Zfilm Revisited

[Bernie Laverick]

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

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?

Hey Chris it’s funny you should say that because I was going to post yesterday with a similar observation. I know how contentious this is on here so I thought twice and concluded it must be an illusion.

But then I examined the woman in orange/pink just to the right of Black Hat Man and she does even stranger things. Note that in frame 98 we see a plump lady with a rather wide hips, yet by frame 167 she is lithe and shapely. How strange? I know Kennedy had a dizzying effect on some women but this one seemingly shed 5 kilos off her backside in 3.7 seconds!

But what does it mean? I’m sure there must be a logical explanation for this; an illusion, or trick of the light maybe? It’s just that…how many of these anomalies, illusions, tricks of light, etc... exactly how many are there on this film? Even those that don’t support any form of alteration must concede that for one very short film there sure seems to be an awful lot of things just not quite ‘right’.

I’m always very suspicious when researchers conclude something contentious in a photo is probably just a trick of light. For instance, how bizarre is it that the ‘trick of the light’ in the famous Badge man photo should show a Dallas cop firing a rifle? Just another coincidence I guess. I mean, of all the images a trick of the light could show –literally trillions! – an elephant juggling three rabbits, Napoleon playing a violin, Bart Simpson punching Julius Ceasar etc… but no, this trick of the light shows, of all things, a Dallas cop firing a rifle in exactly the spot where many people testified they saw smoke and heard a gunshot.

Has anyone kept a count or a record of all these coincidences? There must be thousands!

I honestly don’t know whether the Z film has been altered and I don’t have the necessary skills, training or facilities to conduct my own investigation into the matter. In the main I have to rely on the informed opinions and research of those that regularly post on here. Not having enough (any!) technical knowledge of the subject matter I feel a hostage to those opinions, but rarely does a thread on Zapruder not resort to insults and petty fighting, which just makes it all the more difficult for keen students to develop a grasp of the ideas being discussed.

So I’m going to do a little experiment. It’s not very scientific and it’s outcome would probably prove nothing but it may be a worthwhile exercise.

I have a couple of 8mm films of two family holidays in 1965 and 1966: I haven’t a clue what they were taken with (Kodak I think) but needless to say the outcome is certainly not Hollywood standard. Its quality is remarkably similar to the Z film.

I’m going to look for signs of alteration!

I want to see if on this hand held, relatively poor quality movie I can spot Mum or Dad losing 5 kilos in 3.7 seconds. I want to see whether I can spot a gunman lurking in some foliage: see people’s heads snap backwards or forwards at ludicrous speeds; and I want to know if any of the family insists that weren’t actually standing where they said they were at any given point. I’d like to see if I can spot all the children NOT looking at Punch and Judy or any other such anomalies that could be interpreted as Agfa (the film developers) trying to mess with our heads!

Does anyone reckon I’ll find anything anywhere near as weird?

No neither do I.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Likewise could you please remove David's quote for the moment? I don't see anything wrong with using it.... but whilst we are checking it would be prudent to remove it.

Thank you.

Evan, David's quote is in so many places that I could not possibly be expected to run them all down and remove them. In fact, David's position is so stupid ... that if accepted it would mean ALL THE QUOTES AND IMAGES on this forum be removed, not to mention the "quote" option within the posting operation of the forum. What it boils down to is that David got cornered into having to admit that he has seen no proof of alteration and it has made him uncomfortable around his fellow alteration cult members.

So everyone knows ... most, if not all the assassination images used on this forum are being posted without permission of their owners. One cannot even claim that the image was already posted by someone else, thus making it in the public domain because I am certain that only the owner can put it in the public domain legally. Its just more David Healy trolling a forum and it has gotten your attention. Like I said earlier ... quoting someone's post is not a copyright infraction ... David's bringing it up is just more symptoms that he should seek professional help for IMO.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

now I read elsewhere (in this thread) you weren't SURE -- you in Miller's pocket, son?

Who's pocket are you in should be the question, David. I would be curious to know just how many past quotes - past images - or anything of a similar nature did you first get permission from anyone before using them. I for one am most curious to know the answer to that question because I would hate to think that you are just some disgruntled hypocrite trolling for attention.

Noun 1. hypocritehypocrite - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

Maybe members should be mentally evaluated before being allowed to post ... it would certainly be less time consuming than have to deal with this latest nonsense.

Paranoid Personality Disorder

SYMPTOMS

A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts

* suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her

* is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates

* is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her

* reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events

Edited May 6, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Evan Burton]

dgh: thanks for your opinion Evan. Just take it up the ladder to where it counts, eh?

That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand.

[Bill Miller]

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

Chris ... You realize that MPI took photos of the film frames. There are little variances on the MPI version that are not seen on the Groden copies of the Zapruder film.

[Chris Davidson]

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

[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

[Chris Davidson]

Chris - thanks for that added technical information in post #94.

Jack - thanks for that still frame comparison of frames 131 & 133 in post #93 which is very clear. Looking at that, I would say the frames are not particularly locked-off. The framing is similar, but certainly not identical.

Does anyone have a link to the first 130 or so frames as moving image? Pretty much all of the moving versions - stablized and unstabilized - that I've seen don't include the footage of the first motorcycle.

Chris - if Zapruder is loosely panning the camera in the first 130 frames or so, I'm now really puzzled by what we're seeing in your post #1 here with regard to the near non-movement of "black-hat gentleman" in frames 101 & 167.

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

Thanks to Dr Costella's pin-cushion corrected frames, I believe the size of black-hat man is fine.

Will also check on the frames from the 2 different spocket-hole film versions.

chris

Edited May 7, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Jack White]

Correct, Chris. It appears to be a lens aberration.

Jack

[Guest Gary Loughran]

The only thing you have found was that Zapruder's memory of having his camera set on full zoom was not an accurate recollection. And if you want to learn more about the ghost images ... do a search on an article I believe that Anthony Marsh wrote on the matter.

Its 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

Hi Bill,

Having read Zapruder's WC testimony (which is one of the strangest conversations even in a world of confusion) he states on two separate occassions about having a telephoto lens. including

"Yes, they are frame by frame and they weren't very clear, for the simple reason that on the telephoto lens it's good to take stills--when you move did you ever have binoculars and every time you move everything is exaggerated in the move that's one reason why they are kind of blurred--the movement. Now, you want me to identify whether these are my pictures?"

Does it not seem a little odd that he misremembers the camera settings....yet with great clarity, explains exactly why he had those settings??

Furthermore, given Chris Davison's footage using a similar camera and settings, it seems that there are notable discrepancies in the film field of view (I'm sure there is a better term but I hope this makes sense)...do you know the settings used on the day or have any experts in the field determined these settings with any degree of accuracy.

Has anyone (expert or otherwise) been able to broadly recreate Zapruders film footage for field of view, centred areas, illusion of uphill etc. using the B/H camera? If so could anyone supply a link to view or download.

Thanks

Gary

Could everyone please review a lot of their recent posts in this thread and seriously consider whether that post is contributing or detracting from the thread? I think everyone has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the thread is maintained especially with respect ot those who have worked to positively contribute to it. Please.

[Bill Miller]

Has anyone (expert or otherwise) been able to broadly recreate Zapruders film footage for field of view, centred areas, illusion of uphill etc. using the B/H camera? If so could anyone supply a link to view or download.

I am not sure that anyone with Vertigo has attempted this. I will say that if you look at the Nix film and stabilize Zapruder ... you will probably see what I did and that was his movements which correlate to movements seen in the Zapruder film.

And if one will rotate their camera counter clockwise slightly so that the actual photographed image of the lamppost is leaning like the 'Leaning Tower of Pisa', then they too can make their image look like the street is running uphill.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Has anyone (expert or otherwise) been able to broadly recreate Zapruders film footage for field of view, centred areas, illusion of uphill etc. using the B/H camera? If so could anyone supply a link to view or download.

I am not sure that anyone with Vertigo has attempted this. I will say that if you look at the Nix film and stabilize Zapruder ... you will probably see what I did and that was his movements which correlate to movements seen in the Zapruder film.

And if one will rotate their camera counter clockwise slightly so that the actual photographed image of the lamppost is leaning like the 'Leaning Tower of Pisa', then they too can make their image look like the street is running uphill.

Please cite all references in the WCR as to Zapruder suffering from "vertigo"... thanks

For the record: Utilizing 1963 optical film printing equipment, a technician can simply otate a film around the z* axis and *making the image look like the street is running uphill, gradually from x-frame to x-frame*. Quite simple, in fact.

It's no secret Zapruder film researchers would like to see **other** footage shot by Mr. Zapruder, especially film footage shot through the B&H414... (there seems to be no such footage, anywhere can you imagine that?) Are you aware of, or know where Mr. Zapruders other family films might be located...

Edited May 7, 2008 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

dgh: thanks for your opinion Evan. Just take it up the ladder to where it counts, eh?

That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand.

ahh, WHAT call is that, Evan?

[Bill Miller]

Are you aware of, or know where Mr. Zapruders other family films might be located...

I think that I posted that the Museum has the family footage that Zapruder filmed on the print they continually run for the visitors to the Museum. as for your other question about where to find other family films of the Zapruder family ... try contacting the family because it seems logical that they would have their family photos and films. (Duh~)

[Bill Miller]

"That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand."

ahh, WHAT call is that, Evan?

David ... did you get Evan's permission to quote him on this forum ... LOL!!!!!!!!! Have you stopped and noticed just how stupid your complaint was concerning quoting someone as a copyright infringement ... simply ridiculous.

Bill Miller