For Robin--This is the "Education Forum"

[Robin Unger]

Two views:

(1) Bond camera to Pedestal

(2) Pedestal camera to Bond

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Two views:

(1) Bond camera to Pedestal

(2) Pedestal camera to Bond

Robin;

Far more enjoyable (at least to me) than chasing mythological creatures all over Dealey Plaza.

Tom

The Bond camera appears to have possible had a "parallax" corrector within the lenses as the lamp post/Zapruder alignment remains constant through all of his photo's/slides.

Although, it is possible, due to the distance involved, that this is what accounts for it.

And considering that I have not taken a theodolite to Dealey Plaza during any of my visits, would merely have to

take an aged and educated guess.

Nevertheless, the other Bond photos also provide considerable information, provided of course that one has an accurate

survey plat of Dealey Plaza.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1

Lastly, I would add that the photo of the Newmans on the grass which was taken from the Press Car, looking towards Zapruder

is also of considerable interest in that it compliments that photo which has been posted which is looking towards the street and the yellow curb markings.

My computer copy was "eaten" along with everything else, so it may be of some benefit if you can find the time to post that photo along with the one that I marked up, just as you did with the Bond/lamp post/Zapruder position photo's..

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Due to the critical importance, I did not want to include this in with the remainder of the Cancellare photo, where it

merely gets lost in the crowd.

Computing distances based on these "angular" photographs is about like dealing with the "Law of Diminishing Returns".

However, the close proximity of James Altgens to the second yellow curb marking makes it not that difficult to

accurately place him on Elm St. in this as well as other photographs.

Provided of course that one has some reference of scale with which to work.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0047b.htm

Nope! Nothing here to work with.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z352.jpg

As any qualified "sniper" is aware. Some times, one must wait a long time until the target fully comes into view.

Tom,

The Hughes composite might be a little easier on the eyes (viewing angle) that is.

Also,

Do you know the distance from lightpost at left in animation, to first yellow curb mark just ahead of the red car, if the lightpost was on the south side, inline with the yellow curb marks?

thanks,

chris

P.S.

Compositing as much of the West plat you have provided me with Drommer, I get a distance of 20 Ft. from lightpost to first yellow mark.

Chris;

Not wanting to let down my loyal grouping of followers*, perhaps this will be of some assistance in what you ask.

(*All three of you)

It may provide a few answers.

Then again, it may only confuse more.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0449a.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

Note: It is approximately 20 to 21 feet from James Altgens position to the center of Elm St directly in front of his position.

It is in excess of 36-feet in direct alignment from James Altgens position to the Z313 impact location in the center of

Elm St.

Tom...you are NOW really talking SENSE. I have always disputed Altgens' estimate of being 15 feet away when he took

his photo.

There is something not kopasetic about Altgens. He denied taking two of "his" photos. He lied about the famous one.

He took his photo from a location IN THE STREET as Zapruder shows, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, he failed to take any photos

of the limo when IT WAS STOPPED, or WHEN IT WAS CLOSEST TO HIM. And he was a VETERAN NEWS PHOTOGRAPHER!

I suspect his testimony was coached and his photos of the STOPPED LIMO confiscated. He surely must have shot more!

It is suspicious that he is one of the few close witnesses WHO DID NOT REPORT THE STOPPING OF THE LIMO!

Jack

Tom...you are NOW really talking SENSE.

Extremely scary, considering that, to me at least, you are not making sense and are back onto some "Moorman in the street" kick.

He took his photo from a location IN THE STREET as Zapruder shows

Perhaps you see Altgens somewhere in the street in the Z-film, but I do not!

Perhaps you could share that with us.

I have always disputed Altgens' estimate of being 15 feet away when he took

his photo.

Jack:

Altgens took no photo at the 4+95 stationing of the third shot impact:

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

Because, you see, even up to that time I didn't know that the President had been shot previously. I still thought up until that time that all I heard was fireworks and that they were giving some sort of celebration to the President by popping these fireworks. It stunned me so at what I saw that I failed to do my duty and make the picture that I was hoping to make.

Mr. ALTGENS - Because as I said before---the way the bullet impact hit the President,

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was

riding in the car.

Each of the three lanes of Elm St. are approximately 13 & 1/3 feet in width for a total width of 40-feet for the street.

Assuming the side of the car (on Jackie's side) was some 2 to -3 feet right of the left road stripe (as on goes down the street), that would place the left side of the Presidential limo at almost exactly 15 to 16 feet from Altgens position up at the curb

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z346.jpg

of the street.

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.

Mr. ALTGENS - But it might be 40 feet, but I couldn't say that that's exactly the distance because while it may be in focus at 40 feet, my camera has it in focus 30 feet. It's the same thing--if I focus at 15 feet, my focus might extend 20 feet and it might also be reduced to 10 feet, but my focusing was in that general area of 30 feet. I believe, if you will let me say something further here about this picture----

I suspect his testimony was coached and his photos of the STOPPED LIMO confiscated. He surely must have shot more!

It is suspicious that he is one of the few close witnesses WHO DID NOT REPORT THE STOPPING OF THE LIMO!

Jack

===============================================================================

Altgens:

The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow pace and I stepped out in the curb area and made another picture as the Secret Service man stepped upon the rear step of the Presidential car and went to Mrs. Kennedy's aid and then after that I immediately crossed the street and once again I was looking to see if I could find anything in this area of Elm and Houston Streets that would suggest to me where the shot came from.

================================================================================

Some people actually "suspicion" that UFO's had something to do with the assassination, along with body snatchers and wound alteration specialists.

As to me, I make an attempt to keep my feet on relatively level ground and let the evidence and witnesses tell us what actually happened.

James Altgens was not originally called to testify before the WC. It was only after his newspaper found out that the WC had already turned in their "DRAFT" report that it made a write-up about how the WC had not called such a key witness, as was James Altgens, to testify.

Nevertheless, the WC, during their re-enactment, knew exactly where James Altgens was located on Elm St. along with how accurately his position could be determined based on his Z255 photograph.

Therefore, the WC made an attempt to NOT CALL Altgens to testify and thereafter created the completely phony assassination re-enactment comparision photo to pawn off on all of those who know little if anything about photograpic analysis.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

Of course, they "cropped" a considerable amount from the each side of the Altgens photo in order to make it slightly

more difficult for one to ultimately go back into Dealey Plaza and demonstrate this.

But, any hair-brained idiot can take a look at the letters on the front of the TSDB which appear within the fork of the Live

Oak tree in the background, and they should get a kick as to exactlly how phony the WC re-enactment photo is.

Not to mention all of the other comparative differences which I long ago pointed out.

As example: On the Altgens photo, draw a line vertically from the end of the road strip which is just to the rear of the

left front tire. Said line will extend far to the right of the Live Oak tree.

Now, do the same for the "Re-Enactment vehicle, and one will find that said line extends vertically directly through

the fork of the Live Oak tree.

Exactly where are all of those "Mary Ferrell" award winning photo analyst when one needs one????????

I found that some 20+ years ago and knew right off the bat that anything that bad on the part of purportedly qualified FBI photographic personnel, had to be intentional.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom.

I tried to clean this image up a bit.

Zapruder pedestal / Lamp post / Bond position. ( Bonds camera position ) directly behind the glass light at the top of the light post.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...01/4076-001.jpg

I would place Bonds position approx here:

From all indicators, that is exactly where he was. And, somewhere, lost in a box, I have something else which demonstrates that.

And I would also add that this correlates exacly with an alignment drawn on the full size WC Survey plat, from Zapruder--through the lamp post---to the concrete wall in the background where Bond was located.

As an added note, some of the photo-copies which I am sending are printed on standard paper as I ran out of photo-paper on this project.

When this set of $70.00 + copy ink cartridges go out I guess that I will have to mortgage the house to keep posting.

Are we having fun yet?

More importantly, are we learning anything in regards to what we can actually learn from the photographic evidence?

Tom*

*A "non-awardee" of the Mary Ferrell award for having discovered new evidence in the assassination of JFK.

[Jack White]

As Purvis would know if he ever went to Dealey Plaza with an Altgens 6 photo

and lined up landmarks which are still there, Altgens was standing several feet

off the curb when he took the photo. Robert Cutler came to this same conclusion

in his famed plaza map on pages 48-49 in Computers and Automation, May 1970.

Altgens IN THE STREET further gives lie to Zapruder, which shows him on the grass.

I also wonder about the Purvis statement that Altgens 6 has been cropped. I would

appreciate any source information about this. Trask published what is claimed to

be the full negative, though I have doubts about that.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

As Purvis would know if he ever went to Dealey Plaza with an Altgens 6 photo

and lined up landmarks which are still there, Altgens was standing several feet

off the curb when he took the photo. Robert Cutler came to this same conclusion

in his famed plaza map on pages 48-49 in Computers and Automation, May 1970.

Altgens IN THE STREET further gives lie to Zapruder, which shows him on the grass.

I also wonder about the Purvis statement that Altgens 6 has been cropped. I would

appreciate any source information about this. Trask published what is claimed to

be the full negative, though I have doubts about that.

Jack

Jack;

I for one am somewhat tired of doing your homework research for you, and still seeing

you fail the course of instruction.

The Altgens/Z255 photo, as presented by the WC, was cropped on each side, which removes important/key background items in the event that one went to dealy Plaza an attempted to

secure the same alignment and determine Altgens exact position along the Elm St. Curb. (down by the second yellow curb

mark I might add)

Add to that the fact that new stripes were painted along the center of Elm St., and only the

most proficient, and just about requiring an instrument, would or could achieve the exact

Altgens alignment,

The "Photograph From Re-enactment":

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

Is nothing more than the "scam" in which the wool was pulled over your eyes in making one think that James Altgens was considerably farther up Elm St. towards the TSDB, than he actually was.

Thereby selling you and everyone else that the LAST SHOT that he referenced as striking JFK, was the Z313 shot.

As one moves from Altgens true location down at the SECOND yellow curb marking, up Elm St. towards the TSDB, then one also moves farther to the right of the alignment.

Thusly, the Re-enactment photo, as should be evident to most anyone, is actually from a position which is RIGHT (as looking in direction of photo towards TSDB) of the actual Altgens Z255 photo.

Now, for all I know (since I was not there), the photo could have been taken from way out in the grassy area behind James Altgens location, in which one could obtain the same camera alignment.

However, one can rest assured that it was not taken from the Altgens position or the Altgens camera alignment.

I also wonder about the Purvis statement that Altgens 6 has been cropped.

Had you done even the smallest "smidget" of research, then you would know that the WC "comparative version" of the Altgens photo has been cropped on each side.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

As well as the fact that what is purportedly the "full" photo has been around for a considerable length of time.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1

So, while you have been chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza and attempting to determine if Mary Moorman was or was not standing in the street.

A few of us have been accumulating and evaluating evidence in order to attempt to make some sense out of the obfuscation of this evidence on the part of the WC/aka Specter & Company, INC.

P.P.S.

[John Dolva]

Tom.

I tried to clean this image up a bit.

Zapruder pedestal / Lamp post / Bond position. ( Bonds camera position ) directly behind the glass light at the top of the light post.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...01/4076-001.jpg

I would place Bonds position approx here:

From all indicators, that is exactly where he was. And, somewhere, lost in a box, I have something else which demonstrates that.

And I would also add that this correlates exacly with an alignment drawn on the full size WC Survey plat, from Zapruder--through the lamp post---to the concrete wall in the background where Bond was located.

As an added note, some of the photo-copies which I am sending are printed on standard paper as I ran out of photo-paper on this project.

When this set of $70.00 + copy ink cartridges go out I guess that I will have to mortgage the house to keep posting.

Are we having fun yet?

More importantly, are we learning anything in regards to what we can actually learn from the photographic evidence?

Tom*

*A "non-awardee" of the Mary Ferrell award for having discovered new evidence in the assassination of JFK.

and as illustrated some time ago in the missing nix and its offshoot muchmore topic, it's also where muchmore filmed from (for the headshot sequence). The irst indication (to me) that dons dp map is flawed as it shows her to the right of this. To compensate, the errors crept in as one can only presume that parts of it had landmarks placed wrongly (incl the z pedestal/wall and big red) to compensate and presumably unintentionally thus confuse. Keep up the good work. The films make sense with the west and drommer. The fragments of west gleaned over time match nicely with drommer and indicates a traversion error in dons dp.

Good to see interest and confirmation of previous largely ignored work.

Edited January 8, 2009 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Due to the critical importance, I did not want to include this in with the remainder of the Cancellare photo, where it

merely gets lost in the crowd.

Computing distances based on these "angular" photographs is about like dealing with the "Law of Diminishing Returns".

However, the close proximity of James Altgens to the second yellow curb marking makes it not that difficult to

accurately place him on Elm St. in this as well as other photographs.

Provided of course that one has some reference of scale with which to work.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0047b.htm

Nope! Nothing here to work with.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z352.jpg

As any qualified "sniper" is aware. Some times, one must wait a long time until the target fully comes into view.

Tom,

The Hughes composite might be a little easier on the eyes (viewing angle) that is.

Also,

Do you know the distance from lightpost at left in animation, to first yellow curb mark just ahead of the red car, if the lightpost was on the south side, inline with the yellow curb marks?

thanks,

chris

P.S.

Compositing as much of the West plat you have provided me with Drommer, I get a distance of 20 Ft. from lightpost to first yellow mark.

Chris;

Not wanting to let down my loyal grouping of followers*, perhaps this will be of some assistance in what you ask.

(*All three of you)

It may provide a few answers.

Then again, it may only confuse more.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0449a.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

Note: It is approximately 20 to 21 feet from James Altgens position to the center of Elm St directly in front of his position.

It is in excess of 36-feet in direct alignment from James Altgens position to the Z313 impact location in the center of

Elm St.

For Mr. Dolva:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z272.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

30.2 feet!

+++++++++++++

Vehicle Speed, if you will please!

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Robin;

This is the "other" SS reenactment photo, and although it provides additional information on

the one which you first sent, this one better demonstrates some things in it's own right.

As example, the crack in the asphalt which runs into the first yellow curb marking appears

to show better in this, than in the second photo.

These photo's are printed on normal paper (out of photo paper), so in event that one can

not make anything out, please feel free to mark up your better quality ones and

put them on your site if you so desire.

Tom

[John Dolva]

From various posts from around 2006 2007

What I see in looking at the various films, roughly the following happens.

After turning into Elm as the Limo approaches the Stemmons sign, the limo slows, causing a kind of concertina effect of all vehicles following slowing/stopping. Then the Limo smoothly speeds up and the others catch up as the Limo again slows, Greer meanwhile appears to scan right left right. After/around the headshot there may be a tap on the brake and the various Motorcycles catch up and one slows considerably with the rider looking sharp right. The queen mary then is close, ie it either by speeding up catches up, or that and a combination of Greer slowing. Momentarily Greer speeds up and then slows to allow the SS guy to catch up, , the front of the car bounces up and down as he leaps on, looses footing and Jackie goes to the back and then front, then there is a rapid speed increase leading to the race to the hospital. There is also some wiggling of the front wheels indicating that Greer was weaving slightly as he scans the area and then looks back at the headshot. Also, Johnson after the headshot rolls forward and 'slams' into the back of the front seats.

or... M42 may not be M42 at all

from post #384

N-46 is M-64

N-35 is Z-325

M-01 is Z-270

M-64 is Z-336

ie 66 Z frames for 63 M-frames

3.6065 seconds for 63 M-frames

17.4681 fps for M-camera

Interestingly this is about the rate of the fully wound Z-camera. So if right calculations, she must have fully wound her camera before starting filming this sequence.

M42 as we have it does appear to show that. Z207 costalla version shows the ease of hiding a splice. This may mean that the true number of Z313 should be 314. This is why I've persisted in a detailed analysis of the headshot sequence for MM. There appears to be no new info in the disco-MM. In fact info is lost with the saturation changes, and the frames are even more cropped. They just look prettier, like the Costalla frames.

Apart from having a reference towork from I try to ignore frame numberings as ehere are so many examples of them being wrong in different ways.

A determination of fragment trajectory may give the shutter speed of the MM camera and hence its frame rate according to the formulae Ashton directed to.

Frank, I think that is an excellent point.

What I see is MM 20 as the last of the static position of Jackie and Z 289 the last on Z. I don't see a pause. As the limo is traversing the scene the localised parallax would show a shift if she was (realatiely to John) stationary. As she may appear to be stationary it means she is moving in the rate of parallax shift.

Ashton, I think that's the missing piece. Thank you for that. So we need to know the true frame rate (which we may be able to calculate soon) and the relevant specifics of the cameras. The shutter speed can change a lot depending on the frame rate. So that's good to know in calculating fragment speeds once one has a correct distance the fragments have travelled by understanding the direction they have taken.

Perhaps:: We can begin to understand some of the mechanics of the wound ballistics. standard formulae like a=v f - v i /t, v= d / t, and F= ma can be used to get an understanding of the original impulse and what created it, and with the vector analysis derive a bullet rajectory and hence the location of the assassin.

I wonder if we can amass sufficient data by tringulating the various headshot images to build a transparent 3D model of the split second they represent.

With regards to limo speed using a single frame: 1.78 feet in 1/40 th of a second.

38.22 feet in one second.

26.05 mph

This once again brings up an unresolved problem that I contionually came across when working out how to derive object speed from blur differences last year. The worked out speed is twice what it should be.

Because it is so regularly double, this could be a very useful techynique if only the doubling is resolved.

Exactly how long is the shutter open on the various cameras?

M01 is very blurred.

However it contains a wealth of information.

It shows M in the process of moving her position. It's a snapshot of Limo speed and it is possibly a very good match point for Z-M sync.

The scale of the Limo has changed considerably in the following frames. The relative position, parallax, of various persons changes.

Speed- The blurs of stationary objects like the sign on the lamp post, and people are all of a fixed length and direction.

The blurs of the Limo are all in a different direction and length. However, put side by side one can see that the vertical height of the blurs is the same. This means that during the exposure of the frame, while the camera moved in one way, indicated by the stationary bject blurs, the limo moved as well, and the relative movement shown by this blur difference is the factor that can be used to derive the limospeed at this frame.

Right at the top right of the farame one sees the base of Zaps pedestal with the eastern shadow on the lamp post in front of it. On the farleft top is the lower slice of the hedge below the end of the wall.

This places (from Z's perspective) M behind the lamp on top of the lamp post.

Jackies position is clearly seen. This means that this frame is about Z270-271.

Frank, if this is so, then there are two match points at opposite ends of the M film that overlap into the Z-N sync. This should then give a M framerate.

The frame rate or the rate of the camera advancing the film for the next recording was 18.3. The film is exposed to the impact of photons for a set period of time. Lets say it's 1/40th of a second.

The film doesn't pick and choose which of those photons will react with the emulsion. It doesn't say, hey you, you come from a fast travelling obect, go away. The photons travel at the speed of light. In 1/40th of a second ejecta at the speed of sound will traverse 8 meters across the field of view, and if travelling away or towards the film it will traverse a shorter distance. Naturally the ejecta during this time will be reflecting (and refracting) photons and these will impact the film leaving an imprint.

(Z313 occurred a split second before N23, not after.)

It should be known that (AFAIK) the cameras were wound and a clock mechanism which slowly wound down drove the film feed.

IOW the beginning of a filming may run at slightly above the tested speed, then for some time the tested speed applies with a slight decrease, and at the end a more rapid decrease. IOW the earlier sequences and the later, with no rewinding, could mean that the frame speed at the time of Nix film headshot is already degraded. IOW at the time of the headshot the camera may have been running at, say 17.5 fps.

So, what was the frame rate?

I can't say whether the WC left out any particular frames. However >>this clip<< has frames missing in a suspect pattern. For this calculation I have already put the missing frames back, so you can't add them again.

The WC may have only left out the first frame. Or they may have left out another frame and shifted the count to hide that. What they certainly did do is to mislabel the headshot frame. And they used the average pre headshot speed as 11.2 while the more accurate could be around 7-9 for the second or so before the headshot. I've yet to compare the pre shot frames with the z film to see if gaps can be found that way. So stay skeptic and don't make hasty conclusions.

Edited January 8, 2009 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

From various posts from around 2006 2007

What I see in looking at the various films, roughly the following happens.

After turning into Elm as the Limo approaches the Stemmons sign, the limo slows, causing a kind of concertina effect of all vehicles following slowing/stopping. Then the Limo smoothly speeds up and the others catch up as the Limo again slows, Greer meanwhile appears to scan right left right. After/around the headshot there may be a tap on the brake and the various Motorcycles catch up and one slows considerably with the rider looking sharp right. The queen mary then is close, ie it either by speeding up catches up, or that and a combination of Greer slowing. Momentarily Greer speeds up and then slows to allow the SS guy to catch up, , the front of the car bounces up and down as he leaps on, looses footing and Jackie goes to the back and then front, then there is a rapid speed increase leading to the race to the hospital. There is also some wiggling of the front wheels indicating that Greer was weaving slightly as he scans the area and then looks back at the headshot. Also, Johnson after the headshot rolls forward and 'slams' into the back of the front seats.

or... M42 may not be M42 at all

from post #384

N-46 is M-64

N-35 is Z-325

M-01 is Z-270

M-64 is Z-336

ie 66 Z frames for 63 M-frames

3.6065 seconds for 63 M-frames

17.4681 fps for M-camera

Interestingly this is about the rate of the fully wound Z-camera. So if right calculations, she must have fully wound her camera before starting filming this sequence.

M42 as we have it does appear to show that. Z207 costalla version shows the ease of hiding a splice. This may mean that the true number of Z313 should be 314. This is why I've persisted in a detailed analysis of the headshot sequence for MM. There appears to be no new info in the disco-MM. In fact info is lost with the saturation changes, and the frames are even more cropped. They just look prettier, like the Costalla frames.

Apart from having a reference towork from I try to ignore frame numberings as ehere are so many examples of them being wrong in different ways.

A determination of fragment trajectory may give the shutter speed of the MM camera and hence its frame rate according to the formulae Ashton directed to.

Frank, I think that is an excellent point.

What I see is MM 20 as the last of the static position of Jackie and Z 289 the last on Z. I don't see a pause. As the limo is traversing the scene the localised parallax would show a shift if she was (realatiely to John) stationary. As she may appear to be stationary it means she is moving in the rate of parallax shift.

Ashton, I think that's the missing piece. Thank you for that. So we need to know the true frame rate (which we may be able to calculate soon) and the relevant specifics of the cameras. The shutter speed can change a lot depending on the frame rate. So that's good to know in calculating fragment speeds once one has a correct distance the fragments have travelled by understanding the direction they have taken.

Perhaps:: We can begin to understand some of the mechanics of the wound ballistics. standard formulae like a=v f - v i /t, v= d / t, and F= ma can be used to get an understanding of the original impulse and what created it, and with the vector analysis derive a bullet rajectory and hence the location of the assassin.

I wonder if we can amass sufficient data by tringulating the various headshot images to build a transparent 3D model of the split second they represent.

With regards to limo speed using a single frame: 1.78 feet in 1/40 th of a second.

38.22 feet in one second.

26.05 mph

This once again brings up an unresolved problem that I contionually came across when working out how to derive object speed from blur differences last year. The worked out speed is twice what it should be.

Because it is so regularly double, this could be a very useful techynique if only the doubling is resolved.

Exactly how long is the shutter open on the various cameras?

M01 is very blurred.

However it contains a wealth of information.

It shows M in the process of moving her position. It's a snapshot of Limo speed and it is possibly a very good match point for Z-M sync.

The scale of the Limo has changed considerably in the following frames. The relative position, parallax, of various persons changes.

Speed- The blurs of stationary objects like the sign on the lamp post, and people are all of a fixed length and direction.

The blurs of the Limo are all in a different direction and length. However, put side by side one can see that the vertical height of the blurs is the same. This means that during the exposure of the frame, while the camera moved in one way, indicated by the stationary bject blurs, the limo moved as well, and the relative movement shown by this blur difference is the factor that can be used to derive the limospeed at this frame.

Right at the top right of the farame one sees the base of Zaps pedestal with the eastern shadow on the lamp post in front of it. On the farleft top is the lower slice of the hedge below the end of the wall.

This places (from Z's perspective) M behind the lamp on top of the lamp post.

Jackies position is clearly seen. This means that this frame is about Z270-271.

Frank, if this is so, then there are two match points at opposite ends of the M film that overlap into the Z-N sync. This should then give a M framerate.

The frame rate or the rate of the camera advancing the film for the next recording was 18.3. The film is exposed to the impact of photons for a set period of time. Lets say it's 1/40th of a second.

The film doesn't pick and choose which of those photons will react with the emulsion. It doesn't say, hey you, you come from a fast travelling obect, go away. The photons travel at the speed of light. In 1/40th of a second ejecta at the speed of sound will traverse 8 meters across the field of view, and if travelling away or towards the film it will traverse a shorter distance. Naturally the ejecta during this time will be reflecting (and refracting) photons and these will impact the film leaving an imprint.

(Z313 occurred a split second before N23, not after.)

It should be known that (AFAIK) the cameras were wound and a clock mechanism which slowly wound down drove the film feed.

IOW the beginning of a filming may run at slightly above the tested speed, then for some time the tested speed applies with a slight decrease, and at the end a more rapid decrease. IOW the earlier sequences and the later, with no rewinding, could mean that the frame speed at the time of Nix film headshot is already degraded. IOW at the time of the headshot the camera may have been running at, say 17.5 fps.

So, what was the frame rate?

I can't say whether the WC left out any particular frames. However >>this clip<< has frames missing in a suspect pattern. For this calculation I have already put the missing frames back, so you can't add them again.

The WC may have only left out the first frame. Or they may have left out another frame and shifted the count to hide that. What they certainly did do is to mislabel the headshot frame. And they used the average pre headshot speed as 11.2 while the more accurate could be around 7-9 for the second or so before the headshot. I've yet to compare the pre shot frames with the z film to see if gaps can be found that way. So stay skeptic and don't make hasty conclusions.

Whew!

That one confused and lost me.

John! Just think of what you have done to poor ole Jack.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For Mr. Dolva:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z272.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

30.2 feet!

+++++++++++++

Vehicle Speed, if you will please!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Elapsed frames of film: = 41

Distance travelled: = 30.2 feet

Distance travelled per elapsed film frame: = 0.7365853 (30.2 divided by 41)

Distance covered per second: = 13.47591 feet (0.7365853 X 18.3 frames per second)

Distance travelled per hour: = 48,526.36 feet (13.475.91 fps X 60 seconds x 60 minutes)

Miles per hours: = 9.190575 mph (48,526.36 divided by 5,280)

==============================================================================

Assuming of course that the number "41" for elapsed frames of the Z-film is correct.

Math check?????

[Bernice Moore]

Tom:

You have referred to Bond, as "he"more than once in this thread....

You place much on ones "Homework" accomplished.......so a correction within yours, is warranted.

..John Dolva is correct within his research,

it was She.......Wilma Bond.

B......

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom:

You have referred to Bond, as "he"more than once in this thread....

You place much on ones "Homework" accomplished.......so a correction within yours, is warranted.

..John Dolva is correct within his research,

it was She.......Wilma Bond.

B......

Probably why I could not remember a first name as I was searching for a male gender name.

And despite what you may think, I appreciate that as it made me recall exactly where else one

can find the true description of Mrs. Bonds location, which I had stuck away somewhere.

http://www.jfk-online.com/bondshaw.html

A: If it is the last one, it is the last whatever you call that, a pigeonhole, so to speak. It was the last pigeonhole or whatever it was, the opening there that I went to.

And there, Mr. Unger, is the real position of Wilma Bond as she was about to take a photo.

[John Dolva]

Tom,

Well, the posts indicate I'm a bit confused too. Part of that confusion is pre realisation that dons dp plat is flawed. (as is Allans placement of the pipes (the updated version of Stones JFK shows more of the pipe placement and how 'garrison' had to stand in front of the pipes, with no boxes, for the shots, this would cast doubt on various persons observations re the sixth fl window)

(Once again you put a smile on my face. I'm certain Jack'll cope.)

Still. The previous calc's (7-9 mph) indicates a concordance of sorts, but a precise answer is difficult (IMO) for the reasons outlined. (though I still think deriving speed from a single frame is possible.).

Hi Bernice

[Jack White]

As Purvis would know if he ever went to Dealey Plaza with an Altgens 6 photo

and lined up landmarks which are still there, Altgens was standing several feet

off the curb when he took the photo. Robert Cutler came to this same conclusion

in his famed plaza map on pages 48-49 in Computers and Automation, May 1970.

Altgens IN THE STREET further gives lie to Zapruder, which shows him on the grass.

I also wonder about the Purvis statement that Altgens 6 has been cropped. I would

appreciate any source information about this. Trask published what is claimed to

be the full negative, though I have doubts about that.

Jack

Jack;

I for one am somewhat tired of doing your homework research for you, and still seeing

you fail the course of instruction.

The Altgens/Z255 photo, as presented by the WC, was cropped on each side, which removes important/key background items in the event that one went to dealy Plaza an attempted to

secure the same alignment and determine Altgens exact position along the Elm St. Curb. (down by the second yellow curb

mark I might add)

Add to that the fact that new stripes were painted along the center of Elm St., and only the

most proficient, and just about requiring an instrument, would or could achieve the exact

Altgens alignment,

The "Photograph From Re-enactment":

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

Is nothing more than the "scam" in which the wool was pulled over your eyes in making one think that James Altgens was considerably farther up Elm St. towards the TSDB, than he actually was.

Thereby selling you and everyone else that the LAST SHOT that he referenced as striking JFK, was the Z313 shot.

As one moves from Altgens true location down at the SECOND yellow curb marking, up Elm St. towards the TSDB, then one also moves farther to the right of the alignment.

Thusly, the Re-enactment photo, as should be evident to most anyone, is actually from a position which is RIGHT (as looking in direction of photo towards TSDB) of the actual Altgens Z255 photo.

Now, for all I know (since I was not there), the photo could have been taken from way out in the grassy area behind James Altgens location, in which one could obtain the same camera alignment.

However, one can rest assured that it was not taken from the Altgens position or the Altgens camera alignment.

I also wonder about the Purvis statement that Altgens 6 has been cropped.

Had you done even the smallest "smidget" of research, then you would know that the WC "comparative version" of the Altgens photo has been cropped on each side.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

As well as the fact that what is purportedly the "full" photo has been around for a considerable length of time.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1

So, while you have been chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza and attempting to determine if Mary Moorman was or was not standing in the street.

A few of us have been accumulating and evaluating evidence in order to attempt to make some sense out of the obfuscation of this evidence on the part of the WC/aka Specter & Company, INC.

P.P.S.

If Purvis would spend less time pontificating and more looking at the evidence, he might learn

something. The Altgens photo HE CLAIMS TO BE FULL SIZE is cropped considerably. The closest to

full size I know of is found in Computers and Automation, May, 1970, pages 44-45. It has consierably

more image on the left than the one the know-it-all Purvis says is FULL SIZE, which crops out the

woman with the camera as well as three other people. How can he expect to be taken seriously

when he cannot even get something as simple as Altgens 6 right?

Purvis obviously has never been in the plaza trying to locate lines of sight.

Jack

Edited January 8, 2009 by Jack White