22-08-2013, 10:51 PM
David, from the thread we hijacked.
I just wanted to clarify here that what I meant was actually the opposite of what I stated: that the film looked to me as if it were a time-lapse film (not a slow-motion film); it is an odd discontinuity-in-continuity (aside from the impossible head turns, etc.) that I seem to be reacting to. And it is that subjective impression that has led me to entertain frame removal as a possibility; which in turn is easiest to do if the film were filmed in slow motion.
I know this doesn't add anything of substance to the discussion, but I did want to offer a necessary self-correction.
The chain of possession discussion in Horne is fairly detailed. One may not entirely agree with his conclusions, but it is worth reading.
Quote:The slow-motion/excision explanation to me has always seemed capable of explaining a good deal of the oddities in the film. I know intuitive impressions are worth less than a dime a dozen, but when I watch the film it just seems like it was filmed in slow motion even when it is shown at 18fps. There have been a number of attempts to refute the idea that Zapruder was filming at 48fps. I am not qualified to judge. But I agree that if there was frame removal, this is the path of least resistance to not revealing the removals...
I just wanted to clarify here that what I meant was actually the opposite of what I stated: that the film looked to me as if it were a time-lapse film (not a slow-motion film); it is an odd discontinuity-in-continuity (aside from the impossible head turns, etc.) that I seem to be reacting to. And it is that subjective impression that has led me to entertain frame removal as a possibility; which in turn is easiest to do if the film were filmed in slow motion.
I know this doesn't add anything of substance to the discussion, but I did want to offer a necessary self-correction.
The chain of possession discussion in Horne is fairly detailed. One may not entirely agree with his conclusions, but it is worth reading.