Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

btw,

The shot from behind could have missed and the blob was added to give the impression of a rear shot at that moment.

Ah yes, of course.  I'd forgotten to consider the fact that nobody at Parkland saw this monstrosity. 

I just believe that the forward movement of his head circa 313 is an indication of a shot.

I think so too.  As, of course, many do.

And, as you said, impossible for 1 shooter.

But, this is more about timing using Wiegman's film as the clock, comparing it to the acoustical and showing the after affects of a limo stop/frame removal process.

More coming.

I understand Chris.  I can't help but speculate as you lay this out.  :eat 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2020 at 9:27 AM, Chris Davidson said:

The WC didn't lie about the angle(15deg21min = 15.35°) from which the z313 headshot hit JFK's head.

They lied about where it originated from.

I'll explain the rest of the graphic in awhile.

Sheldon Hershorn had it pegged.

Sheldon-Hershorn.png

Once the ballistics are worked out, just look for a dark figure on the ledge.

Then compare it to another representation.

The limo is on Houston St. as the gif plays.

Bronson2.gif

Bronson.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 9:34 AM, Chris Davidson said:

btw,

The start of Wiegman actually begins between where Myer's(z246) and I(z257) initially,  placed it.

The reason for this is the Wiegman/Z447 (limitation) sync.

My apologies for not checking a full frame Altgens version against the Motorcade Animation.

Below

Tyler-Altgens.png

Correction: The reaction sync between Wiegman/Z is Z313.

Remember, my Quicktime counter starts at 0 so the actual Wiegman frame would be 80, not 79.

A 24fps -18.3fps ratio = 1.311 x 3 frames = 3.93 Wiegman frames

80 - 3.93 = Wiegman 76.07

Wiegman 76.07 / 24 = 3.1695seconds

3.1695sec x 18.3 = 58 z frames

Z310 - 58 = Z252

The Wiegman film started at Z252

Wiegman-Z-Reaction-Sync-Z313.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I hope Mark Tyler will respond to this post to clear up the apparent difference in his view to Chris Davidson's.

 

264 Weigman frames are timed to pass through the camera in 11 seconds. Do you agree this shows that Weigman's camera ran at 24 fps? 

If you don't agree I would be very grateful if you could explain why?

If you do agree, could you then confirm if you then accept that the mismatch in the two films indicates that the extant Zapruder film has approximately 2 seconds missing?

I value your opinion as you've demonstrated excellent understanding of how to combine data from the available films. 

Hi Eddy.  It's correct to say that the Wiegman film was played back at 24 FPS.  For every 4 original frames, an extra one was added to make this to the ~30 FPS that is the NTSC TV playback rate.  However this does not mean that the film was recorded at 24 FPS.  In other words you can play a film back at any rate you like, but it was only recorded one way (and due to the mechanical nature of the camera it wasn't necessarily a fixed frame rate).  Sadly the Wiegman camera was never studied so we don't have any firm evidence to form an accurate view of its recording rate.  By contrast the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore cameras were all studied in some detail so we know reasonably well what rate they were recording at on average.

The Wiegman camera did have a setting for 24 FPS, but it also had a setting for 32 FPS.  In both cases the camera could have been running slightly faster or slower than the advertised speed, so even if we knew which setting was used we couldn't be sure that the camera was behaving as designed.  For example in 1967 CBS news studied different Bell & Howell cameras and the recording rates varied between 15 FPS and 20 FPS, when they were all supposed to be recording at 18 FPS.

In the absence of experiments the only thing left to do is see if we can measure the Wiegman film against a known film such as the Zapruder film.  In this case we are lucky because we have 2 points to measure between the Zapruder film and the Wiegman film.  Due to the known positions of the cars as measured in the background of the Zapruder film Z180-Z230, the animation can be used to calculated that Wiegman started filming around Z285-Z300.  I have used Z295 in my calculations but there will always be a margin for error as we can't know it exactly due to the deceleration and acceleration around the corner.

As Chris has shown we also know that at Z447 both films have a common view of the limo as it sped away from the crime scene.  Dale Myers found this to be frame 265 of the Wiegman film, or 11 seconds from the start if the film was recording at 24 FPS.  Like Chris, Myers assumed 24 FPS and his view was that Wiegman started filming at Z246 which is 11 seconds before Z447 which is a match.  However this must be incorrect because when Wiegman starts filming we see the Mayor's car in front of the traffic lights well past the mid point of the turn here:

digitalcollections_baylor8.jpg

This cannot possibly be Z246 because at Z255 Altgens takes his photo and the Mayor's car is nowhere in sight:

Altgens6fullframe.jpg

In other words we have a contradiction which means one of our assumptions is incorrect:

  1. The Wiegman film was being recorded at 28-32 FPS which allows for the difference from Z246-Z295 and a Zapruder rate of 18.3 FPS.
  2. The Zapruder film is missing about 2 seconds worth of frames if the Wiegman film was recorded at 24 FPS and the Zapruder film was recorded at 18.3 FPS.
  3. The Zapruder film was being recorded at just 13.8 FPS, i.e. (447-295) / 11 seconds, and Wiegman was recorded at 24 FPS.

I favour option number 1 because after viewing the Wiegman film in its entirety I find it a little slow, and by speeding it up I then get to the 28-32 FPS range which matches the films correctly.  Option 3 is highly unlikely as it deviates too far from the measured speed of the Zapruder camera (17.6-18.5 FPS via FBI experiments in 1964).

Chris argues the case for option number 2 and frame suppression to hide evidence.  If this is correct then by implication frames from the Muchmore, Nix, and Bronson films must also have been removed as they were all recording around the head shot when any removals are alleged to have been made.  When I studied all of the film frames I didn't notice any problems with continuity or sudden speedups or slowdowns, so I have concluded that the extant film frames are a full and complete record of what happened in 1963.

Just for reference here are the animation frames that match the above photos:

Z255-mc63-2-0.png

Z295-mc63-2-0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

Hi Eddy.  It's correct to say that the Wiegman film was played back at 24 FPS.  For every 4 original frames, an extra one was added to make this to the ~30 FPS that is the NTSC TV playback rate.  However this does not mean that the film was recorded at 24 FPS.  In other words you can play a film back at any rate you like, but it was only recorded one way (and due to the mechanical nature of the camera it wasn't necessarily a fixed frame rate).  Sadly the Wiegman camera was never studied so we don't have any firm evidence to form an accurate view of its recording rate.  By contrast the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore cameras were all studied in some detail so we know reasonably well what rate they were recording at on average.

The Wiegman camera did have a setting for 24 FPS, but it also had a setting for 32 FPS.  In both cases the camera could have been running slightly faster or slower than the advertised speed, so even if we knew which setting was used we couldn't be sure that the camera was behaving as designed.  For example in 1967 CBS news studied different Bell & Howell cameras and the recording rates varied between 15 FPS and 20 FPS, when they were all supposed to be recording at 18 FPS.

In the absence of experiments the only thing left to do is see if we can measure the Wiegman film against a known film such as the Zapruder film.  In this case we are lucky because we have 2 points to measure between the Zapruder film and the Wiegman film.  Due to the known positions of the cars as measured in the background of the Zapruder film Z180-Z230, the animation can be used to calculated that Wiegman started filming around Z285-Z300.  I have used Z295 in my calculations but there will always be a margin for error as we can't know it exactly due to the deceleration and acceleration around the corner.

As Chris has shown we also know that at Z447 both films have a common view of the limo as it sped away from the crime scene.  Dale Myers found this to be frame 265 of the Wiegman film, or 11 seconds from the start if the film was recording at 24 FPS.  Like Chris, Myers assumed 24 FPS and his view was that Wiegman started filming at Z246 which is 11 seconds before Z447 which is a match.  However this must be incorrect because when Wiegman starts filming we see the Mayor's car in front of the traffic lights well past the mid point of the turn here:

digitalcollections_baylor8.jpg

This cannot possibly be Z246 because at Z255 Altgens takes his photo and the Mayor's car is nowhere in sight:

Altgens6fullframe.jpg

In other words we have a contradiction which means one of our assumptions is incorrect:

  1. The Wiegman film was being recorded at 28-32 FPS which allows for the difference from Z246-Z295 and a Zapruder rate of 18.3 FPS.
  2. The Zapruder film is missing about 2 seconds worth of frames if the Wiegman film was recorded at 24 FPS and the Zapruder film was recorded at 18.3 FPS.
  3. The Zapruder film was being recorded at just 13.8 FPS, i.e. (447-295) / 11 seconds, and Wiegman was recorded at 24 FPS

Thank you Mark, this is extremely helpful. I understand what you are saying now more clearly about knowledge of the camera filming speeds. I think I conclude that none of the cameras rates can be relied upon. I hope you read the Alvarez article I posted in this thread, as it suggests a method of assessing film rates, possibly an inaccurate one.

I think your list of options is incomplete as the Zapruder film could be missing more or less than 2 seconds of film. I would repeat the evidence is quite strong that some frames are missing. I tend towards believing a small number around Z313. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I think your list of options is incomplete as the Zapruder film could be missing more or less than 2 seconds of film. I would repeat the evidence is quite strong that some frames are missing. I tend towards believing a small number around Z313. 

Eddy,

We are now pretty much in agreement.

I thought I made it clear that once the radius for the motorcade is corrected the 38 missing frames is no longer valid.

A tighter turn puts the Mayor's car out of Altgen's LOS because of Brehm and the african-american gentleman extending the blocked view of the cars rounding the corner.

Altgen's photo aligns with Z255. Wiegman starts at Z252. Mark's supplied Wiegman frame is five Wiegman frames from the start. 5 / 1.311 = 3.81z frames = Z255.81

A photograph is one moment in time. Altgen's just missed the Mayor's car front end because of Brehm and the african-american gentleman. Remove them and I'm quite sure we see the front end of the car.

If you want a better idea of the turning radius started by the limo, look at Towner's film as it traverses the first lane marker and compare it to where Mark has the limo in the same position.

The turning radius is incorrect, too wide.

Yes, Meyers used 24fps and counted back 11 seconds placing his Wiegman start at Z246, but this was all based on his placement of Wiegman's camera movement for a shot at Wiegman frame 89.

Actually it's Wiegman 90, but it's not the first shot that he has Z313 synced with, it's the second shot. Think Acoustical syncing.

Once you realize this, you might have a better understanding why there are 8-9 frames missing from the extant Z film between approx Z316-z324.

One other bit of information, all the films may appear to sync around the extant 313 headshot and shortly thereafter, sorry this is incorrect.

Tyler-Altgens.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2020 at 11:40 AM, Chris Davidson said:

As you mentioned, the other data CE884 document was a remnant of the instantaneous speed change.

Those top two entries were then changed from z161-z166 to z168-z171, right away an obvious frame change at the same distance, which adversely affects the speed.

The speed for z168-z171 = 18.3/3 = 6.1 x .9ft = 5.49ft per sec = 3.74 mph = .3ft per frame

The limo wasn't traveling at 3.74mph at this point either

Removing alternating frames from a film where a vehicle is traveling at 3.74mph = .3 ft per frame(near the headshots) will increase the vehicle speed to 7.47mph.

This would be an example of an "instantaneous remnant" adjustment used in calculating the alteration of the original film.z168-z171.png

 

 

 

Let me introduce some acoustical data into the equation now.

Thomas’ time between two shots = .46seconds x 18.3 fps = 8.41zframes

Z310 -318.4 = 8.4zframes

I’m the WC, I need to make the 2nd shot disappear, but have to base my alteration/adjustments on what the true frame count / limo traveled distance was.

5 frames @.9ft (CE884 - z161-z166) / 8.4 frames = ratio of .6 / 1

.6ft per frame ratio = Limo speed from Z301-Z313

.6ft per frame x 9 frames = 5.4ft

5.4ft = 3 frames @ .9ft (CE884 - z168-Z171) using 18 whole frames or 5.49ft using 18.3frames = 1 second.

The retarding of distances between the two headshots appears in the two CE884 data charts.

This is why (among other items) you can rest assured that the frame removal process resided within a 1 second real time span.

So, did the WC also possess the acoustical evidence besides the original Zfilm to help them figure out what alterations were necessary?

You decide for yourself.

Don-Thomas.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2020 at 8:55 AM, Chris Davidson said:

The shot from behind could have missed and the blob was added to give the impression of a rear shot at that moment.

 

 

Chris,

The fact that none of the Parkland medical personnel saw nor described anything like the blob on the extant Z film to me is the greatest evidence for it being added into the film at some point, ala Doug Horne's fine work on Dino and the NPIC events.  A close second is the fact that what the Parkland doctors DID see and describe is NOT seen in the extant Z film.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

Chris,

The fact that none of the Parkland medical personnel saw nor described anything like the blob on the extant Z film to me is the greatest evidence for it being added into the film at some point, ala Doug Horne's fine work on Dino and the NPIC events.  A close second is the fact that what the Parkland doctors DID see and describe is NOT seen in the extant Z film.

Thanks

Rick,

If you've been following the thread, you might realize I've purposely stayed away from any witness testimony except Hickey I believe.

Using his testimony,  I applied his hair-flap description to the zfilm around z274.

In retrospect, I think he was probably describing the z310 shot quite possibly converted(blob wise) into the extant z313 frame.

I don't feel the need to argue whether or not there were two hits to the head, and I have no reason to doubt all the Parkland staff.

What is obvious to me is there were two shots within a time frame which would not include one shooter.

That aspect, along with a limo instantaneous stop and the math used to accommodate the frame removal sequence is what this is about.

Was the frame/s with the obvious second shot(frontal location) removed or is extant z318+ a combination of an instant hit and camera reaction.

The acoustics are a wonderful addition.

CE884 is the data chart. The limo was not traveling 2.24/3.74mph using either chart at the designated time specified.

It was traveling that speed at another point during the assassination.

It's quite obvious now, (see previous posts) when that occurred.

I just continue to show how the WC went about their business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See if I can simplify this somewhat:

Look at the data chart: frames 161-313 = 152 frames

Move the start to 166 - 318+ = the same 152 frame span

Start with a shot at 310 add the acoustical result of 8.4 z frames = .46seconds

310 + 8.4 = 318.4

CE884.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 8:40 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Correction: The reaction sync between Wiegman/Z is Z313.

Remember, my Quicktime counter starts at 0 so the actual Wiegman frame would be 80, not 79.

A 24fps -18.3fps ratio = 1.311 x 3 frames = 3.93 Wiegman frames

80 - 3.93 = Wiegman 76.07

Wiegman 76.07 / 24 = 3.1695seconds

3.1695sec x 18.3 = 58 z frames

Z310 - 58 = Z252

The Wiegman film started at Z252

Wiegman-Z-Reaction-Sync-Z313.png

Look above.

The Wiegman film starts at z252 + 58 frames later = z310 = shot, not reaction to the shot

CE884 last data entries are z255-z313 = 58 frames

Once again, do you believe the WC took into account Altgens and the acoustical evidence when syncing/manipulating their masterpiece?

CE884.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 10:04 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Let me introduce some acoustical data into the equation now.

Thomas’ time between two shots = .46seconds x 18.3 fps = 8.41zframes

Z310 -318.4 = 8.4zframes

Don-Thomas.png

The second shot response in Wiegman appears at Wiegman 93/94(remember to add one to each as my frame counter starts at 0).

If I use the middle frame labeled as 92 but is actually 93 ( I see a little shake beginning and continuing on through 93) the second shot acoustical equation becomes:

Wiegman93Reaction = .249sec /.0546 = 4.57 zframes x 1.311 = 6 Wieg frames = Wieg 87.12 = shot2 / 1.311 = 66.45 zframes /18.3 = 3.63sec

66.45 z frames - 58.02 zframes(z252-z310) = 8.43z frames /18.3fps = .46sec between shots = Don Thomas acoustical.

Wiegman-Shot2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last acoustical shot entry is .69sec x 18.3fps = 12.62 frames after the z318.43 shot.

If there was no interruption in frame sequencing between z318.43 and 12.62 zframes the last Thomas entry would equal z331.05.

But, by z318.43, the removal of 8-9 frames is in progress.

318 318A. 319 319A. 320 320A. 321 321A. 322 322A. 323 323A. 324 324A. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331.

Starting after 318A, count 12.62 frames which runs to 325+.

Z325+ to Z331 = approx 6z frames x .0546sec per frame = .327 seconds

If .3sec is a reasonable reaction time for a shot then the outcome viewed in z331/332 appears to sync.

Don-Thomas5d4649681a59ae3b.png                     z330-334.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw,

The reaction to the last acoustical entry in Wiegman would have occurred as he was panning(many blurry frames) back towards the front of the TSBD, so it's rather difficult to decipher when/if the reaction took place.

There are more acoustical entries.

The previous two before the z310 shot would work out to this:

z310 - 4.83sec x 18.3 - 88.39(Thomas 140.32-145.15) = z221.61

Z221.61 - 1.05sec x 18.3 =19.21 (Thomas 139.27-140.32)= z202.4

And no, I really don't want to get into another discussion about shots prior to the limo stop area. Start or add to an existing topic for that.

Is the acoustical evidence valid, you can decide for yourself.

I thought I would add it to the Wiegman sync/missing frames/limo stop/multiple shots scenario and see how it fits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2020 at 12:24 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The last acoustical shot entry is .69sec x 18.3fps = 12.62 frames after the z318.43 shot.

If there was no interruption in frame sequencing between z318.43 and 12.62 zframes the last Thomas entry would equal z331.05.

But, by z318.43, the removal of 8-9 frames is in progress.

318 318A. 319 319A. 320 320A. 321 321A. 322 322A. 323 323A. 324 324A. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331.

Starting after 318A, count 12.62 frames which runs to 325+.

Z325+ to Z331 = approx 6z frames x .0546sec per frame = .327 seconds

If .3sec is a reasonable reaction time for a shot then the outcome viewed in z331/332 appears to sync.

                    

How does the overall sync at extant Z447 work out?
Firstly, you should have a better idea now why the frame numbering for the extant zfilm wasn't introduced until late Jan 29,1964 by Shaneyfelt.
Converting the acoustical info from Thomas pertaining to the time between extant z313 and the next shot = .46sec = 8.43 zframes@18.3fps, I'll add this amount(excised frames) to the total original frame count using Wiegman's 24fps rate:
24 x 11sec = 264 frames / 1.311(conversion from 24-18.3fps) = 201.37z frames + z252 = z453.37
201.37 - 195(447-252) = 6.37 zframes
The difference between these two being 8.43 - 6.37 =  2.06 frames
Where does the two zframe difference come from?
I'll use Z's reaction sync to the last registered acoustical shot at z331(see above) for the calculation.
z331- 252 = 79 zframes / 18.3 = 4.316sec
453.37 - 331 = 122.37zframes
122.37 - 2.06 = 120.31zframes
120.31zframes / 6.684sec = 18fps

When the film slows from 18.3 to 18fps after extant z331, the two frame difference is accounted for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...