteration and papier-mâché trees nonsense, or Mr Caddy's little green men.

If Mr Butler is having a laugh with all of this far-fetched stuff, a question arises. Who is he making fun of? Is he satirising the everything-is-a-fake, Jack White school of JFK assassination enthusiasts, by taking their fanciful speculations to extremes? If so, he's doing a splendid job. Keep up the good work, Mr Butler!

Of course, if he's being serious, he really needs to stop speculating for a moment and work out how all of this widespread fakery might actually have happened. If almost all the photos and films were faked, how exactly could it have been done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 366
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

David Josephs writes:

Quote

Would u be so kind as to provide the proof Sitzman did not film anything? ... Rather than shooting the messenger, offer proofs for the anomalies from some other source.

It isn't up to Jonathan or anyone else to disprove someone's speculative assertion. That isn't how things work.

It's up to the person who made the speculative assertion to prove their case. If they can't, it remains exactly that: empty speculation.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, of course. Although I've only popped in here occasionally over the last few weeks, I've seen little other than wild speculation, in all sorts of areas. I think this forum needs to be renamed. Rather than the Education Forum, it now seems to be the Speculation Forum.

I particularly enjoyed the pages and pages of speculation about the Tippit killing, and the attempts to incorporate that killing into a Grand Unified Theory of the JFK assassination. I mean, Oswald was charged with killing Tippit, so it must have been part of the plot from the beginning, mustn't it?

Why stop there? It doesn't take many people to shoot some guy in a slow-moving open-topped car, but that's no fun. The more complicated and unlikely the theory we can construct, the more fun we can have!

It should be possible to work plenty of the minor characters into our Grand Unified Theory. Let's start with the Babushka Lady. She must have been involved somehow, mustn't she? Maybe she helped Richard Nagell, Michael Paine, and one of the four Marguerite Oswalds to operate the mobile photo lab in Dealey Plaza that faked the Altgens photos! Go on, prove that she didn't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If Mr Butler is having a laugh with all of this far-fetched stuff, a question arises. Who is he making fun of? Is he satirising the everything-is-a-fake, Jack White school of JFK assassination enthusiasts, by taking their fanciful speculations to extremes? If so, he's doing a splendid job. Keep up the good work, Mr Butler!

I'll try too.  There is more to come.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, John Butler said:

David,

Very well said.  If you don't mind I would like to reuse that in another thread.

Of course my friend….  And don’t forget Holmes… you just keep rocking it.  Question remains, how impossible is impossible in 1963?

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Of course my friend….  And don’t forget Holmes… you just keep rocking it.  Question remains, how impossible is impossible in 1963?

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

David,

There have been made significant, astounding contributions to the Kennedy/Tippit murders by you and Chris D. this week.  I wonder if folks really understand and appreciate what you two have put out this week in understanding the real story which has been covered over with the official story.

I hope I have contributed with a new look at the Tippit autopsy.  Thanks for your kind words.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I think this forum needs to be renamed. Rather than the Education Forum, it now seems to be the Speculation Forum.

 

Two separate (8mm 16 and/or 18fps) cameras shooting a partial overlap of the same footage.

The same frame rate is necessary for a "frame x frame" sync according to Myers.

The frame rate is 22.8fps/16(1.42x faster than rated) or 22.8fps/18(1.266x faster).

I have shown you partially(purposely) why the frame rates were increased.

These two cameras did/do not possess that fps capability.

Please find a probabilities expert and ask them what the odds of this previous scenario are? SLIM AND NONE

There is no speculation.

There is the realization that the WC/FBI/SS etc... and Myers knew exactly what happened and from there created an alternate reality.

So, I will not be wasting any more of my time with your speculations.

It's onward with more revelations.

A much wiser use of my time.

Martin-Towner-Camera.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 4:19 AM, David Josephs said:

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?

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:Stemmons.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo buddy….  Ur work remains personally inspiring. 
 

and just for pure speculation… the film to Rowley that disappears into history…

0184?  :secretvery few other explanations given that Max Phillips memo sent with the “third print”.  …

oh, and automatic counters punching numbers into films don’t just skip one.  0184 had to exist.  The Rowley film Friday night is the only film where a number is not offered.

IMO, this is what then goes to Hawkeyeworks and then onto Dino Sat eve.

Only Speculation, a hypothesis if u will….  Gotta start somewhere with the evidence available …

Again.. Thx.

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 8:55 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Backfill #2:

Myers frame rate for Towner 8mm camera = 22.8fps for his"frame x frame" syncs to work

Zapruder frame rate for 8mm =18.3fps

Towner extant frames according to Myers = 167

167/22.8 = 7.324 sec

167/18.3 = 9.125sec

                    1.8sec x 18.3fps = 33frames = Myers backfill below +/- 1 frame

 

Myers-32-frames.png

P.S. Towners camera did not have a setting for 24fps

Look no further for a distance given that can be used to tie together Myers and the WC relating to dealing with more than one film.

In this instance, a contiguous film starting with 208 frames.

.12ft x 208 frames = 24.96ft

.12ft x 18.3fps(1sec) = 2.196ft per sec/1.47(1mph) = 1.493mph

It's much easier dealing with this sh_t from a macro instead of micro perspective.

Unfortunately, all the previous work had to be completed from within.

My image hosting site is having problems, so it's Google Drive links for now.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kDgm2NpbFxgjwYyq9BA2keE0suLyK95V/view?usp=sharing

Myers-24.96ft.png

Edited by Chris Davidson
Imbed Google links image.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Towner’s line of site plotted to the signal light post in the background crosses Station# 2+00.  Then connect back to the Z pedestal.
Common landmark among both filmers.
It’s also where they start the cycle cop pre-limo tracking coverage.
Look closely and you can see his cycle being traversed by Z’s LOS at bottom and the signal light post above.
His body is actually one frame from reaching the traversing lines.
That signal light-post was surveyed in by Robert West in a completely separate document which placed it in line with the CriminalCourts building corner and 2ft in from the curb.

Station-200.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using only film editing technology available in November 1963, can anyone reproduce what Chris appears to claim was done to create the extant Zapruder film: seamlessly edit together three different 8 or 16mm films of a moving vehicle shot from different lines of sights into one new film, in a way that accounts for minute changes in point of view and goes virtually undetectable for decades? I personally would love to see the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Using only film editing technology available in November 1963,

What was the earliest date at which a non Zfilm was compared to the extant Zfilm by an entity other than the government?

And, when was the first time a non-connected (influenced) government entity saw the extant Zfilm?

can anyone reproduce what Chris appears to claim was done to create the extant Zapruder film:

If I shoot a rifle into the air, it doesn’t necessarily mean I was aiming at someone.

seamlessly edit together three different 8 or 16mm films of a moving vehicle shot from different lines of sights into one new film,

One film altered from it’s original state would also constitute a different film/s.

in a way that accounts for minute changes in point of view and goes virtually undetectable for decades?

Splices have not been undetectable for years, just mis-interpreted.

I personally would love to see the results.

You’ve already been shown some of the results.

Try reserving your pre-conceived notions about what wasn’t possible, then what’s left, is quite probable.

For instance, the main frame and sprocket image area in this previously provided example:

 

Answers above in red text.

Kw2Vsf.gif

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to take these one by one. Chris asks:

What was the earliest date at which a non Zfilm was compared to the extant Zfilm by an entity other than the government? And, when was the first time a non-connected (influenced) government entity saw the extant Zfilm?

Chris, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you asking the earliest date when, for example, the Towner or Dorman films were compared to the Zapruder film? Or when the Nix film was compared to the Zapruder film? What do you define as a "non-connected (influenced) government entity" ?

If I shoot a rifle into the air, it doesn’t necessarily mean I was aiming at someone.

I'm also not clear what you mean by this analogy. Are you implying that the "other" Dealey Plaza camera people whose films were used in a Zapruder film composite weren't "necessarily" aiming their cameras at the Presidential limousine?

One film altered from it’s original state would also constitute a different film/s.

I don't know what this refers to. Are you suggesting the various Zapruder film source materials were themselves altered first, and THEN combined into one new film?

Splices have not been undetectable for years, just mis-interpreted.

I should have clarified that I consider the splices a separate issue than the widespread alteration alleged by some members of this forum. I will be the first to concede that the splices are suspicious. But they are not necessarily evidence of some massive alteration (including John Butler-style objects painted into the frames) of the Zapruder film.

You’ve already been shown some of the results.

I've been shown results created using nothing more than film editing technology available in 1963? I presume all of the "results" you've displayed in this and other threads were achieved using modern computer technology and software.

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chris, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

40 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I'm also not clear what you mean by this analogy.

 

40 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I don't know what this refers to.

 

40 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I should have clarified that I consider the splices a separate issue than the widespread alteration alleged by some members of this forum.

 

40 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I've been shown results created using nothing more than film editing technology available in 1963?

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.

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...