Chris Davidson

23 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Let's try to take these one by one.

Out of curiosity, let's say the alleged Sitzman film had slightly more color saturation than Zapruder's, or slightly more image bleed into the sprocket holes, or slightly more camera jiggle. How would the forgers account for variations like that?

 

Let me show you just another example of what you seek.

Extant Z212 was supposed to be a combination of two frames, one on top and one on the bottom because damage was done to the film at some point.

That's a great explanation until you  re-align the stationary objects.

The tree, Rosemary Willis but Robert Croft is missing something.

He is missing something that should appear in the lower MAIN frame.

It's really not incumbant upon me to provide the method by which the alterations took place. Only to show that they are present.

Should the ground color saturation appear the same underneath Croft's missing feet in extant z212, as it does in extant z166, which is where I took the inset from?

You see, that would only be a 2.5sec difference between the two frames.

So, putting this in perspective:

You have (at the least) a compound problem not including the 1.3° rotation that was more than likely started at this SPLICE because of what was going to be corrected as the film advanced toward the head shots/limo stop.

Compound usually means at least two.

In this instance, either two or more films or the same film with alterations in essence creating another film.

Pick your poison!!!!

A match is between the cycle headlight and curbline, both occurring in the main frame and between the sprocket holes.

The only way this is possible is if the second cycle is directly behind the first, which he is not.

The cop cycle in front has his fender poking up just above the limo(red arrow) which shows the relationship between  fender, curbline and headlight.

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Using only film editing technology available in November 1963,

What was the earliest date at which a non Zfilm was compared to the extant Zfilm by an entity other than the government?

And, when was the first time a non-connected (influenced) government entity saw the extant Zfilm?

can anyone reproduce what Chris appears to claim was done to create the extant Zapruder film:

If I shoot a rifle into the air, it doesn’t necessarily mean I was aiming at someone.

seamlessly edit together three different 8 or 16mm films of a moving vehicle shot from different lines of sights into one new film,

One film altered from it’s original state would also constitute a different film/s.

in a way that accounts for minute changes in point of view and goes virtually undetectable for decades?

Splices have not been undetectable for years, just mis-interpreted.

I personally would love to see the results.

You’ve already been shown some of the results.

Try reserving your pre-conceived notions about what wasn’t possible, then what’s left, is quite probable.

For instance, the main frame and sprocket image area in this previously provided example:

 

Answers above in red text.

P.S. The math doesn't lie, you just need the proper conversions and equations.

The variation starts at Station# 2+00.
The parallel track is 100ft from Station 2+00 to 3+00 (extant Z133) = 208 frames
The altered(forwarded) track is 100ft @166frames

Relink in case you forgot from what document you saw the 100ft/166frame split:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CiFoD500L2lnrkEPnWZ4RTgZk6hdLyfT/view?usp=sharing

100ft/208frames = .48ft per frame
100ft/166frames = .60ft per frame
                                .12ft per frame difference created by a 42 frame total difference.

Towner’s line of site plotted to the signal light post in the background crosses Station# 2+00.  Then connect back to the Z pedestal.
Common landmark among both filmers.
It’s also where they start the cycle cop pre-limo tracking coverage.
Look closely and you can see his cycle being traversed by Z’s LOS at bottom and the signal light post above.
His body is actually one frame from reaching the traversing lines.
That signal light-post was surveyed in by Robert West in a completely separate document which placed it in line with the CriminalCourts building corner and 2ft in from the curb.

On 10/15/2021 at 8:55 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Backfill #2:

Myers frame rate for Towner 8mm camera = 22.8fps for his"frame x frame" syncs to work

Zapruder frame rate for 8mm =18.3fps

Towner extant frames according to Myers = 167

167/22.8 = 7.324 sec

167/18.3 = 9.125sec

                    1.8sec x 18.3fps = 33frames = Myers backfill below +/- 1 frame

 

P.S. Towners camera did not have a setting for 24fps

Look no further for a distance given that can be used to tie together Myers and the WC relating to dealing with more than one film.

In this instance, a contiguous film starting with 208 frames.

.12ft x 208 frames = 24.96ft

.12ft x 18.3fps(1sec) = 2.196ft per sec/1.47(1mph) = 1.493mph

It's much easier dealing with this sh_t from a macro instead of micro perspective.

Unfortunately, all the previous work had to be completed from within.

My image hosting site is having problems, so it's Google Drive links for now.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kDgm2NpbFxgjwYyq9BA2keE0suLyK95V/view?usp=sharing

On 10/14/2021 at 4:19 AM, David Josephs said:

Sorry to bother Chris…. Wouldn’t a camera back by the fence need a difference focal length to match the image size of the closer Zap camera at a higher zoom… OMG… 

Does that account for the zoom in after the 207 splice? The switch to the other film taken at 48 fps as well?

Allow me to answer this way:

Imagine that the spliced extant z212 frame(supposedly 212 is the bottom part and 208 the top) was actually two 1/2 frames from two different films.

And, when they were filming Shaneyfelt and cohort upon the pedestal, that other film was from a location/LOS similar to the person filming Shaneyfelt.

We then needed to keep our 1.3° to 3.13°(street slope) angle rotation relationship.

Scale it and move the top half (supposedly extant 208) down to accommadate for the parallax effect.

What would it look like:

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I think this forum needs to be renamed. Rather than the Education Forum, it now seems to be the Speculation Forum.

 

Two separate (8mm 16 and/or 18fps) cameras shooting a partial overlap of the same footage.

The same frame rate is necessary for a "frame x frame" sync according to Myers.

The frame rate is 22.8fps/16(1.42x faster than rated) or 22.8fps/18(1.266x faster).

I have shown you partially(purposely) why the frame rates were increased.

These two cameras did/do not possess that fps capability.

Please find a probabilities expert and ask them what the odds of this previous scenario are? SLIM AND NONE

There is no speculation.

There is the realization that the WC/FBI/SS etc... and Myers knew exactly what happened and from there created an alternate reality.

So, I will not be wasting any more of my time with your speculations.

It's onward with more revelations.

A much wiser use of my time.

21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Which is why this paragraph from Myer's "frame for frame" sync study is one of the most important in the entire document:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wxBvFXRuh0THH_ATp_6LwOqqClLuP6JT/view?usp=sharing

Because he shows you not where the hypothetical Z118 resides.

He shows how many frames he had to remove(33 + 42 + 42) from the real Zfilm for it to reside there.

His method of backfilling.

Their are two more backfilling confirmations within this paragraph, one of time and the other distance, but I'll wait until this is clear to those following to sync them for you.

 

 

Backfill #2:

Myers frame rate for Towner 8mm camera = 22.8fps for his"frame x frame" syncs to work

Zapruder frame rate for 8mm =18.3fps

Towner extant frames according to Myers = 167

167/22.8 = 7.324 sec

167/18.3 = 9.125sec

                    1.8sec x 18.3fps = 33frames = Myers backfill below +/- 1 frame

P.S. Towners camera did not have a setting for 24fps

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Once that sinks in, apply more "outer" frame bracketing from above:

For instance, the analagous extant pre-limo footage consists of 132 frames.

132 + 117 (33+42+42) = 249

 

 

 

And, if you want to add more of the  "CoverYourA_s"  pre-assassination frames besides the 132 (cycle cop) frame segment, look no further than the Kodak report:

Once again, 132 + 117

Which is why this paragraph from Myer's "frame for frame" sync study is one of the most important in the entire document:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wxBvFXRuh0THH_ATp_6LwOqqClLuP6JT/view?usp=sharing

Because he shows you not where the hypothetical Z118 resides.

He shows how many frames he had to remove(33 + 42 + 42) from the real Zfilm for it to reside there.

His method of backfilling.

Their are two more backfilling confirmations within this paragraph, one of time and the other distance, but I'll wait until this is clear to those following to sync them for you.

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

"or am I mucking this all up… lol"

No, your comprehension skills are quite stellar.

Now that you have this concept more resolved, let me backfill some more for you. All based on 18.3fps.

The WC retarded their frame count at the beginning and used StationC for their adjusted beginning.

You can fill in the total missing frame count from the beginning by using the "hide in plain sight" frame designations.

133 - 166 - 208 - 250

133 +  33 +  42 +  42 = 250

604 - 250 = 354

354 = extant z133 - 486.

Actually it's 250.66 missing, but I reserve the right for +/- 1 frame

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CiFoD500L2lnrkEPnWZ4RTgZk6hdLyfT/view?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

 

Once that sinks in, apply more "outer" frame bracketing from above:

For instance, the analagous extant pre-limo footage consists of 132 frames.

132 + 117 (33+42+42) = 249

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

As we discussed many moons ago…. It all hinges on the frame numbers assigned by Shaneyfelt becoming the 2nd legend and the arbitrary assigning of frame numbers starting with 133, which if I understand you was actually frame 207 in the contiguous film.

moving 208 back to where it was actually filmed at extent 133 at 48fps effectively removed the wide turn and that virtual stop with 207 renumbered to 133 and in pops the limo.

At this point, z133, the counter at 18.3 FPS on Zap should be 2’7” from the start of the film and represents frame 208…

or am I mucking this all up… lol

"or am I mucking this all up… lol"

No, your comprehension skills are quite stellar.

Now that you have this concept more resolved, let me backfill some more for you. All based on 18.3fps.

The WC retarded their frame count at the beginning and used StationC for their adjusted beginning.

You can fill in the total missing frame count from the beginning by using the "hide in plain sight" frame designations.

133 - 166 - 208 - 250

133 +  33 +  42 +  42 = 250

604 - 250 = 354

354 = extant z133 - 486.

Actually it's 250.66 missing, but I reserve the right for +/- 1 frame

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CiFoD500L2lnrkEPnWZ4RTgZk6hdLyfT/view?usp=sharing

14 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Which does not include the frames before 133.. the turn… about 85 more frames…

 

 

 

Thanks David,

Let me give you a more precise number for this, in a mild brain-busting manner.

We have a somewhat analagous Towner film (not including total missing frames) to extant Z

We know Z started filming the limo around the Houston/Elm St corner.

Use the 207/208 frame count splice in the context of a film beginning.

Or, use Doug Horne's research and find a block of continuous frames unaccounted for.

Then, subtract 75(see previous postings) from that total.

2ft7inches = 2.5833...ft of 8mm film

80 frames = 1ft of 8mm film

2.5833...ft x 80 = 206.666 total frames

On 10/7/2021 at 10:44 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Now that you know the method by which an 18.3fps original at certain spans becomes a 16fps version, just apply that to the total frame count of 604:

16/18.3 = .875 x 604 = 528.5 fames

604-528.5 = 75.5frames

75.5 - 42(see previous posting for that iteration) = 33.5frames

33.5frames = Myers increased speed of the Towner camera fps for his sync to work, which I have previously shown many times to be B.S. And, does not include the total missing Towner splice frames.

The WC/FBI knew the Z fps rate on Dec6 which is approx 1 1/2 months before Hoover's FBI letter.

They had a shooting sequence film that contained 33 x 18.3fps = 604frames approx

If you understand the 18.3/16fps conversion concept, you can move forward with more frame bracketing combos to arrive at the final destination.

Added on edit: I'm quite sure the Z frame rate was known well before Dec6, 1963. That's just the earliest documentation we have for it.

Back to some more numbers.

One indicator of those 75 excised frames.

Look no further than the frame span from extant Z132/133(splice)-Z207/Z208(splice) = 75 frames

One reason for enlarging would be to accommodate angle changes.

The 3.13° slope of Elm is exactly the angle I used to align this next gif, besides scaling it.

I suggest watching the faint grass&curbline that appears in the re-enactment as the Zfilm disappears.

Then ask why a true grassline/curbline doesn't appear in the reenactment.

Notice JFK's head position/alignment among both frames, along with the other passengers.

On 10/9/2021 at 9:47 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Throw in an example of:

The vertical difference in background objects reflecting the height difference between Shaneyfelt(more than likely) and Zapruder both filming from the pedestal.

 

 

After the Stemmons sign, the re-enactment film is enlarged within one frame(might want to ask yourself why) moving forward at the new size.

Appearing in the enlargement frame is a reminder of the same residual affect from the extant Zfilm.

Or, you can look closely at the gif above using the darkened wall holes from the re-enactment and locate those same dark holes in the extant zfilm.

On 10/7/2021 at 6:42 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Wiegman comes through with flying colors showing us the 2nd cameraman/film, his location

and

 

Moorman will show you the third camera person.

Just look at the same dark objects(close to the same height) which cross both Z and Sitzman's faces.

I believe that is her right hand holding her camera up to her face.

My guess is there is a 1.3° camera angle difference between them.

A good reason why we never get a clear photo/film footage of them upon the pedestal.

John,

It's best to stabilize the elements within the extant Zfilm first, and then analyze them.

Here's Jackie for you playing at approx 17fps.

It may take a bit of time to load.

On 10/10/2021 at 11:16 AM, John Butler said:

In other words, the cover up plan may have been more complex than people think. 

 

 

Early on, and in more ways than one.

Curbline rotation again.

A common theme occurring among the extant zfilm and its recreation/reenactments?

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

 It is still in the time that Zapruder and Sitzman are on the pedestal. 

 

Right you are.

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

In other words, the cover up plan may have been more complex than people think. 

 

 

 

The location of the person filming, who films Shaneyfelt up on the pedestal.

Does that location look familiar Mr Wiegman?

I believe some obstacles had to be considered in the final product.

11 hours ago, John Butler said:

Anyway, thanks for this interesting idea.  Can you develop this for other film sequences?

 

It is Wiegman 308 which occurs 44 frames after the Wiegman/Z sync of extant Z447.

44/24fps = 1.83sec x 18.3fps = 33.5frames(sound familiar)

Z447 + 33.5 = extant Z481

Extant Z481 = five frames before extant Z stops filming.

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

You have your second camera man high up as Zapruder is.  Was there a wall back there to stand on?  Its not real apparent in other films and photos?

 

 

 

Throw in an example of:

The vertical difference in background objects reflecting the height difference between Shaneyfelt(more than likely) and Zapruder both filming from the pedestal.

And, just as it's impossible for the curb angle differences above, it therefore would be for a lamp-post "between the sprocket holes" too: