Chris Davidson

On 8/7/2020 at 7:50 AM, David Josephs said:

 

 

 

Whole-heartedly agree with your description in the graphic above of no camera start up at extant z133.

Had to figure out(math wise) how it fit pertaining to other WC adjustments.

On 8/27/2020 at 3:01 PM, David Josephs said:

 

 

The "+" is supposed to represent the rear bumper yet we can see this to be above the 427.5 line in the street as opposed to 427.38 (below the line) using the calc

 

 

 

David,

This might be a bit confusing for others so just to clarify, during the re-enactment(don't know how many times) shenanigans  the limo rear end was used as a place marker for JFK's position(Station#) on Elm St. The wiseman Robert West implemented the little "plus" signs so there would be an accurate way for plotting JFK. He knew the WC was up to no good. 

On 8/27/2020 at 6:39 PM, Tony Krome said:

Chris,

The gif directly above would have Hughes standing more towards the centre of Houston than I believe he was. If you look at the frame I posted in the original post, you will also see that the axle gap is very obvious, and that I have been conservative in my angle calculations, in other words, I believe the swing may be wider.

One can squeeze the limo into the Elm St centre lane and ignore Truly's comments, disregard the repeated re-enactments whereby the limo stand in vehicle originates from Position A, and determine alternate reasons why we don't see the Zapruder turn onto Elm. Then there's the Towner splice and the bizarre jerky Dorman film, which I don't believe for a minute that it was actually the way she filmed it. You mentioned shenanigans. What I believe they did with Dorman is the same thing they did with Zapruder. What we see, in certain sections of film, is the zoomed in version, which effectively blanks out the broader view. The evidence for this, is in the Zapruder testimony ... if you read it very closely.

As for Truly lying about the wide turn as a coverup? As DJ pointed out, it was an impromptu comment. Truly may have been coerced into falling in line with the Baker story, but that comment about the Elm St turn was legit. 

 

Tony,

How do you take the axle gap path, continue it towards the Truly abutment (ending up approx 1 inch away according to Truly) then have the limo front end in the orientation/angle with regards to the first lane divider on Elm St that we see in Towner?

Can you show us the rest of the axle gap path and have it continue on to that first lane divider?

I mentioned previously about the after splice which aligns JFK's head with the corner of the TSBD.

Now extend a LOS from the tree through PositionA and back to Towner's filming location or closely thereto.

On 8/11/2020 at 7:34 PM, Tony Krome said:

Below is a Dorman collage with an overlay from the SS re-enactment.

This angle gives you an idea on the distance from the Towners to the motorcade as described in the previous post. A good 20 feet or even more.

Also shows how wide they took that corner. I placed the overlay there to depict the Queen Mary with axle gap as it traversed Station C, so you need to place the JFK limo 5 feet in front of that.

 

The relationship of the cycle cops to the limo front end(flashing red lines) at least at this point in the Dorman film. Matches the plotting laid out by Robert West fairly well. imo

Items to keep in mind:

1. What did West use to plot JFK's position in the limo around the Elm St turn. 

I vote for the missing part of the original Z film since "bulls--t" the Towner film was undiscovered at that time.

See Mack below for Towner comments. Obviously someone did some splicing early on, without the Towners knowledge.  

2. A splice doesn't necessarily mean the limo was redirected through Position A, it could indicate a longer period of time expired between the splices than we are led to believe.

3. If Truly was lying, his wide turn scenario could be a cover for the extended time lost between the splices.

4. After the first splice, JFK's head is aligned with the TSBD corner. Syncing purposes.

5. Information from Gary Mack:
In reply to your questions, the camera original Towner film has one splice about 2/3 of the way through the limo turn onto Elm Street. Since the film was never examined by government investigators, the splice was first noticed by Robert Groden, who served as a consultant to the HSCA photo panel in 1978.
From what Tina and Jim Towner told me over the years, they had no knowledge of how or when that splice was made. What is known is that the film was developed for them by The Dallas Morning News within a few days of the assassination; available records suggest the film was never seen by investigators until the HSCA. The only other time the film was out of the Towner’s possession was when LIFE magazine borrowed it from them in 1967 for publication in their November issue about Kennedy assassination photographers.

6.Sounds like the old Kodak/Jamieson shenanigans.

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Tony,

How does this path compare with the axle gap?

The path being closely representative of Robert West's plotting of JFK's position within the limo every 25ft, along with where the Towner film has the limo crossing the first lane marker on Elm St and Bell's LOS aligning the drivers side limo front corner with the TSBD corner.

 

 

Towner background stabilized.    

I stop the clip at the approx location where it ends in the above gif.

The first frame in this gif is when Betzner snaps his photo. To sync, look at the position of Jim and Tina's feet in Betzner.

Refer to the previous gif which shows Jim sliding his feet back together after taking his photo, which occurs before Betzner's photo.

About the time of Betzner's photo, Tina begins rotating her body as she pans the limo moving past her.

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Tony,

How does this path compare with the axle gap?

The path being closely representative of Robert West's plotting of JFK's position within the limo every 25ft, along with where the Towner film has the limo crossing the first lane marker on Elm St and Bell's LOS aligning the drivers side limo front corner with the TSBD corner.

 

 

In Dorman, it looks like the cycle cops start their turns between the last two lane dividers on Houston St.

On 8/9/2020 at 12:02 AM, Tony Krome said:

Note below how Mr. Tyler manages to position the JFK limo into the Elm St centre lane in his impressive Motorcade 63 work.

If we overlay a vehicle, in this case the JFK limo with exposed rear axle, over the top of Mr. Tyler's Queen Mary, we find that the "axle gap" would not have been visible in the Hughes film frame.

The left side of the picture below shows the angle needed to expose the gap.

We know the Queen Mary tracked the JFK limo approximately 5 feet off the rear bumper, so it follows the JFK limo would have strayed into the Elm St RH lane as Truly described.

 

Tony,

How does this path compare with the axle gap?

The path being closely representative of Robert West's plotting of JFK's position within the limo every 25ft, along with where the Towner film has the limo crossing the first lane marker on Elm St and Bell's LOS aligning the drivers side limo front corner with the TSBD corner.

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

It looks like PM has a camera that has flashed.  I would like to get your opinion on that.  Is there something going on here that explains the circles of light as something other than a camera?

 

John,

The outer lighter ring which extends around the head/arms of PrayerPerson is the area I selected using Photoshop to lighten the image. The far left image(without the lightened circle) is the original frame before the enhancements.

There are three separate frames in that previous gif, the first frame in each is the original unenhanced frame.

The white object being held is anyone's guess. Camera, coffee mug etc, etc

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I would have to know Duncan McRae to make judgment on him. Chris Davidson is being fooled by what appears to be a lovely woman's face. I happen to agree with him that -- after his filtering of the image -- it appears there is a lovely woman’s face in it.

 

I wasn’t fooled at all. That is your mis-characterization of what I said after I ran the “shadow contrast and tonal curve” filters and stated “It looks like a woman to me.”

I did not, nor have I ever declared it was a woman. Big difference.

There were two frames in which the filter was applied one was more blurry than the other.
The more blurred frame(after applying the filter) was the one in which I made the comment about looking like a woman.
The other frame (also with the filter applied) was the one that Duncan enlarged, which is the one you are referring to and I have never said that frame looked like a woman regardless of whether they depicted the same person.

This is the same crap I went through with others and previously had to correct them.

You agreed with me that it looked like a woman’s face because the Darnell frames had not yet been discovered by Robin Unger and there was nothing else to compare the Wiegman frames to as they were the best quality frames available at the time.

If anybody wants confirmation to what I have stated above ask John Iacoletti (I believe he is still a forum member here) as we went through the same BS on Duncan’s forum. John did a little research and validated what I just described.

So, in the future, please don’t drop my name unless you have the correct information.

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Another big Trump supporter...birds of a feather.

How can these millions of evangelicals see these truly immoral, even perverted and completely hypocritical scandals over and over and over again involving their leaders and not see their whole organization is corrupted like this?

And how they are constantly being played like dupes into sending these so called spiritual leaders their money ( for years ) and even doing their bidding in voting for whomever they tell them to vote for ( always Republicans and of course Trump ) who is as amoral sexually as their leaders are?

It's like these millions of blind followers like being duped and used year after year after year by their corrupted leaders.  Isn't it a mental illness to allow oneself to continue to be used and controlled like this?

Jim and Tammie Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Haggard, etc., etc..

 

Joe,

Well put.

The apple doesn't fall far from the presidential tree.

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Help me out a minute, Chris.

Am I seeing that the red arrow in the left series of frames indicates the SECOND head shot, at/near the Altgens location?

Or am I missing the point?

Mark,

The red arrows sync the same events in both films.

The first red arrow (frame1) is Toni Foster (I believe that's her) and her forward step to a widened step.

The second red arrow is Jackie's hand position in relationship to JFK's head.

I recommend looking closely at the plat plotting I provided and where the LOS's from the Z/Bronson pedestals intersect crossing Elm St. That's where frame 1 begins.

In the gif, 24 Z frames = 19 Bronson frames

The ratio should be 18.3/12

An error tolerance of 1Bronson frame = 1.525 Z frames

On 8/11/2020 at 2:43 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Maybe someone else can do the math now that they know what Bronson's frame rate was.

After you do the math and realize Z needs more frames to fulfill its part of the ratio, you can view both films concurrently at their respective speeds (Z is a little under 19fps in this gif) and imagine adding back some frames to slow down our background jogger:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gBc4ceBDHGpRd_btku-JFercqiUla2KJ/view?usp=sharing

Once you have determined the difference of how many frames should have elapsed among two films with a common occurance, using their respective fps rate, move on to plotting the comparative film.

Hi Chris,

Welcome to the forum.

Here is a link to an informative discussion about the puddle.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9768-blood-in-dealey-plaza/?do=findComment&comment=402521

And, some Darnell footage which shows the puddle at lower left on the sidewalk:

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

 

 

 

 

Maybe someone else can do the math now that they know what Bronson's frame rate was.

12 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Now compare his jogging speed to Z's version when this is played at the correct frame rate.

A closer look will also reveal he is bringing his right leg forward initally, followed by left and back to right.

When you view Z, notice what leg is moving forward when he first enters the frame.

Besides that problem, it's a hint on what will lead to a more keyed sync point among the two films if you don't figure it out beforehand.

 

22 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

David,

 Using the previous post and real frame count,  transpose Mandel's frame count description of his last two shots and work backwards from extant z313.

Tim's overall average of .174ft per frame x 74 frames = 12.876ft is still close enough to fulfill Brehm's distance estimate.

74 frames +/- 1 frame is an important aspect of this. More to come on that.

On 8/3/2020 at 2:16 PM, Chris Davidson said:

 A 18.3fps film with frames removed via a slowdown by the limo.

The following insight provided:

.3ft (3.74mph) per frame /.18ft(2.24mph) per frame = 1.66… / 1 ratio

1.66 - 1 = .66frames

4frames + .66 = 4.66 frames

3.5ft / 4.66 frames = .751ft per frame

.751 x 18.3 = 13.744ft per sec /1.47(1mph) = 9.35mph

9.35mph x (18/18.3) = 9.2mph

9.2mph = ITEK = PAYDIRT

.3 / 1.666... = .18

.66... x 1.5 =1

 

2.24mph / 7.47mph = .3 x (3.33…) = 1 whole frame

3.33 frames - 1frame = 2.33frames

18.3-2.33 frames = 16fps = PAYDIRT - Premature to assume that the speed reduction ratio translates as the same fps reduced ratio, at this time.

 

 

Let me account for the total of 1.66 frames that so prominently shows up at the ITEK bump using what's been presented so far.

Remember, I started the frame removal at extant z291 = 22 frames short of extant z313.

22 real frames x 3.3333 limo slowed frames = 73.3333 total frames

22.5 real frames x 3.333 limo slowed frames = 74.999 total frames

74.999-73.333 = 1.66.. frames = Itek match.

It's important to understand this as it will help you realize the ratio being used for frame removal along with real total frames for a specific span.

Here's further proof of this from Tim's paper in the form of total time.

4.1sec x 18.3fps = 75.03 frames

Added on edit: This is all based on +/- 1frame

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

That's not what I was geting at.

If  Z, Muchmore? , Nix and Bronson were all running at the same frame rate, then the same frame removal sequence would have been in order.

But, if there was a film that was shot at a different frame rate, that would be a more difficult task to complete especially with moving objects in relationship to other moving objects.

Compare speeds of our jogging man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426317

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426644

 

 

Now compare his jogging speed to Z's version when this is played at the correct frame rate.

A closer look will also reveal he is bringing his right leg forward initally, followed by left and back to right.

When you view Z, notice what leg is moving forward when he first enters the frame.

Besides that problem, it's a hint on what will lead to a more keyed sync point among the two films if you don't figure it out beforehand.

56 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Here is the same scene without 313 and after....   are either of these telling you anything to solidify you ongoing work?

 

 

 

That's not what I was geting at.

If  Z, Muchmore? , Nix and Bronson were all running at the same frame rate, then the same frame removal sequence would have been in order.

But, if there was a film that was shot at a different frame rate, that would be a more difficult task to complete especially with moving objects in relationship to other moving objects.

Compare speeds of our jogging man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426317

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426644

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

z313 - 48 = 265 - 74 = 191 = 170 feet from ??? (Zap or TSBD?) seem slike the "from TSBD measurements"

313 - 191 = 122 frames = 90 feet (260 shot 3 minus 170 shot 2) = .738 feet/frame x 18.3 = 13.5 feet per second = 9.2 mph

What is not mentioned are the numerous other locations on which shots possibly occur. You'll see on the bottom page of notes that NPIC was just as confused as to how LIFE determined the starting frames for shots #1, & #2...  Offered are 190, 206, 213, 242, & 264... appears Mandel is describing LIFE's conclusions... 

More importantly NPIC asks:... WHY 18 FPS AND NOT 16 FPS.... the actual speed setting on the camera... which can easily switch to 48fps while filming
(see images at bottom of post) 

The 2nd page of the NPIC notes I added gives you some idea of the "working backward to find a solution that fits" approach to FBI work which in turn directly matches the new PLAT with the Shaneyfelt frame numbers next to dots.... in a standard move... the board starts at frame 188 despite them having made such a big deal of Position A, Z161, 166, 168 & 171...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree that Mandel was supporting the TSBD scenario.

Even with that said, go back to the early SS/FBI plat of Dec5, 1963.

Run the 74 frames forward from where I determined Station# 3+81.3 lands and where do you end up:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=392129

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=330783

Now continue on with the 48 frames that fill approx z291-z313.

It's not necessary(imo) to implement 48fps slo-mo into the equation anymore.

The same (extra frames) result was the limo slowing down/instantaneous stopping and extra frames created by its limited speed.

Tim has shown with the mere removal of those excess frames the headturns are impossible.

"Based on 18fps as reported in Life Magazine" from graphic above has to be based on Mandel's article.

Anytime someone quotes specific frame totals, I'm all ears.

I believe it was in 1959 that the changeover from 16fps to 18fps was approved.

So, even though the 16fps designation remained on the camera's, it wasn't necessarily a reflection of it's stock speed.

P.S. "All ears" has more frame sync's to add to this recent revealation that I'm sure you'll enjoy, just hang in there.

3 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

What film is this gif taken from?

That is the Bronson film.

On 8/7/2020 at 4:32 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Sorry If I wasn't more clear on what the gifs represent.

The previous two gifs concern only Glover and her jogging cohort in the background. Comparison purposes only, for what's coming up.

That which relates to the current excision of frames discussion.

 

 

Look for her running cohort among the branches:

11 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Let's add Charles Brehm for help with some of the distance.

Tim's average true speed(2.33mph + 2.06 + 2.13) for the limo from extant z291-z317 = .174ft per frame

Starting with Z291 to z313 = 22frames

I'll use 48 frames(the reason in next post) as my real total frame count between z291-z313

.174ft per frame x 48 frames = 8.35ft

8.35ft + 2.379ft(plotting of headshot farther West down Elm, until Specter moves it that distance farther East and it's labeled as extant z313) = 10.729ft

LIsten to Brehm and count the shots starting slightly before z291.

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Mandel from Life magazine Dec6, 1963 will give you an idea of the version he was viewing.