Zfilm Revisited

[Bill Miller]

That is untrue. Several years ago I voluntarily CHOSE to make no further presentations

at either Lancer nor COPA. One year, the two groups actually fought over me, with

one calling me a traitor because I said I would appear at the other. I actually chose

on the basis of Jim Fetzer being involved...not on the basis of either group. There was

no reason to appear at either group if I had NOTHING NEW to contribute.

LOL!!! It appears that someone forgot to tell Conway and Judge because the information that I posted came by way of both parties.

It is inappropriate to ridicule my education. I will stack up mine against yours anytime.

In high school, I never was graded less than "A" in any course. I graduated "with honors"

from TCU, having made only one "B"...as an undergraduate taking a grad course in CHAUCER.

I had made A's on all tests and assignments, so I asked the professor why I got a B.

His reply...you were my best student, but I reserve all my A's for my GRADUATE students.

That makes as much sense as some of the things said here.

Jack

I don't know of anyone who has ridiculed your education, but someone should maybe grade you on 'reading comprehension'. What you have since been graded on is 'photo interpretation' which you have earned an "F-" because of the poorly done alteration claims. It was at that point that the two groups mentioned above stopped 'fighting over you' as you put it.

Bill Miller

Edited May 8, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Live rounds being fired, and he doesn't miss a beat, filming. O.K. !!!

chris

I guess he had the same determination and/or other factors going for him as Altgens - Moorman - Nix and Bronson who all kept their focus on getting their images. I somehow feel that with the limo still up the street and Zapruder's attention focused on the area of Elm where the lead cycles and then the limo came into view just wasn't a big problem for the man. It was when Zapruder started turning his body as the limo was now passing left to right at a faster pan that would have been problematic with a man who had vertigo.

[Bill Miller]

I'm sure Bill knows, the B/H 414 lens selector is controlled by a thin metal rod which rotates clock/counterclockwise depending on which lens setting is chosen.

Of course, you could also tell us that Z used the power zoom button on top of the camera for control, but comparisons tells me it was still on telephoto.

And, when choosing the telephoto setting, you have to rotate that metal rod down until it STOPS, it's not as if it takes rocket science to accomplish this.

I just got to touch on this and share what little I observed when looking at the three Zapruder like cameras that I purchased. One of the things I noticed is that these were not precision instruments, but rather cheap cameras. On a full wind where the camera could not be forced another fraction of an inch ... one camera may run 58 seconds while another ran 66 seconds ... both wound as tight as they could go. So this brings into question that if these were cheaply made non-precision instruments ... even if two cameras were set on the same setting ... would that mean that the total area of the cameras field of view be identical in each??? I suspect that an inquiry into this matter would find that there is a good possibility of this not being the case. Have you any information on this possibility or is it that you never considered it???

Now, back to the original post #1.

Somebody starts filming, somebody stops filming, starts filming again and approx 34 frames later, within 1 degree, he is back in perfect alignment.

So let me see if I understand you correctly ... You find it odd that a camera with a shutter opening and closing 18 times per second and pointed in a certain direction ... that it should never reach the same plane it did at anytime during a 2 second interval - did I understand your logic correctly???

If I am correct, then I think that is an opinion of yours that cannot be proven to be flawless. You don't seem to pick consecutive frames or frames only a few frames apart, but instead you searched out two frames that were almost filmed on the same plane by a man who was jiggling his camera around. I cannot see your justification in your not considering the possibility of this happening.

If I have missed something or misunderstood your position, then I apologize in advance.

Bill

Edited May 8, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I'm sure Bill knows, the B/H 414 lens selector is controlled by a thin metal rod which rotates clock/counterclockwise depending on which lens setting is chosen.

Of course, you could also tell us that Z used the power zoom button on top of the camera for control, but comparisons tells me it was still on telephoto.

And, when choosing the telephoto setting, you have to rotate that metal rod down until it STOPS, it's not as if it takes rocket science to accomplish this.

I just got to touch on this and share what little I observed when looking at the three Zapruder like cameras that I purchased. One of the things I noticed is that these were not precision instruments, but rather cheap cameras. On a full wind where the camera could not be forced another fraction of an inch ... one camera may run 58 seconds while another ran 66 seconds ... both wound as tight as they could go. So this brings into question that if these were cheaply made non-precision instruments ... even if two cameras were set on the same setting ... would that mean that the total area of the cameras field of view be identical in each??? I suspect that an inquiry into this matter would find that there is a good possibility of this not being the case. Have you any information on this possibility or is it that you never considered it???

Now, back to the original post #1.

Somebody starts filming, somebody stops filming, starts filming again and approx 34 frames later, within 1 degree, he is back in perfect alignment.

So let me see if I understand you correctly ... You find it odd that a camera with a shutter opening and closing 18 times per second and pointed in a certain direction ... that it should never reach the same plane it did at anytime during a 2 second interval - did I understand your logic correctly???

If I am correct, then I think that is an opinion of yours that cannot be proven to be flawless. You don't seem to pick consecutive frames or frames only a few frames apart, but instead you searched out two frames that were almost filmed on the same plane by a man who was jiggling his camera around. I cannot see your justification in your not considering the possibility of this happening.

If I have missed something or misunderstood your position, then I apologize in advance.

Bill

ya might want to have Gary Mack get in here... You just made the case that the Zapruder extant film rated at 18.3fps is probably nonsense.... And to think your doing all this without my help.... amazing!

The chances of Zapruder picking up filming duplicating the same frame fov, is astronomical.

btw what does the (your) following quote mean: "If I am correct, then I think that is an opinion of yours that cannot be proven to be flawless." ?

[Chris Davidson]

So let me see if I understand you correctly ... You find it odd that a camera with a shutter opening and closing 18 times per second and pointed in a certain direction ... that it should never reach the same plane it did at anytime during a 2 second interval - did I understand your logic correctly???

Bill,

"Supposedly" Z stopped filming the lead motorcycles ( after frame 132) and started filming the limo at frame 133.

You know fully well there was a significant amount of time which lapsed between 132 and 133.

It is a lot longer than the 2 seconds you have mentioned.

As it is well known, the lead motorcycles came first, then Curry and the Limo followed.

If one takes a look at the Hughes film, they will see Curry's car was about a block ahead of the limo, which means the lead motorcycles in Z's film are even farther ahead.

Time between Curry and the Limo is approx 10 sec according to the running-time films.

Distance between lead motorcycles and limo much greater than 10 seconds.

We are led to believe Z stopped filming for some 20+ seconds and when he started filming again, he's 1 degree from perfection.

That would be the logic, which is illogical.

chris

Edited May 8, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

If a 2 frame (101+167) matched series is hard to swallow, how about a 12 frame series.

All frames on bottom have been rotated 1 degree CCW, and then superimposed over the top frames.

I think the odds have just Decreased tremendously for that handheld cameraman. IMO

I think you will have to click on the animation to play it, as it is quite large.

Enjoy.

chris

Edited May 8, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Jack White]

Great work, Chris!

Jack

[Robin Unger]

If a 2 frame (101+167) matched series is hard to swallow, how about a 12 frame series.

All frames on bottom have been rotated 1 degree CCW, and then superimposed over the top frames.

I think the odds have just Decreased tremendously for that handheld cameraman. IMO

I think you will have to click on the animation to play it, as it is quite large.

Enjoy.

chris

Hi Chris.

I was just watching your animation and what struck me is the fact that between frame 106-160 with the later frames slightly rotated 1-degree the Sighn seems to be rock solid.

It does not move at all. ?

This seems quite remarkable for a man with a hand held camera. ?

I am not sugesting alteration, but it does seem parculiar.

[Frank Agbat]

Interesting...

I'd like to see the study repeated with Z-frames from another source -- like the Groden frames, for example. We need to eliminate any MPI "magic" from the equation.

Of course, another possibility is that Z was steady because he never stopped filming...

In fairness, though, Chris -- you were not filming a President. No shots were fired while you were filming, and you don't have vertigo. Nevertheless. it remains an interesting observation that deserves serious consideration.

[Chris Davidson]

Frank,

This next set includes part of the adjacent frames, so I believe this is a different version than MPI's.

Also, I went ahead and paired up 2 photos from Groden,rotated 1 degree CCW and everything lines up.

Normally don't use Groden's frames because the sprocket holes aren't included.

But since I did, take a look at the black-hat man and the lady to his right.

The top frame has the side of his face washed out, while the lady's legs has a distinct flesh tone.

The bottom photo shows just the opposite.

But the kicker is black-hat man's hairline when the animation is playing.

His hairline moves, but the hat is perfectly still. Watch closely.

More problems with hat-man.

Please view all at full size.

chris

Edited May 9, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Frank Agbat]

Interesting and interesting! I've seen people stand in a fairly stoic fashion, but that takes the cake.

Thanks for repeating the exercise with different frames. It takes MPI shenanigans out of the picture (no pun intended).

If I were one given to suspicion, I'd examine the light area that seems to surround black-hat man's black hat...

[Chris Davidson]

LEADING into frames 160-165 approx (the alignment frames), there is an appearance of film damage at frame 154+157.

Why does Jackie's hat appear twice in frame 157?

Looks like 2 distinct individual hats, no blurring involved.

Another coincidence!!!!

chris

[Bill Miller]

If a 2 frame (101+167) matched series is hard to swallow, how about a 12 frame series.

All frames on bottom have been rotated 1 degree CCW, and then superimposed over the top frames.

I think the odds have just Decreased tremendously for that handheld cameraman. IMO

I think you will have to click on the animation to play it, as it is quite large.

Enjoy.

chris

I personally find nothing odd about someone having several background reference points to align their camera with and keeping their camera within a few degrees of the horizontal plane, especially when there is little to no panning required. What Zapruder didn't do was keep his left to right plane the same.

[Bill Miller]

Interesting and interesting! I've seen people stand in a fairly stoic fashion, but that takes the cake.

Thanks for repeating the exercise with different frames. It takes MPI shenanigans out of the picture (no pun intended).

If I were one given to suspicion, I'd examine the light area that seems to surround black-hat man's black hat...

There were subtle movements by those individuals, but looking for them in the wide frames won't make them easy to spot at first glance. As far as people standing along the curb without dancing around ... I find nothing suspicious about that, nor does it seem that any of those witnesses who have ever seen themselves on that film did either.

I will share some thoughts that I asked Gary Mack about in the past and the points he raises are certainly worth considering and seem very logical to me.

Gary writes:

Hi Bill,

Here’s an Associated Press story about the Zapruder film from the Tuesday, November 26, 1963 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, the city’s morning newspaper.

The story and film description had to have been sent to AP subscribers no later than early Monday evening, November 25, to appear inside this and other morning newspapers the next day.

What’s fascinating is that the scenes describe in good detail the film we’re all familiar with; however, there is no mention of the limousine having stopped, as the alterationists insist. Such a detail would certainly have been included if it had happened.

What’s even more significant is that, as of Monday night in Dallas, Charles Bronson’s film of the head shot and moving limousine was still in his possession from earlier that day. Marie Muchmore’s film of the head shot was only known inside the offices of United Press International in New York, which was busy having the 8mm camera original film blown up to 16mm for television the next day and so they could also make some frames available to newspapers and magazines. And Orville Nix’s film was still in his camera and remained there until he finished the roll at a football game on Saturday night, November 30th.

No sane person, whether a conspiracy plotter or not, would have attempted to alter the Z film without having a clue as to what other visual record of the assassination was beyond his knowledge or control.

Gary Mack

[Paul Rigby]

LEADING into frames 160-165 approx (the alignment frames), there is an appearance of film damage at frame 154+157.

Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, Calif: Probe, 1974): Chapter 4, The Filmed Execution:

Between the period that Zapruder took his film and the Commission saw it, the film was altered.

Available copies that we examined showed splices present (Fig. 4-3). All splices were photographic, i.e., the mechanical splices of the original were copied onto the duplicates (1).

The following is an inventory of our examination.

Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and Houston Streets and before the freeway sign.

Frame 152 is spliced at the bottom of the frame. In the next frame, splices exist at both top and bottom. In addition, the color changes. Instead of the previous warm color, the frames have a bluish cast. A great difference between frames 153 and 152 is indicated by the movement of the limousine: it makes an extremely rapid forward lurch indicating frames are missing here.

Frame 154 has a splice at the top and is bluish in cast. Frame 155 contains a splice at the top third of the frame. Splicing tape marks are present in the foreground of frame 156, which is also bluish; a crude splicing gap appears at the base. A splice may exist at the lower third of frame 159.

Notes:

(1) In a few of the more sophisticated available copies, splice marks were retouched out. A 16 mm version contained evidence of only one splice.