Chris Davidson

Jerry, Apron Man looks like he is clapping quickly. The gentleman next to Apron Mans "clapping speed" looks out of this world. Let me extend this part of the film, so there are more frames to view. Hopefully, there is more clapping provided. Give me a little time to put it together. thanks, chris

Chris, That's a very interesting idea and I'm going to have to think about it for a while. My immediate reaction (and it's definitely open to revision) is that is that a 48 fps film from Zapruder's camera would have been shot at a 1/100 sec shutter speed as opposed to a 1/36 sec shutter speed at 18 fps. It seems to me that there's too much motion blur in the Zapruder frames for the relatively short 1/100 shutter speed. As I said, it's a very interesting thought - and an idea that can actually be tested! Since you're not really concerned about emulsion characteristics or ghost images it would be easy to run some film through a 414PD at 48 fps and see if you can make a plausible 18 fps movie by selectively and periodically deleting frames. Obviously you'd have to set it up right with a moving subject and objects/people moving in the background. (Please - no sleeping cats:>). I suspect it might be impossible to make it look right but it's an easy test and would make a powerful demonstration if you could pull it off. More later. Best to you, Jerry Jerry and all, The best I can do is footage from my digital camera. If you're interested in what the difference looks like, the links are supplied below. A brief description: All 3 are from the same footage. It was shot at 30FPS. I then reduced the FPS to 15 for all of them. The one labeled ORIG is 30FPS to 15FPS. The next one labeled ORIG -1 has every other frame removed. So it consists of frames 1,3,5,7 etc etc. The last one labeled ORIG -2 has every other 2 removed. This consists of frames 1,4,7,10 etc, etc. After looking at these, take a look at the cycle speeds again, using the damaged frames (157 and 207) as the speed increase markers. http://98.155.4.83:8400/57A42/Cycles.flv thanks, chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/23854/ORIG.flv http://98.155.4.83:8400/00E51/ORIG_-1.flv http://98.155.4.83:8400/94C8D/ORIG_-2.flv Chris, I'm definitely not rejecting your idea. It's very suggestive and deserves some serious thought. I have three gut reactions that may or may not be true and could possibly be overcome by other adjustments. First, removing every other frame or every 2nd and 3rd frame is the easy case. It seems to me that an altered film would need to be more lumpy - as Jim noted previously, it seems like what someone would want to eliminate would probably be longer than 1/24th of a second duration. Second, it seems like removing frames speeds up the apparent motion. Wouldn't the limousine have to have been moving really, really slowly to to have every one or two frames removed and still look as slow as it does in real time? Third, in relation to the motorcycles speeding up after the splices - don't they speed up in relation to the other objects in the frame - so their increased speed, for instance, shows them advancing on the limousine? If the increase in speed were due only to deleted frames then it doesn't seem to me they would be closing the distance - the limousine and motorcycles would appear to move faster equally. I repeat, just some quick reactions for your thoughts. I'm really gonna have to puzzle over this one. Best to you, Jerry Jerry, I'm not necessarily saying that this is the exact process that was used. Either 1 or 2 frames at a time. I just introduced the idea so a comparison could ensue. When I asked about the speed of the motorcycles, I should have been more descriptive. Actually, I should have broken the cycle clip into distinct parts. What I'm seeing is a very noticeable speed increase in the panning and inner frame (all elements) movements between the first part and the last. The two gifs running side by side, will give you a better ideal of what I'm describing. Both gifs are set with a .06sec delay between frames. When played back in Quicktime Pro, this equates to 18FPS. Or, play them in 2 separate browser windows simultaneously. chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/95FBB/2A.gif http://98.155.4.83:8400/8317A/3A.gif

Chris, That's a very interesting idea and I'm going to have to think about it for a while. My immediate reaction (and it's definitely open to revision) is that is that a 48 fps film from Zapruder's camera would have been shot at a 1/100 sec shutter speed as opposed to a 1/36 sec shutter speed at 18 fps. It seems to me that there's too much motion blur in the Zapruder frames for the relatively short 1/100 shutter speed. As I said, it's a very interesting thought - and an idea that can actually be tested! Since you're not really concerned about emulsion characteristics or ghost images it would be easy to run some film through a 414PD at 48 fps and see if you can make a plausible 18 fps movie by selectively and periodically deleting frames. Obviously you'd have to set it up right with a moving subject and objects/people moving in the background. (Please - no sleeping cats:>). I suspect it might be impossible to make it look right but it's an easy test and would make a powerful demonstration if you could pull it off. More later. Best to you, Jerry Jerry and all, The best I can do is footage from my digital camera. If you're interested in what the difference looks like, the links are supplied below. A brief description: All 3 are from the same footage. It was shot at 30FPS. I then reduced the FPS to 15 for all of them. The one labeled ORIG is 30FPS to 15FPS. The next one labeled ORIG -1 has every other frame removed. So it consists of frames 1,3,5,7 etc etc. The last one labeled ORIG -2 has every other 2 removed. This consists of frames 1,4,7,10 etc, etc. After looking at these, take a look at the cycle speeds again, using the damaged frames (157 and 207) as the speed increase markers. http://98.155.4.83:8400/57A42/Cycles.flv thanks, chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/23854/ORIG.flv http://98.155.4.83:8400/00E51/ORIG_-1.flv http://98.155.4.83:8400/94C8D/ORIG_-2.flv

Chris, Nice demonstration! Couldn't see it in real time. Frame by frame (without looking at the numbers)I was able to spot it but only because (for my own, strange reasons) I've studied the white paper on the DP infield so I picked up the extra long hop. But even with that knowledge it took me a while. I think it's generally impossible to pick up a missing frame in real time because the duration falls beneath the perception threshold. However, we're studying the film frame by frame where the motion of background objects becomes more apparent if you look closely. It seems to me it would be very difficult to just snip out frames and hope no one noticed the background accelerating. I think you'd have to change the background in the remaining frames in order to avoid the appearance of sudden bursts of speed - but maybe that's where you going with this :>)? Best to you Chris. As always, well done. Jerry Thanks Jerry, Did you ever get a chance to look at this thread? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16361&view=findpost&p=200540 Instead of extracting frames from a film shot at 18 FPS, would the "increase in speed" aspect be more difficult to decipher, if it was originally shot at 48FPS, with frames extracted from that? chris

Hi Jerry, Yes, the clip I provided was unaltered, I just slowed it down a bit for others. I still tend to believe, it is predominately a matter of frame extraction. I would use these two gifs as an example. Can you tell which one has a frame extracted, comparing them to each other. First without looking at the frame numbers and then looking. thanks, chris

Hi Chris. The timestamp on those photos [minus Bell] would they be within 'moments' of the shooting? Do you have any high quality frames from the Towner film for that turn? - lee Lee, I don't know how quickly the cameramen got to those positions. Towner does not show this area because of the crowd in front. Hughes is a better bet, but he is so far away, trying to distinguish anything is pretty much futile. The frame you provided has Sitzman and Beatrice Hester included, if someone knows how long it took for them to move from their knoll positions, would be helpful, but don't count on it. I believe the car in the lower left is closer to a 54 chevy. chris

Governor stabilized. Is there more of a reaction from the governor and Nellie to the 313 shot(see previous gif) or to a shot 7/10 sec later? I think he lost the grip on his hat after the later one. Probably when the wrist was struck. chris

So Far!!! chris

I believe it was determined, the reaction for a gun shot is equal to approx 5-6 Z frames. Please correct me if I am way off the mark. Referring to the bottom red squared times,there is a difference of 7/10 second. Disregard everything else. 7/10 sec = Approx 12-13 Z frames. Headshot at 313, film reaction at Z318, Nix319. 313 + 7/10sec = 325/6 approx. 325/6 + 5-6 Zframes = 331-332 =Nix shoulder dip and Z camera movement. chris

Camera movement of Z. Frames 331-332. Matching his shoulder dipping in the Nix film. chris

Thanks Mark, Actually, I'm not limiting the total shots to 3. At this point, I'm trying to draw a distinction in the time frame given, approx Z313-335, between the descriptions of the 2 shots described as "very close together". I have a few examples from the Z film to provide, also. Z reaction to 313 at frame 318. Nix at 319, from previous gif. chris

Watch Z's movement. This gif consists of a Nix starting frame and equivalent Z frame 331-332. Look at his right shoulder at 331-332. It is dipping down. imo Take a look again at the other stabilization. chris

The cycle cop most closely flanking JFK. Note when he turns his head. First toward JFK? and then away towards the knoll. He is reacting to what Newman is, at that point in time. imo chris

Notice Nix frame 319, then the succeeding camera movement dropping. Is this indicative of a shot at 313? I believe so. chris

David, I chose these descriptions on purpose. Reread George Hickey's: He states "the first shot of the second two". It's wordplay about the shot order. It more than agrees with Bower's. A government agent behind JFK, and a witness with a clear memory. chris

Bill Newman's reaction (cower) at approx 331-332. I do not believe he is reacting to the 313 head shot. It is much too late for a 313 reaction. chris

The "next" shot or the third shot. Not much of a distinction. Sounds like he is describing 2 shots very close together.

Shots Jean Hill in agreement with the SS agents descriptions.

What part of the sequence would this 'second shot" pertain to? chris

Next up.

Thanks Pat, From Landis' description, do you or others believe he is referring to a "second report" as the second of the last two described as "close together" or the second of 1-3? chris

I went back and read some of the descriptions of the shot/head shot/s order. I'm interested in what you think the shot sequence is, pertaining to the descriptions provided. I will mix Nix and Z into this, a little later. thanks, chris

That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations. Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Robert, If there is one frame altered, removed or added, that would constitute alteration. chris