Abraham "Crocodile-Tears" Zapruder... on a walkie-talkie!

[Jake Maxwell]

    If the person on the edge of this still frame is a male, he is wearing a coat that extends down to about the knee level. That would make it an Overcoat or Trench Coat. Zapruder was wearing a suit coat. The length of the coat DQ's the figure being Zapruder.

I think you are correct... The attire is not that of Zapruder or Sitzman...
Here's from the Paschal Film copy Duncan posted...

[Royell Storing]

     This is another reason this case remains unsolved after almost 62 yrs. People have staked out hard line LN Positions. When NEW IMAGE EVIDENCE such as the Bell still frame you have presented challenges their iron clad LN position(s), they only acknowledge seeing what they WANT to see. They do Not accept seeing everything that is actually on the image. This dark figure based on the attire worn, is NOT Zapruder. Personally, I believe this dark figure is also NOT moving on the same Ground Level as Sitzman. To this day, immediately following the kill shot, we only Know of Zapruder being physically on the Pergola Shelter Level of the Knoll. Same goes for Sitzman. This dark figure and Sitzman are on differing levels of the Knoll in that Bell Film still frame. That dark figure based on: (1) attire, and (2) location, is Not Zapruder.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Professional or serious historians or researches like Max Holland, investigative journalists, people like Fred Litwin here, spend months and years, sometimes even decades, researching an issue or topic. They travel around the country, interview people, locate primary or original sources like photos, letters. Then they take those materials to experts who analyze them, authenticate them. The photos or films are given to labs to evaluate. Digitized, enhanced, made, if possible, clearer.

They spend thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on their topic. Again, Fred Litwin is a perfect example. He travels to the archives, to libraries, and finds the primary documents.

Or you can sit behind a computer, roaming the internet, and find a boogeyman in a obscure, fuzzy photo and consider that and that alone serious research. Where did the photo come from? It doesn't matter. What do other photos and films reveal? It doesn't matter. What did the people who were there say? It doesn't matter. One image alone is sufficient.

If you think the second approach is better than the first, that the first is antiquated and no longer useful, then, well, you really are fooling yourself.

[Tommy Shanks]

Or you can sit behind a computer, roaming the internet, and find a boogeyman in a obscure, fuzzy photo and consider that and that alone serious research. Where did the photo come from? It doesn't matter. What do other photos and films reveal? It doesn't matter. What did the people who were there say? It doesn't matter. One image alone is sufficient.

If you think the second approach is better than the first, that the first is antiquated and no longer useful, then, well, you really are fooling yourself.

Steve, I wish this could be tattooed onto the homepage of this forum. This armchair sleuthing, which runs rampant and unchecked at the JFK Education Forum as well, is the bane of the JFK research community.

[Jake Maxwell]

Professional or serious historians or researches like Max Holland, investigative journalists, people like Fred Litwin here, spend months and years, sometimes even decades, researching an issue or topic. They travel around the country, interview people, locate primary or original sources like photos, letters. Then they take those materials to experts who analyze them, authenticate them. The photos or films are given to labs to evaluate. Digitized, enhanced, made, if possible, clearer.

They spend thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on their topic. Again, Fred Litwin is a perfect example. He travels to the archives, to libraries, and finds the primary documents.

Or you can sit behind a computer, roaming the internet, and find a boogeyman in a obscure, fuzzy photo and consider that and that alone serious research. Where did the photo come from? It doesn't matter. What do other photos and films reveal? It doesn't matter. What did the people who were there say? It doesn't matter. One image alone is sufficient.

If you think the second approach is better than the first, that the first is antiquated and no longer useful, then, well, you really are fooling yourself.

Well, isn’t this ironic … the very image we’re looking at comes from The Lost Bullet, which features Max Holland pushing his theory that a shot from the sixth floor struck the traffic-signal pole. He ends up doing what so many researchers do - traveling around looking for anything that can support a theory he already decided on.

In case you missed the distinct image from the Bell Film featured in The Lost Bullet... here it is:

[Royell Storing]

     Thus far, the LN's around here have not directly addressed the Bell Film Still Frame posted by Jake Maxwell. Instead, they have "pulled rank" by bowing at the alter of Holland & Litwin. It's as if since Holland & Litwin have Not discovered this Bell Film Still Frame, it obviously has no merit. How about getting off of your knees and directly addressing this Bell Film Still Frame? I remind you that this is a Forum for, "general discussion and debate". This is Not a house of worship. 

[Jake Maxwell]

     Thus far, the LN's around here have not directly addressed the Bell Film Still Frame posted by Jake Maxwell. Instead, they have "pulled rank" by bowing at the alter of Holland & Litwin. It's as if since Holland & Litwin have Not discovered this Bell Film Still Frame, it obviously has no merit. How about getting off of your knees and directly addressing this Bell Film Still Frame? I remind you that this is a Forum for, "general discussion and debate". This is Not a house of worship.

Royell, you are correct...
There has been no serious discussion of this image from the Bell Film. Like a thread unraveling a garment... it might lead to places some just don't want to go.
Thanks!

[Tommy Shanks]

Royell, you are correct...
There has been no serious discussion of this image from the Bell Film. Like a thread unraveling a garment... it might lead to places some just don't want to go.
Thanks!

How can you expect a serious discussion when you actually want people to believe that Abraham Zapruder was one of the JFK assassination conspirators? Why should anybody bother with you when you trumpet preposterous claims of that nature?