BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Matt Cloud]

11 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

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.

???

 

Okay what does it say?  Where is that from?  What's the point?  Zapruder jiggles when the dictabelt says there are shots?

[Kevin Balch]

Just now, Matt Cloud said:

???

 

Okay what does it say?  Where is that from?  What's the point?  Zapruder jiggles when the dictabelt says there are shots?

It comes from the HSCA Report.

A human cameraman will react to loud noises when filming. The HSCA was able to line up the timing of the shots based on evidence from the Zapruder film and the acoustics evidence.

The point is that, outside a remarkable coincidence,  you cannot accept substantial Zapruder film alteration (other than perhaps a frame or two removed) AND the validity of the results of the acoustics analysis.

[Matt Cloud]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

It comes from the HSCA Report.

A human cameraman will react to loud noises when filming. The HSCA was able to line up the timing of the shots based on evidence from the Zapruder film and the acoustics evidence.

The point is that, outside a remarkable coincidence,  you cannot accept substantial Zapruder film alteration (other than perhaps a frame or two removed) AND the validity of the results of the acoustics analysis.

Are you requiring me to choose?  Okay. If so, I reject the acoustical analysis then -- as most do.  It's entirely problematic.  That's a whole new conversation.  But, meanwhile, you want to say no alteration in Z-film and dictabelt recording is legit.  Fine.  

[Matt Cloud]

3 hours 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.

 

Two other quick points regarding possible photo manipulation.

 

1. The HSCA noted "extensive blurring" in the Willis-5 photo, in the area around the Stemmons sign.  They attribute it to camera shake.  See p. 15, here, https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4A_Gunmen.pdf

 

"Preliminary visual inspection of the Willis photograph showed extensive blurring of all features of the picture near the retaining wall on top of the grassy knoll. The blurring is most clearly seen in the freeway sign, which is in the line of sight between the retaining wall and the Willis camera."

 

I think, in addition, the lamp post in Willis 5 is too far to the left.  I think it was cut out and re-pasted in its present position.  Note you can't see the base. Indeed, in its present position, it is behind the family that ducked down onto the grass.  That means it is to their left facing the knoll.  But other photos show the lamp post to the right of these persons when they are taking cover with their infant on the grass.  This contradiction cannot be squared absent photo manipulation.  

 

2. Richard Bartolino, aka NoTrueFlags at Youtube, has done good work in spotting photo manipulation, again involving a lamp post, albeit a different one now, in the Altgens 7 photo.  I suggest you watch.  And see especially at the 5:11 mark approximately, here:  

 

I could provide many other examples of problems with the photos that you rely on to define the physical properties of Dealey Plaza, most especially at issue, in my view, are the lamp post placement(s) and the Stemmons sign.  

 

[Kevin Balch]

13 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

2. Richard Bartolino, aka

He has me blocked. And he has disabled comments on his Youtube channel.

[Matt Cloud]

Just now, Kevin Balch said:

He has me blocked. And he has disabled comments on his Youtube channel.

So what?  

[Kevin Balch]

18 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

So what?  

Do you think Greer fired a shot at JFK?

 

[Matt Cloud]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Do you think Greer fired a shot at JFK?

 

No I don't..  And the fact that NoTrueFlags says that is neither here nor there.  If he has what I perceive to be good info mixed in with bad info I can discern the difference.  So should you.  

Edited May 17 by Matt Cloud

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

No I don't..  And the fact that NoTrueFlags says that is neither here nor there.  If he has what I perceive to be good info mixed in with bad info I can discern the difference.  So should you.  

Fair enough.

From the Muchmore film, it looks to me as if the Newmans are to the west of the lamp post. Don Roberdeux’s Dealey Plaza map also agrees.

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Kevin Balch said:

Fair enough.

From the Muchmore film, it looks to me as if the Newmans are to the west of the lamp post. Don Roberdeux’s Dealey Plaza map also agrees.

Let's use left and right pls.  As if you are looking at the knoll.  Pls re-phrase.  

[Matt Cloud]

Nevermind.  Took too long.  West is to the left.  That's correct, that source -- the Muchmore film -- depicts them as to the left of the lamp post.  But as I said before Willis-5 has them in front of the lamp post which is to the East, to the right.  

 

Strange indeed!

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours 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.

 

 I will address a few points but, yes,  the "back and forth" has exhausted itself.

 There is a fair amount of plaza photos that predate the assassination including some overhead photos that are easy to Google. They do support the position of the lamppost before it was moved to the north side of the sidewalk.
  Those older images allow for placement of the original lamppost in Google Earth images.

 I said :"The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8."
You: "That is not an answer to my question. where did you get the dimensions from..  It is also not made out of plywood.  Period. "
You must have some proof it was not plywood since you are so confident. You might share that proof with the forum. I already gave an explanation for my measurement of the sign. 
   You ask me how I could know Z's field of view even after I explained it. It is not difficult and is the type of thing you need to know if your are doing analysis of your suspicions about alteration. 

Chism was standing at a spot about 3 ft lower than Willis due to the 3% slope of Elm. The relative altitudes are found on Google Earth and the survey map and  also show up in images of the plaza. So the line of sight from camera to Chism's head is about a 2 degree downward slope dropping at .4 inches per foot. That means in the 22 ft from Chism to the sign the slope angle line of sight continues to drop another 9 inches. The grass starts about 6 inches higher than the sidewalk as seen by the curb at the north side of the sidewalk. Add another 6 inches because the grass slopes up from that curb to the sign. So an approximate adjustment has to be made of 9 inches for the slope angle and another 12 inches for the height of the ground at the sign. Chism being 22 ft from the sign puts him 12 inches higher up from the slope of Elm.  So subtract maybe 9 inches(The 3 degree slope lessens at the point where the angle of Elm cuts across the Plaza slope) and Chism's head should appear 13 inches lower than reality. I put the top of the 77 sign at 4 ft so the Willis 5 shows Chism's adjusted height 5 ft. That is an approximate answer but it demonstrates Chism is not as odd as it looks. I put Willis and Chism at the same height for this comparison but willis may be 6 ft tall and Chism 5'5". I don't know, but it is one of many approximations needed. Those factors all have to be considered if trying to evaluate his height relative to the sign.   You are willing to consider that all that evidence has been altered which I think is impossible. That is the main reason we can't discuss the subject further.

"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."
  If you actually did all that you would have some evidence to back up your assumptions. But your assumptions are based only on observations that do not employ any adjustment for perspective.
"Get to work" Ending with  a command like that is a transparent attempt at asserting dominance.   If you had real evidence and actually included the photogrammatic techniques to test and back up your claims they would have some weight. As you, I also do not want to waste any more image allotment for claims/ assumptions that are not backed up with anything but your convictions.

[Matt Cloud]

26 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

 I will address a few points but, yes,  the "back and forth" has exhausted itself.

 There is a fair amount of plaza photos that predate the assassination including some overhead photos that are easy to Google. They do support the position of the lamppost before it was moved to the north side of the sidewalk.
  Those older images allow for placement of the original lamppost in Google Earth images.

Okay provide such.  

 I said :"The dimensions of the sign have been claimed to be 4x8."
You: "That is not an answer to my question. where did you get the dimensions from..  It is also not made out of plywood.  Period. "
You must have some proof it was not plywood since you are so confident. You might share that proof with the forum. I already gave an explanation for my measurement of the sign. 

You didn't give an explanation.  You just repeated the same assertion.  You haven't explained how you arrived at that measurement, or whoever "claimed" that to be the measurement.  The Texas Highway has a little history brochure on the sign -- look it up.  Evidently the sign was of the standard highway type -- metal, not wood.  Nothing in the photographic evidence indicates it is plywood.  No grain texture, no splintering, it's grey (unpainted metal) on the back side as the zapruder film shows.  It's not square like a piece of plywood.  Rather it has rounded corners.  How do you get the measurement?  How do you claim it is plywood?

   You ask me how I could know Z's field of view even after I explained it. It is not difficult and is the type of thing you need to know if your are doing analysis of your suspicions about alteration. 

What does Z's field of view mean?  Through the lens he was using?  You haven't explained anything.  Just said it could be determined, by measuring certain objects in the field of view.  Unsatisfactory.  You also claim the Stemmons sign is an exact 50 feet from Zapruder.  Wow.  Nice round number.  A total joke you attempting to assert dominance with pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific over- and undue-complexity.

Chism was standing at a spot about 3 ft lower than Willis due to the 3% slope of Elm. The relative altitudes are found on Google Earth and the survey map and  also show up in images of the plaza. So the line of sight from camera to Chism's head is about a 2 degree downward slope dropping at .4 inches per foot. That means in the 22 ft from Chism to the sign the slope angle line of sight continues to drop another 9 inches.

Chism is in multiple places in multiple photos.  He is shorter in Willis 5 than everyone else around him.  Umbrella man, even with his umbrella extended, is shorter than the Stemmons sign.    Here's a project: why don't you line up the last stretch of Elm Street for us.  Include The Newmans, the lamp post, the stemmons sign, Umbrella Man, Dark-Complected Man, the Chisms, the two boys, and then whoever comes next.  Provide that line-up, with distances if you like, and we(I) can cross-examine it against the variations that are in existence today from the extant images.  It is not straightforward, at all. 

The grass starts about 6 inches higher than the sidewalk as seen by the curb at the north side of the sidewalk. Add another 6 inches because the grass slopes up from that curb to the sign. So an approximate adjustment has to be made of 9 inches for the slope angle and another 12 inches for the height of the ground at the sign. Chism being 22 ft from the sign puts him 12 inches higher up from the slope of Elm.  So subtract maybe 9 inches(The 3 degree slope lessens at the point where the angle of Elm cuts across the Plaza slope) and Chism's head should appear 13 inches lower than reality. I put the top of the 77 sign at 4 ft so the Willis 5 shows Chism's adjusted height 5 ft. That is an approximate answer but it demonstrates Chism is not as odd as it looks. I put Willis and Chism at the same height for this comparison but willis may be 6 ft tall and Chism 5'5". I don't know, but it is one of many approximations needed. Those factors all have to be considered if trying to evaluate his height relative to the sign.   You are willing to consider that all that evidence has been altered which I think is impossible. That is the main reason we can't discuss the subject further.

I've given you multiple examples already of discrepancies in photos you claim to be sacrosanct.  You aren't acknowledging those.  

"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."

  If you actually did all that you would have some evidence to back up your assumptions. But your assumptions are based only on observations that do not employ any adjustment for perspective.

Yes, I have not petitioned the City of Dallas and whatever other orgs would be involved in my installing a lamp post at the correct spot and the Stemmons sign.  But that's not your point.  Your point was that it was not testable.  That is false.  Like just about everything else you've written here. 

.
"Get to work" Ending with  a command like that is a transparent attempt at asserting dominance.   If you had real evidence and actually included the photogrammatic techniques to test and back up your claims they would have some weight. As you, I also do not want to waste any more image allotment for claims/ assumptions that are not backed up with anything but your convictions.  

I'm happy to go through this offline from here with you if you like.  DM and we can set up email correspondence without the limitations of this forum.  The "dominance" again has been by you hiding under absurd and unduly complicated verbiage.  Your posting the Mentaculus Project-like diagram here was just one example.  (You can't even explain the origin of the sign dimension claim.) 

I'm out of picture upload space.  As I said.  I have to do this through text.  It's unsatisfactory for me.  But again -- if you want to email each other - go ahead.  Anytime.  We can share the exchange here, after.  

The Z-film is a doctored mess.  Most of the photos -- those implicating certainly the positions of persons around the Stemmons sign at or near the time of the assassination are also very much doctored messes.   They fail any honest appraisal.  Probably why the Z-film obscures all that, in addition to things like oh the motorcycle cop riding past the right side of the limo as the driver said he did on 11/22.   No sign of that in the Zapruder film.  Huh.  

 

 

Edited May 18 by Matt Cloud

[Matt Cloud]

19 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

 

An 11 degree field of view is like an ultra telephoto lens.  It'd be like looking down a paper towel tube.  Do you understand that?  Zapruder had the 35 mm film equivalent of a 35 mm lens on his 8mm film camera -- no speculation, that's documented.  Here are typical specs for a 35 mm lens:

 

35mm

Lens      54.4

Horizontal    37.8 Vertical

63.4 Diagonal

 

How do you get an 11 degree FOV for a lens that has roughly a 64 degree FOV in the diagonal?  Further, at what frame of the Zapruder film are you doing your "measuring?"  At the beginning?  When it's wide? Or when it crosses over past the Stemmons sign, when it gets more narrow, more telephoto-like?  Many complications here; you haven't explained squat. 

[Matt Cloud]

8 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

An 11 degree field of view is like an ultra telephoto lens.  It'd be like looking down a paper towel tube.  Do you understand that?  Zapruder had the 35 mm film equivalent of a 35 mm lens on his 8mm film camera -- no speculation, that's documented.  Here are typical specs for a 35 mm lens:

 

35mm

Lens      54.4

Horizontal    37.8 Vertical

63.4 Diagonal

 

How do you get an 11 degree FOV for a lens that has roughly a 64 degree FOV in the diagonal?  Further, at what frame of the Zapruder film are you doing your "measuring?"  At the beginning?  When it's wide? Or when it crosses over past the Stemmons sign, when it gets more narrow, more telephoto-like?  Many complications here; you haven't explained squat. 

Here, the Texas Highway history of the Stemmons sign I mentioned:

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/pdf/Dallas-Fort-Worth-Freeways-book-05-20140803.pdf

 

There's interesting stuff in there, pls one or two more screwy photos.