Zapruder Film Exposed

[James R Gordon]

Chris,

before you completely loose me, can we go back a bit. I am spending some time studying this thread.

I follow your point that between 133 and 351 the elapsed time is 9.1 sec. I can verify that on my computer.

The difference in frames is 218.

I agree that if 218 is divided by 18.3 - the acknowledged speed Zapruder was supposed to filming - results in 11.9 seconds. Which is longer than the time counter suggests the frames should last.

That suggests there are frames missing.

11.9 - 9.1 = 2.8 seconds.

2.8 seconds accounts for 52 frames.

I agree that if 218 is divided by 24 - the argued speed Zapruder may have been filming at - results in 9.08 seconds. Which the time monitor states is the exact time for those frames.

So basically you are saying if the camera speed was 24 fps then the frame count matches the time count.

Whereas if the camera was filming at 18,3 fps then the frame count and the time count do not match.

I agree that appears to be the case. But how is that possible? We are talking about the loss of around 52 frames.

The maths may be right, but logically it seems impossible.

James

Addition:-

Can I ask what version of the film you are working with.

I checked some of my copies and realised I am working with the enhanced versions. For example the close up version is a slowed down version. Therefore there are added frames.

Zapruder's original film had 486 frames.

If we subtract the Home movie and motorcycles before JFK then the actual film is 486 - 132 = 354 frames of the assassination.

The total length of that in time is 19.34 seconds.

The strip you are discussing is 133 - 351. That is 218 frames. The time for that ought to be 218/18.3 = 11.9 seconds

Above I was wondering whether there was something suspicious in these two timing values. Now I am not so sure. If a film is captured at 18.3 frames per second and that film has 218 frames then it would be expected to be 11.9 seconds long.

Now I suspect you are going to argue that the real Zapruder film was captured at 24 fps - which the camera had the ability to do - but where is the evidence that Zapruder actually filmed at that speed. If that could be established then I agree there is a serious question to be asked about the Zapruder film. But I do not see the evidence his film was captured at that speed. The present length of the Zapruder film is 486 frames. That is what we would expect for a film captured at 18.3 fps. had the same subject matter been captured at 24fps surely the frame count would be nearer 640 frames.

One further point:-

I see on post 23 that you comment that you can't have 2 films travel the same distance, in the same amount of frames, unless the camera frame rate is the same in both.

I agree. However Zapruder was - we are told - filming at 18.3 fps. Therefore for him that ought to consume 218 frames.

You state that the SS were filming at 24fps. The same amount of information on that film ought to be somewhere in the region of 285 frames.

Is the problem not there?

[Brad Milch]

I also have math questions for Chris, James. How can JFK's parade car be traveling at a speed of 7+ mph in the Nix film and roughly twice as fast in the Zapruder film? In Donald Thomas' acoustics analysis research video link I posted, he is using the WC determination of a limo speed of slightly over 11 mph, much faster than what Itek determined the limo speed to be in the Nix film. Chris hasn't gotten to the Muchmore & Bronson films yet to determine the limo speed in those short films of the ambush.

The many different versions of the Zapruder film may be presenting confusion for some people. The Costella & unenhanced, unstabilized & slowed down Robert Groden version of the Zapruder film depicts to some observers a hurried, jumpy parade car zipping down Elm Street like a small rocket

BM

PS: I pointed out to Chris earlier than I am a dummy when it comes to math (I failed college Calculus 3 times). I only made it through high school math by sitting near smart girls who felt sorry for my misery in struggling with complicated math & helped me survive it (lol). Chris has a talent I don't possess. I suspect that I'm not alone on this planet in possessing poor math skills. That's why I pay others to prepare my tax returns.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Brad Milch

[Chris Davidson]

Chris,

before you completely loose me, can we go back a bit. I am spending some time studying this thread.

I follow your point that between 133 and 351 the elapsed time is 9.1 sec. I can verify that on my computer.

The difference in frames is 218.

I agree that if 218 is divided by 18.3 - the acknowledged speed Zapruder was supposed to filming - results in 11.9 seconds. Which is longer than the time counter suggests the frames should last.

That suggests there are frames missing.

11.9 - 9.1 = 2.8 seconds.

2.8 seconds accounts for 52 frames.

I agree that if 218 is divided by 24 - the argued speed Zapruder may have been filming at - results in 9.08 seconds. Which the time monitor states is the exact time for those frames.

So basically you are saying if the camera speed was 24 fps then the frame count matches the time count.

Whereas if the camera was filming at 18,3 fps then the frame count and the time count do not match.

I agree that appears to be the case. But how is that possible? We are talking about the loss of around 52 frames.

The maths may be right, but logically it seems impossible.

James

Addition:-

Can I ask what version of the film you are working with.

I checked some of my copies and realised I am working with the enhanced versions. For example the close up version is a slowed down version. Therefore there are added frames.

Zapruder's original film had 486 frames.

If we subtract the Home movie and motorcycles before JFK then the actual film is 486 - 132 = 354 frames of the assassination.

The total length of that in time is 19.34 seconds.

The strip you are discussing is 133 - 351. That is 218 frames. The time for that ought to be 218/18.3 = 11.9 seconds

Above I was wondering whether there was something suspicious in these two timing values. Now I am not so sure. If a film is captured at 18.3 frames per second and that film has 218 frames then it would be expected to be 11.9 seconds long.

Now I suspect you are going to argue that the real Zapruder film was captured at 24 fps - which the camera had the ability to do - but where is the evidence that Zapruder actually filmed at that speed. If that could be established then I agree there is a serious question to be asked about the Zapruder film. But I do not see the evidence his film was captured at that speed. The present length of the Zapruder film is 486 frames. That is what we would expect for a film captured at 18.3 fps. had the same subject matter been captured at 24fps surely the frame count would be nearer 640 frames.

One further point:-

I see on post 23 that you comment that you can't have 2 films travel the same distance, in the same amount of frames, unless the camera frame rate is the same in both.

I agree. However Zapruder was - we are told - filming at 18.3 fps. Therefore for him that ought to consume 218 frames.

You state that the SS were filming at 24fps. The same amount of information on that film ought to be somewhere in the region of 285 frames.

Is the problem not there?

James,

The SS film was shot at 24FPS. If you have the ability to advance my comp video SS/Z one frame at a time, you will notice both cars in both films advance every frame. There are only progressive frames in both.

This is a 1/1 frame ratio.

To put it in terms of frames, they have the same amount of frames.

In terms of speed, the Zfilm average 196.5ft over 218 frames = 11.22mph

The SS average speed using those same numbers = 14.72mph

I am trying to convey that 24fps or some form of it, was used as part or all of the coverup. This was one of the reasons I showed the video frame of the WC not filming their recreation from the pedestal.

What possible reason would there be to film from any other location? They were afraid to climb up I guess. My speculation of course.

The SS video is very important because it also shows stationary objects where their original positions were, when filmed from the pedestal.

chris

[James R Gordon]

Chris,

You say that through 218 frames the car travelled 196.5 ft.

I thought that the distance between 133 and 351 was around 233ft.

Where do you get the figure of 196.5ft?

I understood that between 133 and 486 is around 451 feet.

Can you give me your understanding of the distance between these two points.

James.

[Chris Davidson]

James,

CE884: Z168-313 =136.1ft

Z313-Z351 using the yellow curb marker aligned with JFK's position in the limo is 30.2ft.

Z133-168 = 30.2ft using light post in background aligned with JFK's position in the limo.

Total = 196.5ft

chris

Edited December 4, 2014 by Chris Davidson

[James R Gordon]

Chris,

Maybe I am approaching this incorrectly - as far as you are concerned - but for me the physical distanced traveled is an important fact.

Take Z 216.

If we assume - and maybe that is incorrect to assume that - that Zapruder's description of the physical traveling down Elm Street is correct then something is wrong here. What I mean is if the position of the car in Zapruder at 216 is exactly where 216 is on the road - then I do not understand the position of the SS cat.

As I understand it 216 is a progress of 90.5 feet from 133. However at - what is termed 216 - the SS car is somewhere like 50 feet further forward.

216 cannot be in two different physical locations. Unless I have misunderstood, it is not a matter of different film speeds, the cars are in different physical locations.

Can you help me out here?

James

[Chris Davidson]

James,

The difference is 9 frames.

Eventually the SS car will make up the 9 frame difference and the distance of that 9 frames, but not until the end of the video.

Remember using the average overall speed, the SS car will eventually gain x amount of distance over x amount of time because it is traveling at a faster speed.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Chris,

before you completely loose me, can we go back a bit. I am spending some time studying this thread.

I follow your point that between 133 and 351 the elapsed time is 9.1 sec. I can verify that on my computer.

The difference in frames is 218.

I agree that if 218 is divided by 18.3 - the acknowledged speed Zapruder was supposed to filming - results in 11.9 seconds. Which is longer than the time counter suggests the frames should last.

That suggests there are frames missing.

11.9 - 9.1 = 2.8 seconds.

2.8 seconds accounts for 52 frames.

I agree that if 218 is divided by 24 - the argued speed Zapruder may have been filming at - results in 9.08 seconds. Which the time monitor states is the exact time for those frames.

So basically you are saying if the camera speed was 24 fps then the frame count matches the time count.

Whereas if the camera was filming at 18,3 fps then the frame count and the time count do not match.

I agree that appears to be the case. But how is that possible? We are talking about the loss of around 52 frames.

The maths may be right, but logically it seems impossible.

James

Addition:-

Can I ask what version of the film you are working with.

I checked some of my copies and realised I am working with the enhanced versions. For example the close up version is a slowed down version. Therefore there are added frames.

Zapruder's original film had 486 frames.

If we subtract the Home movie and motorcycles before JFK then the actual film is 486 - 132 = 354 frames of the assassination.

The total length of that in time is 19.34 seconds.

The strip you are discussing is 133 - 351. That is 218 frames. The time for that ought to be 218/18.3 = 11.9 seconds

Above I was wondering whether there was something suspicious in these two timing values. Now I am not so sure. If a film is captured at 18.3 frames per second and that film has 218 frames then it would be expected to be 11.9 seconds long.

Now I suspect you are going to argue that the real Zapruder film was captured at 24 fps - which the camera had the ability to do - but where is the evidence that Zapruder actually filmed at that speed. If that could be established then I agree there is a serious question to be asked about the Zapruder film. But I do not see the evidence his film was captured at that speed. The present length of the Zapruder film is 486 frames. That is what we would expect for a film captured at 18.3 fps. had the same subject matter been captured at 24fps surely the frame count would be nearer 640 frames.

One further point:-

I see on post 23 that you comment that you can't have 2 films travel the same distance, in the same amount of frames, unless the camera frame rate is the same in both.

I agree. However Zapruder was - we are told - filming at 18.3 fps. Therefore for him that ought to consume 218 frames.

You state that the SS were filming at 24fps. The same amount of information on that film ought to be somewhere in the region of 285 frames.

Is the problem not there?

James,

The SS film was shot at 24FPS. If you have the ability to advance my comp video SS/Z one frame at a time, you will notice both cars in both films advance every frame. There are only progressive frames in both.

This is a 1/1 frame ratio.

To put it in terms of frames, they have the same amount of frames.

In terms of speed, the Zfilm average 196.5ft over 218 frames = 11.22mph

The SS average speed using those same numbers = 14.72mph

I am trying to convey that 24fps or some form of it, was used as part or all of the coverup. This was one of the reasons I showed the video frame of the WC not filming their recreation from the pedestal.

What possible reason would there be to film from any other location? They were afraid to climb up I guess. My speculation of course.

The SS video is very important because it also shows stationary objects where their original positions were, when filmed from the pedestal.

chris

Just a quick followup on this aspect.

The common SS/FBI plat also supports the non-pedestal filming idea of the recreation.

Take note of the LOS lines from the pedestal and other position through what stationary object?

chris

[James R Gordon]

Sorry Chris,

I was looking at white car. My mistake.

If possible I would love a copy of the complete map. if it is possible to email a copy.

My next problem relates to what you said in post 51 where you said that between 168 and 313 is 136 feet.

According to CE 877 from the triple underpass to the western edge of Houston Street is 595 feet. Just under 600 feet.

Yet you are saying that between the two black arrows is 136 feet. That suggests that the rest of Elm street - that area not included between the arrows - 459 feet.

My instinct suggests that between those two arrows is greater that 136 feet.

James

[Chris Davidson]

James,

Refer back to document CE884.

Z168 = Station# 3+29.2

Z313= Station# 4+65.3

465.3-329.2 = 136.1ft.

This is the street measured, straight line distance between increment entries (using JFK's position in the limo) from Z168-Z313).

chris

[Jon G. Tidd]

Chris,

Here's what I know; please tell me what I'm missing:

If a car travels a distance d in a time of t seconds, its average speed for the trip is equal to d/t. This average speed is independent of whether the car is being filmed. If it is being filmed and we know the frame rate of the camera, we can determine t from the film of the travel. If the frame rate remains unchanged and certain frames of the film are removed, we'll calculate a new, lesser time for rate of travel, t'. With the frames removed, the calculated average speed will be d/t', a faster average speed than d/t.

The average speed for a car trip provides no information about its speed during any one interval of the trip.

A film is an unreliable way of calculating both the average speed of a car over a distance d and the speed of the car during any one interval of the trip, unless we are sure of two things: [1] the frame rate of the camera that took the film, and [2] the number and location of frames (if any) removed from the film.

Two different cameras recording a car trip at two different frame rates will produce the same calculated value for t and hence the same calculated average speed for the trip assuming no hanky panky with the film from either camera.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Jon G. Tidd

[Ian Lloyd]

Chris,

before you completely loose me, can we go back a bit. I am spending some time studying this thread.

I follow your point that between 133 and 351 the elapsed time is 9.1 sec. I can verify that on my computer.

The difference in frames is 218.

I agree that if 218 is divided by 18.3 - the acknowledged speed Zapruder was supposed to filming - results in 11.9 seconds. Which is longer than the time counter suggests the frames should last.

That suggests there are frames missing.

11.9 - 9.1 = 2.8 seconds.

2.8 seconds accounts for 52 frames.

I agree that if 218 is divided by 24 - the argued speed Zapruder may have been filming at - results in 9.08 seconds. Which the time monitor states is the exact time for those frames.

So basically you are saying if the camera speed was 24 fps then the frame count matches the time count.

Whereas if the camera was filming at 18,3 fps then the frame count and the time count do not match.

I agree that appears to be the case. But how is that possible? We are talking about the loss of around 52 frames.

The maths may be right, but logically it seems impossible.

James

Addition:-

Can I ask what version of the film you are working with.

I checked some of my copies and realised I am working with the enhanced versions. For example the close up version is a slowed down version. Therefore there are added frames.

Zapruder's original film had 486 frames.

If we subtract the Home movie and motorcycles before JFK then the actual film is 486 - 132 = 354 frames of the assassination.

The total length of that in time is 19.34 seconds.

The strip you are discussing is 133 - 351. That is 218 frames. The time for that ought to be 218/18.3 = 11.9 seconds

Above I was wondering whether there was something suspicious in these two timing values. Now I am not so sure. If a film is captured at 18.3 frames per second and that film has 218 frames then it would be expected to be 11.9 seconds long.

Now I suspect you are going to argue that the real Zapruder film was captured at 24 fps - which the camera had the ability to do - but where is the evidence that Zapruder actually filmed at that speed. If that could be established then I agree there is a serious question to be asked about the Zapruder film. But I do not see the evidence his film was captured at that speed. The present length of the Zapruder film is 486 frames. That is what we would expect for a film captured at 18.3 fps. had the same subject matter been captured at 24fps surely the frame count would be nearer 640 frames.

One further point:-

I see on post 23 that you comment that you can't have 2 films travel the same distance, in the same amount of frames, unless the camera frame rate is the same in both.

I agree. However Zapruder was - we are told - filming at 18.3 fps. Therefore for him that ought to consume 218 frames.

You state that the SS were filming at 24fps. The same amount of information on that film ought to be somewhere in the region of 285 frames.

Is the problem not there?

A few years ago, I was looking into the Zapruder film speed and found a few FBI documents on the MF site relating to this - it transpired that, IIRC, Zapruder had initially said that his camera was set to run at 48fps when filming the JFK motorcade!! The FBI then had him sign a statement to the effect that he was "in error" when he said this and that it was set to run at 16fps as per their investigations (did he also say this in a tv interview? I seem to have a vague memory from somewhere!?!). When I looked further into this, I found the same scenario for Nix - he said his camera was set to run at 24fps but the FBI said it must have also been set to run at 16fps, same as Zapruder's. I corresponded with Gary Mack on the subject via e-mails but he seemed to "agree" with the FBI's version!

Again, please bear in mind that this is from memory from a few years ago but it is the case though the figures may be slightly out (but I don't think they are).

[James R Gordon]

Chris,

I understand. However it seems strange that we have two different values for the distance between two specific physical locations. I had understood that the total length of Elm Street was 595 ft. From my understanding of the case no one has disputed the validity of 877. I can confirm every other factual description is right.

So I find it curious that one way of measuring gives one answer while another casts doubt on that value. What makes it more strange is that we are talking about two physical locations that can be easily established.

I respect you have significant skills in this area, but we surely cannot have two answers to the distance between the same two specific points.

James

[Chris Davidson]

Chris,

Here's what I know; please tell me what I'm missing:

If a car travels a distance d in a time of t seconds, its average speed for the trip is equal to d/t. This average speed is independent of whether the car is being filmed. If it is being filmed and we know the frame rate of the camera, we can determine t from the film of the travel. If the frame rate remains unchanged and certain frames of the film are removed, we'll calculate a new, lesser time for rate of travel, t'. With the frames removed, the calculated average speed will be d/t', a faster average speed than d/t.

The average speed for a car trip provides no information about its speed during any one interval of the trip.

A film is an unreliable way of calculating both the average speed of a car over a distance d and the speed of the car during any one interval of the trip, unless we are sure of two things: [1] the frame rate of the camera that took the film, and [2] the number and location of frames (if any) removed from the film.

Two different cameras recording a car trip at two different frame rates will produce the same calculated value for t and hence the same calculated average speed for the trip assuming no hanky panky with the film from either camera.

Jon, I would agree with most of what you have stated.

Let me add this:

If I have a surveyed plat with stationary objects, representative of the road being traversed, know the filmers location, and my measuring marker(JFK within the limo) I can using a film with known FPS rate, accurately gauge the speed of the car.

chris

[Chris Scally]

James and Ian:

With reference to your mentions of the filming speed of the Zapruder and Nix cameras respectively:

According to p. 13 of the Bell & Howell 414 PD Director Series Manual, Abraham Zapruder's camera was only capable of operating at three speeds - Normal, or 16 frames per second; Slow Motion, or 48 fps; and Animation, or Single Frame. As I understand, the standard for 8mm home movie film was in transition from 16 to 18 fps at around that time, and Zapruder's camera was actually a transition model, capable of operating at the new standard speed. This would be consistent with what the FBI found when they tested the camera - their results indicated that it averaged at 18.3 fps.

The Nix camera only has two settings - Run, and Single Frame. Ian mentions the possibility of the Nix film running at 24 fps - Orville Nix actually told the FBI that he thought the camera speed was "40 frames per second", but I believe that Nix was confusing the camera filming speed with the ASA Film Index Dial, which the Keystone K-810 Instruction Manual says (pp. 3, 8) should be set to "10" rather than "40" when using indoor film outdoors, as Nix was doing. When the FBI tested the camera, they found it was running at an average speed of 18.5 fps.

Hope this is of some help to you both.

Chris Scally.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Chris Scally