Jump to content
The Education Forum
William Plumlee

SOUTH KNOLL PHOTO

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Can you explain for me how interlaced frames from analog TV got into a 60's era film?  Is this a product of Groden's work?  Or, someone else?  How does that occur?  Doesn't this require after the fact manipulation of the taken film?

Stock in those days was celluloid or plastic?  Does interlacing occur while the film is being made or added afterwards?   How's that mix with interlaced analog TV signals in a amateur film?  Someone has manipulated this film when?

This is a problem for me since I started looking at Groden's films.  I have speculated military photographers film blended into the assassination films.  Any advice or help on this would be appreciated.

I'm sure Ron would agree that anyone makes more sense than me since I have no credibility.

This will explain it much better than I can:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am understanding what Chris is saying then the process in those days is someone takes an amateur home movie which does not have the feature of interlaced / deinterlaced frames.  This home movie cannot be shown on TV because the frame rates per second do not match.  The interlaced frames made and are added when a videotape of the film is made to show on TV or make a DVD.  Or, they are there because an SSTV videotape was made.

Bell-interlaced-film-2-parts.jpg

These interlaced film frames are from the Mark Bell film via Groden’s Assassination Films.  These are not the same images but, they give one the notion of an interlaced frame Part A and Part B.  Part A has green video pixel lines and Part B has red video pixel lines.

A man by the name of Steven Osborn testified before Chairman Tunheim of the Assassination Records Review Board in Dallas, Texas on November 18, 1994.  He wanted to inform the Board of the possibility of military intelligence films that an unnamed person told him about.

He said that a communications unit from Fort Hood, Texas at Clean, Texas (actually Killeen, Texas) had videotaped the motorcade.  He said,

“In my conversations with this gentleman, I asked questions of a technical nature trying to discovery how their assignment was accomplished. After discovering that the camera signals were transported by wireless means back to the control studio, which was actually a semi-tractor-trailer, I found myself doubting that this type of equipment was available in 1963.

I knew that ham radio operators have been sending television signals easily for a number of years, and I had also participated in that hobby. I also knew that videotaping was still in its infant years in 1963. I started to research available equipment to see if this story had any possibility of being true.

I have another handout that I would like to give you. Now that we know that equipment existed in 1963, and I can tell you a little bit about the equipment, if you would like, in the question and answer, I can relate his entire story, the following information was obtained over approximately three separate conversations with this individual. I had extracted a verbal consent to get his story on videotape, like any good researcher would, but when the time came for doing so, his attitude on the matter had completely reversed and I am only left today with the recollection, you know, the notes that I had taken from the conversation and the subsequent information by my independent investigation.

This military communications group had several cameras stationed around the Plaza. The signals from the cameras were sent back to a semi-tractor-trailer acting as a mobile studio parked a short distance from the Plaza. Each camera had a preview monitor and videotape machine associated with it inside the trailer recording the view of each camera. There was no sound recorded in this assignment.

Each videotape position had a single person responsible for its proper operation. Each position these men occupied was shielded from the others so that they could only see the preview for their individual camera. Each man saw the assassination occur from a different perspective of their monitors.

About 15 minutes after the assassination, a group of men appeared who identified themselves as FBI agents. These agents seized all the equipment used to videotape the motorcade. Each man was put on a bus which had been summoned to the scene and they were all driven back to their base. Upon their arrival, they were simply told to forget it.

Finding that there was equipment available in 1963 that would do this made it easier for me to accept the story I have just related to you. Several things have made me believe that this group was an intelligence unit.”

But, in actuality the technique and technology had been available for some years. 

Slow-scan television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Slow Scan television (SSTV) is a picture transmission method used mainly by amateur radio operators, to transmit and receive static pictures via radio in monochrome or color.

A literal term for SSTV is narrowband television. Analog broadcast television requires at least 6 MHz wide channels, because it transmits 25 or 30 picture frames per second (in the NTSC, PAL or SECAM color systems),

The concept of SSTV was introduced by Copthorne Macdonald[1] in 1957–58.[2] He developed the first SSTV system using an electrostatic monitor and a vidicon tube. In those days it seemed sufficient to use 120 lines and about 120 pixels per line to transmit a black-and-white still picture within a 3 kHz phone channel. First live tests were performed on the 11 Meter ham band – which was later given to the CB service in the US. In the 1970s, two forms of paper printout receivers were invented by hams.

sstv-slow-scan-tv-images.jpg

So, it was possible to make a videotape of the motorcade’s passage through Dealey Plaza in 1963.  Yes.  And, this is pretty much the low-quality images seen in the assassination films.

Groden’s various films have SSTV frames.  This raises the question I originally asked when I first wrote about this.  Did Groden make the original home movies (assassination films) into videotapes where interlacing is possible or was this done earlier?

Is the various assassination films produced by Military Photographers using SSTV to transmit imagery to a central location (many think it was the semi at the intersection of Elm and Houston) and then made into videotape to record a film of the motorcade.  

And, according to Steve Osborn’s testimony could these videotapes be substituted for the original home movies.    

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are dealing with Interlaced and Progressive frames.

The frame you posted started out as an Interlaced frame. (Left side of graphic.)

It was then De-interlaced and saved. (Right side of graphic.) Which matches what you posted.

The frame you posted is from Groden's version.

Anybody interested in seeing the PROGRESSIVE frame where the cop helmet is not translucent, can view it there.

45802976811_efec55828c_o.jpg

I don't see the logic of this.  Both interlaced and deinterlaced objects are see through.  This is an unnatural situation that would not have occurred in an unaltered amateur home movie.  This is not motion blurring or some other thing like that.  It appears to be a transparent or opaque image overlayed onto the original film to cover up something.  What?  This frame showing President Kennedy is the same as one shown just a few frames earlier.

Martin-frame-early-later-duplicated.jpg

What could be covered up here?  It is a strange image.  Kennedy appears to be in distress of some sort.  He could just be smiling or laughing.  If so, why overlay this with the image of a policeman.  At 18 frames per second this is perhaps 1/3 of a seconds difference in time.  Is that long enough for a see through policeman to motor up and be even with the president?  The presidential vehicle has moved perhaps 5 feet further north on Houston in the other frame. 

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

John,

This DVD sequence of frames includes the Progressive frame you are questioning.

Do you see the ghost overlapping white helmet in the non-Progressive frames?

Previously, you supplied a frame in which I de-interlaced and matched the result you supplied.

I supplied you links for conversion processes.

The artifacts you present stem from an (8mm film -18fps) to (30fps) conversion.

That's the easiest way I can state it.

Good luck.

31976787308_babb3bf66b_o.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris,

You have been a great help in my quest to answer a question about Groden's assassination tapes going back several years.  You state "The artifacts you present stem from an (8mm film -18fps) to (30fps) conversion.".   From your statements we can conclude this is not the original home movie film stock.  But, this is a 30 fps conversion to videotape.  Is there any way to determine who made this conversion?  Maybe, based on what you said could we determine whether this was done in 1963 as versus 1995 for Groden's work.

For instance the early SSTV had this kind of resolution :

"The concept of SSTV was introduced by Copthorne Macdonald[1] in 1957–58.[2] He developed the first SSTV system using an electrostatic monitor and a vidicon tube. In those days it seemed sufficient to use 120 lines and about 120 pixels per line to transmit a black-and-white still picture within a 3 kHz phone channel. First live tests were performed on the 11 Meter ham band – which was later given to the CB service in the US. In the 1970s, two forms of paper printout receivers were invented by hams. "

The two frames I posted from the Bell film (not the same image) to demonstrate Part A and Part B interlacing have by a non-scientific count of about 60 green pixel lines in Part A and 60 red  pixel lines lines in Part B.  And, there seems to be about 120 pixels per line.  Does this suggest 1960's tech rather than a 1995 tech that would be used by Robert Groden?

I would appreciate your analysis and thanks again.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×