Missing Nix frames

[Ashton Gray]

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).

This man needs a grant, now! Come on all you money bags out there: open up and become angels. PM Frank Agbat and John Dolva, and set up a fund for them. We'll get somewhere.

Love to see what you come up with, Frank. I'm certainly impressed with everything I've seen so far. If I can help in anyway, I will. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can do on the 30-hour clock. I need one, too. My plan is for large brake pads at the equator, but so far I'm having trouble finding a place to mount them.

Ashton

[Frank Agbat]

John,

So, If I get you correctly, you are detecting anomalies in the area where you have left a blank frame on the right-hand side. That is to say, the possible appearance of a missing frame.

Based on your graph, if one were to engage in Ashton's "tampering" exercise, is it safe to assume that the sequence below is the one to use:

... 308 - 309 - 310 - 311 - X - 312 - X - 313 - X - 314 - 315 - 316

Where "X" represents where one should create a "tampered" frame?

Also, the "tampered" frame should properly align with the white lines on the right-hand side sequence, correct?

[John Dolva]

Hmmm, Interesting problem, Ashton. Perhaps an easier way is to collect all projectile weaponry, line them all up pointing in exactly the same direction on the equator, clear out the population on a one mile corridor and get the Generals, (and any one else foolish enough to do it) to start firing until there are no more weapons or ammo. This should slow things down a bit. Exactly how much would be hard to predict, but perhaps a guessing lottery and the winner gets scrap salvage rights? Alternatively a huge sail in space anchored to the equator and catching sunlight could act like a brake? I wouldn't want to be holding the ropes, but there again Jingoists could come in useful, I suppose even your average politician could lend a hand.

Yes, Frank that's it. However, note that the separation is based on my eye and there may be variance found by others, however, the frames wouldn't go amiss in any subsequent checking. Also I'm setting that aside and starting from scratch to do a re-check to try to make sure there as little error as possible. Not all the frames are exactly square, some are on a very slight tilt, while I don't expect it to make much difference, I'd like to remove as many potential objections as possible and reduce any error margins.

A thought re the wrong WC numbering. If, as speculated, the WC314-WC315 is not a straight reversal but rather a correct numbering of Z315, and WC 314 is Z316, then perhaps a similar thing is with regards to the Nix where the WC report refers to N24 as the headshot while the photo shows WCN24 as the frame or two after the headshot frame. This would mean that the published frame WCN24 is N25-N26 and the frame that the report refers to is N24 which we know as N22-N23. This shifts all the N-frames so that for the Z and N frames to sync there wuld HAVE to be one or two more Zframes. So, Who typeset or prepared the frames for publishing.

Edited December 13, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

The results of a double check.

One frame needed straightening out by half a degree, a few at about one quarter. Here they are with a much more careful sprocket alignment.

The three odd frames actually align halfway between and there seems to be a gap of two (or one and a half after the headshot. It's as if the three frames are composites of two. Also there is a similar 'anomaly' earlier. The left column is as the frames are numbered, the right column as a suggested stretching to resolve the 'anomaly'.

[Frank Agbat]

The results of a double check.

One frame needed straightening out by half a degree, a few at about one quarter. Here they are with a much more careful sprocket alignment.

The three odd frames actually align halfway between and there seems to be a gap of two (or one and a half after the headshot. It's as if the three frames are composites of two. Also there is a similar 'anomaly' earlier. The left column is as the frames are numbered, the right column as a suggested stretching to resolve the 'anomaly'.

The most obvious follow-up question is: are you sure what you're seeing isn't attributable to "tracking error" by Abraham Zapruder?

I didn't have much time yesterday evening, but I looked at length at Z311 and Z312 in particular, and there is something in the sequence of those two frames that I honestly do not understand. I need to think about it more, though, so I don't post something that makes me look like a total imbecile... (some might add an "again" to the end of this sentence!)

[John Dolva]

Frank if I was sure I wouldn't put anomaly as apparent 'anomaly', nor ask for help in understanding. I can't conceptualise the combination of movements that would cause the 'anomaly', and that doesn't mean it's not conceptualisable (groan). Tracking error is a rather loose term, what does it mean exactly? Those questions are not rhetorical. I think being able to explain these issues will move things along. I was actually in the process of trying to confirm the sync by coming at the problem from a different direction, reasoning that for something to be correct it must be so wholistically. This is just a block that needs resolving. If the result is that someone considers me an imbecile for not understanding it, well, if that bothered me I probably would do very little. Just to make it easier for those who are thinking along those lines, take it from me that I'm perfectly capable of being an imbecile. I'm not looking for cred, I'm after assassins.

I'm intrigued to know what you see re 311 312. Can it answer the above issue? I find that the 'anomaly' starting before the headshot interesting. There wouldn't have been a sound startle yet it's there. Also the earlier anomaly is surprising.

It's the fact that the pitch of the line is the same before and after the anomaly, and that by stretching the frame spacing it is resolved that intrigues me. It may just indicate an ignorance of the mechanics on my part.

[Ashton Gray]

The results of a double check.

One frame needed straightening out by half a degree, a few at about one quarter. Here they are with a much more careful sprocket alignment.

The three odd frames actually align halfway between...

I am very hesitant to post this miserably lay question—one possible benefit to the thread, though, being to provide a sole focus for any "imbecile" awards.

But looking at your new sequence, John (and the earlier one, too), I was reminded of my equatorial brakes problem: everything is in motion relative to other motion. There are no fixed points.

Could anything be gained by putting your skewers through points that are motionless relative to the bodies and vehicles in motion, e.g. the foot of one of the standing spectators that can be tracked as long as possible, overlapping another skewer on some new relatively motionless point on the landscape, etc. Trying to answer this question for myself in the realm of pure theory slammed me hard into The Curly Conundrum: "I'm tryin' to think and nothin' happens!"

Ashton

Edited December 13, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The results of a double check.

One frame needed straightening out by half a degree, a few at about one quarter. Here they are with a much more careful sprocket alignment.

The three odd frames actually align halfway between...

I am very hesitant to post this miserably lay question—one possible benefit to the thread, though, being to provide a sole focus for any "imbecile" awards.

But looking at your new sequence, John (and the earlier one, too), I was reminded of my equatorial brakes problem: everything is in motion relative to other motion. There are no fixed points.

Could anything be gained by putting your skewers through points that are motionless relative to the bodies and vehicles in motion, e.g. the foot of one of the standing spectators that can be tracked as long as possible, overlapping another skewer on some new relatively motionless point on the landscape, etc. Trying to answer this question for myself in the realm of pure theory slammed me hard into The Curly Conundrum: "I'm tryin' to think and nothin' happens!"

"There are no fixed points."

I would be of the impression that the leading edge of the yellow stripe, in conjunction with the left foot/leg of Mary Moorman, would suffice.

After all, in old survey work, we utilized only the instrument (camera) and two range alignment poles.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z298.jpg

[Bill Miller]

The three odd frames actually align halfway between and there seems to be a gap of two (or one and a half after the headshot. It's as if the three frames are composites of two. Also there is a similar 'anomaly' earlier. The left column is as the frames are numbered, the right column as a suggested stretching to resolve the 'anomaly'.

There is motion in the background and foreground which excludes that these frames are composites. This motion comes from several sources .... one being Zapruder's moving of the camera .... another from the tracking of the limo which causes the background to blur in and out .... the next is a result of the movement of the limo itself not moving equally with the panning speed of Zapruder's camera. These differences cause such things as background blurring between frames while the limo appears in focus, blurring of the limo when the background may appear in focus, and blurring of both the foreground and background because Zapruder moved his camera. (see clip 1)

I didn't have much time yesterday evening, but I looked at length at Z311 and Z312 in particular, and there is something in the sequence of those two frames that I honestly do not understand. I need to think about it more, though, so I don't post something that makes me look like a total imbecile... (some might add an "again" to the end of this sentence!)

The only difference that I can detect is the motion blur in one frame followed by a more in-focus frame. The stretching and manipulation between those two frames is quite common and examples of this can be found throughout the motorcade films starting back at Love Field. The closer the camera is to the moving limo - the more pronounced these occurrences will appear. (see clip 2)

Bill Miller

Edited January 14, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Frank Agbat]

Frank if I was sure I wouldn't put anomaly as apparent 'anomaly', nor ask for help in understanding. I can't conceptualise the combination of movements that would cause the 'anomaly', and that doesn't mean it's not conceptualisable (groan). Tracking error is a rather loose term, what does it mean exactly? Those questions are not rhetorical. I think being able to explain these issues will move things along. I was actually in the process of trying to confirm the sync by coming at the problem from a different direction, reasoning that for something to be correct it must be so wholistically. This is just a block that needs resolving. If the result is that someone considers me an imbecile for not understanding it, well, if that bothered me I probably would do very little. Just to make it easier for those who are thinking along those lines, take it from me that I'm perfectly capable of being an imbecile. I'm not looking for cred, I'm after assassins.

I'm intrigued to know what you see re 311 312. Can it answer the above issue? I find that the 'anomaly' starting before the headshot interesting. There wouldn't have been a sound startle yet it's there. Also the earlier anomaly is surprising.

It's the fact that the pitch of the line is the same before and after the anomaly, and that by stretching the frame spacing it is resolved that intrigues me. It may just indicate an ignorance of the mechanics on my part.

Hi John,

What I'm talking about when I mean "tracking error" is Zapruder's ability to accurately follow what he was attempting to film.

I put together a conceptual example of this by using Z-300 to Z-320 (from the MPI set). I created a vertical yellow line to mark the right hand edge of the frame. I then created a horizontal line and extended it to the crossbar junction on the limo windshield. The following picture shows Z300, Z320, and the position of the limo relative to the edge of the frame.

There is a delta of 2-3 pixels on where MPI "registers" the right hand portion of their frame, so there is some "thickness" to the composite vertical line for this reason. Also, some frames were blurry, and my horizontal length indicator was (honestly) just a best guess.

[Frank Agbat]

The following is a still frame-pair from my previous Zapruder-Nix Clint Hill Sync example.

Refresher - For this example, NS-22 = Z-313.

In this frame, we are looking at Z-380 on the left, NS-89 on the right (67 frames after NS-22). As you can see, the Nix film is slightly behind the Z-film. Agent Hill has both feet on the limo in the Z-film, but hasn't done so yet on the Nix film.

The FBI tested the Nix camera to operate at 18.5 frames per second, Zapruder's at 18.3 fps. Thinking out loud for a moment, in 10 seconds, the Nix camera would have exposed 185 frames, Zapruder's camera in the same span of time would have exposed 183 frames. Every 5 seconds, the Nix camera takes 1 more frame than Zapruder's.

The Z-frame in the above example was exposed 3.6612 seconds (67 frames) after Z313. *If* we postulate for a moment that NS22 is an *exact* match to Z313, 3.6612 seconds later, we would expect to see some drifting in the sync -- over half a frame worth of drift, based on the 1 frame every 5 seconds baseline. The Nix film would, when matched frame-to-frame with Zapruder, appear to be "behind" by about 3/4 of a frame.

By NS-90 (the next frame, which is aligned to Z381 in the clip), Agent Hill's foot is on the bumper of the limo in the Nix film.

Here's the associated theory:

Assuming the tested frame-rates are accurate and I've done my math correctly, NS-23 cannot be a *perfect* match for Z313. The reason is because this would cause our side-by-side example to show virtually no drift 67 frames later.

Thoughts?

[John Dolva]

initial thoughts: I think it's on the right track in creating a pattern template. Here's a couple of visualisations (they don't necessarily correlate to what you are using) that attempt to show a drift.

(image)

Taking a one second as 10, and stretching a grid of 18.5, and one of 18.3 and then moving and numbering them to a suggestion.

(image)

____________________

Bill, this is the kind of blur that occurs in the 'anomaly'. Can you. or anyone, explain why there would be apparently two images of the people on top of each other? I would expect that a blur would be more like a smear than apparently two distinct images? Please explain.

[John Dolva]

Frank, I think you're on the right track, except look at the position of the cross bar from the bottom edge. It looks like the panning is corrected by lowering the camera. So then the objects filmed move up on the film. Simple? Then the drift as the pan continues, and then another correction, etc, so the corrections are coincidential with the action except to do with the panning. It's relatively easy, particularly as one ages and vertebrae start to 'freeze', to move the head left to right and up and down. The combined diagonal movement is more jerky. Agree with this way of explaining?

If so, back to sync confirmation.

[John Dolva]

It's the viewing of the film that introduces problems. They are philosophical/conceptual in nature and so is the solution.

Where is the viewer. On a chair watching a screen, in front of a projector watching the lens, inside the projector watching the film, behind the film in the camera, in front of the film behind the camera lens, in front of the lens watching the scene being filmed?

Watching Zapruder, being Zapruder watching through the view finder, etc?

The film was taken by Zapruder according to what he saw through the viewfinder. What is on the film came to the film through the camera lens which is below and in front of the view finder. Zapruder has the view finder focused on Kennedy in the limo. The Limo is centered in the far off sections and drifts to the bottom in the near scene.

Would this serve to identify the particular camera that took the Zfilm? Could this very human un professional film in its gross features offer a 'proof' of sorts that the film is genuine? How would a filmmaker have done it? I suspect in many ways even if it looks ok frame by frame, the overall look of it would 'smell' of studio.

So, the drift of the camera is to some extent predictable, then there are the movements and relative movements of moving and stationary object on the film and the non movement of stationary object in the scene and the movements and relative movements of non stationary objects in the scene and their relative momements to stationary objects.

(image) the camera moves the same distance in a time period, but in tracking the limo it moves a shorter distance along the direction of movement of the limo when elevation of the camera changes.

Unless the camera doesn't move up or down but tilts. Then there is an apparent drift on the film but not reflected in the horizontal.

[Ashton Gray]

there are the movements and relative movements of moving and stationary object on the film and the non movement of stationary object in the scene and the movements and relative movements of non stationary objects in the scene and their relative momements to stationary objects.

[sUNG]...and a partridge in a pear tree.[/sUNG]

Yes, but John—while entirely conceding the philosophical, almost metaphysical point that the material universe is all motion and does not possess anywhere in its entire expanse an actual static—for mere mortal, practical purposes (as well as for the love of Aunt Marcy), might the relative constant of TIME (expressed as FPS), and the relative motionlessness of points on the ground in the scene be worthy of a Newer Skewer sequence, irrespective of pan, pitch, yaw, tilt, jerk, spasm, rank cinematic amateurism, or even fused vertebrae?

I don't mean to the exclusion of the skewering of PIMs (Points In Motion), or to the non-exclusion of PIM-skewering. I just meant that it seemed to be a logical member of the Skewer Set that so far hasn't been represented. Maybe it needs no representation.

Ashton