[Fendlesworth]

What looks odd to me is the images in background appear to be a bit larger than they should be. After watching a few synchronizations with the Nix and Muchmore Films, I haven't been able to spot any blatant discrepencies.

I think one should realize when watching the apparent near-constant speed of the Limo that Zapruders line-of sight was nearly orthogonal to to direction of the Limo when it slowed down. 

Think about this.

This means that at the time the Limo was travelling at it's slowest speed, the perspective of Zapruder would naturally show the Limo passing at the fastest rate. This issue of perspective would greatly mitigate the apparent deceleration of the Limo.

We know that it slowed down, but were frames removed from the Zapruder Film to hide this?

Maybe so; maybe not.

I'll try a little sketch of the math involved:

Take a Limo moving at constant speed with an observer at a fixed point. I'll assume that the Limo's path (Elm St.) is straight for simlicity. We can lay two dimensional cartesian coordinates over the area and take the Elm St. to be the ordinate; the X-axis.

Orthogonal would be the observer on the abcissa; the Y-axis. Assuming a constant speed in the positive x direction, the apparent speed of the observer on the -Y axis would be the change in the angle. This is how humans estimate and speed with thier senses; ans the change of angle per unit time. It depends on the distance away from the moving body as well. 

The speed in an automobile is given ultimately by revolutions per minute; and hence, distance per unit time after the wheel's circumference has been accounted for.

So if we take the Greek letter Theta (θ) to represent the angle, and the dθ/dt to represent the infinitesimal change in angle per unit time, the apparent speed (dθ/dt) is equal to the Limo's speed by this:

tan(θ)=x/y

sec²(θ)dθ=dx/y [taking the derivative]

sec²(θ)dθ/dt=dx/ydt [multiplying both sides by 1/dt. If two things are equal, then they equal eachother still after being multiplied by a constant.}

dθ/dt=dx/ydtsec²(θ) [multiplying both sides by 1/sec²(θ)]

(dθ/dt)=(dx/dt)(1/ysec²(θ)) [rearranging and bracketing]

And we have the apparent speed which is the change in angle (θ) per unit time (dθ/dt) on one side and the Limo's speed via speedometer (dx/dt) on the right. The value of "y" is equal to the closest distance of Zapruder from Elm Street. The inverse of secant is cosine, so it can be rewritten as:

(dθ/dt)=(cos²(θ)/y)(dx/dt)

And where is the rate of change at the maximum? When the angle equals zero; when it is orthogonal. At this angle cos(θ)=1 and at every other angle cos(θ)<1. If the angle is 90° then the rate of change is zero. This would be an object coming straight at you. If it weren't for enlargement you wouldnt be able to tell that it is moving.

Obviously this does not account for enlargement.

You get the idea. Even with a constant speed (dx/dt), the apparent speed by a stationary observer with a line-of-sight orthogonal to the moving path ranges from the actual speed to zero, depending on whether or not the object is coming at you or moving directly across your point of view. We have all seen a train approach, and then pass. The train is travelling at a near-constant speed but it appears to be moving faster the closer it gets and the more orthogonal it gets to our perspective.

Putting this equation into words:

(dθ/dt)=(cos²(θ)/y)(dx/dt)

(apparent speed) = (cos²(θ)/distance) x (limo's speed)

With a constant distance from Elm St. and a constant Limo Speed we basically have a cos²(θ) equation. Here is a graph:



...to give you an idea. The Y-axis of this graph would be the apparent speed and the X-axis would be the angle. This graph is somewhat misleading since there would only be one cycle in the event we are describing, and the angle would never reach 90°. The angle starts off at about 60° or so I think.

So the upper-half of one of the humps would roughly describe the apparent speed, as defined as the change in angle per unit time (dθ/dt).

So what I am getting at is that the apparent increase in speed as the limo approaches Zapruder partially mitigates the real decrease in speed. In other words: the Limo slowed down, but from Zapruder's perspective, it did not appear to slow down as much as it really had.

Just something to consider. You would have to take the math further with frame speeds and such to estimate the true speed of the limo as measure by the angle, distance, and film speed.

You could do this with all three films and plot the velocity vs. time graphs for the Limo and compare them. 

In this way you could determine if the Zapruder film did not match the others in terms of Limo speed.

[Ben Holmes]

(12-30-2016, 02:52 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  What looks odd to me is the images in background appear to be a bit larger than they should be. After watching a few synchronizations with the Nix and Muchmore Films, I haven't been able to spot any blatant discrepencies.

I think one should realize when watching the apparent near-constant speed of the Limo that Zapruders line-of sight was nearly orthogonal to to direction of the Limo when it slowed down. 

Think about this.

This means that at the time the Limo was travelling at it's slowest speed, the perspective of Zapruder would naturally show the Limo passing at the fastest rate. This issue of perspective would greatly mitigate the apparent deceleration of the Limo.

I would state that from this viewpoint, Zapruder would have the most accurate perspective of the limo's speed. It cannot "mitigate" a slowdown, it can only make it most visible. From the front or back, a slowdown would be difficult to see, but from the side, it's obvious, and there's nothing in such a perspective that would disguise the speed of the limo.
 

(12-30-2016, 02:52 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  We know that it slowed down, but were frames removed from the Zapruder Film to hide this?

Maybe so; maybe not.

This is simple to determine... What did the eyewitnesses say?

When you have several dozen eyewitnesses all stating that the limo slowed to a stop, or nearly to a stop - then you have to take them seriously.

When you see everyone in the limo react to a limo deceleration - yet don't see any apparent deceleration of the limo - you need to explain that fact. You either need to state that you see a slowdown in the film sufficient to throw all the passengers forward, or you need to hypothesize missing frames.

There are no other explanations...

[Fendlesworth]

[Ad hominem deleted]

[Ben Holmes]

(12-30-2016, 11:12 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  [Ad hominem deleted]

Debate is welcome here.

Ad hominem attacks are not tolerated. If you have a point, you're more than welcome to make it.

[Fendlesworth]

I've made it Ben.

It has to do with linking angular velocity with the Limo's true velocity. If you want to know if the Zapruder Film has been altered, it would be nice to know the actual speed of the limo as a function of time.

This is doable, and you could compare this with the Nix Film. All you need is a horizontally-stabilized version and a few geometric measurements of Dealy Plaza. You would also need the film's reel speed. You said:

Quote:I would state that from this viewpoint, Zapruder would have the most accurate perspective of the limo's speed.

No. A helicopter view from above would be more accurate. 

Quote:It cannot "mitigate" a slowdown

Not my choice of words. This is a ridiculous way to frame my post.

Quote:...it can only make it most visible.

More visible than what? 

Quote:...and there's nothing in such a perspective that would disguise the speed of the limo.

Yes there is, but an odd choice of words.

Quote:If you have a point, you're more than welcome to make it.

I have, and didn't expect it to be greeted by your condescending bullshit.

Again: The Limo appeared to be travelling the slowest at the point where it should have been appearing to be travelling the fastest (assuming constant speed); orthogonal to Zapruder's line-of-sight. 

You might expect that the Limo actually slowed-down more than that percieved by the viewer. 

If you think that humans have some infallable speed-sensing abilities, take a look at this paper: Apparent Speed of Sampled Motion

Percieved speed is relative to the observer. The Limo's true speed is what really matters. Percieved speed can change as the angle and distance changes between the object and the observer.

[Ben Holmes]

(12-31-2016, 01:38 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  I've made it Ben.

It has to do with linking angular velocity with the Limo's true velocity. If you want to know if the Zapruder Film has been altered, it would be nice to know the actual speed of the limo as a function of time.

This is doable, and you could compare this with the Nix Film. All you need is a horizontally-stabilized version and a few geometric measurements of Dealy Plaza. You would also need the film's reel speed. You said:

Quote:I would state that from this viewpoint, Zapruder would have the most accurate perspective of the limo's speed.

No. A helicopter view from above would be more accurate. 

Sorry... but there's no difference between a view from the side, and a view from the top...

All you have is a rotated view.

In flatland - you'd have a point - viewing from above would be different than viewing from the side... because in viewing from the side you'd have no idea of the distance traveled.

But in real life, the distance traveled is equally visible from the side or the "helicopter" view of the limo.

Because you can see the distance traveled equally well from either above or from the side.

 

(12-31-2016, 01:38 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Quote:It cannot "mitigate" a slowdown

Not my choice of words. This is a ridiculous way to frame my post.

You've implied, if not directly stated, that viewing the speed of a limo from the side diminishes one's ability to judge the speed of the limo.

I strongly disagree with such a concept.

 

(12-31-2016, 01:38 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Quote:...it can only make it most visible.

More visible than what? 

Than the alternatives of viewing a speeding object directly in front of, or directly behind the direction of travel.

Viewing the limo from either the front or the back makes it difficult to judge speed - as you have a poor perspective of the distance traveled.

This isn't true when viewed from the side... where you CAN view the distance traveled, and judge the speed more accurately than any other perspective.

 

(12-31-2016, 01:38 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Quote:...and there's nothing in such a perspective that would disguise the speed of the limo.

Yes there is, but an odd choice of words.

Feel free to cite for your assertion.

The measurement of speed at a single point... a point within the limo - would of course be the most accurate - as at that point - you can measure the distance traveled, and the time it takes to travel it. Which is, of course, the definition of velocity.

The measurement of that same velocity at a point located a short distance (say, 25-50 ft away) to the side of the limo would be imperceptibly inaccurate due to the angle of view.

It would not change the perception so drastically as to hide the fact that the limo slowed dramatically.

Until the film was examined frame by frame, and precise measurements taken of the limo in those frames - NO-ONE HAD EVER STATED THAT THE LIMO SLOWED DOWN IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

That's an undisputed fact.

And one still unexplained by those who believe that the eyewitnesses were correct in what they saw. (As you clearly accept.)

 

(12-31-2016, 01:38 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Quote:If you have a point, you're more than welcome to make it.

I have, and didn't expect it to be greeted by your condescending bullshit.

Feel free to rebut anything I've stated.

If you cannot, then it's not my problem. Ad hominem will not change that...

You expect to make un-citable claims about the evidence in this case - and make assertions you want everyone to believe?

Not going to happen. (Equally true for me, of course...)

 

(12-31-2016, 01:38 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  Again: The Limo appeared to be travelling the slowest at the point where it should have been appearing to be travelling the fastest (assuming constant speed); orthogonal to Zapruder's line-of-sight.

Yep... that's absolutely true.

You are presuming what you cannot demonstrate... that the Zapruder film is un-altered.

All you have to do is take a Bell & Howell camera Zoomatic Director Series Model 414 PD, and film a car driving down a street. Demonstrate that the camera doesn't capture a dramatic slowdown that can be seen by eyewitnesses.

Indeed, I think most people would be happy if you used ANY CAMERA AT ALL - and were able to show this.
 

(12-31-2016, 01:38 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  You might expect that the Limo actually slowed-down more than that percieved by the viewer. 

If you think that humans have some infallable speed-sensing abilities, take a look at this paper: Apparent Speed of Sampled Motion

Percieved speed is relative to the observer. The Limo's true speed is what really matters. Percieved speed can change as the angle and distance changes between the object and the observer.

Sorry, I rather suspect that most people would not feel you've made your case.

What you're attempting to show is that the camera cannot show what people have seen.

It's a good way to avoid the evidence of Zapruder film alteration - but I would state that you've not made the case.

And indeed, it would be simplistic for you to prove it - SIMPLY TAKE A CAMERA AND SOME EYEWITNESSES, AND FILM A MOVING VEHICLE.

[Fendlesworth]

Quote:The measurement of speed at a single point... a point within the limo - would of course be the most accurate - as at that point - you can measure the distance traveled, and the time it takes to travel it. Which is, of course, the definition of velocity.

No. That is the definition of speed. The speedometer does not measure velocity.

Quote:What you're attempting to show is that the camera cannot show what people have seen.

Where did I say that?

Where?

Why do you misframe my posts? It is becuase you were too lazy to comprehend what I had written?

Again: An object travelling at a constant velocity in a straight line will may appear at slightly different speeds depending on the distance of the observer and the angle.

Have you ever seen a train passing Ben?

I am not saying that the Film was altered or not; I am merely stating something fundamental; the relationship between angular speed, distance, and linear speed at certain points-of-view.

And Ben, since when did you speak for most people?

[Ben Holmes]

(12-31-2016, 11:33 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Quote:The measurement of speed at a single point... a point within the limo - would of course be the most accurate - as at that point - you can measure the distance traveled, and the time it takes to travel it. Which is, of course, the definition of velocity.

No. That is the definition of speed. The speedometer does not measure velocity.

Yep, you are precisely correct, speed is the scalar function of velocity. But I rather suspect that there are few physicists reading this forum.

And if grammar is all you can debate, then there's not much more to debate, is there?

You tried to explain why there's no apparent slowdown in the Zapruder film.

As I've been demonstrating, you failed in that attempt.
 

(12-31-2016, 11:33 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Quote:What you're attempting to show is that the camera cannot show what people have seen.

Where did I say that?

Where?

In your first post:

Quote:This means that at the time the Limo was travelling at it's slowest speed, the perspective of Zapruder would naturally show the Limo passing at the fastest rate. This issue of perspective would greatly mitigate the apparent deceleration of the Limo.
...
So what I am getting at is that the apparent increase in speed as the limo approaches Zapruder partially mitigates the real decrease in speed. In other words: the Limo slowed down, but from Zapruder's perspective, it did not appear to slow down as much as it really had.

 

(12-31-2016, 11:33 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  Why do you misframe my posts? It is becuase you were too lazy to comprehend what I had written?

I am directly quoting your posts, then responding immediately underneath each sentence I wish to refute or agree with. That means that it's not possible for me to "misframe" your posts.

You are at all times welcome to expand on what you've stated, and if you believe I've misinterpreted what you've stated, and I've quoted, then by all means ... POINT IT OUT COHERENTLY!!

Merely alleging that I've "misframed" your posts without demonstrating any such thing will only demonstrate dishonesty, wouldn't you say?

 

(12-31-2016, 11:33 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  Again: An object travelling at a constant velocity in a straight line will may appear at slightly different speeds depending on the distance of the observer and the angle.

This fact simply cannot explain the lack of a slowdown being seen in the extant Zapruder film. It's much like arguing that the limo was heavier due to it's speed, and while precisely true, means absolutely nothing.

Ditto with your "explanation" of why the limo's speed wasn't visible in the Zapruder film.

 

(12-31-2016, 11:33 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  Have you ever seen a train passing Ben?

Have you ever filmed a passing train within a span of a few hundred feet, and noted that it's speed wasn't consistent with what was seen with the naked eye?
 

(12-31-2016, 11:33 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  I am not saying that the Film was altered or not; I am merely stating something fundamental; the relationship between angular speed, distance, and linear speed at certain points-of-view.

Oh, I rather suspect that I've pegged you quite correctly. There's literally no other option that is being supported other than the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film. Indeed, you make it rather clear with your opening sentence:

Fendlesworth Wrote:What looks odd to me is the images in background appear to be a bit larger than they should be. After watching a few synchronizations with the Nix and Muchmore Films, I haven't been able to spot any blatant discrepencies.

...where you raise the suspicion of alteration, then spend the rest of the post refuting it.

Feel free to describe ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY other than what I've just listed...
 

(12-31-2016, 11:33 PM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  And Ben, since when did you speak for most people?

I don't. Nor have I stated that I did... yet you imply that I have... why is that?

However, I have an opinion... and I'd be happy to put money on my opinion being correct in this case. Feel free to offer your counter-view anytime.

[Fendlesworth]

(01-01-2017, 12:40 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:   

Quote:You tried to explain why there's no apparent slowdown in the Zapruder film.

No I didn't. Go back and read what I had written. I clearly state that the Limo slowed down, and probably slowed down more that what the average viewer may percieve.

Quote:This fact simply cannot explain the lack of a slowdown being seen in the extant Zapruder film. It's much like arguing that the limo was heavier due to it's speed, and while precisely true, means absolutely nothing.

Ditto with your "explanation" of why the limo's speed wasn't visible in the Zapruder film.

I'm sorry Ben, I just don't know how to respond to this. This comment is just silly.

There is slowdown evident in the Zapruer film Ben, and your analogy is not accurate at all.

Quote:...where you raise the suspicion of alteration, then spend the rest of the post refuting it.

Um, no. I am not refuting that. I am just merely pointing out the slight speed distortion evident in the changing angle. This is something to consider. The Zapruder Film could be altered, or this could be just another disinformation rabbit-hole like Badgeman.
The fact that it can be synchronized with the Nix and Muchmore Films makes one wonder if frames were removed at all, or that all three Films were altered. These both should be considered in my opinion.
One could easily turn the speeds into real numbers and graphs and compare them. 

Quote:Have you ever filmed a passing train within a span of a few hundred feet, and noted that it's speed wasn't consistent with what was seen with the naked eye?

No I havent. But looking that the train traveling at a constant speed, the apparent speed can change. Would you not agreee that the train appears to be travelling faster when it is two feet away at 0 degrees that when it is 600 ft away at 60 degrees?
It's not that the Zaparuder Film shows less speed, it is that the Zapruder film has an apparent speed differential because of the perspective, and when the maximum apparent speed was supposed to be at the maximum (orthogonal), the Limo was actually at it's lowest true speed. 
If you don't want to understand this and keep misframing my posts in the most ridiculous fashion, than whatever.

Quote:I don't. Nor have I stated that I did... yet you imply that I have... why is that?

You said "most people would agree you", or that "most people would agree that I haven't made a point" or some arrogantly disparaging crap like that a few posts ago.

You confidently asserted what most people would think about my post.

[Ben Holmes]

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

(01-01-2017, 12:40 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You tried to explain why there's no apparent slowdown in the Zapruder film.

No I didn't. Go back and read what I had written. I clearly state that the Limo slowed down, and probably slowed down more that what the average viewer may percieve.

Then all your "explanations" why a side view of the limo would not have shown it's true speed was simply talk with no goal in mind.

Okay.

But the "average" viewer can't see a slowdown in the Zapruder film that matches the eyewitness accounts of a dramatic slowdown and/or stop.
 

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:This fact simply cannot explain the lack of a slowdown being seen in the extant Zapruder film. It's much like arguing that the limo was heavier due to it's speed, and while precisely true, means absolutely nothing.

Ditto with your "explanation" of why the limo's speed wasn't visible in the Zapruder film.

I'm sorry Ben, I just don't know how to respond to this. This comment is just silly.

There is slowdown evident in the Zapruer film Ben, and your analogy is not accurate at all.

Sadly, you can't cite a SINGLE source stating that there was a slowdown "evident" in the Zapruder film that pre-dates the Alvarez frame by frame measurements that detected a slowdown.

That's a fact that demolishes your assertion.

 

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:...where you raise the suspicion of alteration, then spend the rest of the post refuting it.

Um, no. I am not refuting that. I am just merely pointing out the slight speed distortion evident in the changing angle. This is something to consider. The Zapruder Film could be altered, or this could be just another disinformation rabbit-hole like Badgeman.

The fact that it can be synchronized with the Nix and Muchmore Films makes one wonder if frames were removed at all, or that all three Films were altered. These both should be considered in my opinion.
One could easily turn the speeds into real numbers and graphs and compare them. 

So you admit the possibility of alteration...

Good.

Nice to have you on record as stating that.

Now, explain the lack of "First Frame Flash" at Z-132/133 in terms other than alteration...

I predict you won't...

Nor will you explain why there's a slowdown quite evident in the Nix that cannot be seen in the extant Zapruder film. Indeed, you claim that these two films show the same thing.

 

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Have you ever filmed a passing train within a span of a few hundred feet, and noted that it's speed wasn't consistent with what was seen with the naked eye?

No I havent. But looking that the train traveling at a constant speed, the apparent speed can change. Would you not agreee that the train appears to be travelling faster when it is two feet away at 0 degrees that when it is 600 ft away at 60 degrees?
It's not that the Zaparuder Film shows less speed, it is that the Zapruder film has an apparent speed differential because of the perspective, and when the maximum apparent speed was supposed to be at the maximum (orthogonal), the Limo was actually at it's lowest true speed. 
If you don't want to understand this and keep misframing my posts in the most ridiculous fashion, than whatever.

The next time you claim I'm "misframing" your posts without documenting it, I'm going to label you a liar. I'm quoting your EXACT WORDS, then responding to EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE SAID.

Your argument is nonsense... the CLEAREST view of a limo stop is going to be when the object is even with the viewer, and not far forward or far back...

You clearly agree that the most accurate view is going to be directly alongside the limo - AND THAT IS THE POINT WHERE PEOPLE AGREED THAT IT SLOWED DOWN OR CAME TO A STOP.

And despite your claim to the contrary, such a dramatic slowdown as reported by the eyewitnesses cannot be seen by the casual viewer of the extant Zapruder film.

This would be easy to prove... simply get a group of people who've never viewed the film before... and show it 10 times in both full speed and in slow motion, then ask them to write down everything they believe they saw. You'll never see anyone describing either a dramatic slowdown or a brief stop - as several dozen eyewitnesses did.

But you'll never perform such an experiment... because you know what the results would be, don't you?

That you can't even admit this fact tells the tale, doesn't it?

 

(01-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:I don't. Nor have I stated that I did... yet you imply that I have... why is that?

You said "most people would agree you", or that "most people would agree that I haven't made a point" or some arrogantly disparaging crap like that a few posts ago.

You confidently asserted what most people would think about my post.

The fact that you keep snipping the content shows that you know you're lying, wouldn't you say?
 
Why not quote me saying what you claimed I'd said?

Can't?

Why not?

I predict you'll refuse to answer this point.

Because unless you can quote me saying what you've claimed I said, everyone can tell who's "misframing" posts.


P.S. Interestingly, you snipped and refused to answer my challenge from my last post to explain what you were trying to do in the first post. Looks like I was absolutely correct.