Missing Nix frames

[Frank Agbat]

revisiting the Nix film : a panorama of all frames (in this version)

Terrific work, John.

Of all the figures, most of them show some (understandable) degree of motion blur... except one... The Babushka lady appears to be in two places. Is this a side-effect of the process used to create the panorama?

That is Toni Foster, the running lady...not the Babushka lady.

Jack

Right you are, Jack -- thank you. Makes complete sense now that I'm not completely disoriented! I need to remember the wise words of my parents: "Make sure your brain is running before putting your mouth in gear..."

[Frank Agbat]

Okay -- trying this again!

Here is the same "head movement" sequence, except in this case, I have aligned Z291 = MM20 as the "zero point":

And here is a 4-frame loop slowed down to show the sync:

With this alignment, M42 occurs almost immediately after N22, but slightly before Z313.

[Ashton Gray]

Okay -- trying this again!

Here is the same "head movement" sequence, except in this case, I have aligned Z291 = MM20 as the "zero point":

And here is a 4-frame loop slowed down to show the sync:

With this alignment, M42 occurs almost immediately after N22, but slightly before Z313.

Masterfully done, Frank. Your work demonstrates the genius of honesty.

Ashton

[John Dolva]

You may be right Frank.

There are other things to consider with 20 21. When loking at the whole frame there is a particular blur. You can choose to place the limo in that small section the gif is from in different ways.

Aligning the frames is not that easy as there is a parallax shift during the group of frames around that one indicating MM is shifting position and tilting the camera. Include the fact one should see more of Kennedy as the Limo traverses the scene just from that limo movement, but one doesn't.

When aligning the lawn behind Jackies and Kennedys heads, takes into account the blur and ather factors mentioned, one cannot say there is a definite movement by Jackie that mirrors the movement of Jackie in Z291.(IMO)

What do you get when coming at that movement from the other end? (I assume you ae using 18.5 as the fps?)

Edited January 10, 2007 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

You may be right Frank.

There are other things to consider with 20 21. When loking at the whole frame there is a particular blur. You can choose to place the limo in that small section the gif is from in different ways.

Aligning the frames is not that easy as there is a parallax shift during the group of frames around that one indicating MM is shifting position and tilting the camera. Include the fact one should see more of Kennedy as the Limo traverses the scene just from that limo movement, but one doesn't.

When aligning the lawn behind Jackies and Kennedys heads, takes into account the blur and ather factors mentioned, one cannot say there is a definite movement by Jackie that mirrors the movement of Jackie in Z291.(IMO)

What do you get when coming at that movement from the other end? (I assume you ae using 18.5 as the fps?)

John,

Agreed -- the blur in 21 may be giving the impression of movement where none exists. This sync point does not contain all the characteristics I would like. Instead of a motion, event, etc, that takes place within a single frame (as we were able to see quite nicely when considering Zapruder and Nix), it has a sequence of less definitive movements. However, it does generally start and end within expected parameters.

Specifically, if one works backwards from a general assumption of M42 ~= Z313, then when M1 occurs, Jackie should be in the "Looking at JBC" position as can be seen in the Z-film. She should then move from that position to the "Loosen the Necktie" position -- also as seen in the Z-film. This characteristic move seems to be visible in both films. In Muchmore, from ~19 - 28, and in Zapruder from ~290 - 299.

While this does lead to admittedly a range of possible sync points, the framerate and time calculations constrain us because of the visible evidence of M42. If we end up with a frame showing damage occuring before one that does not, we're not following observable characteristics. Aligning Z291 = MM21 pushes M42 (a frame showing damage) ahead of Z312 (one that does not show damage). So we're constrained in that direction *assuming* 18.5 fps for the camera... I had no direction to go *except* backwards (e.g. Z291 = MM20).

---------

What do you mean "come at that movement from the other end?" Are you referring to aligning MM21=Z291 and then looking at the timeline with a framerate as per your computation (~17.5)?

[Frank Agbat]

...post withdrawn pending verification of potential math error...

Edited January 11, 2007 by Frank Agbat

[John Dolva]

"Specifically, if one works backwards from a general assumption of M42 ~= Z313, then when M1 occurs, Jackie should be in the "Looking at JBC" position as can be seen in the Z-film. She should then move from that position to the "Loosen the Necktie" position -- also as seen in the Z-film. This characteristic move seems to be visible in both films. In Muchmore, from ~19 - 28, and in Zapruder from ~290 - 299."

what do you mean with M1 here? It's too blurred and she is halfway out of the frame.

"What do you mean "come at that movement from the other end?" Are you referring to aligning MM21=Z291 and then looking at the timeline with a framerate as per your computation (~17.5)?"

No, I mean finding the end of that movement and counting back from there.

Part of the problem (I've gone into this on a numbe of occasions, and I think it needs repeating, it's important, it has significant implications in interpreting the film(s) ) is what happens when the filmer moves.

In this case at around these frames she moves rapidly and a lot. I see her stepping back and to her left into the place (see James' Marie topic) where Bond took her photos from. I think the edge of that concrete wall there offers stability at the right height. Much of MM's film after this shift is stable (see the edge markings on the panorama)

in this gif the frames are aligned in the centre which happens to be the lawn behind Olivers head. Look at the heads and how they cover more of the background as the frame changes. See in the foreground the shift of objects from left to right. Look at Olivers head and the visor. In spite of the limo moving forwardthe second visor moves down in relation to her head. The camera moves 'down'. Not down, but MM steps back, (and to the left.)

[Frank Agbat]

Sorry about the previous timeline. While checking my work, I noticed an error and wanted to get it corrected ASAP.

Theoretical timeline: (assumptions: M20 = Z291, 18.5 fps frame rate, no missing frames, etc) (times shown are in "Zapruder Time" where 0.00 = Z133)

Lines in red indicate first time head injury is notable on film.

M-040: 9.715

Z-311: 9.727

N-021: 9.735

M-041: 9.769

Z-312: 9.781

N-022: 9.789

M-042: 9.823

Z-313: 9.836

N-023: 9.843

M-043: 9.877

Z-314: 9.891

N-024: 9.897

[Frank Agbat]

"Specifically, if one works backwards from a general assumption of M42 ~= Z313, then when M1 occurs, Jackie should be in the "Looking at JBC" position as can be seen in the Z-film. She should then move from that position to the "Loosen the Necktie" position -- also as seen in the Z-film. This characteristic move seems to be visible in both films. In Muchmore, from ~19 - 28, and in Zapruder from ~290 - 299."

what do you mean with M1 here? It's too blurred and she is halfway out of the frame.

"What do you mean "come at that movement from the other end?" Are you referring to aligning MM21=Z291 and then looking at the timeline with a framerate as per your computation (~17.5)?"

No, I mean finding the end of that movement and counting back from there.

John,

When I referred to M1, I was referring to the position Jackie *should* be in if the timing is correct AND the frame was really usable, which it is not. However, if the theoretical matchpoint is within the realm of reason, we should expect to see actions in the Muchmore film (once it becomes usable) consistent with those shown in Z-frames covering the same time range.

The end of the movement, while visible in Zapruder, is potentially obscured (by the Babushka lady) on the Muchmore film. Like I said earlier -- this sync point lacks the definitive fast motion that would solidify it, but it is sufficiently constrained by the requirement that M42 cannot precede a frame that shows no head damage, that it should be within a frame or two. I'd still like to search for independent verification via other points (expected on-film actions vs. observed).

[Jack White]

"Specifically, if one works backwards from a general assumption of M42 ~= Z313, then when M1 occurs, Jackie should be in the "Looking at JBC" position as can be seen in the Z-film. She should then move from that position to the "Loosen the Necktie" position -- also as seen in the Z-film. This characteristic move seems to be visible in both films. In Muchmore, from ~19 - 28, and in Zapruder from ~290 - 299."

what do you mean with M1 here? It's too blurred and she is halfway out of the frame.

"What do you mean "come at that movement from the other end?" Are you referring to aligning MM21=Z291 and then looking at the timeline with a framerate as per your computation (~17.5)?"

No, I mean finding the end of that movement and counting back from there.

Part of the problem (I've gone into this on a numbe of occasions, and I think it needs repeating, it's important, it has significant implications in interpreting the film(s) ) is what happens when the filmer moves.

In this case at around these frames she moves rapidly and a lot. I see her stepping back and to her left into the place (see James' Marie topic) where Bond took her photos from. I think the edge of that concrete wall there offers stability at the right height. Much of MM's film after this shift is stable (see the edge markings on the panorama)

in this gif the frames are aligned in the centre which happens to be the lawn behind Olivers head. Look at the heads and how they cover more of the background as the frame changes. See in the foreground the shift of objects from left to right. Look at Olivers head and the visor. In spite of the limo moving forwardthe second visor moves down in relation to her head. The camera moves 'down'. Not down, but MM steps back, (and to the left.)

Interesting, John...but I guess I am too dense to get it. What is happening to cause the

two frames to "rock", and what is the significance?

Thanks.

Jack

[John Dolva]

I'm probably the dense one Jack. It's an attempt to make sense of various shifts in perspective between the two frames. In this case illustrating how I see it by aligning the centre of the frames back ground. Various markers on the ground shift in relation to the standing people, and the angle of the street changes.

Of course it doesn't change but as the angle of the lens and the film surface changes, and as its location in space changes up down, left right, towards away, the same objects end up in different places on the film surface. Then there's lens distortions and foreshortening verticaly and horizontally. On top of this there are directional blurs that elongate object and fuzz their edges.

All up a collection of factors that makes the same scene different. Within that scene are moving objects.

To understand how the object really moved one needs to understand and compensate or factor out the other factors.

The gif is an attempt to illustrate this. It's slightly exaggerated. I still don't understand it all fully and any comments that help most welcome.

[David G. Healy]

I'm probably the dense one Jack. It's an attempt to make sense of various shifts in perspective between the two frames. In this case illustrating how I see it by aligning the centre of the frames back ground. Various markers on the ground shift in relation to the standing people, and the angle of the street changes.

Of course it doesn't change but as the angle of the lens and the film surface changes, and as its location in space changes up down, left right, towards away, the same objects end up in different places on the film surface. Then there's lens distortions and foreshortening verticaly and horizontally. On top of this there are directional blurs that elongate object and fuzz their edges.

All up a collection of factors that makes the same scene different. Within that scene are moving objects.

To understand how the object really moved one needs to understand and compensate or factor out the other factors.

The gif is an attempt to illustrate this. It's slightly exaggerated. I still don't understand it all fully and any comments that help most welcome.

John,

If there's NO *natural-normal* explanation for various intra-frame shift between two consecutive film frames (and frankly in this example, there isn't one) then one has to consider that elusive phrase *film alteration*. At a quick glance in the above 2 frame .gif animation I see y,z rotation -- physically impossible?

Edited January 11, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Chris Davidson]

I'm probably the dense one Jack. It's an attempt to make sense of various shifts in perspective between the two frames. In this case illustrating how I see it by aligning the centre of the frames back ground. Various markers on the ground shift in relation to the standing people, and the angle of the street changes.

Of course it doesn't change but as the angle of the lens and the film surface changes, and as its location in space changes up down, left right, towards away, the same objects end up in different places on the film surface. Then there's lens distortions and foreshortening verticaly and horizontally. On top of this there are directional blurs that elongate object and fuzz their edges.

All up a collection of factors that makes the same scene different. Within that scene are moving objects.

To understand how the object really moved one needs to understand and compensate or factor out the other factors.

The gif is an attempt to illustrate this. It's slightly exaggerated. I still don't understand it all fully and any comments that help most welcome.

In other words, if I follow you correctly John, the limo appears to be on one track and the background another.

Here is an example from the Z film.

The limo, independant of the background. Think of them as 2 movies playing at once.

chris

P.S.

Pay no attention to that man that looks like the governor moving towards the sprocket hole.

May

Edited January 11, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[John Dolva]

Chris. [ my take on this : . ] I think that transition does highlight some of the difficulties. If you rotate one of the frames about 0.2 degrees so the line of the hedge lines up and the top of the visor and the rear hand hold lines up, the rotational component of what you see almost disappears. Then it seems there is a uniform displacement in the horizontal. If the lawn is then lined up it seems the shift that remains is due to blur and slight parallax shifts all over (single grass leafs and their background which while one cannot differentiate, the overall pattern shifts) as the camera shifts or pans. So there are some of the components.

Another thing is that if one keeps in mind the curvature of the lens and how this bends things at the periphery, then very localised fine alignments cause large shifts as you look away from this localised alignment. So what one ends up with is lvery much a choice. Different ways to show different things.

With the particular MM frames there is this happening as well as other things, to a much greater degree. As David indicates, alteration is an option. I think if one cannot explain (and that doesn't mean it's not explainable, just that the understanding isn't there yet) a time may come when alteration can be said to be proven. Personally I don't think we're there yet.

[David G. Healy]

I'm probably the dense one Jack. It's an attempt to make sense of various shifts in perspective between the two frames. In this case illustrating how I see it by aligning the centre of the frames back ground. Various markers on the ground shift in relation to the standing people, and the angle of the street changes.

Of course it doesn't change but as the angle of the lens and the film surface changes, and as its location in space changes up down, left right, towards away, the same objects end up in different places on the film surface. Then there's lens distortions and foreshortening verticaly and horizontally. On top of this there are directional blurs that elongate object and fuzz their edges.

All up a collection of factors that makes the same scene different. Within that scene are moving objects.

To understand how the object really moved one needs to understand and compensate or factor out the other factors.

The gif is an attempt to illustrate this. It's slightly exaggerated. I still don't understand it all fully and any comments that help most welcome.

In other words, if I follow you correctly John, the limo appears to be on one track and the background another.

Here is an example from the Z film.

The limo, independant of the background. Think of them as 2 movies playing at once.

chris

P.S.

Pay no attention to that man that looks like the governor moving towards the sprocket hole.

May

there's more interesting Z-film anaomolies (most not explained by MPI screwups) like this... ALL after the limo emerges from behind the sign...

north of the south Elm St. curb [foreground-plate] south of the south Elm St. curb [background-plate] one way of defining this anomoly is like the foreground is sliding along a plate of glass, somehow sitting above the background...