Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[Len Colby]

The technology question is a false issue. Content is what matters. If the content is false, then the technology was available to create it.

The content is false.

(Zavada said the film was indeed Kodachrome. Indeed it was. He looked only at technology, not at content.)

Jack

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what Zavada said. The inventor of the film stock used examined the original Z-film held by the Archives and concluded that based on technical aspects like contrast and lack of telltale signs of copying it was an "in camera original" Zavada and Raymond Feilding, who HEALY cited as a (if not "the") leading expert on special effects said what the alterationists was not possible in 1963 and if attempted would be easily detectable.

The question is not whether it was possible to fake scenes in 1963, no one disputes that. The question is would it be possible to do os in a way that wouldn't be obvious to naked eye let alone detailed examination by experts.

[Craig Lamson]

The content is false.

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection.

According to who? You?

If you think thats not true then...

...post, and then prove it's valid, any proof of alteration you think can withstand close technical inspection. I'll be happy to review your work, make the required comment and then you can try to formulate a rebuttal.

[Dean Hagerman]

The content is false.

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection.

According to who? You?

If you think thats not true then...

...post, and then prove it's valid, any proof of alteration you think can withstand close technical inspection. I'll be happy to review your work, make the required comment and then you can try to formulate a rebuttal.

The limo turn was taken out of the Z-film, Zappy never said he stopped filming

Please explain to me in detail how thats not alteration

I will not accept the following answer

"Zappy just decided to stop filming the start of the motercade then started back up again when he saw the limo"

[Jack White]

Len Brasil said:

"...the question is would it be possible to do it in a way that wouldn't be obvious to naked eye let alone detailed examination by experts."

I would reply to Lenny that it was done in a way that is obvious to the naked eye, observable by even the visually impaired as well as experts.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

The content is false.

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection.

According to who? You?

If you think thats not true then...

...post, and then prove it's valid, any proof of alteration you think can withstand close technical inspection. I'll be happy to review your work, make the required comment and then you can try to formulate a rebuttal.

The limo turn was taken out of the Z-film, Zappy never said he stopped filming

Please explain to me in detail how thats not alteration

I will not accept the following answer

"Zappy just decided to stop filming the start of the motercade then started back up again when he saw the limo"

Its only alteration if it happened. Can you provide technical proof that it happened or is this just more of the stndard "deano believes" school of alteration proof?

[Craig Lamson]

Len Brasil said:

"...the question is would it be possible to do it in a way that wouldn't be obvious to naked eye let alone detailed examination by experts."

I would reply to Lenny that it was done in a way that is obvious to the naked eye, observable by even the visually impaired as well as experts.

Jack

Are the "missing faces of the MC cop, Kellerman and Greer (heck he's "missing" most of his head) and most of JC's face animation errors, or just garden variety motion blur?

Inquiring minds really want to know Jack?

Edited August 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Robert Harris]

Len Brasil said:

"...the question is would it be possible to do it in a way that wouldn't be obvious to naked eye let alone detailed examination by experts."

I would reply to Lenny that it was done in a way that is obvious to the naked eye, observable by even the visually impaired as well as experts.

Jack

You've got to be kidding me, aren't you Jack?

Her face was also "missing" in 315 and 316, not because the perp had too many beers when he was drawing Jackie, but because 315, 316, and 317 were blurry and because Jackie's hair blocked the sunlight on her face, making it dark and indistinct.

Now, if you intend to disagree with me, please be very specific about how you think this happened. Are you suggesting that she was drawn in by hand? How do you think the forgers erred, causing Jackie to umm... lose face?

Edited August 15, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

The content is false.

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection.

According to who? You?

If you think thats not true then...

...post, and then prove it's valid, any proof of alteration you think can withstand close technical inspection. I'll be happy to review your work, make the required comment and then you can try to formulate a rebuttal.

The limo turn was taken out of the Z-film, Zappy never said he stopped filming

Please explain to me in detail how thats not alteration

I will not accept the following answer

"Zappy just decided to stop filming the start of the motercade then started back up again when he saw the limo"

Then you should listen to Zapruder testifying in the Shaw trial in 1967. They brought in a projector and ran the movie several times and asked him whether the film was as it originally was. He said that although he wouldn't know if there was a frame missing here and there, the film appeared to be exactly as it was in 1963.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: You say you were present when the copies of your film were made?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Were you actually present in the room in which these copies were being made?

A: Yes, sir, I was in the processing room watching them actually process the film.

Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?

A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.

THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?

THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.

THE COURT: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: One copy to the FBI?

A: Correct.

Q: And one copy to Life Magazine?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies?

A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office.

Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct?

A: No. It was given to me in his office.

MR. DYMOND: That is all we have on traverse, Your Honor, and we submit the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of this film in evidence.

THE COURT: Take the Jury out, Sheriff.

(WHEREUPON, the Jury retired from the courtroom.)

THE COURT: The objection is well taken for this reason: Mr. Zapruder did not bring this film with him, and I would suggest before I make a final ruling that you roll the film for the benefit of Mr. Zapruder only so that he can see what is depicted on that day. You could then renew your offer and I will rule on it.

MR. OSER: All right, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is it necessary for us to black out and cut the lights out in the room?

MR. OSER: I think so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. Sheriff, will you throw those switches. Mr. Zapruder, when this equipment is properly rigged up and they play this film, don't say anything while they are playing the film. You will be asked questions after the film is played.

(WHEREUPON, the film was shown.)

THE COURT: Before we bring the Jury in, I think the State has to ask a question of this witness.

MR. DYMOND: There is one question I would like to ask also, Judge.

THE COURT: Let Mr. Oser ask his question first.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?

A: I would say they do.

THE COURT: I didn't hear you again.

THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?

A: I could not.

THE COURT: Bring the Jury back.

(WHEREUPON, the Jury returned to the courtroom.)

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?

A: Yes, it does.

MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?

A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows what I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.

[Dean Hagerman]

The content is false.

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection.

According to who? You?

If you think thats not true then...

...post, and then prove it's valid, any proof of alteration you think can withstand close technical inspection. I'll be happy to review your work, make the required comment and then you can try to formulate a rebuttal.

The limo turn was taken out of the Z-film, Zappy never said he stopped filming

Please explain to me in detail how thats not alteration

I will not accept the following answer

"Zappy just decided to stop filming the start of the motercade then started back up again when he saw the limo"

Then you should listen to Zapruder testifying in the Shaw trial in 1967. They brought in a projector and ran the movie several times and asked him whether the film was as it originally was. He said that although he wouldn't know if there was a frame missing here and there, the film appeared to be exactly as it was in 1963.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: You say you were present when the copies of your film were made?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Were you actually present in the room in which these copies were being made?

A: Yes, sir, I was in the processing room watching them actually process the film.

Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?

A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.

THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?

THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.

THE COURT: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: One copy to the FBI?

A: Correct.

Q: And one copy to Life Magazine?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies?

A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office.

Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct?

A: No. It was given to me in his office.

MR. DYMOND: That is all we have on traverse, Your Honor, and we submit the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of this film in evidence.

THE COURT: Take the Jury out, Sheriff.

(WHEREUPON, the Jury retired from the courtroom.)

THE COURT: The objection is well taken for this reason: Mr. Zapruder did not bring this film with him, and I would suggest before I make a final ruling that you roll the film for the benefit of Mr. Zapruder only so that he can see what is depicted on that day. You could then renew your offer and I will rule on it.

MR. OSER: All right, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is it necessary for us to black out and cut the lights out in the room?

MR. OSER: I think so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. Sheriff, will you throw those switches. Mr. Zapruder, when this equipment is properly rigged up and they play this film, don't say anything while they are playing the film. You will be asked questions after the film is played.

(WHEREUPON, the film was shown.)

THE COURT: Before we bring the Jury in, I think the State has to ask a question of this witness.

MR. DYMOND: There is one question I would like to ask also, Judge.

THE COURT: Let Mr. Oser ask his question first.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?

A: I would say they do.

THE COURT: I didn't hear you again.

THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?

A: I could not.

THE COURT: Bring the Jury back.

(WHEREUPON, the Jury returned to the courtroom.)

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?

A: Yes, it does.

MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?

A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows what I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.

Do you read anything before you post it Robert?

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

You just proved my point beyond a doubt Robert

Thanks for doing the work for me

Please keep posting in this thread

[Robert Harris]

That's sleezy, my friend. If you intend to cite a witness out of context you need to do it when the rest of his testimony is not in front of our faces. And if the entire turn onto Elm was missing, he would have certainly have said so.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Jerry Logan]

Hi Jerry,

I confess, that IS a better example. But still no where near conclusive. No one is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar. You're stretching the goal posts and setting up straw men.

Take your analogy...it is indubitably correct that Mickey mouse was a forerunner for such films as Avatar in 2009. From simple grainy black and white animation right through to the ultra sophisticated Avatar.

Was there no midway point in all this technological development?

Bernie,

You're absolutely right! I think Avatar is a lot further from Mickey Mouse than Zapruder is from the 1928 film. There are way points in technological development and the serious question is if technology had advanced sufficiently in 1963-64 to permit a realistically faked Zapruder film. No analogy can be conclusive because we want the answer to an empirical question that can only be answered with actual facts, not analogies. So what tools and techniques would have been required to produce a plausibly faked Zapruder film and what tools and techniques were available in 1963? That's the real issue. And offering the 1928 film doesn't provide one bit of useful information on that issue. Just like viewing Mickey Mouse doesn't tell us anything about when Avatar became possible.

The analogy wasn't made to conclude the argument - no one (including me)is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar and I'm not trying to move the goal posts with the analogy by implying a Zupruder fake would require Avatar like tools. Instead, I was pointing out that the title of the thread "Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!" is absurd on its face. It's the sort of thing that's going to make it very hard for even someone as talented as Chris Davidson to be taken seriously if he does find a problem. We're not advancing the argument or knowledge with the pointless posturing implied in the title.

OK, third try :>) It's like saying "Was 2009 film technology adequate to produce Avatar? No problem -- not even in 1928." ...because that's when Mickey Mouse demonstrated the concept of a fully animated reality.

I'm betting we'll get it right eventually :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

Firstly a big thank you for conducting this debate with some decorum and some manners. Much appreciated: and much needed on here. But your analogy still flounders...

Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!"

And...

"Was 2009 film technology adequate to produce Avatar? No problem -- not even in 1928."

Jerry that is two completely different questions. You missed the "alteration" word out. And that is the nub of it isn't it?

The fact remains that in 1928 it was possible to alter 'reality' by manipulating film. Never mind how simple the techniques were: it is a straightforward fact that it could be done! No one is saying that this video has anything whatsoever to do with what happened to the Z film. You are making that leap.

This thread illustrates that, it was possible through the medium of film to create a seperate reality back in 1928 and probably even before that.

Taken in isolation, how can anyone argue that fact?

Bernie,

Reason begets reason :>) Thank you for taking the time to think about my comments and offer constructive criticism.

Sure, people were manipulating photos and films long before 1928. They were, for example, inserting retouched photos into flip books in the 1890's to show "moving ghosts" visiting the living!

So of course, taken in isolation, everyone should agree moving pictures can be and were manipulated prior to 1963 and anybody who's talking about film alteration should already know that. No problem. As you say, it's a truism.

However, I think you're mistaken when you say that " No one is saying that this video has anything whatsoever to do with what happened to the Z film. You are making that leap."

That sentence is hard to reconcile with the first sentence of Greg's original post which was "The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film." I didn't imagine the leap, I didn't make it - Greg stated it clearly and directly just as he jumped into his own, personal version of reality.

Seriously Bernie, that's not an assertion about the simple concept of alteration. It's a specific claim that the technology used in the 1928 film could have produced the Zapruder film - and that's what seems to me absurd and counter-productive. The technology (tools and techniques) of the 1928 film have nothing whatsoever to say about the techniques and tools required to produce an authentic looking Zapruder alteration.

Given what you've written, I suspect you may agree with me on this. In our exchanges you've taken and defended a very reasonable position that, unfortunately, is not the position of Greg and some others. The kind of work that people like Chris Davidson is doing is actually useful and could be monumental.I think everyone who's interested in this sort of thing would do well to focus on serious questions and real evidence instead of trying to score cheap debating points that reveal their ignorance.

Obviously, I don't count you among that unfortunate group. I also suspect we disagree about the current state of alteration evidence but some of my best friends (Well...at least friends) are alterationists so there's still hope for the two of us!

Best to you,

Jerry

PS I think Avatar, by definition, implies the ability to alter film. I'm still kind of liking the analogy.

[Greg Burnham]

Bernie,

Reason begets reason :>) Thank you for taking the time to think about my comments and offer constructive criticism.

Sure, people were manipulating photos and films long before 1928. They were, for example, inserting retouched photos into flip books in the 1890's to show "moving ghosts" visiting the living! So of course, taken in isolation, everyone should agree moving pictures can be and were manipulated prior to 1963 and anybody who's talking about film alteration should already know that. No problem. As you say, it's a truism.

However, I think you're mistaken when you say that " No one is saying that this video has anything whatsoever to do with what happened to the Z film. You are making that leap." That sentence is hard to reconcile with the first sentence of Greg's original post which was "The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film." I didn't imagine the leap, I didn't make it - Greg stated it clearly and directly just as he jumped into his own, personal version of reality.

Seriously Bernie, that's not an assertion about the simple concept of alteration. It's a specific claim that the technology used in the 1928 film could have produced the Zapruder film - and that's what seems to me absurd and counter-productive. The technology (tools and techniques) of the 1928 film have nothing whatsoever to say about the techniques and tools required to produce an authentic looking Zapruder alteration.

Given what you've written, I suspect you may agree with me on this. In our exchanges you've taken and defended a very reasonable position that, unfortunately, is not the position of Greg and some others. The kind of work that people like Chris Davidson is doing is actually useful and could be monumental.I think everyone who's interested in this sort of thing would do well to focus on serious questions and real evidence instead of trying to score cheap debating points that reveal their ignorance.

Obviously, I don't count you among that unfortunate group. I also suspect we disagree about the current state of alteration evidence but some of my best friends (Well...at least friends) are alterationists so there's still hope for the two of us!

Best to you,

Jerry

PS I think Avatar, by definition, implies the ability to alter film. I'm still kind of liking the analogy.

Jerry,

Just to be clear, I did not say that I believe the same technology was used in both films. If you re-read my entire post, you'll note that I am only arguing against the position of some of the anti-alterationists who have claimed that (re-phrased for clarity): "The Zapruder film is legitimate because the state of alteration technology was not developed sufficiently to have pulled it off...believably in 1963." In my opinion, that argument is not well founded because film manipulation had come a very long way, even by 1928. If my original post lacked clarity, my apologies.

[Dean Hagerman]

That's sleezy, my friend. If you intend to cite a witness out of context you need to do it when the rest of his testimony is not in front of our faces. And if the entire turn onto Elm was missing, he would have certainly have said so.

Robert I quoted your whole post with all the testimony that you posted within my post

How is that sleezy?

[Robert Harris]

That's sleezy, my friend. If you intend to cite a witness out of context you need to do it when the rest of his testimony is not in front of our faces. And if the entire turn onto Elm was missing, he would have certainly have said so.

Robert I quoted your whole post with all the testimony that you posted within my post

How is that sleezy?

Dean, it's sleazy because you only talked about him saying that he couldn't be sure. But you omitted him pointing out that what he meant was that he couldn't tell if a random frame here and there was missing. This was the clincher,

I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows what I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.

Why not talk about the infinitely more important fact that there was nothing he could see that was wrong with the film, and that if the entire turning sequence had been removed, he would certainly have seen that?

Edited August 15, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Dean Hagerman]

Dean:

This is kind of stretching it is it not?

I dont think so Jim

Listen to what Orville Nix says

Also Marie Muchmore said she did not recall shooting the Elm St part of her film

I could go on and on Jim, but why when these witnesses got the films back from the government they had suspisions about the films that they took?