Chris Davidson

No Chris, The latest frames I posted side x side are the same as in the gif. The side x side frames are not composited, layered or any other combination thereof. They are two individual frames from two versions of the zfilm. The white object cannot be in the same location relative to the limo/Greer's head, while Tony Glover in the background lands where she does, relative to the white object.

Chris, Try this way instead:

More clearly stated, Move the shooter, as he is facing the limo, to the right of the TSBD and to the right of the limo. The Bronson flash is the approx 240ft straightline(added on edit) plotted distance to the elev. 418.35 headshot from behind.

Basic Conversions: 7.47mph = 10.95ft per sec (using 1.466) as the mph conversion 10.95ft x .71sec(time between two shots) = 7.77ft .71sec x 18.3fps = 13 frames @ 7.47mph From previous post above, distance between two shots = 2.37ft/.71sec = 3.338ft per sec / 1.47 = approx 2.27mph. = .182ft per frame 2.37ft / .182ft per frame = 13.02frames Referring back to Chris B: "The position of the limo on Elm is so well documented by Nix, Z, and Muchmore that we can place it within a couple inches. What we see of the limo in 312 would relate to frame 302, about a 7 ft difference in the position of the limo. We also know right where Z was on the pedestal and so the only other option is that the limo had to be turned. If the film was altered then Anything Goes." I would say 7ft vs. 7.77ft is fairly close, along with the same amount of frames for the extant 7.47mph and 2.27mph scenarios, based on the acoustical time via Thomas.

I have changed the word 'frontal" to "another" to describe the first of two shots for now. Sorry about that. This doesn't mean I believe it didn't come from the front, just not sure about the exact location. The location of the 2nd shot, the extant rear headshot didn't come from the TSBD as listed by Thomas. imo It did originate from approx 240ft away. As you read the excerpt, the way it is phrased, picture where the person at 240ft would be in relationship to the person at 265ft as they are trying to connect this back to the TSBD. Or, to paraphrase, the 240ft shot was to the right of the 265ft shot, and to the right of the silhouette.

If the previous post makes sense, you could see how that distance between shots, coupled with Donald Thomas's acoustical results, might indicate the approx/actual speed of the limo during those shots. In other words, 2.37ft/.71sec = 3.338ft per sec / 1.47 = approx 2.27mph. I used .71 instead of .7(Thomas' Entry)for a specific reason, don't worry about it for now. Take a look back at what DJ and Tim tell you the speed of the limo is, leading up to/including the extant shots. And, take note of the two shot sequence, via location from(Thomas' work). Another frontal shot is missing from the extant film. PS. I could be terribly wrong, but the math doesn't lie.

More support for DJ.

Paul, The early reenactments placed JFK's position at Elev. 418.35, which was later moved east up Elm to 418.48 to make us believe that an adjustment of 418.48 -418.35 = .13 x 18.3 = 2.37ft horizontal difference mistake was made. Robert West didn't make that change. The 421.75 elev. entered on CE884 is just a 3.27ft elev added for JFK's height above the street. Which, once again, was used in every single CE884 entry. As far as I know, JFK didn't get hit in the same location on his body throughout the entire shooting. In essence, the horizontal distance of 2.37ft was the distance between two shots. Look back at the white object gif, and ask yourself how fast do you believe the limo is traveling between those two frames. Remember, according to the "Stopping Distance Calculator" that's the minimal distance it would take for the limo to stop at 7.47mph, not including the driver's reaction time. This might help you appreciate some of the math that was being used to create the final z masterpiece.

BTW, David J. deserves much of the credit for bringing the white patch in the extant film to my attention with his concerns that something was amiss. Tim(engineer, retired I believe)has allowed me to post some of his results, which I have in the past. Here is just a snippet of what is being conveyed with the white patch. Although I do not agree completely with the exact frame removal process he describes, based on other math work, the important aspect is to realize the relationship he refers to, between the limo and the background.

Chris B quotes: "The position of the limo on Elm is so well documented by Nix, Z, and Muchmore that we can place it within a couple inches. What we see of the limo in 312 would relate to frame 302, about a 7 ft difference in the position of the limo. We also know right where Z was on the pedestal and so the only other option is that the limo had to be turned. If the film was altered then Anything Goes." "If I see this correctly your'e using frame 306 and 315, and for purposes of comparison frame 306 is a partial transparency allowing the patch in 315 to be seen in both frames of the gif, as the white patch doesn't exist in frame 306." Paul, I know the presentation method I use can be frustrating. Hang in there, you are doing fine. David J., as he so rightly has been doing, offers a nice description of the process, which I am most grateful for. The white patch is on both frames. It is a stationary object If the limo is moving at the speed in which we are led to believe, at that time, it is moving at an average of .6ft per frame = 7.47mph. 7.72mph according to Itek, based on the Nix film, so close enough. In the first gif with the white patch laying on top of itself(stationary), how far does the limo move? How far does the background woman move? That relationship. Now, reread Chris' quotes above. You are getting the general gist of this. I don't want to engage in a general conversation about the alteration of the film itself, because that's been a big time-waster for many years. That being the main reason I decided to approach it from the math angle. And, I apologize to Chris B for somewhat hijacking this thread. So, if you have comments to convey, feel free to post them on my "Unveiling The Limo Stop" topic, unless Chris wants this to continue here.

Chris, Perhaps this more separated version will help.

Thanks for trying, David. In the near future, there is more math(hint hint) I believe you will find fascinating. Chris, I'm not sure if you realize what the supplied gif is showing, but, if you read your comment below and understand the white object above Greer is registered to itself, in both frames within the gif, it might give you a better concept of your actual comment.

Sorry if this wasn't clear. The same ratio reflecting the differences in frame total spans, previously provided.

Let me rephrase this part too: "The 41-42 frames we speak of has nothing to do with the time between two shots, it has everything to do with missing frame segments."

Just be aware of the ratio consistency of 1.242/1-1.245/1 in relationship to the previous frame counts provided and what was posted in response to Andrej along with these subsequent posts. Remember, those ratios span the Towner film all the way through the extant zfilm count and beyond. Myers gave a roadmap, Tyler perfected it by moving the Wiegman start alot closer to where it actually started(but he kept Myers BS fps rate for Towner the same) and Andrej using a different method, has shown that the Wiegman start is later than Myers syncing. I just fine tuned it all, awhile back. How many frames did we have to ADVANCE Myers starting point for Wiegman? What's the frame count difference between 208-167 which connects back to the Towner BS 22.8fps rate.? 33 41 167 208 486 604

And, 604-486 =118frames Now, let me rephrase some of Myer's study for you: "Doing all of this subtraction/differences, I ended up with 118 hypothetical Zapruder frames."

Thanks David. Ratio's are differences. Such as: 604/33sec = 18.3fps 33sec x 18.3fps = 604 frames

David, Since you were so kind in providing the correct answer, I'll ask you to do the forum another favor and provide the answer to this: What is the common/conversion ratio(within thousandth) for these three? 41/33 208/167 604/486

There is no reconciling necessary. There is only truth. Understanding what the truth is, is quite a different story.

Excellent David.

Here's some more insight for you. The graphic incorporates two different versions(earlier one on the left side) of Mark Tyler's frame x frame analysis. How many extra frames(at a frame rate of 22.8 over 9.125 sec) would it take to give you the same ratio as Z's 18.3? Compare that answer to the right side down arrow difference. P.S. Anyone who understands what the graphic is showing and knows the answer to the question, feel free to provide it.

Nice job Andrej.

My answers are in red.

The evolving manipulations. It helps when someone recognizes the "red flag warnings" and connects them for you.