History Lost: Test of Zapruder fakery doomed

[Chris Davidson]

The question I pose is simple. Is the movement we see from simple viewing angle change, or speed changes or both?

It seems to me that suggecting alteration based on this is a bit short sighted.

In this case, I was asking Francois whether he thought the limo slowed before the head shot.

He did not answer.

There was no reference made to alteration.

I will pose the same question in a new thread.

chris

Edited August 2, 2010 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

A reference made to alteration could be:

The B/H 414 can film using 3 different frame rates : Normal (16FPS) Slow Motion (48FPS) Animation (1 Frame at a time).

If a film is shot in Slow Motion mode at 48 FPS, there would be 3 times the amount of frames as in Normal mode.

If you excise frames, you then speed up the actions within the film. Less background/foreground editing needed.

Could also explain the inconsistencies between frame movements for a film shot at 18 FPS.

Is it possible to run in slow motion mode, on full wind, for the entire 26+ sec. (480+frames) of Z footage?

Sure it is, you can actually run for 29 seconds before it needs to be rewinded.

chris

[John Dolva]

Chris, you have written eloquently some things that have been niggling me for some time. You have noted the ''inconsistencies between frame movements'', meaning, I presume, what one sees when aligning the frames?. The ''shifts'' have a ''jagged'' feel as if a regular number of frames have been excised removing an expected smoothness in transition. (Exciscion, apart from the damaged section which is obvious (but imo still not clearly defined), and possibly some minor odddities are as far as I'm prepared to go on Z alteration.) Then again, it's a film which was taken at one zoom setting panning left to right with the subject from far to near to far. The near seem to have more ''inconsistencies between frame movements'' to me. Perhaps not. Maybe a comparison of the pre limo section and the assassination sequence holds some answer? (I've gone from having the resources to stack and process 500 layers to just a few but that'll hopefully be fixed some time soon till then my comp graphic capabilities are near useless unless working on just a couple at one time).

edit:typo

Edited August 2, 2010 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

How many frames is a "film" comprised of?

I've read all the pertinent parts of Horne's mess. He is a hack who does not have the first clue what he is talking about when it comes to the photographic process. He must be you hero.

Hell you could do this stuff at any film school, whats the problem? All the alterationists say this is a slam dunk...so whats the probkem?

Doesn't the Z film have over 400 frames? Isn't that more than a "few".

If you are unaware of this, I have criticized many parts of Horne's book. So no, he is not my hero. But unlike you , I try to keep an open mind about these things.

Craig, I went to film school. Please show me a film school where you could do 1.) matte shots 2.) traveling mattes 3.) aerial imaging.

Maybe USC?

WHO said anyting about a FEW frames? Not me. Oh wait it was YOU. Strawman 101 again. FAIL!

You don't have an open mind at all.

Any film school that has a decent optical printer or an OX. Don't know how many are really left these days but its really besides the point.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

The question I pose is simple. Is the movement we see from simple viewing angle change, or speed changes or both?

It seems to me that suggecting alteration based on this is a bit short sighted.

In this case, I was asking Francois whether he thought the limo slowed before the head shot.

He did not answer.

There was no reference made to alteration.

I will pose the same question in a new thread.

chris

No, in any case your DID make a reference to alteration...

"Francois,

There are still legitimate reasons for believing the film has been altered.

For instance:

In the upper ghost image, does the limo slow down before the 313 head shot?

Notice the relationship between the white motorcycle fender and limo.

chris"

[Craig Lamson]

Hell you could do this stuff at any film school, whats the problem? All the alterationists say this is a slam dunk...so whats the probkem?

Go ahead and show me a film school that has both the equipment and the people to do 1.) matte shots 2.) traveling mattes and 3.) aerial imaging

Like I said, maybe USC?

Plus, 400 frames of 8 mm is a lot of frames to blow up and then work on and then shrink down again.

Sorry jimbo, I'm not going to spend my time going over the equipment lists at film schools. If there are no more that teach optical printing and annimation so be it, the job can't be done at a film school. I'll stand corrected.

400 frames is a problem? 6 seconds for Hollywood film editting is a problem? Would it even be a problem for a student?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig:

The point is not the time but the work involved in altering the frames.

In Zavada's reply to Horne he outlines this. It is quite involved.

So what? Just do the work.....

Countless hours have been expended debating......

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Chris Davidson]

The question I pose is simple. Is the movement we see from simple viewing angle change, or speed changes or both?

It seems to me that suggecting alteration based on this is a bit short sighted.

In this case, I was asking Francois whether he thought the limo slowed before the head shot.

He did not answer.

There was no reference made to alteration.

I will pose the same question in a new thread.

chris

No, in any case your DID make a reference to alteration...

"Francois,

There are still legitimate reasons for believing the film has been altered.

For instance:

In the upper ghost image, does the limo slow down before the 313 head shot?

Notice the relationship between the white motorcycle fender and limo.

chris"

O.K. Craig,

My mistake.

chris

[David G. Healy]

Harris said to make a fake film. Not just a few frames. To make just a few frames would not prove the case anyway. SInce what Horne is saying is that a battery of devices was used to prepare the film.

Lammy, you did read Horne's book didn't you?

I don't know what it would cost to do this. But it would not be cheap.

dimbo,

How many frames is a "film" comprised of?

I've read all the pertinent parts of Horne's mess. He is a hack who does not have the first clue what he is talking about when it comes to the photographic process. He must be you hero.

Hell you could do this stuff at any film school, whats the problem? All the alterationists say this is a slam dunk...so whats the probkem?

hey craigster, it appears all wannabe, cyber-photo hacks are tiring, attempting to disprove Z-film alteration possibilities... perk up son -- take in a movie or two, see what Hollyweird arteeeests are capable of..... I doubt you've read Fielding's 1965: The Art of Special Effects Cinematography. Get a grip son!

[Craig Lamson]

hey craigster, it appears all wannabe, cyber-photo hacks are tiring, attempting to disprove Z-film alteration possibilities... perk up son -- take in a movie or two, see what Hollyweird arteeeests are capable of..... I doubt you've read Fielding's 1965: The Art of Special Effects Cinematography. Get a grip son!

Why not just show us how it can be done davie, instead of posting your usual nonsense? You're the EXPERT ...right? BTW, where's that reel?

BTW I was reading a thread today where you were complaining about YOUR copyright.

Did YOU ever get copyright approval for the images YOU lifted to use in your COMMERCIAL WORK in TGZFH?

Inquiring minds really want to know?

BTW, where's your reel?

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

The purpose of my having started this thread was simple. I was pointing out that it was unfortunate that the ARRB failed to conduct their own test with the actual Zapruder Camera (not the same "model" -- the same camera) in order to answer, once and for all, certain questions that remain--or that are claimed to remain about the film. Because Kodachrome (color) film will no longer be processed anywhere beyond December of this year, it would appear that conducting such a test is an impossibility.

The point of the test would include a variety of things to be verified, but, at the very least, in broad terms: first, establish that Zapruder's camera was the actual camera used that day, and second, eliminate the debate about alteration. I have no way of knowing for sure if such tests would, in fact, accomplish those goals, but the attempt certainly seems reasonable.

Unlike the tests conducted at the hands of the government (the FBI, SS, et al) to which Lamson refers, whose results are in the National Archives, these new tests would have had a focus on authentication of the Zapruder film. The tests to which he refers do nothing of the sort. The authenticity of the film itself and the certainty that this was the actual camera used were "givens" -- they were assumed. The tests were aiming at something else. They were establishing the frame rate (18.3 frames/second) etc., in order to time the shots, among other things.

Unlike the tests conducted earlier, these new tests would have been conducted by, and under the supervision of, non-FBI and non-SS government workers and civilians, thereby avoiding immediate disqualification. The way the old tests were conducted reminds me of the peril in "Allowing Colonel Sanders to baby-sit your chickens!"

Moreover, one of the best indicators that examining the archived test films would be inadequate to the task of authenticating the Zapruder film is that they were NOT filmed on any November 22 of any year. In fact, they were not filmed in November of any year. One was filmed in December and another was in February--thus compromising the positional accuracy of the light source (the sun).

So, as I said, a pity that the ARRB failed in this respect.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

Unlike the tests conducted at the hands of the government (the FBI, SS, et al) to which Lamson refers, whose results are in the National Archives, these new tests would have had a focus on authentication of the Zapruder film. The tests to which he refers do nothing of the sort. The authenticity of the film itself and the certainty that this was the actual camera used were "givens" -- they were assumed. The tests were aiming at something else. They were establishing the frame rate (18.3 frames/second) etc., in order to time the shots, among other things.

Unlike the tests conducted earlier, these new tests would have been conducted by, and under the supervision of, non-FBI and non-SS government workers and civilians, thereby avoiding immediate disqualification. The way the old tests were conducted reminds me of the peril in "Allowing Colonel Sanders to baby-sit your chickens!"

Moreover, one of the best indicators that examining the archived test films would be inadequate to the task of authenticating the Zapruder film is that they were NOT filmed on any November 22 of any year. In fact, they were not filmed in November of any year. One was filmed in December and another was in February--thus compromising the positional accuracy of the light source (the sun).

So, as I said, a pity that the ARRB failed in this respect.

What a bunch of bullcrap....

[Greg Burnham]

Unlike the tests conducted at the hands of the government (the FBI, SS, et al) to which Lamson refers, whose results are in the National Archives, these new tests would have had a focus on authentication of the Zapruder film. The tests to which he refers do nothing of the sort. The authenticity of the film itself and the certainty that this was the actual camera used were "givens" -- they were assumed. The tests were aiming at something else. They were establishing the frame rate (18.3 frames/second) etc., in order to time the shots, among other things.

Unlike the tests conducted earlier, these new tests would have been conducted by, and under the supervision of, non-FBI and non-SS government workers and civilians, thereby avoiding immediate disqualification. The way the old tests were conducted reminds me of the peril in "Allowing Colonel Sanders to baby-sit your chickens!"

Moreover, one of the best indicators that examining the archived test films would be inadequate to the task of authenticating the Zapruder film is that they were NOT filmed on any November 22 of any year. In fact, they were not filmed in November of any year. One was filmed in December and another was in February--thus compromising the positional accuracy of the light source (the sun).

So, as I said, a pity that the ARRB failed in this respect.

What a bunch of bullcrap....

Checkmate.

[Craig Lamson]

Checkmate.

LOL! sure it is.... Kinda like last night when you thought you had "checkmate" and then got your head handed to you in a basket.

You really don't have the first clue. but you are quite the easy mark. PLEASE keep it up. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

LOL! sure it is.... Kinda like last night when you thought you had "checkmate" and then got your head handed to you in a basket.

You really don't have the first clue. but you are quite the easy mark. PLEASE keep it up. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Why take this so personally, Craig? I didn't say "Craig Lamson failed..." -- I said, IMO, the ARRB failed, a pity. You're still "talking way past the close."

Edited August 2, 2010 by Greg Burnham