Frame #225

[David A. Bodner]

If you view the printed version of frame #225 of the Zapruder film in Wrone's recent book, my copy at least indicates a very vague (nearly invisible) streak of light angling down toward the car from the front. If real, it is of a length that would agree with an approximate range of exposure times for the Kodachrome II of possibly 1/60 or 1/120 second. The streak may well be an artifact.

I ordered, and have received and viewed, the digital DVD copy of the original. Checking frame #225 I do NOT see a definitive streak in that area, or anywhere else. There ARE two points of light which may be parts of that streak, but they may be spots on the grass or digitizing artifacts.

If these two spots are, indeed, part of the streak I see in the printed version, what puzzles me is that while the DVD is slightly superior quality to the print version, why would the two spots show up as part of a longer streak in the lower quality print and not the higher quality DVD?

If anyone else would like to check this in a print version of frame #225 (either Wrone's book or elsewhere), it is very hard to see the streak. The best lighting is needed. It works best held in direct sunlight, but with the sunlight NOT falling on YOU. The streak is just above the driver's side visor of the car and, if extended, the streak would intercept Gov. C's head.

The sunlight that day would be approximately at the correct angle to make a minimal reflection from a bullet possible in my opinion, although unlikely. My tentative conclusion is that this is an artifact of some sort, possibly in the digitizing/printing process.

But I would love to know if anyone else has ever noticed anything like this.

Regards,

Dave

[Jack White]

If you view the printed version of frame #225 of the Zapruder film in Wrone's recent book, my copy at least indicates a very vague (nearly invisible) streak of light angling down toward the car from the front. If real, it is of a length that would agree with an approximate range of exposure times for the Kodachrome II of possibly 1/60 or 1/120 second. The streak may well be an artifact.

I ordered, and have received and viewed, the digital DVD copy of the original. Checking frame #225 I do NOT see a definitive streak in that area, or anywhere else. There ARE two points of light which may be parts of that streak, but they may be spots on the grass or digitizing artifacts.

If these two spots are, indeed, part of the streak I see in the printed version, what puzzles me is that while the DVD is slightly superior quality to the print version, why would the two spots show up as part of a longer streak in the lower quality print and not the higher quality DVD?

If anyone else would like to check this in a print version of frame #225 (either Wrone's book or elsewhere), it is very hard to see the streak. The best lighting is needed. It works best held in direct sunlight, but with the sunlight NOT falling on YOU. The streak is just above the driver's side visor of the car and, if extended, the streak would intercept Gov. C's head.

The sunlight that day would be approximately at the correct angle to make a minimal reflection from a bullet possible in my opinion, although unlikely. My tentative conclusion is that this is an artifact of some sort, possibly in the digitizing/printing process.

But I would love to know if anyone else has ever noticed anything like this.

Regards,

Dave

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Dave.

You may not be aware that the Z film is not genuine, so anything seen in it

may or may not be genuine. For the latest information go to:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/

However, if you wish to pursue "bullet paths" in the film, the leading proponent

of that is Robert Morningstar. Try googling MORNINGSTAR ZAPRUDER BULLET

PATHS.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Hi, Dave.

You may not be aware that the Z film is not genuine, so anything seen in it

may or may not be genuine. For the latest information go to:

Hello, Dave. Jack likes to claim that anything he doesn't understand is then not genuine in his view. If you come across something that common sense didn't tell you otherwise, then feel free to bring it up on this forum and there are some of us who will try and explain why Jack is in error over the Zapruder film not being genuine. John Kennedy once said that a mistake is not a mistake unless you refuse to correct it. So much of what is written on the site Jack gave you has been shown to be in error, yet they don't change anything.

As far as the streak on a single film frame ... it can only be an artifact on a particular copy for a bullet moving at 2000fps will not be captured on a film running at 18fps. I would also question the reflective capabilities of lead.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

[David A. Bodner]

Hi Jack and Bill -

I have slowly come to the conclusion that the chain of evidence on the Zapruder film is very good. For instance, it is now apparent that the reversal of frames #313/314 was in the printed frames in the WCR and labeled wrong also. What a convenient way to show the head moving in the opposite direction from Newton's Law, even if the placement and labeling were, indeed, "mistakes."

As far as the 18.3 fps is concerned, that is a measure of frame edge to frame edge or center to center. 18.3 fps translates to 1/18.3 sec between the same frame edges (like the top edge of each) on adjcent frames, or ~55 ms.

The actual exposure time has to be considerably less than 55 ms in order to allow the film to move and come to a complete stop before the next frame is exposed. I'm assuming either 1/60 sec exposure (~17 ms) or 1/120 sec (~8 ms). For Kodachrome II I think this is a good guess, but I would love correction on that by someone who knows the f stop of the camera/lens and all that that would imply.

A bullet, which could be copper clad BTW and therefore very slightly reflective, travelling at 2000 fps would cover ~17 feet in 1/120 sec and would cover ~33 feet in 1/60 sec. The "streak" I can see on frame #225 in the printed version appears to be about 10 feet long, at least the part I perceive.

I must repeat that my conclusion is that it is an artifact of the printing process, based on the meager visual evidence I've seen. But it IS interesting.

And I thank each of you for you comments.

Dave

[David A. Bodner]

BTW, an additional thought or two. I do notice that Wrone, in his recent book on page 42, does mention that the bullet would travel about 100 feet between frames. However, the action on each frame takes place at the shutter speed, not the frame speed. And so my two figures of 33 feet or 17 feet do, indeed, sort of fit.

In fact, when a guess is made of the car speed and the fact that Zapruder was panning forward with the car, then about half of the blur image distance of any bullet from the front would be truncated downwards. In the case of 17 feet above, that would just about be cut in half to about 9 feet. My estimate of what I actually see is about 10 feet.

It IS sad that ~ 2/3 of the action we never DO see because it's when the shutter and/or protective gate is closed as the film travels unexposed between frames.

And, yes, I will read further and track down the f stop involved, if I can.

My working conclusion still is that's it's an artifact - that the only fit is coincidence. Unfortunately! ;-(

Dave

[Bill Miller]

It IS sad that ~ 2/3 of the action we never DO see because it's when the shutter and/or protective gate is closed as the film travels unexposed between frames.

And, yes, I will read further and track down the f stop involved, if I can.

My working conclusion still is that's it's an artifact - that the only fit is coincidence. Unfortunately!   ;-(

Dave

Dave - Look in Richard Trask's book "Pictures of the Pain" for there is some detailed information there that you may be looking for. Also, email Gary Mack at GMack@JFK.Org and he might have that information on hand.

As far as seeing a bullet passing though Zapruder's film - I say it is impossible to do. One could take silver bullets and fire them from a rifle and Zapruder's camera would never catch a glimpse of one IMO. A google search on high speed films may be of some help.

Bill

Edited February 8, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Hi Jack and Bill -

I have slowly come to the conclusion that the chain of evidence on the Zapruder film is very good.

Dave

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dave...apparently you did not follow my suggestion to check out:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/

It refutes your theory.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Hi Jack and Bill -

I have slowly come to the conclusion that the chain of evidence on the Zapruder film is very good.

Dave

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dave...apparently you did not follow my suggestion to check out:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/

It refutes your theory.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. It suggest a different theory however silly it might be.

I've wondered for the last year or so, since so much is made of the "scientific" nature of this work, exactly where is the basis for it? BY that I mean the all the groundwork like the test shots of the grid used to calibrate the pincushion removal? You do have those right? How about the formula for the actual removal, you do have that posted somewhere right? How about the test image of the grid after the removal? You have that posted somewhere right?

What about the data and formula for the optical transformations? Posted? How about the complete transformed images after transformation, not just the crops? Posted? How about your test images shots to provide proof of concept? Posted right?

What about your images taken to provide proof of concept on the panning and blur thing?

What about the images that you made to prove the image circle of the Z camera lens is too small? You have them posted, right?

Since this is a scientific "work" surely this stuff is posted and available for everyone to see...right.

Sorry to ask for so much but you see the "scientists" that make the only points in your work that are not just speculation and handwaving, have made a few fatal mistakes in the past like not understanding how a simple shadow works, argued against the principal of the lever, against the magnification and oh yea...that Moorman thing.

So excuse me while I wait to see all of the above posted so it can be reviewed before I buy into your latest grand scheme. The devil is in the details. You guys got any snowballs rolling downhill in there?

Oh, btw, a few other things are missing to make your theory complete. How about the names of those who "fabricated" the film? Where was it done? On what equipment exactly? On what family of film stocks? When? You do that that stuff posted, Right? How about your samples made on the same equipment to provide proof of concept? Surely you must have those...right? After all you guys "proved the film is a fake"....right?

[Pat Speer]

I just don't understand why the GOVERNMENT would fake a series of autopsy photos and home movies that so convincingly show that the President was killed by a conspiracy. I mean, what kind of GOVERNMENT would go out of its way to show the world that it's full of crud.

[Bill Miller]

Oh, btw, a few other things are missing to make your theory complete.  How about the names of those who "fabricated" the film?  Where was it done?  On what equipment exactly?  On what family of film stocks?  When?  You do that that stuff posted, Right?  How about your samples made on the same equipment to provide proof of concept?  Surely you must have those...right?  After all you guys "proved the film is a fake"....right?

If by making some of the most ridiculous mistakes ever observed by anyone that led to them thinking they had discovered photo and film fakery, then yes, they did prove the film was fake ... in their own minds! I recall early on when I pointed out that Moorman's camera was looking down over the top of the passing cycles windshields, which was impossible if White's claim was accurate and Mary Moorman had actually been standing in the street, White ignored it. To this day I am not sure if any of them ever grasped the significance of that observation. Then there was the gap recreation where Fetzer and White said they had the exact spot where Mary Moorman stood when she took her photograph. I believe Costella supported White's claim at that time, but I have since heard John has said privately that they were in error. So it becomes obvious to some why others do not show their work in full so it can be properly peer reviewed. It's little different than showing a cropped version of a photo where one claims they were deep in the forest of a vast wilderness because they know if you saw the entire photo that you would learn they were standing in the middle of Central Park. So give them a break, Craig - the other times they showed their work they were made to look pretty silly ... so one has to expect them to keep some secrets and not risk more embarrassment.

[David A. Bodner]

Hi Bill and others -

I plan on doing some of what you say when I get a chance.

Agreed, that it would take very high speed film and a very fast shutter speed to catch a bullet, frozen in flight. I've seen some of those kinds of images, staged under laboratory conditions.

But I'm talking about catching the track of a bullet as it blurs across about 10 feet while a frame is being exposed. I also doubt that that is possible - due to the lack of reflected brightness blurred out and attenuated over 10 feet.

Maybe sometime I can find a friend with a rifle and we might test out the particulars.

Dave