A DEFECT IN THE MOORMAN PHOTO?

[Chris Davidson]

29 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

Unfortunately, for me, Chris's gif's often leave me even more confused.  I remember the "bobble head" gifs, but was never sure I was getting the full implications or even any conclusion reached.  I think I get it--indication of two different films, or cameras, or "step" processing mistakes?

The gif Chris posted just earlier--I can make a guess as to his point, but why not just spell it out?  I'm guessing he was pointing to the fact that, in spite of the two widely separated frames, body positions in the frames had not changed.  If this is true, that would be indicative of a matte process used in Z alteration, would it not?

Your post David was helpful.  It confirms that I have been getting the general gist of what Chris has done.

Chris B quotes:

"The position of the limo on Elm is so well documented by Nix, Z, and Muchmore that we can place it within a couple inches. What we see of the limo in 312 would relate to frame 302, about a 7 ft difference in the position of the limo. We also know right where Z was on the pedestal and so the only other option is that the limo had to be turned. If the film was altered then Anything Goes."

"If I see this correctly your'e using frame 306 and 315, and for purposes of comparison frame 306 is a partial transparency allowing the patch in 315 to be seen in both frames of the gif, as the white patch doesn't exist in frame 306."

Paul,

I know the presentation method I use can be frustrating. Hang in there, you are doing fine.

David J., as he so rightly has been doing, offers a nice description of the process, which I am most grateful for.

The white patch is on both frames. It is a stationary object

If the limo is moving at the speed in which we are led to believe, at that time, it is moving at an average of .6ft per frame = 7.47mph.

7.72mph according to Itek, based on the Nix film, so close enough.

In the first gif with the white patch laying on top of itself(stationary), how far does the limo move?

How far does the background woman move?

That relationship.

Now, reread Chris' quotes above.

You are getting the general gist of this.

I don't want to engage in a general conversation about the alteration of the film itself, because that's been a big time-waster for many years. That being the main reason I decided to approach it from the math angle.

And, I apologize to Chris B for somewhat hijacking this thread. So, if you have comments to convey, feel free to post them on my "Unveiling The Limo Stop" topic, unless Chris wants this to continue here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

BTW,

David J. deserves much of the credit for bringing the white patch in the extant film to my attention with his concerns that something was amiss.

Tim(engineer, retired I believe)has allowed me to post some of his results, which I have in the past.

Here is just a snippet of what is being conveyed with the white patch.

Although I do not agree completely with the exact frame removal process he describes, based on other math work,

the important aspect is to realize the relationship he refers to, between the limo and the background.

 

[David Josephs]

53 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

BTW,

David J. deserves much of the credit for bringing the white patch in the extant film to my attention with his concerns that something was amiss.

Tim(engineer, retired I believe)has allowed me to post some of his results, which I have in the past.

Here is just a snippet of what is being conveyed with the white patch.

Although I do not agree completely with the exact frame removal process he describes, based on other math work,

the important aspect is to realize the relationship he refers to, between the limo and the background.

 

Greer's head-turn, and the conflict between his words and his action as caught on film.  He was staring directly at him as he was killed, crawling ahead at less than 3mph. Citation provided.

Edited May 6, 2023 by David Josephs

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Greer's head-turn, and the conflict between his words and his action as caught on film.  He was staring directly at him as he was killed, crawling ahead at less than 3mph. Citation provided.

 

 

More support for DJ.

[Paul Bacon]

Thanks for taking the time, guys.  I'm very grateful.  My eyes are opened much wider than they were about 8 hours ago...

[Paul Rigby]

39 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

Thanks for taking the time, guys.  I'm very grateful.  My eyes are opened much wider than they were about 8 hours ago...

Paul, 

The retired engineer named Tim referred to by Chris Davidson is Tim Nicholson, and the 21pp essay in question is entitled Evidence of Zapruder Film Alteration. You can sign up for free at this link & download his 2018 paper: https://www.academia.edu/38392224/Evidence_of_Zapruder_Film_Alteration_May_2018_pdf

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Chris B quotes:

"The position of the limo on Elm is so well documented by Nix, Z, and Muchmore that we can place it within a couple inches. What we see of the limo in 312 would relate to frame 302, about a 7 ft difference in the position of the limo. We also know right where Z was on the pedestal and so the only other option is that the limo had to be turned. If the film was altered then Anything Goes."

"If I see this correctly your'e using frame 306 and 315, and for purposes of comparison frame 306 is a partial transparency allowing the patch in 315 to be seen in both frames of the gif, as the white patch doesn't exist in frame 306."

Paul,

I know the presentation method I use can be frustrating. Hang in there, you are doing fine.

David J., as he so rightly has been doing, offers a nice description of the process, which I am most grateful for.

The white patch is on both frames. It is a stationary object

If the limo is moving at the speed in which we are led to believe, at that time, it is moving at an average of .6ft per frame = 7.47mph.

7.72mph according to Itek, based on the Nix film, so close enough.

In the first gif with the white patch laying on top of itself(stationary), how far does the limo move?

How far does the background woman move?

That relationship.

Now, reread Chris' quotes above.

You are getting the general gist of this.

I don't want to engage in a general conversation about the alteration of the film itself, because that's been a big time-waster for many years. That being the main reason I decided to approach it from the math angle.

And, I apologize to Chris B for somewhat hijacking this thread. So, if you have comments to convey, feel free to post them on my "Unveiling The Limo Stop" topic, unless Chris wants this to continue here.

 " The white patch is on both frames. It is a stationary object".

The essence of my confusion is how can you use the white patch in both frames to compare with Foster or anything else when the white patch was not part of frame 306? The limo does shift forward and upwards between the two frames of the gif because the tracking of the limo changes slightly between the two frames. The vertical movement is just him dipping the camera slightly. Everything in the background including Foster and the grass shift in exactly the same way. In the GIF it's sort of looks like the background grass does not move, but that is simply the transparency image from 315 and some dark spots on the grass from that frame appearing in both frames of your GIF due to the transparency.

How far Foster moved from 306 to 315 gives us a very accurate idea of how far the camera was panned.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have to worry about hijacking the thread. I don't think it's inappropriate to change the subject if the initial subject has played out. At least I have no problem with that in my threads, I can't speak for others.

The fundamental problem I have about the white patch is that it is not an alignment of anything in the two frames because there is no white patch in 306 as it has not entered the frame yet. So I see no way to use it for any comparison  between other objects that appear in both frames.

From one of your responses above you said

"With the white patch laying on top of itself(stationary) how far does the limo move?

How far does the background woman move?"

 I'm not sure what we're measuring here. if the white patch was an actual stationary object that existed in BOTH frames you could lay it over itself in the gif. Then it would be a really good reference point. And if Foster was stationary we could measure the distance of her to the white patch in each frame and short of any very slight parallax from Z's camera pan it should be the same. But because there is no white patch in 306 it is not two images laid over each other.  The transparency in that frame is allowing the white patch to appear in both frames of the gif. Therefore we cannot compare any object  in those two frames relative to  the white patch . The other part is that Foster steps forward between 306 and 315. So I'm not sure how we make any subtle comparison there. 

 So without getting too much into the weeds and making it very confusing my basic question is this. What are we using as the reference point for any comparisons of the limo movement or Foster's movement from 306 to 315?

We can't align the white patches and use that because there is only one white patch and that exist in frame 315. We can't lay one patch over the other when there's no patch in 306. It would also be difficult to use Foster relative to the limo since she is stepping forward and the camera panning shifts her 7 ft.

This last question is not really related specifically to the gif  but I was also wondering about the limo being crooked in the street. Frame 312 proves the limo was not perpendicular to Z and was traveling crooked within the lane markers to about six degrees. Does the limo traveling at the angle have any effect on your overall measurements of the limo moving down Elm? The crookedness seems to start around frame 300 and continues well after the headshot. 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Chris,

Try this way instead:

[David Josephs]

24 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Try this way instead:

Side by side, especially since the image on the left is squashed, seems to make it harder for me...  how's this?

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Chris,

Try this way instead:

So your your original gif was frame 306 and 315. now I see a black and white composite on the left. At the bottom you have the top of frame 307. Next up is the limo, Mary Moorman, Foster and the legs of the people behind her from frame 306. At the top you have the limo from frame 305 Finally you still have the white patch from frame 315 added to frame 306.

[Chris Davidson]

No Chris,

The latest frames I posted side x side are the same as in the gif.

The side x side frames are not composited, layered or any other combination thereof.

They are two individual frames from two versions of the zfilm.

The white object cannot be in the same location relative to the limo/Greer's head, while Tony Glover in the background lands where she does, relative to the white object.

[Paul Bacon]

15 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

Paul, 

The retired engineer named Tim referred to by Chris Davidson is Tim Nicholson, and the 21pp essay in question is entitled Evidence of Zapruder Film Alteration. You can sign up for free at this link & download his 2018 paper: https://www.academia.edu/38392224/Evidence_of_Zapruder_Film_Alteration_May_2018_pdf

Thanks for the link Paul.  I know a big part of my difficulty is that I don't have the background knowledge base.

[Paul Bacon]

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

They are two individual frames from two versions of the zfilm.

There are two different versions?!

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

There are two different versions?!

{good sarcasm or honest question?}. I get the sarcasm... for those who want answers:

Dino B and Homer M

Bill Smith vs 2 men in black

Hawkeyeworks

0184

The missing Rowley film which arrived on Rowley's desk late night Fri / early morning Sat as sent by Max Phillips and whose chain of custody ends there.

The half dozen people who actually saw a different film years after the fact, who describe seeing the turn onto Elm and the limo stop.

the "original" with 6 splices creating 7 pieces totaling over 50 feet of film from a 30 foot side and only 6 feet and change of actual footage

the demonstrable capability in film alteration available at the time

the impossible head movements

the black square over the right rear of his head where you can see his head/hair and other features behind it... stereoscopic viewers of this frame claim the black square appears to hover over the film... if I remember correctly...

yes, it is apparent to me there are different finished versions of the film.

 

 

[Paul Bacon]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

{good sarcasm or honest question?}. I get the sarcasm... for those who want answers:

Dino B and Homer M

Bill Smith vs 2 men in black

Hawkeyeworks

0184

The missing Rowley film which arrived on Rowley's desk late night Fri / early morning Sat as sent by Max Phillips and whose chain of custody ends there.

The half dozen people who actually saw a different film years after the fact, who describe seeing the turn onto Elm and the limo stop.

the "original" with 6 splices creating 7 pieces totaling over 50 feet of film from a 30 foot side and only 6 feet and change of actual footage

the demonstrable capability in film alteration available at the time

the impossible head movements

the black square over the right rear of his head where you can see his head/hair and other features behind it... stereoscopic viewers of this frame claim the black square appears to hover over the film... if I remember correctly...

yes, it is apparent to me there are different finished versions of the film.

 

 

David, I do understand what you just laid out.  I believe that Dino saw the original film, but Chris doesn't have a copy, I think I can safely say.  As you said, a half a dozen only have seen that version over the years.

 

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The latest frames I posted side x side are the same as in the gif.

The side x side frames are not composited, layered or any other combination thereof.

They are two individual frames from two versions of the zfilm.

What am I missing?  Is Chris saying that there are multiple Z films floating around whose frame compositions are different depending on which version you're seeing?  Where did the black and white version come from?  And where did the color version come from?  Does frame 306 show the white patch in the black and white version, but not the color version.  I have Costella's frames--no white patch in 306.

God help me!  :>)

Edited May 7, 2023 by Paul Bacon