Unveiling The Limo Stop

[Chris Davidson]

17 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

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...

Thanks David,

I couldn't agree more with all bets being off.

In fact, a second film fills in much of the story.

I think you'll enjoy this next piece.

My previous(movie theater) analogy should help.

Sitzman?/a female(check waistline) at the least, appeared in the foreground of film #2.

Hence the "knock out"(old graphic arts days reference) created in the extant z208 frame.

Fortunately, my late brother photographed me upon the pedestal, from behind, which would allow a similar comparison to the silhouette/knock out in z208.

Where's Waldo, I mean Z?

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

OTOH,

Using a similar piece of footage might accomplish the same effect.

[John Butler]

29 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

OTOH,

Using a similar piece of footage might accomplish the same effect.

Chris,

I'm not catching how you say this shadow is made.  Combination of at least 2 film frames from different sources.  Regardless, great eyes to catch that.

I am continually astounded by the things that can be found in the Z film.  In Z 208 is another anomaly.  It appears to be arms holding something, maybe a camera. 

May be just blurs.  One has to be continually aware that what one sees may just be an anthropomorphic projection.

I'm not the best with perspective analysis, but I've always thought that the SW corner of Houston and Elm was made from at least 3 films.  The Dorman and Zapruder film disagree on who is there and the number of people there.  That's two but what was the third?  There are 14 or more photographers unidentified on Elm and Houston that day.

Using more than one film to make a scene the way you want seems reasonable.  Who is to prove that the Z film in its earliest form, the pre-extent film, shown to the public (in Life mag) was nothing more than that just what aproximately 30 frames.  The rest being edited later to replace all know versions once the latest rendition was made.

Working on 30 or so frames shouldn't have taken that long. 

[Chris Davidson]

23 hours ago, John Butler said:

1. I'm not catching how you say this shadow is made. 

2.Combination of at least 2 film frames from different sources. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. How do matte artists turn color into silhouettes?

2.Possible

 

 

[John Butler]

From Wikipedia on mattes:

"Mattes are used in photography and special effects filmmaking to combine two or more image elements into a single, final image. Usually, mattes are used to combine a foreground image (e.g. actors on a set or a spaceship) with a background image (e.g. a scenic vista or a starfield with planets). In this case, the matte is the background painting. In film and stage, mattes can be physically huge sections of painted canvas, portraying large scenic expanses of landscapes.

In film, the principle of a matte requires masking certain areas of the film emulsion to selectively control which areas are exposed. However, many complex special-effects scenes have included dozens of discrete image elements, requiring very complex use of mattes, and layering mattes on top of one another. For an example of a simple matte, we may wish to depict a group of actors in front of a store, with a massive city and sky visible above the store's roof. We would have two images—the actors on the set, and the image of the city—to combine onto a third. This would require two masks/mattes. One would mask everything above the store's roof, and the other would mask everything below it. By using these masks/mattes when copying these images onto the third, we can combine the images without creating ghostly double-exposures. In film, this is an example of a static matte, where the shape of the mask does not change from frame to frame. Other shots may require mattes that change, to mask the shapes of moving objects, such as human beings or spaceships. These are known as traveling mattes. Traveling mattes enable greater freedom of composition and movement, but they are also more difficult to accomplish.

Compositing techniques known as chroma keying that remove all areas of a certain color from a recording – colloquially known as "bluescreen" or "greenscreen" after the most popular colors used – are probably the best-known and most widely used modern techniques for creating traveling mattes, although rotoscoping and multiple motion control passes have also been used in the past. Computer-generated imagery, either static or animated, is also often rendered with a transparent background and digitally overlaid on top of modern film recordings using the same principle as a matte – a digital image mask."

Traveling mattes.  I think the best example of this is the 19 people in the area of the lamppost on Elms and the Stemmons.  These folks move very little.  At first the impression was that they didn't move at all.  That part of the film is a traveling matte.  So, is the man-shaped figure in the limo.  It is there for a purpose.  At first it was a black rectangular shape that gradually turns in to a shadow man.    

I went back and looked at Z 200 to Z 215.  The man-shaped black area was not always man-shaped.  I think it is related to the motorbike policemen somehow or another.   Why?  Not a clue.  I don't think it is a film process error or damage to the film.  It is artificial in my opinion.  I'm not sure whether it is prosopopeia, a figure of speech in which an abstract thing is personified, or not.  Prosopopeia.  I can never remember that word or spell it. 

"Traveling mattes enable greater freedom of composition and movement, but they are also more difficult to accomplish"

This is where one catches errors in the various Z film frames.  It is like Phil Willis' extra-long leg in Z 157.  This gives rise to thoughts such as was Phil even there at all?  Did Linda take his slides?  Linda and Rosemary made it, but not Phil in the Dorman film.  Because of the differences between the Z film and the Dorman film, everything is questionable on that corner.    

Edited January 17, 2022 by John Butler

[David G. Healy]

On 1/15/2022 at 10:53 AM, John Butler said:

Chris,

I'm not catching how you say this shadow is made.  Combination of at least 2 film frames from different sources.  Regardless, great eyes to catch that.

I am continually astounded by the things that can be found in the Z film.  In Z 208 is another anomaly.  It appears to be arms holding something, maybe a camera. 

May be just blurs.  One has to be continually aware that what one sees may just be an anthropomorphic projection.

I'm not the best with perspective analysis, but I've always thought that the SW corner of Houston and Elm was made from at least 3 films.  The Dorman and Zapruder film disagree on who is there and the number of people there.  That's two but what was the third?  There are 14 or more photographers unidentified on Elm and Houston that day.

Using more than one film to make a scene the way you want seems reasonable.  Who is to prove that the Z film in its earliest form, the pre-extent film, shown to the public (in Life mag) was nothing more than that just what aproximately 30 frames.  The rest being edited later to replace all know versions once the latest rendition was made.

Working on 30 or so frames shouldn't have taken that long. 

would there be value having a clean Elm Street pan , say within 10 minutes of the motorcade traversing the same route, filmed from the exact same pedestal Zapruder stands on. using a similar B%H camera nearly the same lens and exact same type of film used in the Zap camera--- for post editing of the scene happening on Elm St. a few minutes later> Lens wide enough to grab the crowd on both sides of Elm St..... could be #0184?

[John Butler]

38 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

would there be value having a clean Elm Street pan , say within 10 minutes of the motorcade traversing the same route, filmed from the exact same pedestal Zapruder stands on. using a similar B%H camera nearly the same lens and exact same type of film used in the Zap camera--- for post editing of the scene happening on Elm St. a few minutes later> Lens wide enough to grab the crowd on both sides of Elm St..... could be #0184?

Yes indeed.  I have always thought something like that.  I suspect that was done.  Also, there may have been photographers out getting images of people to place into the main film, the Z film, or for other relevant films that would show up.  Jack White said by comparing the Z film and Altgens 5 there was no one in the intersection of Elm and Houston (east side) were the same people.  This would indicate whoever was there was film earlier or filmed elsewhere and place there.

From what I can see all of the films and photos in Dealey Plaza, most if not all have been edited except for the AMIPA film.

Chris D. has shown there was a camera man behind Zapruder.

At the ARRB there was a fellow that claimed there was a detachment from Fort Hood sent to film at Dealey Plaza.  About 50 or so army cameral men.  I would suspect that there was editing in of film elements and also editing out of things that were there that day.

From the intersection of Main and Houston to around the corner to Elm Street I can show about 14 people who had cameras and are unknown.  Camera film confiscated at the film developers?  Owners told there film didn't develop?   No word on these people and their cameras.  Who were they?

I think camera men like Altgens took a great deal more film then claimed.  In his case he may have been sending film back to the Daily Morning News for editing prior to the Motorcade arriving.  Altgens 5, 6, and 7 have been edited to show the desired story.

The Z film, Altgens photos, and Mary Moorman's Polaroid contain the basic story that folks would be asked to learn.   

Edited January 18, 2022 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jack White said by comparing the Z film and Altgens 5 there was no one in the intersection of Elm and Houston (east side) were the same people.  This would indicate whoever was there was film earlier or filmed elsewhere and place there.

Jack White also said that the Apollo moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center.

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

I think camera men like Altgens took a great deal more film then claimed.  In his case he may have been sending film back to the Daily Morning News for editing prior to the Motorcade arriving.  Altgens 5, 6, and 7 have been edited to show the desired story.

The Z film, Altgens photos, and Mary Moorman's Polaroid contain the basic story that folks would be asked to learn.   

More absolute nonsense from John Butler. "Sending film back to the Daily Morning News" ? How? Why? So they could get their "Lovelady face masks" ready to go? Do you have a shred of evidence to support this?

The Zapruder film, Atlgens photos and Moorman Polaroid "contain the basic story" because they accurately depict what happened that day in Dealey Plaza.

On another note, there's someone posting at Duncan MacRae's forum under the name "Jake Maxwell" and his outlandish theories are right out of Ralph Cinque/John Butler Land. He believes that Richard Stolley's face was pasted over that of JFK and Jackie Kennedy in the Zapruder film. Maybe you two should get acquainted?

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Jack White also said that the Apollo moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center.

Your saying one has a connection to the other?  Being from Denial Land, you must think that your denials has some significance.  Some importance.  More proclamations from No-No land with a touch of ad hominem?  Can you tell me exactly what you find objectionable about Jack White's moon landing theories?  Can you prove what he said is untrue?  I have never looked at them.  Do we exist in a land where people can't entertain their own convictions and express those thoughts. 

As far as absolute nonsense goes one doesn't have to wander far from the JB/JC No-No land lone nutter beliefs of you folks and others.  Folks have been comparing me to the Cinque fellow since I joined the Forum.  I don't know who this Cinque is and can you explain why he is similar?  

There I have descended to your level of non-sense just to see what it is like.  It's amusing.  Keep up the good work.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by John Butler

[David Josephs]

On 1/15/2022 at 1:01 PM, Chris Davidson said:

OTOH,

Using a similar piece of footage might accomplish the same effect.

You know how I hate to disagree with you Chris...  if you follow that "shadow" back a few frames you can see it is simply part of HARGIS... continue a few frames and it becomes even more obvious..  

Appears to be him from the waist down with his motorcycle causing the shape distortions as he moves...

I'd show you but am out of space...  start at z190 and move thru and you'll see what I mean...

Always much respect for your work Chris...

DJ

[Chris Davidson]

Hi David,
Reasonable disagreements are fine, that’s encouragement for me to provide a more detailed explanation of the concept /alterations.
I’ll continue posting on this thread moving forward.

Beginning with:

Credit John Costella PDF:

Bill Newman (on the north side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limou­sine at the time of the shooting), November 24, 1963: “The car was pro­ceeding toward him and it seemed that the President’s arms went up and that he raised up in his seat and started to look around.” [FBI report: CE1432: 22H842]

I'm getting the distinct impression that Robert West saw on the original Zfilm, that which Bill Newman describes two days later.

The difference between them being: Where West plotted the reaction and where we see that reaction on the extant zfilm.

[Chris Davidson]

Allow me to introduce my reenactment, using the extant reenactment, along with the extant zfilm.

Frame z212 is taken from the 6K version of a third generation(I believe)copy.

z206 is a composite(layered opacity) which uses a frame from the reenactment film, shot, using Z's camera.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

If I were a matte artist, which I am not (although I did a lot of work with knockouts, same concept via the film route in graphic arts) and had to alter the rising action of JFK, I could probably eliminate the top half of the rise by opaquing/creating a mask to hide it.

Viewing frame z206 from the previous posted gif, keep the following in mind as you watch JFK below the sign and the reenactment stand-in above the sign. Notice where the reenactment stand-in lands, in relationship to the mask (imo) on the original extant zfilm. 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

After the limo clears the StemmonsSign=Z232, I reduced it 22% to fit, when it was behind the sign at z206.
The rotation applied in the gif is 3.13° CW which is what the Elm St slope(in degrees) is, at those extant frame locations.

 

[David Josephs]

32 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

After the limo clears the StemmonsSign=Z232, I reduced it 22% to fit, when it was behind the sign at z206.
The rotation applied in the gif is 3.13° CW which is what the Elm St slope(in degrees) is, at those extant frame locations.

 

Motivated devil's advocate....   Isn't the reenactment car 10" higher than the limo?