A DEFECT IN THE MOORMAN PHOTO?

[David G. Healy]

nice stuff David and Chris.... 

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, David G. Healy said:

nice stuff David and Chris.... 

Great to see you David.  Hope you're well.

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

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

 

I made a very awkward mistake in the second sentence of my post. I said I really examine those issues closely but intended to say I really DON'T  examine those issues closely.

I have to apologize for that, it really screws up the meaning.

I do find most of the claims put forth about evidence of alteration in the Z film don't stand up to scrutiny. Some of them are old and  debunked  many times over. That is just the lay of the land. That's the history and I'm not saying it to make a case for or against any particular claim or against  alteration theory as a whole.

I know Linda Willis's question about why the Pullman cars in the train yard weren't visible in Willis 5 is an old question. It had prompted some speculation of alteration. But as far as I know that wasn't answered until recently. The line of sight from Willis 5 simply didn't allow for review of any of the train cars. That's a fresh answer to an old question.

 

I have not looked into the Rowley story or the automatic counter. If I find them compelling I put them on the list of subjects I feel strongly supports alteration. There's room on my list for that. But I might disagree.

 

 

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

 

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.

It almost looks by the Shadows on the grass  that the white patch remains in the same spot relative to the grass in both frames. Of course the grass shifts about 6 ft to the left from 306 to 315. I assume the transparency is about 50% and we are seeing the same Shadows from frame 315 in both frames, the color image and the black and white. It makes it very hard to see that the limo and the curb and the grass all jump upwards as a result of frame 315 tilting downward a bit more than 306.

 So I think if we're talking about the fact the limo and the curb is jumping while the patch remains stationary it is because we are seeing the limo from the two different frames while the white patch could only be from frame 315, so of course it doesn't move in the gif. We are also  seeing Mary Moorman remain in the same position because she is also from frame 315 and doesn't appear in Z frame 306. The limo also changes a bit relative to the curb from 306 to 315 but that is minor.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Two words: Roland Zavada.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm

[David Josephs]

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I do find most of the claims put forth about evidence of alteration in the Z film don't stand up to scrutiny.

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I really DON'T  examine those issues closely.

If you haven't examined the issues I mentioned, then the above statement only applies to ancient history.

I you haven't taken the time to understand Davidson's work, the above statement is truly an unfounded opinion based on impression of analysis for which you have no insight - yet.

When you take the time to address what has been discovered in the last 5 years about the film, as well as the counter issue, the Rowley film issue, NPIC compartmentalized projects with different briefing board results, the blatant lies of Shaneyfelt and the creation and immediate removal of the Gauthier Dealey Plaza model showing the last shot hitting at the foot of the steps well past 313 - but as a WCR exhibit, that was hidden.

In the following I go into how the FBI would have created this model by using the information available to them at the time...  you might this quite illuminating, and while not nearly as correct or up to date as Davidson's subsequent work - I wrote this many years ago - I think it makes some decent points.  

Below that is the link and description page for WCD 298 innocuously called: Commission Document 298 - FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure and rightfully so for it lays out the 3 shot scenario Hoover described on day 1 but which had to be changed to 2 shots.  This is CE585 which is the revised 2 shots hitting scenario supporting the Silly Bullet Theory.

Debunking 30 year old hypotheses does not equate to "9 of 10 explained away"...  You're too good at this Chris not to thoroughly acquaint yourself with present day analysis.  I'd be interested in how you "explain away" these things as easy as Moorman in the street...

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsFBIZ313.pdf   and part 3

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsWDC298.pdf 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=1 

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by David Josephs

[David G. Healy]

6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Two words: Roland Zavada.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm

lol, another two words: sit down!

[Chris Bristow]

8 hours ago, David Josephs said:

If you haven't examined the issues I mentioned, then the above statement only applies to ancient history.

I you haven't taken the time to understand Davidson's work, the above statement is truly an unfounded opinion based on impression of analysis for which you have no insight - yet.

When you take the time to address what has been discovered in the last 5 years about the film, as well as the counter issue, the Rowley film issue, NPIC compartmentalized projects with different briefing board results, the blatant lies of Shaneyfelt and the creation and immediate removal of the Gauthier Dealey Plaza model showing the last shot hitting at the foot of the steps well past 313 - but as a WCR exhibit, that was hidden.

In the following I go into how the FBI would have created this model by using the information available to them at the time...  you might this quite illuminating, and while not nearly as correct or up to date as Davidson's subsequent work - I wrote this many years ago - I think it makes some decent points.  

Below that is the link and description page for WCD 298 innocuously called: Commission Document 298 - FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure and rightfully so for it lays out the 3 shot scenario Hoover described on day 1 but which had to be changed to 2 shots.  This is CE585 which is the revised 2 shots hitting scenario supporting the Silly Bullet Theory.

Debunking 30 year old hypotheses does not equate to "9 of 10 explained away"...  You're too good at this Chris not to thoroughly acquaint yourself with present day analysis.  I'd be interested in how you "explain away" these things as easy as Moorman in the street...

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsFBIZ313.pdf   and part 3

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsWDC298.pdf 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=1 

 

I'm not interested in going round and round about my factual statement regarding the history of claims in the zapruder film. Maybe I will look at the arguments you currently make and change my opinion from 9 out of 10 to 6 out of 10, time will tell. But I reject your notion that my own understanding of photographic analysis is insufficient, especially when looking at the gif that Chris posted. You have stated that Chris Davidson's work was very hard to understand and even with your background in math you had a hard time. So you might understand that the rest of us aren't just going to look at his whole body of work  and immediately grok it.  But I am confident in my own understanding of the photogrammetric principles involved in the analysis of that gif. So regardless of your reputations I questioned it. We had a long discussion in a previous topic of yours about a photographic comparison of Oswald's head in 2 photos. I felt the point I made about the differences in head tilt and turn refuted your argument. That was my considered opinion and so I don't just accept all of your work out of hand. I do have my own opinion after about 25 years of involvement in the field of Optics and about 10 years of private study in photogrammetry. I don't have a degree in Optics but at least have passed the state boards in order to be licensed by the state to work in the field of ophthalmic lenses and then continued my learning as a hobby.

 Chris Davidson's work is complicated but now since he  has posted that gif  the point he is making is Consolidated into a simple visual example. We are expected to look at that gif and understand his point. The problem is we're never really told exactly what the point of the GIF is. We are supposed to guess and figure out exactly what the point is. We need more than hints. What we need is a simple straightforward explanation of the point he is trying to make then we can debate it through the visual analysis. Again when it's reduced to a gif the answer is right there in front of us and we should, regardless of our lack of mathematical prowess, be able to decipher his point. Is it about the limo changing in relationship to the curb, the white patch, Foster, who knows? It certainly can't be about the two limo positions relative to the white patch because the white patch is only from frame 315. The two images of Foster in a single frame  show us that there is an overlay going on, so of course it doesn't move while the limo does. What is the point here? Please explain since you understand the work.

  

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Two words: Roland Zavada.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm

I don't believe that work was in any way comprehensive, it seemed to be very selective. So his opinion is not the be all end all in the Z film debate.

[Chris Davidson]

23 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

Chris,

Perhaps this more separated version will help.

[David Josephs]

3 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I'm not interested in going round and round about my factual statement regarding the history of claims in the zapruder film

When you yourself state you forgot the word DON'T in your post and then don't appreciate the implications of not taking the time to acquaint yourself with this newer body of work.. I agree - not worth either of our time to discuss what you have yet to digest.  As to the ancient history your brought up regarding the debunked anomalies, I did not make an argument against them, I agreed and said the newer work in the past 5 years was significantly more revealing and less likely to be as easily explained as Jack White's Moorman comments.

7 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

What is the point here? Please explain since you understand the work.

The point here Chris, is that the white "thing" in/on/over the grass above Greer's head has not change position despite the limo moving forward a significant distance - and the others in that image also changing position - hence the overlay and bleed-thru used to illustrate the point.

If you took the time to even page thru his thread you'd see other such images and gifs which plainly illustrate the obstruction of reality which Shaneyfelt and the FBI used to match the evidence to the altered film.

Changes like moving the path of the limo south and east so that line of sight remained the same while representing different frames of the film, the 10" difference in the stand-ip limo, and the movement of the source of the filming and its effect on the Stemmons sign within the re-enactment.

I did not come back here to engage in circular discussions with those not willing to make the effort to understand the most recent work while standing rigid on the conclusions of 20 to 30 years ago.

As we both know, photogrammetry is a very complicated process, even more so without advanced software if measuring 3D distance from 2D images:

One example is the extraction of three-dimensional measurements from two-dimensional data (i.e. images); for example, the distance between two points that lie on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane can be determined by measuring their distance on the image, if the scale of the image is known

If you are offering conclusions based on your photogrammetry work I for one would love to see the process you employed and the conclusion they produced.  Please show your work.  I did do a quick Google search for any of this work you may have offered online but the results only point to this thread and some Imperial reflex camera comments.

I fully respect your position on the zfilm based on the knowledge and experience you have - at the moment - but feel certain you will seriously reconsider these conclusions once you embrace the work Chris D. has done... and fully comprehend how nefarious the work of Shaneyfelt was in the face of what Tom Purvis showed us in respect to West's actual survey work.

 

Robert West's survey concluding the first shot at z207 of the extant film.  10 or so feet before the WCR's placement

[Paul Bacon]

Since Stone's "JFK" came into the movie theatres, the piece of evidence in which I have been most interested in, all in all, is the Zapruder film.  I have been, and continue to be, most impressed and fascinated by Doug Horne's work on the subject.  I am a true believer.

I have read and tried to understand every word of Chris Davidson's work in the "Unvailing" thread, and have even used, in my head, some of David J's responses to help me understand what Chris D's work is demonstrating.

I wholeheartedly share Chris Bristow's frustration with trying to understand what Chris D. is getting at, at each turn in the developement of Chris D's analasis.  If I knew the point Chris D. was making at each "turn" of his observation I would have been far more informed than I am.  But, as Chris B. said, I was left guessing.  And I'm going to guess that most of the people in this forum feel the same way.

Chris Davidson has been doing some fantastic work--my instinct tells me that.  But I sincerely wish I could follow along with all his observations.  If I knew the point behind each of his observations, I believe I could.

I'm begging you Chris, please be less obtuse... :>)

[David Josephs]

41 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

I'm begging you Chris, please be less obtuse... :>)

Early on I asked Chris the same thing, and with his use of illustration and gif I think he's more than obliged.

At the core, I believe what Chris does is understand what the math should be and then he discovers howt the math was changed to support the altered scenario offered by the zfilm.  He also deconstructs the attempts by LN promoters to also use math to hide the reality of how the films tie together visually.

There is what happened, and there is the math and evidence offered which singularly puts shots originating at that window and hitting their targets where the film(s) show them, despite the films being altered after being removed from circulation.

More recently he has unveiled the Shaneyfelt re-enactment shenanigans which were employed to further hide what was done between 207-212 and other key points in the zfilm.

There are some ancient standards within math - like the golden triangle - which Shaneyfelt used as well.

One thing sticks out immediately as manipulated math.. the 18.3fps camera speed despite only a 16 and 48 fps setting.

The rise and run of Elm street is 18.3:1 so amazingly the camera speed becomes 18.3 feet per second with an averaged constant speed of 11.2mph.  These two calculations gives rise to virtually all the the fraudulent evidnece offered related to the events of the assassination.

In the real world physical evidence is more valuable than witness statements due to human nature.
In the JFK evidence, the physical evidence has been so manipulated by those controlling it that we must look to the consensus statements of the witnesses and give that more weight and literally dismiss the physical evidence as simply not indicative of the events that day.

I realize I sound like a broken record...  the (physical) evidence really is the conspiracy in this case, while the statements of those there must carry more weight compared to "normal" murder cases.

Mr. SPECTER. When was it that Mrs. Kennedy made the statement which you have described, "My God, what are they doing?"
Mr. KELLERMAN. This occurred after the flurry of shots.
Mr. SPECTER. At that time you looked back and saw Special Agent Hill across the trunk of the car, had your automobile accelerated by that time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Tremendously so; yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.

 

See Hill running to the limo AFTER the z313 shot.  The evidence for an addition shot which was graphically shown on Gauthier's Jan 20, 1964 presentation of the DP model and spelled out by the Secret Service was simply made to go away.  West's was asked to revise his survey and remove the shot for the final WCR exhibit.

Representative FORD. All right.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.
Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?
Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.

Edited May 6, 2023 by David Josephs

[Paul Bacon]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Early on I asked Chris the same thing, and with his use of illustration and gif I think he's more than obliged.

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.

[David Josephs]

14 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?

That gif illustrates how other objects within the frame are moving vertically with a slight horizontal shift, yet the Stemmons sign remains unmoved.  Yes, replacing portions of the frame with images from other frames

14 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

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?

Correct... as to the methods I believe he remains silent as that involves speculation and he deals with mathematical fact and leaves that to experts like Healy to resolve.

14 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

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

Thanks for the kind words.  Having made my career within mathematics and stats, not understanding his work for quite a while was difficult for me to accept... so I just kept trying harder.

It may take some time for others to truly appreciate the spacial thinking he translates into mathematical reality... it is truly one of the most awesome displays in comprehending the subterfuge in the case the JFK community has ever seen and I hope he gets his due someday on a broader stage.

Edited May 6, 2023 by David Josephs