ZAPRUDER FRAME # 374 & a few others

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John, I have no idea who you are, but surely you know that, in this

context, the term "alteration" means making a change to FALSIFY

an image, not ENHANCE it. I wouldn't think it required explanation.

The removal of pincushion and aspect ratio distortion makes images

closer to how they should have looked absent the distorting factors.

I'm surprised you are puzzled Jim.

The process of lens correction necessarily results in data loss, creation.

Then a smoothing and color adjustment.

That's alteration, isn't it?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And are you going to claim that 372 and 374 also show "sunlight" rather than the massive blow-out to the back of the head? You are getting pretty desperate, Lamson. And why precisely is that blow-out not visible in the frames from 314 to 339 if the film is authentic? I think the jig is up, Craig. You have dug yourself into a very deep hole.

What we see in Z#frame 337 is cleary a damage of the rear of JFK's head.

This is what Clint Hill described.

I outlined and tinted that shape.

What you see is postwork made by me.

Martin

Really? And you rule out it being a rimlight of sunshine exactly how?

Edited January 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just beneath the area Lamson outlines highlighted by the sun we should see the massive blow-out to the back of the head. It's not there.

Show you study Craig.

Please draw an outline of JFK's head.

Sure Martin...And if you go back to say 325 and step forward you can see the highlight on JKF's head move up and around as his head goes forward and down...all in perfect sync with the position of sun...

Edited January 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bernice, Nice shots. Bear in mind, of course, that the Groden color photo next to the LIFE cover is a fake photograph, which appears to have been intended to complement the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (i) the blow-out to the right front painted into the film, (ii) the missing mass in the X-rays at the right-front, (iii) the caption for Frame 313 in LIFE, and (iv) Zapruder's appearance on television, where he puts his right-hand to the right-front of his head to illustrate where the blow out occurred. Except, of course, we know it didn't happen. Jackie, of course, explained that, from the front, he looked just fine--which would not have been the case if he had a massive blow-out to the right-front of his skull. The witnesses who observed the wound, as seen on page 358, were uniform in showing that it had been at the back of his head. The drawings by Crenshaw and by McClelland, which are on pages 357 and 359, show the blow-out at the back of the head. And notice how closely David Mantik's identification of the area of the X-ray that had been "patched"--which he labels "Area P" on page 359--corresponds to the blow-out as it can be seen in frame 374 on page 360. Since the blow-out is not seen in earlier frames where it should have been conspicuous, it is not rocket science to infer that it has been obfuscated in those frames, no doubt, as the Hollywood experts have explained, by being painted over in black--a crude but effective image, until you take a closer look! And the wound assumes a certain clarity and coherence.

[John Dolva]

That's ok Jim, we haven't communicated for a coupla years I think.

You mean deliberately falsify? I don't think that was Costellas intent. However strictly they are false for the reasons I mentioned, ie altered. It doesn't make the images, except in a gross sense, closer to the original subject. So I suppose in that sense they are enhanced but the massive data loss, creation, in the process, takes them further away from the original film of the original subject. Detail loss cannot be denied.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bernice, Nice shots. Bear in mind, of course, that the Groden color photo next to the LIFE cover is a fake photograph, which appears to have been intended to complement the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (i) the blow-out to the right front painted into the film, (ii) the missing mass in the X-rays at the right-front, (iii) the caption for Frame 313 in LIFE, and (iv) Zapruder's appearance on television, where he puts his right-hand to the right-front of his head to illustrate where the blow out occurred. Except, of course, we know it didn't happen. Jackie, of course, explained that, from the front, he looked just fine--which would not have been the case if he had a massive blow-out to the right-front of his skull. The witnesses who observed the wound, as seen on page 358, were uniform in showing that it had been at the back of his head. The drawings by Crenshaw and by McClelland, which are on pages 357 and 359, show the blow-out at the back of the head. And notice how closely David Mantik's identification of the area of the X-ray that had been "patched"--which he labels "Area P" on page 359--corresponds to the blow-out as it can be seen in frame 374 on page 360. Since the blow-out is not seen in earlier frames where it should have been conspicuous, it is not rocket science to infer that it has been obfuscated in those frames, no doubt, as the Hollywood experts have explained, by being painted over in black--a crude but effective image, until you take a closer look! And the wound assumes a certain clarity and coherence.

gif series chris davidson ...then after frAME 313 AUTHOR OF GIF UNKNOWN at present..study zap 341 chris davidson.. then a study by greg burnham ..life magazine recoil study...all for now thanks fellas and thanks for your time...b

Edited January 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Martin Hinrichs]

Sure Martin...And if you go back to say 325 and step forward you can see the highlight on JKF's head move up and around as his head goes forward and down...all in perfect sync with the position of sun...

Craig:

You say all what we see inside your orange outline represents the head shape of John F. Kennedy's head after the final bullet impact??

I got a bitter sense, i'am going to waste my time.....again.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[Martin Hinrichs]

Thank you Martin for your contributions this below also posted above was done by bill miller he came to your conclusion also..though i think yours is clearer but thanks also to his work...two heads and all that...best b..

Thank you Bernice. Bill has a good eye.

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

Thank you, Martin. The bottom image is excellent and clearly contradicts earlier frames in which the wound is painted over in black. I have asked Jack if he could post pages 357, 358, 359, and 360 from "Dealey Plaza Revisited", which place this image in perspective in relation to the witness reports and David Mantik's studies of the autopsy X-rays, which illustrate several points.

Thank you Jim.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Given the meaning of the term "alteration" in this context, which has to be known to you, you are combing a trivial truth (the new images are not the same as the originals) with a significant falsehood (they are thereby enhanced rather than distorted). I take exception to your untoward remark that you "don't think" it was Costella's' intent to deliberately falsify the film. Since he included the ghost images, restored the missing frames, and corrected for pincushion and aspect ratio distortion, that much is obvious. In light of the missing frames, out of sequence frames, and other problems with the MPI 4x5 scans (which are addressed in other threads, but with which I assume you are familiar), I take it that the Costella combined edit is the best version of the Zapruder film available--even though, for specific purposes, the MPI scans can be useful in corroborating discoveries such as those made by the Hollywood experts, who observed that the blow-out to the back of the head had been painted over in black, which David Mantik confirmed using the 4x5 scans. If we agree on all of these points, then fine. But your use of the word is highly inappropriate, in my view. I recommend using the term "corrected" as more accurate terminology.

That's ok Jim, we haven't communicated for a coupla years I think.

You mean deliberately falsify? I don't think that was Costellas intent. However strictly they are false for the reasons I mentioned, ie altered. It doesn't make the images, except in a gross sense, closer to the original subject. So I suppose in that sense they are enhanced but the massive data loss, creation, in the process, takes them further away from the original film of the original subject. Detail loss cannot be denied.

[Robin Unger]

Groden Scan.

[John Dolva]

That definitely needs logging.

post Today, 02:02 PM

Post #40

(Jim)

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 621

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

Given the meaning of the term "alteration" in this context, which has to be known to you, you are combing a trivial truth (the new images are not the same as the originals) with a significant falsehood (they are thereby enhanced rather than distorted). I take exception to your untoward remark that you "don't think" it was Costella's' intent to deliberately falsify the film. Since he included the ghost images, restored the missing frames, and corrected for pincushion and aspect ratio distortion, that much is obvious. In light of the missing frames, out of sequence frames, and other problems with the MPI 4x5 scans (which are addressed in other threads, but with which I assume you are familiar), I take it that the Costella combined edit is the best version of the Zapruder film available--even though, for specific purposes, the MPI scans can be useful in corroborating discoveries such as those made by the Hollywood experts, who observed that the blow-out to the back of the head had been painted over in black, which David Mantik confirmed using the 4x5 scans. If we agree on all of these points, then fine. But your use of the word is highly inappropriate, in my view. I recommend using the term "corrected" as more accurate terminology.

QUOTE (John Dolva @ Jan 30 2010, 06:33 AM) *

That's ok Jim, we haven't communicated for a coupla years I think.

You mean deliberately falsify? I don't think that was Costellas intent. However strictly they are false for the reasons I mentioned, ie altered. It doesn't make the images, except in a gross sense, closer to the original subject. So I suppose in that sense they are enhanced but the massive data loss, creation, in the process, takes them further away from the original film of the original subject. Detail loss cannot be denied.

duh.. I almost take exception to your exception, Jim.

So, in your opinion Costellas distorted/altered images are the best Z frames available? Correct?

[Craig Lamson]

And are you going to claim that 372 and 374 also show "sunlight" rather than the massive blow-out to the back of the head? You are getting pretty desperate, Lamson. And why precisely is that blow-out not visible in the frames from 314 to 339 if the film is authentic? I think the jig is up, Craig. You have dug yourself into a very deep hole.

What we see in Z#frame 337 is cleary a damage of the rear of JFK's head.

This is what Clint Hill described.

I outlined and tinted that shape.

What you see is postwork made by me.

Martin

Really? And you rule out it being a rimlight of sunshine exactly how?

Ah no Jim, I've made no claims about 372 and 374. I have however asked you more than once exactly HOW your ruled out that what you see behind JFK's right ear in 372 and 374 is not just blood and brain matter leaking down via gravity from the head wound seen above his ear? And if this might be brain and blood, how can you rule out the timing of its visability as simply the time required for it to get there?

It's a simple question Jim, one I'm sure you can answer.

[Craig Lamson]

Groden Scan.

What a wonderful patch of sunlight... and look ma...no black patch!

[Craig Lamson]

Sure Martin...And if you go back to say 325 and step forward you can see the highlight on JKF's head move up and around as his head goes forward and down...all in perfect sync with the position of sun...

Craig:

You say all what we see inside your orange outline represents the head shape of John F. Kennedy's head after the final bullet impact??

I got a bitter sense, i'am going to waste my time.....again.

At least the back of it, I've not attempted to fully define the face area.

You won't be wasting you time like you did with your failed backyard photo study. This time you are actually gonna learn how sunlight works in the real world, not a 3d model...

Edited January 30, 2010 by Craig Lamson