BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Two points;

 

1. In addition to the sharp shadows, many of the shadows are deep black, "crushed blacks" as videographers say without seemingly any detail left on the ground overwhich the shadows lie.  The Charles Brehm shadow for instance is particular egregious in this regard.  This suggests some persons were simply cut and pasted-in and their shadows drawn-in, in black.

 

2. About ten feet beyond the Stemmons Freeway sign was a lamp post all the way out at the edge of the curb.  "Dark-complected man," when he waves/signals his hand, based on some still images, stands evidently between the sign and the post.  But the Z-film, at frame 232 for instance, shows no lamp post although it would be expected to be seen at the right-hand edge of the frame by about that frame at least.  It's not until frame 261 that the lamp post finally enters the picture.  Of course, today, the Stemmons sign is no more, having been taken down in spring 1964.  All of the lamp posts have been moved from their 1963 positions, back away from the curb edge to now on the grass edge.  (The entire width of the sidewalk at least in other words.)  That positioning of the lamp post at issue, now, not surprisingly, corresponds much better to where the Z-film shows it, but of course that is not where that lamp post was on 11/22/63.

 

 

I have never seen any photographs or film of the plaza that contradicts the position of the lamppost on Elm or of the Dark Complected Man. Willis 5 can make it look like DCM, the Stemmons sign and the lamppost are close together but Willis' angle to those objects cut the distance between them in half, perspective wise. DCM was about 22 ft east of the lamppost and from Z's view the lamppost was 20 degrees to the right of DCM. But Z's camera being at full Zoom is showing no more than a 15 degree field of view to background objects. Z would not have seen DCM and the lamppost in the same frame. Where Z does see it relative to the wall above matches the map and Google Earth overheads of the plaza. 
 The West Roberdeau map is very good and shows the correct positions of willis, DCM, the Stemmons sign and the lamppost and matches all the images of these objects I have seen. Here is the map at below .
  Regarding the darkness of the shadows I can't say that it is not just due to the ASA of Z's film. Dark  objects that were not in direct Sunlight like the front of Bothun's and Altgens suit pants  also lack detail. I think I see some variation  of the yellow grass vs green grass in the shadows. But then looking at frame 341 the running guy behind Bothun has what appears to be a large patch of yellowed grass around him which is not there in frames 340 or 342. You could call that an artifact of alteration of a defect in the processing of that frame. I don't know what it is but it does nor appear in the Groden version.


 

Edited May 16 by Chris Bristow

[Matt Cloud]

9 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I have never seen any photographs or film of the plaza that contradicts the position of the lamppost on Elm or of the Dark Complected Man. Willis 5 can make it look like DCM, the Stemmons sign and the lamppost are close together but Willis' angle to those objects cut the distance between them in half, perspective wise. DCM was about 22 ft east of the lamppost and from Z's view the lamppost was 20 degrees to the right of DCM. But Z's camera being at full Zoom is showing no more than a 15 degree field of view to background objects. Z would not have seen DCM and the lamppost in the same frame. Where Z does see it relative to the wall above matches the map and Google Earth overheads of the plaza. 
 The West Roberdeau map is very good and shows the correct positions of willis, DCM, the Stemmons sign and the lamppost and matches all the images of these objects I have seen. Here is the map at below .
  Regarding the darkness of the shadows I can't say that it is not just due to the ASA of Z's film. Dark  objects that were not in direct Sunlight like the front of Bothun's and Altgens suit pants  also lack detail. I think I see some variation  of the yellow grass vs green grass in the shadows. But then looking at frame 341 the running guy behind Bothun has what appears to be a large patch of yellowed grass around him which is not there in frames 340 or 342. You could call that an artifact of alteration of a defect in the processing of that frame. I don't know what it is but it does nor appear in the Groden version.


 

Is this a joke?  

 

In any case - geez it's unbelievable the way people here want to argue with those supporting their points -- um ... at the very bottom of that very imformative picture you posted you can see the B&W pic that shows the lamp post relative to the Stemmons sign.  They are almost lined up with each other, as you can see.  That alignment is not reflected whatsoever in the Zapruder film.  Thanks!

[Chris Bristow]

15 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Chris, do you think that, if the film was shot at 48 fps, that that would have aided in frame removal to produce an authentic looking 16 fps?  You'd have more frames to work with to produce the "new" film...

Iv'e wondered about that. It may help if trying to combine some matte work with some actual frames. I don't know if the combining of matte and actual single frames is really viable. It is just the only thing I could think of after considering the problem for some time. But an extra frame from the 48 fps placed next to an 18 fps one would cause the limo to suddenly move at 1/3rd the speed. So there are severe limitations to mixing those frames.

[Matt Cloud]

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Is this a joke?  

 

In any case - geez it's unbelievable the way people here want to argue with those supporting their points -- um ... at the very bottom of that very imformative picture you posted you can see the B&W pic that shows the lamp post relative to the Stemmons sign.  They are almost lined up with each other, as you can see.  That alignment is not reflected whatsoever in the Zapruder film.  Thanks!

The Stemmons sign is hidden behind the trees, but it's right by where the guys are standing on the grass.  Right next to the lamp post.

[Chris Bristow]

21 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Is this a joke?  

 

In any case - geez it's unbelievable the way people here want to argue with those supporting their points -- um ... at the very bottom of that very imformative picture you posted you can see the B&W pic that shows the lamp post relative to the Stemmons sign.  They are almost lined up with each other, as you can see.  That alignment is not reflected whatsoever in the Zapruder film.  Thanks!

 

21 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

The Stemmons sign is hidden behind the trees, but it's right by where the guys are standing on the grass.  Right next to the lamp post.

I'm glad you clarified that before I responded. The direction that photo is taken from is not going to give an accurate measurement of the distance in question. If the camera was directly above the sign we would get a correct measurement, but the camera is at about a 35 degree angle and cuts the visible distance down by more than half. 
  Since we can make out the vertical dimension of the Stemmons sign through the trees it can be used to find where the bottom of its poles meet the ground. As you can see in the color "Rickerby" photo the poles are about 1/3 longer than vertical dimension of the sign. Using that you can find where the poles meet the ground in the photo from the map.  The blue horizontal lines show the size of the sign and where the poles should meet the ground. I have done that on both the map photo and an FBI recreation film on the left.
That is a truer representation of where the sign is mounted into the grass but the distance from there to the lamppost along the sidewalk is still cut almost in half due to the 35 degree angle of the camera in the 6th floor window. We can't use the sign or the people standing there to help measure the distance along the sidewalk because they are vertical and the sidewalk lays on a horizontal surface. They have different angular perspectives
But we can use the Lincoln in the FBI photo on the left. The car lays on the same horizontal surface/angle as the sidewalk and is at a point in the road where the distance is very close to the sign and lamppost. You can see in that FBI image that the distance along the sidewalk from where the Stemmons poles meet the ground to the base of the lamppost is just slightly longer than the length of that Lincoln (It was not a stretch limo like JFKs car, it was jus 18 ft long.). That comparison takes all the perspective issues into account and shows the distance from the base of the sign to the lamppost was just over 18 ft.
   HERE IS A SIMPLER PROOF:
 You may disagree with my placement of the sign and poles but the Rickerby photo itself is proof the lamppost is almost 18 ft from the sign. Since that photo is almost perpendicular to the lamppost's length, you can use it to measure the distance along the sidewalk to the Stemmons sign. The line along the sidewalk from the lamppost to the sign is at a bit of an angle to the camera so its length is minified some. But even the 13 or 15 ft high lamppost length in the Rickerby photo is shorter than the minified gap between it and the sign. Two very solid proofs in the Rickerby photo alone that puts the lamppost about 18 ft west of the sign. I would say even before any measurements it  very evident by just looking at the rickerby photo that the lamppost is well west of the sign.

 

Edited May 16 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Davidson]

[Matt Cloud]

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

 

I'm glad you clarified that before I responded. The direction that photo is taken from is not going to give an accurate measurement of the distance in question. If the camera was directly above the sign we would get a correct measurement, but the camera is at about a 35 degree angle and cuts the visible distance down by more than half. 
  Since we can make out the vertical dimension of the Stemmons sign through the trees it can be used to find where the bottom of its poles meet the ground. As you can see in the color "Rickerby" photo the poles are about 1/3 longer than vertical dimension of the sign. Using that you can find where the poles meet the ground in the photo from the map.  The blue horizontal lines show the size of the sign and where the poles should meet the ground. I have done that on both the map photo and an FBI recreation film on the left.
That is a truer representation of where the sign is mounted into the grass but the distance from there to the lamppost along the sidewalk is still cut almost in half due to the 35 degree angle of the camera in the 6th floor window. We can't use the sign or the people standing there to help measure the distance along the sidewalk because they are vertical and the sidewalk lays on a horizontal surface. They have different angular perspectives
But we can use the Lincoln in the FBI photo on the left. The car lays on the same horizontal surface/angle as the sidewalk and is at a point in the road where the distance is very close to the sign and lamppost. You can see in that FBI image that the distance along the sidewalk from where the Stemmons poles meet the ground to the base of the lamppost is just slightly longer than the length of that Lincoln (It was not a stretch limo like JFKs car, it was jus 18 ft long.). That comparison takes all the perspective issues into account and shows the distance from the base of the sign to the lamppost was just over 18 ft.
   HERE IS A SIMPLER PROOF:
 You may disagree with my placement of the sign and poles but the Rickerby photo itself is proof the lamppost is almost 18 ft from the sign. Since that photo is almost perpendicular to the lamppost's length, you can use it to measure the distance along the sidewalk to the Stemmons sign. The line along the sidewalk from the lamppost to the sign is at a bit of an angle to the camera so its length is minified some. But even the 13 or 15 ft high lamppost length in the Rickerby photo is shorter than the minified gap between it and the sign. Two very solid proofs in the Rickerby photo alone that puts the lamppost about 18 ft west of the sign. I would say even before any measurements it  very evident by just looking at the rickerby photo that the lamppost is well west of the sign.

None of this is here or there.  Dark complected man was standing closer to the lamp post than he was to the sign.  He was in the street.  Therefore when we see Dark Complected man in the Z-film, we should also see the lamp post.  We do not.  It takes about two-seconds of elapsed film time, even while panning to the right in the direction of the limo, for the lamp post to appear.   That's the issue.  In addition, I would point out that Zapruder was shooting with a standard, normal lens, a 50 mm, the stock lens for the bell & Howell camera. He was not using a tele lens that could have zeroed in on the space between the lamp post and the sign.  In other words, if Zapruder got the sign in his frame of view at the left, he should have also gotten the lamp post in his frame of view, albeit at the right.  That doesn't happen.

As an aside, it is one of the more curious aspects of the dimensions and layout of Dealey Plaza that the sign/lamp post position issue occurs right at the s-curve in the sidewalk, a "feature" which encourages you might say all sorts of perspective issues.  Sometimes the sign and lamp post appear in line; sometimes further apart.  But again zaprder's position was between them both.

[Chris Davidson]

[Matt Cloud]

14 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

So what's the point here?  

[Matt Cloud]

14 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

So what's the point here?  

The image you've provided, the B&W at bottom left, is what you'd expect to see, yes.  When the Stemmons sign is on the left side of the frame, the lamp post should be on the right.  But that's not what the Zapruder film shows.  Not even close.  It takes two seconds between the Stemmons sign disappearing from the field of view and the lamp post entering the FOV.  And yet the camera was panning to the right, tracking the limo.  In addition, at this point roughly Zapruder changes framing, from the limo being centrally positioned in the FOV to the limo being at the bottom of his FOV.  It's as if a post-production tele or zoom has been applied.  

[Matt Cloud]

The Smithsonian recreation h ad it about right, imo.  You can see the placements here:

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?q=zapruder's spot dealey plaza&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com%2FS7kWaVctUOtm4Q3RMLGUeDIz4t4%3D%2F1000x750%2Ffilters%3Ano_upscale()%3Afocal(235x125%3A236x126)%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Ftf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffiler%2F20131122100105JFK-3d-model.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smithsonianmag.com%2Finnovation%2Fan-interactive-3d-model-of-the-jfk-assassination-site-grassy-knoll-and-all-180947812%2F&docid=M96XmXZf_58shM&tbnid=sZb8XSCkwnWuGM&vet=12ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA..i&w=470&h=251&hcb=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA

 

Also, FWIW, Sylvia Meagher, in Accessories After the Fact, 1967, p. 33, thought the Stemmons sign had been moved. And later authors thought it happened the night of the assassination.  

 

There are many inconsistencies in the Stemmons sign between pictures taken on 11/22 and 11/24.  There may even be the possibility that the lamp post itself was moved in this time frame.  Sidewalk alterations (newer concrete) still visible today indicate the lamp post at issue, when positioned on the curb, was in two different places at two different times.  

 

The point remains, I contend, that from Zapruder's field of view it would be impossible to frame a shot with a normal lens that had the Stemmons sign on the left of the frame and not have the lamp post also in the frame, on the right, if not more towards the center.  That's the issue.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/15/2024 at 2:42 AM, Chris Bristow said:

How they could remove a Limo stop is a bit of a mystery to me but. It would not be a simple process.

 

Chris,

I appreciate the work that you do. And I certainly would never discourage it, nor discourage others from considering it.

But just like there can always be a flaw in somebody's insistence of there being a film alteration, there could just as well as be a flaw in one of your (or anybody else's) debunkings. Or, for that matter, in one of your accepted possibilities of an alteration.

Here's the way I think about alterations: When 45 witnesses see a gaping wound in the back of the head... there is indeed a gaping wound in the back of the head. And if the Z film doesn't show it, it is because of something wrong with the film. For example, perhaps the head is turned in a way that the shading from the sun makes it impossible to see the wound. Or, maybe the film has been altered to cover the wound.

Next, the Z film clearly shows a huge wound centered around Kennedy's right temple. Not a single witness saw this wound. Even the autopsy photos don't show such a wound. What this tells me is that the wound was somehow painted onto in the Z film. I wouldn't care if 1000 Chris Bristows had debunked every conceivable way such an alteration would be made, I would still insist that there is an alteration... that somehow it was made. Because of the overwhelming evidence that there was no such actual wound of the head.

 

[Matt Cloud]

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

The Smithsonian recreation h ad it about right, imo.  You can see the placements here:

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?q=zapruder's spot dealey plaza&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com%2FS7kWaVctUOtm4Q3RMLGUeDIz4t4%3D%2F1000x750%2Ffilters%3Ano_upscale()%3Afocal(235x125%3A236x126)%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Ftf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffiler%2F20131122100105JFK-3d-model.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smithsonianmag.com%2Finnovation%2Fan-interactive-3d-model-of-the-jfk-assassination-site-grassy-knoll-and-all-180947812%2F&docid=M96XmXZf_58shM&tbnid=sZb8XSCkwnWuGM&vet=12ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA..i&w=470&h=251&hcb=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA

 

Also, FWIW, Sylvia Meagher, in Accessories After the Fact, 1967, p. 33, thought the Stemmons sign had been moved. And later authors thought it happened the night of the assassination.  

 

There are many inconsistencies in the Stemmons sign between pictures taken on 11/22 and 11/24.  There may even be the possibility that the lamp post itself was moved in this time frame.  Sidewalk alterations (newer concrete) still visible today indicate the lamp post at issue, when positioned on the curb, was in two different places at two different times.  

 

The point remains, I contend, that from Zapruder's field of view it would be impossible to frame a shot with a normal lens that had the Stemmons sign on the left of the frame and not have the lamp post also in the frame, on the right, if not more towards the center.  That's the issue.

Finally, perhaps, Zapruder had a 9-27mm lens on his B&H 8mm camera, which could be set to wide or normal. If he was fully zoomed in, at normal, at the 27 mm length, the FOV would roughly correspond to that of a 35mm lens on a 35mm still film camera.  (A 1.3 crop factor between 8mm film and 35mm film translates into 27 x 1.3 = 35.1.)  He had a medium-wide lens in other words, even at it's narrowest setting; Zapruder wasn't even shooting with a 50 mm standard equiv. lens.  Nothing even approaching a tele-photo lens.

 

Alas, however, unless and until someone re-inserts the Stemmons sign in the correct location and erects a lamp post at its correct location, it's pretty much untestable.  Perhaps that's why both are no longer where they were on 11/22. 

 

[Kevin Balch]

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Iv'e wondered about that. It may help if trying to combine some matte work with some actual frames. I don't know if the combining of matte and actual single frames is really viable. It is just the only thing I could think of after considering the problem for some time. But an extra frame from the 48 fps placed next to an 18 fps one would cause the limo to suddenly move at 1/3rd the speed. So there are severe limitations to mixing those frames.

If any parts of the Zapruder film had been filmed at 48 frames per second, it would have been blatantly obvious when it was first projected at normal speed in Dallas or on the projector that was purchased by NPIC for viewing what everyone agrees was the camera original Saturday night.

No one who watched the camera original made any remarks of any portions of the film being in slow motion.

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

The Smithsonian recreation h ad it about right, imo.  You can see the placements here:

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?q=zapruder's spot dealey plaza&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com%2FS7kWaVctUOtm4Q3RMLGUeDIz4t4%3D%2F1000x750%2Ffilters%3Ano_upscale()%3Afocal(235x125%3A236x126)%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Ftf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffiler%2F20131122100105JFK-3d-model.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smithsonianmag.com%2Finnovation%2Fan-interactive-3d-model-of-the-jfk-assassination-site-grassy-knoll-and-all-180947812%2F&docid=M96XmXZf_58shM&tbnid=sZb8XSCkwnWuGM&vet=12ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA..i&w=470&h=251&hcb=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA

 

Also, FWIW, Sylvia Meagher, in Accessories After the Fact, 1967, p. 33, thought the Stemmons sign had been moved. And later authors thought it happened the night of the assassination.  

 

There are many inconsistencies in the Stemmons sign between pictures taken on 11/22 and 11/24.  There may even be the possibility that the lamp post itself was moved in this time frame.  Sidewalk alterations (newer concrete) still visible today indicate the lamp post at issue, when positioned on the curb, was in two different places at two different times.  

 

The point remains, I contend, that from Zapruder's field of view it would be impossible to frame a shot with a normal lens that had the Stemmons sign on the left of the frame and not have the lamp post also in the frame, on the right, if not more towards the center.  That's the issue.

"The point remains, I contend, that from Zapruder's field of view it would be impossible to frame a shot with a normal lens that had the Stemmons sign on the left of the frame and not have the lamp post also in the frame, on the right, if not more towards the center.  That's the issue."

I think there are hard facts that show the lamppost would not have appeared with DCM.
1.) Z's field of view looking east on Elm,  then looking at the wall behind the lamppost, and the later view of the Fort Worth sign, all show a narrow field of view of around 11 degrees.
(Speculation about what lens he used is not needed because we have those 3 examples of his 11 degree field of view.)
 
2.) The positions of the lamppost and Stemmons sign match in all photographic evidence of them taken during the assassination, just after, and the weekend of 11/22. When adjustments for perspective are taken into account, photos like the Nat Geo photo,  are consistent with the other evidence. That evidence puts the lamppost 20 degrees away from DCM as seen from Z's position on the pedestal. That can be measured on the survey map and tested in Google Earth too if you go through the hassle of finding the pedestal under the trees and use the original position of the lamppost. 
 
So Z's field of view was very narrow and only extended out 5 to 6 degrees to each side. The photographic evidence puts the Lamppost 20 degrees to the right from Z's position. Adjusting for vertical and horizontal perspective is required when comparing all those different photos taken from different positions. Unless there is a case to be made for the photographic evidence being wrong, there is no reason to think the lamppost should be visible anywhere near the sign or DCM. .

 The 3D plaza you linked from the Smithsonian has a serious and easily documented flaw regarding the lamppost. (I know that sounds like the type of cheap rhetoric people spout without evidence, but this is provable.) I added a frame of the 3D view below too my previous comp image(bottom right.)
  Smithsonian used the white silhouette at the bottom to represent Z. Notice the sign is just slightly misaligned with the record building windows when compared to the Z film. The Z line of sight has to be moved to about 2 ft in front of the pedestal to correct that. It is a small error.
   The lamppost however is way way off. The Z film shows it at the far right end of the wall where the peristyle meets the wall. The 3D recreation shows the lamppost only half way down the wall. That is a 30 ft difference along the wall. When you line up the lamppost in the 3D to its actual background in the Z film, the camera position is 20 ft left of Z. The 3D is completely contradicted by the lines of sight in the actual Z film, provably wrong when it comes to the lamppost location.
 I'm just repeating what I stated earlier now. So if you have a specific case to make about the inaccuracy of the photographic evidence from the weekend of 11/22, or I have a mistake in my analysis I am open to hearing it.