Chris Davidson

Just to follow up on this new frame comparison, it appears there is a problem with the aspect ratio as well. As far as I know, we are dealing with 8mm film at its origin. The conversion process used from there, can and does vary. But film is film (plastic) and we should be able to get it back to the same size for comparison, even if the aspect ratio must change. This latest comparison reminds me of the problem with black-hat man. Yet, now we're dealing with frames from 2 different films. The resized frames are supplied for anyone to take a crack at it. Maybe you can get it closer. But it appears the in-frame image is the same size. Anamorphic lenses!!!! chris

Bill, I've watched the MPI documentary many times. They go into detail about converting the 8mm frames into 4x5 transparencies. Same lens, same exposure and same frame support set-up. They also scan the finished transparencies back into digital form. I'm comparing 3 frames from the same film process. Maybe the film wasn't flat, would that be a good excuse? How about a valid explanation for the size disparity? It's a shame that Groden wasn't able to include the sprocket holes into his reproductions. Apples to apples comparison's is what I'm looking for, and 3 MPI frames compared to each other is what I have previously provided. Maybe a comparison among films with the sprocket holes included would be of value. For instance, if I were to supply frames from those different versions, and found an anomaly, what would this mean? chris

Jan, I think "black-hat" man is problematic. Here he is with constraints around him. Does his size change (along with the people to his left) or is this an optical illusion? chris P.S. If you contact me by email, I will send you a link to the Zfilm. chris@3125.us

Jan, To add a little more. A dry run (no film) on full wind goes 70 seconds for me. So with film resistance, I believe we're in the same ballpark. There is a window near the crank handle which displays the wording (Full Wind) when you wind to that point. You also feel the resistance in winding. According to the camera manual, full wind will shoot about 15 feet of film. The camera is suppose to run at 16 FPS in normal mode. chris

"Assuming Zapruder did switch the camera off and on between frames 132 and 133, he has managed to keep it in a near perfect locked-off position. In physical process terms, even if you know the camera intimately and can hit the on/off switch "blind", the temptation is still to move the camera when switching it on and off. Did Zapruder have anyone with him who could have very carefully switched the camera off and on thus enabling him to preserve his handheld stance?" Jan, Very insightful. If others will take a look at the initial part of the film, without the limo in it, they will notice somebody panning back and forth. (frames 1-132) As if they are filming for footage, not objects. When the film gets to about frame 130, and we continue it through to 133, which means a stop in between these two frames, the frames seem to be in continuity. Notice how the cop cycle from before the stop and front of the limo are in the same spot in these frames. Yet there is a break in filming. So he happened to stop filming the motorcycle, and started filming the limo at the same spot. Also how the Stemmons sign continues in line. chris

Mark, This animation is 3 frames apart. There is more of a difference in movement in these 3 frames, than 101/167. Which means in less than a third of a second, I wasn't able to keep my camera as steady as Zapruder, who stopped filming, started filming and from frame 133 to 167 got his camera position exactly within 1 degree CCW to where he was when he stoppped filming. I believe in coincidences, just not this time. chris

"All indications are that the image on the existing Zapruder film were filmed with the camera set to maximum zoom, the Telephoto setting of the camera. Not only does the angle of view support this, but also the fact that the images extend so far into the inter-sprocket area." "The lack of focus in the leaves is consistent with the lens set at Telephoto." "If Zapruder had the lens set to a 15 mm focal length, and with an f-stop between f8 and f11, anything farther than 3 to 4 feet away from the film in his camera would be in focus. Since the nearby bush, 6 feet away, was not in focus when the background objects were, it indicates Zapruder must have set the lens to a longer focal length than 15 mm." DEPTH OF FIELD COMPARISON BELL & HOWELL 414PD MOVIE CAMERA WITH LENS AT UNIVERSAL FOCUS SETTING NEAR DISTANCES FOCAL LENGTH 9 mm 13 mm 27 mm F-STOP Wide Angle Normal Telephoto ------ ---------- ------ --------- f1.8 5' 5" 8' 9" 15' f2 5' 2" 8' 5" 15' f2.8 4' 6'10" 14' f4 3' 5' 4" 12' f5.6 2' 2" 4' 2" 11' f8 1' 7" 3' 1" 8' 9" f11 1' 2" 2' 4" 7' f16 10" 1' 8" 5' 8" f22 7" 1' 3" 4' 5" "Anthony Marsh claims that the continuity of ghost images between the sprocket holes makes it virtually impossible for frames to be deleted without detection. Related work by Roland Zavada demonstrate that the intersprocket image anomalies are the natural result of filming with a Bell & Howell 414PD camera, the model Zapruder used." First you tell us Zavada is the expert on the workings of the B/H 414. And his conclusion is the film was not altered. Well his conclusion also is: ghost images appear only on TELEPHOTO setting. (Might reread post 55)It's from Zavada's report. Now you tell us that the telephoto setting was not used in the Zfilm, but we have ghost images. And lastly, you now refer to Anthony Marsh for reading about the workings of this camera. Did Zavada fall to the back of the line? I'll just keep posting my comparisons, and let others make up their minds. You consult the experts and get back to us. Preferably with a visual comparison. Someday, maybe you'll supply us with a non-telephoto ghost image frame, but I'm not holding my breath. Talk about irresponsible!!! chris P.S. Anthony Marsh quote: Bill, We're still waiting for your source to tell us what lens setting the Zfilm was shot at it. Remember, you've already provided us with the information that Zapruder's recollection was wrong, and he wasn't using the telephoto setting. So that's 2 that believe it. Your source and you. Anyone else care to join that conclusion. Still Waiting and Waiting and Waiting. chris

Part 2 of the segmented film. Remember, the car is going Downhill. chris

ts irresponsible and most reckless in my opinion for you to make such alleged earth shattering claims of alteration without consulting a single expert(s) so to be sure that YOU have your facts straight. You do realize that there are just as many smart people in the world who believe there was a conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy as there are who think it was the work of one man, so I look forward to see who all you are able to sell your great finds to. I mean, if you are so sure of alteration, then you should have no problem getting such a great find out to the appropriate experts so they can validate your claim. I predict that not one expert will agree with you, but also that they will quickly spot your flaws and this is why such nonsense only lives on a forum such as this. Bill[/b] "All indications are that the image on the existing Zapruder film were filmed with the camera set to maximum zoom, the Telephoto setting of the camera. Not only does the angle of view support this, but also the fact that the images extend so far into the inter-sprocket area." "The lack of focus in the leaves is consistent with the lens set at Telephoto." "If Zapruder had the lens set to a 15 mm focal length, and with an f-stop between f8 and f11, anything farther than 3 to 4 feet away from the film in his camera would be in focus. Since the nearby bush, 6 feet away, was not in focus when the background objects were, it indicates Zapruder must have set the lens to a longer focal length than 15 mm." DEPTH OF FIELD COMPARISON BELL & HOWELL 414PD MOVIE CAMERA WITH LENS AT UNIVERSAL FOCUS SETTING NEAR DISTANCES FOCAL LENGTH 9 mm 13 mm 27 mm F-STOP Wide Angle Normal Telephoto ------ ---------- ------ --------- f1.8 5' 5" 8' 9" 15' f2 5' 2" 8' 5" 15' f2.8 4' 6'10" 14' f4 3' 5' 4" 12' f5.6 2' 2" 4' 2" 11' f8 1' 7" 3' 1" 8' 9" f11 1' 2" 2' 4" 7' f16 10" 1' 8" 5' 8" f22 7" 1' 3" 4' 5" "Anthony Marsh claims that the continuity of ghost images between the sprocket holes makes it virtually impossible for frames to be deleted without detection. Related work by Roland Zavada demonstrate that the intersprocket image anomalies are the natural result of filming with a Bell & Howell 414PD camera, the model Zapruder used." First you tell us Zavada is the expert on the workings of the B/H 414. And his conclusion is the film was not altered. Well his conclusion also is: ghost images appear only on TELEPHOTO setting. (Might reread post 55)It's from Zavada's report. Now you tell us that the telephoto setting was not used in the Zfilm, but we have ghost images. And lastly, you now refer to Anthony Marsh for reading about the workings of this camera. Did Zavada fall to the back of the line? I'll just keep posting my comparisons, and let others make up their minds. You consult the experts and get back to us. Preferably with a visual comparison. Someday, maybe you'll supply us with a non-telephoto ghost image frame, but I'm not holding my breath. Talk about irresponsible!!! chris P.S. Anthony Marsh quote: "And I have no idea what kind of lens was used for this photo, while Zapruder's camera was set on telephoto"

Multiple Exposure Areas - Perforation-Like Images Within the perforation area, adjacent to a perforation above or below or both, an image occurs that resembles a perforation. The images simply represent multiple, i.e. double exposure of the area of the "excess" aperture cutout for the intermittent claw action. Above the upper and below the lower perforation hole, the excess aperture cutout allows an image to be formed concurrent with the primary image. When the succeeding image is formed it adds light to that previously formed causing multiple or double exposure. The shape that this image area takes, and importantly whether it exists at all, is directly dependent on the size of the exit window of the lens based on the chosen focal length together with the influence of scene content. Not all exposure conditions produce the phenomena, however telephoto in bright lighting conditions does. With blank frames between some test target exposures, the phenomenon is visible and multiple exposures adjacent to the perforations are easily seen. (See photo below.) Bill, this is from Zavada's report on the B/H 414. I hope you or your source can supply us with ghost imaged frames from something other than a telephoto shoot. chris

Here's another comparison with the lens not on telephoto. The red arrow points to the X in the road. Lot of area missing in that Zframe. chris

How about some factual data in support of your claim ... you and Healy both will make claims as if based on fact, but you have not any data to support what you say. I want to share what another researcher said to me about the foolishness some of you bring to the topic .... "Poor Jack White, he thinks Bill Newman should be visible in the Z film, yet he has no idea how tall or short the man is. Bill is alive and well " " " " and he's even listed in the telephone book where he lives within about 50 miles of Jack. A real researcher would ask Bill for his height and then test people of various heights in Newman's position. But of course no real researchers support the alteration theory. Then there's Chris Davidson, who selects from among a few hundred frames just two frames that happen to show similar views and then claims similar views cannot possibly happen. Circular logic at its most ridiculous. Then Chris compares his own test film with Zapruder's and finds they don't match; what he actually found was that Zapruder's memory of having his camera set on full zoom was not an accurate recollection." Is it any wonder that the tabloids won't even touch the claims found from the alteration crowd. Bill Miller Bill, That's very interesting. Would you or your source care to inform the rest of us what len's setting the Zfilm actually was set on. No, I tell you what. I'll show you what happens when it's on a wider angle setting. Oops!!!! What happened to the FOREGROUND? Bill I guess Jack, David, countless others and I were all wrong when assuming the camera was on telephoto. BUT, We sure were right about the ALTERATIONS that were done. chris

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 Lee, I do have segments shot at a wider angle setting with the B/H 414. If I follow you correctly, I could try enlarging it to match the telephoto setting and go from there. Will need some guidance from you. chris

I suspect 10 seconds, at least.... sufficent time and unexposed film remain running at 18.3fps... (notice when Zapruder picked up limo, it was well past the turn onto Elm Street) as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing. -and- Millers: "I bet you didn't find anything showing David Healy altering Kodachrome II film." I have no idea what the xxxxx is insinuating. Next, I suspect he'll be dragging out a hotblock, glue and a razor blade, insisting he's got the craft down pat..... or perhaps he's under the same illusion the extant film was created between 8mm to 8mm optical film printing systems (which do not exist, btw). At one time Roland Zavada was under the same illusion, till I set him straight.... As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too! David, Interesting you should bring that 8mm to 35mm conversion process up. February 25: LIFE photo lab assistant chief Herbert Orth brought the original film to a meeting of Commission staff, FBI and Secret Service, and projected it several times. He volunteered to make 35mm transparencies, and by April produced three sets of 159 slides: for the FBI, Secret Service and the Commission, of frames 171 through 334. In the 1966 Life magazine photos, the ones with the sprocket holes, my guess is these were made from those 35mm transparencies. They already had them back in 1964 created by Life's lab assistant Orth. Why use anything else. How did I reach that conclusion. Frame 230 which they ran on the cover when scaled to fit my frames leaves mine a bit narrower. If I widen mine to fit, the aspect ratio becomes 1:37 to 1. What's the aspect ratio of 35mm film.? You got it, 1:37:1 Then size those to fit the MPI frames and the relationship between sprocket hole/frame content is a match. Your expertise and input is always appreciated, chris

Jan, This animation might give you a better idea, at least visually, of how ridiculous the Zframe centering is. It is the previous frame I posted for Jack, superimposed with Zframe 313. Sprocket holes line up, and frame size is the same, approx. Both shot with B/H 414 at the telephoto setting. Only my opinion of course, but I believe it speaks volumes. chris

Chris, can you cite a data source for your remarks? I don't buy the wall and other landmarks lining up and not the bushes. Did you not notice the spacing of the sunlight on the fence from the Hudson tree to the corner of the fence being different. Does not one small trunked tree show up beyond the Hudson tree from one picture to another ... I believe it does. In post #86 ... IMO ... running a flash clip faster than what the average eye can keep up with only conceals - not reveals information. But even at that I can see the east-most wall of the pedestal turning - the notch in the wall changing, not to mention several other things, thus the angle that each camera man took his images at was different from the other. Bill, The data source is the frames themselves. The originals were supplied. Then they were sized to approx. fit each other. Sure the filmers were in different locations. The objects within move side to side. But the film angle is the same. Why not tell us what the difference in degrees is, in your opinion? chris

Jack, This is the only frame/frames I have of someone in front of the car. I believe this to be a little past the 313 spot. chris

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

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

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.

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.

Frank, I had the same thought too while I was working on it. The only thing I could think of, was to compare the MPI frames with frames from a lot earlier time. I chose the frames that were printed in the 1966 edition of Life magazine. They included the sprocket holes. Here are two different animations from two different frames. I see no differences between them. If this is a reasonable comparison. chris

Jack, My copy of the CBS special is poor quality B/W. Here is the best I have. I know it was broadcast in color, but someone else will have to supply that. chris

Michael, I can't say whether that is peculiar or not. The reason being, even with my B/H 414 movies I would get adjacent frames that were blurry. Jack, I'll post the Zapruder's for you next. Wanted to throw these photos out. They are composite time lapse frames of Zapruder's film and my film of a car traveling DOWNHILL on Elm St. I do believe there is a stark difference between the two. Remember, we're supposed to be filming a car going downhill. I've also created a Quicktime movie of these frames, but am trying to get it small/universal for all to see. chris

There are 2 frames in this animation. (101+167) Zapruder had stopped filming sometime between these frames. (If you believe so) I find it rather amazing when he started filming again and gets to frame 167, his camera position is a 1 degree counterclockwise difference, from where he was at frame 101. Again, what are the chances? You might take a look at solid objects that line up, one in particular is the black-hat gentleman in the foreground. It appears he's the most solid object out there. The sign would be another, primarily the pole. More to come chris