Frank Agbat

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown. Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession." Bill Miller My slide copies are extremely close to the original. The Bronson MOVIE WAS VIEWED BY THE FBI. The DMN ran a front page story on some early frames in which Groden had found a person moving in the window next to the SN. Bronson shot it during the epilectic seisure incident; if you look carefully you can see the ambulance...the reason Bronson shot the brief sequence. Much was made at the time that THE FBI WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW, though Groden did find the window in the few early frames. Groden has NEVER said "Jack is almost always wrong." This is a lie. Jack If your copies are "extremely close to the original" then why do they show blown highlights and blocked shadows, which indicate a poor duplication job? Craig, It is possible that the problem with the posted image is in the digital domain and not in the analog (photographic) process. It is impossible for me to know, though, as I do not have the slide from which to compare.

It strikes me that Miles is intent on getting you to purchase that video...

Is anyone actually interested in solving the case? I can't help but think that every time one of the threads on this forum degrades into this state of affairs, somewhere a mockingbird smiles, whistles a little tune, and feels somewhat safer.

I've managed to lose track of where this thread was going...

David, This is from the MPI DVD. I've added a timestamp (based on 18.3 fps) above the frame number (time 0.0 = Z 133).

Some experimental anaglyphs: Single frame - split, perspective adjusted to simulate: Z313 + Z314 Anaglyph: Z312 + Z314 Anaglyph:

I think your point is neither sputtering, nor naive... The issue is finding said points. MM/Nix sync has been illusive, but I have several theories as to why: 1) The cameras are running at nearly identical frame rates 2) They are a fractional frame out of sync with one another 3) The clips overlap is relatively small, and the MM clip is short, so drift doesn't noticeably occur. MM/Zapruder sync is a bit easier, but the characteristic movements that would be useful in establishing a "solid" sync point invariably end up obscured some way or another. I have not given up! I just have taken a short sanity break (no -- it hasn't helped, but it is fun to say).

Ashton, I'm not prepared to offer an opinion on the sizing and rotation of the shirt. However, one though comes to mind EVERY TIME I see that damn picture with the ruler in it... Just what the hell are they measuring in that picture? Measurements are usually taken in a "from" and "to" orientation. Where is the "from"? The EOP? And just what is the "to"? It certainly has the look that they are measuring something other than the back wound. Tom, A few inches in either direction for that gun -- which is both too high AND too close to the pipes -- extrapolated over a fair distance can produce a noticeable error. It might be "visually acceptable" when the re-enactment pictures are viewed, but not necessarily accurate.

Completely agreed. I could see it if damage happened in transit the morning of the event, and parts were not available within a few hours.... But from 1961 - 1963??? No... That's another dog that don't hunt...

Based on your experience, can you think of any plausible reason why the Secret Service wouldn't try to repair this damage to a presidential limo? Too much work? Too expensive? You'd have to junk the whole car? What? The only thing that comes to mind is that parts were not available - perhaps they needed to be ordered.

With two or three SU H4 Carbs? (0.032 would be a good place to start either way...)

Ashton, If memory serves me correctly, the alliance between the Hershey Medical Center and Penn State is a relatively recent event -- perhaps the mid-late 1990's... I don't know with whom, if anybody, HMC was aligned prior to that. Again, going from memory, various medicare/medicade reimbursement changes in the early 90's hit a number of hospitals very hard. Many had to reduce force, some closed, others merged as a result. I believe that this was the impetus for the eventual merger and association with Penn State.

Tom, It will only be a relief to those who are not interested in learning and finding the truth.

John, I have it correlating roughly with M7 to M21 (and my current theory has M7 happening after Z278 by a fractional frame)... I think we're in the ballpark!

I'd note that it happened very close in timing to one of the hacking episodes, but can't remember if at exactly one of them. While I think the question Dawn poses needs answers, if anyone downloaded as html the entire thread that had parts disappear, perhaps we can reconstruct some of it...or all of it. It would go a long way to untangling part of the alienation and upset Tosh Plumlee felt at it being tampered with. Yep -- It *was* right around the time there were some episodes of attack. I'd really like to see Mr. Plumlee back on the forum.

Chris, I neglected to answer (or theorize, at least) on one of your main questions... There are some limits to the precision with which animated GIFs can achieve framerates for reasons I mentioned below. However, using Adobe ImageReady to produce an Animated Gif, it allows me to set a "delay" of 0.05 seconds. This will result in a framerate around 20fps if the target computer can render the frames fast enough. It did not allow me to add another decimal place of precision to get to 18 (or 18.3) frames per second. When I entered 0.055 (~18fps), the software rounded it back to 0.05... This may vary from application to application. I'd have to look back at the actual GIF spec to see how much precision is allowed. Oh -- and if the browser misinterprets this delay field, your framerate is shot anyway. However, when I'm trying for "close to actual speed" I use a delay of 0.05.

Charlie, Your question is a valid one, and leads me to a topic that I think deserves more attention. We have, as a community, spent countless hours arguing the "jet effect", frontal shots, angles, lines of fire, neuromuscular reactions, etc. While these are all valid, there is one thing about which I have never seen sufficient research. It may be out there somewhere, obscured, ignored, etc. Has anyone ever really, truly, studied the physics of the back brace? For the "back and to the left" motion, this is a variable that is most certainly present, yet frequently glossed. Mentioned, hypothesized, cherry-picked when convenient, but not tested and understood. JFK might have been "frozen" for the same reason he ended up being slammed back and to the left -- the back brace.

A couple of quick notes on Animated GIF files. 1) They have a limited color palette. Even when the palette is optimized, it is still very lossy 2) They were never intended to show videos, per se. They can do so because newer computers are so fast that they can flip the gif frames at an acceptable rate. 3) The frame rate is somewhat relative. If the target computer cannot render the images sufficiently quickly, the speed of the animation will change. Likewise, if you set the "delay" field in the GIF to zero, the target computer will render it at either the best available speed OR the maximum speed that a given browser/image viewer will allow. 4) Speaking of image viewers -- animated GIFs are rarely viewed in software that has been optimized for video, etc. They may run in the same thread (and at the same priority) as the browser or the browser UI. This, again, makes framerates hard to verify. In summary, Animated GIF files are very useful for showing concepts, etc, but should not be used for anything that needs precise colors, precise frame rates, etc.

Well, that really is the crux of the issue in a nutshell, John. If we find a sync point, and run the math of frame timings, and this leads to a frame showing damage preceding one that does not, then there are only three alternatives: sync point is wrong, math is wrong (aka frame rate is wrong), or the frame is wrong (messed with). A useful display *is* difficult to conceptualize. It would be a minor programming exercise to get the films to run simultaneously in a reasonable approximation of what might be called "true sync" (assuming one can be established). However, the eye and the brain are not well suited for looking at things from different angles simultaneously.

I don't know, but something about the previous animation struck me as exposing a potential optical illusion. Some 3d effects are/can be created by quick flipping of close-perspective images. Naturally, when you stabilized on the vehicle, the background appeared to move. This one is a quick-and-dirty slower frame flip animation with a general registration on the nearer background objects. Even still, the background appears to shift a bit.

My issue with timing is rather simple. A frame showing head damage simply cannot precede one that does not -- either within a single film, or across multiple films. If a timing computation leads to that result then it seems to me that something is out of whack somewhere... Either the timing is wrong (frames per second), the sync point is wrong (alignment), or frames have been messed with. I'm not ignoring alteration, I'm merely removing it as a variable for the moment in an attempt to keep things simple, as it were. I was thinking about this at great length today, and I think understanding sync and timing is incredibly important. Once understood, it gives us, in effect, a higher-speed film of the events. For example: What happens between Z312 and Z313? N22 followed by M42 happens in that space. Our overall "frame rate" has tripled. What one camera missed, another one may have picked up.

Interesting. Seems to validate the notion that the cylindrical deformation occurred before the wound. Unless, of course, the shape of the entry wound was influenced by the angle of entry (although it does not seem to be). Now -- back to some of the JBC question... I've been reading the book that contains Nellie Connally's writings from the time of the assassination. "From Love Field" is the title. In this book, she sticks very much to the "LHO did it alone" party line, but ALSO sticks vehemently to the same thing her husband said; First shot hit Kennedy, Second shot hit JBC, Third shot hit Kennedy. She also implies that later, JBC did some investigating on his own. She refers to him looking at some 'classified' documents, and concluding that Oswald acted alone. I wish she would have written more about what this "private investigation" was, and what the documents were. But I digress. Nellie Connally writes, "...then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. it came from the back. I turned and looked toward the President just in time to see his hands fly up to his neck and see him sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him. There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the President had not only been shot but could be dead. Quickly, there was second shot, John had turned to the right at the first shot to look back and then whirled to the left to get another look to see if he could see the President, he could not so he realized the President had been shot. John said, 'No, No, No,' was hit himself by the second shot and said, 'My God, they're going to kill us all,' wheeled back to the right, crumpling his shoulders to his knees in the most helpless and pitiful position a tall man could be in. I reached over and pulled him to me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came the third shot. With John in my arms, and still trying to stay down, I did not see the third shot hit, but I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot." Her description, from the diary, seems to be consistent with the events between Z225 and Z313...

To cut directly to the chase of how I have interpreted Tom's writings: CE399 was not magic by any sense. It was fired (may have even short fired, thus the "firecracker" comment from many witnesses -- my own comment, not deduced from Tom's writing), hit something (tree limb) which deposited sap, reduced rifling-induced spin, reduced velocity substantially, deformed its shape, then tumbled/knuckle-balled through JFK's jacket, through the shirt, and into his back ass-end first. The entry of a non-pointed object at lower velocity "pushed" (ripped) fabric from the shirt into the wound. The depth of entry of the projectile was shallow, and in a downward direction, exactly as the doctors described it in their attempt to probe the wound. It probably fell out sometime during the Parkland events. CE399 was never acquainted with JBC or even with JFK's necktie... The result of the back wound is seen as JFK emerges from behind the sign in the z-film. However, Tom, you're a three-shot, three-hit, one gunman theorist, with hit #3 coming at the Altgens location, post Z313. When was JBC initially struck, and what the heck is he doing between Z212 and Z313?

John, When I referred to M1, I was referring to the position Jackie *should* be in if the timing is correct AND the frame was really usable, which it is not. However, if the theoretical matchpoint is within the realm of reason, we should expect to see actions in the Muchmore film (once it becomes usable) consistent with those shown in Z-frames covering the same time range. The end of the movement, while visible in Zapruder, is potentially obscured (by the Babushka lady) on the Muchmore film. Like I said earlier -- this sync point lacks the definitive fast motion that would solidify it, but it is sufficiently constrained by the requirement that M42 cannot precede a frame that shows no head damage, that it should be within a frame or two. I'd still like to search for independent verification via other points (expected on-film actions vs. observed).

Sorry about the previous timeline. While checking my work, I noticed an error and wanted to get it corrected ASAP. Theoretical timeline: (assumptions: M20 = Z291, 18.5 fps frame rate, no missing frames, etc) (times shown are in "Zapruder Time" where 0.00 = Z133) Lines in red indicate first time head injury is notable on film. M-040: 9.715 Z-311: 9.727 N-021: 9.735 M-041: 9.769 Z-312: 9.781 N-022: 9.789 M-042: 9.823 Z-313: 9.836 N-023: 9.843 M-043: 9.877 Z-314: 9.891 N-024: 9.897