Missing Nix frames

[John Dolva]

I'm sorry Bill, I keep running out of attachment space and delete old ones. That image is redundant for the reasons explained above.

[John Dolva]

I'm trying to find alternative ways of approaching the confirmation reasoning that any alternative way should confim and in the process IF it doesn't do so then it is indicative of a possible problem.

In the process of doing so here's an understading of the ghost images of the intersprocket area and what is actually seen there.

The B/W limo inset shows what it is and there one can see the relative limo-MC(right side) movements. So there should be a nix frame that has the same relative movements or obversely the suggested frame pair will have this relative movement.

The insets are from previous and following frames, ie. the location of the ghost images relate to the frame before the actual frame.

Image

I think Newman can be seen, so the white arrow points to Nix

(image)

[John Dolva]

To confuse the issue further here's an apparent oddity that hopefully someone can offer an explanation for.

At frame 311 there is a noticable change in the Zfilm. Here shown by white lines. The direction of the line resumes after the head shot. An interesting thing is that by 'stretching' the area where the 'anomaly' disappears..

Edited December 12, 2006 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

To confuse the issue further here's an apparent oddity that hopefully someone can offer an explanation for.

At frame 311 there is a noticable change in the Zfilm. Here shown by white lines. The direction of the line resumes after the head shot. An interesting thing is that by 'stretching' the area where the 'anomaly' disappears..

John,

I am not sure what it is you are trying to relay here, but you are aware (aren't you) that Foster and the limo are always in motion, but at different speeds from one another, thus the pitch of your lines would change as well.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

To confuse the issue further here's an apparent oddity that hopefully someone can offer an explanation for.

At frame 311 there is a noticable change in the Zfilm. Here shown by white lines. The direction of the line resumes after the head shot. An interesting thing is that by 'stretching' the area where the 'anomaly' disappears..

John,

Quick question and sorry if you've already answered; the source of the Z-frames you're using and a short recap as to filters; scale reduction; resizing performed on same?

Tnx,

David

[John Dolva]

Bill, yes, I'm aware of that. What struck me is that the line through Foster and the others like Moorman is in one direction up to 311.

Between 311 and 314 this line changes pitch.

Now: after 314 this pitch changes BACK to the earlier one.

IOW, a few frames BEFORE the headshot there is a marked change. Then after the headshot it behaves again as it was pre 311.

What I'm conveying is that I think that is odd and there should be an explanation for it. I don't know what that explanation is.

The line that locates the crossbar is more 'wiggly' as one might expect.

That's that. I can't quite conceptualise what sort of movements of camera, people and limo causes this. If someone can and could explain it in DETAIL please do so. It's posted as large as reasonably possible so anyone can check it.

PART TWO: is an observation that IF one spaces the frames as in the right column then this anomaly (if it is one) seems to disappear.

___________

David, this is the MPI frames from the groden dvd, which Frank prepared. I then resized them according to the WC published frames and made a number of aligned and spaced sprocket holes that were then used to locate the frames. (Then the gamma's been fiddled with a bit just to make the lines stand out a bit more.)

Edited December 12, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

'John Dolva' wrote:

[...]

David, this is the MPI frames from the groden dvd, which Frank prepared.

[...]

MPI frames from Groden's DVD? I think it has to be one or the other, Groden's Z-frames or MPI's Z-frames....

Also, the edges around the Z-frame sprocket holes appear as if sharpening or UNsharp mask was applied?

Edited December 12, 2006 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

Ok, it's the set that Frank has described. exactly how to describe them I'll check with him or he can say. The sprocket holes are originally halves and white. The black sprokets I made, and they have a slightly blurred edge and are slightly smaller to aid in locating the individual frames. The row of sprockets and the frames are then merged or flattened to make the image in one layer so the blurred edge of the black locating sprockets gives it the look you noted.

[Frank Agbat]

Ok, it's the set that Frank has described. exactly how to describe them I'll check with him or he can say. The sprocket holes are originally halves and white. The black sprokets I made, and they have a slightly blurred edge and are slightly smaller to aid in locating the individual frames. The row of sprockets and the frames are then merged or flattened to make the image in one layer so the blurred edge of the black locating sprockets gives it the look you noted.

Originally, they are 720x480 JPG (75%Q) images from the "under sprocket" version from the MPI DVD. Again, no processing was applied.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Frank Agbat

[Ashton Gray]

To confuse the issue further here's an apparent oddity that hopefully someone can offer an explanation for.

At frame 311 there is a noticable change in the Zfilm. Here shown by white lines. The direction of the line resumes after the head shot. An interesting thing is that by 'stretching' the area where the 'anomaly' disappears..

So, John, since the prima facie case seems to be three missing frames where you have the three "holes" in the right-hand sequence—and failing any other explanation—can you think what purpose cllipping out those three frames might have served?

Ashton

[David G. Healy]

Ok, it's the set that Frank has described. exactly how to describe them I'll check with him or he can say. The sprocket holes are originally halves and white. The black sprokets I made, and they have a slightly blurred edge and are slightly smaller to aid in locating the individual frames. The row of sprockets and the frames are then merged or flattened to make the image in one layer so the blurred edge of the black locating sprockets gives it the look you noted.

Originally, they are 720x480 JPG (75%Q) images from the "under sprocket" version from the MPI DVD. Again, no processing was applied.

thanks John - Frank

DHealy

[John Dolva]

You're welcome, David.

Ashton, I'm a bit loath to pre-empt a finding that there is no problem there after all. However with the understanding that it's mere speculation, :: I have previously seen a kind of break in continuity between 313 and 314. If one looks carefully at the size of Kennedys bodyparts like arm and head, plus considers the object blur (which is different from the camera blur) there is quite a change that doesn't have the continuity aspects that other transitions do. So a frame missing there gives the view that is there in what we know as the Zfilm. Further, there is in 312 a possible sign of the bullet just striking the head. It's a contentious claim so lets devalue it for now. However the totality of those frames if all the other frames are correct, could show a greater slowing of the Limo than previously seen. The result of a sharp slowing there could explain the slight forward head movement at 313-314.

So, there could be a different headmovement and time of bullet strike and a different Limo speed with all the attendant issues causing a reevaluation of, well, a lot.

It would be wrong to make any conclusions at this point.

However, all that is just speculation. I want to see if anyone else independently confirms this 'stretched space' or explains the differing pitch in a comprehensive acceptable way. There may very well be some such explanation.

The odd misnumbering of the headshot frames of BOTH the Z and Nix film, by the person who prepared the frames could be a way of sabotaging an attempt to hide something. With the Z film WC314 and WC315 are reversed. Perhaps they are not reversed. Perhaps WC315 is correctly numbered and WC314 is in reality 316 and so on.

With the Nix film they(WC) have named the wrong frame as the headshot.

Edited December 12, 2006 by John Dolva

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton, I'm a bit loath to pre-empt a finding that there is no problem there after all.

I agree totally, and attempted to make generous provisions for same in couching my question. And so with all such genuflections and mutual bowings and disclaimers in place...

However with the understanding that it's mere speculation, :: I have previously seen a kind of break in continuity between 313 and 314. If one looks carefully at the size of Kennedys bodyparts like arm and head, plus considers the object blur (which is different from the camera blur) there is quite a change that doesn't have the continuity aspects that other transitions do. So a frame missing there gives the view that is there in what we know as the Zfilm. Further, there is in 312 a possible sign of the bullet just striking the head. It's a contentious claim so lets devalue it for now. However the totality of those frames if all the other frames are correct, could show a greater slowing of the Limo than previously seen. The result of a sharp slowing there could explain the slight forward head movement at 313-314.

So, there could be a different headmovement and time of bullet strike and a different Limo speed with all the attendant issues causing a reevaluation of, well, a lot.

It would be wrong to make any conclusions at this point.

Agreed, agreed, agreed, seconded, and approved by uninimous consent (there being only the two of us in this particular little side exchange).

However!

While all this exceptional yeomanlike analysis is being done, I had an idea—inspired by your white-lines illustration above—for some knowing, willful, blatant, flagrant tampering.

Wait! Hear me out! Don't walk away! (Yet.)

All on a very, very, very speculative and horribly unscientific basis, I'm proposing some very public tampering as a possible antidote to secretive tampering. I wondered if it would be possible to create, with some software, reasonably approximated interpolated "tweens" to replace those holes in your right-side sequence, and see what it looks like then. What I'm trying to describe wouldn't be the kind of smudging done by mpeg and other video compression formats. I mean attempt to approximate some kind of recreation of the (possibly) "missing frames," with a broad public disclosure that this is nothing but an avant garde film experiment done by pygmy headhunters of Bora Bora who found a turn-key video computer system washed up on the beach, and not by any responsible researchers.

Whaddaya say?

Ashton

Edited December 12, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Frank Agbat]

All on a very, very, very speculative and horribly unscientific basis, I'm proposing some very public tampering as a possible antidote to secretive tampering. I wondered if it would be possible to create, with some software, reasonably approximated interpolated "tweens" to replace those holes in your right-side sequence, and see what it looks like then. What I'm trying to describe wouldn't be the kind of smudging done by mpeg and other video compression formats. I mean attempt to approximate some kind of recreation of the (possibly) "missing frames," with a broad public disclosure that this is nothing but an avant garde film experiment done by pygmy headhunters of Bora Bora who found a turn-key video computer system washed up on the beach, and not by any responsible researchers.

Whaddaya say?

Ashton

I think that would be quite possible, especially if we're allowed some "blurry" frames. Heck, the original z-film is full of 'em... I might be tempted to start with some sort of temporal "smoothing" algorithm to create some faux frames for the "gap".

I'm still actively trying to mentally digest what John D. has shared. As with all things, I encourage independent verification of results and replication of technique. Personally, I've got some family obligations for this evening, but I'm certainly planning on looking at this, as well as pursuing other sync studies. These are very much in their infancy. There *is* drift in the Clint Hill video -- it is all but impossible to see in anything except the original frames. I need to find a way to present it, and to see if it makes sense.

Another point that this thread has brought into evolution is that we have certainly NOT exhausted the photographic and film evidence. Even independent of super-resolution sources, we have the ability and tools to inspect macroscopic concepts (like sync, drift, etc) in new ways. I haven't even begun to crank up some of the things that I think can be accomplished. (some days I need more "vigah", as you say, Ashton! - along with a winning lottery ticket or two, and a 30-hour clock).

[Bill Miller]

Bill, yes, I'm aware of that. What struck me is that the line through Foster and the others like Moorman is in one direction up to 311.

Between 311 and 314 this line changes pitch.

Now: after 314 this pitch changes BACK to the earlier one.

IOW, a few frames BEFORE the headshot there is a marked change. Then after the headshot it behaves again as it was pre 311.

What I'm conveying is that I think that is odd and there should be an explanation for it. I don't know what that explanation is.

John,

Make sure to consider the amount of error that may at play here. The street changes direction even though the film gives an illusion of a straight path running left to right. I would also do the same with finer lines and be sure they start in the exact same place on Toni Fosters being for an inch or so variance at her body can thrown one way off by the time those lines have reached the car. It is like a carpenter making a slight error in measurement when he starts out building a room only to find that by the time he reaches the other side of his project that he now has a large mistake to contend with.

Bill Miller

Edited December 13, 2006 by Bill Miller