Frank Agbat

good job John and Frank... can we assume 3:2 puldown has been removed from both source files? And the exact source of the film clips utilized, please... again good job! David, The source for the NIX clips is Groden's NFV DVD from my personal video collection. This DVD is a 29.97fps NTSC interlaced source, and I have removed the interlaced frames and performed inverse telecine. The clip I selected was the "hair free" second generation version (the first-gen copy he has picked up a hair in the lower left corner somehow during the copy process). The source of the Z-Film clip is the MPI DVD from my personal video collection. This DVD is also 29.97fps NTSC interlaced source, and has also gone through appropriate de-interlace/inverse telecine. The version used was the "Under Sprocket Hole" track where the entire 8mm frame is visible. In both cases, the actual telecine process used is not 3:2, as that is the formula for a 24fps source. I'd have to look again for the exact pattern used, but it is slightly different because of the 18.x fps original. Regardless, I made certain (by hand) that no duplicate frames or interlaced frames remained prior to doing any work. To create the smaller clips, a fixed-size region (120x200 pixels) was taken from the original frame, attempting to horizontally center on Ms. Foster's neck/spine line and vertically centering on her elbows. The stabilization was done using the method that John Dolva described earlier in this thread (which is, in photoshop parlance, essentially using a difference layer to determine alignment). This produced a series of stills (each holding a pair of images - 1 from Nix, 1 from Zapruder) that were stabilized. The actual stills look better than the animated GIF, due to the GIF's limited palette (and my attempts to keep it small enough to fit on the forum). If you're interested, I can make the sources available for inspection, as peer review is always a vital and welcome part of any research effort.

I'll be perfectly honest with you, John... I'm still having a heck of a time determining which alignment "looks" better to me. If the clips were longer, we *might* notice drift. However, over such a small number of frames, the difference is very hard to see. Even worse, there aren't any quick definitive motions that could expose sync problems (even if there were, though, the difference of one frame might still not be noticeable). At this point, my postulate sequence would be N22-Z313 N23 (splatter)-Z314 N24-Z315. In each "pair" (e.g. N22-Z313), the N-frame precedes its paired Z-frame by some fraction of a frame-duration. If you look at N22, you can see a noticeable shape-change in JFK's skull, but no splatter shows. Z313 shows the shape distortion AND the splatter. N23 actually shows "more" forward splatter than does Z314. But again, just a postulate at this point. I may be able to create a clip which has the frames operating on independent sync, but I'm going to work with the N22=Z313 assumption for the time being. One thing I think we can say with reasonable confidence is that we're in the right ballpark with either alignment. As you observed, there are probably other landmarks and events that we can look at. I'm going to keep working at it.

This is the same animation, but with Z-313 equated to NS-22. (difference of one frame from the previous version). In this sequence, the Z-frames run from Z298 - Z324 The NS-frames run from NS-7 through NS-33. (Edit: John Simkin was kind enough to provide additional space. I have replaced the original version with one of slightly higher quality.)

John, Thank you very much. The Z-frames used are Z298 - Z324 (inclusive). The NS frames used are NS8 - NS34 (inclusive). (NS = the shooting sequence on Elm, to distinguish the frames from the Houston St. footage) I then aligned the Nix frames matching Z313 with the nix frame that shows blood splatter and then counted back the same number of frames on both films. I think that is the one that we have been calling NS23. (On the sequence of images that I sent you, it would have originally been named "Nix00000446.jpg") I estimate that the assassination sequence that we have been looking at on the N-film covers z-frames Z291 - Z340. Apart from making a (somewhat) arbitrary decision to align Z313 and NS23, I didn't do any shenanigans with the frames in the animation to get them to align time-wise. No doubled frames, no offset of one film vs. the other. Z298 was chosen as the starting frame, because it is the first decent in-focus picture of Ms. Foster on the z-film. Using a 1:1 frame association, Z298=NS8 and Z324=NS34. The frames are stabilized on Ms. Foster, per the technique you previously created. Of course, there are many other questions, including what would happen if NS22 was equated to Z313? (NS22 may actually be a better candidate). So many ideas, so little time...

Proof of concept animation: Zapruder frames Z-298 through Z324 Nix frames aligned so that bloodsplatter frame (NS-23) = Z313. 120x200 clips, aligned/stabilized on T. Foster. Running slightly fast (actually makes the sync a bit easier to see) (Edit - replaced with higher quality version)

I took a look at what an N-film clip with removed frames might look like in terms of spacing, and the associated math. The first question I had to consider was how many frames to remove. In our tracking sample, I had 48 measurable gaps. I wanted to remove a number that would seem fairly unnoticeable to the eye. After debating this for a while, I decided on 3 frames. At 18.5 frames per second, this would cause a loss of 0.162 seconds of total run length. The next question was, "which frames to remove?" For this exercise, I decided to remove three frames at random, with the qualifier that they had to be at least 9 frames (~.5 second) apart. I then used a random number generator and had it pick three frames... Here is the resulting gap analysis: I then ran the same analysis on the "new" gaps and produced a distribution chart showing both the original source and the altered source: Some items of note: 1) I have used colored boxes to show standard deviations around the mean value. The height of the boxes corresponds to expected values in a normal distribution (except for the green box, which would extend beyond the graph). 2) The standard deviation of the "missing frames" version is 3.43 (vs 1.65 for the normal version). This leads to a massive difference in the variance as well. 3) The "missing frames" version has two very anomalous gaps (25 and 28). The expected value for this area in a normal distribution is very close to zero (0.052 frames for the +4SD group, and even lower for the +5SD group). 4) The "normal" version has only one frame that is even slightly unexpected (the +2SD group has 2 frames, where 1 is expected). This could easily be blur, measurement error, etc. 5) Interestingly, one of the "altered" frames (gap = 20) might be able to escape attention, as some frames are expected to be in the yellow region. I'll post more about this observation separately.

John, I think it is a very interesting idea to apply our approach to other films individually, and then comparing films against each other. I believe this to be a logical next step. Blur certainly introduces some degree of error, and one thing that might be good to consider is the relative amount of blur (could be measured in Pixels) and how the extremes and the mean value of the blur impact the overall analysis. By averaging the values of two reference points, I attempted to reduce some of the effects of blurring. However, one could argue that I merely showed that my own personal "best point" selection process was consistent. Your "unknown side" point is quite valid and probably would lessen discrepancies. I believe that it is fair to reach a tentative conclusion that there are no missing frames, yes. However, I'd like to to a couple more experiments before calling it a "final" conclusion. I need to verify that the method is sound and that missing frames or inserted frames would be detected.

The Linux browsers that I was able to test worked flawlessly. I have not had time to test Konqueror, and I have no way to test various OS 9 and OS X implementations on the Mac -- sorry. That said, I rather doubt that a new system purchase is needed. Perhaps some browser settings, or at the most a browser upgrade is needed, but not a new system or OS...

The issue seems to be browser and script-based plug-in related. I do not have access to Macs, so I'm not able to test Safari. However, I did test various flavors of browsers on both Windows and Linux platforms. My experiences: With Firefox 2.0 and "No Script" add-on installed, I initially did NOT see the drop-down menus, nor did I have the area to add attachments. This site was specifically ALLOWED by no-script, so I thought it might be browser related. However, trying the same function on my Linux system (also Firefox 2.0), when I allowed the scripts, everything worked. I then disabled and immediately re-enabled scripts on my windows system, and everything seems to be working as it should. With Firefox 2.0 with no add-ons installed, everything worked properly. With Internet Explorer 6 (with latest service pack), everything worked properly. With Internet Explorer 7, everything worked properly. With Opera (v. 9.02), everything worked properly. (I'm currently downloading several other browsers to test. I'll update this post accordingly) **EDIT** With Netscape 8.1.2, everything worked properly. With Firefox 1.0.2, everything worked properly. With Firefox 1.5.x, everything worked properly I'll attempt to replicate the problem with IE. All the systems which I tried that ran IE worked without issue. So -- it appears that if you have anything installed that attempts to block or evaluate scripting, it may be necessary to reset (or disable/re-enable for this site) the add-on/plug-in for proper operation. UPDATE: testing selected functions Working colors, working fonts, different sizes... Special texteffects... Bold, Italic, Underline and, oh yes... smiley face Upload and include an image: (this is the smallest image I had handy)

I took some time out tonight to analyze the Nix frame spacing a bit more. What I did was create a table of values representing the lines from the two grids that I charted (limo wheel, and limo front). I used the "pixel" as a unit of measure. I believe this is a reasonably valid approach since I am only looking at relative differences, not absolute values. Additionally, because of blurring and the possibility of human error in placing the markers, I averaged the data between the two different methods (aligned on the headshot frame) to create a third data set. This, too, should be valid, as it will have the effect of softening (averaging-out) error on any particular frame. Using the center wheel, I discovered the following (all units are in pixels on a 720x480 image): Intervals Measured: 48 Smallest Gap: 9 Largest Gap: 16 Mean (Avg): 12.479 Std Deviation: 1.646 Mode: 14 Percentage of gaps within +/- 1 Standard Deviation: 87.50% Percentage of gaps within +/- 2 Standard Deviations: 93.75% Percentage of gaps outside +/- 2 Standard Deviations: 6.25% (3 gaps, 2 are greater than +2 Std devs, 1 less than -2 std devs) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using the front of limo, I discovered the following (all units are in pixels on a 720x480 image): Intervals Measured: 44 Smallest Gap: 9 Largest Gap: 20 Mean (Avg): 12.477 Std Deviation: 2.148 Mode: 14 Percentage of gaps within +/- 1 Standard Deviation: 70.45% Percentage of gaps within +/- 2 Standard Deviations: 95.45% Percentage of gaps outside +/- 2 Standard Deviations: 4.55% (2 gaps) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using the average of the two previous measurements, I discovered the following (all units are in pixels on a 720x480 image): Intervals Measured: 48 (for the final 4 points, only 1 data set, the center wheel, was available) Smallest Gap: 9.5 Largest Gap: 18 Mean (Avg): 12.490 Std Deviation:1.775 Mode: 14 Percentage of gaps within +/- 1 Standard Deviation: 72.92% Percentage of gaps within +/- 2 Standard Deviations: 95.83% Percentage of gaps outside +/- 2 Standard Deviations: 4.17% (2 gaps) ========================================== Preliminary interpretation: Using the limo front and the averaged data set produced a distribution that could be considered normal -- 95% of the distribution falls within 2 standard deviations. Using the center of the front tire produced a distribution that is exceedingly close to being a normal -- 93.75% of the distribution falls within 2 standard deviations. All three data sets (center tire, limo front, and average) had in excess of 70% of the gaps fall within 1 standard deviation. (Center tire had the largest population within 1 Standard Deviation at 87.5%). What this tells me is that the spacing between N-frames using both the center tire and the front of the limo exhibit variations that are statistically consistent when the headshot frame is used as the reference point. In fact, the values appear to fall within a distribution that is exceedingly close to what is called a "normal distribution" in statistics. The gaps that fall outside the 2 standard distribution range all fall quite easily within +/- 3 standard deviations. The frames exhibiting the aforementioned gaps are N2-N3 and N3-N4. Both gaps are greater than +2 std. devs. (farther apart than 95% of the frames) When using the wheel center, N39-40 exhibits a gap outside -2 standard deviations (closer together than 95% of the frames). If anyone wants the actual data in a CSV file, let me know and I'll make it available. I also want to look at this with different reference points (i.e. using N1 instead of the headshot frame).

More than a bit disconcerting, and quite illegal, I'm sure - but hey, why should the law get in the way of greed and power? We've all seen Google's "neutrality" on things, as demonstrated by the way links on this site drop from existence in favor of "party line" pages (like McAdams, etc)... This is less of an issue for desktop computers, as very few of them have the built-in microphone feature. On the other hand, built-in mics seem to be nearly universal on laptops. I've never really programmatically looked into clandestine ways to turn on the microphone and record. Suffice it to say that there are probably ways to accomplish exactly what you postulated. Whether they can remain undetected, however, is another issue.

Mark, That is not too far away from where I am. I just can't shake that last little bit of doubt, reservation, suspicion, etc. Perhaps it is some combination of wishful thinking (alteration all but proves conspiracy once and for all) and just plain distrust of the government (gee, I wonder where THAT came from). As such, I really take nothing at face value, and try to verify as much as possible independently. But you're right -- the topic does seem to produce epic amounts of vitriol.

Right on, Charlie Black!

Great. You solved it. Now you can go back to watching television.

John, I concur. I'm still a bit confused by the frame pattern in the original clip, although I am now inclined to believe that the missing frames were the result of improper IVTC. I suspect that the original clip was de-interlaced *AND* inverse-telecined. This could *possibly* explain an odd clustering of 'extra' frames. If a few frames that should have been eliminated survived (but appeared merely as blurry frames due to the method used to de-interlace), this could explain it. As such, I'm inclined to say that anomalies that showed on the original clip were created (probably accidentally) in the digital domain.

Funny you should mention this! I was just thinking about this the other day... I'm one of those people who have hoarded the JFK half dollars... I suspect my collection, such as it is, holds far more sentimental value than it does monetary, though. Oh well.

More tracking of the Nix frames: Explanation of Graph: I went back through and attempted to more precisely locate BOTH the center of wheel AND the front of the limo. Instead of drawing a 0.1cm line to indicate the point, I used a single pixel. Each point (pixel) recorded was then changed to a vertical line. Thus, each vertical line you see represents the location of either the wheel center or the front of the limo. The brown lines (top grid) track the center of the wheel. The blue lines (lower grid) track the front of the limo. (This grid has fewer points because the front of the limo is obscured by J. Altgens before the tire is.) As you can see, both the top and bottom grids show some variations in the spacing of the frame marker points. To determine if these irregularities appear when tracking both the front of the limo and the wheel center, the grids are aligned at the headshot frame (and slightly overlapped). The spacing is consistent to within a few pixels in even the worst case. This seems to indicate that observed variations are likely to be legitimate, and not merely a by-product of image distortion, blur, or perspective for the tracking points chosen. In other words, the method used seems to be internally consistent and able to be replicated. Of course, many things can lead to variations in frame spacing. The movie camera itself can (and does) introduce some minor variations. The limo speed changed, etc, etc. The next thing I'm going to look into is whether any of the variations seem out of line (i.e. statistically unlikely). Any variations that fall into that category would have to be deemed unusual.

Hi Shanet, I'm not sure I'm ready to come to any conclusions yet... In this topic, I felt that it was necessary to eliminate any potential issues created in the digital domain. Such things as misbehaving IVTC could end up discarding some frames, throwing off the results. I'm completely certain that the frames that I used are purely progressive. In the analysis of these frames, I did not get quite the same results as John Dolva got. However, our sources were different, and our methods vary slightly. The most notable difference is the measurement point used. Mine is based on the center of the front tire, John's uses the front of the limo. I've provided John a copy of the same frames I used so that he can work on them using his method. That said, I don't know if I'd call the rate completely smooth. There are some compressions and gaps that are a bit more obvious on the full-sized version (I had to reduce the size for posting here, unfortunately). However, whether they indicate missing frames or not, I don't know. Another anomaly is that while messed-up IVTC could explain *some* of the stuff going on in the original (John's) source, it cannot explain *all* of the things... I view this as very much a work-in-progress.

I've re-worked some of the Nix frame-spacing analysis to try to make it a bit easier to see. Per John Dolva's request, I have noted the frame which contains the head shot. I've verified correct de-interlacing and IVTC (inverse Telecine) from an NTSC source for these frames. Here is the full panorama version: And the tracking alone, using the center of the front wheel:

Actually, I am reading it right now! It arrived in the mail a couple of days ago, and immediately went right to the top of my stack of books waiting to be read. I've only made it about 1/6th of the way through as of this post, but I have to agree with your sentiments. It is an outstanding work.

Actually, yes, it does. Go back and look at the result of lossy compression on the letters in the image I posted. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not opposed to searching the images for new details, inconsistencies, and the like. However, some of the digital images to which we as a research community have access are not suitable for revealing fine details.

Despite the ' lossiness', and by simply dragging and dropping the picture from the website into PhotoDeluxe 2.1, all that had to be done was to despeckle it. The one on the left now looks cleaner and sharper than the one on the right . Ed, The one on the left was always sharper than the one on the right. My point was, evidently, totally missed. The left-side picture was a crop from MPI's OPTICALLY zoomed Z-film. The right side picture was the result of taking the same crop from the REGULAR SIZE z-film (not optically zoomed) and then digitally zooming it. The tiny picture in the middle is the crop from the regular size z-film frame, un-enlarged, etc. The tiny one in the center was then enlarged (i.e. "digital zoom") to make the one on the right. I'll say it again. If you start with a small area (ergo a small number of pixels) and use digital enlargement, you are not gaining information. If anything, you are losing information. That is why the picture on the right was less clear than the one on the left. (Note, the same thing happens with optical zooming, but it is due to the grain of the film) And, notice, that another point about digital imaging has been made... The text in the version you re-posted after "despeckling" or whatever you did is now illegible. It was legible in the original version that I posted. However, because we are dealing with lossy formats (jpg), after several iterations of compression, the text cannot be read. The "improvements" are immeasurable...

Planting of bottoms aside... Correlating the z-film, Nix, and the still photographs (Moorman's polaroid is the most useful, for this), one can see that JFK is leaning (listing, in nautical parlance) to his left quite noticeably at the time of the head shot. Of perhaps equal or even greater importance is that his head is turned notably to the left. (Consult Don Roberdeau's DP plat for reasonably accurate head-turn angles) These are important distinctions as it changes the aspect of the head relative to the shooter. In other words, listing left and looking left (both of which JFK was doing at the time of the headshot) changes the area of the skull that is presented to the shooters. It isn't so much a "Jackie getting in the way" issue as it is "could the shooter hit the right hemisphere of the skull" issue. The animation you created *could* hit the right (and only the right) hemisphere based on the way you have JFK facing. However, I'm not sure this is the case if an accurate listing and head turn is added.

Jack, Very interesting information on Kodachrome II film. I've not shot it in a movie format, but I have used both Kodachrome and Ektachrome for color transparency work. I'm certainly not an expert in the subtleties of the chemistry of various films, and don't pretend to be, but my experience with both products is consistent with what you have written. The question that I have is this: If I recall correctly, there were some immediate duplicates of the z-film made on 11/22. I keep hearing about how difficult/impossible it is to accurately copy Kodachrome... How were these duplicates made and what would they have looked like when they were new?

...and here is my regular rant about digital vs. optical zooming/enlarging...