Chris Davidson

You need to reconsider your sync calculations:

The WC synced the subterfuge using .9ft per frame(z161-z313) as their average 136.1ft/152frames. This is rather obvious in their initial listings(z161-166)and(z168-171) from both CE884's where the limo traveled a total of .9ft The total distance span of the early SS plotting vs the later Itek findings was approx 5.409 ft. At .9ft per frame using the WC average, 5.409ft/.9ft per frame would amount to approx 6 frames. There is quite a bit more to all of this, but hat's enough hi-jacking for now. My apologies to Kevin.

The simple fact that there are two versions of CE884 should be quite troubling to most. The fact that the speed difference between these two CE884 versions(1.5mph) for a short span of frames matches the Itek speed difference in sets of four frames between each other, is even more troubling as the WC has the limo traveling 2.24 and 3.74 mph It's not only the mph that are important as the limo was not traveling anywhere near those documented speeds in the extant film at the designated frames, it is the missing adjusted distance too.

Then refer back to the early SS survey of Dec5, 1963 where it was determined JFK was shot, plotted at street elevation 418.35. Later moved to 418.48 by the WC. Creating a distance difference of 2.379ft. We now have a distance difference of approx 2.379ft + 3.03ft (Itek) = 5.409ft between the initial SS plotting and the later Itek plotting of the extant z313 headshot with the WC in between.

Apply the Shaneyfelt vertical 10" adjustment to the z313 survey and what we get is the Itek affirmation of approx 3ft short of extant z313.

Add to it the Shaneyfelt 10" vertical adjustment which should have indicated a distance traveled on CE884(z161-166) of 15.25ft instead of .9ft:

Next is the distance difference:

Let me guess, Gerald Ford the advisor to the HSCA was responsible for telling Itek not to use the standard frame count. There are a number of clues to what this is all about. First the speed difference in a four frame span between two sets of four frame spans.

I just relieved the burden. Read previous postings. Frame removal is alteration. Prove me wrong by supplying a Nix version that contains the extra Itek frames. Been waiting for years and no-one has obliged.

Another way of looking at the Itek/Nix missing frames is just to add it to the back end (instead of the front end) after z313. Assume the Nix/Z sync does start at extant Z291. Sort of the way Breneman and Dino described the extra missing head shot frames. Notice that Itek did not assign frame numbers to the report, they only specify it was the frames prior to the extant headshot. Such as 291-319 instead of 285-313.

And who did a study of the Nix film back in 1967? The study they completed consisted of a version that possessed 28 frames prior to the extant z313 frame. Meyers starts syncing Nix to Z starting at Z291. 313 - 291 = 22 frames. Where are the Nix frames used by Itek that are absent from every Nix version in existence today? Once you find those then a new conversation can ensue.

Fairly certain Breneman knew nothing of Dino/NPIC when the interview took place in 1978. https://vimeo.com/964934452?share=copy

Recognize the conflation:

Mr. SPECTER. At any time in the course of the examination of the Zapruder film, was the original of that movie obtained? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. On February 25, Mr. Herbert Orth, who is the assistant chief of the Life magazine photographic laboratory, provided the original of the Zapruder film for review by the Commission representatives and representatives of the FBI and Secret Service here in the Commission building. Mr. SPECTER. And what was the reason for his making that original available? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Life magazine was reluctant to release the original because of the value. So he brought it down personally and projected it for us and allowed us to run through it several times, studying the original. Mr. SPECTER. Was that because the copies were not distinct on certain important particulars? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The original had considerably more detail and more there to study than any of the copies, since in the photographic process each time you copy you lose some detail.

I didn't know the WC was formed before the film was damaged.

Besides those. Look at the top edge of the sign. The splice comes in at a different height.

Strangely cropped similar to what is seen in the extant Z film around the headshot. Sorry, but this is what I meant to respond with a "yes" to. It was the immediate previous post to my "yes" response. Which would mean the same FOV at the beginning of both films, correct? I think you had asked me for footage up the street, so it's unnecessary.

Yes.

Paul, You're absolutely correct. Zoomed and strangely cropped. That's an odd shape for the StemmonsSign corner, especially since both frames were shot with the same camera, from the same location, within months of each other. It's as if some splicing has occurred, based on the black cut lines in that area. imo

Full zoom? Easier to compare extant Z to WC reenactment Z. Triangulation of three stationary objects near the frame edges for comparison. Unless you believe the reenactment was cropped approx 10% for some unknown reason.

I filmed back in 2005. Frame credit below to Rick Janowitz: Maybe you could ask him for some examples. Better quality.