Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Ian Lloyd said:

It's always been a concern of mine that both Zapruder & Nix said their cameras were running st 48fps and the FBI 'determined' that they were running at 18fps...😲

Ian,

That would be a legitimate concern.

Let me correct it slightly and say 48fps in slo-mo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Working backwards some more, let's move Myers back to Z133:

246-133 = 113

113/24 = 4.7sec (close enough, you get the picture)

113/18.3 = 6.174

6.174 - 4.7 = 1.474sec

That's why I said pretend in adding the time to the Bell gap, way after the fact.

Does anyone see the difference in making this sync occur?

Think in terms of frame rates if you missed it.

 

 

 

 

Let me move it totally forward for Z133-Z486 = 353 frames.

The question I would ask (since we have been talking about the Wiegman film) is: What was the approx missing time from Groden's version to Von Pein's version?

I'll answer that for you:

353/24 = 14.708sec

14.708 sec x 18.3fps = 269.16 frames

353 - 269.16 = 83.84 frames rounded = 84 frames

84/24fps = 3.5 seconds

That's the reason why Wiegman's film(what we have been privy to) was missing approx 3.5 seconds.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Mark,

When a 48fps slo-mo has 1/2 the frames removed, it gives you a variation of 24fps.

 

OK, I think I follow your logic:

Zapruder films the motorcade with the camera in slow motion mode at 48 FPS.

In the year following, half of these frames disappeared (removing alternate frames to reduce the viewed rate down to 24 FPS), possibly including scenes that need to be censored.  The so called "extant film" is the 486 frames as named by the Warren Commission.

Presumably the Muchmore and Nix films will also need to be adjusted, as I have found them to be roughly equivalent frame rate wise.  Or maybe the Zapruder frame removals were simply fiddled to fit in with those without any censoring of these other films?  i.e. those two films were really shot using the 18 FPS mode as declared.

If I have got the wrong end of the stick, feel free to let me know!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 8:59 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Mark,

I agree.

They do not pass the smell test.

The reason they do not is to hide the alteration of the extant film.

Plotted, using the location of known stationary objects and "JFK's head within the limo" as the marker.

As you can see, the limo was traveling at approx the same speed from(z136-z149) and CE884 (z168-186), disregarding the B.S entry of z168-z171 = 3.74mph.

And, coincidentally, adding 5.49 missing feet to increase your mph up to the splice(frame156.5) within a certain amount of frames, would match the same speed (14.65mph) as the plotting provides.

The other version of CE884 has the limo move .9ft in 5 frames = 2.24mph

You can't smooth this out.

The limo had to travel a certain distance (unaccounted for) above and beyond that .9ft. Overlooking this very fundamental concept is a mistake. imo

West.gif

 

48868515691_034000e9b1_o.png

 

 

 

 

 

Generally speaking, you are following along very well.

The beauty of your animation(among other aspects) is the instantaneous speeds created.

This creates an "apples to apples" comparison with the WC math when the proper ratio's are applied.

The graphic above was to illustrate the relevant CE884 data in terms of a true/r  limo speed.

Let's adjust your animation average(graphic below) speed between z136-z149 = 8.6 + 9mph = 17.6/2 = 8.8mph average with one such ratio.

8.8 mph x 1.6666(explanation to come) = 14.66mph

If you look at my plat measurements for this span you'll see I arrived(distances provided) with a limo speed of 14.65mph.

This in fact tells me that the ratio introduced and applied to your instantaneous speed is a match.

If you follow, I'll move on.

49048855343_7637271efd_o.png

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 4:53 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Generally speaking, you are following along very well.

Great!  Its very easy to get the wrong end of the stick, so the sooner that gets spotted, the sooner I can rewind and try again.

On 11/11/2019 at 4:53 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The beauty of your animation(among other aspects) is the instantaneous speeds created.

The speeds are crucial to sanity check the animation, and also to properly understand the events from 1963 (e.g. the Limo slowing between Z224 and Z313).  If anything is too fast or too slow, or accelerates or decelerates too much, I have made a mistake (or something else is wrong).  Its a bit like the proverbial canary in a coal mine to warn me of danger.

On 11/11/2019 at 4:53 PM, Chris Davidson said:

If you follow, I'll move on.

Sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K.

Let’s use your animation for(z161-z185) which gives us: 9.6 + 11.1 = 20.7/2 = 10.35mph average

This time, using the “white in color-official CE884-z166-z185” inset = 19.2ft/19frames = 1.01 x 18.3 = 18.492 / 1.47 = 12.58mph

12.58 -10.35 = 2.23mph

CE884 z161-z166 = 5 frames

18.3/5 = 3.66 x .9ft traveled = 3.294ft per sec / 1.47 = 2.24mph

49060622328_ea1524f698_o.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Backtracking to z133:

The graphic consists of Sprague/Cutler scaled/layered over the May 1964 WC plat.

Look closely(3+00) and you’ll find that Sprague plots z133 at Station# 2+99.

CE884 lists z161@Station#3+29.2

329.2 - 299 = 30.2ft.

The WC shorted the distance from z161-z166.

What happens if you account for that missing distance(z161-5 frames) by retarding those five frames.
z133-z156 = 30.2ft

30.2ft/23 frames = 1.313ft per frame x 18.3 = 24.02ft per sec/1.47 =
16.34mph

Referring back to your animation for(z161-z185) which gives us: 9.6 + 11.1 = 20.7/2 = 10.35mph average

16.34 - 10.35 = 5.99mph

10.35 + 2.24 + 3.74 = 16.33mph

Constant:

2.24mph = The limo speed from CE884 z161-z166 (Official version)

3.74mph = The limo speed from CE884 z168-z171(WC final May 1964)

49066707586_c12df0ffab_o.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2019 at 11:38 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Backtracking to z133:

The graphic consists of Sprague/Cutler scaled/layered over the May 1964 WC plat.

Look closely(3+00) and you’ll find that Sprague plots z133 at Station# 2+99.

CE884 lists z161@Station#3+29.2

329.2 - 299 = 30.2ft.

The WC shorted the distance from z161-z166.

The dreaded CE 884 rears it ugly head again!  As is commonly accepted the table is basically junk data, but the question is then: Is it junk through incompetence; or a deliberate act to mislead and distract?  Or both!

I did come across this work from way back in 2001 which explores the issue of CE 884:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Altered_Evidence.pdf

I believe Thomas Purvis has posted on this forum many times, and had discussions with you Chris.

Because I'm busy with the animation at the moment, I haven't really got the time to dissect this angle properly (even though I think it is a study worth doing).  However, after reading about James Hosty being ordered to destroy Oswald's note to the FBI, nothing would surprise me regarding incompetence and deceit in this case.  Over the years in my working life I have found that incompetence and deceit often walk hand in hand as people try to avoid responsibility for their mistakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 10:06 AM, Mark Tyler said:

 

The speeds are crucial to sanity check the animation, and also to properly understand the events from 1963 (e.g. the Limo slowing between Z224 and Z313).  If anything is too fast or too slow, or accelerates or decelerates too much, I have made a mistake (or something else is wrong).  Its a bit like the proverbial canary in a coal mine to warn me of danger.

 

 

On 11/11/2019 at 8:53 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Let's adjust your animation average(graphic below) speed between z136-z149 = 8.6 + 9mph = 17.6/2 = 8.8mph average with one such ratio.

8.8 mph x 1.6666(explanation to come) = 14.66mph

166.666/18.3 = 9.107sec

30ft/9.107sec = 3.294ft per sec =

 

On 11/14/2019 at 3:38 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Constant:

2.24mph = The limo speed from CE884 z161-z166 (Official version)

4 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

The dreaded CE 884 rears it ugly head again!  As is commonly accepted the table is basically junk data, but the question is then: Is it junk through incompetence; or a deliberate act to mislead and distract?  Or both!

Because I'm busy with the animation at the moment, I haven't really got the time to dissect this angle properly (even though I think it is a study worth doing).  However, after reading about James Hosty being ordered to destroy Oswald's note to the FBI, nothing would surprise me regarding incompetence and deceit in this case.  Over the years in my working life I have found that incompetence and deceit often walk hand in hand as people try to avoid responsibility for their mistakes.

Yes, the speed of the limo is very important, as was known by the entity with unlimited resources.

I hope you don't truly believe your comment about incompetence related to the WC work.

The only people I know of that refer to CE884(both versions) as "junk data" are those that don't understand its intrinsic value.

I wish you well with the animation, but I've shown you have a problem with the limo speed and until you realize what's needed to resolve it, my input is complete.

I call it "thinking outside the box"

P.S. Something to ponder/review: How does this lead back into the initial timing problems you had with the Z/Bell/Wiegman sync.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 6:16 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Yes, the speed of the limo is very important, as was known by the entity with unlimited resources.

I hope you don't truly believe your comment about incompetence related to the WC work.

The only people I know of that refer to CE884(both versions) as "junk data" are those that don't understand its intrinsic value.

There are many possible explanations for CE 884:

  1. Incompetent behaviour, e.g. clerical error writing up the tables, surveying error, bungled frame numbers, using a car that was different to the Presidential Limo, and putting the Limo in the wrong place in the road lanes, etc.
  2. Deceit (i.e. fiddling the figures to avoid the public knowing the real Limo speed).
  3. The surveyors using a different film to the extant ones we see.

Me not understanding the intrinsic value of the table is possible, so I'm quite happy to reflect on that over the coming months as the animation develops.  There are only so many sources of photos and films so once I have encoded this data into the project, I will get a chance to review everything at the end to see if the loose ends and anomalies need further work to sort them out.

On 11/16/2019 at 6:16 PM, Chris Davidson said:

I wish you well with the animation, but I've shown you have a problem with the limo speed and until you realize what's needed to resolve it, my input is complete.

I call it "thinking outside the box"

Indeed, and I'm all in favour of original and creative ideas if they help people understand the events more clearly.  The animation is currently at version 1.6 and will hopefully see many more improved versions as my knowledge increases over the coming months.  I am constantly reviewing and updating the work as I get more information, so my door is always open to anyone correcting my mistakes or misunderstandings.

By the way, do the issues you have identified with the Zapruder film Z133-Z486 also affect Z001-Z132?  In other words do you think that section was recorded at 18 FPS, or 48 FPS with frames removed?  If frames were removed, was it downgraded to 24 FPS or 16 FPS?

On 11/16/2019 at 6:16 PM, Chris Davidson said:

P.S. Something to ponder/review: How does this lead back into the initial timing problems you had with the Z/Bell/Wiegman sync.

The original "Wiegman Timing Anomaly" I identified is that its impossible for all of these to be true:

  1. The Zapruder film was recorded at 18.3 FPS.
  2. The Zapruder film Z295-Z447 is a complete record of the events.
  3. The Wiegman film was recorded at 24 FPS.
  4. The Wiegman film started recording at Z295.

I solve the puzzle by challenging 3), i.e. bumping up the Wiegman film to 27-31 FPS which enables the other items to be approximately correct.  The support for this action is my observation that parts of the Wiegman film look too slow to the human eye when played back at 24 FPS, but look better at 27-31 FPS.

You are challenging 1), 2), and 4) and you use the Bell film and CE 884 as parts of the explanation.

Dale Myers challenges 4) by putting the start point as Z246, but I think this is wrong based on the Altgens photo which proves that the Mayors car is nowhere near the traffic lights at Z246.

As the animation becomes more complete I'm sure the problems will all be resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 10:59 AM, Mark Tyler said:

There are many possible explanations for CE 884

How about for this then Mark...

As the limo moves away from TOWNER the column in the background gets larger while the rear tire of the limo in the foreground gets smaller....

I added a gif over here as I've run out of room here.... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?17196-Manipulation-of-TOWNER-film&p=126353#post126353

Both Zapruder and Towner needed "fixing" to account for how badly they represent what actually happened.

1008958217_Townershowslimogettingsmallerwhilebackgroundgetsbigger.thumb.jpg.96a8a19e86cfeacb23c2a3e4bc201b76.jpg1794964653_TownerSizeanomolie.thumb.jpg.91fd6cad9655b82f3238624d0f70710e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, David Josephs said:

How about for this then Mark...

As the limo moves away from TOWNER the column in the background gets larger while the rear tire of the limo in the foreground gets smaller....

I added a gif over here as I've run out of room here.... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?17196-Manipulation-of-TOWNER-film&p=126353#post126353

Both Zapruder and Towner needed "fixing" to account for how badly they represent what actually happened.

1008958217_Townershowslimogettingsmallerwhilebackgroundgetsbigger.thumb.jpg.96a8a19e86cfeacb23c2a3e4bc201b76.jpg1794964653_TownerSizeanomolie.thumb.jpg.91fd6cad9655b82f3238624d0f70710e.jpg

This is a really interesting detail you have noticed David, thanks for sharing it.  I have measured the pillar width from the Sixth Floor Museum version of the film, and as you say it does seem to enlarge (in the region of 20% I would say).  I also measured the Pergola in the distance and the vertical height seems to increase by a further 5% after the pillar starts to disappear off the right hand frame.  The gap between the sprocket holes remains within about 1%, so that's a useful physical benchmark, assuming no digital retouching was done!

The simplest explanation is that the camera was zoomed during recording.  I've not studied the camera in too much detail so I'm not sure if this was possible, but the model is called the "Varizoom" so I suspect this could be the explanation:

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/43383/tower-varizoom-8mm-movie-camera

If Towner did zoom the camera lens in back in 1963, the car would have been moving away, which explains its shrinking size.  By contrast the zooming in of the lens would slightly enlarge the fixed objects such as the pillar and pergola by the 20-30% I measured.  If she didn't zoom, its hard to think of an innocent explanation for this change in size while the sprocket holes remain the same.

Alas I haven't read Tina Towner's 2013 book (My Story as the Youngest Photographer at the Kennedy Assassination), where she may go into this detail about whether she zoomed the lens during her filming or not.  Has anyone on the forum read this book?  It may be able to shed some light on this rather interesting observation that David has made.

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
×
×
  • Create New...