Chris Davidson

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I noticed many different distortions between the two versions of 347. The trunk is stretched in the flower copy. Each copy is rotated to a slightly different axis. It is less than one degree so I can't correct it. Anyone have a program that will allow you to rotate less than one degree?
The entire image has a sort of a crinkle in it. As you flip between photos there is an obvious distortion causing the left side to change it's axis relative to the right side. The two axis meet under Altgens feet. So the curb on the right changes axis compared to the curb on the left side of the image.
 Did the copies you are using come from the internet? I have to wonder if they photographed 347 right off the magazine page. That may explain some of the distortions but not the flower.
 The displaced curb as seen through the side window imo should be a matter of refraction. Curved windows will displace an image. Even a flat window will do it if it is thick enough and you view it from a steep angle to the glass.
A non prescription glass like a window has parallel surfaces. A ray of light hitting the front surface at a 40 downward angle will pass through the glass and hit the back side at the same 40 degrees so no change in the angle of light happens. But as the light passes through the glass at the 40 degree downward angle it travels down and hits the back surface at a lower position. It leaves the glass at the same 40 degree angle but now it is a bit lower than when it hit the front surface. That causes the image you see through the glass to be displaced downward. It is a result of the thickness of the glass and the angle the light enters at.
  A curved window will cause even more displacement. The front and rear surfaces are still parallel but when the light travels down it exits at a point where the curvature of the glass is not at the same angle as where the light entered the front surface. That change of angle mimics a prescription lens that has different front and back curvatures. The result is even more displacement. Actually depending on exactly where the light hits it may cancel out the displacement because every different angle of incidence creates different refractive angles.
The displacement we see in the side window occurs in many frames leading up to 347. If we had the exact curvature and thickness of the side window we could fairly accurately calculate just how much displacement we should see and in what direction from Z's point of view. But we know that the window will displace images and because it happens in many other frames I have to conclude it is most likely due to refraction.
Since we can't find any other copies of Z that show the flower or have the same distortion it is crucial to know how the flower version was obtained. If they did take it right off a magazine page and did not flatten the page out by placing glass over it then there would be distortion. Still does not readily explain the missing flower but would probably explain the distortion. We know how a magazine page is shaped when sitting on a table. The portion near the binding raises up initially then flattens out as it approaches the outer edge. If the trunk occupied the area of the page near the binding and the stretched part of the trunk is at the highest point of the page it would explain the stretched trunk very well.

I showed the Life edition that contains the flower frame. It is the earliest dated (12-14-1963) verifiable material I know of related to the extant zframe we are discussing.

No other source that I've seen contains the flower.

There are no sprocket holes included in the flower frame. If there were, I'm sure the obvious would be revealed.

I'm highly skeptical pertaining to this area.

On 9/6/2021 at 8:33 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Use the frame bracketing concept along with the adjusted distance and apply it to the appropriate frame span.

189.7ft (Mark Tyler z330.4—z447.5) + 10.2 + .9 = 200.8ft
264-79 = 184+/24 = 7.666sec/200.8ft =  17.817mph
331-447 =116/18.3 = 6.338sec/200.8ft = 21.552mph
                                                                       3.735mph

 

btw,

If you want to know how to decipher it from the front end, use Myers: (+/- (1frame))

Wiegman 89 + 23.6(24/18.3)x18(313-331) = 112.6 - 79 (real Wiegman reaction) = 33.6 + Myers start at 246.4 = 280 + 7.77 missing(Bronson 3.8 + 3.97) = Wiegman start at 287.77

15 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

A little bit of rotation difference and a fair amount of distortion. When the flower disappears a darkening of Jackie's right arm occurs. That may be related to the disappearing flower. Nothing else is affected but her arm and the single flower. I guess it could be due to some error in the printing but it is very weird.

Here's a different way of looking at it.

Why was the same frame from two publications of Life Magazine printed at 2 different angles?

In this case, a 1.3° difference.

The misalignment of two curbs(red arrow)shows the difficulties involved when merging/compositing/slicing /dicing/matting/optical printing multiple frames.

The bottom composite(non-Life) just confirms it.

44 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Kudos on that.  How in the world were you able to spot that tiny detail?

All related to research on my limo stop thread. 

Try this one:

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Are both versions of frame 347(with and without the flower) printed in the same issue? I find no flower in the MPI version on Lightbox and no flower in the Official Archives copy. I find no similar image of that flower anywhere in the Z film. Did you take the flower image from a photo of the magazine image? I know many versions of the cover photo of 133a are taken from photographing the magazine laying on a table and that distorts it because they don't have the magazine pressed flat. Still a distortion may erase a flower but it sure isn't going to add a flower! So where that fr 347 with the flower originated from is very important. Very very strange.

Yet, the MPI version is touted as the original Zapruder film. They also say/state that specifically.

It wasn't on the 3rd generation National Archives edition scanned at 6K either.

Why?

Because none of these are original or close enough to the original.

LIFE vs LIFE

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Okay I went back to page one and looked at the composite you have. You hinted that there were things wrong but I did not see the flower disappear at the time. It is very interesting because it does really disappear. The saturation levels are very different but I don't think that would explain it, so it is very interesting.

You said it was a composite of two consecutive frames. So you're saying the MPI image has something added to it's left side for sprocket holes and at the top which reveals the legs of the couple standing back behind Bothun?

Besides the same frame with/without the flower:  

The Life frame should have a small part of the lower sprocket hole showing even with the crop used, unless they manually filled it in.

Just compare it to the layered matching frame(without the flower)beneath it, in the gif previously provided.

The crop at the top of Bothun's head in Life is going to eliminate the couple's legs so no determination on that aspect.

My use of the phrase "composite of two consecutive frames" doesn't exclude the removal of frames in between.

It's just a description of what I'm showing at the present time.

MPI frames are numbered at the end of the DVD "JFK-Image Of An Assassin"

I've already given an example of the Life frame(Easy Like Sunday Morning) from another source other than MPI and the flower is not there.

So, referring to the same frame content, two iterations that match each other and the Life magazine version that doesn't.

The frame numbers are just a diversion.

There is a more egregious example of this involving another pair of frames, in due time because it coincides with the "Unveiling the Limo Stop" thread.

But rest assured, the 347 example is only a part of it.

On 9/10/2021 at 7:03 AM, Chris Davidson said:

"Easy Like Sunday Morning"

Alteration Simplified:

"Easy Like Sunday Morning"

On 9/8/2021 at 10:23 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chris, thank you for this sensible analysis and for not starting with a pre-determined conclusion on the issue. What you've shown here is that like it or not, the Dealey Plaza photo record is self-authenticating.

I understand that many are not interested in doing any of the leg work involved to show the photo record is altered because of preconceived notions, so I'll provide them with an easy example/assignment.

There are two obvious clues why this frame is a composite of at least two consecutive frames in the extant record.

Locate those two consecutive individual frames and the discussion about Z film alteration is finished.

Or,

You could stabilize/sync the two moving films, this one starting four frames after Chris' comparison frames and show how it is humanly possible (when Jackie's elbow hits the trunk lid in Nix with her rear end above the back seat, while looking down at JFK bent over across the back seat) she is able to sit back down in her seat in 6 extant z frames which is less than one third of a second.

Pull out your stopwatches and clock 1/3 of a second.

Next step, find a convertible and plant yourself in Jackie's position while someone pushes you back down towards the seat.

Report your timing results. Still waiting!!! (I've recreated this and 1/3 second is a farce.)

Finally, ask yourself is it a coincidence that the Nix film ends where it ends in this sequence.

Some more food for thought.

If the extant z313 shot was fired at approx z310 = farther distance than the WC determined TSBD sixth floor to be.

z322.875 - z310 = approx 12.875 frames between shots

12.875/18.3 = .703seconds

I gave an example from the Dal-Tex at approx 338ft for ballistic results, somewhere within this topic.

Is the acoustic evidence valid?

I don't know.

But it is surely hard to discount at this time.

On 8/31/2021 at 8:49 AM, Chris Davidson said:

The Bronson frame(previous post) syncs at approx extant z300.

From that point, there are a total of 21 more frames in the Bronson film.

21 x 1.525 = 32.025 frames

Z300 + 32 = z332 equivalent

z332 - 5missing Z frames

Please note in the previous gif provided, the police motorcycles front tire, closing on the limo rear tire towards the end of the Bronson clip.

 

 

 

 

 

The flash in Bronson occurs 15 frames after the Z/Bronson sync at extant z300.

15 x 1.525 = 22.875  zframes

300 + 22.875 = extant z322.875

9 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi Chris, 

My latest thinking is that there is a block of frames removed after Z312 not 313. My reasoning is the apparently natural movement of the fragment emitted from the head shown in subsequent frames and that matching two shots (first rear per Rydberg, second frontal) I know its only 1/18 sec but does that effect your calcs? 

Eddy,

The next shot after the extant 313 shot was fired at the equivalent of approx z322.875, I don't believe there was any reason to remove frames until after that next shot. The limo stop comes closely thereafter.

I base this working within the confines of the Bronson and Wiegman films in regards to timing, which is what these most recent postings are slowly revealing.

The link provided was introduced over three years ago, it's just taken that long to finally put it together in terms of timing.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24596-shooter-location/?do=findComment&comment=369646

The frame removal process(among other methods) is still valid, but that relationship to the headshot occurances came a little later than I previously believed.

On 9/1/2021 at 9:10 AM, Chris Davidson said:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25932-the-motorcade-puzzle/?do=findComment&comment=446130

A different way to look at frame bracketing.

Z313 + (3 + 9 + 5) =z330 + (1 + 16)

                  17             +              17  =    34

       34frames/.3ft per frame(3.734mph) = 10.2ft

10.2ft refer back to pyramid

 

 

Use the frame bracketing concept along with the adjusted distance and apply it to the appropriate frame span.

189.7ft (Mark Tyler z330.4—z447.5) + 10.2 + .9 = 200.8ft
264-79 = 184+/24 = 7.666sec/200.8ft =  17.817mph
331-447 =116/18.3 = 6.338sec/200.8ft = 21.552mph
                                                                       3.735mph

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25932-the-motorcade-puzzle/?do=findComment&comment=446130

A different way to look at frame bracketing.

Z313 + (3 + 9 + 5) =z330 + (1 + 16)

                  17             +              17  =    34

       34frames/.3ft per frame(3.734mph) = 10.2ft

10.2ft refer back to pyramid

14 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Plotting the limo using the Bronson film. 

Equivalent of z308-316 gave an average of .542ft per frame = 6.75mph

Equivalent of z316-325 gave an average of .571ft per frame = 7.11mph

Using those two results and plugging them back in, starting from extant z313 headshot: 

(313-316) 3frames x .542ft per frame = 1.626ft

(316-325) 9frames x .571ft per frame = 5.139ft

1.626 + 5.139 = 6.765ft traveled from extant z313-z325

 

 

 

Refer back to the pyramid which shows the WC adjustments (total11.1ft) added after the extant z313 shot.

11.1ft - 6.765ft = 4.335ft

The graphic below shows the outcome of hitting the brakes at 7.11mph and traveling 4.33ft ultimately coming to a stop.

Reaction time + breaking time = .2559sec

.2559sec x 18.3fps = 4.68 missing zframes

The last frames(motorcycle tire/limo tire) within the Bronson film.

Plotting the limo using the Bronson film. 

Equivalent of z308-316 gave an average of .542ft per frame = 6.75mph

Equivalent of z316-325 gave an average of .571ft per frame = 7.11mph

Using those two results and plugging them back in, starting from extant z313 headshot: 

(313-316) 3frames x .542ft per frame = 1.626ft

(316-325) 9frames x .571ft per frame = 5.139ft

1.626 + 5.139 = 6.765ft traveled from extant z313-z325

The Bronson frame(previous post) syncs at approx extant z300.

From that point, there are a total of 21 more frames in the Bronson film.

21 x 1.525 = 32.025 frames

Z300 + 32 = z332 equivalent

z332 - 5missing Z frames

Please note in the previous gif provided, the police motorcycles front tire, closing on the limo rear tire towards the end of the Bronson clip.

10 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Next, add the "shorted" distance the WC used (.9ft) from CE884 z161-z166 and apply that to the pyramid which brings us to Station# 476.4.

The reason you short a distance in one location, is to accommadate for that real distance in a different location.

 

 

This Bronson gif will help to start identify the removal sequence.

It starts with Tony Glover's legs synced in both films labeled as 1.

The common action on the other end is Jackie's hand position at 20.

The Bronson film ran at 12fps.

There are 19 Bronson frames between the common actions.

19 Bronson frames converted to equivalent Zframes =18.3/12= 1.525 x 19 = 28.975

There are only 24 zframes between the common actions.

28.975 - 24 = 4.975 frame difference

Next, add the "shorted" distance the WC used (.9ft) from CE884 z161-z166 and apply that to the pyramid which brings us to Station# 476.4.

The reason you short a distance in one location, is to accommadate for that real distance in a different location.

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

More of the WC pyramid at the bottom.

If interested, you can compare it to the earlier, less completed version here:

 

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=327981

Using the link above, apply the same distance 10.2ft between the Robert West determined shot at extant z207(Station# 371.1) and the shot #1 official designation(Station# 381.3) to the z313 headshot and move it further down Elm St arriving  at Station# 475.5(see pyramid).

More of the WC pyramid at the bottom.

If interested, you can compare it to the earlier, less completed version here:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=327975

I'll explain the additions slowly, but surely.