Missing Nix frames

[John Dolva]

Ashton, I'm still digesting the point you made. That and the other input has helped enormously in getting a better and simpler understanding of what's going on. I'm trying to gather together all the different things that are happening and finding ways of identifying each factor and how it contributes to the different things that are seen. A handicap (for me) is to break free of expectations that may be due to an unawareness of what perspective the whole thing is viewed from. Unfortunately that is tedious, but a comprehensive understanding should make it easier in the long run.

I have done what you suggested (as I understand it) and a similar shift is seen. Here's the result. I don't quite know what to make of it.Perhaps you could interpret? It'd be good to get a fresh perspective. Conceptualising the factors involved has been and remains a problem (for me).

I've stepped through the frames picking various things like feet on ground and the white dot and drawn a thin line through them.

Edited December 14, 2006 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

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.

Frank, MPI misnumbered the frames at some point after the head shot to JFK, thus this is where your difference lies in the Nix film equivilant frame to Z380. Also, while not a big deal, the Nix camera shutter was out of sinc with Zapruder's camera. In other words, things like the explosion of the head are slightly different when the shutter of both cameras opened and closed separate from one another. The Nix camera had its shutter open and close slightly ahead of Zapruders and this is why the cranial fluid spray is seen closer to the head whereas the Zfilm captured the same spray a fraction of a second later which shows the mist pattern as more spread out.

Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Ashton, I'm still digesting the point you made. That and the other input has helped enormously in getting a better and simpler understanding of what's going on. I'm trying to gather together all the different things that are happening and finding ways of identifying each factor and how it contributes to the different things that are seen. A handicap (for me) is to break free of expectations that may be due to an unawareness of what perspective the whole thing is viewed from. Unfortunately that is tedious, but a comprehensive understanding should make it easier in the long run.

I have done what you suggested (as I understand it) and a similar shift is seen. Here's the result. I don't quite know what to make of it.Perhaps you could interpret? It'd be good to get a fresh perspective. Conceptualising the factors involved has been and remains a problem (for me).

I've stepped through the frames picking various things like feet on ground and the white dot and drawn a thin line through them.

Good work John;

Now, neither the yellow stripe on the curb nor the left foot of Mary Moorman moved. Thus one now has an established alignment point from an established elevation.

This certainly should provide a basis from which to continue the horizontal distance variations per frame of the film as well as the vertical/elevation variations as the limo progressed down Elm St. as demonstrated in Frank's previous posting. (Post #145 )

In event that it is of any assistance, JFK's travel direction down Elm St. at the time of the Z313 headshot impact was, for all practical purposes, exactly at a 90-degree right angle to Zapruder's position.

Tom

[Bill Miller]

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.

I think the term used is "ghost image". In this particular instance it is a panning blur caused by Zapruder. I don't have the images before me as I type this reply, but I seem to recall that while these women are blurred - the limo is sharper. This is because the women were not moving and the limo was in motion with the movement of the camera at the time of the exposure.

If you go back and watch the DCA movie images of the trip through Dallas .... you will note the same sort of thing happening.

Bill Miller

Edited December 14, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

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.

Frank, MPI misnumbered the frames at some point after the head shot to JFK, thus this is where your difference lies in the Nix film equivilant frame to Z380. Also, while not a big deal, the Nix camera shutter was out of sinc with Zapruder's camera. In other words, things like the explosion of the head are slightly different when the shutter of both cameras opened and closed separate from one another. The Nix camera had its shutter open and close slightly ahead of Zapruders and this is why the cranial fluid spray is seen closer to the head whereas the Zfilm captured the same spray a fraction of a second later which shows the mist pattern as more spread out.

Bill Miller

*********

dgh:

Yes, MPI did quite a few things to the film, for our viewing pleasure of course..... one of which was stablizing the frames, scaling up (zoomong in) re-centering each frame for their stated reason.

When the frames for the Zapruder film-MPI project were photographed at NARA, the result was single 3x5/4x5 transparencies for each Z-frame (probably more - bracketed] when re-assembled via the computer with After Effects type of software, it was at this point stabliizing and recentering occurred. I have no idea if, IF on the MPI *full-frame* version of the Z-film (1:33/4:3/8mm) any stabilzation/re-centering occurred.

I believe the term BMiller is looking for is "lens shutter angle" see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle

Dr. John Costella discussed this very issue in-depth at the 2003 Duluth Zapruder film conference

Edited December 14, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton, I'm still digesting the point you made.

I— I— I didn't know I had made one.

Seriously, I do understand the tedium involved, and I do appreciate this new sequence you've posted.

I don't quite know what to make of it. Perhaps you could interpret?

No such luck yet. I don't have the means to do the "stretched" version to see how "gap" frames of this sequence using your skewer method would relate to the earlier sequences you've done. If and when you do that the way you did the earlier ones I think the comparison would be worth making. The "half-frame" offsets of your second series were puzzling.

Thomas seems to see things in your latest skewer series that I haven't seen yet, so I'll continue to follow the discussion with interest.

Meanwhile, I think it a tragedy of immeasurable proportion that the earlier images in this topic have been sloughed off to meet quotas. It makes reading the thing for anyone coming in late utterly incomprehensible, which I think reprehensible, and I think it completely sabotages some very important work, done by you and Frank Agbat, including and especially your very cleverly originated method for stabilization of frames on a given point to test variances.

I will volunteer to do anything I can to get all the images for this thread up on server space somewhere so they can be relinked to the original messages not as message attachments but as img code references to a web location. That's how I've done all of my images (except a rare few), and I will make or add space to accommodate those of you and Frank if you want to PM me about it and set something up. I'm peeved to see this work get functionally lost because I think that what you've both done already is landmark work.

Separately from all the above, I also had an idea (falling far short of a "point") for a variation on your original technique, but the brief attempts at a test I did went to hell in a handbasket because I don't have a set of stills that have been put through Frank's digital wash and spin cycle, and don't have a clue how to do what he described.

Would either of you be willing to make such a set available for others? If so I'll also volunteer to do whatever I can to make space available for it somewhere. Not knowing what the file size would be for an archive of them, or the bandwidth necessary to meet demand makes it impossible to give a carte blanche promise to be able to provide the space alone, but I'll try to get whatever help would be necessary to pull it off.

If I can I'll try to write a text description for you and post it here of this "variation" I mentioned above, but don't want to burden you with it or steer you even slightly off what you already were doing.

Ashton

[John Dolva]

Thank you Ashton, that sounds like a good idea. I'll go back and locate where the various images were and edit in a note and zip up the images and send them to you. I'll PM for the email.

The point to me was that it is a good idea to look at the stationary objects, it hadn't occurred to me. I first noticed the 'anomaly' when looking at Toni so I kind of froze my mindset there. The varied input shakes it and moves things along. Possibly by having a thorough look at all the possibilities will enable in time an understanding whereby each frame can be easily explained. Already, I think, the understanding has progressed significantly.

I'll do a 'stretch' tomorrow. I'm interested to hear how you would read the result.

____________

Bill, I'm aware that it would be called blur, but it's peculiar in how it seems to be two distinct images slightly offset with no apparent smear in between. Shouldn't a blur of whatever kind for the duration the aperture is open register all the time and not just as if at two separate moments? What exactly causes this particular kind of blur? A number of the frames around the headshot has this kind of blur. It particularly stands out with Jeans red coat. Other blurs like a few frames after the headshot (crossbar) is a smear, etc.

_______________

Tom, I'm not entirely sure what you mean but it sounds interesting. As I understand, we have a graph of horizontal movements and a graph of vertical movements, and one should be able to combine that into something meaningful. When having a limo speed as well, should it be possible to derive an exact understanding of all movements and then see whether there are 'anomalies'?

Edited December 14, 2006 by John Dolva

[Ashton Gray]

John, here is what may be an incomprehensible attempt at explaining what I meant about a "variation" on your original stabilization technique—and it may be no variation at all, but a reinvention of the wheel you've already invented. I don't have the original images available in the thread to go back and refer to (as discussed above).

Below is a short sequence of three frames I've used from a set of stills someone had done that I downloaded from somewhere on the internet. I've cropped them further myself (vertically) just to keep this as compact as possible.

The long white line on the right represents a "stabilization" of horizontal placement of each frame, arbitrarily selected as being the trailing edge of that metal frame that stretches across the limo.

The three bright green lines on the left mark the change of position in the "stabilized" frames of the (hopefully) relatively unmoving left elbow of the woman:

Seeing some variation in the spacing of just those three green-line marked positions isn't significant because it's an inadequate sample, done roughly, and with stills of questionable pedigree to begin with. I'm only attempting to demonstrate the concept. And of course the concept would be far better served by a tree stump or a lamp post in the landscape rather than an elbow. But as far as my befuddled brain can take this concept, the only things those spans could measure would be either:

A. Variation in rate of change (speed) of the limo, or, if there were a fairly extreme anomaly,

B. Possible missing frames.

I would love for someone to come along and blow this out of the water. Then I could get back to the work I ought to be doing anyway.

Ashton

Edited December 14, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[David G. Healy]

John, here is what may be an incomprehensible attempt at explaining what I meant about a "variation" on your original stabilization technique—and it may be no variation at all, but a reinvention of the wheel you've already invented. I don't have the original images available in the thread to go back and refer to (as discussed above).

Below is a short sequence of three frames I've used from a set of stills someone had done that I downloaded from somewhere on the internet. I've cropped them further myself (vertically) just to keep this as compact as possible.

The long white line on the right represents a "stabilization" of horizontal placement of each frame, arbitrarily selected as being the trailing edge of that metal frame that stretches across the limo.

The three bright green lines on the left mark the change of position in the "stabilized" frames of the (hopefully) relatively unmoving left elbow of the woman:

Seeing some variation in the spacing of just those three green-line marked positions isn't significant because it's an inadequate sample, done roughly, and with stills of questionable pedigree to begin with. I'm only attempting to demonstrate the concept. And of course the concept would be far better served by a tree stump or a lamp post in the landscape rather than an elbow. But as far as my befuddled brain can take this concept, the only things those spans could measure would be either:

A. Variation in rate of change (speed) of the limo, or, if there were a fairly extreme anomaly,

B. Possible missing frames.

I would love for someone to come along and blow this out of the water. Then I could get back to the work I ought to be doing anyway.

Ashton

JCostella utilized a Elm lamp post to demonstrate Z-film alteration, I can't recall if the animation is on the web or not, perhaps JWhite can comment

[Jack White]

John, here is what may be an incomprehensible attempt at explaining what I meant about a "variation" on your original stabilization technique—and it may be no variation at all, but a reinvention of the wheel you've already invented. I don't have the original images available in the thread to go back and refer to (as discussed above).

Below is a short sequence of three frames I've used from a set of stills someone had done that I downloaded from somewhere on the internet. I've cropped them further myself (vertically) just to keep this as compact as possible.

The long white line on the right represents a "stabilization" of horizontal placement of each frame, arbitrarily selected as being the trailing edge of that metal frame that stretches across the limo.

The three bright green lines on the left mark the change of position in the "stabilized" frames of the (hopefully) relatively unmoving left elbow of the woman:

Seeing some variation in the spacing of just those three green-line marked positions isn't significant because it's an inadequate sample, done roughly, and with stills of questionable pedigree to begin with. I'm only attempting to demonstrate the concept. And of course the concept would be far better served by a tree stump or a lamp post in the landscape rather than an elbow. But as far as my befuddled brain can take this concept, the only things those spans could measure would be either:

A. Variation in rate of change (speed) of the limo, or, if there were a fairly extreme anomaly,

B. Possible missing frames.

I would love for someone to come along and blow this out of the water. Then I could get back to the work I ought to be doing anyway.

Ashton

JCostella utilized a Elm lamp post to demonstrate Z-film alteration, I can't recall if the animation is on the web or not, perhaps JWhite can comment

John explains the lamppost at...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html

I believe his proof does not go far enough in examining the possibility that the DPD photo

and the Zframe may be from slightly different viewpoints. I can no longer post photos on

the forum or I would demonstrate.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

John, here is what may be an incomprehensible attempt at explaining what I meant about a "variation" on your original stabilization technique—and it may be no variation at all, but a reinvention of the wheel you've already invented. I don't have the original images available in the thread to go back and refer to (as discussed above).

Below is a short sequence of three frames I've used from a set of stills someone had done that I downloaded from somewhere on the internet. I've cropped them further myself (vertically) just to keep this as compact as possible.

The long white line on the right represents a "stabilization" of horizontal placement of each frame, arbitrarily selected as being the trailing edge of that metal frame that stretches across the limo.

The three bright green lines on the left mark the change of position in the "stabilized" frames of the (hopefully) relatively unmoving left elbow of the woman:

//

Seeing some variation in the spacing of just those three green-line marked positions isn't significant because it's an inadequate sample, done roughly, and with stills of questionable pedigree to begin with. I'm only attempting to demonstrate the concept. And of course the concept would be far better served by a tree stump or a lamp post in the landscape rather than an elbow. But as far as my befuddled brain can take this concept, the only things those spans could measure would be either:

A. Variation in rate of change (speed) of the limo, or, if there were a fairly extreme anomaly,

B. Possible missing frames.

I would love for someone to come along and blow this out of the water. Then I could get back to the work I ought to be doing anyway.

Ashton

JCostella utilized a Elm lamp post to demonstrate Z-film alteration, I can't recall if the animation is on the web or not, perhaps JWhite can comment

John explains the lamppost at...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html

I believe his proof does not go far enough in examining the possibility that the DPD photo

and the Zframe may be from slightly different viewpoints. I can no longer post photos on

the forum or I would demonstrate.

Jack

Thanks, Jack...

[Bill Miller]

I believe the term BMiller is looking for is "lens shutter angle" see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle

Thanks, David, but the possible occurence that I am talking about is a bit simpler than this. For instance, let's assume that we have two exact model cameras set at the same shutter speeds and each was given to a photographer to film an event. Unless both cameras were started at the exact same moment - each camera will be running out of sinc with one another. A similar example would be like two drums being beat - one on the up-beat and the other on the down-beat. The Nix film head shot shows spatter debris close to the Presidnert's head, as well as debris coming off the back of it. The Zapruder film head shot shows the same debris further from the President's head and what came off the back of the head was gone out of view before Zapruder's shutter captured the image. I hope I have explained this better.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Bill Miller' wrote:

I believe the term BMiller is looking for is "lens shutter angle" see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle

Thanks, David, but the possible occurence that I am talking about is a bit simpler than this. For instance, let's assume that we have two exact model cameras set at the same shutter speeds and each was given to a photographer to film an event.

dgh: film speed shutter speed f-stop/t-stop/iris setting, irrelevant.... camera frame rate MOST relevant!

Unless both cameras were started at the exact same moment - each camera will be running out of sinc with one another.

dgh: no exactly.... (and its 'sync' on the west coast) if both cameras are set to run at the same frame rate, i.e., 18fps or 24fps or 48fps cover the same event, start at delayed times during the event and each camera overlaps someplace within the event, have NOT been shut off during the event -- without sound (SOF) its just a simple matter of finding WHAT frame with a common image indicator-denominator to sync-up the two cameras footage. Certainly not rocket science! Especially if you have access to in-camera originals!

A similar example would be like two drums being beat - one on the up-beat and the other on the down-beat. The Nix film head shot shows spatter debris close to the Presidnert's head, as well as debris coming off the back of it. The Zapruder film head shot shows the same debris further from the President's head and what came off the back of the head was gone out of view before Zapruder's shutter captured the image. I hope I have explained this better.

dgh: you've better eyesight than me, or a better NIX film to review... frankly I see no blood/brain matter at all in NIX... Wasn't Nix's camera rated at 18fps?

Bill Miller

Edited December 15, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh: you've better eyesight than me, or a better NIX film to review... frankly I see no blood/brain matter at all in NIX... Wasn't Nix's camera rated at 18fps?

I don't know if I have better eyesight than you do, but I am pretty sure that I have taken more time to study and know the photographical record better than you do. The mist cloud can be seen on the Nix film. Below is one such example where the film is darkened to allow the mist cloud to show up better. The bone seen high above JFK's head in Z313 can be seen very close to the President's head in this clip. Like I said before - the Nix camera's shutter was opening and closing out of sync with Zapruder's .... in this case it opened and closed closer to the explosion of JFK's head.

Bill Miller

Edited December 15, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

I can no longer post photos on

the forum or I would demonstrate.

Jack, if you have any web server space you can post photos without the need for "attaching" them.

You just have to upload them somewhere and then type the following into your message wherever you want each image to appear. First you type the opening "img" code in square brackets, like this:

[img]

Immediately after that type in the exact url to your image, with full path, including filename (just like you'd type the url to any web location), then type:

[/img]

It's easy. (I don't know why those codeboxes are so ridiculously big, or why I can't type a full "img" dummy code into them, but hopefully that explains it well enough. You just put it all on one line in the message: opening img code in square brackets, url to the image, closing /img code in square brackets. That's it.)

I guess this should be in the general forum forum, but I thought it would be enough on-topic in this thread, and I don't think anyone wants to lose the benefits of your considerable experience or insights on these issues.

Ashton

Edited December 15, 2006 by Ashton Gray