Chris Davidson

JFK back shot angle description starting at the 1hour2min50sec mark. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/

Adding to this: JFK's determined head height above pavement = 52.78inches. My shirt collar top to head top = 8.5 inches (wife measured) 28.875" + 8.5" = (37.375 inches = top of my head to sitting rear end.) 52.78" - 37.375" = (15.415" = JFK's rear end above pavement) A shot to JFK = 3.27ft = 39.24" (above pavement) used in WC CE884 all elevation entries. 39.24" - 15.415" = (23.825" = shot location higher than JFK's rear end.) 23.825" + 13.54" = (37.365" = Chris' height from rear end to top of head.) 52.78" - 13.54" = (39.24" = elevation of the back shot above the pavement.) 37.365"(Chris' height from rear end to top of head + 1.875" (Chris' dress shirt collar vertical length - back of neck span) = 39.24"

Rodney, Thank you for posting this video.

John, This DVD sequence of frames includes the Progressive frame you are questioning. Do you see the ghost overlapping white helmet in the non-Progressive frames? Previously, you supplied a frame in which I de-interlaced and matched the result you supplied. I supplied you links for conversion processes. The artifacts you present stem from an (8mm film -18fps) to (30fps) conversion. That's the easiest way I can state it. Good luck.

This will explain it much better than I can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

Frame rate conversion Here is the point where the native frame rate of the film, be it 16 fps, 18 fps, or something else, gets converted to 30 fps. Playing a 16 fps source at 30 fps would make everything happen too quickly. One approach is to duplicate frames until the right speed is achieved. For instance, say one second of film is represented by this sequence of 16 frames, named "A" to "P": A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P can be turned into these thirty frames via duplication such that playback at 30fps takes one second, and the speed of the movie is unchanged: A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P Each frame was duplicated, except for frame "H" and "P", otherwise we would have ended up with 32 frames. Because some frames are duplicated and others aren't, the result will be somewhat uneven speed, a slight stuttering effect. Even if every frame is is duplicated the same number of times, the resulting video is more choppy than what video normally looks like, and is especially noticeable during panning. Another approach is to go ahead and duplicate all 16 frames, resulting in 32, and then playing it at 30 fps. The motion will be about 6% too slow, but will be more smooth. Somewhat more sophisticated, it is possible to blend adjacent frames, weighting the contribution of each based on how close it is in time to the frame which is being synthesized. For instance, if we were simply trying to double the frame rate, we could average together frames A and B producing frame A', and then play them back in A,A',B order. Avisynth offers another option still, the most sophisticated of them all. Often it gives stunning results, but it can also produce noticeable artifacts and occasionally comically bad results. Avisynth can actually analyze each frame and discern objects from other objects based on how they move in relation to the background and each other, and how they occlude other objects. The tool can create a synthetic image part way between two frames in a physically plausible manner. Imagine someone standing still but raising their arm. The blending approach would produce an intermediate frame showing a ghost of the arm in both the before and after positions. Frame interpolation would try to create an image with the arm in a half way between position. Keep in mind that the tool is just shifting around pixels and has no a priori understanding of objects, nor any understanding that the objects are originate from 3D objects projected onto a 2D image. Sometimes the heuristics can't figure out what to do, and it falls back on just doing a blending operation. Objects sometimes have a "halo" of blurred image around moving objects where it has synthesized some background image around a moving object.

You are dealing with Interlaced and Progressive frames. The frame you posted started out as an Interlaced frame. (Left side of graphic.) It was then De-interlaced and saved. (Right side of graphic.) Which matches what you posted. The frame you posted is from Groden's version. Anybody interested in seeing the PROGRESSIVE frame where the cop helmet is not translucent, can view it there.

Nix Stabilized. Main&Houston: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14gfHfZGtYMBgoxQ2_ZejFnEOtfHjRsj3/view?usp=sharing

Hughes Stabilized. Main&Houston: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OS3lWWUZad1VYakk/view?usp=sharing

If interested: http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/ This is not my creation.

Can't travel much slower than this.

Extant Zfilm.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/why-kavanaugh-wasnt-on-trumps-original-lists-and-why-he-was-added.php "Don The Con" setting up his "ace in the hole" once Mueller's report is issued. As for Kavanaugh's debt, no doubt, paid off by the same B.S. shell company structure as "Mushroom Man" used to pay off Stormy and other women. Our "Pssy grabber in chief" day of reckoning is fast approaching.

The only muzzle blast assemblance I've found. This occurs four Bronson frames (1/3 second) after the extant z313 headshot. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xZh5FUEcE9k3vKAAzIgRlW9URBCsfZbc/view?usp=sharing

They are all in motion. Their cycle shadows are seen approaching the lightpost shadow across the roadway. The cycle on the far left has its flasher on too. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19WTp-na4XCRB3qwxVdfg7dh9FGFNR1dq/view?usp=sharing

Bell, a little earlier:

Chin or Clavicle?

PhotoCredit to my brother, Greg. (RIP) Approx across the street from the Z pedestal:

Bell Stabilized: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19WTp-na4XCRB3qwxVdfg7dh9FGFNR1dq/view?usp=sharing

Linda, I wasn't doubting that it was Pauline. I thought she looked quite old for the photos supplied. Checked "Classmates.com" and sure enough she's in both yearbooks. Here's her later affidavit(gives birthdate/place of birth) along with Sarah Stanton's, which confirmed your research for me. Well done and thank you for the info, Chris

Double check according to age please. The only person (imo) that looks close to 36/37 years of age in this photo is the taller woman to Mrs R.E. Sanders left. My wife puts Sanders at 50-60 years old, which I agree with.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/190JzmbnyCNkeLi7VdAAtyKqinCjXzkjK/view?usp=sharing The steps are 7 inches heigh. The steps are 12 inches in depth. The photos are taken approx 75 ft from the front step. My wife is 70 inches tall. I am 72.5 inches tall. I raised my heel up to create an approx 3.5 inch difference between us.

Andrej, When I scale the blocks (337%) to coincide with the Oswald ruler at 100% (each increment representing 1 inch), BWF should be taller.

Andrej, Can you double check the height difference between the top of the (red and green) columns in relationship to the height difference between (PM and Frazier)? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ia6AHXs9NlbXXPeXmz5dXJysiYCKag3C/view?usp=sharing