Missing Nix frames

[Frank Agbat]

Frank. I've maybe thought of a way of creating (or at least approximating) same clip syncs that take into account differing framerates. It's labor intensive but perhaps doable.

Let's say each frame is a .025 second moment. in between there are, depending on which camera, roughly the same time gap, (you've probably grasped the idea by now, but to spell it out:)

break each moment into a number of repeating frames. eg ten frames between each 18.3 fps frame start. So using the Table you have moments to start a five frame sequence, so you might have

...nnnnn.....

.zzzzz.....zz

then adjust the gif frame rate accordingly. ???

John,

Your method would work to produce a more "true" sync. It is, in reality, a close cousin of the telecine process (minus any interleaving). One would only need to run the math and find what amounts to a common denominator.

There are several technical issues to overcome -- especially if the resulting "common" framerate is very high (say, for example, 60+ fps). Some computers might not be able to flip frames at sufficient speed to produce the effect. GIF format is problematic as well, as it was never intended to produce truly accurate frame rates. An AVI container might be a better choice, ultimately.

[Bill Miller]

Thought.....Keep in mind, that in Abraham Zapruder's, testimony to the Warren Commission, July 22.1964....only eight months it only took them. to finally

get around to him. He states, " I heard the first shot and I Saw the President lean over and grab himself like this"..

Though within the film that carries his name, the President is behind the sign, when he receives the first shot, and Zapruder could not see him, according

to the film...he also becomes somewhat confused when they show him some frame photos,in an album, from his film, he cannot understand it seems ,why that sign is hiding the President...

JFK was out of Zapruder's view for a total of about one second, which seems hardly enough time to cause confusion as to what Abe witnessed beforehand in conjuntion with what he saw after JFK came from behind the road sign. What does that equate - one, maybe two blinks of an eye?

Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

The important thing here is that Zap's behind for the headshot was the collonade structure. The fence is directly right. Not behind in any way. He says behind.

From the same testimony I had extracted the following as "the important thing," because amongst the contrary and waffling blather, these were the points of strongest certainty (my emphasis added):

• MR. ZAPRUDER: ...[A]fter the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me... I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
  MR. LIEBELER: Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
  MR. ZAPRUDER: No... [rambling blather].
  MR. LIEBELER: All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street...you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? ...From the direction behind you?
  MR. LIEBELER: ...Actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from... I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me.
  MR. ZAPRUDER: But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?
  MR. ZAPRUDER: No.
  MR. LIEBELER: ...Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the shots came by the sound...
  MR. ZAPRUDER: No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over.
  

Personally, given my nodding acquaintance with acoustics, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how early reflections from an outdoor curved sieve or late reflections from buildings across the plaza could overwhelm the initiating impulse from an unsilenced high-powered rifle only 40-odd feet away.

I'm not saying it couldn't. I am saying that I consider it an awfully daring untested premise for hypothesis.

(And I repent for engaging in a discussion that seems better suited to another topic.)

Ashton

Edited December 28, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Bill Miller]

I can't say what Zapruder recalled once he had turned his body to the point where the President's head exploded because by then he was transfixed on the horror before him, but if you look at Zapruder in the Willis photo, you will see that the fence and RR yard is behind him. If you look at the Bronson slide you will see that the fence and RR yard is still behind him.

In 1998, I stood in front of the colonnade with Beverly Oliver when the cycles in the replica motorcade came down Elm Street. The reverberation of those Harley engines combined with the backfires they put off were really something to hear at that location. The colonnade's shape worked much like a sound bell and was pulling in noise from all directions.

Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

That's ok. He says it himself. Fortunately the transfiction didn't stop him from filming.

Sounds like a perfect place for a sniper who has knowledge of the acoustics of the collonnade.

____________________________

Frank, just as Clints head starts to rise:

m65 66 n47 49

The difficulty seems to be in getting a match at the other end.

[John Dolva]

There is a phenomenon (or rather "was a phenomenon") in Dealey Plaza that caused lightwaves to bend considerably. Perhaps it's some kind of worm hole, or rent in the space time continuuum.

The most obvious proof is where frame 42 of Mfilm lines up almost exactly with Bond photos (which has things like lamposts that aids in locating where Bond stood). This means that a line vertically from the spot on the ground below the headshot 313-23 bends south west and kind of pushes the headshot location across down elm street a few feet.

Edited December 29, 2006 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

Frank, just as Clints head starts to rise:

m65 66 n47 49

The difficulty seems to be in getting a match at the other end.

John,

I must admit an inordinate level of frustration created by attempting to sync the Muchmore film to either Nix or Zapruder...

The following cryptic image is another attempt to understand what is going on with the two films:

The lines represent the height of the top of Agent Hill's head in the two films. The yellow lines are from Nix frames 41-50 (41 is on the right, largely obscured by a red line). The Red lines are MM frames 59-66. I noted that there is a "low spot" in both graphs and tried to more-or-less line up that point.

The low-point in Nix is NS-46.

The low-point in Muchmore is MS-64

If this point is lined up and run through the time computations, it leads to the same problem I keep running into with Muchmore...

Aligning MS64 with NS46 ends up mathematically matching MS41 with NS23 exactly (both cameras supposedly run at the same 18.5fps rate).

This makes no sense to me, as there is no skull damage in M41, but NS23 CLEARLY shows splatter... However, aligning M42 with NS23 causes disagreement with both this chart AND the headturn sequence.

I think it is highly likely that MM and Nix may be some fractional frame apart from one another, and the only way we're going to be able to determine this is by finding a Zapruder alignment (or Bronson, yet unexamined) that gives us a better time base. Either that, or the two cameras are not really operating at the same fps and are drifting...

[Bill Miller]

There is a phenomenon (or rather "was a phenomenon") in Dealey Plaza that caused lightwaves to bend considerably. Perhaps it's some kind of worm hole, or rent in the space time continuuum.

The most obvious proof is where frame 42 of Mfilm lines up almost exactly with Bond photos (which has things like lamposts that aids in locating where Bond stood). This means that a line vertically from the spot on the ground below the headshot 313-23 bends south west and kind of pushes the headshot location across down elm street a few feet.

If you wish to know where Bond stood, which was not for from Muchmore, see Trask book "POTP". I am not sure what you are doing, but I would like to point out that the "X" seen in Bond's photo will not be straight down from the corner fence line like it is in Muchmore's because of their different angles to the street.

Bill

[John Dolva]

Bill, there are various authorities tell me where things are and what happened when. If I choose a particular 'level of truth' I'll likely find myself on a tread mill laeding nowhere except where those authorities tell me to go. That holds no interest to me.

If I look for myself I find clear evidence that physics does not apply to Dealey Plaza.

The location of Bond is seen in Bonds photos. Nowhere else.

Therein lies the proof that light bends in Dallas, just like bullet paths.

Take any of five Bond photos and level the horizon. (use Trask as a doorstop). This gives you lines to line up objects and derive Bonds location.

Compare this with M42. (go on, do it, remember Trask is busy letting some fresh air in).

Now if you take Don's DP map out and locate Bond, you'll see he got that right.

And there is the proof that light bends in DP.

________

"highly likely that MM and Nix may be some fractional frame apart "

Frank I think that's part of the key (image)

[John Dolva]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/co03large.jpg

link to large image showing how Bonds and MMs location coincides and therefore the MMheadshot frame is about 37. The frame numbered 42 is taken a few feet (meters?) past the known 23-313 X-spot. Or is it? Was the frame we have as 42 ever taken in DP? Do we here have proof that some very unusual light bending conditions existed in DP in 11 22 63. Perhaps those suggesting UFO's are right after all?

It must mean some kind of disruptor beam that warps space in a way and MM captured it on film. Maybe that's why the whole thing seems so mysterious. Why 'they' would do it though when they could (and did) just Zap the scene. Maybe there is so far nix solutions because this has not been realised before? Perhaps there is much more to the whole thing than previously realised. More than mere man can concieve? (collective groan> exit stage left)

The relatively unique aspect of MM film and the Oliver film is that they should capture movements that for Z and N are towards and away which on their films is that much harder to see.

The MM frame Don posted in headwounds topic is rotated to somewhat compensate for this error, however not enough. It can be corrected by realising the vertical horizon using Bond. Which means reversing the rotation to level, and the head slips away from 313 location. Quite a neat little sleight of hand.

(small image)

Edited December 29, 2006 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/co03large.jpg

link to large image showing how Bonds and MMs location coincides and therefore the MMheadshot frame is about 37. The frame numbered 42 is taken a few feet (meters?) past the known 23-313 X-spot. Or is it? Was the frame we have as 42 ever taken in DP? Do we here have proof that some very unusual light bending conditions existed in DP in 11 22 63. Perhaps those suggesting UFO's are right after all?

It must mean some kind of disruptor beam that warps space in a way and MM captured it on film. Maybe that's why the whole thing seems so mysterious. Why 'they' would do it though when they could (and did) just Zap the scene. Maybe there is so far nix solutions because this has not been realised before? Perhaps there is much more to the whole thing than previously realised. More than mere man can concieve? (collective groan> exit stage left)

The relatively unique aspect of MM film and the Oliver film is that they should capture movements that for Z and N are towards and away which on their films is that much harder to see.

The MM frame Don posted in headwounds topic is rotated to somewhat compensate for this error, however not enough. It can be corrected by realising the vertical horizon using Bond. Which means reversing the rotation to level, and the head slips away from 313 location. Quite a neat little sleight of hand.

(small image)

John, this is very hard to follow, but let me ask you one question. Are you rotating the MM frame to vertical using the edge of the wall at the far right hand side of the frame?

If so you have a problem. For any image in which the camera was pointed up or down from true level, perspective shift will occur. I'm sure you are aware of this. So lets take an image that contains this shift, from even a sling downwards pointing of the camera. True vertical lines in this image will now be skewed outward from bottom to top on the sides of the frame, moving inwards with less degree of tilt, until you reach the center of the frame where regardless of the downward tilt of the camera, any true vertical in the image will be correctly imaged.

In other words, you simply can't choose a vertical near the edges of the frame to use as a guide to rotate an image to true vertical.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Frank Agbat]

Another thing to remember is that a very small angular error extrapolated over a long distance results in a very large error. This is why I try very hard to avoid relying on angles, perspective assumptions, lens-corrections, etc, to determine which frame corresponds to which.

I'm reasonably certain that there weren't any UFOs or strange warps in the space-time continuum in DP that day. Physics is the ultimate workaholic -- it just never takes a break.

However, what you're seeing cannot and should not be dismissed. You're looking at things in a different way, and it is good to do so.

[John Dolva]

Craig, the frame is taken from practically the same point in space that the Bonds (five of them) are taken from (which is interesting if one thinks about acquiring a base for alterations, but that's an aside for now).

To find the true horizon is then easy as the Bonds show it. If you look at the large photobucket link you can see how I worked it out. The M frame lines up just about exactly, so its horizon is Bonds horizon. (Naturally if you can spot any errors please say so. That's why I posted it to show why I say all this)

Should this finding be confirmed I suggest its M40 that's suspect.

Edited December 29, 2006 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, the frame is taken from practically the same point in space that the Bonds (five of them) are taken from (which is interesting if one thinks about acquiring a base for alterations, but that's an aside for now).

To find the true horizon is then easy as the Bonds show it. If you look at the large photobucket link you can see how I worked it out. The M frame lines up just about exactly, so its horizon is Bonds horizon. (Naturally if you can spot any errors please say so. That's why I posted it to show why I say all this)

Should this finding be confirmed I suggest its M40 that's suspect.

John,

The Bonds photos do not show the true horizon, only a localized horizon. In any case you simply can't use a vertical at the edge af a frame for a point of rotational alignment. That is unless the image has been corrected for perspectivre change form any camera tilt (and rest assured the is some tilt) and geometric distortion introduced by the lens (pincushion, barrel). Also any attenpt to use a horizontal line as a rotational indicator is also fools play since any camera deviation from perfectly square to the horizontal line in question will also cause perspective shift. (again unless the line in question is in the exact center of the frame)

I do this stuff everyday, correcting images I create. I quite often produce iinterior photographs using single point perspective. It was quite easy back in the day using a view camera and film, but now, using a digital DSLR, the process takes place in the computer. If you would like I will be glad to post example to illustrate my point.

[John Dolva]

They do show the true horizon, and mostly on all of the photos near a centre line of the lens. Some of the far horizon is lost in mist but recovered with gamma shifts. Otherwise there are numerous lines that if one understands the shifts caused by lens shape and tilt that form horizontals and verticals like lamp posts and fence and structures that are not peripheral at all. One way or the other, the frame and Bonds line up. It helps that they line up in an area that forms the near centre of most of the Bonds. Whatever, this has little to do with the finding that Bond and M42 lines up. The lines may diverge at the periphery, but they do so predictably,and however one may try to verbally fudge around that, N23-Z313 is about 4 frames before M24.

Edited December 29, 2006 by John Dolva