• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

126 posts in this topic

My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

(Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 225. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 225. It matches to a tee.

The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens.

I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.

Thanks Greg, that helped a bunch. (Though you meant Z255, not Z225 for the Altgens 6 shot.)

Now I understand better what Robert's points were, I think.

As I understand it now, there is a question as to when the shots quit, due to Moorman''s statements.

And as for Altgens, his statement (that he was 15 ft from the limo during the fatal head shot) indicates that the head shot really occurred further down the road than where Z313 shows it.

This is better than how I earlier understood Robert's post. Because rather than most the Z-footage being altered, it looks like just the latter part of it was. I assume it was altered to remove the limo-stop. The limo-stop would be pretty damning for the Secret Service.

This is pretty obvious so I'm sure it's been discussed a lot. But it seems that removing frames to speed up the limo during the limo-stop would be the way to go, followed by a good deal of touch-up work to remove jerkiness. By removing the limo-stop that way, the film would be shortened. The effect would be that the final shot on the revised film would occur closer to the TSBD than it really did.

The problem is that this process would also move everything closer to the TSBD. And so, for example, Altgens should be seen in Z313. Which he isn't. Back to the drawing board.

I don't know where Greg got his information from when he stated that the Altgens 6 photo corresponded to frame z225 of the Zapruder film. Most researchers agree it actually corresponds to frame z255.

Here is something to think about. Witnesses along Elm St. all seem to hear roughly 3-4 shots, yet those at the eastern end of Elm St. seem to hear them at different locations than those closer to the Triple Underpass. Anyone venture a guess why that might be?

Why move the head shot from 307 feet from the Sniper's Nest to 265 feet from the Sniper's Nest? Think of it this way. Even from the 6th floor, the advantage of height will diminish eventually. Hint: Why did we never see the Queen Mary (follow up car) immediately behind the limo in any of the reenactments, with SS agents standing on the running boards?

P.S.

Tom Purvis' research and ballistics "calculations" were a joke and, unfortunately, his nonsense still seems to be polluting this forum.

I corrected my typo from Z-225 to Z-255 in the original post. Sorry for the confusion.

LOL Okay, Greg, I was beginning to wonder about that. No problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for catching it, Bob.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was genuinely thinking, "Oh no! Greg's gone over to the Dark Side too!" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part."

The same way I created 3x the frame count for this extant zfilm span.

There were more to begin with.

Optical%20Flow.gif

Hey, that's pretty slick Chris.

I assume you copied frames and then moved the new ones ones along with the motion of the carsarrow-10x10.png.

Hey wait... that wouldn't work. Anything stationary would wiggle and thereby be blurred.

Please explain what you did.

EDIT: Oh sorry, I need to explain myself.

I was thinking that if you did what I think you did (which is, made repeated copies of frames and then moved each slightly to match the movement of the carsarrow-10x10.png. or in other words interpolated frames) then this looked like a promising technique to help with altering the Z film such that the slowarrow-10x10.png-down of the limo could be removed. First remove frames from where the limo slows down in order to make it appear not to slow down, and then do your interpolation technique to put all the stationary objects back into their correct locations.

I then realized that your technique (if I understand it correctly) wouldn't work so well on the stationary objects. it would make them wiggle, thus blurring them.

Sandy,

I'll reverse the process for you.

48fps slow motion, two thirds of the frames removed in a one second span.

How fast are they running? How fast would a limo appear to move at this frame rate (48fps slow motion with frames removed), going 15mph.

run.gif

Chris,

I'm sure I would really like what you're wanting to demonstrating to me... if only I could follow what you are saying.

I'll try to reply to your post and maybe you'll be able to figure out what it is I'm not understanding. You asked:

How fast would a limo appear to move at this frame rate (48fps slow motion with frames removed), going 15mph.

Well, first off, 48 fps wouldn't be slow motion for the Z film. That would be 48/18 = 2.67 time faster than normal.

Now if you removed two out of three frames and ran the Z film at normal 18 fps speed, the film would run 3 times faster than normal.

Combine the two, and the film would run 2.67 x 3 = 8 times faster than normal. So the limo would appear to be moving at 15 x 8 = 120 mph. Hmmm... something tells me this is not where you wanted me to go with this.

And BTW, the runners appear to be jogging (at a typical pace), not running. At what speed, I don't know.

I guess my most important question would be, what is "48 fps slow motion?" Maybe what you mean is that the subject is filmed at 48 fps and played back at -- what? -- 18 fps. If that's what you mean, and this is done, then the runners would appear to run 18/ 48 = 0.375 times their normal speed. Yes, slow motion! Removing two thirds of the the frames then would make the runners appear to run at 3 times their normal speed. Doing both would make the runners appear to run at 0.375 x 3 = 1.13 time their normal speed, so only 13% faster. (As a whole, this exercise seems merely to be the waste of film and the cost of a high speed movie camera. But maybe it is meant to teach me something. So I will proceed.)

Assuming this is how you wanted me to think (and you need not read any further if it is not), what does this principal tell me about the Z film? Well, if the limo slowed way down, that would be equivalent to the camera filming at a much higher FPS. The limo could be made to move faster (normal speed) either by running the film projector faster, or by removing frames. The latter is what I suggested in my original post.

Well I give up. I'm not sure what I am suppose to learn from this.

Should we start a new thread? (Poor Greg.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

You probably should start a new topic.

The original:

This is super 8mm, so (54fps-Slow-Motion-Close enough. Same Idea) to begin with.

The frame ratio of 1/3 =18fps, reflecting what I posted earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen said:

Should we start a new thread? (Poor Greg.)

Chris Davidson said:

Sandy,

You should probably start a new topic.

Ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now