Jump to content
The Education Forum

Muchmore film headshot sequence


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

In order to minimise disruption to Nix-Zapruder-Muchmore-Bronson-Bell etc sync thread this thread deals with an issue arising from it that IMO unless resolved fully one cannot trust the Mfilm.

To proceed in small steps:

At this link is a 2mb strip of the early color version, not the cleaned up ones that followed. This will form the basis of this study.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/ms01.jpg

PS...Hmmm...photobucket apparently resizes images over a limit. I'll have to work out an alternative way of linkng to a full size strip

(image: small strip)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the splice corrected shows some interesting things...

(image)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank's for posting those Robin. Very interesting.

The question is 'why such a splice that shifts the contents of the frame?' Nothing seems to be missing, everything seems to line up, except the frame becomes less high and wider. Then the sprocket holes would need to be reset. I think the 'splice' is a result of a shift elsewhere on the film. No doubt, various ther explanations exist, I can think of a few. But if you bear with me I'll show something else. So for now perhaps just accept it as acuriosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was right along - you see, the steps come down the steps for a way and then there is a broad place, oh, I'll say a little wider than this table here on the steps and then some steps and I was standing on this - that would be somewhere around along about there.

I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.

Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.

Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?

Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.

Mr. HUDSON - Right along there is about where President Kennedy's car was when he was hit - at the time I was looking right at him when the shot struck him, when the bullet struck him.

Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?

Mr. HUDSON - Three.

Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.

Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground -

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there.

Mr. LIEBELER - You say it was the second shot that hit him in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir; I just saw him hit once.

Mr. LIEBELER - That was in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Can you see yourself in that picture anywhere, can you mak yourself out?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; I can't , unless it is one of these two men right here - I can't tell - if I had that picture that was taken in the Times Herald paper - I can show you myself in it.

Mr. LIEBELER - Which one is that?

Mr. HUDSON - Well, it was in the Times Herald paper the next morning after, I believe, after the assassination, maybe the evening after the assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER - Look at this picture.

Mr. HUDSON - [Examining picture referred to.] I don't know - if that's one of them men myself or not up there.

Mr. LIEBELER - After you heard these three shots and saw the president get hit in the head, you turned around and you ran up on the little knoll there and you got away.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - And you saw the President get hit by what you heard as the second shot?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear that others are beginning to evaluate the actual facts! Hope that a little testimony as well as the WC surveyed "Point "A"" may be of some benefit in resolution of this extremely un-complicated enigma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank's for posting those Robin. Very interesting.

The question is 'why such a splice that shifts the contents of the frame?' Nothing seems to be missing, everything seems to line up, except the frame becomes less high and wider. Then the sprocket holes would need to be reset. I think the 'splice' is a result of a shift elsewhere on the film. No doubt, various ther explanations exist, I can think of a few. But if you bear with me I'll show something else. So for now perhaps just accept it as acuriosity.

There is actually very little missing in the frame.

The top and bottom of the spliced area do not register well with the previous frame, as I discovered in my attempt to "repair" the frame. Additionally, there appears to be some warping/non-linear distortion in the area near where the break occurred, but only on the lower half of the frame. I attributed this to heat, but that was merely a theory.

I don't really know why the splice is as it is other than "poor workmanship" on the part of the splicer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.

Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.

Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?

Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.

Not to help contribute to this thread getting off-topic, but maybe some perspective on what these witnesses like Hudson and Bill Newman would have seen and how quick it happened can offer a better explanation as to why they thought the wound to the President's was where they interpreted it to be. The clip below concentrates on just the President's head and not the many other facets of movement in these witnessses field of view that their brains are recording at the same tramtic instant.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really know why the splice is as it is other than "poor workmanship" on the part of the splicer.

I agree with Frank. From what little I recall Gary Mack telling me about the splice ... I think Frank hit the nail on the head. Why not use the color copy or B&W version of Marie's film without the damage for the in-sync study?

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've got an alternative set up. The strip of frames are also re done to aid in the next steps which involves a lot of aligning.

In order to minimise disruption to Nix-Zapruder-Muchmore-Bronson-Bell etc sync thread this thread deals with an issue arising from it that IMO unless resolved fully, one (or at least I)cannot trust the Mfilm.

To proceed in small steps:

At this link is a 2mb strip of the early color version, not the cleaned up ones that followed. This will form the basis of this study.

http://www.vidiars.com/jdolva/Mfstrip_37-46.jpg

"'why such a splice that shifts the contents of the frame?'"

Comtrarily, I think the splice is a result of 'good' workmanhip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've got an alternative set up. The strip of frames are also re done to aid in the next steps which involves a lot of aligning.

In order to minimise disruption to Nix-Zapruder-Muchmore-Bronson-Bell etc sync thread this thread deals with an issue arising from it that IMO unless resolved fully, one (or at least I)cannot trust the Mfilm.

To proceed in small steps:

At this link is a 2mb strip of the early color version, not the cleaned up ones that followed. This will form the basis of this study.

http://www.vidiars.com/jdolva/Mfstrip_37-46.jpg

"'why such a splice that shifts the contents of the frame?'"

Comtrarily, I think the splice is a result of 'good' workmanhip.

dgh:splice in the **middle** of a frame? nah, not professional, at all. Perhaps a frame was added or frame removed, repaired? The blue/whitish strip across the frame, the one with the little circle on the right of the blue/whitish strip. That circle probably represents of a timing cue mark, if that circle is on the alleged camera original, the film is suspect, then again that mark may have been placed on a second, third, fourth generation copy when the film was prepared for inclusion in a television presentation by digital post production folks (why they'd place it there I don't know).

note: those little circles, they were/are quite common in the film/tv industry, and can be seen in modern day movie theaters. where they usually denote a source film reel change, or, for optical film printing buffs, a edit/splice/reel change point.

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the information, David.

I think I know what you mean with 'nah'. Hence the word good in parenthesis. I think it might not be a splice that was needed because the film was broken there, but rather to correct a situation that arose from a more subtle 'repair' that may very well have resulted in partial excision of other frames. It's 'good' in the sense that it quite well obscures that excision and creates a 'perhaps' with regards to frame removal, shuffling about etc. However, I'm working on the notion that it's 'decipherable'.

I wonder if you have to post an example of a wet and a dry splice, or describe what they would look like and why??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the information, David.

I think I know what you mean with 'nah'. Hence the word good in parenthesis. I think it might not be a splice that was needed because the film was broken there, but rather to correct a situation that arose from a more subtle 'repair' that may very well have resulted in partial excision of other frames. It's 'good' in the sense that it quite well obscures that excision and creates a 'perhaps' with regards to frame removal, shuffling about etc. However, I'm working on the notion that it's 'decipherable'.

I wonder if you have to post an example of a wet and a dry splice, or describe what they would look like and why??

exactly..... I'll correct your terminology too.... I'll create a illustration for review

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...