Chris Davidson

BTW, For comparison purposes. Here's the same film. No differing frame speeds in this one. The original film was shot at 24FPS. A total of 136 progressive frames. Starting and ending comparable to Z133-313. chris http://72.130.170.43:8443/93378/24FPS.flv P.S. A little math coming up !!!

Ian, 2 differing speeds. Just an example. chris http://72.130.170.43:8443/B587C/1824FPS.flv

David, Frame161-166 is a 5ft adjustment. A 5ft adjustment added to figures in (WC CE884) gives me approx (WC frame 208). Adding the "line of sight rifle to JFK" would now = approx 180ft. 180ft/22.19ft per sec(15.1 mph)=8.11 sec. 8.11sec x 24.3 FramesPerSec=197frames 197frames-40frames(difference between 313+353)=frame 157 =splice. Use this to tie it back into the above: 197 frames(throat shot) + Life Magazine article 74 frames later (Connally shot) + Life Magazine article 48 frames later (head shot). 197 + 74 + 48 = 319 frames. There are no coincidences in any of this. From previous posting: The slides in the original set were made by Time-LIFE. The set included frames 164 through 483, except for the missing frame 349. I would assume that if the only missing frame among 164-483 was 349, then the damaged/missing frames at approx 208-212 are intact among this set, correct? Now, when were those frames damaged and when were the slides created? Just something to ponder among other things. chris P.S. Doesn't have to be exact, but it's going to be darn well close. Some more numbers for you: There appears to be 2 pre-assassination segments of the Hester's and Sitzman. See attached!!! One consists of 117 frames while the other is 14 frames. The first generation SS copy has a 10ft/27 inch film segment which = 980 total frames. Within these 980 frames are 117 Hester/Sitzman frames. The motorcycle sequence of 132 frames. The assassination sequence. Blank film. A little math: 117 + (132 + 354) = 486 117 + 486(total frames at18.3 fps) = 603 603 + 363=966 363=18.3fps x 19.87 19.87 sec is the amount of time it would take to create 483 frames at 24.3 fps. 966 + the other 14 Hester/Sitzman frames=980 total frames=10ft/27inches of film. Besides the 14 Hester/Sitzman frames, I wonder what else was in the original space for 10ft/27inches!!! How about the 18.3 FPS film at 19.87 sec. 19.87 sec is the amount of time it would take to create 483 frames at 24.3 fps. chris P.S. Where is the 117 frame segment of Sitzman/Hester's in the camera original at the National Archives. 117 frames is very close to 120 frames, which is the difference between 483-363, which is the difference between a film shot at 24.3 fps and 18.3 fps. A 3 frame difference might be the difference between 483 and 486 total frames. P.S.S 117+14=131 frames which is very close to 132 pre limo frames.

Jack, So far, I would say 1 film, 2 versions, one at 18.3 FPS, the other at 24.3. Both versions used to create the final version. This would allow the excising of frames and control of timing and the synchronization with other films. Short stints between splices. The ability to distinguish the viewing difference in FramesPerSecond in these short stints, very difficult. 2 head shots, one at the physical film location 313, and one at the physical film location 353. So far, the 353 head shot was excised. Not enough info for limo stop determination, yet. But, 2 seconds or so, would probably be a good guess if it did!!! chris Chris I beiieve we could reconstruct a montage digitally by establishing a clock running in realtime over the montage at its staggered spspeeds and the flow would be interupted and would appear to stutter unlike the flow of the math Ian Ian, Could you give me a brief example, say from frame 133-157. It sounds something along the lines of the multiple film syncing I've done in the past. thanks chris P.S. Remember the "MysteryMan" (Croft more than likely) discussion on Duncan's forum and why he was still moving in Dorman, when less than a quarter second later (Martin film ending), according to Meyer's latest film sync revision, we see him at Zframe 133, set to take his photo. That's what occurs when you can't quite sync multiple films changing frame speeds. Looking back, my guess would be I probably adjusted it somewhere around 9 frames to make it work for what I had to go on at the time. Looks like I ended up adjusting it 7 frames to z140. Frame 100-133=33 frames-.25sec (1/4 second)=4.5 zframes=frame 100-frame 128 approx. 28frames/18.3 FPS= 1.53seconds. 1.53seconds x 24.3 FPS=37 frames 37-28=9 frames. I'll get back to the film syncing aspect as I move along.

Tom, Looks like someone else didn't feel like starting with anything earlier than 171, also. chris

Jack, So far, I would say 1 film, 2 versions, one at 18.3 FPS, the other at 24.3. Both versions used to create the final version. This would allow the excising of frames and control of timing and the synchronization with other films. Short stints between splices. The ability to distinguish the viewing difference in FramesPerSecond in these short stints, very difficult. 2 head shots, one at the physical film location 313, and one at the physical film location 353. So far, the 353 head shot was excised. Not enough info for limo stop determination, yet. But, 2 seconds or so, would probably be a good guess if it did!!! chris I count 2 films given to Life. Read the print in blue only. Someone forgot to tell the reporter. 1 film, 2 versions. chris

David, Frame161-166 is a 5ft adjustment. A 5ft adjustment added to figures in (WC CE884) gives me approx (WC frame 208). Adding the "line of sight rifle to JFK" would now = approx 180ft. 180ft/22.19ft per sec(15.1 mph)=8.11 sec. 8.11sec x 24.3 FramesPerSec=197frames 197frames-40frames(difference between 313+353)=frame 157 =splice. Use this to tie it back into the above: 197 frames(throat shot) + Life Magazine article 74 frames later (Connally shot) + Life Magazine article 48 frames later (head shot). 197 + 74 + 48 = 319 frames. There are no coincidences in any of this. From previous posting: The slides in the original set were made by Time-LIFE. The set included frames 164 through 483, except for the missing frame 349. I would assume that if the only missing frame among 164-483 was 349, then the damaged/missing frames at approx 208-212 are intact among this set, correct? Now, when were those frames damaged and when were the slides created? Just something to ponder among other things. chris P.S. Doesn't have to be exact, but it's going to be darn well close.

Robin, I can simplify the explanation of the numbers for you, just let me know what your having difficulties with. chris

Jack, So far, I would say 1 film, 2 versions, one at 18.3 FPS, the other at 24.3. Both versions used to create the final version. This would allow the excising of frames and control of timing and the synchronization with other films. Short stints between splices. The ability to distinguish the viewing difference in FramesPerSecond in these short stints, very difficult. 2 head shots, one at the physical film location 313, and one at the physical film location 353. So far, the 353 head shot was excised. Not enough info for limo stop determination, yet. But, 2 seconds or so, would probably be a good guess if it did!!! chris

Robin, See post 55 for the importance of frame 208. chris

Thanks Jack, I believe once I'm through with this topic, many eyes will open up. chris Will you or have you condensed these four threads (your part, anyway) into a cohesive whole anywhere, e.g., downloadable paper, etc.? If the calcs are even a little hard to follow, they're made harder by all of the breaks and others' posts. Duke, No, I haven't. If you're confused with any of the equations, feel free to ask their significance. I would hope by now, that a few realize the equations and results given are not coincidental. Let me introduce another equation and I'll try to explain it in simplified terms. Amount of time it takes to film the number of frames that we see in the extant Zfilm at 24.3 FramesPerSecond 483 frames/24.3 Frames Per Second = 19.87 seconds. Amount of time it takes to film the number of frames that we see in the extant Zfilm at 18.3 FramesPerSecond 483 frames /18.3 Frames Per Second = 26.39 seconds Total frames created if I use the same amount of time used for 24.3 FramesPerSecond@483 frames, and multiply it by 18.3 FramesPerSecond. 19.87 seconds x 18.3 Frames Per Second = 363 frames Difference in total frame counts between the above 2 scenarios. 483-363=120 frames Testimony from the Garrison trial: Q: How many such slides do you have in your possession, Mr. Orth? A: From frame 200 to frame 320, so that would be 120 slides. Difference in time between above 2 scenarios. 26.39sec - 19.87 sec = 6.52 Difference in time between 24.3 and 18.3 FramesPerSecond over 483 frames, multiplied by the difference in Frames Per Second difference between 24.3/18.3=6 over those 483 total frames. 6.52 x 6 = 39.12 frames Difference between shot at 313 and 353 or 30ft=40 frames. 1975: May 12: National Archives acknowledges receipt of 323 Zapruder frame "color transparencies" (slides) and the "first and second generation copies" of the film from Time Incorporated, available for viewing only on the premises of the National Archives. (Archives Change of Holdings Report) The slides in the original set were made by Time-LIFE. The set included frames 164 through 483, except for the missing frame 349. 323 + missing 40(difference between frame 313 and 353) =363total=19.87 seconds x 18.3 FramesPerSecond=363frames (see above). 2 sets of slides. A mix and match. Receipt of 323 slides and the original set from 164-483 -frame349 = 318 frames. 318 does not equal 323. chris

David, Frame 183 will give you a better picture of the area in question. The ghost image area in frame 183 includes part of the signal light post on the Houston St corner, along with the top of the "backside black sign" and "somewhat above" in the background. Just put your curser on the objects within the red box to check it. That area is not part of the TSBD. chris

BTW, If you want to tie those 40 frames back to the beginning of the film, you might look at it this way: Station C = 2+34.5 Position A = 2+75.0 Difference of 40.5 ft. WC basically uses a 1ft per 1frame ratio in CE884 among individual segments, excluding frame segment 255-313. For example: frame 166 -186=20ft=20frames. So, If frame 100(see my corrected CE884) is my 2+75 elevation and I subtract 40frames, I'm at frame 60. Plug that back into CE884 and from frame 60-313 is 253 frames and 231ft traveled. 253/18.3FPS=13.82 sec 231ft/13.82sec=16.71ft per sec. 16.71ft per sec/1.47sec(1mph)=11.36mph. Now plug the 24.3FPS/15.1 mph scenario in: 253/24.3=10.41 sec. 231ft/10.41sec=22.19ft per sec 22.19ft per sec/1.47sec(1mph)=15.1 mph. chris

Tom, Learning to flip a triangle so I have a level base, makes a big difference. As for specific locations, I've been working on this one: Frame161-166 is a 5ft adjustment. A 5ft adjustment added to figures in (WC CE884) gives me approx (WC frame 208). Adding the "line of sight rifle to JFK" would now = approx 180ft. 180ft/22.19ft per sec(15.1 mph)=8.11 sec. 8.11sec x 24.3 FramesPerSec=197frames 197frames-40frames(difference between 313+353)=frame 157 =splice. WC frame 208-197=11frames 11 frames+40 frames=51 frames 51 frames = difference between a camera running at 18.3FPS/24.3 FPS through 157 total frames. 157frames/18.3=8.57sec 8.57sec x 24.3FPS =208.4frames 208-157=51frames chris P.S. Thanks for the geometry tips!!!

Tom, Triangle is completed. Flip triangle so "Point on the curb" to "Point in the park" is my triangle base. "Point on the curb" to "Point in the park" =100ft. Frame 231-313=approx 75ft. chris

Tom, Yes, just some reverse engineering. I believe it's rather obvious to anyone interested, how the WC manipulated the frame #'s and distance traveled to fit there film version. I don't know how close I can get with the material you have given me, when superimposing it over Drommer. I will say that frame 231-313=approx 55ft when I do that, compared to the WC distance of 72ft. A difference of 17ft. Which sounds like a distance mentioned in one of your other posts, not necessarily pertaining to this particular frame span. Onward with some film sync issues, which tie's into all of this. chris

Thanks Tom. Moving on, here's another piece. Distance from Station C (2+34.5) to WC frame100(2+75)(elev 428.94) =40.5 ft. Frame count from Towner92(JFK at corner of TSBD) to Z132/133=40/41. Yes, this would be indicative of both camera's running at the same speed. Add another explanation for the Towner splice. Tom Purvis: 29.7 feet covered in 2.1857923seconds/40 elapsed frames , = 0 .7425 ' per frame X 18.3 =13.58775 fps X 60 =815.265 fpm X 60 =48,915.9 fph/5280 =9.264375 mph. From Z313 to Z353 Evolves from Station C through the Altgen's head shot, at least. chris

How did I come up with the elevation calculations on the rightside? First off, the WC elevations on the leftside are based on a few variables. 1.Street elevation + 2. Head height of JFK standin during survey work- minus 3. Vertical angle computation for elevation 10 inches lower than the JFK standin(which was compensation for height difference between JFK actual height and the standin height). Or, in other words, the B.S. figure used to make/hide the real scenario. Once again, Tom has provided me with some valuable documents from Robert West. The original street elevation at frame 313 was 418.35 determined by the SS survey work of 12/5/63. The WC work determined it to be 418.48. Very close, a little more than an inch difference according to Tom. The elevation of frame 208 was changed by the WC and applied to frame 210 giving it a street elevation of 423.53. Knowing these 2 elevations allowed me to calculate the difference and come up with a multiplier for each frame. 423.53-418.35=5.05 5.05/103frames =.049 Then from frame 210-110=frame 100 110 x .049=5.39 elev 5.39 added to elevation 423.53(frame 210)=428.92=frame 100. You might have noticed that 428.94 is my marker for frame 100, the difference is minute. I also incorporated the .02 elevation change in frame 210 and 313, hence the difference between the original determinations of those elevations. chris

Moving forward, my next question would be: Chris said the limo covered 30ft in 33 frames which equates to 11.3 mph. It does, working from the rightside document, take away the slow down period from frame 255-313. Warning, 58 frames worth!!!! When you do this, my calculations say frame 100-255=155frames 155/18.3fps=8.46 sec. 141ft traveled /8.46 sec=16.66ft sec 16.66ft sec/1.47ft(1mph)=11.33 mph=33frames or 30ft.

If you keep in mind the ratio approx "1ft=1frame" which is actually 12.25 mph, this might help you along the way. For instance, in the WC figures from frame 186-207(21 frames)= approx 20.3 ft traveled. This equates to 12.11 mph. Why do I bring this up? Remember Frame "A" equating to frame 103 according to the leftside WC document while I determined it to be frame100 on the right, a difference of 3 frames. 24 frames is approx 24ft at 12.25 mph. 27 frames is approx 24ft at 11.11 mph My next question would be: But Chris says there is a 30ft difference in the shooting scenario, not 24. Once again, from frame 161-166, a difference of 5 frames, the limo is listed as only traveling 9/10 ft. This is obviously an adjustment. But for what? 5 frames @ 1frame per foot = 5 x 1.47 ft=7.35ft traveled -9/10ft=6.35 ft 5 frames @ 11.11mph=4.46ft.-9/10ft=3.46ft. Between these two calculations is a distance of(approx 6ft), when added to the distance between the TSBD and elev 428.94 which is approx 24ft a sum of approx 30ft is created. chris

ZFrame 100 in reality is elev. 428.94 I will show the calculations for that in a little bit. The importance of elev 428.94 is!!! Well, I'll use Tom Purvis's own words which are: To this point on the South curb of Elm St, Mr West's survey crew established their TBM(temporary benchmark) on Elm St. with the elevation 0f 428.94. In fact, if one will look at the Drommer plat, just to the right of where Mr.West actually established the elevation 428.94, one will find the Drommer elevation of "99.5". chris P.S. 428.94 is approx 24ft to the corner of the TSBD.

Next, I wanted to find out what they had configured for the overall speed within their chart. From frame 161-313=152frames 152/18.3fps=8.30sec. Distance 329-465=136ft 136ft/8.3=16.38ft per sec. 16.38ft per sec/1.47ft(1mph)=11.14mph Then, After doing my calculations on the right hand column, I would expect the results to be rather close. So, from frame 100-313=213frames 213/18.3fps=11.63sec Distance 275-465=190ft. 190ft/11.63sec=16.33ft per sec 16.33ft per sec/1.47=11.11mph chris

Dealing only with the left side column. I wanted to see if there was a relationship between the frame total and elevation, so I chose the bottom 2 and top 2 entries, knowing that frame "A" was a variable. Frame 255-313=58 frames Elevation change =2.71 Elevation change between frame 161 and "A" = 2.72 161-58=103 Pretty close!!!. So from the original WC 884 document, Zframe 103 is probably pretty close to being "A". chris

Not a problem Greg, I created this next document for comparison purposes. Posted awhile back, but here's the link again. On the left is the original WC 884 exhibit, I have added the red lines and numbers. On the right are my recalculations, I will explain this going forward. chris

Chris I can see You and Tom have put a lot into this and it is appreciated by many. Would this indicate the cut in the towner film to be non_accidental?. And the timing between the shots remains the same Just 30 feet further down Elm?.Would this also tell us why the wound ballistics are so confusing as to the angle of entrance ,with JBC and JFK leaning way over to the left and not in an upright position to recieve the wounds makes a bit more sense of the impact orientations. I wish I paid more attention to math all those years ago. Ian Ian, I didn't mean to shorten you on the rest of your question. If I wanted to hide a shot farther down the street, I might just take part of that frame and implement into the frame up the street. This way, if the 353 shot was from the TSBD, it would appear that 313 was a shot from that location. Very easy 1 frame fix. Would that clear up any of the ballistics mess, I don't know, but it would be a very quick and easy solution. chris Astounding, Chris! I think you've got it! And I think I now remember what Tom Wilson said...it may have been 30 or 40 FRAMES farther west, NOT FEET! Jack That's interesting, Jack. Depending on a couple of variables, such as the speed of the X-100 during that period of time and the number of frames shot per second by "that" camera--we could determine (or at least ball park) the limo's location. Chris? Greg, Tom Wilson states in the video that he found the 313 head shot to exist 4ft farther down Elm St. None of my work is based on anything from Tom Wilson's findings. I'll go into distances and frame counts in a little bit. chris P.S. Thank you Duncan for the Tom Wilson video link.