BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Chris Bristow said:

"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.
 

You're not following.  You can't use the Zapruder film to show that the Smithsonian re-creation is in error because the issue is whether the Zapruder film is accurate at all.  That goes for both the Stemmons sign -- overly large in my opinion -- as well as the placement of the lamp-post.  You have not established any baseline and the Z-film -- which, again, is the main piece of evidence at issue, cannot provide that.  

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

Basically agree with everything you stated. The back of head witnesses accounts  are too numerous and substantiated for them all to be wrong. The 4 bike cops all mistakenly thinking the limo almost fully stopped or fully stopped for a brief moment is very compelling. They were just a few ft away and trying to pace the limo throughout the parade. Miscalculating even a very short stop or extreme slowing would put them about 30+ ft off their position at the rear bumper. Can't fathom all of them making such a huge miscalculation. 
 I try and recheck all my work and look for holes in it. But I can and have made mistakes too. When it comes to issues like the lamppost location it is documented in so many photos and verified by so many researchers I am extremely confident in it, and Parkland too. If there were 1000 me debunking anything I bet all 1000 would make the same mistake.  

[Chris Bristow]

14 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

You're not following.  You can't use the Zapruder film to show that the Smithsonian re-creation is in error because the issue is whether the Zapruder film is accurate at all.  That goes for both the Stemmons sign -- overly large in my opinion -- as well as the placement of the lamp-post.  You have not established any baseline and the Z-film -- which, again, is the main piece of evidence at issue, cannot provide that.  

the "baseline" is all the other photographic images. If the Z film is false it was made to match all the other images of the sign and lamppost. Willis 5, Beltzner, Bothun, Rickerby, Nix, 2nd Towner segment, several reporters 16mm footage from seconds after the assassination, and others as well.
  I think the Z film was altered but the positions of everything in the plaza is consistent in every piece of photographic evidence of the lamppost or the sign. 
 As to the size of the sign it was a 4x8 piece of plywood. Knowing the Z field of view as 11 degrees and the distance to the sign as 50 ft, confirmed by all that other photographic evidence,  you could test the size of the sign. If the sign is fake it still is the correct size in the Z film.
 Goggle Earth, the West map, and the Cutler map can all be used as a baseline and they match all the other photographic evidence. 

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

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.

Very good point. It also seems nonsensical for Z to run at 48 frames when he was reportedly or likely to be concerned about having enough film. At least it has been claimed he stopped filming till the limo was a ways down Elm.
Having to keep track of how many seconds of film you have already used must have been a hassle. Then guessing as to how long it will take the limo to run all the way down Elm without knowing just how fast it may travel complicates it even more.
 

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Chris Bristow said:

the "baseline" is all the other photographic images. If the Z film is false it was made to match all the other images of the sign and lamppost. Willis 5, Beltzner, Bothun, Rickerby, Nix, 2nd Towner segment, several reporters 16mm footage from seconds after the assassination, and others as well.
  I think the Z film was altered but the positions of everything in the plaza is consistent in every piece of photographic evidence of the lamppost or the sign. 
 As to the size of the sign it was a 4x8 piece of plywood. Knowing the Z field of view as 11 degrees and the distance to the sign as 50 ft, confirmed by all that other photographic evidence,  you could test the size of the sign. If the sign is fake it still is the correct size in the Z film.
 Goggle Earth, the West map, and the Cutler map can all be used as a baseline and they match all the other photographic evidence. 

I don't rule out alteration across many or even all of the images, including those you cite, to create a uniform appearance more or less as between the sign and the post in one versus the rest.  Going over that however is too cumbersome in this format.  But I will say the Smithsonian re-creation -- which was done by someone in Scandinavia if I am not mistaken, not the Smithsonian itself -- was evidently quite painstakingly worked over.  Based on a large amount of data.  And as you and I both agree, it is quite substantially different in the placement of at least those objects.  I would go in and critique the methodology used there, first, before simply asserting that because the Smithsonian recreation does not look like the pictures, it is therefore wrong in its placements. 

The rest of what you write, here ...:

"As to the size of the sign it was a 4x8 piece of plywood. Knowing the Z field of view as 11 degrees and the distance to the sign as 50 ft, confirmed by all that other photographic evidence,  you could test the size of the sign. If the sign is fake it still is the correct size in the Z film.
 Goggle Earth, the West map, and the Cutler map can all be used as a baseline and they match all the other photographic evidence."

... is completely circular in logic (you circle back to other images that may be suspect) except for when it is entirely speculative.  Where for example do you get the dimensions of the sign from?  Or the material?  Where do you come by the Zapruder field of view?    

However the case, there are many indications of anomalies across many images.  It is a problem for identifying any baseline.  

 

One interesting example:  Here:

 

https://time.com/3430022/never-before-seen-photos-of-jfks-final-minutes-in-dallas/

 

Scroll down to the bottom and find the image looking down Elm Street right in line almost with the lamp posts.  You can see the Stemmons sign.  What's interesting about it?  The "P" in the "KeeP Right" has lost it's paint evidently.  That's on Sunday.  Other pics on Sunday don't show that.  A pic from later in the week also shows it, IIRC.  Anyway, spending time on these photos only highlights problems; it doesn't resolve them.  That's a bad sign, pardon the pun.

[Matt Cloud]

And of course, in one of the what? Altgens pics?  Altgens 5 I think ... Mr. Chism is shorter than the 77 highway sign underneath the Stemmons sign.  Very odd.  Very odd.  

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Very good point. It also seems nonsensical for Z to run at 48 frames when he was reportedly or likely to be concerned about having enough film. At least it has been claimed he stopped filming till the limo was a ways down Elm.
Having to keep track of how many seconds of film you have already used must have been a hassle. Then guessing as to how long it will take the limo to run all the way down Elm without knowing just how fast it may travel complicates it even more.
 

I was just looking at Mark Taylor’s EXCELLENT Motorcade63 video and figured that Zapruder stop filming for at least 20 seconds. I think he wanted to save film and perhaps not have to rewind his camera.

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

I don't rule out alteration across many or even all of the images, including those you cite, to create a uniform appearance more or less as between the sign and the post in one versus the rest.  Going over that however is too cumbersome in this format.  But I will say the Smithsonian re-creation -- which was done by someone in Scandinavia if I am not mistaken, not the Smithsonian itself -- was evidently quite painstakingly worked over.  Based on a large amount of data.  And as you and I both agree, it is quite substantially different in the placement of at least those objects.  I would go in and critique the methodology used there, first, before simply asserting that because the Smithsonian recreation does not look like the pictures, it is therefore wrong in its placements. 

The rest of what you write, here ...:

"As to the size of the sign it was a 4x8 piece of plywood. Knowing the Z field of view as 11 degrees and the distance to the sign as 50 ft, confirmed by all that other photographic evidence,  you could test the size of the sign. If the sign is fake it still is the correct size in the Z film.
 Goggle Earth, the West map, and the Cutler map can all be used as a baseline and they match all the other photographic evidence."

... is completely circular in logic (you circle back to other images that may be suspect) except for when it is entirely speculative.  Where for example do you get the dimensions of the sign from?  Or the material?  Where do you come by the Zapruder field of view?    

However the case, there are many indications of anomalies across many images.  It is a problem for identifying any baseline.  

 

One interesting example:  Here:

 

https://time.com/3430022/never-before-seen-photos-of-jfks-final-minutes-in-dallas/

 

Scroll down to the bottom and find the image looking down Elm Street right in line almost with the lamp posts.  You can see the Stemmons sign.  What's interesting about it?  The "P" in the "KeeP Right" has lost it's paint evidently.  That's on Sunday.  Other pics on Sunday don't show that.  A pic from later in the week also shows it, IIRC.  Anyway, spending time on these photos only highlights problems; it doesn't resolve them.  That's a bad sign, pardon the pun.

"I don't rule out alteration across many or even all of the images, including those you cite, to create a uniform appearance more or less as between the sign and the post in one versus the rest. "

 To consider all the images could altered is beyond any rational consideration for me. This makes agreeing on a baseline impossible. But I did include Google Earth on that list and certainly you are not claiming it is faked too?  There are also numerous tourist videos posted on Youtube which I have used for reference. One good one where a tourist climbs up Z's pedestal and shows his feet centered on it before reproducing Zapruder's panning from east to west. Are those tourist videos altered too?

"Where for example do you get the dimensions of the sign from?  Or the material?  Where do you come by the Zapruder field of view?    

I think I already explained how to find Z's field of view. At many points in the film we can see stationary objects on the edge of each side of the frame, objects that are still there today. Any overhead view of the plaza like Google Earth or the survey map can be used to plot Z's view to those stationary objects. That is used to measure the angle or the field of view from Z's pedestal. Objects like the north side of the northern most reflecting pool can be used. You can look at that same thing from many street view angles as well as overhead to check for accuracy of its location. You can check that against many many tourist videos.  There is a point when it becomes ludicrous to believe all those images are fake. So I would not call it circular logic to rely on the consistency of so many different images. 
 "Anomalies" like Mr Chism looking "very odd" because he appears at the level of the 77 north sign can be tested. He is 25 ft from the sign, and the photo(I think you mean Willis 5.) is taken from several feet higher in the plaza. consider the slope angle from Willis' camera to Chism's head and then continue it the 25 ft to the sign and it accounts for his head lining up with the 77 sign. Of Course if you don't accept the photographic evidence as trustworthy then you can not test your own theories. All you can say is it looks weird to you without being able to check it. 
  The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8. But I had to test that for myself and knowing the distance from Z to the sign and Z's field of view are all you need to measure the sign. You can assume all the imagery is fake and question the signs dimensions but all you can say is it looks odd. You have no imperial way to test you perceptions that something that looks weird is indeed incorrect or altered.
   Do you think one of the most famous photos like Willis 5  would have such a blatant mistake about Mr Chism being only 4 ft tall and that would go unnoticed for the last 60 Years? It would be like someone claiming they read this line in a Bible that no one else has read yet! 
   Many of the anomalies you see have rational answers but if you reject any answer based on photographic evidence there is nothing to be discussed. You have beliefs that you can't test.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

I was just looking at Mark Taylor’s EXCELLENT Motorcade63 video and figured that Zapruder stop filming for at least 20 seconds. I think he wanted to save film and perhaps not have to rewind his camera.

Yes motorcade 63' is a nice reference tool. I wonder about certain parts of it like how long it took BDM and the other 4 witnesses on the patio to flee north into the parking lot. How much of that was an estimate and was any of it seen in films or photos. 

[Paul Bacon]

Regarding Kevin Balch's comment about filming at 48 fps, it would seem he's right.  No one of the early viewers mentioned a slow motion film, including Dino Brugioni.  It's wierd though, I got the idea of 48 fps from Doug Horne.

[Kevin Balch]

4 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Regarding Kevin Balch's comment about filming at 48 fps, it would seem he's right.  No one of the early viewers mentioned a slow motion film, including Dino Brugioni.  It's wierd though, I got the idea of 48 fps from Doug Horne.

I’m not even sure that 8mm projectors had the capability to project at 48 fps as it would be stressful for the film and increase the likelihood of jamming. The films were so short that there was no need for a fast-forward capability. You could fast rewind, but I recall that required taking the film out of the projection track.

Doug Horne admits that editing the Zapruder film to change positions of occupants in the limo was probably beyond the capabilities of the available technology and the time available in 1963. He also believes the limo came to a stop. Yet a sudden stop of the limo even from very low speeds would have thrown everyone in the vehicle forward and probably have thrown the incapacitated JFK against the back of Connally’s seat perhaps ending up at Jackie’s feet.

I can show using basic physics, measured minimum driver reaction times and a couple of very reasonable assumptions (even charitable assumptions towards the limo stop claim) that had the limo come to a sudden stop, the Secret Service follow up car would have at the the very least hit Clint Hill and very likely rear ended the limo. I thought about starting a thread on this but It will involve an equation or two and I doubt it will convince the true believers.

Former workers at the Eastman Kodak Bridgehead facility (what is referred to as Hawkeyeworks) wrote a detailed history of their operation. They never worked with 8mm or 16 mm film and in 1963 were just starting to experiment with color film for satellite reconnaissance applications. While they had the capability of appending text and arrows to photos to make briefing boards, they never did any kind of artwork. A detailed inventory of the processing equipment they used, some of which they themselves invented does not include an optical printer that Horne believes was used to alter the Zapruder film.

In the AARB interview of Homer McMahon, who led the NPIC team the second evening, McMahon admits to having mental and substance abuse issues. Yet Horne  neither mentions this or addresses its significance to his credibility.

Edited May 17 by Kevin Balch

[Matt Cloud]

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

"I don't rule out alteration across many or even all of the images, including those you cite, to create a uniform appearance more or less as between the sign and the post in one versus the rest. "

 To consider all the images could altered is beyond any rational consideration for me. This makes agreeing on a baseline impossible. But I did include Google Earth on that list and certainly you are not claiming it is faked too?  There are also numerous tourist videos posted on Youtube which I have used for reference. One good one where a tourist climbs up Z's pedestal and shows his feet centered on it before reproducing Zapruder's panning from east to west. Are those tourist videos altered too?

"Where for example do you get the dimensions of the sign from?  Or the material?  Where do you come by the Zapruder field of view?    

I think I already explained how to find Z's field of view. At many points in the film we can see stationary objects on the edge of each side of the frame, objects that are still there today. Any overhead view of the plaza like Google Earth or the survey map can be used to plot Z's view to those stationary objects. That is used to measure the angle or the field of view from Z's pedestal. Objects like the north side of the northern most reflecting pool can be used. You can look at that same thing from many street view angles as well as overhead to check for accuracy of its location. You can check that against many many tourist videos.  There is a point when it becomes ludicrous to believe all those images are fake. So I would not call it circular logic to rely on the consistency of so many different images. 
 "Anomalies" like Mr Chism looking "very odd" because he appears at the level of the 77 north sign can be tested. He is 25 ft from the sign, and the photo(I think you mean Willis 5.) is taken from several feet higher in the plaza. consider the slope angle from Willis' camera to Chism's head and then continue it the 25 ft to the sign and it accounts for his head lining up with the 77 sign. Of Course if you don't accept the photographic evidence as trustworthy then you can not test your own theories. All you can say is it looks weird to you without being able to check it. 
  The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8. But I had to test that for myself and knowing the distance from Z to the sign and Z's field of view are all you need to measure the sign. You can assume all the imagery is fake and question the signs dimensions but all you can say is it looks odd. You have no imperial way to test you perceptions that something that looks weird is indeed incorrect or altered.
   Do you think one of the most famous photos like Willis 5  would have such a blatant mistake about Mr Chism being only 4 ft tall and that would go unnoticed for the last 60 Years? It would be like someone claiming they read this line in a Bible that no one else has read yet! 
   Many of the anomalies you see have rational answers but if you reject any answer based on photographic evidence there is nothing to be discussed. You have beliefs that you can't test.

Look.  I'm not interested in going back and forth with you.  This format doesn't work for that.  The material is too complex and I'm out of image-posting space.  I'm not going to do this with text-only rebuttals.  My position is clear.  Have at it.  

 

Some parting points from me, however:

- The best images to use are those which do not implicate the actual events of the assassination, as those are the most likely images to have been altered if they were indeed.  Better to use images from days just before if possible or lesser known panoramics or whatever.  

- most of what you have written is red-herrings.  Google Earth has nothing to say about the position of the sign or the lamp post.  So drop it.  

- "The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8." That is not an answer to my question where did you get the dimensions from.  Period.  It is also not made out of plywood.  Period.  

- As to the Chisms, yes, it's Willis 5, and if as you say he's 25 feet from the 77 sign, closer to the camera, he should be taller, not shorter, and all the more so because yes Elm street slopes down, away from the camera.  These points by you are not valid, at all.  No point is in fact.

- A very diligent researcher, using photographs, achieved a replica of the plaza which looks nothing like what you insist it looked like based on the Zapruder film.  The Smithsonian shows it at their website.  I think that guy got it right.  I've looked into the pictures quite a bit, and my understanding of the layout, and most especially the two landmarks most necessary for z-film analysis, the lamp post and the sign, align with what this fellow from Scandinavia did.  Is he irrational too?  Take it up with him.  

- We can test what I claim, yes.  We can move the lamp post back to where it was, and set up the sign where it was, then use zapruder's camera and lens to film the sequence again.  If it lines up, then Z-film not altered in ways I have claimed.  If it doesn't, then maybe it has.  

 

Get to work.

 

[Kevin Balch]

32 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Look.  I'm not interested in going back and forth with you.  This format doesn't work for that.  The material is too complex and I'm out of image-posting space.  I'm not going to do this with text-only rebuttals.  My position is clear.  Have at it.  

 

Some parting points from me, however:

- The best images to use are those which do not implicate the actual events of the assassination, as those are the most likely images to have been altered if they were indeed.  Better to use images from days just before if possible or lesser known panoramics or whatever.  

- most of what you have written is red-herrings.  Google Earth has nothing to say about the position of the sign or the lamp post.  So drop it.  

- "The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8." That is not an answer to my question where did you get the dimensions from.  Period.  It is also not made out of plywood.  Period.  

- As to the Chisms, yes, it's Willis 5, and if as you say he's 25 feet from the 77 sign, closer to the camera, he should be taller, not shorter, and all the more so because yes Elm street slopes down, away from the camera.  These points by you are not valid, at all.  No point is in fact.

- A very diligent researcher, using photographs, achieved a replica of the plaza which looks nothing like what you insist it looked like based on the Zapruder film.  The Smithsonian shows it at their website.  I think that guy got it right.  I've looked into the pictures quite a bit, and my understanding of the layout, and most especially the two landmarks most necessary for z-film analysis, the lamp post and the sign, align with what this fellow from Scandinavia did.  Is he irrational too?  Take it up with him.  

- We can test what I claim, yes.  We can move the lamp post back to where it was, and set up the sign where it was, then use zapruder's camera and lens to film the sequence again.  If it lines up, then Z-film not altered in ways I have claimed.  If it doesn't, then maybe it has.  

 

Get to work.

 

If the Zapruder film has been altered, was the acoustic evidence shoehorned to fit the altered film?

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Kevin Balch said:

If the Zapruder film has been altered, was the acoustic evidence shoehorned to fit the altered film?

You tell us.  What pray tell is "the acoustical evidence?"  Is this the dictabelt recording you're talking about?  Who ever said it does line up or "fit" in your word?  I can't respond to questions that have no establishment or even proffer of data.  It's pointless. 

 

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

You tell us.  What pray tell is "the acoustical evidence?"  Is this the dictabelt recording you're talking about?  Who ever said it does line up or "fit" in your word?  I can't respond to questions that have no establishment or even proffer of data.  It's pointless. 

 

This table compares the results of a “jiggle analysis” of the Zapruder film with the impulses analyzed in the Dictabelt acoustics evidence that were identified as gunshots.