"There is an obvious break at 133, there are frames missing from 313 thru 400...
Based on your film knowledge, if these "transitions" were removed along with the rest... how would you know?
My THEORY here is that at least 928 frames at 48fps (19.3 seconds of film) were reduced to 354 frames (486-132) at 18.3 (19.3 seconds of film) by removing 574 frames of 48fps film. Please prove this is not possible..."
Although I'm not aware of anyone specifically asking Zapruder what his thought processes were when he was filming, it certainly looks like he began filming and then noticed that the presidential vehicle was not directly behind the lead vehicles, so he stopped filming and then restarted as the limousine came into view (Z133). In the space between these two shots, he may well have switched the frame rate, and so Z133 could have started a sequence at 48fps. (but, I would argue that this rate would then have had to remain constant through to last frame at Z486). I cannot see anything within the frames that would suggest the frame rate was adjusted - and also any resulting disruption I believe would reveal itself, even after removal of frames, because the disruption would occur over multiple successive frames (particularly at 48fps) and their removal would have produced a visible jump as Zapruder panned following the limo. That is, the extant film could have been created by a "dropping 2 frames keeping 1, dropping 2 frames keeping 1" formula - but there is no allowable place to remove a run of successive frames without that calling attention to itself. Having done step-printing, I found that even a single frame too little or too much can disrupt a rhythm.
Past that, in terms of what could or could not be done with an optical printer at, say, Hawkeye works - that facility would have a guy just like Ralph Pearse at NPIC, who would lay out some basic information about what was and was not possible. Based on my own experiences with optical printers, I think I know some of the things he would point out. I'll share those if someone is interested.
Jeff - you having some experience with film makes this especially important that I explain the process...
Thought I did this once, these are frame #'s:
Film #1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 48fps
Film #2: 1 4 7 10 16fps
The frames 1, 4, 7 & 10 are identical in both films.
Remove 2,3,5,6,8,9 from the 48fps film #1 and project at 16fps... the two films are identical EXCEPT for a 1/24th of a second difference in the IS area
Film #1 has frame 3 prior to 4, while #2 has frame 1 before 4... can you determine if there is a 1/24 of a second difference in the IS area images from frame to frame?
Example 2:
Film #1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 48fps
Film #2: 1 3 5 10 16fps
In this example something in frames 6-9 needed to be removed... the result? Greer's head snap, JFK's unexplained exaggerated back and to the left...or any number of things...
but the same # of frames are removed, the timing of the scene is the same yet there would be a pronounced jump... which we do indeed see during z302 thru 304.
Looking at this composite - it is simply not physically possible to move his head from frame 302 to 303 the distance he does in 1/18th of a second.
In fact the analysis showed it to be at least 50% faster than a young, prepared, althete could do.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5159[/ATTACH]
Furthermore, anaylsis also shows that both foreground and background are in focus in these frames... another impossibility as Zapruder pans.
------
It is also obvious that frames surrounding the headshot in Muchmore were removed as well...
As Hill is jumping to the limo.
The gif is anchored on JFK's head... in this gif it does not appear as if the brakelights are on.... idk.
If I am missing frames please let me know - yet I find the same thing in the movie as well.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5158[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
I've pulled out my trusty American Cinematographer Manual for the first time in a long while (thanks!). Could you please direct me to a technical discussion of the foreground/background question? According to the depth of field chart before me, admittedly not exact to Zapruder's camera, I have a 25mm lens filming at f22 (bright sunny day) with a depth of field extending from several feet into infinity, suggesting to me that most everything within Z's frame should be in focus.
If I was step-printing the Z-film to convert 48fps footage to 16fps - then the formula you set in Example 1 would be my starting point. In fact, the printer itself could be automated to film this sequence.
But I would be concerned about the 4 sequential frame removal from Example 2, and at the very least I would want to shoot this and then have a look to be sure. This is part of the trial and error process which is a feature of optical printing. Imagine this happening numerous times - shooting a portion, then processing the footage, analyzing it, make adjustments if necessary, carry on... Point being, it is time consuming so I believe that if any work like this was done, then it could not have been completed on the Sunday. It is work that would have been extended beyond that time frame.
As a technician concerned with achieving a particular result - in this case converting a 48fps sequence into a 16fps (or 18) - I would be very concerned with "jumps", but not those contained in the body movements of people within the frame. Rather I would be concerned about time jumps and framing jumps that effects the image in total. So in Example 2, I would worry that the excise of 4 sequential frames might be too much to run past the eye smoothly. That is, the difference between frame 5 and frame 10 creates a problem that wouldn't be there if, say, it was frame 5 and frame 8 side by side. Hope I'm explaining it okay.
That said, a scenario of converting 48 to 16 (18) allows some degree of leeway that wouldn't be there if the conversion was, say, 48fps to 24fps.
In my scenario, the money quote is what Horne got from Brugioni, paraphrasing Ralph Pearse: the spring-wind mechanism of the camera results in a variable film speed. Inside this technical fact lies an alternate explanation for the quick body movements (Greer headsnap) which does not require film alteration.
Can we agree on frame rate, for discussion purposes, to represent the Z-camera's regular setting - 16fps (official camera setting) or 18fps (established average rate)?
I don't know who is following this discussion, but the implications of this information is astonishing -
"…(Brugioni) also said that the Secret Service was vitally interested in timing how many seconds occurred between various frames, and that Ralph Pearse informed them, to their surprise and dismay, that this would be a useless procedure because the Bell and Howell movie camera (that they told him had taken the movie) was a spring-wound camera, with a constantly varying operating speed, and that while he could certainly time the number of seconds between various frames if they so desired, that in his view it was an unscientific and useless procedure which would provide bad data, and lead to false conclusions, or words to that effect. Nevertheless, at the request of the two Secret Service agents, Ralph Pearse dutifully used a stopwatch to time the number of seconds between various frames of interest to their Secret Service customers. Dino Brugioni said that he placed a strong caveat about the limited, or suspect, usefulness of this timing data in the briefing notes he prepared for Art Lundahl." (Doug Horne Inside The ARRB Vol IV p1233)
This establishes a massive delicious irony, and I wonder who else may have spotted it.
While I agree with your assessment that if Zapruder was not panning his camera - everything SHOULD be in focus... but once he moves the camera along with the limo you can only get one of two things:
1) the limo is clear while the background is not (unless the frame rate is MUCH faster than the panning movement) or
2) the background is clear (stopped panning) while the limo - which was supposed to keep moving - is not
If both limo and background are clear... both must be stationary along with the camera - otherwise ALL would be blurry from the panning.
Agreed?
With regards to a framerate we can agree upon... 18.3 works just fine 48/18.3=2.623.... although the math gets more muddy.
For our hypothetical discussions and for ease of math, 16fps will be fine.
If you can explain/illustrate how you feel the spring would change the fps so drastically as to make Greer's movement possible - I'm ready.
Page 1195 of Horne's Zfilm chapter offers the FBI tests on the fps rates of the camera throughout the 25 foot / 60 second cycle.
For us to miss frames per your explanation the fps would have to be SLOWER than 18.3 at the time we are talking about.... (more action in fewer frames)
The assassintion is captured on the f[B]irst 7 feet [/B]of the film's side B... the FASTEST portion of the spring's unwinding and
according to Horne's recap the 1st 10 seconds is 18.0-18.1, the 2nd 20 seconds of film (the HEART OF THE ASSASSINATION FOOTAGE) would be 18.3-18.5fps...
Finally, the only time the fps drops below 18 is in the last 20 seconds of the film... to 17.6-17.9fps
If the film was NOT done in slow-motion, and followed the film map, the entire assassination is on the first 7 feet of film.
the film is .149" per frame, there are 84 inches in 7 feet therefore about 564 frames in 7 feet of film, more than enough to capture 486 frames...
How do you reconcile your thought that the camera was moving SLOWER during parts of this sequence at the beginning of the film when the spring was wound the most?
And how much slower are you claiming it to have to go for what we see to happen?
Thanks
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Jeff Carter Wrote:I don't know who is following this discussion, but the implications of this information is astonishing -
"…(Brugioni) also said that the Secret Service was vitally interested in timing how many seconds occurred between various frames, and that Ralph Pearse informed them, to their surprise and dismay, that this would be a useless procedure because the Bell and Howell movie camera (that they told him had taken the movie) was a spring-wound camera, with a constantly varying operating speed, and that while he could certainly time the number of seconds between various frames if they so desired, that in his view it was an unscientific and useless procedure which would provide bad data, and lead to false conclusions, or words to that effect. Nevertheless, at the request of the two Secret Service agents, Ralph Pearse dutifully used a stopwatch to time the number of seconds between various frames of interest to their Secret Service customers. Dino Brugioni said that he placed a strong caveat about the limited, or suspect, usefulness of this timing data in the briefing notes he prepared for Art Lundahl." (Doug Horne Inside The ARRB Vol IV p1233)
This establishes a massive delicious irony, and I wonder who else may have spotted it.
the film Dino saw and made boards from is no longer available to the world... it MAY have been the one seen by a diverse group (although my gut tells me this was the Rowley film)
What the SS agents did that night has nothing to do with the film we are discussing here.
While I appreciate the irony... It's like arguing that Oswald could not have shot JFK 'cause when he was in the window shooting, the rifle would have jammed, the sight was off, the pin was rusty, etc...
It assumes he was there with the rifle which is simply not true.
By any chance do you have ANYTHING from Ralph Pearse recalling what he saw while he was doing this for the SS agents?
During the follow-up interview at Dino Brugioni's home on April 28, 2011, Peter Janney showed Mr. Brugioni a good image of frame 313 from the extant Zapruder film the so-called u201Chead explosionu201D scanned from a 35 mm dupe negative of the film obtained from the National Archives. [The provenance of the frame used therefore unquestionably represents what is in the National Archives today.] Mr. Brugioni was quite startled to find out that this was the only frame graphically depicting the u201Chead explosionu201D in the extant film, which the National Archives has characterized as u201Cthe original film.u201D He insisted that the head explosion he viewed multiple times on 11/23/63 was of such a great size, and duration (in terms of time), that there should be many more frames depicting that explosion than u201Cjust the one frameu201D (frame 313), as shown in the Zapruder film today. Furthermore, he said the u201Chead explosionu201D depicted in the Zapruder film today is too small in size, and too low in the frame, to be the same graphic depiction he recalls witnessing in the Zapruder film on Saturday, November 23rd, 1963 at NPIC.
Aside from the head shot, he recalled one other thing about the extant film that was inconsistent with what he saw on 11/23/63: prior to viewing the film on July 9, 2011, he had independently recalled Secret Service agent Clint Hill either physically striking, or violently pushing Jackie Kennedy to force her from atop the trunk lid, back into the rear seat of the limousine. Brugioni spent a considerable portion of the interview attempting to find evidence of Clint Hill u201Cstriking Jackieu201D in the extant film, to no avail. He was quite mystified.
Both of these descriptions work very nicely with the removal of frames... yet of course makes the 48fps theory somewhat more difficult to comprehend.... unless the film Dino worked on was simply an intermediate alteration... Horne's NPIC article does not mention if Dino remembers Intersprocket images on the 8mm he worked on.... and as I've speculated... there is the potential that 0184 was in the process of alteration and delivery by Friday late afternoon... I have a difficult time believing that ANYONE would be allowed to officially view the original film once it left Dallas...
I've been working with a few researchers who have helped me understand the timing and possibilities...
Bottom line is that the film in the archive does not have anything to indicate it was the film taken over to Jamieson for copying...
at the end of the 16mm film 0183 would have been stamped into the B side running along the length of the film, vertical to the images. The extant film's physcial splice prior to the 19+ feet of BLACK film which would have been attached to the 0183 leader should have at least left us with BLACK FILM and 0183.
Additionally there is almost 19 FEET of spliced in BLACK film and light-struck leader AFTER this 19 feet... and after the 6'3" and 2'7" of assassination film...
How again does 25 feet of usable film, or 33 feet of total length become over 40 feet of "ORIGINAL, OUT OF THE CAMERA" exposed film?
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
thanks for passing along this information. I appreciate it as I have appreciated your grasp on other issues too.
I think the murkiness of the Z-film chain of custody has been well established by the ARRB, so I really have no problem with the notion that the current "camera original" is not actually the "camera original" which passed through Z's camera at 12:30 PM Nov 22.
Not sold on the foreground/background focus/blurry. Let's put that aside.
Some distinctions need to be made about the spring-wind mechanism of the camera. There are basically two things going on: first, winding the camera using the crank - you turn it until it resists, at that point you are at full wind or full crank, and this will allow for continuous filming to the point that the wound spring is spent. I'm sure there are numbers available for the duration of a full wind with that Bell and Howell. This model camera was touted by the manufacturer for maintaining its torque throughout the duration of a full wind, meaning that the speed of the frames passing through the gate was fairly consistent. But the operative word here is consistent, and that is not the same as "constant". And in that distinction is the crux.
The second thing that is going on is that the individual frames are being moved through the camera's gate, momentarily pausing for exposure, followed by the next frame etc etc. Pearse: the Bell and Howell movie camera was a spring-wound camera, with a constantly varying operating speed. What he means by this is that the rate of the frames themselves, moving through the gate, is constantly in variance. A little faster, a little slower - with no rhyme or reason. What he is saying, and what I discovered several years ago working with a different film, is that if we take, for example, a 100 frame section of the Zapruder film (let's say arbitrarily Z223-Z332) - those hundred frames would have passed through the Z-camera with some frames at 16.5fps, some at 17.1 fps, some at 18.2 fps - and absent a digital clock in the frame counting off to the 1/100th of a second, there would be no way to measure this. It is random. This is a feature of the spring mechanism. This is why spring wound cameras are never sync cameras. (I have spent a lot of professional time considering frame rates and synchronization issues).
Put another way: let's say we have 182 frames of the Z-film before us. Since we know that speed tests established an average frame rate of 18.2fps - it seems a safe bet to say these 182 frames represent 10 seconds of "real time". Unfortunately, you can't really say that. It would more than likely be pretty close to 10 seconds, but it could be 9.6 seconds or it could be 10.4 seconds. Impossible to know (absent a digital clock in the frame). By the same token, you could not go to the 91 frame mark of the 182 frames and say that was exactly 5 seconds in "real time".
The Greer head snap issue rests, I am suggesting, in this distinction - helped along by the 18fps average (meaning, if the Z-camera ran at 24fps, this phenomena would likely not be observable). The fact that this sort of jump happens several times in the film serves to doubly convince me it is related to the camera (while realizing that others may see it as confirmation of alteration).
Quote:The second thing that is going on is that the individual frames are being moved through the camera's gate, momentarily pausing for exposure, followed by the next frame etc etc.
Frankly Jeff extremely poor... this is simply not correct. The film does not"pause"... the rotating aperture allows light in, in-sync with the passing film… the speed of the action sending light to the film is what determines what images are caught as the aperture is open… if what you are saying is correct we should also be seeing action SLOWER than normal by a factor of 50% as often as we are seeing action FASTER than normal… can you point to the grouping of frames that you've found to have produced SLOWER than normal action… I have only found where movement is impossibly FAST, not slow. The amount of variance in film speed you offer is once again, simply wrong… and based on very poor logic. Your statements about this and most every other subject to date has been filled with inaccuracy at every turn. and yet you just keep going... The thread is about the alteration of the film… you state at the beginning you feel that the extant film is not the in camera film… HELP the thread by offering what you feel is supporting evidence for the HOW or WHEN or this alteration/switch and then…. PLEASE start a new thread discussing your camera and film "fun facts" in an attempt to convince others. Maybe others here who also have an understanding of how THAT camera worked can help clarify the situation on YOUR thread… Cool?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
What I am saying - and I understand my attempts at explanation have been inexact - is that the Z-film is best seen as a series of sequential still photographs rather than a "clock" of the events. This is also what Ralph Pearse of the NPIC was trying to explain to the SS agents. Any attempts to calculate speeds or make any kind of deduction from the film was bound to be incorrect.
I frankly do not understand the last two replies to this thread.
In terms of the HOW and WHEN of alteration… you see the benefit of working backward, even with approximate timings using the frames as they fly by…the explanation HAD to make sense… with what was shown in the movie… and there were limitations imposed by, of all things, physics. The bolt could work so fast yet the movie even the one we have now, still shows it to be impossible to have hit JFK at210 or after (the first open shot after the tree from the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] floor) and again to hit JC BEFORE 240 (although it was determined JC was out ofposition for the shot AS DESCRIBED by 235)
Plainly Jeff, that the Zfilm is not a CLOCK of the assassination is understood…but your variation in speed is unrealistic and your disregard for accuracy in what you post is alarming.
The FBI tests are what Horne reports for the fps speed tests… The FBI tests in the assassination have been woefully misrepresented… by the FBI. Access to the Zcamera has been severely limited.
Let's focus for a second here on ONE ISSUE your claim that the fps dipped as low as id peaked as high. The LOW (say 15-16fps) would account for the gaps in Greer's Head movement what you say which was at least 50% faster than humanly possible…
Answer this one question Jeff related to your statements that the alteration of the film can be explained by the camera's working mechanisms (which you also explained incorrectly andignored)
if the fps also sped up as muchas it slowed down WHY DO WE NOT SEE ANY SLOW MOTION SEGMENTS OF THE FILM ?
You can't have it both ways… The fps can't only be SLOWER than 18.3 to miss action while never being FASTER (19-20fps) to SLOW the action so that the AVERAGE fps is 18.3. (not to mentionyour ignoring the physics of a wound spring which moves faster in the first 30seconds and slows as it winds down.)
Again Jeff, if you're not going to acknowledge the errors you presentas facts, honestly or otherwise, and have a conversation rather than offer your "fantasy fun facts lectures", I'm afraid there's not much left for us to say to each other…
I'm working on the HOW and WHEN of alteration…. The film was NEVER to be shown to the public and when it finally was, it helped expose the lies even more so than the 26 volumes, which is quite a feat...
that the alteration was imperfect is obvious, that it served its purpose for coming on 50 years is as well.
I will leave you with this after the WC & staff lawyers had seen the Zfilm, on 4/27/64, Norman Redlich wrote Rankin a memo which offers the following insights in the WCR:
APRIL 27, 1964
…. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.
As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these could have possibly occurred in the manner suggested above. ……. I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, SUBMITTED TO US IN SEPARATE REPORTS FROM THE FBI AND SECRET SERVICE, Are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.
It may well be that his projects hould be undertaken by the FBI AND SECRET SERVICE (DJ: !!!) with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.
David Healy knows I posed a question to him about his technical paper…His is THE best presentation of HOW it was accomplished in reference to the machinery and processes. But there is a glaring error with regards to the 0183 stamp at the end of the developed film…
0183 was not stamped over the entire 16mm width of the film but was stamped at the end of SIDE B covering only 8mm so that when slit and connected, 0183 is at the core of the wound reel at the end of the film… it is not cut in half with the side A half at the beginning and B at the end.
Understanding this and then realizing that the physical splice after both the assassination sequence and the 19+ feet of supposedly BLACK film succeeded in separating the one unique identifier on that film from the film itself… there is now no way EVER to relate those 75 inches of film to what was developed at KODAK that day….
Please correct me if I'm wrong about that DH Thanks DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
