Missing Nix frames

[John Dolva]

It would mean that one security guard can monitor a huge bank of displays in miniature and the moment one defects a difference the monitor switches to full color prominence and draws attention to be dealt with. It would as you already see have numerous other applications.

In this case (nix and other films and photos) it allows comparative analysis which detects even minor changes in photos and also changes frame by frame. Features such as blood spray can be separated out from the background noise.

[Jack White]

If any of you guys can prove FRAME REMOVAL, no more proof of alteration is needed.

Jack

Agreed. As Ed O'Hagan said in another thread, either the film is altered or it isn't. I didn't agree with some of his other points, but I certainly agreed on this one.

One possible complication:

Using the front fender may bring too much perspective into play. That is to say, the fender starts to "vanish" as the limo moves out of his panning area toward the end of the sequence.

I'm going to attempt to use both the front fender *and* the centerpoint of the front wheel as a positional guide.

For those who know: In addition to the framerate of the Nix camera, what is the proper parlance for numbering the Nix frames? Is the very first frame (shot on Houston) N1, or is "N1" the Elm street sequence?

I have found that the roll bar separating the front and back seats

is an ideal reference point, since it has both vertical and horizontal

components to judge perspective, and is high enough to be in all

frames of all films, and is the same on both sides of the car.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

David, thank you. I used the Nix assassination sequence clip from

http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html

and extracted the frames with xnview. The first frame was very blurred so I left that out. Calling the first used frame frame one, it seems (to me) that frames

5, 11, 20, (21?), 22, 23, 25, 34, 38, 45

of the first 48 frames are missing. Four of these are bunched at the headshot, and there could be even another frame again missing. If this is correct then likely the full clip shows the limo stopping or nearly stopping at the headshot. It would be good if someone could check and confirm or debunk please.

Well that sure would be an interesting find if those were the events in the missing frames. I'm leaning towards believing that zapruger frames were tampered with to hide the incriminating limo slowdown (or stop) you mentioned, and to show a burst of blood shooting forward from the President's head to support the bullet from behind theory. Discussed here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=75

It looks like the Nix stretch shown here is approximately z312-334, based on the positions of people I think are Mary Moorman, woman in light coat still running, and first guy in dark suit.

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

I'm going by the zapruder tape used here:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

They gave many examples of supposed alteration flaws that I couldn't see. But I thought the head motions of Mrs Connelly and Greer were impossible, and the blood dissipation occuring in 1/16 of a second was beyond impossible. There would have to be many frame missing or tampered with to disguise those two events.

[Frank Agbat]

John,

I repeated your experiment, albeit using different software, but attempted to match your registration/stabilization technique (which is quite slick, by the way). The only problem I ran into was a minor procedural error regarding how I marked the actual wheel-center location on each frame.

Anyway -- here are the results. The small vertical markers (which due to my procedural error got a bit too light in the final version) track the center of the wheel. As you can see by some minor blurring in the background, my registration was not 100% perfect, but it isn't bad for a quick evaluation.

My version of Nix doesn't seem to show missing frames. I'm going to use the same AVI that you used, reduce it to individual frames and see if, perhaps, the source is the problem.

[John Dolva]

It could very well be the source. We'll see. The edges of the concrete pedestal look a bit more blurred than I got. Perhaps recheck the alignments? If you take the biggest gap on the pic I posted (count the black lines) and compare the frames at that place you should be able to see if there are more frames in the version you have. Particularly the grouping at the headshot.

Edited November 27, 2006 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

It could very well be the source. We'll see. The edges of the concrete pedestal look a bit more blurred than I got. Perhaps recheck the alignments? If you take the biggest gap on the pic I posted (count the black lines) and compare the frames at that place you should be able to see if there are more frames in the version you have. Particularly the grouping at the headshot.

Hi John,

My alignment isn't as crisp as yours. I certainly can probably crisp it up a bit with some fine tuning and a more relaxed hand on the mouse (I've had a rather, um, interesting and nerve-rattling day). I also might have used a slightly different procedure than you, upon further review. I attempted to optimize the alignment of each frame with its predecessor, not the first frame. That might lead to some progressive error creeping in to the process.

Another possible issue is that I might have screwed up on reversing the telecine process. I would expect mucking up in this area, though, would have yielded some duplicate frames *or* some skipped frames. That did not appear to be the case. Also in the mix was the disappointingly poor quality of the source, even though it was a DVD. All DVDs are not created equally, and this one stinks!

I'm going to download the avi file that you used and play with it for a while...

[Frank Agbat]

Well, I have to admit, I'm a bit puzzled about a couple of things.

I ran the same process against the Nix avi from the site you indicated. Here are the results:

I also re-did my previous one, in an attempt to improve the registration:

On your source AVI, I was never able to achieve the level of clarity you achieved, but there are some irregularities in the frame spacing.

On my source, I think the results are slightly improved. I blame some of the fuzziness on MPEG-2 block distortion, as the DVD "chops" a bit. The frame spacing seems quite good, with no indication of missing frames.

But there is another problem...

When I play these frames at 18.5fps (the speed of the Nix camera) the film seems to be in slow motion. I'm at a bit of a loss to explain this at the moment. I'm going to have to go back and look at the source again... When something looks to be in slow-mo, there are usually duplicate frames present, but there are clearly no dupes in the film. There also don't appear to be any missing... (there is probably a simple explanation that I'm missing... it has been a LONG day).

[David G. Healy]

Well, I have to admit, I'm a bit puzzled about a couple of things.

I ran the same process against the Nix avi from the site you indicated. Here are the results:

I also re-did my previous one, in an attempt to improve the registration:

On your source AVI, I was never able to achieve the level of clarity you achieved, but there are some irregularities in the frame spacing.

On my source, I think the results are slightly improved. I blame some of the fuzziness on MPEG-2 block distortion, as the DVD "chops" a bit. The frame spacing seems quite good, with no indication of missing frames.

But there is another problem...

When I play these frames at 18.5fps (the speed of the Nix camera) the film seems to be in slow motion. I'm at a bit of a loss to explain this at the moment. I'm going to have to go back and look at the source again... When something looks to be in slow-mo, there are usually duplicate frames present, but there are clearly no dupes in the film. There also don't appear to be any missing... (there is probably a simple explanation that I'm missing... it has been a LONG day).

unless the source utilized in your study can be certified/guaranteed at 18.5fps your wasting your time... Most, if not ALL of these JFK related reference films on the internet are at 30fps DF (drop frame) version of 18.3 or 18.5 fps in-camera originals. For these 30fps clips to be used accurately 3:2 pulldown is required in order to get the frames back to their original frame rate... Adobe After Effects will accomplish same...

3:2 pulldown? go to

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report..._2_pulldown.htm

for more information

[John Dolva]

Interesting, David, thank you for that. How I understand it then (please correct) is that the process creates frames that didn't exist in two ways. By mixing half interleavs from consecutive frames and by dupliucation. This would be the case with the dvd clip and removing dupes doesn't solve it. The avi clip on the other hand is not necessarily like that. It depends on how the frames for it were derived. The large spaced group around the headshot which Frank seems to have also found (Frank, could you mark the line that is from the headshot frame) I'm betting it is the same, if so then that indicates an intent as the pattern of missing frames is not at all regular?

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Jack, I've installed some programs that have messed up my film maker. What I can do at this stage is to make up all the frames as jpegs and zip them up into a file I'll send to anyone who can put them together as a gif or a clip to post. Once I have them done in a day or so I'll notify and whoever can PM or email details of where to send them.

John,

It is possible to create a Flash video using Macromedia Flash MX 6 and SwishStudio 2.

Use Macromedia Flash MX 6 (or any other version) to assemble all the relevant jpeg images

and convert the assembled jpegs into a viewable Flash file (.swf) these can be then zipped, sent

and posted on web pages and viewed on computers which have Macromedia Flash Player installed.

Swishstudio 2 converts video to Flash files (.swf).

Macromedia Flash MX 6 is especially geared to convert sequential jpegs into viewable Flash movies.

Please note Macromedia Flash is now owned by Adobe.

EBC

Edited November 28, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Frank Agbat]

unless the source utilized in your study can be certified/guaranteed at 18.5fps your wasting your time... Most, if not ALL of these JFK related reference films on the internet are at 30fps DF (drop frame) version of 18.3 or 18.5 fps in-camera originals. For these 30fps clips to be used accurately 3:2 pulldown is required in order to get the frames back to their original frame rate... Adobe After Effects will accomplish same...

3:2 pulldown? go to

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report..._2_pulldown.htm

for more information

Hi David,

Yeah, I know all about telecining, 3:2 pulldown, interlacing/de-interlacing and the like... (A few years ago, in the early days of burnable DVDs, I produced a crazy "torture test" dvd that included such nifty things as MP2 audio tracks, incorrectly telecined sequences, incorrect 3:2 pulldown flag, non-standard GOPs, wrong DVD book-type and the like. It was really fun to watch poorly designed DVD players try to play some of the stuff. It was even more fun to watch the befuddled salesmen...)

I was reasonably certain that my source was purely progressive last night, but I was so darn tired I really couldn't think straight. This morning, I noticed my computer wasn't playing *anything* at the correct speed... One reboot later and all is good. Unfortunately, immediately thereafter I had to head to work. I suspect the problem is a memory leak in a program I've been writing.

[Frank Agbat]

Interesting, David, thank you for that. How I understand it then (please correct) is that the process creates frames that didn't exist in two ways. By mixing half interleavs from consecutive frames and by dupliucation. This would be the case with the dvd clip and removing dupes doesn't solve it. The avi clip on the other hand is not necessarily like that. It depends on how the frames for it were derived. The large spaced group around the headshot which Frank seems to have also found (Frank, could you mark the line that is from the headshot frame) I'm betting it is the same, if so then that indicates an intent as the pattern of missing frames is not at all regular?

John,

Yes, it sounds like you've got the basic pattern correct. If your source is film shot at a rate BELOW the rate of the target (i.e. 24 fps, 18.5 fps, etc), then something must be done to make the film appear to run at the correct speed when played on a video device. If you merely did a 1:1 frame transfer, the video would appear to run too quickly. (For example, if you watch footage shot in the early days of motion pictures, it frequently appears that everyone is moving a bit too quickly. This is because older cameras operated at a frame rate below 24 fps, but the people who produced the video telecined it as if the source was 24...)

The nature of the target video device also has something to say about how these frame-rate corrections must be made. If the target follows the PAL (European) standard, then the target is 25 fps. If NTSC, 29.97 fps (frequently noted as 30fps).

So, for example, if you're dealing with an NTSC target, you need 29.97 fps to appear to be running at 24fps. This is the telecining process, and it is accomplished by creating duplicates of each original frame in a 3:2 pattern. So, for movie frames 1-4, you would end up with video frames in the pattern: 111 22 333 44

The important thing to note is that at no point in the telecining process (there the source film is at a frame rate BELOW the target device) are frames lost. Copies are made.

The secondary process, which may or may not be necessary depending on the target, is interlacing. In the case of NTSC devices, the spec calls for 59.94 fields per second. This is comprised of "odd" and "even" frames. In essence, the device draws the odd numbered lines in the picture, then backs up and draws the even ones. Each half is drawn at 59.94, but it takes two fields to represent a frame... The effective rate becomes 29.97...

These numbers are not coincidence, by the way. The NTSC (~30fps/~60 fields/sec) standards were a by-product of North American power generation standards which have a line frequency of 60hz. The standard designers could use this frequency to help synchronize the field/frame events. Thus, standard TVs in North America draw a new field every (approx) 1/60th of a second - right in sync with the power standard. Also note that the European standard (PAL) is 25fps, which just so happens to be a multiple of their power generation frequency (50Hz)... For those that remember the days of TVs having a Vertical Hold knob, that if misadjusted would cause the picture to "roll", what you were doing when you turned that knob was 'fine tuning' the vertical synchronization of your TV to the broadcast -- necessary if there were slight differences in power frequency/phase.

Unlike television, the output from computers is progressive. This means that interleaving is not taking place. Each frame sent to the monitor is a full frame, not half. (Not to confuse matters, but some computer *monitors* actual interleave internally. However, the video card's output is progressive). When we start with a source that is interleaved and want to display it on a computer monitor, then the fun begins... David's article went into this in a fairly superficial way, but did explain the issue. If your computer contains DVD playback software, it contains an algorithm to deal with the ugly interlaced frames so they look decent on a computer monitor. The algorithms vary, but many use a technique known as "bob and weave". The key is to make the video look good at full speed. If you want to take interlaced video and display it as an AVI, for example, your computer will NOT automatically remove the interlacing effect. This requires de-interlacing the video. (This, too, is a subject with many opinions and methods. Everyone seems to have their favorite way to do this, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.) There are numerous tools that will do this to varying degrees of success. Once you've de-interlaced the video, if you want progressive frames, you then must un-do the telecining process. This is called "inverse telecine" (IVTC).

If the telecining process has been done correctly (and this is NOT always the case, by the way), one can assume which frames to remove. Many software packages accomplish this automatically, simply by assuming a perfect 3:2 pattern. However, it is NOT always flawless, and sometimes in the IVTC process, a frame will get lost here and there (and/or a duplicate frame might survive the process). In the course of a two-hour movie, or something that isn't being looked-at frame by frame, this is not a big deal. On the other hand, when we're attempting to analyze a film source and are hoping to get progressive frames, an incorrect IVTC process that loses a frame is unacceptable.

This is what I *think* has happened in the AVI that you're looking at. For my stuff, I did the IVTC process by hand. This made certain that I ended up with progressive frames. Obviously, for a large number of frames, this is an unworkable proposition.

I'll try to post some examples of frames, interlacing, and the rest if time permits...

[Thomas H. Purvis]

David, thank you. I used the Nix assassination sequence clip from

http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html

and extracted the frames with xnview. The first frame was very blurred so I left that out. Calling the first used frame frame one, it seems (to me) that frames

5, 11, 20, (21?), 22, 23, 25, 34, 38, 45

of the first 48 frames are missing. Four of these are bunched at the headshot, and there could be even another frame again missing. If this is correct then likely the full clip shows the limo stopping or nearly stopping at the headshot. It would be good if someone could check and confirm or debunk please.

It would be good if someone could check and confirm or debunk please.

One could accept that the rapid movememt of JFK's head (the famous "jet" effect) pretty well does this for you John.

As for myself, I had gotten quite tired of how others had beat this dead horse without a clear understanding of what it represented.

Methinks you are about to make a contribution of extreme significance in understanding of the WC obfuscation.

If any of you guys can prove FRAME REMOVAL, no more proof of alteration is needed.

Jack

Agreed. As Ed O'Hagan said in another thread, either the film is altered or it isn't. I didn't agree with some of his other points, but I certainly agreed on this one.

One possible complication:

Using the front fender may bring too much perspective into play. That is to say, the fender starts to "vanish" as the limo moves out of his panning area toward the end of the sequence.

I'm going to attempt to use both the front fender *and* the centerpoint of the front wheel as a positional guide.

For those who know: In addition to the framerate of the Nix camera, what is the proper parlance for numbering the Nix frames? Is the very first frame (shot on Houston) N1, or is "N1" the Elm street sequence?

Although I most certainly do not have the expertise with computer programs to accomplish any of this, it would appear that John does.

Therefore, if there is any "absolute" proof that can be found, then the "Running & Jumping Man" would be the one to tell it.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Interesting, David, thank you for that. How I understand it then (please correct) is that the process creates frames that didn't exist in two ways. By mixing half interleavs from consecutive frames and by dupliucation. This would be the case with the dvd clip and removing dupes doesn't solve it. The avi clip on the other hand is not necessarily like that. It depends on how the frames for it were derived. The large spaced group around the headshot which Frank seems to have also found (Frank, could you mark the line that is from the headshot frame) I'm betting it is the same, if so then that indicates an intent as the pattern of missing frames is not at all regular?

if so then that indicates an intent as the pattern of missing frames is not at all regular?

I do believe that would be claassified as some form of "selective editing".

And, were I to be given two/three/or even four frames of any of the films in which the sprocket holes consecutively followed in sequence (no frames missing), then I would no doubt be convinced that the film was a "complete original".

Edited November 28, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[David G. Healy]

'John Dolva' wrote:

Interesting, David, thank you for that. How I understand it then (please correct) is that the process creates frames that didn't exist in two ways. By mixing half interleavs from consecutive frames and by dupliucation.

dgh: essentially correct

This would be the case with the dvd clip and removing dupes doesn't solve it.

dgh: correct

The avi clip on the other hand is not necessarily like that. It depends on how the frames for it were derived.

dgh: .avi, .mov makes no difference what motion file gets to DVD or video, when its on tape or DVD disc (sold commercially) in most cases it will formatted at 30/29.97 NTSC or 25/24.96fps PAL. the giveaway is; as one single frame 'advances' through the piece, you'll see multiple frames (up to 2-3) of each frame and of course sometimes a single frame. The MPI DVD full screen version (not the cropped version) of theZapruder film demonstrates the above clearly.

The large spaced group around the headshot which Frank seems to have also found (Frank, could you mark the line that is from the headshot frame) I'm betting it is the same, if so then that indicates an intent as the pattern of missing frames is not at all regular?

dgh: there's more than one 3:2 pulldown pattern, I believe there's 3 or 4 . I can't remember, I'll be on After Effects this weekend, I'll let you know then...

note: PAL is progressive scan, frames will more than likely clearer or appear "sharper", NTSC on the other hand is interleaved, two fields (upper-lower/odd-even) make one frame, as a result the frames will appear slightly "softer" than the PAL frames, all things considered, including the original quality of the imagery

Edited November 28, 2006 by David G. Healy