Hope this is O.K.

[Chris Davidson]

Retracted!!!

[Lauren Johnson]

Hello all,

A link to my new "Insight" topics at the EducationForum, if interested.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....wforum=126

chris

P.S. Next time I'll start it here.

If not O.K., please feel free to delete this thread.

Hi Chris,

Welcome.

JFK studies are not my primary interest, but there are many here for whom they are.

First, I would say that we have a policy about cross-posting. But I see that you are planning to put you info up here as well. Good.

But I would also say that your format of putting up multiple threads and commenting over and over again on your own threads will probably not fly well here.

Further, Larry Hancock's comment #7 in your third thread spoke for me:

Chris, it would be helpful if you could state the basis premise, hypothesis, scenario you are working towards with these numbers...following each post independently
is a bit of a struggle without that.....I think I know where you are going but it would be better if you just laid it straight out... thanks, Larry

The large amounts of information you posted at EF seems to lead nowhere. Hancock's request was quite reasonable and spot on. There are some very serious researchers here at DPF; don't try their patience.

Having said that, post away.

[Dean Bernard]

Chris, correct me if I have misinterpreted this, but, to clarify your point, as I see it, you are using a lot of math to provide a basis for evidence that the Zapruder film was filmed at 48 frames per second, and not 24. And, that the camera original was edited to remove the limo stop, etc.. by removing frames to give the resulting film the appearance that it was shot at 24 frames per second. I think your math does a good job of supporting this scenario. I could be wrong, but, I thought I read somewhere that Zapruder himself thought the camera was set on 48FPS. This would be logical as the higher frame rate does provide a smoother resolution on playback. I would think he would have wanted the best picture he could get of the President passing in front of him.

[Drew Phipps]

If my recollection is correct, Zapruder's camera had a setting of 16 frames per second and a setting for 48 frames per second. Wierd that the Warren Commission declared the film was 18.3 frames per second, huh?

[Chris Davidson]

Chris, correct me if I have misinterpreted this, but, to clarify your point, as I see it, you are using a lot of math to provide a basis for evidence that the Zapruder film was filmed at 48 frames per second, and not 24. And, that the camera original was edited to remove the limo stop, etc.. by removing frames to give the resulting film the appearance that it was shot at 24 frames per second. I think your math does a good job of supporting this scenario. I could be wrong, but, I thought I read somewhere that Zapruder himself thought the camera was set on 48FPS. This would be logical as the higher frame rate does provide a smoother resolution on playback. I would think he would have wanted the best picture he could get of the President passing in front of him.

Hi Dean,

I'm curious about this aspect of your observation.

When did it occur to you that I was describing a film shot at 48 frames per sec? I was not.

I never made reference to that speed. Only to 18.3fps.

The 48 frames came about from the Paul Mandel Life Magazine article which stated there was 48 frames between a Connally and 313 headshot.

There is a math equation with all elements I provided, that has the limo traveling at 3.74mph for the majority of those 48 frames @18.3frames per sec.

So, it appears the method I used to present the information didn't sit well with the vast majority and I'll think about re-presenting it at a later time.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Hello all,

A link to my new "Insight" topics at the EducationForum, if interested.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....wforum=126

chris

P.S. Next time I'll start it here.

If not O.K., please feel free to delete this thread.

Hi Chris,

Welcome.

JFK studies are not my primary interest, but there are many here for whom they are.

First, I would say that we have a policy about cross-posting. But I see that you are planning to put you info up here as well. Good.

But I would also say that your format of putting up multiple threads and commenting over and over again on your own threads will probably not fly well here.

Further, Larry Hancock's comment #7 in your third thread spoke for me:

Chris, it would be helpful if you could state the basis premise, hypothesis, scenario you are working towards with these numbers...following each post independently
is a bit of a struggle without that.....I think I know where you are going but it would be better if you just laid it straight out... thanks, Larry

The large amounts of information you posted at EF seems to lead nowhere. Hancock's request was quite reasonable and spot on. There are some very serious researchers here at DPF; don't try their patience.

Having said that, post away.

Hi Lauren,

I assumed the simple equation of:

145 frames@18.3fps@11.2mph =130.5ft, not 136.1ft would raise a red flag for many.

Believe me, it leads to a very important place.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

If my recollection is correct, Zapruder's camera had a setting of 16 frames per second and a setting for 48 frames per second. Wierd that the Warren Commission declared the film was 18.3 frames per second, huh?

Drew,

Z's camera more than likely was a newer B/H 414 with the updated frame rate of 18,48 and single frame capabilities.

I believe it's been researched that the speed changeover from 16 to 18fps was occurring at this time.

chris

[Dean Bernard]

Chris, correct me if I have misinterpreted this, but, to clarify your point, as I see it, you are using a lot of math to provide a basis for evidence that the Zapruder film was filmed at 48 frames per second, and not 24. And, that the camera original was edited to remove the limo stop, etc.. by removing frames to give the resulting film the appearance that it was shot at 24 frames per second. I think your math does a good job of supporting this scenario. I could be wrong, but, I thought I read somewhere that Zapruder himself thought the camera was set on 48FPS. This would be logical as the higher frame rate does provide a smoother resolution on playback. I would think he would have wanted the best picture he could get of the President passing in front of him.

Hi Dean,

I'm curious about this aspect of your observation.

When did it occur to you that I was describing a film shot at 48 frames per sec? I was not.

I never made reference to that speed. Only to 18.3fps.

The 48 frames came about from the Paul Mandel Life Magazine article which stated there was 48 frames between a Connally and 313 headshot.

There is a math equation with all elements I provided, that has the limo traveling at 3.74mph for the majority of those 48 frames @18.3frames per sec.

So, it appears the method I used to present the information didn't sit well with the vast majority and I'll think about re-presenting it at a later time.

chris

Chris,

Sorry, thanks for correcting me. I guess I got that from the first post with the two videos at different frame rates. I have always wondered if it was possible to edit Zapruder's film in this way, perhaps, not exactly by half the frames, just removing certain frame sequences. I have never seen any convincing reason for the lack of the turn on Elm St. When we see the lead vehicles then the limo is already on Elm St. When Zapruder says he never stopped filming and there is not the typical over exposure of the first frame or two that normally occurs with this camera on a restart of filming.

[Chris Davidson]

Dean,

Thank you for the feedback. I should have made it clearer that the 2 comparison videos were shot from a Super8 camera at 18fps.

I was trying to present a close representation of a 3.74 mph to 7.48 mph change by removing every other frame.

chris