Swan-Song -- Math Rules

[Chris Davidson]

We know an excise occurred which was 1/6 of the frames = 30.5 /183

So, starting at extant z133:

.7625 x (1.2 = (removal of another 1/6 total frames) =.915 to 1 ratio

But, we have to deal in whole frames.

So, .915 x18 / 18.3 = .9ft per frame

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

.9ft per frame x 18.3FPS = 16.47ft per sec /1.47 (1mph) = 11.2mph = Shaneyfelt Testimony

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

David,

I'm thinking for the last full pass from extant z133 on, they used 1/3 of 1/2 = 1/6, instead of the 1/2 of 1/2 = 1/4.

This would have left them with approx 39 frames for random removal. A little leeway.

This appears to work out in keeping the 1 to 1 ratio intact among other things. I'll follow this up with some split time/speed comparisons.

In the end, the same 1/4 frame removal amount would have been accomplished.

What do you think?

1296 = 486 x (48/18)
354.6666666 = 133 x (48/18)
941.33333 = (1296 - 354.66666)
470.666666 = (941.3333 / 2)
470.666666 - 25% = (1/2 x 1/2) =
353

 

470.666666 -  353 = 117.666

How many frames from 470.666 to 486?

What's the difference between z118 and z133?

470.666666 - 16.6666% = (1/2 x 1/3) =
392.22 - 353 =
39.22 Remaining

470.666666 -  353 = 117.666

How many frames from 470.666 to 486?

What's the difference between z118 and z133?

 

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Chris Davidson

[David Josephs]

The Towner film must have been the deciding factor then...

Syncing to that turn (I'd like your thoughts on the Hughes image of that turn as it does not appear they swing wide)
would necessitate a greater removal...  plus, if Truly's account and the wide turn are real, the limo would be going much slower requiring more frames to be excised.

[Chris Davidson]

19 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

The Towner film must have been the deciding factor then...

Syncing to that turn (I'd like your thoughts on the Hughes image of that turn as it does not appear they swing wide)
would necessitate a greater removal...  plus, if Truly's account and the wide turn are real, the limo would be going much slower requiring more frames to be excised.

Yes,

I'd say the Towner film limited them in what was possible with the true Zfilm, so they had to excise that same range of frames.

Myer's couldn't sync the turn unless he increased Towner's camera FPS to 22.8 and use the drivers side rear tire as his measuring stick, as opposed to JFK within the limo.

I don't see where the wide turn was possible given what I have plotted using Towner's film.

I'm fairly certain the Towner splice was for timing purposes as an adjustment between 18 and 18.3fps overall.

In other words, 486/18     = 27 seconds 

                            486/18.3 = 26.557 seconds                        

                                                     .443seconds x 18fps = 7.97 frames (Myers had it as 7 missing frames, so it's fairly close for syncing with his BS math).

 

I'll post some other math items relating to Position A and such, a little later, but for now, I'm returning to the breakdown of that 1/6 frame removal pass.

 

[Chris Davidson]

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

We know an excise occurred which was 1/6 of the frames = 30.5 /183

So, starting at extant z133:

.7625 x (1.2 = (removal of another 1/6 total frames) =.915 to 1 ratio

But, we have to deal in whole frames.

So, .915 x18 / 18.3 = .9ft per frame

 

 

The 1.2 multiplier (remove 1/6 frames) that converts .915 back to .9 (18FPS-whole frames) = 2.24mph speed change

This is what CE884 (Z161-Z166 @.9ft traveled)reveals.

Apply this to their average of 11.2mph + 2.24 = 13.44mph which is what I plotted, speed wise, for the limo on the extant film from z156-z166(right at a film splice). 

 

  

 

[David Josephs]

 

Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. 
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? 
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. 
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Now, what is your best estimate of the speed as he started to go down the street here marked Parkway? 
Mr. TRULY. He picked up a little speed along here, and then seemed to have fallen back into line, and I would say 10 or 12 miles an hour in this area. 
Mr. BELIN. All right.

[Michael Walton]

Here it is Chris and Dave - from a real investigator and researcher.  No BS...no crazy pie in the sky theories.

As I've said all along, the films weren't faked and SHOW conspiracy, just like old Ray here says.

Read it and weep LOL

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13PZnD9xNbzVlndRm-tgPXL5_PkEPQsfV

 

[David Josephs]

Here's a thought gnat...

Read it yourself and explain it....  start a thread and show off that big brain...

1 - I doubt you read it or even know who Marcus was....
2 - if you read any of it you surely did not understand it
3 - you no doubt cannot explain it if it was needed to save your life....

Pointing to something and claiming it is the answer, when not once in the weeks prior do you bother referencing it, linking to it, or using any of it to support a post...

But all of a sudden you're ready to point to the ANSWER...  to someone else's work with someone else's conclusions...  you can't point to what within the work you find applicable...  cause you didn't read it....  and who knows, since 1992 when it was published, maybe more info was released... ??

So... Do you EVER think for yourself... ?

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The 1.2 multiplier (remove 1/6 frames) that converts .915 back to .9 (18FPS-whole frames) = 2.24mph speed change

This is what CE884 (Z161-Z166 @.9ft traveled)reveals.

Apply this to their average of 11.2mph + 2.24 = 13.44mph which is what I plotted, speed wise, for the limo on the extant film from z156-z166(right at a film splice). 

 

  

 

If we want to get .9ft back to 1ft or a 1to1 ratio of frames to ft per frames, we must divide 1 by .9 = 1/.9 = 1.111111111

This is our second working multiplier.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

The first and second multipliers are used in the CE884 version which resides on the WC final plat of May 1964.

They are applied in the (surprise-surprise) first 18 frame entries.

21.6ft/18frames = 1.2ft per frame.  1st Multiplier

Expand to 18.3fps = 21.6/18 x 18.3 = 21.96ft per sec / 1.47 (1mph) = 14.938mph

 

Working from the 11.2mph WC designated average:

11.204 x 1.2(1st Multiplier) = 13.444mph

13.444 x 1.1111111 (2nd Multiplier) = 14.938mph

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

48/18(whole frames) = 2.6666..... /2 = 1.3333.....

/2 = cutting a 48fps film into half the frames (1st pass)

1.333.. converted to a fraction = 4/3.

The reciprocal being 3/4 bringing that 4/3 back to a 1 to 1 ratio.

3/4 of the remaining frames from extant z133 were retained.

3/4 + 1/4 = 1

After the elimination of all frames from Z beginning (turn onto Elm) to extant z133, they began the next passes(multipliers) incorporating this from extant z133 forward.

The combined total frames excised from extant z133 onward equals 1/4 of those remaining frames.

This process does not include the variable of a limo stopping (more frames created) as there is no way to distinguish "math wise" whether it stopped or not. Imo

Added on edit: I was wrong, they didn't remove 2/3 of all frames, they removed at least:

                           353/1296 = 1 - .272 = .728 = 72.8%

Edited March 9, 2018 by Chris Davidson

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Hi Mr Davidson,

I am fighting to understand your maths and am failing for two reasons. Firstly I haven't followed you from the start and secondly because you are providing only sufficient commentary for someone who has. Am I understanding some basics.

1. Your maths show that the 'official' Z-film speed hides the fact that the filming was made with the slow motion setting on the camera. 

2. The slow motion setting would create over double the number of frames than we see in the extant film.

3. Your maths shows that the extant film appears to be a film running at a 'normal'(ish) speed because over 60% of frames have been removed.

I am very sorry I am not bright enough to add any further basics, but are you willing to answer a couple of questions, a remedial class as it were?

1. Is it the declared film speed that is essential to hiding the conversion of a long piece of film to a shorter one?

2. What tells you reduction has been done, as opposed to it making mathematical sense that it could have been done?

3. What significance does the limo speed have to this? Are you able to ascertain the limo speed or are you relying on witness testimony?

 

Typing these questions I realise I really don't follow, I hope Sandy Larson now does as he also asked for help. You are really creating an interest in me now, but looking at the limited contributors to this thread you aren't getting everyone worked up. You may not care about that, but I would urge you to care, as some of the most brilliant work in this field lies forgotten due to a lack of momentum created around it.

[David Josephs]

Hi Eddy...

A couple of researchers, most recently Doug Horne and myself, gave some thought to the idea that the film was actually taken at 48fps for significant parts of it, since so much was removed yet while jumpy, the remaining film is coherent.

From this 48 frames per second we look at the NPIC famous CIA450 docs which show they too were confused why 18.3fps was used instead of the normal setting of 16fps...

That's when I started to do some adding and subtracting to find the ratio of total frames in 25 feet of film versus the 486 we were left with on that 6'3" span of film.

48/18.3 = 2.623

By taking 1/2 the frames away the first pass  (48 / 2 = 24)
and taking almost 1/4 of the frames  on the 2nd   (24 * .75 = 18)

we can arrive at an 18.3 frames per second... which equates exactly to the run/rise of Elm Street...  18.3 feet run for each 1 foot rise
and then we also find with these new averages and final film... we get just about 1 foot movement for every frame...

11 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

1. Is it the declared film speed that is essential to hiding the conversion of a long piece of film to a shorter one?

2. What tells you reduction has been done, as opposed to it making mathematical sense that it could have been done?

3. What significance does the limo speed have to this? Are you able to ascertain the limo speed or are you relying on witness testimony?

I am sure Chris will address this as well...

1.  yes...  for every 48 frames in 1 second, removing 2/3 or them give you 16 frames every second with little change in what is seen when projected at the same speed...
                         1 second is 1 second

2. there are a number of indicators... first being the change in CE884, the survey plat legend...  second being the movement of the limo's path by Shaneyfelt/Frasier...
              third is the use of a limo stand-in which was 10" too tall and then using the stand-in data for JFK, and finally (there are probably more) there are the obvious "impossible movments" which we see in a number of places: 

Anywhere there is a black bar in the sprocket area, it is claimed that was replaced by parts of a SS copy...  At 340 and again 350 we ought to remember something Altgens said (the man standing on the grass nearest the limo with a camera.

In essence, the FBI (with the help of LIFE, SS and Melvin Eisenberg) removed a "third" shot despite there being even more than that, and adjusted the film, then re-filmed so it appears like a single pass.... 

As most people are not aware... a copy of the film, if not the original was in DC that night... 15 hours before Dino sees it at NPIC....
DJ

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. 

 

155/157 we see JFK's head swivel from looking to his left to his right... as if in response to something.  There is an acknowledged splice here

There Greer's movement at 302

There's the 1 frame Greer turn at 315

 

[Chris Davidson]

Eddy,

Before I answer your questions, it's very important to understand the most basic aspect of this concept. Everything discussed and thereafter starts with WC document CE884, entry z161-z166.

The extant limo from z161-z166 is moving at 13.44mph.

That is 1.08ft per frame. 

The WC CE884 document equates each frame from z161-z166 as .18ft per frame traveled, not 1.08ft per frame, for a total of .9ft traveled for those five frames.

CE884 should reflect the appropriate distance in accordance with the amount of frames entered.

In this instance, the span lacks 4.5ft of limo distance traveled.

Do you believe this presents a problem?

If you don't, then you might ask yourself, "Is it a coincidence that the total distance traveled in those five frames (.9ft) = the overall average of .9ft per frame traveled for the entire data span of z161-z313 = Shaneyfelt's testimony = 11.2mph