A DEFECT IN THE MOORMAN PHOTO?

[Pat Speer]

59 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I realize this thread is about Moorman yet you bring up this print and I thought I should show you how confused they really were about it.

So much so Day can't tell us which side of the trigger guard he found it.  Notice the taped section on the RIGHT side of the trigger as he holds it up later that evening.
FWIW

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor

That lift is supposedly from the barrel, but yes, you are correct--there was a print on the right side of the trigger guard when Day carried the rifle through the press corps that subsequently disappeared. The trigger guard prints photographed by the DPD--that were later purported to be Oswald's prints--were on the left side.

P.S. Now that I think about it, I think you convinced me of this--what--ten or twelve years ago!

Edited May 4, 2023 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

24 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

That lift is supposedly from the barrel, but yes, you are correct--there was a print on the right side of the trigger guard when Day carried the rifle through the press corps that subsequently disappeared. The trigger guard prints photographed by the DPD--that were later purported to be Oswald's prints--were on the left side.

P.S. Now that I think about it, I think you convinced me of this--what--ten or twelve years ago!

OMG - Duh... of course under the barrel.

I actually convinced you of something?      

Least I can do for as much as you've illuminated for me thru your work over the years.  I'm very glad we can argue like brothers and return to the respect we have for each other...  The depth and breadth of your work will thankfully always be there.

In the linked presentation I do go into how much deconstruction of that rifle needs to occur to even get to that part of the barrel.

edit:  If I remember correctly they never did find any cleaning supplies

Can you imagine assembling-disassembling-and/or reassembling this and only leaving a partial print on the barrel or any of the other metal parts one needs to handle to get under the wooden stock?  And then not leave a single mark inside the paper bag...

Let me ask you... was the blanket supposed to also be in that paper bag or only to wrap the rifle where it lay on the garage floor? 
(as we know, there never was a rifle at the PAINES.  I seem to recall he supposedly takes the rifle from the blanket (assembled? or not?) and puts it in the bag...

If Ruth here was supposed to help railroad Oswald, this surely didn't help the cause - or her BS garage light story

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by David Josephs

[Ron Bulman]

Ruth and Michael both testified no rifle in the station wagon when they unloaded it after Ruth brought Marina back from New Orleans.

Didn't Ruth say Lee told her he took the bus back later from N. O. to Dallas?

So isn't it obvious?  Lee brought the rifle back on the bus.  Along with those 7 little file cabinets full of info on Cubans found in the garage on 11/22 confiscated by the DPD, that belonged to Ozzie per Michael Paine over the ironing board to one of the officers.  The ones in the police report that disappeared when they got to the DPD?

Kind of like when he took the rifle (and a shovel?) on a bus to take a missed shot at General Walker from 20 yards away (but hit JFK twice from the sixth floor).  Then buried the gun before taking the bus back home.  

Pardon my sarcasm.  That's the way the story reads.

[Michael Crane]

Doesn't the original contain a fingerprint?

[David Josephs]

Pretty sure the fingerprint comes well after the fact.. there would be no way to remove this print after the fact and we've all seen images without the print.

This was created using Photoshop's new neural filters.

8 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Doesn't the original contain a fingerprint?

[David Josephs]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ruth and Michael both testified no rifle in the station wagon when they unloaded it after Ruth brought Marina back from New Orleans.

Didn't Ruth say Lee told her he took the bus back later from N. O. to Dallas?

So isn't it obvious?  Lee brought the rifle back on the bus.  Along with those 7 little file cabinets full of info on Cubans found in the garage on 11/22 confiscated by the DPD, that belonged to Ozzie per Michael Paine over the ironing board to one of the officers.  The ones in the police report that disappeared when they got to the DPD?

Kind of like when he took the rifle (and a shovel?) on a bus to take a missed shot at General Walker from 20 yards away (but hit JFK twice from the sixth floor).  Then buried the gun before taking the bus back home.  

Pardon my sarcasm.  That's the way the story reads.

 

Mrs. PAINE - He was definitely planning to leave New Orleans after we left.
Mr. JENNER - Promptly?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - You had that definite impression?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he put it in terms of leaving New Orleans to go to Houston, or what was the other town?
Mrs. PAINE - Possibly Philadelphia.
Mr. JENNER - Possibly Philadelphia. Now, during all that weekend, was there any discussion of anybody going to Mexico?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Was the subject of Mexico discussed at any time and in any respect?
Mrs. PAINE - Not at any time nor any respect.
Mr. JENNER - On the trip back to Irving, Tex., did Marina say anything on the subject of Mexico?
Mrs. PAINE - No.

[Charles Blackmon]

On 4/28/2023 at 9:47 PM, Chris Bristow said:

 

I find 9 out of 10 alteration claims in the Z film have rational answers. Every time one gets debunked I learn something new about photogrammetry. So if someone can offer a definitive explanation I would benefit by it. 

Not to derail your OP but what was the 1 out of 10 Z film alterations that you could not explain away?

[Michael Crane]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Pretty sure the fingerprint comes well after the fact.. there would be no way to remove this print after the fact and we've all seen images without the print.

This was created using Photoshop's new neural filters.

Hello David,

Please excuse my lack of knowledge,but who is the gentleman that appears next to the motorcycle cop? He even looks like his left arm is missing.

Did he appear before the Warren Commission or HSCA?

[David Josephs]

I believe that's Newman... here they are just afterward

 

[David Josephs]

2 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

On 4/28/2023 at 9:47 PM, Chris Bristow said:

 

I find 9 out of 10 alteration claims in the Z film have rational answers. Every time one gets debunked I learn something new about photogrammetry. So if someone can offer a definitive explanation I would benefit by it. 

Not to derail your OP but what was the 1 out of 10 Z film alterations that you could not explain away?

I'd beg to differ here Chris...  Davidson's work destroys the authenticity of the zfilm available to us.  Horne's work with Dino and Homer as well.
Then there is 0184 on a sequential counter which simply is not possible... and oh about 4 other spots in the film that are not physically possible.

Have you seen the original's film map.. 6 splices and you contend no alterations? uh, ok.  There is simply no possible way this is the out of the camera original and it would sure be nice to not have to regurgitate this every time someone thinks otherwise.

Common sense... if someone handed you this film in this state - you'd conclude it was original out of the camera? Really?

 

Z also had the best first day copy...  that makes 5 total films, not 4.

Edited May 4, 2023 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

On 4/28/2023 at 9:47 PM, Chris Bristow said:

Yes obviously digitized and likely some other filters applied. But I can't think of any process that would duplicate the image. I suppose it could be tampered with and faked, but I'm not sure why some one would go to the effort of making this tiny alteration that would most likely go unnoticed.

I find 9 out of 10 alteration claims in the Z film have rational answers. Every time one gets debunked I learn something new about photogrammetry. So if someone can offer a definitive explanation I would benefit by it. 

Let me also ask you about this film sent by Max PHILLIPS

It gets to Rowley the evening of the 22nd/early 23rd... then what?

Can you offer us anything that then traces this film beyond Rowley that night?

If not as I assume, what's to say this was not actually 0184 then sent to Hawkeyeworks, then brought to Dino Sat night?

edit:  0183 does not even appear on the "original" film nor is it in the right place if reproduced accurately, in the SS copy... only 1 SS copy.

Edited May 4, 2023 by David Josephs

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Not to derail your OP but what was the 1 out of 10 Z film alterations that you could not explain away?

I think John Costello's observation of the lack of pin cushion in the Stemmons sign has Merit. Skeptics claim it was the panning of the camera and the changing of that lens position that caused the appearance of the pole to lean left. That was completely backwards. If Z moves his camera to the right and the pole is leaning away then the pole moves with the camera motion not against it as in the Z film. The pole would have to be leaning toward the camera for that to happen. That is exactly the way the demonstration put forth was set up. The author even stated so in the thread.

I think his other observation about the lack of motion blur on the limo when it comes out from behind the sign is also pretty solid. I think Chris Davison's bobblehead gif that he recently posted is crazy and unexplainable. It's one of the most interesting things I've seen. I think just based on testimony that the limo stop was somehow removed. but I don't have any photo grammatic evidence of it

I do not think these other subjects are hijacking my thread as I think it was resolved. I don't have any problem with the thread taking a different direction once the main talking points are exhausted.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Let me also ask you about this film sent by Max PHILLIPS

It gets to Rowley the evening of the 22nd/early 23rd... then what?

Can you offer us anything that then traces this film beyond Rowley that night?

If not as I assume, what's to say this was not actually 0184 then sent to Hawkeyeworks, then brought to Dino Sat night?

edit:  0183 does not even appear on the "original" film nor is it in the right place if reproduced accurately, in the SS copy... only 1 SS copy.

The provenance of the film and the accounts surrounding the Hawkeye works are compelling. But I really  examine those issues closely. So I'm not saying that there isn't multiple problems in the film, I just stick to the low hanging fruit that has a possible photogrammetric answer. So about 9 out of 10 of the things I look at are explainable.

The guy who spreads his legs apart in one frame around frame 183 is one of those. The stickman who's running away in those latter frames is also explainable by the way Shadows are negated through camera motion blur. The couple that is seen in the Nix film that appear to line up with the franzens, but don't show up in the Z film has a logical answer too. In fact you can see their feet at the top of the frame in the Z film behind Bothun. They were actually about 40 ft southeast of the Franzen family. I think there is value in debunking some of the many false claims. I think that's important to do to get to the bottom of the issue.

Jack White claimed Mormon was not in the same place as shown in the Z film. He used that overlay of the Z film and a photograph he took with a limo in the street. But when you compare that with the X on Elm his limo was in the wrong position. It was also claimed that her line of sight to the pergola windows does not match her official position. What I see is they just made a mistake about which window they were seeing in the film. Mary Mooman's line of sight to the right side of Z's pedestal and where it meets the pergola is the definitive line of sight and puts her in the same location as the Z film.

 John Costello's observation of the lamp post on Elm and the lack of parallax has a rational possible explanation. He had to change his stance from facing towards the stemmons sign to facing pretty much South. When you do that you have to transfer your weight to one leg to start the turn. I tested that and if you transfer your leg to your left foot as you're panning the camera to the right The Parallax is neutralized for a moment. He would have to start by switching his weight to his left foot and then move his right foot, and do so about the time he was panning past to that light post on Elm. I tested that and it works out very well. That it's just my observation but it is not proof in itself.

I saw a recent claim about the Shadows on Greer and Kellerman being inconsistent with the lack of Shadows on them as they were about to turn on the Houston. They said the asthma of course couldn't change that much so it was evidence of fakery. But the limo was facing 45° farther south at the point on Elm in question. That totally explains the observation.

There's a claim that there were Shooters in the pergola but the trajectory does not work for the shot to Connally that was supposedly fired after 313. The trajectory for that shot would have to pass right through the center of the piracanthus bush. That would mean they had no view to Connally at the time the shot was supposedly taken. The other part of the pergola claim is that we could see the muzzle blast of the shot to JFK at 313. The direction of that supposed muzzle blast he's pointing upward and would be aimed about 15 ft above his head.

I personally think they were alterations to take out the limo stop. That's based on the witness testimony especially the four bike cops. So I'm not making an argument against alteration in the film, but I think it's important to sort out the claims that don't add up.

 

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, Chris Bristow said:

The provenance of the film and the accounts surrounding the Hawkeye works are compelling. But I really  examine those issues closely. So I'm not saying that there isn't multiple problems in the film, I just stick to the low hanging fruit that has a possible photogrammetric answer. So about 9 out of 10 of the things I look at are explainable.

I brought up much more than Hawkeyeworks - ie where did the Rowley film go after Rowley... and where is it now?
how does an automatic counter skip a number without explanation?
And what about Max's note?

Chris, instead of dealing with the ancient zfilm anomalies we've already debunked repeatedly over the years... Deal with what I posted please.

Can you address any of the issues I specifically point out or we just going to ask and answer our own questions now?

Explain the 4 or 5 things in my post...  and maybe go read Chris Davidson's threads and work to understand what he's accomplished.  He discussed Costella's work as well.
(Costello was the guy who worked with Abbott; Costella help us better understand the zfilm given us was not from Zapruder)

I majored in math and statistics and made my career on same and STILL had to work especially hard to understand his work...

His grasp of the mathematics involved is unrivaled.  And how he illustrates what the FBI/SS did to insure one thing matched another is superb. 

If you are dismissing this work without fully appreciating it, I think you do yourself a disservice.

Respectfully.

DJ

 

[Chris Davidson]

Thanks for trying, David.

In the near future, there is more math(hint hint) I believe you will find fascinating.

Chris,

I'm not sure if you realize what the supplied gif is showing, but, if you read your comment below and understand the white object above Greer is registered to itself, in both frames within the gif, it might give you a better concept of your actual comment.