Frank Agbat

...post withdrawn pending verification of potential math error...

John, Agreed -- the blur in 21 may be giving the impression of movement where none exists. This sync point does not contain all the characteristics I would like. Instead of a motion, event, etc, that takes place within a single frame (as we were able to see quite nicely when considering Zapruder and Nix), it has a sequence of less definitive movements. However, it does generally start and end within expected parameters. Specifically, if one works backwards from a general assumption of M42 ~= Z313, then when M1 occurs, Jackie should be in the "Looking at JBC" position as can be seen in the Z-film. She should then move from that position to the "Loosen the Necktie" position -- also as seen in the Z-film. This characteristic move seems to be visible in both films. In Muchmore, from ~19 - 28, and in Zapruder from ~290 - 299. While this does lead to admittedly a range of possible sync points, the framerate and time calculations constrain us because of the visible evidence of M42. If we end up with a frame showing damage occuring before one that does not, we're not following observable characteristics. Aligning Z291 = MM21 pushes M42 (a frame showing damage) ahead of Z312 (one that does not show damage). So we're constrained in that direction *assuming* 18.5 fps for the camera... I had no direction to go *except* backwards (e.g. Z291 = MM20). --------- What do you mean "come at that movement from the other end?" Are you referring to aligning MM21=Z291 and then looking at the timeline with a framerate as per your computation (~17.5)?

Okay -- trying this again! Here is the same "head movement" sequence, except in this case, I have aligned Z291 = MM20 as the "zero point": And here is a 4-frame loop slowed down to show the sync: With this alignment, M42 occurs almost immediately after N22, but slightly before Z313.

Terrific work, John. Of all the figures, most of them show some (understandable) degree of motion blur... except one... The Babushka lady appears to be in two places. Is this a side-effect of the process used to create the panorama? That is Toni Foster, the running lady...not the Babushka lady. Jack Right you are, Jack -- thank you. Makes complete sense now that I'm not completely disoriented! I need to remember the wise words of my parents: "Make sure your brain is running before putting your mouth in gear..."

...or the shallow back wound was the result of a short-fire / defective round.

Terrific work, John. Of all the figures, most of them show some (understandable) degree of motion blur... except one... The Babushka lady appears to be in two places. Is this a side-effect of the process used to create the panorama?

John, I understand the reluctance to fixate on frame numbers. However, from my perspective, I have 66 frames of Muchmore film that I'm looking at, and the headshot becomes obvious in the 42nd one. Assuming for a moment that none have been removed or otherwise tampered with, then there is a limited (very limited) window of time in which M42 *had* to have occurred. I realize that framerates are relative, too. They don't remain steady throughout a run (although they do a fairly good job of being mechanically governed to be within a certain range). Nevertheless, I am trying to remain consistent and work with an established average frame rate. I'll have to re-run the numbers with a 17.5 fps framerate to see what they look like. However, my postulate remains that I've missed the sync by a frame (or so) rather than the stated rate of the camera being off by a full frame per second.

Well, the Muchmore film is doing it to us again!! If the tested frame rate is accurate (18.5 frames per second, from Trask's book) then Z291 = M21 CANNOT be correct... Why, you ask? Well, the math of frames and frame rates, this match point ends up placing M42 before Z312, which does not pass the sanity check (M42 is the start of the head shot, and splatter is visible). So either the sync point needs to move slightly, or the frame rate of the Muchmore camera is not accurate.

I have not computed a timebase using this sync point yet. By the time I found this candidate last night, I was so tired that I couldn't have counted to ten even with well-labeled fingers and a school teacher there to help me... I'll try to get an idea of the time ramifications and post something soon. EDIT: M-01 *has* to be very close to N-21. If they are not exactly lined up, the are within a fractional frame of each other, with Nix slightly preceding Muchmore. (Edit of the edit... corrected typo)

Considering sync again for a moment: Here is a loop comparing Z289-Z298 and M19-28. To my eye, Z289 is the last of a series of frames where Jackie's head is in a stable position. Z290 begins a move that completes at Z298 (where she moves into what I call the "loosen the tie" position). The move that, to me, establishes some degree of sync is Z290-292 matched to M20-22. The following is a repeating sequence of those frames. Note additionally the motion of Jackie's left shoulder. Thoughts?

John, That is possible, but not simple. The blurring of objects may be due to their own motion or the motion of the camera. The camera motion would have to be factored out. I'm still thinking about how that might be done, as there are three actual dimensions of possible movement, but they are projected onto two (the film).

John, I'm not sure how accurate this statement is. Obviously, the shutter has to close before the frame is advanced, however I'm not sure how much it varies (if at all). I *do* agree, though, that understanding how long the shutter is open can be helpful.

Jack, go back in the archives and start deleting old images - especially repeats .. it will brink your space usage back down so you can post more images. Bill Bill, It doesn't have anything to do with space -- it is something with the browser Jack is using and the new version of the forum software.

Muchmore-Zapruder theoretical sync point to consider: M21 = Z291 I'll try to post a graphic when I'm not so bloody tired. However, I'll describe the logic: Observe Jackie's head movements. Prior to 291, she is in the same position for a while, ostensibly observing/listening to JBC. At Z-290 she begins to return her attention to JFK and begins a three-frame head movement that starts in Z290 and runs until 292. She then pauses for a frame, and then continues her motion through to frame 297 where she has completed her move. In Muchmore, the head movement prior to MM 15 or so is a bit hard to track due to camera motion and blurry frames. However, MM-17 gives a decent landmark, as does MM-19 -- and not much change is observed. However, MM20 begins a three-frame motion, followed by a one-frame pause in head motion. Unfortunately, the rest of the head motion is obscured until she clears the Babushka lady in MM-28 - after which it is stable. So, two possible sync points are: MM21 = Z291 (midpoint of the move) or Z293 = MM23 (the pause in the motion).

Chris, There is unquestionably cropping on the Discovery version. What I do not know is where/when the cropping took place. That is to say, I don't know if that is how it was originally copied to 16mm, cropped while telecine took place, or cropped for the Discovery channel DVD... I, too, was a bit disappointed when I noticed this.

Intriguing, John. So, this would seem to indicate that the 3 films are all slightly offset - not unlike we postulated earlier. The relationship between M41 and N22 may prove to be very interesting. Of course, I'm still looking for potential sync points. The Discovery Channel DVD has what appears to be a better transfer of both Bronson and Nix. I'll be re-considering our previous timetable based on these frames as well.

Good catch, and quite interesting. I see the same thing on my NFV/Groden DVD frames. I'm not quite sure what it is... The angled nature of it precludes some interlace artifacting or other NTSC-based stuff. It either has to be on the film, or introduced (somehow) in the telecine process.

The BL's film is the film if there ever was one that had the best chance of showing the damage to the back of the President's head. Bill, Agreed. I have always considered the section of the z-film where she appears to be less than completely convincing that she is filming/taking pictures. I always found it *likely*, but there is just too much blur. However, to my eye, her right arm and right hand position, left arm and hand position, turning, torso movement, etc, etc, seem VERY consistent with photography of some type -- either still or motion. Edit -- I just noticed that the "bag" she has slung on her left side has the squared edges common to camera bags (and less common to purses). Damn... I wanna see that film!

Stabilized, isolated Babushka Lady from the MM film (16mm print)... This GIF *intentionally* pauses on the first frame (and again at the last before looping). Edit: There are some sync possibilities from this clip, too, John...

Thanks, David. The splatter disappears in about 4 or 5 frames. Another observation is that the rearward drift of the "spray cloud" isn't as noticeable as it is in the Z-film. This could be for any number of reasons, including contrast/brightness, etc, on the film. Yet another thing to look at and consider...

Stabilized version -

As promised: I reduced the DVD source clip to a collection individual frames per the normal procedures as described elsewhere. However, because some of the issues I have discussed, I also produced equivalent collections of the the even and odd NTSC fields associated with each frame. From there, I made a list of frames that appeared to be purely progressive and verified same by looking at the constituent fields. This left a handful of frames (previously listed) that had "problems." The "problems" came in several different flavors, all of which were caused by a previous de-interlacing operation. I refer to these as "ghosted frames". Problem frames typically consisted of: a) A frame made up of two fields from ghosted frames A frame made up of one progressive field and one field of a ghosted frame c) A frame made up of two progressive fields, but in the wrong field order. "Type A" frames cannot yield progressive frames no matter how the fields are presented. "Type B" frames may be useful in yielding a progressive frame, but at the very least will yield a half-resolution progressive frame. "Type C" frames can have their field order shifted to correct the problem. (In all cases where this occurred, the very next frame consisted of correctly ordered fields, so these were discarded). So -- back to the list of problematic frames. For example, Muchmore frame 12 is on the "problem list". DVD frame 21 yielded a progressive Muchmore-11, and DVD frame 27 yielded a progressive Muchmore-13. However, there were no DVD frames that yielded a progressive Muchmore-12. I looked at all the frames between 21 and 27 and discovered: 22=Type A (useless) 23=Type A (useless) 24=Type B 25=Type B 26=Type A (useless) I then looked at the odd and even fields from frames 24 and 25. 24-Odd was progressive, 24-Even contained ghosting. 25-Odd contained ghosting, 25-Even was Progressive. I then wrote a quick and dirty program to rebuild a full frame from two selectable fields. Combining 24-Odd with 25-Even produced a frame with interlacing artifacts. This was corrected by reversing the frame order of the rebuild. I now had a progressive Muchmore-12 in full resolution. Rinse, Lather, and Repeat for all the other ones on the "problem" list. The resulting collection of progressive frames covers Muchmore frames 4-65. Now on to the other three clips of Muchmore from this DVD...

SUCCESS! (well, mostly, at least). I have been able to recover *almost* all the progressive frames from the Muchmore film as butchered, errrr, presented by the Discovery channel. The only frames that have any aspect to them that I'm not happy about are MM15 and MM33. They seem to show some minor ghosting, even when selecting the best available fields. The clip stops with only a single field of MM65 appearing. I doubled the odd-field, so MM65 is presented in half-resolution. Here is an animated GIF: I'll post a technical description of the process for those who are interested in a follow-up message later on.

Okay -- I've completed analyzing the 4th clip showed of the MM film on the Discovery DVD. This clip starts at MS4 and ends at MS50. Based on looking at individual fields, the following MM Sequence (after camera restart, which equals MS1) frames can be progressively recovered without issue: 4,5,6,7,8,9,11,13,16,17,19,20,21,22,23,24, 25,26,28,29,30,31,32,34,36,37,38,39,40,41, 43,45,46,47,49 I need to study the following MM frames from the DVD to see if they can either be: (a) fully recovered, ( recovered at half resolution, or © not recovered: 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 27, 33, 35, 42, 44, 48, 50. This is going to take me a bit to do, and then there are three other clips of the film shown... Oh -- and for those who care: To "fully recover" a frame, I'm going to have to look at the fields from the preceding and following frames to see if a full-resolution image can be obtained. (In other words, did "ODD10" appear in "EVEN 9" or "ODD 11", etc. Frames "recovered at half resolution" will contain two copies of the same field, as it may be the only appearance of that film frame on the DVD. But first... Lunch...

The Discovery Channel DVD is a cluster foxtrot, no doubt. From what I can deduce from looking at the constituent fields of this DVD, the copy they were provided was in one the *interlaced* formats that PAL supports, and was de-interlaced (not IVTCed), THEN converted to NTSC Interlaced... Yes... MPEG2, our old lossy friend. This is really the least of the issues with this DVD. Result? Cluster Foxtrot. Oh -- and it looks like some cropping and/or zooming (god knows if it is digital or optical) also took place. I SAY AGAIN!!! UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS WE CAN RECOVER or HAVE PROGRESSIVE FRAMES FROM THIS DVD, DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS! *Some* of the frames ARE purely progressive. Others are not. I'm working on it. There are 4 showings of various muchmore clips on this DVD. I'm about 3/4 through ONE of them (step by step analysis of 127 frames (254 fields) thus far...).