Retinal Scope Scan

[John Dolva]

I know this is way out there, but seeing as a film surface doesn't (AFAIK) discriminate against photons (and that the eye will fire signals to the brain at as low as 3 photon intensity), then, if one considers the frame where the rifle is paraded down the corridor and in one frame light is projected through the scope over exposing that frame, then by the same token it projects light onto the eye and that is reflected back through the scope then somewhere in some image there is an oblique oval obscured by the general illumination that is a retinal/iris scan of the shooter/s, perhaps even a face or part thereof. Likewise if the scope is pointed at the limo with some back lighting, such an oval, if discernible, would show where the scope was pointing from.

addendum : As an example, Zapruders camera has the view finder separate from the lens projecting the image onto the film.

As he was filming the continually changing scenery over 400+ frames the one thing that changes least is the image of his eye as the view finder projects it onto the scene.

Some years ago I stacked all the frames on top of each other at 99% transparency, which ended up with an interesting image when merged. Because the eye is in all the images, that part multiplied/intensified to the point where one can see what LOOKS LIKE a pupil and an iris. I've lost all images pre about three months ago, but anyone can duplicate that with the right software and processing power. I left it ubsaid because I was new to this and felt it was ridiculous. The experience of the forum over the years has happily freed me from a need to not seem stupid so there it is. An idea, with some indipenedently recreatable possible confirmation. If so we have a layered/merged photo of Zapruders iris. and pupil.

( addendum two : Because it also relates to the inverse square law* : a statistical analysis of witness statements that seeks a median with relation to witnesses statements with regards to the intensity of the sounds they heard and taking into account relative witness positions (ie distance from sound source and timings between sounds and eliminating disparate points that belong to persons with unusual hearing, a sound source may be identified?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law#Acoustics_2 )

Edited March 12, 2009 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

What John suggests is impossible. Zapruder's 414 was a NON-REFLEX camera, and is

not in any way connected to the filming area.

Even if it were a reflex, I suspect that the optics are designed to prevent extraneous

light from entering the film area.

Jack

[John Dolva]

What John suggests is impossible. Zapruder's 414 was a NON-REFLEX camera, and is

not in any way connected to the filming area.

Even if it were a reflex, I suspect that the optics are designed to prevent extraneous

light from entering the film area.

Jack

Are you suggesting that the viewfinder isn't pointing in the same direction as the film lens?? I doubt it.

(ps does that mean a scoped rifle has the scope pointing in one direction and the barrel in another? (I know they do just that for ballistics sake, but hopefully you know what I mean))

Edited March 13, 2009 by John Dolva

[Robert Walker]

John,

Jack is quite correct. I own four 414PD's and can confirm that the camera is absolutely non-reflex. The eyepiece is not in the path of the film at all. The viewfinder approximates the telephoto/wide angle views of the lens by a little string that is connected to a mechanism within the eyepiece chamber. The string slides the eyepiece optics in unison with the lens. Quite primitive, but still effective nonetheless (until the string breaks!).

Of course if the Zapruder film was altered and then reshot on a camera that was reflex, you may be onto something.

Not that I want to open up another can of worms.

Rob

[John Dolva]

John,

Jack is quite correct. I own four 414PD's and can confirm that the camera is absolutely non-reflex. The eyepiece is not in the path of the film at all. The viewfinder approximates the telephoto/wide angle views of the lens by a little string that is connected to a mechanism within the eyepiece chamber. The string slides the eyepiece optics in unison with the lens. Quite primitive, but still effective nonetheless (until the string breaks!).

Of course if the Zapruder film was altered and then reshot on a camera that was reflex, you may be onto something.

Not that I want to open up another can of worms.

Rob

Why not, fishing is fun.

Are you also suggesting the viewfinder is pointing at something quite different to what the films lens combo is recording. Try to think of the lens assemblies as both receivers and projectors of photons, thats a reason why cameras are made to be 'black holes'.

[Russ Connelly]

John,

Jack is quite correct. I own four 414PD's and can confirm that the camera is absolutely non-reflex. The eyepiece is not in the path of the film at all. The viewfinder approximates the telephoto/wide angle views of the lens by a little string that is connected to a mechanism within the eyepiece chamber. The string slides the eyepiece optics in unison with the lens. Quite primitive, but still effective nonetheless (until the string breaks!).

Of course if the Zapruder film was altered and then reshot on a camera that was reflex, you may be onto something.

Not that I want to open up another can of worms.

Rob

Why not, fishing is fun.

Are you also suggesting the viewfinder is pointing at something quite different to what the films lens combo is recording. Try to think of the lens assemblies as both receivers and projectors of photons, thats a reason why cameras are made to be 'black holes'.

Aren't we talking about two different effects here:

1) That if somehow, enough light was projected down through the rifle scope and projected onto the environment within its path (Dealey Plaza) - that anyone photographing within this environment may have picked up the resulting oval of light projected by the scope somewhere within their photographic image, or at an even bigger stretch onto the film itself within their camera.

2) That a reflection of a camera operators eye may be projected onto a film surface via the camera lens optics (which could only happen using a reflex camera where the eye is actually looking at the same optical lens which is used to project light onto the film).

In the first instance, even if we could distinguish any ovals of light, would it not be impossible to distinguish which came from which camera, scope, pair of binoculars, telescope, etc of which there may have been many pointing at the motorcade throughout Dealey Plaza during those few seconds...

In the second instance, the camera operators eye might be reflected onto the film if the camera was a reflex camera...but what would that tell us anyway apart from that someone was looking into the camera when they opened the shutter...

[John Dolva]

"I know this is way out there, but seeing as a film surface doesn't (AFAIK) discriminate against photons (and that the eye will fire signals to the brain at as low as 3 photon intensity), then, if one considers the frame where the rifle is paraded down the corridor and in one frame light is projected through the scope over exposing that frame, then by the same token it projects light onto the eye and that is reflected back through the scope then somewhere in some image there is an oblique oval obscured by the general illumination that is a retinal/iris scan of the shooter/s, perhaps even a face or part thereof. Likewise if the scope is pointed at the limo with some back lighting, such an oval, if discernible, would show where the scope was pointing from.

addendum : As an example, Zapruders camera has the view finder separate from the lens projecting the image onto the film.

As he was filming the continually changing scenery over 400+ frames the one thing that changes least is the image of his eye as the view finder projects it onto the scene.

Some years ago I stacked all the frames on top of each other at 99% transparency, which ended up with an interesting image when merged. Because the eye is in all the images, that part multiplied/intensified to the point where one can see what LOOKS LIKE a pupil and an iris. I've lost all images pre about three months ago, but anyone can duplicate that with the right software and processing power. I left it ubsaid because I was new to this and felt it was ridiculous. The experience of the forum over the years has happily freed me from a need to not seem stupid so there it is. An idea, with some indipenedently recreatable possible confirmation. If so we have a layered/merged photo of Zapruders iris. and pupil."

If it's on the photo at all it's because it has been projected onto the film, and certainly it could come from many sources, however the power of the scope projecting light is startling in the corridor scene frame. With kennedy at its centre and perhaps seeming to track from a location where there was no photographer its possibly more likely to be from the scope.

The idea is that the eye is projected onto the scene and this scene is filmed. When one has hundreds of frames then that is one thing less likely to change so that when stacking the frames at max transparency then one ends up with a mish mash where the recurring objects are more likely to stand out. The idea is that this is more likely to be the eye or even any light leaking past the eye through the eye piece onto the scene and then back onto the film. If it is there and is found to have a hue to the iris such as Zaps eye color then it would be indicative of having been zao, if not, then ...

Anyway it's just an idea from an observation I had when I did this stacking/multiplying/intensifying of all the zap frames. It just occurred to me while writing this that it may be a phenomenon having to do with the curvature of the lens, iow a kind of visualisation of the film lens itself.

Just an idea.

[Robert Walker]

John,

Jack is quite correct. I own four 414PD's and can confirm that the camera is absolutely non-reflex. The eyepiece is not in the path of the film at all. The viewfinder approximates the telephoto/wide angle views of the lens by a little string that is connected to a mechanism within the eyepiece chamber. The string slides the eyepiece optics in unison with the lens. Quite primitive, but still effective nonetheless (until the string breaks!).

Of course if the Zapruder film was altered and then reshot on a camera that was reflex, you may be onto something.

Not that I want to open up another can of worms.

Rob

Why not, fishing is fun.

Are you also suggesting the viewfinder is pointing at something quite different to what the films lens combo is recording. Try to think of the lens assemblies as both receivers and projectors of photons, thats a reason why cameras are made to be 'black holes'.

John,

Yes, I am suggesting that - to a degree. The lens is aligned to the viewfinder horizontally, (ie, they are stacked on top of each other). But since the lens and the viewfinder have space between them, their perspectives will be slightly different - thus the viewfinder sees something slightly different than what passes through the lens and is recorded onto film.

It is possible to think of the 414 viewfinder as a projector of light, but due to its crappy optics and plastic protective "screen" element, who knows where that very diluted pool of of light would land within Dealey Plaza, let alone would it fall within the constraints of the image captured on film?

However, based on your post, you've actually witnessed something that would indicate that the camera that captured the moving images we now call the "Zapruder Film" may have been recorded with a device that is reflex. Again, not to open up a new can of worms (I'm not much of a fisherman) and not to join one polarized group or another, but if it were that the Zapruder film was altered and then reshot, the iris you have seen may have come from the eye of the person(s) altering it.

Rob

[John Dolva]

John,

Jack is quite correct. I own four 414PD's and can confirm that the camera is absolutely non-reflex. The eyepiece is not in the path of the film at all. The viewfinder approximates the telephoto/wide angle views of the lens by a little string that is connected to a mechanism within the eyepiece chamber. The string slides the eyepiece optics in unison with the lens. Quite primitive, but still effective nonetheless (until the string breaks!).

Of course if the Zapruder film was altered and then reshot on a camera that was reflex, you may be onto something.

Not that I want to open up another can of worms.

Rob

Why not, fishing is fun.

Are you also suggesting the viewfinder is pointing at something quite different to what the films lens combo is recording. Try to think of the lens assemblies as both receivers and projectors of photons, thats a reason why cameras are made to be 'black holes'.

John,

Yes, I am suggesting that - to a degree. The lens is aligned to the viewfinder horizontally, (ie, they are stacked on top of each other). But since the lens and the viewfinder have space between them, their perspectives will be slightly different - thus the viewfinder sees something slightly different than what passes through the lens and is recorded onto film.

It is possible to think of the 414 viewfinder as a projector of light, but due to its crappy optics and plastic protective "screen" element, who knows where that very diluted pool of of light would land within Dealey Plaza, let alone would it fall within the constraints of the image captured on film?

However, based on your post, you've actually witnessed something that would indicate that the camera that captured the moving images we now call the "Zapruder Film" may have been recorded with a device that is reflex. Again, not to open up a new can of worms (I'm not much of a fisherman) and not to join one polarized group or another, but if it were that the Zapruder film was altered and then reshot, the iris you have seen may have come from the eye of the person(s) altering it.

Rob

Thank you, Robert, I understand now what you mean re opening a can of worms (darn it, it was not an intention)

The zap stacking image as I remember it had what looks like an pupil/iris in the middle of the stacked frames. At the time I fired off a series of PM's to Marcel re Zap's camera to get it absolutely clear whether the viewfinder is separate from the film/lens combo. He patiently explained that they are completely separate.

I think your point re the shifting of what zap saw through the eye piece and what was recorded on the film as the limo comes closer and then further away is an important point. (Sometimes ideas go mulling around and round in the mind like a scratched record with no resolution until one mentions them and gets responses that shift ones perspective on things.)

(I think Josiah has outlined a plethora of reasons to say that it was zap and sitz on the pedestal independently of any photos. (The Moorman really only shows a couple of people who could possibly be definitely identified. One can only infer that it is Jackie and Kennedy in the back seat for example. The MC cop's profile is just about the only clearly identifiable person and even then that could be staged easily. However, the overall evidence as outlined by Josiah and others indicates that the photo is real and correct, though very poor in quality.) I haven't seen any reason to think the z film is a fabrication (except for the severely deformed Costella frames (which can't be said to be the z film frames but only derived from them))

so : I'm now inclined now to think it is a phenomenon caused by the lens curvature or the uniform algorithm that Costella used to produce the then less distorted frames (compared to the gross ones he currently makes available.) that I used at the time.

Once fully up and running I'll try it with a couple of other films and see whether a similar thing happens. Thanks for the responses.