Chris Davidson Posted June 11, 2016 Author Share Posted June 11, 2016 Chris, I'm sure you've mentioned this in an earlier post somewhere. But is it your opinion that Zapruder shot in slow motion (48 FB's) and that that film was altered at Hawkeye Works to bring it down to 18.3 fps? Do you also feel that they made splices in the film such as the turn? And that they cropped the field of view at the bottom? Just wanted to make sure I knew where you (and perhaps David as well) stood on the film. I seemed to remember a photo of you standing in the place Zaprider was. Did you take some test film of your own? Recently I obtained one of the B&H Directors cameras and some film, and was interested in doing some tests as well. -Chris 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bennett Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Thanks, Chris. I did find a place called Film Rescue International that will still develop Kodachrome. But since the chemical process was kept secret when Kodak stopped using it, they can only develop in B&W. http://www.filmrescue.com/old-movie-film-developing/ -Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Chris, I'm sure you've mentioned this in an earlier post somewhere. But is it your opinion that Zapruder shot in slow motion (48 FB's) and that that film was altered at Hawkeye Works to bring it down to 18.3 fps? Do you also feel that they made splices in the film such as the turn? And that they cropped the field of view at the bottom? Just wanted to make sure I knew where you (and perhaps David as well) stood on the film. I seemed to remember a photo of you standing in the place Zaprider was. Did you take some test film of your own? Recently I obtained one of the B&H Directors cameras and some film, and was interested in doing some tests as well. -Chris 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. 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 Here is #7 with what is missing copped back in using Cabluck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Chris - As you know I've been working on WCD298 and all of your great work augments that study. I have a question about one of your calcs... Shaneyfelt does say there is a 10" diff in the height of the recreation vehicle.. you then take 10" divide by 12" and .8333 then you have .833 x 18.3 (horizontal feet in 1 vertical foot) to get 15.249 the distance from the front bumper to JFK. How does 10"/12" relate to horizontal distance when Shaneyfelt is talking about vertical distance... also - The 10" + 3.54" suggests the muzzle is that much higher than the sill? which in turn moves the intercept point using the same downward angles farther down Elm... You believe because the boxes created a resting perch the muzzle is really 13.54 inches above the sill? It doesn't even appear that the window is open that much... And now let's get to a conclusion statement - The shots described by WCD298 are basically the mathematical creation of a shot prior and post to account for 3 shots when in reality there were many more. The MATH is used to move the limo down the street to 1)remove the Elm wide turn, 2) remove a first shot around 155, 3) to place a shot to JFK as he is going behind the sign rather than at 190 which in the extent Zfilm includes 48 and 16 fps speeds. He is seen covering his face by 207 so they simply place the front of the limo at 207 for one set of discussions while JFK's position is where the front of the limo hits 190? 3) there is or is not a shot at z313 which equates to a spot further down Elm and effectively removes the limo stop/pause and finally 4) the shot at 4+96 is z313 or completely made up so the math works? Describing the scenario - a flurry of shots enters the limo prior to Hill leaving the Queen Mary and getting to the limo. The limo must be moving very slowly for him to reach it in only a few steps - at 11.2 mph he'd have to be a world class sprinter to make up the moving difference - Doesn't the NIX film basically prove a shot did not happen farther down Elm? If the headshot does actually occur where WCD298 places it, the alterations to the film were much more involved than simply 48fps conversion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Chris - As you know I've been working on WCD298 and all of your great work augments that study. I have a question about one of your calcs... Shaneyfelt does say there is a 10" diff in the height of the recreation vehicle.. you then take 10" divide by 12" and .8333 then you have .833 x 18.3 (horizontal feet in 1 vertical foot) to get 15.249 the distance from the front bumper to JFK. How does 10"/12" relate to horizontal distance when Shaneyfelt is talking about vertical distance... also - The 10" + 3.54" suggests the muzzle is that much higher than the sill? which in turn moves the intercept point using the same downward angles farther down Elm... You believe because the boxes created a resting perch the muzzle is really 13.54 inches above the sill? It doesn't even appear that the window is open that much... And now let's get to a conclusion statement - The shots described by WCD298 are basically the mathematical creation of a shot prior and post to account for 3 shots when in reality there were many more. The MATH is used to move the limo down the street to 1)remove the Elm wide turn, 2) remove a first shot around 155, 3) to place a shot to JFK as he is going behind the sign rather than at 190 which in the extent Zfilm includes 48 and 16 fps speeds. He is seen covering his face by 207 so they simply place the front of the limo at 207 for one set of discussions while JFK's position is where the front of the limo hits 190? 3) there is or is not a shot at z313 which equates to a spot further down Elm and effectively removes the limo stop/pause and finally 4) the shot at 4+96 is z313 or completely made up so the math works? Describing the scenario - a flurry of shots enters the limo prior to Hill leaving the Queen Mary and getting to the limo. The limo must be moving very slowly for him to reach it in only a few steps - at 11.2 mph he'd have to be a world class sprinter to make up the moving difference - Doesn't the NIX film basically prove a shot did not happen farther down Elm? If the headshot does actually occur where WCD298 places it, the alterations to the film were much more involved than simply 48fps conversion excellent... for the naysayers out there Z-film alteration is slowly becoming fact. Quite possibly as extensive as Dr. John Costella put forth 13 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 Shaneyfelt does say there is a 10" diff in the height of the recreation vehicle.. you then take 10" divide by 12" and .8333 then you have .833 x 18.3 (horizontal feet in 1 vertical foot) to get 15.249 the distance from the front bumper to JFK. How does 10"/12" relate to horizontal distance when Shaneyfelt is talking about vertical distance... also - The 10" + 3.54" suggests the muzzle is that much higher than the sill? which in turn moves the intercept point using the same downward angles farther down Elm... You believe because the boxes created a resting perch the muzzle is really 13.54 inches above the sill? It doesn't even appear that the window is open that much... And now let's get to a conclusion statement - The shots described by WCD298 are basically the mathematical creation of a shot prior and post to account for 3 shots when in reality there were many more. The MATH is used to move the limo down the street to 1)remove the Elm wide turn, 2) remove a first shot around 155, 3) to place a shot to JFK as he is going behind the sign rather than at 190 which in the extent Zfilm includes 48 and 16 fps speeds. He is seen covering his face by 207 so they simply place the front of the limo at 207 for one set of discussions while JFK's position is where the front of the limo hits 190? 3) there is or is not a shot at z313 which equates to a spot further down Elm and effectively removes the limo stop/pause and finally 4) the shot at 4+96 is z313 or completely made up so the math works? Describing the scenario - a flurry of shots enters the limo prior to Hill leaving the Queen Mary and getting to the limo. The limo must be moving very slowly for him to reach it in only a few steps - at 11.2 mph he'd have to be a world class sprinter to make up the moving difference - Doesn't the NIX film basically prove a shot did not happen farther down Elm? If the headshot does actually occur where WCD298 places it, the alterations to the film were much more involved than simply 48fps conversion 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) Myers average speed from z150-175 = 10.5mph Myers average speed from Towner (end) added on edit: to z175 = 9.8mph 10.5 x 2 = 21- 9.8 = 11.2mph = speed traversed from z150-z175 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? Edited June 14, 2016 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 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. Edited June 14, 2016 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 15, 2016 Author Share Posted June 15, 2016 How does 10"/12" relate to horizontal distance when Shaneyfelt is talking about vertical distance... also - The 10" + 3.54" suggests the muzzle is that much higher than the sill? which in turn moves the intercept point using the same downward angles farther down Elm... You believe because the boxes created a resting perch the muzzle is really 13.54 inches above the sill? It doesn't even appear that the window is open that much... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 15, 2016 Author Share Posted June 15, 2016 Post#56 excerpt: 13.44mph = 19.756ft per sec + .9ft (extant z161-z166) = 20.65ft total distance 13.54 vertical inches converted to horizontal distance = 13.54"/12" = 1.128333.. vertical ft. x 18.3(1horizontal ft.) = 20.648ft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now