Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film Exposed


Chris Davidson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Did you ever wonder where the WC might have started their frame counting scheme?

Well, we have final data CE884 May1964 plat with a starting point of Zframe168.

So maybe somewhere around 168 frames earlier, they started their count.

How about 169 frames over 50.7ft or the distance from Position A to Z168. That would make sense.

169frames/18.3fps = 9.23sec

50.7ft/9.23seconds = 3.74 mph


Now once again folks, what is the speed of the limo at entry points Z168-171 on the CE884 1964 WC plat?

For that matter, it's the same on the "preliminary" from Z161-Z166 =3.74mph

Yes, 3.74mph.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Chris, this thread simply proves that my high school scores in geometry were truly - and sadly - accurate. So help me a bit with interpretation. Does all this mean that the film simply

had every other frame removed and the net effect is to slow down the apparent speed of the vehicles. Would that not double the time of the apparent shooting sequence as well.

Or is it that the gimmick apparently displaces the actual shots in space....meaning an earlier shot further East and a final shot further west?

I can roughly follow your numbers but what result do they suggest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry,

Yes, a certain amount of frames were removed within the film.

Remember, when a car slows down, regardless of the frame rate it is being filmed at, more frames are created. The difference is what we are after.

Your geometry is good.

Think about the different angles created by moving laterally west, up in the TSBD, in relation to the extant shot locations on Elm St.

The WC had to keep things synced/timed using the snipers nest as the pivot point.

What I move at street level, I will have to move up high, accordingly.

This way, I can make you believe a shot which happened further west, say Z351(Altgens spot) occurred actually at Z313.

That's not the only shot which would disappear, either.

But gee, the extant film tells me otherwise. Guess what, films can be altered. Failure to understand this concept = a lifetime of research futility. Math is black/white.

I am showing you the math that was used to create the WC masterpiece

It appears you are finally grasping this.

I can introduce more of the scenario, but the majority of people appear to get lost in the numbers.

This is why I have purposely stayed away from the majority of testimony. The WC documentation tells you what happened, I'm just revealing their work.

This is not a theory, this is their math, not mine.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 frame in mind 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, this thread simply proves that my high school scores in geometry were truly - and sadly - accurate. So help me a bit with interpretation. Does all this mean that the film simply

had every other frame removed and the net effect is to slow down the apparent speed of the vehicles. Would that not double the time of the apparent shooting sequence as well.

Or is it that the gimmick apparently displaces the actual shots in space....meaning an earlier shot further East and a final shot further west?

I can roughly follow your numbers but what result do they suggest?

Larry,

Here are a couple of relative parallel distances.

The street location parallel with the TSBD snipers nest, is at Station# 2+50.

Station#2+50(TSBD snipers nest street location) to Z255 (Station#4+16.4) = 166.4ft.

Z133(Station# 2+99) to Z313(Station#4+65.3) =166.3ft

Also, Z168 (Station# 3+29.2)-Z351(Station#495.5) = 166.3ft

The distance from Z133-Z351 = 196.5ft minus the distance from Z313-Z351 (30.2ft) = 166.3ft

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

For the benefit of non-members following your presentation that communicate privately with me & cannont post comments, I'd like to present some comments:

(1) If frames are removed from any film record of an event (regardless of the camera's frame rate), does that not result in an action that appears 'speeded up'? For instance, let's say JFK's limo traversed Elm Street at 7 mph at a camera rate of 24 frames per second. Lets suppose frames were removed from the film record. Now the limo is traveling faster, correct? If frames were added, the limo would appear to be traveling SLOWER, correct?

I found a good example of how removing frames 'speeds up' an action in a film record (regardless of camera frame rate) here:

(2) The speed of the limo factors into the acoustics analysis recently presented by Donald Thomas:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?321702-4/acoustic-analysis-kennedy-assassination

In his lecture, Mr. Thomas relies on the FBI/WC speed of JFK's limo at slightly over 11 mph. If your research presents the analysis that this speed is not factual, does it not also indicate the audio analysis of Dr. Thomas is based on untrustworthy data?

(3) In your speed comparison gif that compared the speed of JFK's limo (in the z-film record) against the 27 Nov 1963 SS recreation filmed from Zapruder's pedestal at 24 fps, it is quite noticeable that the traffic cone indicating the fatal z-313 headshot is several yards closer to the pergola sidewalk steps than where it is indicated in the Z-film released to the public (and where the marker is presently located in Dealey Plaza today). Can your research explain this discrepancy, keeping in mind the initial investigators were relying on photo stills from the Z-film that had not yet been released to the public (via Life magazine's 29 Nov 1963 issue). How could initial investigators be several yards off? (Pat Speer was one of the 1st, if not the 1st researchers to point this strange event out to the public in Chapter 2 on his website). According to Doug Horne's research, the stills from the Z-film that these initial investigators were relying on came from a z-film altered at Hawkeyeworks on Sunday, Nov 24 1963). 27 Nov 1963 was just 3 days after Hawkeyeworks technicians falsified the Z-film (according to Mr. Horne), 2 days after JFK was buried at Arlington. Can you determine a reason for the wrong placement of the headshot traffic cone by initial investigators on 27 Nov 1963 (seen in your gif & pointed out on Pat Speer's website) vs. where the headshot is seen in the z-film released to the public? Is the public seeing evidence of 2 separate z-film alterations when comparing the two events?

Does your research 'catch' film alterationists at what they allegedly did to the z-film at Hawkeyeworks or later while in the hands of Federal operatives or the media giant that paid a fortune to purchase the original film & all copies from Mr. Zapruder? Please explain to where the unsophisticated in math can comprehend.

Doug Horne has predicted that within the next 20 years the Zapruder film will be considered not as a film record of the JFK ambush, but as evidence of 1963-1964 Government operatives falsifying crucial evidence in the case. Your research may be what tips the scales in that very direction.

BM

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

For the benefit of non-members following your presentation that communicate privately with me & cannont post comments, I'd like to present some comments:

(1) If frames are removed from any film record of an event (regardless of the camera's frame rate), does that not result in an action that appears 'speeded up'? For instance, let's say JFK's limo traversed Elm Street at 7 mph at a camera rate of 24 frames per second. Lets suppose frames were removed from the film record. Now the limo is traveling faster, correct? If frames were added, the limo would appear to be traveling SLOWER, correct?

I found a good example of how removing frames 'speeds up' an action in a film record (regardless of camera frame rate) here:

(2) The speed of the limo factors into the acoustics analysis recently presented by Donald Thomas:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?321702-4/acoustic-analysis-kennedy-assassination

In his lecture, Mr. Thomas relies on the FBI/WC speed of JFK's limo at slightly over 11 mph. If your research presents the analysis that this speed is not factual, does it not also indicate the audio analysis of Dr. Thomas is based on untrustworthy data?

(3) In your speed comparison gif that compared the speed of JFK's limo (in the z-film record) against the 27 Nov 1963 SS recreation filmed from Zapruder's pedestal at 24 fps, it is quite noticeable that the traffic cone indicating the fatal z-313 headshot is several yards closer to the pergola sidewalk steps than where it is indicated in the Z-film released to the public (and where the marker is presently located in Dealey Plaza today). Can your research explain this discrepancy, keeping in mind the initial investigators were relying on photo stills from the Z-film that had not yet been released to the public (via Life magazine's 29 Nov 1963 issue). How could initial investigators be several yards off? (Pat Speer was one of the 1st, if not the 1st researchers to point this strange event out to the public in Chapter 2 on his website). According to Doug Horne's research, the stills from the Z-film that these initial investigators were relying on came from a z-film altered at Hawkeyeworks on Sunday, Nov 24 1963). 27 Nov 1963 was just 3 days after Hawkeyeworks technicians falsified the Z-film (according to Mr. Horne), 2 days after JFK was buried at Arlington. How can you account for the wrong placement of the headshot traffic cone by initial investigators on 27 Nov 1963 (seen in your gif & pointed out on Pat Speer's website) vs where the headshot is seen in the z-film released to the public? Is the public seeing evidence of 2 separate z-film alterations?

Does your research 'catch them at what they did to the z-film'? If so, please explain to where the unsophisticated in math can comprehend.

BM

Brad,

http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/10363003/file.html

http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/43816588/file.html

Yes, If you remove frames, the action will appear to increase in speed. The opposite if you add extra frames. Of course this all depends on the speed of the "original" action to begin with.

I have Mr.Thomas' results from back in 2007. I didn't know about his latest video. Give me a little time to watch it and I'll respond.

The last question I will answer this way.

The WC made adjustments to the film as well as their data to accommodate a 30.2ft distance.

15.5ft of that 30.2ft is the starting point of their initial adjustments.

Lets not forget the street location aligned with the snipers nest is at Station#2+50.

And, since they started their measurements at what is commonly known as Station C = Station#2+34.5, they have pulled their measurements back an initial 15.5ft.

So, at 15.5ft to start, if I pull that distance back from the last frame on my video at 351, does it appear to land close to the pylon, or in essence, about halfway between the extant 313 shot and Z351?

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will probably receive questions as to how your Zapruder film research applies to the other JFK amateur ambush films as you near completion or complete your presentation, Chris. Because the films are all incomplete film records of the ambush & Orville Nix went on camera for Mark Lane in the mid '60's stating frames were missing from his film there is a high degree of suspicion about all of them. Does the limo speed in those films match your analysis of the z-film?

This is very intriguing research, Chris. Your visitor count has increased dramatically since you began, indicating a lot of people globally are interested in what you are telling them here at EF.

BM

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will probably receive questions as to how your Zapruder film research applies to the other JFK amateur ambush films as you near completion or complete your presentation, Chris. Because the films are all incomplete film records of the ambush & Orville Nix went on camera for Mark Lane in the mid '60's stating frames were missing from his film there is a high degree of suspicion about all of them. Does the limo speed in those films match your analysis of the z-film?

This is very intriguing research, Chris. You visitor count has increased dramatically since you began, indicating a lot of people globally are interested in what you are telling them here at EF.

BM

Brad,

I would encourage people to obtain the CE884 comp. document I supplied in post 31. Good reference piece.

As for the Nix film sync, Itek's study of the limo in Nix circa 1967 has the limo traveling at 7.6mph for frames Z300-312. It also states an overall average of 8.7mph from frame 285-313.

8.7 mph + 3.74mph =12.44mph = 1ft per 1frame ratio.

3.74mph x 1/2 frames = 7.48mph = awfully close to 7.6mph determined speed by Itek.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.filedropper.com/sswc

Just click on download file. Then enter the code requested.

The SS recreation video was shot from the pedestal.

The WC version was not. Note the relationship between the light-pole and wall openings in each.

The WC version was at approx the same height, but the filming position is to the west and probably north of the pedestal.

If you were on the pedestal facing the street, this would be to your right and back aways.

chris

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...