Chris Davidson

Post #55: There is a 10" vertical difference between the sniper's perch boxes and the windowsill frame. Once again, what's up in the window has to sync with what's down on the street. In post 50, I show the speed of the limo as it pertains to the extant zfilm by plotting it. 5 x 1.08ft per frame = 5.4ft Remember, 1ft vertical = 18.3ft horizontal. Convert5.4ft to vertical: 5.4/18.3= .295 x 12" (1ft) = 3.54" 10"+ 3.54" equals a combined distance of 13.54 vertical inches. Post#160 excerpt: Take the distance not traveled, 3ft, added to the distance traveled from z168-171(.9ft) added to the distance from z185-186 (1.5ft) = 5.4ft.

Just in case it was forgotten: 48fps/18.3fps = 2.622 2.622 x 7frames = 18.35 frames = 1 second in terms of 18.3fps

Excerpt carried over from post #84: Looking at CE560, a few remarks are in order. To figure out the exact vehicle speed Frazier uses, note the line starting with: Ave Vel= Average Velocity Ave Vel = 175/2070 = .085 sec 1sec/.085 = 11.764…. x 1.4ft = 16.47ft per sec =11.2mph Added on edit: Or, this way: .085/.0546(1frame/18.3fps) = 1.556frames 1.4ft per 1.556frames = .8997...ft per frame x 18.3fps = 16.465ft per sec/1.47(1mph) = 11.2mph Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds. This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour. The WC is trying to force a round peg in a square snipers nest at an ideal 11.2mph.

Finally, The total distance traveled (according to WC CE884) from Z168-z186 = 21.6ft (station# 3+29.2 - 3+50.8) 21.6ft - 5.4 ft = 16.2ft, a match How could Myers ever sync films when he has the limo traveling at 11.2 mph when plotted it's traveling at (added on edit) 14.449 14.40 mph? That's why he left off distances/times after his 150-175 frame span.

Since it is almost a one second time span, let's deal with the immediate Z168- Z186 span on the WC CE884 plat. Take the distance not traveled, 3ft, added to the distance traveled from z168-171(.9ft) added to the distance from z185-186 (1.5ft) = 5.4ft. Now add 5.4ft to the extra .088ft difference between CE884 and z film plotting = 5.49ft Z168-Z171 = 3 frames@.9ft traveled when converted to an 18.3 fps equation = 18.3/3 = 6.1 x .9ft = 5.49ft. And there you go, the missing .088ft appears when the conversion in mph is applied. And, since 16.2ft was only over 18fps, not quite 1 second, let me convert that to one second: 18.3/18 = 1.01666… x 16.2ft = 16.47ft per sec = 11.2mph SEE MYERS EXCERPT FOR THE MATCH

16.2ft/14frames = 1.1571… ft per frame 1.1571... ft per frame x 18.3fps = 21.1757… ft per sec 21.1757… / 48 fps = .4411… ft per frame in a 48fps scenario .4411... x 7 frames = 3.088... total ft. The difference in frame count for CE884 Station# 3+29.2 = 7frames The difference in distance is very minimal 3 vs 3.088ft, but I will show you where that missing .088ft appears.

Cement is being poured. David, If you look back at the Myers excerpt, his instantaneous speed at the end of the z150-z175 span is 11.2mph. Just keep this in mind as I explain: Plotting z170-z184 on the plat, using the same limo landmark (front passenger corner bumper in extant film) the distance the limo travels is 16.2ft. Look at the distance traveled from CE884 frames z171-z185 (also a total of 14 frames), I'll make the assumption the speed should be the same. The distance traveled is listed as 19.2ft according to WC CE884 final plat data. That is a 3ft difference. It always helps to break it down into ft per frame traveled just as I did with the 5frames (z161-166) and the 18.3/48fps conversion. Care to give it a try?

I believe you answered your own question. See above. What real distance is missing from z161-166 / z168-z171? Is the slope of Elm St. a vertical or horizontal change or both? Starting at z161/168, if I put a chalk mark on a limo occupant on Elm St, how many feet do I have to travel down Elm St before that mark drops 10"? What type of vertical change is that? Look at the station# entries for z207 and z222, the difference in distance = 14.8ft. The exact distance between JFK in limo and limo front is 15.116ft. Frazier has to aim 6.7inches higher (lead height) (a vertical change? correct), to hit a target moving 11.2 mph from a distance of 175ft. Are you kidding me. Cumulatively, The WC is trying to force a round peg in a square snipers nest. It works with the wrong data. Which means it's not the truth. chris P.S. I'm not a film expert, I've reproduced with modern day technology, a film with progressive frames created from the extant Z film. If this was possible in the 60's, I don't know the method and no-one else has confirmed there was one. The math proves out 48fps (imo) in the obvious CE884 rough spots. If there was no Altgen's shot, so be it. If JFK was shot at z190, fine. The main point is there was not enough time for one shooter to accomplish the feat. I'll be introducing another conversion in regards to CE884 (WC 1964 plat version), which should cement the idea that we are working with a 48fps film or parts thereof.

It would have had to be filmed at 48fps so there was enough source material from which to create the final product. Your .9 ft from 161-166 calcs proving those 5 frames are continuous at 48fps is brilliant. The question remains though Chris... if the last shot has the limo's rear bumper at 4+96 - is that the frontal head shot, a shot to JC, the Tague miss, ??? and if the fatal shot, how they make it appear it occurs up at z313 is simply amazing. I am also of the opinion that the Altgens photo with Hill on the limo was not an Altgens photo... it bears no resemblance to the other photos he took and is cropped at the top right and carries the notation "Original Negative Lost" Something very strange going on down there by yellow strip #3... I wonder if Altgens did actually get a photo of the final shot and this is from another camera... Seems to me there were a number of people filming that aren't accounted for and whose films, at 48fps, could be used for Muchmore, Towner and Nix... either way... yellow strip #3 is where it all happened... DJ David, The rear bumper (CE875) is representative of JFK's position in the limo at Station# 4+96.16 What shot is it !!! I guess that depends on the accuracy of the eyewitnesses who describe it. A 48fps version allows the removal of many frames just within a 30ft distance, especially if the limo has dramatically slowed down/stopped. Since Cutler's plat has the light pole plotted in Altgen's and you know where Altgen's was standing, you can draw an LOS and then compare it to the extant Z film for frame# placement within Z.

Chris, I don't see Chaney remnants on Gayle Newman's dress before Chaney intersects her. I enlarged the two frames to 150% and this is what I come up with. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQzZrVlNYVHg3WVk/view?usp=sharing

Hi Chris, Yes, it appears that some or all of Z was shot at 48fps. Take a look at post #21, I created the gif which now has 3x the amount of z-frames (progressive) for that particular span. Then, look at post#64, and I removed 2 of every 3 frames. Based mostly on Doug Horne's work, I'd say Hawkeye Works would be a good candidate. I refer to it as "selective splicing" for timing purposes. I believe the whole Houston St / Elm St turn was removed as a part of it. More than likely enlarged and cropped. Here is one example (shot on telephoto). Shot with B/H414. The cars were moving much faster than 10-15mph. The problem you'll probably run into is getting the Kodachrome/Ektachrome developed. I don't know of any labs that process this film type any more.

In case you had forgotten, excerpt from post #84: Looking at CE560, a few remarks are in order. To figure out the exact(vehicle/bullet) speed Frazier uses, note the line starting with: Ave Vel= Average Velocity Ave Vel = 175/2070 = .085 sec 1sec/.085 = 11.764…. x 1.4ft = 16.47ft per sec =11.2mph Or, this way: .085/.0546(1frame/18.3fps) = 1.556frames 1.4ft per 1.556frames = .8997...ft per frame x 18.3fps = 16.465ft per sec/1.47(1mph) = 11.2mph Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds. This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour.

And, To finish it, in terms of 48fps: 48/18.3 = 2.622/1 15.75 frames x 2.622 = 41.3frames = Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we have established that the Zapruder motion picture camera operates at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second. And we have been advised that the minimum time for firing the rifle in successive shots is approximately two and a quarter seconds. So this gives us then a figure of two and a quarter seconds of frames; at 18.3, this gives us this figure of 41 to 42 frames. Representative FORD. Would you repeat that again, please? Mr. SHANEYFELT. The camera operates at a speed of 18.3 frames per second. So that in two and a quarter seconds it would run through about 42--41 to 42 frames.

David, I don't want to get sidetracked too much with Towner right now, but I'll do a little math for you, and if you want to expand on Towner, just start another topic, which I would be willing to contribute to. Since Position A crosses paths with Towner's film span, this might be of relevance: In order to sync films, Myers puts Towners camera fps speed at 22.8. Towners camera is a Sears Tower Varizoom 8mm. It is either going to shoot normally at 16 or 18fps if its a later model. Lets give it the benefit of the doubt and say it shoots at 18.3fps. The difference between Myers fps sync speed and a normal Towner fps rate is 22.8 - 18.3 = 4.5fps If the span from Position A to z168 (initial entry on WC plat CE884) is 168frames/48fps = 3.5seconds, then 4.5fps difference x 3.5 sec = 15.75 frame difference @18.3fps. If you take a look at the excerpt from Myers, at the bottom, he states there is a gap between Z starting and Towner ending. The gap is .82 sec. .82 x 18.3 fps = 15.006 frames I'm starting to get the distinct feeling that Towner's film might have been shot at 48fps or parts thereof, hence the silly frame rate Myers was forced to use, to sync Towner. It was my understanding that Jim Towner handed Tina the camera and told her to start shooting, if somebody didn't know any better, they more than likely would press down hard and floor the film lever, which is exactly where the Slow-Motion mode resides. Speculation, but it makes a lot of sense. Especially with the story about the Towner splice and Life Magazine. P.S. Total extant Towner frames, including 7 missing, according to Myers = 167

Um... Duncan, why is it that your Prayer Man face is different from Chris Davidson's Prayer Man Face? Compare yours above, with Chris's below. And, in fact, your Prayer Man face is far too big for the body. At least Chris's is about the right size. Actually it looks like your picture isn't a crop from Chris's at all. Unless you did further processing on it. What gives? Sandy, There are two different Wiegman frames involved. See bottom of post #242.

David, I do not have an answer for this. It would seem unlikely that Truly would go into so much detail about this occurrence, unless it was a way to accommodate more time synchronization needed, traveling further down Elm St. Is there anybody else that backs up Truly with similar testimony about the wide turn? Here is Towner (background stabilized) along with her filming position in relationship to the existing layout.

Chris, Do you get the same effect with this version of Nix? https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQ1pQc29sM0pGTTg/view?usp=sharing

I've said in the past, throw out the B.S. limo speed of CE884 z161-z166 (18.3fps scenario) = 2.24mph. Then, take the correct speed of 15.68 mph (48fps scenario) and subtract the B.S. speed: 15.68mph - 2.24mph = 13.44mph = match for previous post. Conversion Completed.

Link the 7 frame difference (z161-z168 same station# both CE884's) in a 48fps scenario, starting at post#40: 48frames -7 frames = 41 frames. 15.68mph = 15.68 x 1.47 / 48 = .4802ft per frame 41frames x .4802ft per frame = 19.69ft traveled, approx (less than 1 inch) = 19.756ft Added on edit: 19.756 ft per sec = 13.44mph

Here it is as an equation: .48ft per frame = 48frames per sec scenario, limo traveling at 15.68mph - .18ft per frame = B.S. speed of limo @ CE884 z161-z166 = .30ft per frame = B.S. speed of limo @ CE884 z168-z171 final WC plat of May 1964 = Jackpot

Analogous to the above, converting the missing 8.79ft 8.79ft / 18.3frames per sec = .48ft per frame = match, in terms of ft. per frame, to a limo traveling 23.05ft (15.68mph) @ 48frames per sec. And, if you take that 8.79ft distance over 48frames = 8.79/48 = .183ft per frame. You can then look at the published WC CE884 document for z161-z166 a five frame span with distance traveled of .9ft = .9ft / 5frames = .18ft per frame Pretty conclusive. imo

Or, in terms of a 48/18.3 fps ratio conversion: 48/18.3 = 2.622 2.622 x 7frames(CE884 z161-z168 same station#) = 18.3 frames in a 48fps version or one second in a 18.3 fps version. And, 2.622 x 5.98mph(8.79ft per sec) = 15.68mph - see previous post for relevance.

Tom, No joke. I call it as I see it.

Analogous to the above, converting the missing 8.79ft 8.79ft / 18.3frames per sec = .48ft per frame = match, in terms of ft. per frame, to a limo traveling 23.05ft (15.68mph) @ 48frames per sec.

If interested, you can now start tying the previous post all the way back to this, which was post #12.