Chris Davidson

48fps/18.3fps = 2.622../1 ratio. This next video is at a 2.52/1 ratio, close enough to the previous sentence. I think you'll understand the concept after watching the video. Arrow through this frame by frame and you will find the car moves forward in every frame. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQmdlbWFpNm1ROWc/view?usp=sharing I suggest downloading this and playing it. Google Drive site is having problems playing it. I converted the 48fps slo-mo movie into a gif. Even though the quality will not be as good as the .mov file, the viewing/fps speed will match the 1/2 and 1/3 versions. It's about 44megs in size so it might take a bit longer to load and download. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OSVVVRG5Ha3BoSUE/view?usp=sharing

Hopefully, you were able to view the slow-motion (48fps) version. If not, you'll have to let me know so I can try and put it into a more universal format. A math way to look at the removal of 1/2 the frames from the 48fps slow-motion version is this: 48fps/18.3fps = 2.622.../1 ratio 2.622.. / 2 (1/2 frames removed) = 1.311.../1 ratio 1.311... x 18.3fps = 24fps Think reconstruction video. The inset (red border) is from David Healy's excellent primer. The frame removal process is the body.

Agree Sandy, There are other processes that would be incorporated while working with large prints also. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ONW1xV09XWjBGVjQ/view?usp=sharing Added on edit: "Also, while the new Eastman color negative stock is almost grainless, there is a difference in grain between a print-up and a 70mm print made from a 65mm negative"

Wrong Einstein. The original motorcycle clip was shot at 48fps slow motion. Then, only progressive frames were extracted and used. Then 2/3 of those progressive frames were removed. You then posted a comment that I posted a clip in normal speed and then slows down. Your reference to normal speed equals a film clip originally shot at 48fps slow-motion with 2/3 of the frames removed. Guess what. 2/3 = 66.7% and you couldn't tell the difference. Use some math please. I am now recreating this same conversion with a modern day video of a car moving at the pertinent speed. 48 24 18.3 hut hut hut. Go watch some football instead.

Tom, Thank you for putting this topic back onto the straight and narrow. Much appreciated, chris

From slow-motion to half the amount of frames. Compare car speed to the original mov I posted. This is running at 20fps.

My wife is moving at approx 17mph. Purposely at this speed. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OdFFwaFQ5dXpfdGM/view?usp=sharing 48fps/18.3fps = 2.622../1 ratio. This next video is at a 2.52/1 ratio, close enough to the previous sentence. I think you'll understand the concept after watching the video. Arrow through this frame by frame and you will find the car moves forward in every frame. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQmdlbWFpNm1ROWc/view?usp=sharing I suggest downloading this and playing it. Google Drive site is having problems playing it.

The initial speed of the limo after the B.S. entry of 168-171@ 3.74mph is : z171-z186 = 15 frames 18.3/15 = 1.22 x 20.7ft (station# 3+30.1 to 3+50.8)= 25.25ft per sec / 1.47 (1mph) = 17.18mph

My wife is moving at approx 17mph. Purposely at this speed. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OdFFwaFQ5dXpfdGM/view?usp=sharing

You really believe I didn't know what I was posting with that strip of film? Ignorance is bliss. In the other topic, I stated: "If you did answer truthfully, you might then understand why my posting of the series of frames, with full sprocket hole imaging, doesn't dictate the validity of the extant film. Alteration could mean removal of frames which have never been viewed before. Primarily an end game of 67% removal, approx." Still don't grasp the concept and how it relates to the extant zfilm do you.

Think in reverse and you're at 67%.

We already knew what your belief was in relationship to the genuineness of the extant film. The topic is about the math used to create the extant film. You don't appear to be interested in this aspect of the case. In post19, I asked you a question and provided an example (one of many) to work with. Post 19 gif was created directly from the extant zfilm. You have yet to answer. If you did answer truthfully, you might then understand why my posting of the series of frames, with full sprocket hole imaging, doesn't dictate the validity of the extant film. Alteration could mean removal of frames which have never been viewed before. Primarily an end game of 67% removal, approx.

Tom, Excellent summary. Don't hold your breath waiting for the answer. chris

Hi Richard, I'm glad you are interested in this topic. Here's a mini play by play for this gif: And their off, Clint swings his last remaining leg into the limo, JFK is bent over halfway across the seat, Jackie is stretching out on the trunk. Clint grabs Jackie, JFK is still static, Jackie is looking for a place to sit in the back seat. Clint forces Jackie's arm down, JFK hasn't moved much, Jackie is being pulled down by Clint. Clint releases Jackie, JFK is lifeless, Jackie's elbow hits trunk and derriere has risen above the back seat. Nix film ends. Convenient!!! Jackie sits down 6 frames later. Well, being this is the most powerful film in the world and can blow this whole case wide open, you have to ask yourself, Did she sit down in 6 frames or not? Film viewing says it's possible. Math says 6/18.3 = .327 sec. Stopwatch says no way. chris It would be very simple to prove or disprove this. All one has to do is recreate Jackie's elbow hitting the trunk surface (Nix film) and slide into the back seat in .32 seconds. In stopwatch terms, that's start/stop as fast as one can press the button. No need for a moving car. P.S. I suggest stabilizing Jackie's movements in the Z film for the time span within the gif, before one puts one's foot in one's mouth.

David, Here are a few I shot. Sorry about the sprocket hole image cutoff, that's as wide as they could transfer into digital form. chris

Hi Richard, I'm glad you are interested in this topic. Here's a mini play by play for this gif: And their off, Clint swings his last remaining leg into the limo, JFK is bent over halfway across the seat, Jackie is stretching out on the trunk. Clint grabs Jackie, JFK is still static, Jackie is looking for a place to sit in the back seat. Clint forces Jackie's arm down, JFK hasn't moved much, Jackie is being pulled down by Clint. Clint releases Jackie, JFK is lifeless, Jackie's elbow hits trunk and derriere has risen above the back seat. Nix film ends. Convenient!!! Jackie sits down 6 frames later. Well, being this is the most powerful film in the world and can blow this whole case wide open, you have to ask yourself, Did she sit down in 6 frames or not? Film viewing says it's possible. Math says 6/18.3 = .327 sec. Stopwatch says no way. chris

Remember, there are stacked boxes to deal with too.

The text is provided from Tom P. The flashing inset is extant zframe 207 from the WC recreation in May 1964. The photograph ran in Life Mag. Nov29, 1963. It was taken Nov23, 1963.

And, when the same ballistics data is used except for the limo speed - changed from 28.6mph - 11.2mph (average speed determined by WC) the difference in vertical lead via ballistics calculator is : 6.7" - 2.6" = 4.1inches. Pretty much disqualifies the shirt/jacket bunch theory reproduced on "Beyond the Magic Bullet" and enforces what Bennett described as a shot location, which was not a throat shot. Ballistics and Math, a wonderful combination.

A quick refresher into the reality of ballistics. Obviously didn't come from the 6th floor snipers nest.

Once you figure out what was done in post #266, your perfect sync idea becomes null and void. Once you realize the problem with a frontal shot and the extant zfilm, post z313, your genuine film becomes null and void. If you refuse to look at previous posts, that's your prerogative. Whenever you decide to increase my viewer count, I'll refer you back in time. That's if I even respond to your cr----p. Which is unlikely. Why don't you increase your viewer count by starting a new topic. That way, you can decrease my count. A win-win situation. Time for more Math.

You are lost. You have no idea what the math is about or what it's showing you. I can see you haven't quite figured out how ballistics and mathematics relate to each other. Refer back to post #309. Understand the question. Answer the question. I rest my case. Start your own "Zapruder film is genuine" thread.

Additional frames!!! You still have not figured out what was accomplished in post #266. Try converting a slow-motion movie to normal speed using only the progressive frames. Mid-shooting!!! Comprehension- Read what I write, not what you interpret me saying. I've given you examples of how it was done on film. You don't get it. Or you just don't want to see what's in front of you. Your own "zfilm is genuine" belief contradicts what is shown on the film after the extant z313 headshot.

Copied and pasted as a response to post #316.