Frank Agbat

John, The more I think about this, the more I think this is a tough nut to crack. I think one thing that would be helpful -- that we probably don't have and may never have available -- are comparative photographs made with the same optics under controlled conditions. My lack of posts on this topic should not be interpreted as a lack of interest. At this point I've got more questions than answers; more variables than equations. To make matters worse, I'm a little rusty on a couple of related concepts that would probably be helpful here. As they say, I need to hit the books a bit.

John, This might help get the ball rolling: http://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-basic-photogrammetry.htm

You may be on to something here... I need to ponder a bit on what you've written, but I find the ideas intriguing. Thinking out loud for a moment: Motion blur is tricky, because we don't have all three axis of motion available to us. Rotation might prove to be more revealing. Also -- we need to look for variances in the shutter speed as well as the frame rate. Frame rate has been used to "timestamp" the events. Time also passed while the frame was held open. I'm sure there is some variability to this -- after all, it is a mechanical contraption at work. It may, however, be more regular than frame rate. I don't know if anyone has researched this aspect of the film cameras involved...

I certainly appreciate the kind words, John. Admittedly, my tables do not make any unwind assumptions with respect to the frame rates of the respective cameras. I've simply linearized the rates based on the tested and published rates of the actual cameras. While this is probably inaccurate, the results *do* seem to make sense and are observable. At the same time, it could be said that we don't truly know how far a given camera may have *truly* unwound. So we are back to assumptions and estimates... However, I do agree that it would be possible to include several columns of time adjustments based on several assumed unwind rates.

John, We got stuck when analyzing the Muchmore film. Based on the plat we had available at the time, you computed the headshot (based on line of sight) to be about 5 frames earlier than actually observed on the film. This lead to a conundrum that could not be resolved at the time. Tom's West plat would probably resolve it.

Chris, It appears that in one of the Bond photos, the lamppost base is near the edge of the field of view. Jack might be able to address this with more specific information. It is generally my understanding that inexpensive "consumer-grade" lenses will suffer a variety of aberrations, but most notably along the edges.

Tom, Your speed calculations are correct. The math is perfect. The only possible flaws are the number of frames or the distance involved.

John, That is a valid point. The "famous FBI frame rate" for the Z-film (and the one I used for timing calculations, etc) is, admittedly, an *average* frame rate. If I recall correctly, the frame rate on a full wind is actually a little below the rated average, then actually speeds up a bit as the spring winds out.

Just for the record... Tom's work is NOT being ignored... I, for one, find his work to be very compelling and plausible. I remember DVP from Lancer... His "departure" was no loss. He had made up his mind about Bugliosi's book (and wrote a review for it on Amazon) before it was even finished or published! He is nothing more than a thoughtless mouthpiece for the "official line" regarding the assassination. He can not and will not change his opinion, regardless of what facts might be presented in opposition of his positions. As such, I find no value in wasting time, air, brain cells, or bytes of storage/bandwidth attempting to convince him of anything outside the pablum he currently spouts.

It is well worth your time to explore Tom's theory. It is one of the most thoroughly researched and plausible scenarios I have seen presented -- if not THE most plausible. One thing that would greatly enhance one's ability to understand Tom's work would be a complete scan of the West survey. Tom has posted pieces of it, but to have the entire thing as one giant file would be an amazing tool for the research community.

One might be curious as to why the z-film is "damaged" in various locations. MPI shows a spliced 154, and then skips to 158. It also shows a damaged 207 and then skips to 213. If one stops for a moment to conjecture why the original film was "damaged" in these locations, it isn't hard to guess... The 154-158 damage was probably due to the repeated playing trying to find evidence of an "early" shot (giving more time for the "magic" bullet, etc). 207-213 is attempting to discover when JFK was hit, ascertain JBC's position relative to his testimony, etc. What many people to not realize is that the MPI version omits frames 341 and 350. Like the other frames missing/damaged from the original, poor quality generational copies are available. Dr. Costella includes them in his collection, and I believe Grodon's version of the film contains them as well. Unfortunately, they are of noticeably lower quality than the surrounding frames. One cannot help but wonder what someone might be looking for in these later frames that caused damage to them on the original film. I wonder if it coincidence that they are near Mr. Altgens?

I just looked at the Moorman photo and Kellerman is not looking at Moorman. And if not at 315, then at what frame? I think it is generally regarded that the Moorman photo is very close to Z317.

Chris, I've looked at this over the years -- mostly as a result of trying to appreciate what Tom's research has shown. I think it is more than safe to say that there are serious issues with the WC re-enactment figures. I'd go so far as to call them fatally flawed. Your graphic adds additional reinforcement to what Tom has been saying for a while now. Good catch!

Hi Chris, It looks to me like the limo travels at least 4 feet during these frames... Against your fixed reference point, it covers the entire distance of the wheel well and then some. Of course, there are some additional considerations in determining the actual distance, but just on a quick glance, it looks like 3-4 feet.

MPI has numbering problems galore. They are missing at least one frame in the "later" portion of the film. I don't have the number in front of me, but it is after Z313 and would affect the frames presented.

Interesting and interesting! I've seen people stand in a fairly stoic fashion, but that takes the cake. Thanks for repeating the exercise with different frames. It takes MPI shenanigans out of the picture (no pun intended). If I were one given to suspicion, I'd examine the light area that seems to surround black-hat man's black hat...

Interesting... I'd like to see the study repeated with Z-frames from another source -- like the Groden frames, for example. We need to eliminate any MPI "magic" from the equation. Of course, another possibility is that Z was steady because he never stopped filming... In fairness, though, Chris -- you were not filming a President. No shots were fired while you were filming, and you don't have vertigo. Nevertheless. it remains an interesting observation that deserves serious consideration.

Let me make sure I understand your offer, Tim... You are paying us $15.00 to take these books off your hands, correct? I could really use the money, and I've got a few doors I'd like to prop open. Talk about a win-win proposition...

Very interesting... I can't help but wonder if some MPI work isn't involved in this, somewhere. They may have introduced some (intentional or otherwise) angle corrections when they aligned their frames (such as it is -- they did a horrific job, complete with missing and mis-numbered frames...).

\Yeah right, the source for the frame is, what? Can you assure us pulldown was removed from the Nix film BEFORE the frame was studied... You know what pulldown is, yes? Perhaps you should consult with Sherry Actually, to be completely accurate, pulldown would only create an issue when the timing of the film is considered (due to the repeating of certain frames to make matching frame rates). However, *interlacing* would cause all sorts of problems when examining a frame in great detail. Of course, if the examined material was film, then neither interlacing or pull-down is really germane to knowing if the image was accurate.

So -- back to the second head shot (3rd overall) which you have called the truly magic shot (a snap shot): Z313 = shot #2. Shot #3 occurs down by Altgens (near the painted section of the curb, Z+95). This is somewhere around Z350? I ask because your theory is well-researched and plausible in any number of ways -- except for the disturbing lack of corroborating photographic evidence.

Unfortunately, our language lacks a single word that can accurately describe how utterly pointless and stupid this thread has become...

Chris, It isn't so much that the interlacing throws off the size comparison, it is the background that is hard to see. A purist would comment that one scan line, which is the error that can be introduced by interlaced frames, could conceivably be significant, but in this case I doubt it!

...The Undertaker...

The difference in height might be the result of some people standing on the curb and others standing on the street in front of the garage entrance... Also -- using an interlaced frame for comparisons is futile. Chris -- you need to make sure you've got progressive frames. The interlacing throws off what you are doing. Honestly, to my eyes (which aren't always good, so take it for what it is worth), the wedding party seems to be a case of false attachment, but I'll look at it more and post when I get done with work (I don't have access to my files right now).