Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zfilm Alterationists


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Referring back to the chart with the 3.74 and 2.24 mph entries.

The top two rows go like this:

FRAME TO FRAME #of Frames Distance Traveled

168-171 3 .9ft

171-185 14 19.2 ft

Think in terms of differences: 11 frame difference and 18.3ft difference.

Now create a ratio from it: 18.3/11=1.666

11/18.3=.60

Bottom Rows:

FRAME TO FRAME #of Frames Distance Traveled

161-166 5 .9ft

166-185 19 19.2ft

Once again, differences 14 frames 18.3ft

Ratio= 18.3/14=1.307

14/18.3=.765

Keep these numbers in mind!!!

chris

Ok chris, I failed to click on the link to the Vehicle Speed Analysis based on the WC re-enactment data. At the bottom of the table you say: "At no time during the assassination did the Presidential Limousine slow to 2.24 to 3.74 m ph. The vehicle obviously did not achieve speeds of 28.69 mph, not did it accelerate from speeds of 2.24 mph to 12.60 mph in approximately one second (frames 166-185)... neither the original data nor the altered data even closely approximate the true average speed of the Presidential Limousine which was in fact between nine to twelve mph thoughout the entire sequence of shots fired."

There are a number of points I don't understand. Where does the figure in the chart under "distance traveled" come from? Obviously the variation in distance traveled per frame would show a jerky limo doing impossible things. Did the WC come up with these strange numbers?

Second, your claim that the limo kept to a certain average speed throughout the shooting is self-contradictory. If the film is altered, no such conclusion is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

I'm sorry I failed to explain the Vehicle Speed Analysis chart.

It was provided to me by Tom Purvis.

Those are his comments at the bottom.

Yes, the WC came up with those numbers. They appear strange in the form they are in, but when applied in their proper context, they reveal calculations done on 2 different frame rates as described in a previous posting.

I'm not claiming the limo kept to an average speed, I'm showing how the WC created that scenario using different frame rates.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distance from frame 1(JFK aligned with the TSBD corner)-Z161 is 85ft.

There is a 15ft adjustment included in the WC scenario which sets the distance at 100ft.

161frames/18.3fps=8.797seconds

100ft/8.797sec=11.367ft per sec

11.367/1.47(1mph)=7.73mph

If I want to create an average vehicle speed over the entire distance of frame1 to 313 with the above scenario, I need to incorporate WC calculations from CE884,

So frame 161-313 is 152 frames @136.1ft traveled.

There is one problem though, I will not be able to use 18.3fps as my frame rate.

I'll have to use 24fps.

152frames/24fps=6.33sec

136.1ft/6.33sec=21.5ft per sec

21.5ft per sec x 1.47(1mph)=14.62mph

Now average the above scenario's together since we are talking about 152 and 161 frame scenarios.

7.73+14.62=22.35/2=11.17mph

Now run the WC scenario which uses 18.3fps with the same numbers above:

152/18.3=8.30 seconds

136.1ft/8.3 seconds=16.397ft per sec

16.397ft per sec/1.47(1mph)=11.154mph

Do you see how you can hide distances and frame rates within a bigger picture?

chris

I am wondering Chris how you integrate a limo stop into your analysis. Based on eyewitness testimony, as best as I can understand it, the limo was slowing down and stopped after or during the headshot, if indeed there was but one, as I am inclined to think based on the Dallas' testimony. The extant Z-film does show the limo slowing below the 11 mph average right before the head shot, but I believe the limo stop was removed, along with ejecta exiting out of the back of Kennedy's head, which would have been a major problem for framing Oswald for the crime. Would be interestd on your take,and thanks in advance. Respectfully, Daniel

Hi Daniel,

I'm not going to integrate a limo stop in my analysis. That is not what I am trying to accomplish. I am trying to expose a film created from different frame rates, created by the WC, to cover up a shot some 30ft farther down Elm than the 313 headshot.

chris

As a math teacher I should be interested in your study, Chris, and I thank you for summarizing succicintly exactly what you are trying to show. But all this still begs the questions: why do you suppose it was the WC which created the fradulant film, and not the CIA; and how does the most central aspect of the that fraud, the limo stop, figure into the numbers? Because the limo does show a distinct slowing, even in the extant film, before 313. If your study is about averages, would it not do to take smaller and smaller time increments as one nears 313? Best regards, Daniel

Daniel,

I can't argue as to who created the film, I make the assumption that the WC was responsible for making the math work.

I'm not trying to prove the limo stopped, that is not my objective.

If I can formulate a scenario after all I have presented, I will gladly share it.

Smaller and smaller increments would make sense,

Let's see where the math and plat leads.

The following is a reply from Herbert over on Duncan's forum:

Frames 161-166 show the limousine moving forward at about one foot per frame. So obviously the tabulation of CE 884 has an error. They mistakenly assigned 161 to the row whose other numbers clearly show that they belonged to 165.

This is my response to Herbert over on Duncan's forum

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/VehicleSpeed-2.jpg

If that's the case, what should they have entered in the Vehicle Speed Analysis sections under frames168-171 and below under frames161-166.

I guess they calculated the same wrong distance traveled for both those spans. Let's see if that is another coincidence!!!

Have you tried calculating those entries in the upper and lower columns:

frame 168-185=17frames@20.2ft

17/18.3=1.07

1.07 x 20.1=21.5ft sec

21.50/1.47(1mph)=14.63mph

frame161-185

24/18.3=1.31

20.1/1.31=15.34ft sec

15.34/1.47(1mph)=10.44mph

Does that 14.6 mph number sound familiar to you.

If it doesn't, it's the same speed as the 2 film clips with a 13 frame to 15ft ratio.

Once again, let's just unseal WC CE882, that's the original document which contains all these calculations and see if they match CE884. Let's not deal with a copy entered into evidence as being an exact replica of CE882 where the plat is too small to decipher.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

By the way, from the previous post:

24 frames @20.1ft

frame161-185

24/18.3=1.31

20.1/1.31=15.34ft sec

15.34/1.47(1mph)=10.44mph 24 frames@20.2ft=10.489mph

Why might this be important.

I will use it in a broader context for you.

Using CE884:

frame 161-313=152 frames

Distance traveled=136.1ft

18.3fps

152/18.3=8.30 sec

136.1/8.30sec=16.397ft per sec

16.397/1.4791mph)=11.15 mph

Now, let me remove the 2 gifs I created consisting of the (13 frames/15ft scenario) =26frames@30ft from the CE884 equation.

152-26=126total frames

136.1ft -30ft=106.1ft

18.3fps

126/18.3=6.885sec

106.1ft/6.885sec=15.41ft sec

15.41/1.47(1mph)=10.48mph

Now compare that to the calculations for frame 255-313 from CE884

58frames@48.9ft

18.3fps

58/18.3=3.169

48.9ft/3.169sec=15.43ft sec

15.43/1.4791mph)=10.49mph

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW...

Chris, the notes from NPIC that weekend point to the one scenario they liked... z213 > z242 > z312 as well as on the PANELS page they write 224 > 256 > 312

It's obvious LIFE worked backward from 312... as the question on this page reads: "from the 8 m film how do they know exact frames of 1st and 2nd shot?"

They didn't... they worked backward... which is why your work shows so much as the math was ALSO created working BACKWARD from 312/313.

LIFE gave us z190 > z264 > z312/3

Here are the 5 frames (other than 313) that shots were ultimately identified on... z242 and z263/4 are repeatedly identified as frames with shots....

Three and ONLY three shots... :blink:

AllNPICshots-1.jpg

Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-

rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was

a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President

Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-

timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were

3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in

selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said

"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to

produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said

that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed

the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Nicely put.

They worked all the way back to the corner of the TSBD as their starting point.

It looks like you're starting to understand the complete math equation.

chris

Lets disregard this "silly math" and your fabricated events, dave can't even understand how triangulation works. He still can't grasp that Altgens blew his distance estimates. And neither can you Chris...or so it seems.

Chris and his fantasy lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

I'm glad you're enjoying the show.

Here's some more numbers for you.

Referring back to post #1, in the Myer's chart there is a constant frame difference among each of the entries.

For instance, 75 and 133=58 frames

102 and 160=58 frames

58 frames is the frame difference between the last entries on CE884. Which are frames 255-313.

18.3/24=.7625

.7625 x 58 =44.225 frames

Frame 290-334=44frames

When does the limo start slowing down and what are the last frames published? According to Shaneyfelt it was 334 as nothing eventful happened after that.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Nicely put.

They worked all the way back to the corner of the TSBD as their starting point.

It looks like you're starting to understand the complete math equation.

chris

Chris, I'm not sure I understand your math. I would not be surprised though, if the WC got their measurements wrong. What I can say for sure however, is that the fatal head shot was indeed fired at the actual point in time it is seen in the Zapruder film - at 313. Various frames in the film can be compared with other photos and films, and in this case we can look at Moorman's last photo.

This photo was taken at the equivalent of Zapruder frame 315, just a hair after the fatal head shot and we can see the obvious damage to the top of JFK's head. Had the limo been 30 feet further up the road, when the fatal shot was fired, Moorman would have been long gone from Zapruder's view. As it is, both she and officer Hargis are in the picture, which matches perfectly with her position, relative to Zapruder at that frame.

moorman-zapruder.jpg

To the best of my knowledge, ALL other relevant photos and films match up with the Zfilm, perfectly. Even Mantik has admitted that when he studied the Nix and Muchmore films he could find no discrepancies between them and Zapruder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

I'm glad you're enjoying the show.

Here's some more numbers for you.

Referring back to post #1, in the Myer's chart there is a constant frame difference among each of the entries.

For instance, 75 and 133=58 frames

102 and 160=58 frames

58 frames is the frame difference between the last entries on CE884. Which are frames 255-313.

18.3/24=.7625

.7625 x 58 =44.225 frames

Frame 290-334=44frames

When does the limo start slowing down and what are the last frames published? According to Shaneyfelt it was 334 as nothing eventful happened after that.

chris

The comedy is outstanding. Please keep it up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All for your pleasure there CL...

Maybe you'll laugh yourself to :rip

Since all this is so amusing to you....

and so far beyond your comprehension that all you HAVE are these cute little comments....

when you figure out how the lane strip moves in your 10" off Altgens position recreation photo...

of how nothing else lines up when using the obelisk as the anchor

Same distance, same focal length, virtually the same location (according to you)... yet two completely different results...

Pull out that lever math of yours and use it on your lane marker... a whole lot of movement for being so close to the camera

and then tell us whether the recreation photo was cropped or not... if they took it from the same location with the same lens, where's the rest of the image?

this should be entertaining... :ice

altgensrecreationisBS.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All for your pleasure there CL...

Maybe you'll laugh yourself to :rip

Since all this is so amusing to you....

and so far beyond your comprehension that all you HAVE are these cute little comments....

when you figure out how the lane strip moves in your 10" off Altgens position recreation photo...

of how nothing else lines up when using the obelisk as the anchor

Same distance, same focal length, virtually the same location (according to you)... yet two completely different results...

Pull out that lever math of yours and use it on your lane marker... a whole lot of movement for being so close to the camera

and then tell us whether the recreation photo was cropped or not... if they took it from the same location with the same lens, where's the rest of the image?

this should be entertaining... :ice

altgensrecreationisBS.jpg

You silly little boy...you can't overlay those photos and expect to "measure" anything. The PERSPECTIVE has changed. Oh wait...never mind. YOU don't understand perspective.

BTW, we are STILL waiting for your plat that shows us a triangulated set of LOS's to prove your claim that the camera moved MANY FEET.

Talk about entertaining...dave you ran away when it got yo YOU putting up ANYTHING that supports your silly claim. You ever gonna do ANY real work or will you just continue to just flap your gums?

BTW Dave, the LENS used is immaterial...you SHOULD know better...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/changing-perspective.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...