Jeff Carter Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 The process of changing frame-rate speed while a motion-picture camera is in operation is known as “ramping”. This refers to a necessary gradualism in the transition from one rate to another. So to theoretically propose that the Zapruder camera switched from “run” to “slow motion” during the filming of the Z-film, the math must take the “ramping” into account. i.e. if, for example, the button was pushed to slow motion at, say, frame 150 - what would not happen is the following: frames 1-149 recorded at a rate of 16fps (16fps manufacturer’s rate); frames 150 - onward recorded at a rate of 48fps. There would necessarily be a period of transition before the 48fps speed was reached (one second or two seconds, or some fraction thereof… not sure). So, for example, frames 150-180 would represent a transition period (this is an example, not scientific exactness), and frame 181 onwards would represent a rate of 48fps. As I’ve mentioned before - any sudden immediate change in film speed would result in in the film snapping apart (if changed to a higher speed) or jamming up within the camera (if changed to a slower speed). The change in shutter speed must also be accounted for. At 16fps, the exposure time for each frame is 1/32 of a second. At 48fps it is 1/96 of a second. At the lower rate of speed, each frame is exposed for a period 3 times longer than the higher frame rate. The shutter adjustment cannot occur automatically in the space of 1/48 or even 1/16 of a second (it would "ramp" as well). Therefore the difference in exposure at the point of a theoretical sudden immediate film speed change would be visible. Nothing like that is seen in the Z-film. My other caution in assuming the Z-film was at least partially filmed at the slow-motion speed, is that not one of the persons who saw the film on the day or over the weekend have ever suggested the images played out in slow-motion, though it would have been an obvious and pertinent observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) Thanks Jeff... My confidence level of the "evidence" from that weekend related to Zfilm statements and affidavits is extremely low. The 48fps point is simply to illustrate a process that did not require matte work... just the removal and re-filming of the pieced together final film which allows for the edge printing between sprocket holes to work just fine. This is where I place the changeover to 48fps: Frame #1 shows the expected light bleed... Frame #133 should be similar or at least not look exactly like #135 2 frames later. I see that the wide turn onto Elm and the switchover to 48fps was accomplished for very specific reasons. I've posted this composite image a number of times... Position A is accepted as a location the limo drove thru on its way to z133... it took over 80 frames from the motorcycle cop - in the bottom image - to make that wide turn. We see him disappear to the left of Elm looking up the street and then emerges in the exact same position as the limo in Position A. How does the limo and motorcade get from the turn onto Elm, thru Position A and then to Z133 ? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Station C is on a line drawn along the west curb line of Houston Street in a direct line, and station C is at a point along that line that is in line with where the car would have turned coming around that corner. It is on a line which is an extension of the west curb line of Houston Street. Mr. DULLES. Where is position A on that chart? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Position A is here. Mr. McCLOY. That is before you get to the tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he isn't under the tree yet. Mr. SPECTER. And what occupant, if any, in the car is position A sighted on for measuring purposes? Mr. SHANEYFELT. All of the photographs made through the rifle sight that are shown on the exhibit in the lower left-hand corner were sighted on the spot that was simulating the spot where the President was wounded in the neck. The chalk mark is on the back of the coat.Mr. SPECTER. When you say that position A is the first position at which President Kennedy was in view of the marksman from the southeast window on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, you mean by that the first position where the marksman saw the rear of the President's stand-in? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Now, of course that is an absurd and incorrect statement. Roll the limo back a foot and the mark is still easily seen... Worse yet, Shaneyfelt's testimony reinforces that all the measurements are to the STAND-IN and not to where JFK would have been Mr. SPECTER. Will you now read the statistical data from that exhibit? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Distance from the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for the President to the station C is 136.6 Distance to rifle in the window is 174.9 feet. The angle to the rifle in the window based on the horizontal is 21b050. The distance to the overpass is 350.9 feet, and the angle to the overpass is 0b012'. This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892. CE884 - the final evidence... Frame 207 for JFK has the same info as the stand-in... 174.9' from Rifle to chalkmark. Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207. and here he gives it all away.... the rise/run on Elm is 1'/18.3'. A 10" drop in vertical height equates to 10"/12" = x/18.3'. x = 18.3' * .833333 = 15.25' For Shaneyfelt to make the correct adjustments for the stand-in and the height of the re-creation limo everything must move down Elm 15 feet. Of course that change makes everything related to frame numbers and distances completely worthless.... Again... it is my theory that the film which Max Phillips sent to Chief Rowley was the in camera original, making its way to Hawkeyeworks on Saturday prior to the 10pm delivery to Dino at the NPIC. The film was further cleansed for Homer on Sunday... Edited February 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 An explanation for why frame z-133 is not washed out similar to Z-001 would reside in the spring mechanism powering the camera: the play at the very top of the wind (assuming Zapruder had fully wound the camera to start) exposes the initial frames for longer period of time than restarting the camera a little deeper into the unwinding process. Such that the taught spring holds its tension during the duration of the pause between stopping and starting, and so is up-to-speed almost immediately. Z-133 is a little brighter than the following frames, which is consistent with that thought. Not 100% on this explanation. It is something that could be tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207. and here he gives it all away.... the rise/run on Elm is 1'/18.3'. A 10" drop in vertical height equates to 10"/12" = x/18.3'. x = 18.3' * .833333 = 15.25' For Shaneyfelt to make the correct adjustments for the stand-in and the height of the re-creation limo everything must move down Elm 15 feet. Of course that change makes everything related to frame numbers and distances completely worthless.... David, I find it easier to show what a true measurement would look like compared to the 10" BullSh- - the WC tried. Look no further than z207-210-225 = Curly, Moe and Larry. Z210-z225 = 15 frames/14.9ft traveled and elevation change of .82ft Converted using 10" as the elevation change would equal a distance of: (10/12) .833... / .82 = 1.0162... x 14.9ft = 15.14ft btw, remember while working with decimals and whole frames, there will be a difference of a 18.3/18 =1.0166... Which, in this instance gives you the approx distance difference. And, the appropriate rifle angle change for that 10" elevation change would be reflective of z207 and z225. One result of this being an attempted compression of data melding two shots into one. Now, move the path of the limo 1.1ft (z161-z166) in a southerly direction (what was the lateral difference between JFK and Connally within the limo) and you'll probably arrive at the magic bullet location from the magic rifle location up in the 6th floor SE window. People don't seem to realize that 10" vertical (such as a rifle barrel moving up and down or a shot location on JFK - higher/lower) does not equal 10" moved down Elm St. If a car moves 10" lower down Elm St, that car better move 15.25ft. No easier way to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) As Lance P said elsewhere, CTers see conspiracy everywhere and get bogged down in the minutiae of the case. Yet when it's time to discuss WHY things happen they have no answer. So here is yet another good example of this CTer phenomena. And we now have to ask WHY? WHY would the government do whatever it is that's being described here? The answer? There is no reason. The government would have had to have a very good reason to go through all of this trouble of creating subterfuge. But to this day NO CTer can give us a plausible reason of WHY all of this trouble was done with the Z film. The reason? Because the film is legit. It's as simple as that. And even IF Z was standing there pressing the FPS button to his heart's desire what would THAT prove? The answer is the same....nothing. Edited January 23, 2018 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) then stay away from these threads Mike.... Is that simply too hard a concept for you to comprehend? That you have nothing to offer on this topic is understood... coming on and showing off your close-mindedness and confusion over the topic helps... who again? Edited January 23, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) On 1/23/2018 at 3:35 PM, Michael Walton said: As Lance P said elsewhere, CTers see conspiracy everywhere and get bogged down in the minutiae of the case. Yet when it's time to discuss WHY things happen they have no answer. So here is yet another good example of this CTer phenomena. And we now have to ask WHY? WHY would the government do whatever it is that's being described here? The answer? There is no reason. The government would have had to have a very good reason to go through all of this trouble of creating subterfuge. But to this day NO CTer can give us a plausible reason of WHY all of this trouble was done with the Z film. The reason? Because the film is legit. It's as simple as that. And even IF Z was standing there pressing the FPS button to his heart's desire what would THAT prove? The answer is the same....nothing. Next, you'll be seeing the *Dave Reitzes* light pointing towards loon nut conversion, tsk-tsk. You're in way over your head. Edited January 25, 2018 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 I believe this is from part1: It appears it was run once at 4x normal speed. One viewing, unless I'm misinterpreting this. 16mm@ normal speed is usually: 24fps or did they have the ability to drop the play speed down to 16x4 =64fps or 18x4 = 72fps, irregardless. How can a film run at 96fps and everyone describe such detail within the film. Try running a slow motion film through at 96fps and tell me how it looks. If you run 48/18.3 = 2.622x per second more frames at 4x the speed, the viewing experience would be much more pleasurable. imo Clarifications please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 hi Chris they are describing running the newly processed film on an “analyst projector”. These were common in film labs to allow a quick look at recently developed films to identify any flaws that may have occurred - which in most cases meant prints struck from the negative but also, as here, developed positive films (which had no negative). These projectors sent the film through the gate in a way which minimized contact so as to not introduce scratches or wear. I believe they were variable speed, so not limited to 4x speed. Analyst projectors could also easily move back and forth from forward to reverse. But yes, 4x means 96 frames per second, which means the assassination sequence would have passed through very rapidly. I wonder, once the motorcade appeared, if the projectionist didn’t slow it down closer to 24 frames. The responses from those there certainly suggest that - but unfortunately Chamberlain and the rest were never asked the precise questions which might clarify. The description of the film as “needle sharp”, “clear”, and “beautiful” echo what Josiah Thompson would say when he looked at Life’s “original” a few years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 On 1/23/2018 at 6:40 PM, David Josephs said: then stay away from these threads Mike.... Is that simply too hard a concept for you to comprehend? That you have nothing to offer on this topic is understood... coming on and showing off your close-mindedness and confusion over the topic helps... who again? I've got every right to be here and rebut things just like you do. Didn't you just rebut your buddy Chris's "he was shot from the pavilion" post? Didn't you also rebut the "Jean Hill and Moorman were up further on the street and may even have been involved" thread? Obviously, you DO have the ability to see that not everything is a conspiracy just like I do LOL But it never fails - NEVER - that when someone offers you a rebuttal on this forum you ALWAYS take the low road and tell people to get lost, take a hike, or get off the forum. Sheesh! I'd hate to see how you are in every day life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) On 1/23/2018 at 6:35 PM, Michael Walton said: WHY would the government do whatever it is that's being described here? The answer? There is no reason. The government would have had to have a very good reason to go through all of this trouble of creating subterfuge. But to this day NO CTer can give us a plausible reason of WHY all of this trouble was done with the Z film. The reason? Because the film is legit. It's as simple as that. And even IF Z was standing there pressing the FPS button to his heart's desire what would THAT prove? The answer is the same....nothing. Bumping this because once again, no one here has bothered to really think about this and give an insightful answer; instead, insults came my way. There's never EVER an answer to something like this - if the film was shot at 18 FPS, then he hurried up and switched the motor to 48 FPS, and if that happened the higher speed frames were removed by the secret agents, WHY would they be removed? WHAT would those frames show that they needed to be removed? Here's a sync video I made a while back debunking this nonsense: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxenlSZHZsX3pHa2s Edited January 27, 2018 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Michael Walton said: I've got every right to be here and rebut things just like you do. Didn't you just rebut your buddy Chris's "he was shot from the pavilion" post? Didn't you also rebut the "Jean Hill and Moorman were up further on the street and may even have been involved" thread? Obviously, you DO have the ability to see that not everything is a conspiracy just like I do LOL But it never fails - NEVER - that when someone offers you a rebuttal on this forum you ALWAYS take the low road and tell people to get lost, take a hike, or get off the forum. Sheesh! I'd hate to see how you are in every day life. This isn't the first thread or topic where you've done this Mike. When you can't understand something you make it a thread screwing crusade... Raher than read, research and contribute, you whine, moan and attack. Despite being answered repeatedly, you either feign ignorance or represent it honestly.... Simply because you don't like the answer is no reason to continually play the fool. Follow along.... Oswald did not kill JFK..... The evidence claiming so, By definition, must be inauthentic. We are discussing the means to this inauthenticity.... Means which ID the players and processes that accomplished the feat. The Zap film is no different... Why ask any questions when you certainly do not want to discuss the possible answers in a civilized, serious manner? But rather belittle those experimenting... I'd suggest you worry about your own presence here Mike.... Playing the unknowing and un-learnable in area you obviously refuse to study is what.... Your day to day happiness? Then don't be so surprised when we reply with some annoyance at your refusal to comprehend, followed by an attack of the answers you asked for in the first place. Save time and present a case that you understand... If such is within your ability.... Edited January 27, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 5 hours ago, David Josephs said: This isn't the first thread or topic where you've done this Mike. And that's another thing you tend to do too - when something goes against your "perfect" theory you also claim the poster is not intelligent enough to understand what they're saying or doing. So me ask you. Chris posted this: And you said, "But he was shot from the front, Chris." So let's debate this. How do YOU know that Chris's post is wrong and you're once again always right? Or put another way, perhaps Chris should have replied to you: "Just go away, David. You know nothing." or... "You simply do not understand what this is all about, David." But how do YOU know you're right? You're not always right with this case, David. You THINK you're right about everything...but you're not. The same here with this ridiculous post on the Z film. Did you even watch the clip I posted? Can you even explain HOW two films, shot from two different directions and by two different people, sync up perfectly filming the same action on the street? Can you EVEN explain HOW it'd be possible for one of the film cameras to be filming at 48 FPS and then the bad guys would remove frames from the footage, and yet when you take THAT film and sync it up with the OTHER film across the street they still match up perfectly? You have NO CLUE about what you're talking about here. And yet, I'm supposedly the idiot who doesn't understand anything! What a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Michael Walton said: [...] You have NO CLUE about what you're talking about here. And yet, I'm supposedly the idiot who doesn't understand anything! What a joke! Indeed, and it's, on YOU I might add. If you had any *cred* it might be different, but, alas, all .Johnites trend the same, and you fit the mold to a "T". Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 15 hours ago, Michael Walton said: Bumping this because once again, no one here has bothered to really think about this and give an insightful answer; instead, insults came my way. There's never EVER an answer to something like this - if the film was shot at 18 FPS, then he hurried up and switched the motor to 48 FPS, and if that happened the higher speed frames were removed by the secret agents, WHY would they be removed? WHAT would those frames show that they needed to be removed? Here's a sync video I made a while back debunking this nonsense: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxenlSZHZsX3pHa2s Here we go again. Why is it your video sync doesn't continue on, showing Jackie layed out on a moving vehicle with her elbow planted into the trunk lid, retracting backwards and seated in 6 Zframes = less than 1/3 second? Which conveniently, is where the Nix film ends. In stopwatch terms, that's saying the words "stop/go" with no delay in between words. Anyone can try it and find out for themselves how quick 1/3 second is. Your "why would frames need removing" redundant question begs for speculative answers of which there are many. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CFdpSs8Bt4f-GVJOCOl2wDXdpu-uNjQX/view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now