Unveiling The Limo Stop

[Jonathan Cohen]

14 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Who Knows?

What is blatantly obvious, is, someone was up on the wall behind the pedestal before the extant Zfilm was finished being filmed.

No mention of this person by ANYBODY.

Do you believe that any of the 30 frames from the Zapruder film published in Life on Nov. 29, 1963 were altered? If so, the conspirators would have had just a handful of days to do these alterations by combining elements from this alleged second Dealey Plaza film prior to Life going to the presses?

[Chris Davidson]

On 12/22/2021 at 4:25 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Do you believe that any of the 30 frames from the Zapruder film published in Life on Nov. 29, 1963 were altered? If so, the conspirators would have had just a handful of days to do these alterations by combining elements from this alleged second Dealey Plaza film prior to Life going to the presses?

How many of those 30 frames included the image "between the sprocket holes"?

Since the answer is ZERO, there is no reason for discussing them.

The more pertinent question that needs answering is Croft's lower half, among other items.

Let me provide some more info on that area of the film.

From wikipedia:

In early 1967, Life released a statement saying that four frames of the original (frames 208–211) were accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963. Life released those missing frames from the first-generation copy it had received from the film's original version

So, this occurs the day after the original film was processed and three Jamieson copies are created.

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 12/24/2021 at 12:50 AM, Chris Davidson said:

From wikipedia:

 

In early 1967, Life released a statement saying that four frames of the original (frames 208–211) were accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963. Life released those missing frames from the first-generation copy it had received from the film's original version

So, this occurs the day after the original film was processed and three Jamieson copies are created.

 

More help for this area:

Imagine what a head turn would look like among two different frames on the right side.

Then, imagine what a head turn would look like from the same frame(supposedly), but from two different films on the leftside.

What do you think the alterationists were trying to hide at this point?

I wonder if it was an obvious reaction to a shot.

We can't have that occur when there's another shot reaction on the extant film approx one second later.

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dKWsUnXHkmXGVJMyvOzkkc3zVmzcgRd6/view?usp=sharing

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27448-how-to-debunk-the-george-hickey-theory/?do=findComment&comment=450493

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27448-how-to-debunk-the-george-hickey-theory/?do=findComment&comment=451745

Moving forward from the two links provided,I would recommend paying attention to what Mary Woodward describes next:

“After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.
My first reaction, and also my friends’, was that as a joke, someone had backfired their car.
Apparently the driver and occupants of the President’s car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt.
Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don’t believe anyone was hit with the first bullet.
The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn’t believe the noise was really coming from a gun. “

The same time frame where we see the film alterations of Croft/RoseMary.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

How does it appear in the context of the extant film itself.

Using Groden's missing (208-212, not that they are the camera originals-imo)frames, some signs that direct us to the removal of frames besides the Croft/RoseMary problems.

If Z is panning the limo traveling at approx 11mph, in five frames at 18.3fps, the distance (large lateral frame movement) he pans is not even close to representing an 18.3fps rate.

More frames would.

There needs to be more frames to fill in that lateral span.

But, if he is panning and the limo slows/almost stops (Woodward description)and he keeps panning at the same rate, then in essence it appears he's over-panning, brought about by the vehicle's speed reduction.

Please also note the speed at which the umbrella rises in relationship to the limo moving and the gentleman walking in the background.

Most everyone has a cellphone where you can replicate this action. Just don't have the driver tell you when they are going to slow down/stop while you're filming them.

BTW, the gif plays at approx 17fps.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Speaking of missing frames.

The physical positioned relationship of Clint to RoseMary.

And, the sizing problem using human heads for the comparison.

Let there be no doubt.

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 12/27/2021 at 10:15 AM, Chris Davidson said:

I wonder if it was an obvious reaction to a shot.

We can't have that occur when there's another shot reaction on the extant film approx one second later.

 

 

 

Speaking of reaction to shots in this splice area, in case you had forgotten:

 

[John Butler]

That is one grisly film clip if looked at frame by frame.  The first 3 frames show the head moving forward.  In other words, the head movement is in the direction of the bullet.

Must have been a high caliber military round such as 7.63 or 30.06, or the German or Russian equivalent.  The hydrostatic shock is about the same.  Comparing to Kennedy a Mauser is suspect. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

On 12/24/2021 at 12:50 AM, Chris Davidson said:

From wikipedia:

 

In early 1967, Life released a statement saying that four frames of the original (frames 208–211) were accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963. Life released those missing frames from the first-generation copy it had received from the film's original version

So, this occurs the day after the original film was processed and three Jamieson copies are created.

 

Continuing with more of the common theme:

In case it's hard to read, the red outlines to the right read "No images between the sprocket holes/perforations" on the assassination side of the copies.

According to LIFE magazine, the THREE same day/first generation copies were duplicated WITHOUT the sprocket hole images, represented by only TWO leftsided versions above.

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 12/27/2021 at 10:15 AM, Chris Davidson said:

More help for this area:

Imagine what a head turn would look like among two different frames on the right side.

Then, imagine what a head turn would look like from the same frame(supposedly), but from two different films on the leftside.

What do you think the alterationists were trying to hide at this point?

I wonder if it was an obvious reaction to a shot.

We can't have that occur when there's another shot reaction on the extant film approx one second later.

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dKWsUnXHkmXGVJMyvOzkkc3zVmzcgRd6/view?usp=sharing

 

 

Fifty years later, the way LIFE describes it:

[Chris Davidson]

Nine years later, reality:

[Chris Davidson]

Would the difference between a first and third generation copy of the same frame alter the head turn of RoseMary???

[Chris Davidson]

The reaction(to a shot)by Hickey(among other obvious alterations) between the sprocket holes was a no-no for public viewing.

Couldn't be allowed as it reveals two shooters (timing) while destroying the SBT.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Piecing it together.

The earlier the iteration, the more obvious the alterations!!!

Reminds me of a silhouette created(mask/matte) when someone stands up in front of the movie screen with the lights out and the picture playing.

Don't forget about Croft's legs and RoseMary's head turn, either.

 

[David G. Healy]

On 1/1/2022 at 3:59 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Continuing with more of the common theme:

In case it's hard to read, the red outlines to the right read "No images between the sprocket holes/perforations" on the assassination side of the copies.

According to LIFE magazine, the THREE same day/first generation copies were duplicated WITHOUT the sprocket hole images, represented by only TWO leftsided versions above.

 

I believe Jamison stated the 1st day dupes were NOT bracketed under his watch in Dallas. Then again he never told us what represented #0184 in his film lab that day, either. All bets are off when it comes to film dupes *away from Dallas*

Very nice work, Chris...

Edited January 14, 2022 by David G. Healy