Muchmore Oddity

[Chris Davidson]

Is it possible for Clint to grow taller, as he runs farther down the street from Muchmore?

thanks,

chris

P.S.

I always thought Jean Hill was fairly tall.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

Is it possible for Clint to grow taller, as he runs farther down the street from Muchmore?

thanks,

chris

P.S.

I always thought Jean Hill was fairly tall.

Not convinced Clint grows taller, perhaps it's his fancy footwork that is deceiving us.

Please watch his right leg at the beginning of the animations.

His right leg takes 2-3 steps in a row.

Then it appears he grows an extra leg that crosses over to the SS limo or is that his leg shadow off the SS car.

Next his left leg becomes somewhat transparent.

And finally, he is able to catch JFK's limo traveling about 10 MPH after jumping from his limo.

Frames are stabilized.

LIMO NEVER STOPS IN THESE FRAMES.

chris

Edited January 6, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Ashton Gray]

Chris, unless I'm not getting something about this, it seems that the relative position of the feet of Hill and Hill have to be taken into account along with the relative position of the tops of their heads.

Ashton

[John Dolva]

Chris, he does start his little jump that's seen in the other movies about at M end. Also I can see his head is straighter up in the second image. That's very good. Is that the discovery channel copy? It looks like a telecined (or whatever it's called) frame is included.

[Bill Miller]

Chris, he does start his little jump that's seen in the other movies about at M end. Also I can see his head is straighter up in the second image. That's very good. Is that the discovery channel copy? It looks like a telecined (or whatever it's called) frame is included.

Here is some information that Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me when I discussed this particular Muchmore print ...........

http://www.aparchive.com/aparchive/pages/p...news/ln_jfk.htm

The work was done on an "Archangel" machine (not a Spirit as I told you) in England, then converted to US broadcast standards. The conversion introduced visual artifacts and it was also transferred at the wrong speed. The "restored" version runs much faster than normal. Slowing down the tape introduces even more confusing visual artifacts.

Gary Mack

[Chris Davidson]

Chris, he does start his little jump that's seen in the other movies about at M end. Also I can see his head is straighter up in the second image. That's very good. Is that the discovery channel copy? It looks like a telecined (or whatever it's called) frame is included.

Here is some information that Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me when I discussed this particular Muchmore print ...........

http://www.aparchive.com/aparchive/pages/p...news/ln_jfk.htm

The work was done on an "Archangel" machine (not a Spirit as I told you) in England, then converted to US broadcast standards. The conversion introduced visual artifacts and it was also transferred at the wrong speed. The "restored" version runs much faster than normal. Slowing down the tape introduces even more confusing visual artifacts.

Gary Mack

Ashton, hopefully someone with more expertise than I can help on this point.

John, that is the Discovery DVD version.

I also posted my stabilized version of this and tried to rid it of the garbage frames. Limo is always moving .

Bill, here's a condensed version of 3 legs. I find it hard to believe these are artifacts.

Left transparent leg in motion. Right leg is solid. What is his cross leg connected to the SS limo?

thanks,

chris

P.S. John, I posted that stabilizied version earlier.In case you missed it.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...8939&st=45#

Edited January 6, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Bill Miller]

Bill, here's a condensed version of 3 legs. I find it hard to believe these are artifacts.

Left transparent leg in motion. Right leg is solid. What is his cross leg connected to the SS limo?

I think you have misinterpreted Hill's reflection in the clean paint on the SS car as a third leg. Just from memory here, but if you go to the Zapruder film ... you can see legs fade in and out of sight because of blurring with Toni Foster and the people walking behind her.

[Robin Unger]

Bill, here's a condensed version of 3 legs. I find it hard to believe these are artifacts.

Left transparent leg in motion. Right leg is solid. What is his cross leg connected to the SS limo?

I think you have misinterpreted Hill's reflection in the clean paint on the SS car as a third leg. Just from memory here, but if you go to the Zapruder film ... you can see legs fade in and out of sight because of blurring with Toni Foster and the people walking behind her.

The third leg appears to be Hill's shadow being cast against the SS car as he runs past it.

Groden_Muchmore_Lightened

Edited January 6, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Frank Agbat]

Chris, he does start his little jump that's seen in the other movies about at M end. Also I can see his head is straighter up in the second image. That's very good. Is that the discovery channel copy? It looks like a telecined (or whatever it's called) frame is included.

Here is some information that Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me when I discussed this particular Muchmore print ...........

http://www.aparchive.com/aparchive/pages/p...news/ln_jfk.htm

The work was done on an "Archangel" machine (not a Spirit as I told you) in England, then converted to US broadcast standards. The conversion introduced visual artifacts and it was also transferred at the wrong speed. The "restored" version runs much faster than normal. Slowing down the tape introduces even more confusing visual artifacts.

Gary Mack

The process of converting this version of the film from PAL (European) standards to NTSC (US) DID introduce artifacts AND it ended up at the wrong speed. This was due to error(s) in the conversion process, not the conversion process itself.

Edit -- they have also done some zoom/crop in places. I don't know if this is a result of stuff in the analog domain (copy from 8mm version to 16mm) or digital (Discovery channel doing some "production effects" or simple ineptitude).

Edited January 6, 2007 by Frank Agbat

[Jack White]

Chris...what you label 1 is Hill's left leg and foot.

What you label 2 is his right leg.

What you label 3 is partly his shadow on the QM and partly the rear of the JFK limo,

and not a third leg, which would be about his waist.

That's my take.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Not convinced Clint grows taller, perhaps it's his fancy footwork that is deceiving us.

Please watch his right leg at the beginning of the animations.

Chris, many times when I do detailed checks over height changes, I will place lines over my overlays to watch for minute changes between frames. In doing so with your animation and while not changing their size , I saw what caused Hill to be slightly taller and wider between locations.

1) One is that Hill is seen more from the rear as he is further down the street which would naturally make his width appear to have gotten wider.

2) If you look at the angle of Hill's standing foot between the two images, you should see that one is slightly angled and the other is almost vertical. This change alone will cause Hill to rise a couple of inches. It would be no different IMO than a woman wearing a pair of 4" heels and then putting on a pair of 6" heels ... her height would naturally rise.

3) Jean Hill turned her head and leaned slightly forward which dropped her height down a few inches between film frames.

4) The two men on the steps with Hudson bent their kness which caused their heights to change as well.

Bill Miller

Edited January 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Chris, he does start his little jump that's seen in the other movies about at M end. Also I can see his head is straighter up in the second image. That's very good. Is that the discovery channel copy? It looks like a telecined (or whatever it's called) frame is included.

Here is some information that Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me when I discussed this particular Muchmore print ...........

http://www.aparchive.com/aparchive/pages/p...news/ln_jfk.htm

The work was done on an "Archangel" machine (not a Spirit as I told you) in England, then converted to US broadcast standards. The conversion introduced visual artifacts and it was also transferred at the wrong speed. The "restored" version runs much faster than normal. Slowing down the tape introduces even more confusing visual artifacts.

Gary Mack

dgh: Again, unless you have the original film -or- individual 35mm film transparencies of same (from which you can reassemble the film at the verified CORRECT speed, you're rolling, headlong down a slippery slope of visual confusion -- which I'm sure the DP film purists love to see.....

Now we're talking about a PAL 25*progressive*fps video production standards conversion to NTSC 29.97*interlaced*fps (for broadcast in the USofA [in what digital format, again?]), all of which can NOT be confirmed.... on top of this we're told: "the restored version runs much faster than normal" -- what the hell does that mean? Perhap's, in the conversion process frames were added? Isn't that how you spell *a-l-t-e-r-e-d* film?

I'm sure Gary was "kind" enough to share this information.... eh, Gary?

oh and, "...transferred at the wrong speed..."? A finishing post house transferring a piece in 2/4bit high-rez at the WRONG speed, that I doubt is true. What house did the transfer, I should be able confirm that?

Any precise measurement on these images is a "waste of time" -- unless of course folks are developing a process to be used on original frames when and IF they become available to researchers. Don't, DON'T hold your breath

[Bill Miller]

Any precise measurement on these images is a "waste of time" -- unless of course folks are developing a process to be used on original frames when and IF they become available to researchers. Don't, DON'T hold your breath

One would think, David, that if everyone here who uses the available asassination images is wasting their time, then what is your motive for wasting your time trolling forums like this where its members are wasting their time?

Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Chris...what you label 1 is Hill's left leg and foot.

What you label 2 is his right leg.

What you label 3 is partly his shadow on the QM and partly the rear of the JFK limo,

and not a third leg, which would be about his waist.

That's my take.

Jack

Thanks to all for catching the shadow.

When I observed this, I was concentrating on individual frames and not watching the movie in it's entirety.

chris

[David G. Healy]

Any precise measurement on these images is a "waste of time" -- unless of course folks are developing a process to be used on original frames when and IF they become available to researchers. Don't, DON'T hold your breath

One would think, David, that if everyone here who uses the available asassination images is wasting their time, then what is your motive for wasting your time trolling forums like this where its members are wasting their time?

Bill Miller

dgh: ahh..... perhaps you think some here undertake this analysis challenge on the sly? The truth is a bitter, BITTER pill to swallow isn't, Bill? All that .gif animation work that neither confirms nor denies DP film/photo alteration. Without the real deal for source material, yes Bill, a complete waste of time. An interesting exercise no-less. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that's the simple reality

Now, if you'd like to explain to me and the others here that are QUITE familiar with the inherent problems re utilizing MPEG-2 based imagery for analysis I'm certainly open to hear your definition of those technical problems, do you have an answer for us?

Thousands of film/photo posts on quite a few forums/boards and no one, NO ONE knows your Bill Miller's photo/film background, now THAT sounds like a successful xxxxx

....what are we mere mortals (who know the business) to believe? Your EXPERIENCE [based on fact] or your BELIEF-OPINION[based on assumption] when it comes to these perplexing film/photo analysis? And your answer IS.....?

Ever trully your's

David

Edited January 6, 2007 by David G. Healy