Chris Davidson Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Frame counter at lower left. 48/18.3 = 2.622... x 353 frames (133-486) = 925.9 frames https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Pz6FYYhNKcX8qY-8irnjiVB13uL893E/view?usp=sharing Total frames = 927 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 9 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: Your "why would frames need removing" redundant question begs for speculative answers of which there are many. Yes, that's exactly my point. All actions have results. Blow on a candle = flame goes out Push a ball = it rolls ?? Sinister ?? = Frames were removed You have to answer this, Chris, to make your case at least somewhat plausible. There's simply no answer for it because it never happened like you described. Another thing to consider. Take a look at the image below and provide a plausible rebuttal to it. You cannot. It's that simple. You cannot simply say that the Bad Guys neatly removed every third frame because it goes against the odds of every third frame neatly showing something sinister and therefore they had to be removed. IMO - you didn't seem to get mad when Josephs rebutted your "he was shot from the pavillion" thread but you seem to get very angry when I rebut your "67% of the frames were removed from the Z film" theory? Why is that? 13 hours ago, David G. Healy said: Indeed, and it's, on YOU I might add. If you had any *cred* it might be different, but, alas, all .Johnites trend the same, and you fit the mold to a "T". Carry on. David Healy - instead of merely trying to turn this back on me to do more work to prove things otherwise, do you have any plausible rebuttal to this instead of cheering Chris on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Mike... Chris and have been discussing this for years.... He brought a new way of looking at the physics.... Math. When we talk and post and explore it's together, as a team asking questions and searching for answers.... If the math puts a shooter where Chris says, I consider it seriously.... But I disagreed. --- You on the other hand want to ask questions hoping we'll prove ourselves wrong rather than try and understand what we're doing. Not that we care if you do or not since you contribute so little here other than your own unwillingness to stop being a jerk. Worse yet is your NEED to have us explain and re explain... it's a theory Mike... A hypothesis... You know what those are, yes? You experiment and test to prove or disprove the hypothesis... HERE IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.... 48FPS ALLOWS FOR THE REMOVAL OF FRAMES BETWEEN ACTIONS WITH THE RESULT ONLY LOOKING SLIGHTLY JUMPY RATHER THAN SPLICED.... Of a 1 second 48 frame sequence we can remove 4 Of 5 FRAMES in the middle and 2 Of 3 at the start and end ... This effectively removes 32 FRAMES out of 48... Between 303 and 304 there is movement that cannot be done in the time allowed... If there were 3 times as many FRAMES we can remove 3 quarters of a second of film yet have it look like nothing was removed. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT MIKE. ADD IN THE OTHER FILM EVIDENCE AND A SERIES OF COVER UP ACTIONS EMERGE. IF YOU DONT WANT TO BELIEVE OR SEE A CONSPIRACY FOR WHAT IT IS, FINE... YOU AINT GONNA LEARN WHAT YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW... But you could ease up on the incredulous grief you foster onto these threads and let people do the work you seem to have ZERO interest in understanding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: Here we go again. Why is it your video sync doesn't continue on, showing Jackie layed out on a moving vehicle with her elbow planted into the trunk lid, retracting backwards and seated in 6 Zframes = less than 1/3 second? Which conveniently, is where the Nix film ends. In stopwatch terms, that's saying the words "stop/go" with no delay in between words. Anyone can try it and find out for themselves how quick 1/3 second is. Your "why would frames need removing" redundant question begs for speculative answers of which there are many. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CFdpSs8Bt4f-GVJOCOl2wDXdpu-uNjQX/view Let's try this comparison. Dealing in time only. 1/3 of a second is the amount of time it takes Greer to turn his head using my 48fps version of the film. Can Jackie slide down to her seated position in the time it takes Greer to turn his head? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eBOa1zXZLPobqFSnPIwO4TzPOOU9dC1d/view?usp=sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT MIKE. ADD IN THE OTHER FILM EVIDENCE AND A SERIES OF COVER UP ACTIONS EMERGE. IF YOU DONT WANT TO BELIEVE OR SEE A CONSPIRACY FOR WHAT IT IS, FINE... YOU AINT GONNA LEARN WHAT YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW... Once again you're reverting to the "you know more than me" which is irritating to the say the least. Or put another way "you know more than Jeff Carter"or "you know more than the people who did the Zapata report." I'm sorry to say but you don't. But carry on with Chris and when your theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt by someone out of the forum, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) On 1/28/2018 at 6:24 AM, Michael Walton said: You have to answer this, Chris, to make your case at least somewhat plausible. There's simply no answer for it because it never happened like you described. Another thing to consider. Take a look at the image below and provide a plausible rebuttal to it. You cannot. It's that simple. You cannot simply say that the Bad Guys neatly removed every third frame because it goes against the odds of every third frame neatly showing something sinister and therefore they had to be removed. I You do not allow yourself to compare the extant film against a normal film. The skips/jerkiness you refer to are there in the extant film. Look harder. For example: I'll use the extant frames 303-306 which are part of the 1/3 second analogy I previously supplied. Use the "convertible top glass side support frame" as a measuring point. Do you see the distance difference between how far the limo travels from z303-z304 and z304-z305. Good luck trying to distinguish that difference viewing a film at 18.3fps. Added on edit: Example was incorrect. Edited January 30, 2018 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 52 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: You do not allow yourself to compare the extant film against a normal film. The skips/jerkiness you refer to are there in the extant film. Look harder. I've looked at the film more times than I care to admit. There's nothing to see Chris. It's perfectly fine. You're the one who's imagining that Zapruder started recording at 18 then hurried up and switched to 48. Jeff Carter clearly explained that there would have been lag or undue pressure on the very thin 8mm film causing it to either lag or break mid parade if you had switched it mid-stream. Ask yourself - Zapruder was an old guy excited about recording the president of the US driving right by him. Do you really truly think he would have tried to switch film speeds right as Kennedy came by? Of course not. I've been shooting video for over 30 years and even a confident shooter like me would have never EVER tried to do such a bone-headed move, especially after all of the live special events I've shot through the years. The Z/Nix sync link I posted above shows two different films from two different people matching up perfectly in action. My diagram above shows that you can't just go into a film strip shot at 48 FPS and randomly pick frames out and expect the film to run smoothly. And the most important question of all here - WHAT exactly did the bad guys see in this so-called altered film that they had to remove frames? This is the biggest fault of all with this theory you and Josephs obsess over. There has to be a known reason as to why the frames were removed in the first place. To this day, no one who believes this theory has given a legitimate reason why Zapruder filmed at 48 FPS but the Bad Guys had to remove some frames. If you can't see the light on this, then that's on you, not me. But I know you will not see the light nor will Josephs because once you obsess over something and determined to see something that isn't there, it's very, very hard to let go and admit an error was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Michael Walton said: Yes, that's exactly my point. All actions have results. Blow on a candle = flame goes out Push a ball = it rolls ?? Sinister ?? = Frames were removed You have to answer this, Chris, to make your case at least somewhat plausible. There's simply no answer for it because it never happened like you described. Another thing to consider. Take a look at the image below and provide a plausible rebuttal to it. You cannot. It's that simple. You cannot simply say that the Bad Guys neatly removed every third frame because it goes against the odds of every third frame neatly showing something sinister and therefore they had to be removed. IMO - you didn't seem to get mad when Josephs rebutted your "he was shot from the pavillion" thread but you seem to get very angry when I rebut your "67% of the frames were removed from the Z film" theory? Why is that? David Healy - instead of merely trying to turn this back on me to do more work to prove things otherwise, do you have any plausible rebuttal to this instead of cheering Chris on here? Hello Studley, Say listen, you're asking a lot of questions and answering those very question in the same post most of the time. Which leads me to ask, why are you asking questions if, IF you already have the answer? Never fret, most .john-ites have the same problem, in fact, you're plowing the same ground as lone nutters have since 2000. Ya need a new act, man! Edited January 29, 2018 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 21 hours ago, Michael Walton said: Once again you're reverting to the "you know more than me" which is irritating to the say the least. Or put another way "you know more than Jeff Carter"or "you know more than the people who did the Zapata report." I'm sorry to say but you don't. But carry on with Chris and when your theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt by someone out of the forum, let me know. We need neither your permission nor your blessings Mike... In fact, your understanding is the least of our concerns... everyone else doing the work you can comprehend... This was never us knowing more than anyone... this has always been you incredulously whining about things you don't understand... and getting testy when we get tired of your inability to do the littlest bit of work... to ask a question with the intent of learning rather than trying to show off your big brain and challenge that which, once again, you so sorely lack in understanding... IOW... STFU and listen for while... maybe something will seep in... Here's another thought... get up to speed on the topic BEFORE you insert foot into mouth... Then maybe you wouldn't be seen as the tool you make yourself out to be every time you post on these Zapruder/Math thread XOXOX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 btw - I have the greatest respect for Jeff and his work... he's done some great things and brings understanding a few steps closer There have been a number of film experts who have chimed in on the process... When anyone assumes the evidence offered in this case is authentic, I have to pause. People lied that entire weekend for a variety of reasons. To assume that any one piece of this fiasco created authentic evidence against Oswald is to be amazingly naïve. Look carefully for anything related to what was seen on that film that weekend... the info is extremely limited and extremely vague... for one of the most amazing films of the century. Until someone offers a reasonable location for the ROWLEY FILM which was in DC that night... the FILM topic can never be settled... Anyone involved in this aspect of the case should want to know the same thing... an 8mm version of the film with Zapruder's personal scenes intact arrives on Rowley's desk by 1am Sat morning the 23rd.... that is the last we hear of this film until Dino gets one Sat night at NPIC... over 20 hours where a Zapruder film is unaccounted for... I know you Mike have nothing to offer about it... not that your input adds to much... But if Jeff or our timeline guru Scally - who I've talked to about this already - can find the film and/or even tell us which copy/master it was.. it would be a start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 I probably have to do so much reading on this. Being someone who also understands perspective in visual arts, dimension, etc. I have always had a few questions regarding what we see in the extant film and just questions in general. Some witnesses reported the vehicle coming close to (or) a stop. Perhaps I am just blind but this action doesn't seem to occur in the film as I observe it but again, could be me. As I look at the panning of the camera, there is no distinction of different planes. In other words is Zap. was panning, he is a human looking at objects, people, etc, on different planes and as he pans to the right, there should be (?) distinct shifting of those planes. So, as an example if I'm filming someone slowly walking between light posts (with gaps between them): or... or... I am terribly sorry if this causes a bit of motion sickness for the viewers but I am trying to understand why any parallax effects are absent from the film. Again, I am absolutely open to learning. I understand the 8mm camera Zap. used is relatively primitive, etc. So I am open to learning something new (or old lol). As I look at the film these stuck out to me. I mean if Zap. is panning from left to right, shouldn't the shadows of the bystanders in the lawn move as well? I mean it can be difficult to see but they don't seem to move at all but again, I could be absolutely wrong on this. I am not arguing for film alteration but I am trying to understand what it is that I observe (or don't lol). I do know some argument has been made about those light or lamp posts and I remember that striking me as well. I mean the posts should move independent of the bystanders or at a different speed. There is just no authentic "3D effect" in the reality that Zap. captured on film I guess is my point. Whatever the conclusion, be it alteration or not, the truth is preferred for me, above all else. Thanks for any help and tutelage in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Seems you have combined both PANNING and LATERAL MOVEMENT/SHIFTING.... Panning is when the camera is moved around a single point... none of the examples above are PANNING... On the other hand, what you do show is LATERAL MOVEMENT... as if Zapruder were running along with the limo.. in that case the changes you describe will occur. In Blue, when the camera is PANNED, the same object simply moves across the field of view so the line of sight to all the objects remains the same, they simply appear in different parts of the photo... In Black, when you SHIFT the lens the LOS changes and we should see changes with the shadows With regards to the limo slowing and/or stopping.... if you have the Quicktime version of the zfilm you can run it backward, clearly. If you do so you will notice the point around 303 where the limo is barely moving... coming down the street it is much harder to tell than when run backward due to the acceleration afterward... http://www.jfkhistory.com/Quicktimevideos.html hopefully this works... not even sure QT is around anymore... Hope this helps a little DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Thanks Dave. Will process your response in relation to my question when I have more time for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said: Thanks Dave. Will process your response in relation to my question when I have more time for sure. https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Just go here. Instead of creating something from a new technology, go to the above. Download all of the frames of the UNALTERED film there. Open up the very first frame - you don't even need special software to do this - if you're using Windows, it will open in picture viewer. Then use your right and left arrow key to shuttle through each frame...you can see it EXACTLY what Zapruder was seeing through his viewfinder. A single image was made 18 times each second that the limo went by. It's not hard to figure out. 9 hours ago, David Josephs said: Look carefully for anything related to what was seen on that film that weekend... the info is extremely limited and extremely vague... for one of the most amazing films of the century. Really? That's what you're seeing? Then it's all on you and others like you who see something some "more" or "less" on that film. So you have the utmost respect for Jeff Carter. I wonder why that is? Because he was published on Kennedys and King? Did you know I produced the JFK at 100 trailer for Jim DiEugenio? Did you know I made all of the PDFs for that series for DiEugenio? https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-at-100 He wasn't even going to do anything about the 100th birthday but I kept prodding him to do it. The result is above. And I did the Vietnam thing for him too: https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/VietnamDeclassified2017.pdf The only reason why you have the "utmost respect" for Carter is he says his two cents and won't argue the goofier points. He just lets you ramble on about you seeing contrasty blurry fuzzy things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 you get get no respect mike, cause you’re a whiny little child. Annoying, uninteresting and uninterested. tooting ones own horn is the least likely way to get any respect as well you produced something.... ? Why don’t you have the self control to allow others to do their thing without your obtuse comments? incredulous stupidity, although masterfully attained, is probably not what you want to be remembered here for, right? Earn some respect mike. Pointing to another’s body of work and posting, “see, I already have my answer” is childish. Maybe a bit less obsession over what I’m doing and some time reflecting on your presence here... Bring something to the table already mister Dangerfield.... 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