JACKIE ON THE TRUNK- NIX VS ZAPRUDER

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Here's a different way of looking at it.

Why was the same frame from two publications of Life Magazine printed at 2 different angles?

In this case, a 1.3° difference.

The misalignment of two curbs(red arrow)shows the difficulties involved when merging/compositing/slicing /dicing/matting/optical printing multiple frames.

The bottom composite(non-Life) just confirms it.

I noticed many different distortions between the two versions of 347. The trunk is stretched in the flower copy. Each copy is rotated to a slightly different axis. It is less than one degree so I can't correct it. Anyone have a program that will allow you to rotate less than one degree?
The entire image has a sort of a crinkle in it. As you flip between photos there is an obvious distortion causing the left side to change it's axis relative to the right side. The two axis meet under Altgens feet. So the curb on the right changes axis compared to the curb on the left side of the image.
 Did the copies you are using come from the internet? I have to wonder if they photographed 347 right off the magazine page. That may explain some of the distortions but not the flower.
 The displaced curb as seen through the side window imo should be a matter of refraction. Curved windows will displace an image. Even a flat window will do it if it is thick enough and you view it from a steep angle to the glass.
A non prescription glass like a window has parallel surfaces. A ray of light hitting the front surface at a 40 downward angle will pass through the glass and hit the back side at the same 40 degrees so no change in the angle of light happens. But as the light passes through the glass at the 40 degree downward angle it travels down and hits the back surface at a lower position. It leaves the glass at the same 40 degree angle but now it is a bit lower than when it hit the front surface. That causes the image you see through the glass to be displaced downward. It is a result of the thickness of the glass and the angle the light enters at.
  A curved window will cause even more displacement. The front and rear surfaces are still parallel but when the light travels down it exits at a point where the curvature of the glass is not at the same angle as where the light entered the front surface. That change of angle mimics a prescription lens that has different front and back curvatures. The result is even more displacement. Actually depending on exactly where the light hits it may cancel out the displacement because every different angle of incidence creates different refractive angles.
The displacement we see in the side window occurs in many frames leading up to 347. If we had the exact curvature and thickness of the side window we could fairly accurately calculate just how much displacement we should see and in what direction from Z's point of view. But we know that the window will displace images and because it happens in many other frames I have to conclude it is most likely due to refraction.
Since we can't find any other copies of Z that show the flower or have the same distortion it is crucial to know how the flower version was obtained. If they did take it right off a magazine page and did not flatten the page out by placing glass over it then there would be distortion. Still does not readily explain the missing flower but would probably explain the distortion. We know how a magazine page is shaped when sitting on a table. The portion near the binding raises up initially then flattens out as it approaches the outer edge. If the trunk occupied the area of the page near the binding and the stretched part of the trunk is at the highest point of the page it would explain the stretched trunk very well.

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

I do find shadows in Dealey Plaza confusing.  But, not for the reasons you mention.  I rejected your notion of converging shadows back then and still do now.  I can't see any converging shadows in any of the frames I used.  I don't think being vertical or non-vertical has anything to do with how the sun casts shadows.  We can't dismiss Jackie's arm shadow when it should be a body shadow with the greatest angle difference.  And, we can't reject different angles in different films simply because they are not a panoramic.  The 3 frames/films were all taken within a minute of the JFKA.  The angle of the sun changed minutely in that time period.  Different places, different perspectives didn't change the shadows being parallel and at the same angle in each frame except Z 347.  It is not impossible to measure that.     

John. when it comes to shadows and alteration in these films we can all have differing opinions. But some of the things you disagree with are not opinions but hard science.  You said you do not accept vertical changes could change the shadow of the Sun and that is true, they do not. But they DO change your perceived angle of the shadow. perspective will change shadow angles. That is NOT an opinion it is very hard science. It is observable, measurable  and there is non theoretical scientific explanation for all of it. A few minutes on google maps street view and over head view will prove this.
I posted a link to a video of a tourist duplicating Z's film. There are many of these on Youtube so I hope we can agree they are not all fake. Look at the 8 second mark. you will see the tree on the left and lamppost on the right have different shadow angle. At the 10 second mark you will see the flagpole and lamppost in the foreground have mismatched shadows. At the 13 second mark you will see every lamppost has a different shadow angle.
you can tell from the glare that the Sun is over the East side of the Annex building, The shadow to the left of the Sun angle left. The shadows to the right of the Sun angle right. The shadow of the 2nd flagpole Between Main and Commerce point almost straight to Z because it is almost lined up with the Sun. This is all perfectly consistent with the science of optics.
 If you switched to a view from above the plaza in google maps you will see all lamppost shadows actually point to the same direction. But as you lower the angle of view the shadows will start to diverge outward. If you simply drop the elevation you you will start to see a similar effect. This is because as you drop you are still directly above the objects directly below you. But you are at an angle to the objects off the the side of the image. So from above all shadow angles match. As the angle becomes more shallow they start to diverge and do not match. As you go from high above to lets say Dormans shallow angle from the 4th floor the shadows diverge more and more. They gradually go from matching to diverging the lower the angle is. Again this is not opinion or theory it is hard science. We know exactly why that occurs and if it did not, that would be the mystery.
If you want to know if something is fake you must also understand all the ways it can look fake but be actual perspective changes. you need to fully grok the perspective issue so you can eliminate those and see if anything is left.
 consider this thought experiment. If I look at a pole and the Sun is directly behind it the shadow will point straight to me. but if I walk 20 feet to the left the Sun will no longer line up right behind that pole. Where does the shadow point now? Obviously it can no longer point to me because the pole, Sun and me are not on a straight line after walking 20 feet to the left. At that point the shadow will not point to me. If it points to me in one position but not the next position it is the very definition of different angles. That is due too perspective.
 Regarding Mitch's statement about all shadows converging is correct, they do. From high above all shadows in the plaza look to be parallel but they are not.They actually converge 93 million miles away at the Sun. That is too far for us to measure any convergence. it is just too small an angle.
The angle you view a shadow from will change the perceived angle and the distance to the shadows is a factor too because the farther away it is the shallower the angle to it.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I noticed many different distortions between the two versions of 347. The trunk is stretched in the flower copy. Each copy is rotated to a slightly different axis. It is less than one degree so I can't correct it. Anyone have a program that will allow you to rotate less than one degree?
The entire image has a sort of a crinkle in it. As you flip between photos there is an obvious distortion causing the left side to change it's axis relative to the right side. The two axis meet under Altgens feet. So the curb on the right changes axis compared to the curb on the left side of the image.
 Did the copies you are using come from the internet? I have to wonder if they photographed 347 right off the magazine page. That may explain some of the distortions but not the flower.
 The displaced curb as seen through the side window imo should be a matter of refraction. Curved windows will displace an image. Even a flat window will do it if it is thick enough and you view it from a steep angle to the glass.
A non prescription glass like a window has parallel surfaces. A ray of light hitting the front surface at a 40 downward angle will pass through the glass and hit the back side at the same 40 degrees so no change in the angle of light happens. But as the light passes through the glass at the 40 degree downward angle it travels down and hits the back surface at a lower position. It leaves the glass at the same 40 degree angle but now it is a bit lower than when it hit the front surface. That causes the image you see through the glass to be displaced downward. It is a result of the thickness of the glass and the angle the light enters at.
  A curved window will cause even more displacement. The front and rear surfaces are still parallel but when the light travels down it exits at a point where the curvature of the glass is not at the same angle as where the light entered the front surface. That change of angle mimics a prescription lens that has different front and back curvatures. The result is even more displacement. Actually depending on exactly where the light hits it may cancel out the displacement because every different angle of incidence creates different refractive angles.
The displacement we see in the side window occurs in many frames leading up to 347. If we had the exact curvature and thickness of the side window we could fairly accurately calculate just how much displacement we should see and in what direction from Z's point of view. But we know that the window will displace images and because it happens in many other frames I have to conclude it is most likely due to refraction.
Since we can't find any other copies of Z that show the flower or have the same distortion it is crucial to know how the flower version was obtained. If they did take it right off a magazine page and did not flatten the page out by placing glass over it then there would be distortion. Still does not readily explain the missing flower but would probably explain the distortion. We know how a magazine page is shaped when sitting on a table. The portion near the binding raises up initially then flattens out as it approaches the outer edge. If the trunk occupied the area of the page near the binding and the stretched part of the trunk is at the highest point of the page it would explain the stretched trunk very well.

I showed the Life edition that contains the flower frame. It is the earliest dated (12-14-1963) verifiable material I know of related to the extant zframe we are discussing.

No other source that I've seen contains the flower.

There are no sprocket holes included in the flower frame. If there were, I'm sure the obvious would be revealed.

I'm highly skeptical pertaining to this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ray Mitcham]

" Anyone have a program that will allow you to rotate less than one degree?"

 

Chris, GIMP  will allow you to alter angles by tenths of an angle. i.e.    .10 degrees.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

16 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

John. when it comes to shadows and alteration in these films we can all have differing opinions. But some of the things you disagree with are not opinions but hard science.  You said you do not accept vertical changes could change the shadow of the Sun and that is true, they do not. But they DO change your perceived angle of the shadow. perspective will change shadow angles. That is NOT an opinion it is very hard science. It is observable, measurable  and there is non theoretical scientific explanation for all of it. A few minutes on google maps street view and over head view will prove this.
I posted a link to a video of a tourist duplicating Z's film. There are many of these on Youtube so I hope we can agree they are not all fake. Look at the 8 second mark. you will see the tree on the left and lamppost on the right have different shadow angle. At the 10 second mark you will see the flagpole and lamppost in the foreground have mismatched shadows. At the 13 second mark you will see every lamppost has a different shadow angle.
you can tell from the glare that the Sun is over the East side of the Annex building, The shadow to the left of the Sun angle left. The shadows to the right of the Sun angle right. The shadow of the 2nd flagpole Between Main and Commerce point almost straight to Z because it is almost lined up with the Sun. This is all perfectly consistent with the science of optics.
 If you switched to a view from above the plaza in google maps you will see all lamppost shadows actually point to the same direction. But as you lower the angle of view the shadows will start to diverge outward. If you simply drop the elevation you you will start to see a similar effect. This is because as you drop you are still directly above the objects directly below you. But you are at an angle to the objects off the the side of the image. So from above all shadow angles match. As the angle becomes more shallow they start to diverge and do not match. As you go from high above to lets say Dormans shallow angle from the 4th floor the shadows diverge more and more. They gradually go from matching to diverging the lower the angle is. Again this is not opinion or theory it is hard science. We know exactly why that occurs and if it did not, that would be the mystery.
If you want to know if something is fake you must also understand all the ways it can look fake but be actual perspective changes. you need to fully grok the perspective issue so you can eliminate those and see if anything is left.
 consider this thought experiment. If I look at a pole and the Sun is directly behind it the shadow will point straight to me. but if I walk 20 feet to the left the Sun will no longer line up right behind that pole. Where does the shadow point now? Obviously it can no longer point to me because the pole, Sun and me are not on a straight line after walking 20 feet to the left. At that point the shadow will not point to me. If it points to me in one position but not the next position it is the very definition of different angles. That is due too perspective.
 Regarding Mitch's statement about all shadows converging is correct, they do. From high above all shadows in the plaza look to be parallel but they are not.They actually converge 93 million miles away at the Sun. That is too far for us to measure any convergence. it is just too small an angle.
The angle you view a shadow from will change the perceived angle and the distance to the shadows is a factor too because the farther away it is the shallower the angle to it.

 

Chris,

I'll have to think about some of the things you said.  You know how hard headed I am.  As far as Ray goes, we are arguing a fine point.  Parallel shadows are just that.  There is no real convergence as far back as the sun.  Convergence is an illusion of perspective and distance.  The farther the distance the greater the convergence.  Consider a railroad tracking moving to the horizon, the tracks seem to converge and mover closer together, not further apart. 

Shadows can also diverge as an illusion of perspective and distance.  This also requires some distance. 

I'm not sure I agree with distances as close as 20 feet distorting and creating illusions regardless of perspective.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

I went back and measured the shadows with a more sophisticated tool.  Here is the results:

IMO, there is just too much variation for distance and perspective.  We are looking at for the most part less than 20 feet.  The shadow for Altgens bag was measured, not added to the frame.  It was 4.90°.

The range for variation in these shadows is 4.90° to 36.38° in roughly, less than 20 feet.  OBTW, no converging shadows here.

Edited September 19, 2021 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I showed the Life edition that contains the flower frame. It is the earliest dated (12-14-1963) verifiable material I know of related to the extant zframe we are discussing.

No other source that I've seen contains the flower.

There are no sprocket holes included in the flower frame. If there were, I'm sure the obvious would be revealed.

I'm highly skeptical pertaining to this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or,

You can seek out the remnants from the original curbline (red box between the sprocket hole area), rotate the frame that same 1.3° and run the original curb over the newly angled curbline to see how well they align. Quite nicely. imo

The MPI version will have the remnants at frames labeled # 333+334.

I only used one of the two for the following example.

 

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

12 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

" Anyone have a program that will allow you to rotate less than one degree?"

 

Chris, GIMP  will allow you to alter angles by tenths of an angle. i.e.    .10 degrees.

Thanks I'll look it up, and sorry I called you Mitch.

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

I went back and measured the shadows with a more sophisticated tool.  Here is the results:

IMO, there is just too much variation for distance and perspective.  We are looking at for the most part less than 20 feet.  The shadow for Altgens bag was measured, not added to the frame.  It was 4.90°.

The range for variation in these shadows is 4.90° to 36.38° in roughly, less than 20 feet.  OBTW, no converging shadows here.

Bothun and the guy behind him and the couple at the top are all fairly accurate. although I would measure the guy behind Bothon from the head to a point in between his front and back  leg. That is because he is in the middle of a step and his head is not over either foot. So I take a couple degrees off his angle. The couple at the top are leaning left as seen in Nix so I would subtract a few degrees from that shadow.
Malcom Summers can't be used as anyone with any lean will change the shadow angle. The lean is always reflected in the shadow unless they are leaning straight towards the Sun or directly away from it. Jackie looks to be leaning towards the camera so it is hard to tell how much. We can't use her either because of the lean.
Altgens is the tricky one. Motion blur of a shadow over something bright like the curb top totally changes the angle. In the link below you will see frames 352 and 353 compared. The insert is fr 353 and the shadow angle has moved almost 90 deg! Any motion blur will start to move the shadow on the curb top so the angle in fr 347 is distorted to a steeper angle. The other problem is the curb is lower than the grass so the shadow takes a jog right when it hit the curb. Next, Altgens right leg is stepping forward and the lower leg is leaning forward and that steepens  the shadow of the right leg. The truest shadow is of his left leg but only the part on the grass. The grass being darker than the curb it does not erase and alter the shadow like the bright curb which eats part of the shadows and changes the look of the angle. Notice in the insert(Fr 353) the shadow angle is almost 90 degrees different than fr 352. But the bit of shadow of his left leg that is on the grass(The dotted line) is very close to Bothun's shadow angle.
 I expect the shadows to move towards the horizontal as the people are farther  and farther away.  That is what we see in Altgens, Bothun, the guy behind and the couple at the top after making some minor correction for lean. There is only a difference of about 5 degrees from the couple at the top and Altgens at the bottom and that seems to be about right.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yavjr-PItcTdC4NwszUqYbCTrbUIlLEo/view?usp=sharing

[Chris Bristow]

17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I showed the Life edition that contains the flower frame. It is the earliest dated (12-14-1963) verifiable material I know of related to the extant zframe we are discussing.

No other source that I've seen contains the flower.

There are no sprocket holes included in the flower frame. If there were, I'm sure the obvious would be revealed.

I'm highly skeptical pertaining to this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am with you on the flower oddity. The missing portion of the sprocket hole seems to be deliberate. There is bit of the ghost sprocket above it there but I guess they darkened it in.
So did you photograph the no flower frame directly from the magazine? whether you did or the image came from another person who photographed the page it could definitely distort the overall image.

[Chris Davidson]

The "no flower" Life frame was in this edition:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UUgEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Life+oct+2+1964&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmsrrhqYzzAhX4QzABHWrnDJoQuwV6BAgJEAY#v=onepage&q=Life oct 2 1964&f=false

[Ray Mitcham]

22 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

Shadows can also diverge as an illusion of perspective and distance.  This also requires some distance. 

I'm not sure I agree with distances as close as 20 feet distorting and creating illusions regardless of perspective.

 

A photo  showing converging shadows on poles about 6' part 

 

[Chris Bristow]

21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The "no flower" Life frame was in this edition:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UUgEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Life+oct+2+1964&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmsrrhqYzzAhX4QzABHWrnDJoQuwV6BAgJEAY#v=onepage&q=Life oct 2 1964&f=false

Could not find any frames after the head shot in this issue.

[Chris Davidson]

That's why I put the word "was" in bold text.

What are the odds that the frames beyond 313 are not in there?

Anyways, if you want examples of what is in there, magnify the thumbnails here:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/203588946465?_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item2f66d8ca21:g:R6gAAOSwcVZhLqaQ&amdata=enc%3AAQAGAAACoPYe5NmHp%2B2JMhMi7yxGiTJkPrKr5t53CooMSQt2orsSjVt3vLKCbov98Z19qhuwY7lFmQbVI2%2F6Xv2BNsfhEyf%2Bs7RFzYYKBc86shImMZM%2FtZqPy46sCYoQYqTZuGp47lWuPzN%2FDRWH5Gos88A0jXELAH90dISlTFeOSwJVjyTlEVWy42HwVICcymPn4co4XfpcrEzDX%2FiPnnsvC%2FOE1rCqXDbT4PwhHgT5KKd%2BNSyKu7z5MWozRoYRIfJW5VxdI%2BrYeP6BVWUFET3MyvVHDitbOXFF2bqujnp6ZgzwJUS4uKCAZhNLx8FeHnFsqpSG1%2B91CU43GaMr2R8VKsQqRGpbatUX%2BKQ6sQlEpeg17gjW%2BMJrdmeNPSgJLPH9%2Fwlpq4l0AJpQjgFmWaLGaaKWv6T%2Fqq7Ky9DDnirpELhEeCR4Xph6bWRzca8OXIJbdZ%2FbqSFwKPJrC7IFSi0K1J5cglNEBxOAZi18iKEcrmItPe4pE%2Fny2Njn3ILttwO33ZS7Z1wVEQUf5RcNaz4cuF8RQupy5JZ6%2FkkZ9D%2FQh%2FRHeNIkMeCJkiTUNufdIMYg48UHIHQkyKNN7aUCbrsvTgumxV4rom1BITiIOlTacTjvC3q2QhHTE6oZfsYc0%2FjBanr39ivNX%2F8lkWaAagOq3AtLkb90DfSU6t4REXuQB5jQD2iMDi%2Bg7j2JNNpHiyrynb0R%2BslI%2Fk7qHQgoEpFcTMwz9fYDo2pe9qQdkt5qgms7PLul9NY6hjpWnwWOBkSXIISLFSRFVNiAGuQcPe%2FX3Qkc%2BLCOsp%2BwUOZSA8JcPKJIYuiC7lz4az4MqNyVYTtWnPpN4cCNV0o4TDZstXec22R96YgHfdfHKu92NmQydLWZcRBqhy4C%2BwH0h%2F36jpo%2BR35Hcg%3D%3D|ampid%3APL_CLK|clp%3A2334524

And no, this website is not my source.

[Chris Davidson]

Add Groden's version without the extant splices in it, to the list of non-flower frames.