Jump to content

Zapruder Film Exposed

Chris Davidson

Recommended Posts

I think that Tom Purvis was steering us in this direction in years past, and most of us didn't know how to prove anything with the data he gave us. Chris, you've taken us "over the hump" on that part, and I find this information QUITE exciting. Apparently Shaneyfelt was giving us the limo speed BEFORE the frames were excised, but the edited film--which the American public wasn't supposed to have access to for years to come--allows us to excuse the SS for not moving fast enough to save anyone's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks Brad,

Douglas Horne has done a fabulous job.

I might be able to contribute a little with this:

This is an excerpt from Douglas Horn's research: The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events:

It could have happened this way—consider this: the extant film (that is, the assassination movie, not the Zapruder family scenes present on the two Secret Service copies) in the National Archives (not counting leader) consists of a strip of film 8 feet, 10 inches long (of which only 6 feet, 3 inches contains the imagery of the assassination film, and 2 feet, 7 inches is black, unexposed film with no image showing); then there is a physical splice; then there is a segment of black film."

I would look at 8ft 10 inches in terms of total frames pertaining to a 16mm/24 frames per sec film.

There are 40 frames per physical foot of film using 16mm film.

8ft 10 inches = 8.83ft

8.83ft x 40 frames per foot =353.2 frames

The first supposed 132 frames are missing from the Z film.

353.2 + 132 = 485.2 frames Rounded to the next frame = 486 frames = extant Zfilm total


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Tom Purvis was steering us in this direction in years past, and most of us didn't know how to prove anything with the data he gave us. Chris, you've taken us "over the hump" on that part, and I find this information QUITE exciting. Apparently Shaneyfelt was giving us the limo speed BEFORE the frames were excised, but the edited film--which the American public wasn't supposed to have access to for years to come--allows us to excuse the SS for not moving fast enough to save anyone's life.

Thanks Mark,

I don't know how many people are going to understand all of this, but if just a few besides myself do, it is well worth it.

I posted the video comparisons because I'm trying to change the mindset. The world was once flat or so we thought.

It doesn't appear many are willing to take a close look at WC CE884, which plays a huge part in this.

Removing frames in an orderly manner is key.

This is why I have emphasized for along time the importance of 3.74 mph as the initial speed from Frame 168-171 in the final version of CE884.

Not that it occurred at Z168-171, just a remnant left over from previous WC calculations.

More than likely, the real speed of the limo at different times, spliced out forever.

3.74 x 2 = 7.48mph = Itek's determined speed (7.6mph via the Nix film from Zframe 301 to 313)

3.74 x 3 =11.22 mph = Average of 218frames/18.3frames per sec over 196.5ft traveled see comparison video = Shaneyfelts testimony average from Z161-313 = 11.2mph

3.74 x 4 = 14.96mph = CE884 limo speed (14.94mph) from Z168-Z186 @ 18.3 frames per sec

The averages are close.

Its what they hid within the averages (3.74mph/limo stop) who knows what else.

A car moving at 3.74mph with every other frame removed would appear to travel at 7.48mph.

A car traveling at 7.48mph with every other frame removed would appear to travel at 14.96 mph.

I think you get the point.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, dealing with time references.

I know many are not fond of Paul Mandel either, but!!!

Another excerpt from Rathers first TV interview:

The car never stopped. The secret service man in the front seat had a telephone in his hand. The car...its acceleration increased rapidly and it disappeared under an underpass. Three shots - the first one hitting President Kennedy, the second one hitting Governor Connally, the third one hitting the President – consume, possibly, five seconds. Not much more than that, if any.

Attached is the article from Mandel published in the Dec 6th 1963 edition of Life Magazine

Mandel is under the impression he is counting frames from an 18.3 fps version.

Just convert his total frames between 3 shots based on 24 frames per sec.

122frames/24frames per sec = 5.08 seconds

Compared to Dan Rather's description of timing between shots, I 'd say they probably saw the same version.

And, a final excerpt from the excellent work provided by PaulRigby:

7) UPI (Dallas), “Movie Film Shows Murder of President,” Philadelphia Daily News, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, p.3 (4 star edition):

An amateur photographer shot an 8-MM movie film that clearly shows, step-by-step, the assassination of President Kennedy.

The film was made by Abraham Zapruder, a Dallas dress manufacturer. He is selling rights to the film privately. It has been seen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service and representatives of the news media.

It is seven feet long, 35 seconds in colour, a bit jumpy but clear.

486 total Z frames @18.3 frames per sec = 26.55seconds

24frames per sec /18.3frames per sec = 1.31 ratio

26.55sec x 1.31=34.79sec

Quite possibly a full length 16mm/24frames per sec movie viewed by ?

35sec x 24 frames per sec = 840 total frames

34.79sec x 24fps = 835 total frames


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great work, Chris. Like I said on the phone to you on Saturday, my only question really has to do with obtaining confirmation about the film speed for the reenactment film.

If you are correct, that it was shot at 24 frames per second, then I really think you have something here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here is a little snippet from the original.

It will give you an idea where they cut/stopped the film, then started tracking the recreation car.

It also shows the 3:2 pulldown speed (29.97fps) if your movie player lists this information after the conversion from film (24fps) to video format.

If not, here is a picture of it from mine.



The "inverse telecine"program did its job.

The first 2 frames in the top gif (from the original 3:2 pulldown film) are the interlaced frames, followed by 3 progressive frames for a total of 5 frames.

The bottom 2 gifs are each "inverse telecined" by a different program. A double check.

The span(you can use the sign edge and flag pole as markers) covered by the 5 frame combo (interlace+progressive) has now been converted back to the original 4 progressive frames, the interlace frames are gone.

The original comparison video posted, stands.



If you would like the entire (inverse telecined 24fps progressive) version posted, just ask.

It would be just the SS recreation by itself, no Zfilm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distances traveled are very important.

SS recreation film shows a car that traveled the same distance in the same amount of frames as the extant Z limo did, at 24frames per sec.

218frames@196.5ft = 14.72mph average over that entire distance.

Break it down into smaller splits.

Z133-Z166 = 33frames @30.2ft traveled@24frames per sec.

This split = 14.94mph, very close to the overall average of the SS recreation film Z133-Z351@24 frames per sec.

Now look at CE884 and the entry for Z168-Z186, the initial 18 frames of the WC measurements.

18frames@21.6ft traveled@18.3frames per sec = 21.96ft per sec = 14.94 mph, which matches the Z133-166 24frames per sec scenario.

So, on the extant Zfilm, does the limo appear to travel the same speed from Z133-Z186?



Once again, 14.94mph broken down into frame pulling = car slows down to 3.735mph, remove very other frame, car now traveling 7.47mph, remove every other frame, car traveling


Or this way: 14.96mph(split averages) - 11.22mph (SS recreation film overall average Z133-Z351 using 18.3frames per sec) = 3.74mph

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, a quick comment between presentation gaps, if I may:

Anyone preaching a new gospel can expect rumblings from those clinging to older beliefs. If you were the Lone Ranger & I was Tonto returning from a scout mission, you'd expect Tonto to inform you the natives were gearing up for an attack. With that thought in mind, I recall from the recent past years several anti-Zapruder alteration essays posted online & presented in lectures that will probably be used to attack your research. Just from memory, there's anti-alteration essays from Josiah Thompson & Roland Zavala posted online. This one here is popular with the McAdams camp:


The researcher in the essay presents the opinion that the Zapruder sprocket holes 'ghost images' would not line up & would expose frame removal if frames were indeed removed . I read some comments on this viewpoint when the essay was originally posted many moons ago & it's not clear if every single Zapruder frame had 'ghost images' in each sprocket hole area or not in the essay. I seem to recall ghost images coming & going in the film.

Some folks discussing your research privately are questioning if the amount of frames corresponding to the black portion of the Zapruder film were removed from the original 24 fps film, would that alone speed up the film & make the limo appear to be traveling faster down Elm St. than it really was at 18 fps?. If so, could those same black frames be the missing limo turn from Houston onto Elm Street scene? IOW, if cutting out the limo turn onto Elm Street was all that was allegedly done to the film & what remained of the film was copied as a false original, would the removal of the limo turn speed up the film (from 24 fps to 18 fps) & this is why Shaneyfelt testified the limo was traveling at a little over 11 mph in a now false 18 fps film?

I have always had problems understanding the z-film. The 1st part of it (where the motorcycles begin to traverse Elm Street) always looked to me like it was in slow motion & the motorcycles were 'stalling for time' waiting for the motorcade to catch up to them & then here comes the limo zipping down Elm Street. That part of the film always looked like it was running too fast to me (similar to an old Keystone Kops comedy). The two scenes didn't match (to my eyes).

Have a blessed & rewarding Thanksgiving.


Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Please feel free to keep your comments posted. You are not interrupting in the least.

I'm glad some of the folks are now starting to tie it back to the part of the film we do not have. This is another part of the equation that must be addressed.

The WC determined the time between the 1st and 3rd shots, document CE560 as 5.5 sec.

If I had to keep a specific time ratio of 5.5sec in terms of a larger picture(scenario with more frames@24 frames per sec), I might have to cut out the equivalent at some point.

The WC starts the extant Zfilm frame count at 133.

The first 132/24frames per sec = 5.5sec.


Coincidence. I think not!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, let me carry out 5.5 seconds in a little broader context.

I showed you the plat in an earlier post with the distance marked between extant Z313-Z351(last frame in my comparative video) as 30.2ft

That last frame indicating (JFK's position in the limo) in front of Altgens.

132frames/24frames per sec = 5.5sec.

30.2ft/5.5sec = 5.49ft per sec = 3.74 mph.


P.S. The SS document CE875 provided tells us the last shot was approx 4ft short of Station#5+00. Which, in relevance with the previous equation, would be Station# 4+95.5 or 30.2ft from the extant 313 headshot.

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was working with a 24 frames per sec scenario and had to worry about the "Kodak film edge identification marks" repeating every 65 frames, I might at some point (a splice in film) make sure the "spliced in" frame included the initial Kodak film edge marking at the correct place.

Something like this:

Pre limo footage initial Kodak edge ID = Z92

Post limo footage initial Kodak edge ID =Z157

Limo in extant Zfilm starts at Z133.

24frames later, the splice to put the initial Kodak ID frame back into proper sequence.


Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Let me tie this back up the street a little.

The WC came up with a little measurement scheme to accommmodate their necessary changes.

A position created as Position A was used as one of the measuring spots on Elm St.

Using the distance differences between the included WC material, and referencing the CE884 comp. data charts supplied earlier, where the location change from Z161 to Z168 was implemented on the final May 1964 WC plat, one can come up with a distance between:

Position A and Z168 of 50.7ft.

That 50.7ft + approx the distance traveled in my "car deceleration" document 9.8ft = 60.5ft.

The distance from the Z272lamp-post to Z351 Altgens position = 60.4ft

The elevation of the 6th floor window ledge determined by the WC was 60.7ft.

Does any one see the connection/commonality here?


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

  • Create New...