Zfilm Revisited

[Chris Davidson]

The Zframe time lapse movie is about 15 megs in size. If you want to download it, try here. Will take awhile to download.

http://76.89.67.73:6900/C1307/CAR_PATH.mov

I broke it up into smaller frame groups for forum posting.

The first 4 frames are provided.

Rotation from frame 101 to167 is 1degree CCW.

From 167 to 206 is another 3degrees CCW.

206 TO 221 no change.

221 to 233 1.5 degrees CCW.

Add those up and it's a CCW tilt of 5.5 degrees from frames 167-233

chris

P.S.

Keep an eye on the sign post between the last two frames.

Edited May 3, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Bill Miller]

Is there a point to this thread?

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

Very interesting...

I can't help but wonder if some MPI work isn't involved in this, somewhere. They may have introduced some (intentional or otherwise) angle corrections when they aligned their frames (such as it is -- they did a horrific job, complete with missing and mis-numbered frames...).

You are correct, Frank ... but don't start thinking logical here or else you'll spoil the fun. One must smile when they hear 'this or that should not have happened'. You'll see no comparison examples such as the Rick Janowitz film from Zapruder's pedestal ... instead just off-the-cuff opinions without any data to support it.

Here's a comparison example for you, Bill.

Looks like the re-enactment movie also agrees with my angle around 313. A natural filming position. Note the DOWNHILL slanting curb.

Why not show us somebody who has taken a movie from the pedestal with the same camera angle/curb results as Zapruder.

Perhaps examples from the Rick Janowitz film would help.

Until you do, I have 10-15 different versions of car passes from the pedestal, and not 1 shows the curb level to the horizon around 313.

chris

P.S.

Where have I heard that 5 degree rotation before.

Oh yes, the Couch/Darnell thread I posted.

[David G. Healy]

Is there a point to this thread?

Bill

nervous?

[Chris Davidson]

OK - I'm going to wade into the bear pit.

I am by no means an expert on the minutiae of the JFK assassination. However as a documentary director (for BBC, Ch4, NatGeo, Discovery etc), I do know a few things about filmmaking techniques and image manipulation - including on film (16mm & Super 16). To my eye, there are lots of anamolies in Zapruder.

I found David Healy's excellent technical article about film techniques in the early 1960s (link below) invaluable in considering what was and wasn't possible at the time of the assassination:

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Technical_Aspects.pdf

I've now read and watched pretty much everthing I can find online - including of course the work of Jim Fetzer, John Costella, Jack White, Roland Zavada et al.

Chris - on your superimposition of frames 101 & 167, that is a very interesting find. I'm struggling to think of any way it could be a film artefact - ie some technical processing error. Indeed, Occam's Razor says the most obvious solution is that it's a manipulation, a pasting-in (or an anchoring point).

I have a general - partly technical - question. The easiest way to manipulate image is for the camera frame to be locked off, and for all elements required for the final composition to be shot from the position of that locked off frame. Zapruder is a pan. Indeed, it's assumed that it's a handheld pan. This makes image manipulation more difficult because the camera frame is moving (often from frame to frame). So, if an element from one frame is being cut out (via mattes etc) and pasted into a frame shot at a different stage of the pan, there may be orientation problems. For instance, a person cut out and moved to a different frame in the pan may appear to be oriented awkwardly or unnaturally.

My question - for any students of Zapruder - is how does this technical problem (of the panning camera) effect your analysis of individual frames which appear suspect?

Chris - it's certainly not my intention to take over your thread, and if you think my question belongs elsewhere, I'm happy for the mods to move it.

Jan,

I appreciate your comments.

The more questions the better. I don't feel like your taking over.

Hopefully, your expertise will be very valuable in this thread.

I can only show you examples of my own amateur filming experience. (Dealy Plaza footage was the second time I had used the B/H 414)

But, to film a car at 10 mph down Elm, and not keep it close to center frame is mind boggling.

The cars I filmed were going 30-40 mph, at least.

Someone needs to show why frames 101/167 are the way they are.

That's the reason I made the comparison among the Life magazine frames.

The relationship between the Life sprocket holes/image is the same as MPI's.

Therefore, I make the assumption that all frames have the same relationship.

thanks,

chris

[Lee Forman]

OK - let's run with that - where physically is the on/off switch on Zapruder's camera? How easy would it have been to switch the camera off and back on again "blind" so to speak?

I ask because it's very hard to hold a locked-off, or near locked-off, framing on a camera whilst switching it off and on in a handheld stance. Especially for a non-professional, or a person not highly familiar with the layout of a camera.

Thanks to Marcel's site. It would be quite easy to stop filming, and then restart again. But to restart as indicated - odds are probably in the billions against, without the use of a tripod.

- lee

[Lee Forman]

But, to film a car at 10 mph down Elm, and not keep it close to center frame is mind boggling.

Hey Chris - I did an amateur 'study' with this in mind in Jan of 2004. Not sure where all of it went, but what I was going for was the idea of reshooting the film through the same camera - with the idea of starting with a larger action area projected. - hence the ghosts that do not appear to make sense, allowing Kennedy to trail along your bottom and almost off the frame, etc. Holding center some 15' above Kennedy's head is just amazing. It would be interesting to do an animation, keeping Kennedy in center, and see what the result would look like.

- lee

[David G. Healy]

[...]

Chris - on your superimposition of frames 101 & 167, that is a very interesting find. I'm struggling to think of any way it could be a film artefact - ie some technical processing error. Indeed, Occam's Razor says the most obvious solution is that it's a manipulation, a pasting-in (or an anchoring point).

I have a general - partly technical - question. The easiest way to manipulate image is for the camera frame to be locked off, and for all elements required for the final composition to be shot from the position of that locked off frame. Zapruder is a pan. Indeed, it's assumed that it's a handheld pan. This makes image manipulation more difficult because the camera frame is moving (often from frame to frame). So, if an element from one frame is being cut out (via mattes etc) and pasted into a frame shot at a different stage of the pan, there may be orientation problems. For instance, a person cut out and moved to a different frame in the pan may appear to be oriented awkwardly or unnaturally.

My question - for any students of Zapruder - is how does this technical problem (of the panning camera) effect your analysis of individual frames which appear suspect?

Chris - it's certainly not my intention to take over your thread, and if you think my question belongs elsewhere, I'm happy for the mods to move it.

how about... we're told Zapruder rolled film a bit to early to cover the limo procession onto and down Elm Street. -- Its been suggested he stopped filming (not Zapruder testimony) the sequence [a false start if you will] only to restart filming when the Limo entered onto Elm Street (again not Zapruder testimony)...

So here's the what IF: suppose Zapruder did NOT stop filming, suppose while filming this "initial" sequence, performing his left to right pan down Elm Street sequence he slowed his pan letting the lead car exit frame right, he then continued (not stopping filming) the pan down Elm Street with the leading edge (right side of the frame) of the frame just behind the lead car which is now out of the frame... He only needs about 8 seconds of a clear Elm Street left to right pan....

What would that leave film compositor with? How about a completely clear, left to right pan down Elm Street....

In short, everything needed to alter the original in-camera original Zapruder film... more than enough to convince the Warren Comission members and staff re shots from the rear AND of course, the SBT! (note: the ONLY audience of Z-film consequence)

Is that what happened? Hell, who knows... but tell you what, this scenario goes a long way explaining why we might have a newly Zapruder film composite Elm Street downhill sequence running what appears to be on-the-level and even on a slightly up hill track...

Think Hollywood.... "here's the footage, do your magic and above all, make it work! Ya got the most efficient film compositors in the world, Academy Award winning technology, Academy Award winning facilities, unlimimited dollars in the budget and you have 70 days (more than enough time), so get'er it done"

also: panning film cameras too fast has serious blur consequences.... books have been written on the very subject, formulas created... professional cinematographers are well aware of the artifacts created by panning too fast

Edited May 3, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Chris Davidson]

Well said!!! David.

You have put it into a context that is easily acceptable.

Jan,

I'm not sure about changing the elements within the frames on a massive scale.

I believe you can step off successive frames at specific angles to reduce the amount of element overlapping required.

In other words, in this case, what if you are trying to eliminate something in the foreground, (not necessarily the background) from the original film.

Enlarge the film. Step the frames off CCW to a certain point, and then CW as the limo goes farther west down Elm.

Would also give the appearance of camera tilt.

chris

Edited May 3, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Jack White]

My belief in the JFK TOO LOW IN FRAME SEQUENCE has always been the problem

created by BILL AND GAYLE NEWMAN AND THEIR TWO CHILDREN, PLUS THEIR

REFLECTIONS IN THE SIDE OF THE LIMO.

In my opinion, having done many photos from the pedestal, that a person standing

on the curb like Newman and family WOULD BE IN ANY FRAME SHOWING THE

LIMO PASSING HIM, AS WELL AS THEIR REFLECTIONS. If frames were removed

at this point to delete the limo stop, Newmans and their reflections would have

created massive alteration problems...so they moved the limo to bottom and

added grass at top.

[Bill Miller]

OK - I'm going to wade into the bear pit.

I am by no means an expert on the minutiae of the JFK assassination. However as a documentary director (for BBC, Ch4, NatGeo, Discovery etc), I do know a few things about filmmaking techniques and image manipulation - including on film (16mm & Super 16). To my eye, there are lots of anamolies in Zapruder.

I found David Healy's excellent technical article about film techniques in the early 1960s (link below) invaluable in considering what was and wasn't possible at the time of the

I bet you didn't find anything showing David Healy altering Kodachrome II film. That is the one thing that even todays scientist who know Kodachrome II film inside and out they know that the job could not be accomplished with that type of film so to fool anyone. It is also worth telling you that the MPI film is a multi-generational copy film. And even Healy ... long after he wrote on the subject has said that he has seen no proof of alteration.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years"

[Jack White]

This man is standing where Newman stood. Should he appear in Zapruder frames?

Unfortunately I do not know his height.

Jack

[Jack White]

I bet you didn't find anything showing David Healy altering Kodachrome II film. That is the one thing that even todays scientist who know Kodachrome II film inside and out they know that the job could not be accomplished with that type of film so to fool anyone. It is also worth telling you that the MPI film is a multi-generational copy film. And even Healy ... long after he wrote on the subject has said that he has seen no proof of alteration.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years"

Bill - that link returned a 404 File Not Found error. Please can you or David expand on these issues, or find me a working link?

Thanking you in advance.

Jan...Miller is way out of his element here. Ignore him. Kodachrome has nothing to do with it. Copying was likely

done on copy film and exposure compensation made to mimic Kodachrome. Burning the edge markings which

say Kodachrome is the simplest part of the fraud.

Jack

[Jack White]

David - how far ahead (time and/or distance) of JFK's limo was the "lead car" you mention?

Chris - apologies, I wasn't terribly clear because I was essentially thinking aloud about how the process of alteration might have worked technically. I'm sure you are all several steps ahead of me.

I was thinking about how travelling mattes might have been used to manipulate the image in the final Zapruder frames, and what kind of knock-on problems (eg the unnatural orientation of individual figures) such alteration might have caused. This tape (clearly based in part on the Costello research) shows how one of the clear orientation problems (the eyeline of the woman in red) might have been caused by separation of foreground and background and then putting them back together out of their natural timeline, ie out of sync (c2:20):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DLqjqTbIPU

Jack - that's an intriguing suggestion. Shiny cars are notoriously reflective, and as such are the bane of directors & cameraman's lives because they're forever showing "stuff" you want to hide.

So running with this for a moment, does that mean that the position of the Presidential limo would have to have been dropped lower in frame, whilst the background grass & spectators (separated by a travelling matte) has been blown up to fill more of the frame? Is that the suggestion at the technical level?

That is what I believe. I think David agrees with me. It is also likely that the headshot

happened farther down Elm; this compounds the problem of the location of the Newmans,

putting them in a location where they were not. The LIMO STOP deletion is what causes

the problem. Removing it necessitated removing the Newmans. David and I agree that

the SOUTH CURB WAS THE COMPOSITING LINE.

Thanks for your informed comments.

Jack

Edited May 3, 2008 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Compare the south curb as NORMALLY FILMED with the same frame AS FRAMED BY ZAPRUDER.

In Zapruder, Jean and Mary are standing TILTED, not vertical.

Jack

Edited May 3, 2008 by Jack White