Chris Davidson
-
Posts
4,346 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Chris Davidson
-
-
On 11/22/2018 at 7:59 PM, Rodney Rivers said:
The 58min53sec to the 59min17sec mark, states it brilliantly.
-
Ballistically speaking, it is 125ft (straight line) back to the County Records Building Corner from the limo location Euins refers to.
The CRB rooftop is 100ft high.
Adjusting for the elevation change down to Z133 and the 3.27ft bullet elevation location on JFK's back, the triangle would look like this:
It would be a nice alternative to the TSBD snipers nest.
-
According to Euins, his location and pointing out the limo location when the first shot was fired.
This is approx 5ft(JFK's position) prior to Z133.
It is between where the Towner film ends and Z begins.
-
JFK back shot angle description starting at the 1hour2min50sec mark.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/
-
On 6/29/2016 at 8:35 AM, Chris Davidson said:
Chris' dress shirt collar = 1.875" vertical length-back of neck span
I am the same height as JFK = 6' 1/2" = 72.5inches
Sitting down(measured by my wife) from my rear end up to the top of my dress shirt collar is 28 7/8inches = 28.875"
28.875" - 1.875"(collar length) = 27"
27" = rear end to bottom of shirt collar.
27" - 4"(Magic Bullet Program) = 23"
Chris' top of collar = 28.875" - 5.75" (shirt bullet hole location) = 23.125"
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.
-
3 hours ago, John Butler said:
Chris,
Can you explain for me how interlaced frames from analog TV got into a 60's era film? Is this a product of Groden's work? Or, someone else? How does that occur? Doesn't this require after the fact manipulation of the taken film?
Stock in those days was celluloid or plastic? Does interlacing occur while the film is being made or added afterwards? How's that mix with interlaced analog TV signals in a amateur film? Someone has manipulated this film when?
This is a problem for me since I started looking at Groden's films. I have speculated military photographers film blended into the assassination films. Any advice or help on this would be appreciated.
I'm sure Ron would agree that anyone makes more sense than me since I have no credibility.
This will explain it much better than I can:
-
2 hours ago, John Butler said:
Chris,
I might understand what you are saying if you would explain what you are talking about to someone who doesn't know that much about video or film techniques
Dealing with interlaced and progressive frames is beyond my pay grade. I just assumed this was a transparent or opaque image formed by one image overlaying the other.
This is from Groden's DVD. I can't see Robert Groden faking an image or using a technique that fakes an image. I can see photo editors of the time doing it. In my mind this is just another of the many mistakes the photo editors made in editing the assassination films and photos.
Why interlacing is used in television?"Designed for the analog NTSC television system, interlaced scanning uses two fields to create a frame. One field contains all the odd lines in the image, the other contains all the even lines of the image"This is a note I found on the internet. This notes makes some sense.Are you saying these interlaced images are analog TV images? Particularly, the type used in the 1960's. And, when deinterlaced form opaque images?Can you explain why this frame and others are interlaced analog TV video.Here is another odd photo frame involving Phil Willis. Because of this photo I call Willis the flat-headed see-through man.
Can you explain what went wrong here. Particularly, the flat head? It looks like it has been cut off.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.
-
4 hours ago, John Butler said:
Since I mentioned it, here is the altered frame from the John Martin film showing the motorcycle helmet of the policemen that is see through. You can capture other frames where this phenomenon is observed. The question is why were these frames altered?
I hadn't noticed before that there is a babushka women in the frame. What does that make? 14?
Chris has posted some interesting films supposedly stabilized for better use. The problem is that they are much shorter than the originals therefore a lot of information is lost.
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.
-
On 11/6/2018 at 2:36 PM, Chris Davidson said:
Hughes Stabilized.
Main&Houston:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OS3lWWUZad1VYakk/view?usp=sharing
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.
-
2 hours ago, Michael Cross said:
Only if he was shot from directly in front. If you define front as anything forward of a 90 degree line extending from both sides of the center of JFK's head, there are hundreds of locations mathematically (in degrees) that work without hitting the follow up car. Or Jackie.
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
-
1 hour ago, John Butler said:
Here's something maybe no one else has noticed. In Chris' Bell frame the limousine moves from that position on Elm to the position under the overpass in Unger's frames but, the motorbike cops do not move. They are stationary. They are not moving as shown in McIntyre.
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
-
2 hours ago, Michael Cross said:
But no white car here?
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
-
On 5/29/2018 at 8:01 PM, Linda Giovanna Zambanini said:
She's the same lady as in the '46 photo. She has the same dark coloring around her eyes/upper cheeks (rosacea?) Just seen from a different angle. While age may be one factor in causing jowls, i'm sure genetics and obesity can be other factors. She's obviously seriously overweight - best seen from the side view in the '46 photo. The '46 other photo is labeled and she's Mrs. R.E. Sanders. Her husband , Robert E. "Bob" Sanders was a longtime teacher at Crozier and her son Robert E. Sanders Jr. graduated from there in '47. Her son and daughter, Susan Jane Sanders, (who attended Woodrow Wilson HS) look like her. Sorry, Chris, I still believe it's her. If you're convinced it's not her then do some digging on Ancestry.com etc... and find a older "Mrs. R.E. Sanders" who lives in the vicinity of Crozier.
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
Swan-Song -- Math Rules
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
The shorted distance difference(inside tire radius measurement) used by Myers (via the Towner sequence) of approx 24.62ft / (3.294ft per sec = (the WC CE884 161-166 entry)) = 7.47 seconds.
Myers accommodated for this with his bogus frame rate of 22.8 for Towner which allowed him(167frames/22.8fps) = 7.32seconds.
A 15/100sec or 1/2ft difference. In essence, a match.
This is the method used by Myers to sync with the BS data created by the WC.
False data that syncs.
No-one could create Myers multi-film sync project (including him) unless they knew the truth beforehand. IMO
The CE884 initial entry has always been the key.
I just tried to "break it down" and "tie it together" while presenting it in a way that was somewhat digestable.