David G. Healy

Chris, Better yet, I suspect MPI, when they created the NEW and IMPROVED Z-film for DVD release, they probably took their finished assembly of the 3, or 4x5trannies of the NARA in-camera original Z-frames, created a Z-film output .mov (digital file format-Quicktime) file rated at 18.3fps. Created another file off of the original .mov (Quicktime, in After Affects say) output that file to 30fps .mov which became the DVD master dupe file. Interpolating is one of the reasons you see when "stepping" through the frames, double frames (in places--determined by formula and algorithm) between original (alleged original in-camera) Zapruder frames. Your question: take your 18.3 frame digital file piece into a program like Adobe After Effects, tell it in (the movie sequence output window) to render you a version of the file at 24fps... I doubt the untrained eye will notice much slowdown (the Z-film is a short piece and your adding 6 additional frames per original film run-time second) in the final product, but what you WILL notice, when you step through it frame by frame is copies of original frames added to the piece. And yes, this is interpolation between frames. Definition of INTERPOLATE transitive verb 1 : to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter b : to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation 2 : to insert between other things or parts 3 : to estimate values of (data or a function) between two known values

When this dog & pony show is over can you please get back Zapruder filmframe alteration which may prove a shot from the front, please? I doubt Calli here being hailed as the 2nd coming of lone nutterism and the LHO did it all by his lonesome crowd is gonna help the true preservers of Dealey Plaza Zapruder film record... Time to move on and deal with what's in front of us. A possible matte on the back of JFK's head!

process is called EXTRAPOLATION -or- extrapolate: wanna change a films speed (fps) to a slower speed, a computer software algorithm will create/output "tween'ers". Used frequently these days, especially in commercials used extensively in space/animation flicks -- technique dates back to the 40's utilized with optical printers

good for you young lady, nice to see a bit of moderator magic coming to the rescue of a newbie.... carry on!

search is your friend Mr. Robertson, your questions raise subject matter dealt with at least 20000 times, in 200 different venues. Perhaps you should explain to us your interest in this subject. Are you writing a book, doing a thesis, cable tv producer, concerned citizen wanting to see delayed justice served, another voice wandering in the democratic darkness or perhaps simply wanting Dr. Thompson's autograph and trying to impress? This forum use to have a requirement that ALL participants post a biography. Did that requirement slide with you? Just curious. All without insult too! I amaze myself sometimes. So, Craig Lamson help C.A.Robertson out, let him know the lone nut, rules of the road... he's a newbie.

"I see it, just believe me..." NOW you sound like the Warren Commission and LBJ, "believe it..." so gird'em up Lucy, the Z-film alteration camp has woken the nutters up, AGAIN! Don't bury your collective, LHO-lone nut head in the sand! So what else is new.... glad to see Mr. Block isn't falling for the attacks on him... its not the messenger Craig, Dr. Thompson, you have access to the same 35mm film as the Hollywood group, what's the matter?

thank you for posting this. DHealy

film emulsion? irrelevant dude.... it's what the 3rd generation NARA provided film contains, focus--you're dancing mightly craig, wonder why... 8mm Kodak film, it is what it is, and you're stuck with it... perhaps you should direct your frustrations at NARA for providing 3rd generation 35mm content? Or go find Rollie... better yet get a 3rd generation copy of your own (but, I suspect you already have it)....you're not getting much traction here. HMI's? lmao passe man, seems you're out of touch with 'grip' equipment-location work, too

No it doesn't... do some house cleaning here, where and WHEN does Z-film inter-sprocket imagery first appear to the public? Whether as published (if ever) in LIFE magazine or, even as viewed (if ever) by the Warren Commission? If the Warren Commission never were presented with or saw inter-sprocket imagery, there's no need for the film alterationists to fret.... even for a year, 10 years, 30 years.... Ya think those possible, pesky film alerationists would get it figured out as to how to do sprocket alteration in say 25 years, for instance? I do! Where's your faith for those in our craft? Surely you can problem solve in post, eh? No dave that's YOUR game. The question concerns the BLOCK theory. One and done, the first weekend. Please try again NEXT TIME.... Block theory? Try again? Hell man you've been at this photo-film battle for 10+ years now.... lmao, ya did better with the Moorman 5 canard! Another PRO and his professional opinion and evaluation chiming in. So tell me, are DP film-photo purists still under the illusion there's NO tainted evidence in this case? The murder unfolded exactly as the WC stated in their report in '64? You're not ticked off cause you haven't seen the 3rd generation, 4K frame we're talking about there are you craig? Even without seeing that frame, I know, YOU know, exactly what is said here. Time to do the grunt work there craig... best regroup... One and done? Nah, just another brick in the road... Yea dave, the BLOCK theory. PLEASE learn to read prior to posting. You don't have first clue as to what I have or have not seen/measured dave. And quite frankly you won't know until I decide to tell you. Third generation negative taken from a second generation 2383 PRINT? LMAO! Gotta love that increased D-max.... rock on dave, Of course craig, I have no conception as to what you've seen, or not seen, however one can assume by your dance here this past week, YOU have NOT seen the 4K imagery discussed in this thread those that have, can understand your apprehension. Possibly a game changer! Is it a 10 ton elephant sitting in the middle of the 6th floor museum? I doubt it, but, its surely an issue that needs to be addresses by the DP film-photo purists.... TIP for the craigster: for under a grand (perhaps a bit more these days) you can get the same 3rd generation 35mm Zapruder film from NARA, yes folks NARA. Get it in the hands of a BlackMagic-DiVinci system film colorist or, a competent Rank-Cintel operator. quote on: ...Zapruder Camera Original 8mm > NARA 35mm Interneg > NARA 35mm Interpos > Our Dupe Neg... quote off what don't you understand Craig?

No it doesn't... do some house cleaning here, where and WHEN does Z-film inter-sprocket imagery first appear to the public? Whether as published (if ever) in LIFE magazine or, even as viewed (if ever) by the Warren Commission? If the Warren Commission never were presented with or saw inter-sprocket imagery, there's no need for the film alterationists to fret.... even for a year, 10 years, 30 years.... Ya think those possible, pesky film alerationists would get it figured out as to how to do sprocket alteration in say 25 years, for instance? I do! Where's your faith for those in our craft? Surely you can problem solve in post, eh? No dave that's YOUR game. The question concerns the BLOCK theory. One and done, the first weekend. Please try again NEXT TIME.... Block theory? Try again? Hell man you've been at this photo-film battle for 10+ years now.... lmao, ya did better with the Moorman 5 canard! Another PRO and his professional opinion and evaluation chiming in. So tell me, are DP film-photo purists still under the illusion there's NO tainted evidence in this case? The murder unfolded exactly as the WC stated in their report in '64? You're not ticked off cause you haven't seen the 3rd generation, 4K frame we're talking about there are you craig? Even without seeing that frame, I know, YOU know, exactly what is said here. Time to do the grunt work there craig... best regroup... One and done? Nah, just another brick in the road...

No it doesn't... do some house cleaning here, where and WHEN does Z-film inter-sprocket imagery first appear to the public? Whether as published (if ever) in LIFE magazine or, even as viewed (if ever) by the Warren Commission? If the Warren Commission never were presented with or saw inter-sprocket imagery, there's no need for the film alterationists to fret.... even for a year, 10 years, 30 years.... Ya think those possible, pesky film alerationists would get it figured out as to how to do sprocket alteration in say 25 years, for instance? I do! Where's your faith for those in our craft? Surely you can problem solve in post, eh?

I never expected an "invite" nor do I need it. This is very big world. You don't think htey have the only game do you? Someone from Ascent Media...Opps DELUXE ( they REALLY should change the registration of their IP address} knows who I am. Good for them. I think they will know me quite well by the time this concludes. Gotta wonder WHY it takes these pros TWO years to prove this if its all so simple? I gotta think getting it wrong and being PROVEN wrong might be a bit of a career killer for certain Hollywood types. Yea, given this rush of "invites" it appears the fear IS PALPABLE. Anyways I digress. Back to the subject you are trying SO hard to evade.... Lay it out for us in detail. Simple equipment, VERY little time... How DO you put it together AND deal with the inter sprocket images? The ELEPHANT in the room for alterationists. LMAO! They know of you? Why praytell would they even care? There's no challenge from your part, it is, what it is! Ya can't wish this away. "...this concludes..." what concludes? LMAO! Evade? Ever ask yourself why, when a Hollywood compositor/animator posts a professional opinion concerning the Z-film there a rush of Z-film purist denial and overabundance of unknowing... 2 years? Nothing that I know of has changed since I saw the frame, that was 18+ months ago... A career killer? Whose career, whose? btw, if you saw what I saw, understood simple compositing techniques, you'd know, KNOW inter-sprocket imagery has no bearing on this simple alteration--

Dr. Thompson a simple response to your post is: after 12 years no competent investigator with even a modicum of knowledge concerning the Zapruder film and understands what the consequences of film alteration would have on case evidence and investigations, especially during and after 2001, trusts what the 6th floor mausoleum has to say, or display for public consumption concerning this very specific topic. In fact, there's 16+million reasons why. For instance: inadequately explained film breaks, frame transposition and or reversal, the MPI disaster/pr (the final say, LMAO!), the horrible state of affairs and condition concerning the Z-film and the 3 optical film prints condition known during late 1990's and stored at NARA. Let's not fail to mention what the American taxpayer forked out for these national treasures (sic). So, why study latter-day trannies when you can study a direct (3rd generation film) copy off the in-camera original (per NARA), that very same in-camera original that's been stated as and WC testimony shows: that the WC and their staff screened the original Z-film in February 1964? The WC surely didn't screen trannies reassembled into a coherent 8mm whole. Frankly, when it comes to this issue no one I know cares what the 6th floor professes to have. They have homegrown bias and thorough marketing skills--simple as that... believe as you wish, but regurgitating that same old crap advances nothing.

so... its YOU that needs to see and believe, ah-ha... well, don't wait for an invite, you've kinda burnt that bridge, I think... so I doubt an invite is imminent for you... as I said earlier: Dr. Thompson should take a peek, after all it's not far from his stomping grounds... And all this current bloviation is pure lone nut distraction, AND mis-direction. Perhaps this latest DP film-photo purist attitude is simply a bit of not wanting to look at what, perhaps a new reality, ya think? Dr. Thompson seeing it? Well, then and only then can the Dealey Plaza film-photo purists take the claim under advisement, THEN investigate... till then... fear of it is palpable. In fact, ever since D. Horne brought it to the forefront. What? Possibly two shooters in DP, a conspiracy -- oh-my! Not going to go away, friend. And the LHO 'did it all by his lonesome' crowd scrambling going on here, is telling!

No Dave, you miss the point as usual. You are waving your hands. The is a VERY specific case as detailed by BLOCK. Now instead of waving your hands, point us step by step, in the time frame alloted by BLOCKS's theory. Lets review.. BLOCK says: "This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand." Take a STAB at it Dave, and COMMIT for once. Not that I'm holding my breath YOU will actually commit to ANYTHING but the wild waving of hands... hold your breath? LMAO! Waved my hands 12 years ago, Craig. The 'What IF'S' if you recall, if you need a refresher you can always take a peek at your well worn copy of The Great Zapruder Film HOAX, there's a chapter someplace in there, by me, you might just find enlightening Mr. Block is correct: "This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.". Especially, when it comes to hiding a blowout wound to the back of the president's head already in shadow. I understand the possible angst displayed in this thread, can't have Oswald shooting from in front off and from the rear of, at the same time.... simple as that. The film evaluation-overview (from a Hollywood colorist-film post professional standpoint) done recently in Hollywood has an undeniable legend. Perhaps Dr. Thompson SHOULD take a peek, I understand he has an invite... Further, I think a first year 1963-64 vintage animation stand artist-technician could of accomplished what's being alluded to here with a crayon! Not rocket science, Craig!

Please tell us how you deal with the inter-sprocket images in this theory. considering Z-film inner sprocket imagery was published later -- irrelevant for LIFE's 1963-64-65 use of published Z-film frames.... btw, the "theory" in reality is called optical film printing techniques, I believe you've been made well aware of Society of Motion Picture Engineers (now Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and their 1930-on publications covering optical film printing, yes? Techniques seem as old as Methusla... I'm well aware David, but this IS theory, that is the so called alteration as described by Block. You wanna take a stab at it? hello there Craig.... yes, I did back in 2003, remember... aerial image transfers, optical film printing, animation frame stands, 8mm-to-35mm film blowups, 35mm to 8mm reductions, experienced glass painters, the best film matte painters, etc... Makes not one wit of difference where in the frame "things" ah, need to be ah, "fixed"! Inner frame area, sprocket hole area... plenty of time to work either area... shed your image mechanic, technocrat jacket, get back to that creative-studio 'think' mode that makes getting the right pic-film happen -- and you're there... A case in point, how was the MPI DVD frames assembled? How did the production house get all those **NEW** MPI versions of the Z-film assembled, the MPI film frame rate set and adjusted for their various versions of the Z-film, color corrected, etc...? After Effects or in-house software of like fashion, that's how... what would of taken days, weeks, months in optical film labs is done today in minutes or hours with the help of After Effects or other like proprietary software packages... If you know Adobe After Effects (originally called COSA After Effects, a computer software image commposite-layer program for the uninitiated) which, by-the-way, damn near single hand, over the course of the past 15 years, put the entire worldwide film optical printing business out of business --with a little help from advances in computer and CPU power, of course. Today's Adobe After Effects and yesterday's COSA After Effects are based on creating the simplest of film titles to most complex optical film composite and advanced layering techniques.... Software package producers like Adobe and computer hardware giants like APPLE worked hand-n-glove with Hollywood film industry and commercial broadcast television program providers in developing faster, cheaper, less labor intensive ways of doing the post production film industry business....

Please tell us how you deal with the inter-sprocket images in this theory. considering Z-film inner sprocket imagery was published later -- irrelevant for LIFE's 1963-64-65 use of published Z-film frames.... btw, the "theory" in reality is called optical film printing techniques, I believe you've been made well aware of Society of Motion Picture Engineers (now Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and their 1930-on publications covering optical film printing, yes? Techniques seem as old as Methusla...

Dr. Thompson, Zapruder film alteration (whatever the degree) debate is as with so many other things concerning this case (so-called) evidence-debate is merely a pointer towards possible CONSPIRACY. For clearheaded thinking individuals there's no need for any bad guy, "mysterious intelligence outfit..." Let's just, simply say, keep those assassination debate(s) fire stooked! Focus on case nuance, avoid the big, number one question. Did in fact a conspiracy take the life of JFK? Continued conspiracy debate is great for the turnstiles at the 6th floor mausoleum, a few select book publishers, and a whole lot of author-nutter-conspiracists... In my opinion, a lone nut dog & pony show! There's no mystery at all! So here's a simple question for you: What would of happened in 1963-64 if, IF the Warren Commission, and I stress the word IF determined a conspiracy caused JFK's death? Now THAT is something to wonder about.

good news, Monk....

But you're more than a conservative -- you're a rabid Kennedy-hater. With an agenda. Nice to see you contradict your earlier denial. Something about fantasy and reality, was it? Now we'll see Craig Lamson's true talent -- blowing smoke while back-pedaling. To add to the discussion, I'm posting two thumbnails here, both cropped to (a) focus on the back of the head and (b ) be small enough to permit posting here. These are crops of Z-321 and Z-323. To me, it seems clear that the back of the head has been darkened. I'm leery of the word "patch" because that implies a quasi rectangular area with very sharp borders--i.e., either one is "inside" the "patch" or "outside" of it. l'm not sure exactly how this was done--just that the back of the head appears to have been darkened, in the general area where the Dallas medical team saw an exit wound. Also, please note: Jackie has facial features in these two frames. Only in frame 317 does it appear that she has none at all. Perhaps Mr. Lamson can address this matter of why Jackie appears to have lost all facial features in frame 317. Craig, I know you're an expert in all matters optical, anatomical, and political, so perhaps you can venture a guess, or a hypothesis. For example: 1) The Dealey Plaza "bird" hypothesis At the same time as a large bird flew overhead (or some other celestial phenomenon occurred) casting a dark shadow on the back of Kennedy's head (in beautiful sunlit Dealey Plaza, at "high noon"). Moreover, Jackie was so shocked at what she was witnessing that the blood simply drained from her face, and so all facial detail disappeared--but for just one film frame. But then, within just a few eighteenths of a second, everything changed, and --voila--Jackie "regain composure" and facial features returned! Moreover, this occurred during the same general period where dozens of witnesses thought the car slowed --and at least one dozen said it stopped completely. (2) The Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis Dealey Plaza was like the Bermuda Triangle...and so all sorts of weird and essentially inexplicable phenomena occurred at the time JFK was shot. A dark cloud was cast on the back of JFK's head, while at the same time dozens of people thought the car stopped, and at the same time, Jackie, staring in shocked disbelief, simply lost her facial features for a brief eighteenth of a second. Moreover, the Z film mysteriously doesn't show the same head wounds that the Dallas medical team reported five minutes later, but, inexplicably, shows wounds closer to what the Bethesda observers saw 6 hours later. Of course, this couldn't be part of a plot to alter the body (and imagery of the body)--perish the thought. Rather, the Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis "explains everything." Again, these are only suggestions. Far be it for me to interfere with the free reign of anyone's expertise. So I do invite you to exercise yours, and explain the absence of facial features on Jackie in the Z frame numbered Z-317, whereas her features "returned" by frames 321 and 323 (as well as the other matters mentioned above, if you're so inclined.) DSL 1/12/12; 9:50 PM PST Los Angeles, CA PLEASE NOTE: In the thumbnails below. . Z -323 is on the left; Z-321 is on the right. Frankly, I think the best move at this time would be to get to Dr. John Costella (if he has the time and the inclination), the Hollywood 4K scans of the entire Z-film, and D.Lifton's 4K scans of the entire Z-film for his 'professional' evaluation. Not rocket science, folks. Further, based on this thread content, 4k digital frames off of a 1st (Lifton's) and a 3rd (Hollywood group) generation 35mm positive prints of the alleged in-camera Zapruder 8mm film currently stored at NARA (National Archives). Do we need a new thread for this side of the discussion?

I see dave wants to play bait and switch too. Must be an epidemic of "I can't prove the patch is a patch so I'll try another approach". nah.... now you're changing the subject, mis-direct a tad if you will. If the patch is there, the original Z-film has been altered... if the same "patch" (I like convienent artwork touch-up) is NOT on the alleged Zapruder in-camera original currently held at NARA... ya gotta a huge problem guy.... I saw the discussed images many months ago -- been watching WCR, Z-film non-alteration theorists, LHO did it all by his lonesome adherents dance mightly since then... Nice to see you in overdrive... bait-n-switch? don't need it!

The only ones 'waltzing" here are the 'its a patch" crew. "I see it, just believe me" ROFLMAO! You can do better than that dave. course I can Craig... you're no moron, you understand the implications that Oswald (if NOT the patsy) was not working alone, thus, a conspiracy murdered JFK. You do understand the political-operational cancer THAT created for this country wayback in '63 don't ya? Living the lie for political expediency, for the good of the country if you will (and I'm sure there is some basis for that position)? OUCH! If that's the case what's your take on rooting out the issue? THEN move on? Ya think the Red, White and Blue will collapse or something? I certainly don't! We're much bigger and better than that!

How dense can you be Fetzer? The question is not IF there is a shadow/patch on the back of JFK's head. Sheesh, get up to speed. chill dude... you can't waltz around -or- sidestep this one... tis what happens when you live by WCR faith ALONE

**IF** true, that Z-frame proves conspiracy murdered JFK... LHO could not of fired from in front of AND from the TSBD 6th floor at the same time.... hmm, I was not aware the archival film frame I saw in LA, NARA upgraded to 3rd generation!

All the above is meagre hearsay as far as this forum is concerned, until you can provide evidence that all of the above is as you say it is. At the moment, the Hollywood 7 studies are just a propoganda rumour. You are normally not one to hold back evidence, what's the problem in this instance? All Z-film related postings here are mere hearsay and opinions dude. Unless you, of course, spend your time sitting in the archives gazing.... This thread has new, recent "professional input", unlike yours and some other uninformed "opinions". Without professional chops, I'm afraid your opinion drops to the bottom of the pile... Now imagine this: folks that really do understand Photoshop, AfterEffects, film and photo image composition, and manipulation are monitoring this thread... Plenty of folks have seen the Hollywood Z-film images -- professional film colorists AND matte artists **KNOW** what they're looking at.... So.... until you can provide Z-film authenticity and in-camera original verification (which you can't and/or won't do) you're simply advancing old news, old news that's had a thousand holes blown into it over the past 10 years (especially the last 10 years)... Old news advanced by the same DP history preservers of yore (for 45 years now)... What's fascinating is those very preservers of DP history and adherents don't seem to enjoy the advances we've made in the image technology field... maybe we should let them in on 3D commercial film making... Learn to read, David. I didn't express an opinion, I expressed the fact that the alleged Hollywood 7 studies are null and void on this forum. What's the problem with releasing the study? Is it deliberately being held back for profiteering in a 2013 farce publication maybe? Just wondering. Oh, you are right about one thing though, there has been professional input on this thread, from Craig Lamson,and Craig Lamson Only, the rest haven't a clue, and I know you know it...Carry On Dave. I can understand your envy, Dunc. Being invited to comment on certain imagery is a mark of respect for ones abilities... ah, peer review if you will, something Hollywood folks deal with on a daily basis.... Plenty of photog wannabes around, as your aware anyone can take a good picture these days, digital cameras are virtually idiot-proof.... manipulating the images, now that's another story..... Guess you guys will just have to wait for a report, perhaps 2013, maybe sooner, maybe never at all... frankly I was stunned in 2010 when I saw one of the images, takes a lot to stun me dude -- and rest assured, select, credible investigators in the JFK assassination arena have already, and a few soon will see them.... I doubt a related study image will find its way to your lone nut supported website -- but who knows, they're not mine!