Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[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?

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?

Ok Robert

Post Zappys testimony where he said that he stopped filming and then started back up again when he saw the limo after it made the turn onto Elm

If you can do that I will back down

[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?

Ok Robert

Post Zappys testimony where he said that he stopped filming and then started back up again when he saw the limo after it made the turn onto Elm

If you can do that I will back down

We both know he was never asked about that. But we also know that he kept a copy of the film and undoubtedly saw it more than once, in addition to the Shaw trial. And he said it was as accurate as he was able to confirm.

And it makes sense that he would have stopped the camera because the lead motorcycles were a considerable distance in front of the limo. When he realized he couldn't see JFK, why wouldn't he turn it off? And when he did see the limo, wouldn't you expect him to take a few seconds to be sure JFK was really in the car?

[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

I have read all the replies to my posting. They have to be kidding...or visually impaired.

Jack

[Jack White]

Sleazy? Harris has been around for years and years peddling sleazy theories.

Odd that he is just now finding his way here.

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

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.

Greg,

I appreciate your clarification and apology. I have to admit that I don't see that in your original post but perhaps it was edited out.

In any case, I think your thoughts about "There It Is" in relation to the Zapruder film are way ahead of what's actually in the 1928 movie.

As you've noticed, the start of the film refers to Charlie Bowers and the "Bowers Process". Bowers was famous for creating wild looking films with a patented method for stop frame animations.

"There It Is" is one of his most famous films and rightly famous for the mentioned stop frame animation. As I've written before, stop frame animation is just the opposite process that would be required to alter the Zapruder film.

In stop frame the film is completely unchanged. Instead, the camera is stopped and the underlying reality is changed. It's not the film that's altered - it's the scene that's changed and then recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion makes magical things appear to happen. Honestly, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with things like retouching, compositing, matting, traveling mattes, emulsion matching or any number of other things required to make an authentic looking Zapruder forgery. It's a completely different and opposite process.

I think I understand the point you were going for but you just picked a completely inappropriate and inapplicable example and that makes us all look foolish. I know a number of professional film makers are monitoring the forum and they'd instantly recognize the obvious mistake. I know that you have some good stuff Greg, I just wish you could find a way to show it to us.

Sincerely, my best to you,

Jerry

[Dean Hagerman]

And it makes sense that he would have stopped the camera because the lead motorcycles were a considerable distance in front of the limo.

How would he have known that?

When filming the motercycles how would he have looked on Houston to see how far back the limo was? With his other eye?

With all the onlookers and obstructions I dont think he would have been able to see how far away the limo was on Houston St.

[Dean Hagerman]

Nix says he may have lost a frame here or there

Dont you think thats important Jim?

[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

I have read all the replies to my posting. They have to be kidding...or visually impaired.

Jack

The only person kidding or visually imparied is Jack White.

As usual his conclusion is simply ignorant.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Martin Hinrichs]

deleted dupe

Have you ever considered to be a bit more careful Craig?

A person with that skills should be a bit more qualitative.

[Chris Davidson]

Thanks Jerry,

Did you ever get a chance to look at this thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16361&view=findpost&p=200540

Instead of extracting frames from a film shot at 18 FPS, would the "increase in speed" aspect be more difficult to decipher, if it was originally shot at 48FPS, with frames extracted from that?

chris

Chris,

That's a very interesting idea and I'm going to have to think about it for a while.

My immediate reaction (and it's definitely open to revision) is that is that a 48 fps film from Zapruder's camera would have been shot at a 1/100 sec shutter speed as opposed to a 1/36 sec shutter speed at 18 fps. It seems to me that there's too much motion blur in the Zapruder frames for the relatively short 1/100 shutter speed.

As I said, it's a very interesting thought - and an idea that can actually be tested! Since you're not really concerned about emulsion characteristics or ghost images it would be easy to run some film through a 414PD at 48 fps and see if you can make a plausible 18 fps movie by selectively and periodically deleting frames. Obviously you'd have to set it up right with a moving subject and objects/people moving in the background. (Please - no sleeping cats:>). I suspect it might be impossible to make it look right but it's an easy test and would make a powerful demonstration if you could pull it off.

More later.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry and all,

The best I can do is footage from my digital camera.

If you're interested in what the difference looks like, the links are supplied below.

A brief description:

All 3 are from the same footage.

It was shot at 30FPS.

I then reduced the FPS to 15 for all of them.

The one labeled ORIG is 30FPS to 15FPS.

The next one labeled ORIG -1 has every other frame removed. So it consists of frames 1,3,5,7 etc etc.

The last one labeled ORIG -2 has every other 2 removed. This consists of frames 1,4,7,10 etc, etc.

After looking at these, take a look at the cycle speeds again, using the damaged frames (157 and 207) as the speed increase markers. http://98.155.4.83:8400/57A42/Cycles.flv

thanks,

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/23854/ORIG.flv

http://98.155.4.83:8400/00E51/ORIG_-1.flv

http://98.155.4.83:8400/94C8D/ORIG_-2.flv

[Dean Hagerman]

Dean:

Maybe it is and maybe it is not.

But this is the real point: If he saw the original films, then why did not notice the difference in the assassination sequence? To me, for the plotters to do what you are saying they did, they must have wanted to eliminate something dramatic about that sequence, or why do it? And it would have taken more than a few frames.

Jim

I have heard that Groden owns the original un-altered Nix film

I have heard (I have no idea if this is true) that in Grodens copy of Nix the film keeps going and you can see Clint Hill grab Jackie and push her back into the limo

We dont see that in Zapruder

I cant say much else because of course I have never seen this copy that Groden is said to own

[Jerry Logan]

Thanks Jerry,

Did you ever get a chance to look at this thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16361&view=findpost&p=200540

Instead of extracting frames from a film shot at 18 FPS, would the "increase in speed" aspect be more difficult to decipher, if it was originally shot at 48FPS, with frames extracted from that?

chris

Chris,

That's a very interesting idea and I'm going to have to think about it for a while.

My immediate reaction (and it's definitely open to revision) is that is that a 48 fps film from Zapruder's camera would have been shot at a 1/100 sec shutter speed as opposed to a 1/36 sec shutter speed at 18 fps. It seems to me that there's too much motion blur in the Zapruder frames for the relatively short 1/100 shutter speed.

As I said, it's a very interesting thought - and an idea that can actually be tested! Since you're not really concerned about emulsion characteristics or ghost images it would be easy to run some film through a 414PD at 48 fps and see if you can make a plausible 18 fps movie by selectively and periodically deleting frames. Obviously you'd have to set it up right with a moving subject and objects/people moving in the background. (Please - no sleeping cats:>). I suspect it might be impossible to make it look right but it's an easy test and would make a powerful demonstration if you could pull it off.

More later.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry and all,

The best I can do is footage from my digital camera.

If you're interested in what the difference looks like, the links are supplied below.

A brief description:

All 3 are from the same footage.

It was shot at 30FPS.

I then reduced the FPS to 15 for all of them.

The one labeled ORIG is 30FPS to 15FPS.

The next one labeled ORIG -1 has every other frame removed. So it consists of frames 1,3,5,7 etc etc.

The last one labeled ORIG -2 has every other 2 removed. This consists of frames 1,4,7,10 etc, etc.

After looking at these, take a look at the cycle speeds again, using the damaged frames (157 and 207) as the speed increase markers. http://98.155.4.83:8400/57A42/Cycles.flv

thanks,

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/23854/ORIG.flv

http://98.155.4.83:8400/00E51/ORIG_-1.flv

http://98.155.4.83:8400/94C8D/ORIG_-2.flv

Chris,

I'm definitely not rejecting your idea. It's very suggestive and deserves some serious thought.

I have three gut reactions that may or may not be true and could possibly be overcome by other adjustments.

First, removing every other frame or every 2nd and 3rd frame is the easy case. It seems to me that an altered film would need to be more lumpy - as Jim noted previously, it seems like what someone would want to eliminate would probably be longer than 1/24th of a second duration.

Second, it seems like removing frames speeds up the apparent motion. Wouldn't the limousine have to have been moving really, really slowly to to have every one or two frames removed and still look as slow as it does in real time?

Third, in relation to the motorcycles speeding up after the splices - don't they speed up in relation to the other objects in the frame - so their increased speed, for instance, shows them advancing on the limousine? If the increase in speed were due only to deleted frames then it doesn't seem to me they would be closing the distance - the limousine and motorcycles would appear to move faster equally.

I repeat, just some quick reactions for your thoughts. I'm really gonna have to puzzle over this one.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Greg Burnham]

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.

Greg,

I appreciate your clarification and apology. I have to admit that I don't see that in your original post but perhaps it was edited out.

In any case, I think your thoughts about "There It Is" in relation to the Zapruder film are way ahead of what's actually in the 1928 movie.

Of course! It is 35 years later, why wouldn't 1963 technology not be ahead of 1928? That's a no-brainer, Jerry!

... "There It Is" is one of his most famous films and rightly famous for the mentioned stop frame animation. As I've written before, stop frame animation is just the opposite process that would be required to alter the Zapruder film. [italics added]

Is it really the opposite process? Are you sure? I think not. I believe that stop frame was not the "end all" process, but was, in fact, incorporated when the film frames were individually re-shot.

In stop frame the film is completely unchanged. Instead, the camera is stopped and the underlying reality is changed. It's not the film that's altered - it's the scene that's changed and then recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion makes magical things appear to happen.

Well, that's only partially true, Jerry. Stop frame can also be used to alter images "frame by frame" in a studio... and you know it. The (pre-recorded) "scene" can be changed and then re-recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion making the source of "graphic violence" appear to be uncertain, too.

Honestly, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with things like retouching, compositing, matting, traveling mattes, emulsion matching or any number of other things required to make an authentic looking Zapruder forgery. It's a completely different and opposite process.

Uhhh, no that is not correct, as it is based on a non-sequitar.

I think I understand the point you were going for but you just picked a completely inappropriate and inapplicable example and that makes us all look foolish.

It might make you look foolish, my dear condescending one, but not me.

I know a number of professional film makers are monitoring the forum and they'd instantly recognize the obvious mistake. I know that you have some good stuff Greg, I just wish you could find a way to show it to us.

That is an insulting and quite embarassing (for you) statement! Why use intimidation as a deterrent if your case is so strong, Jerry? It is beneath you.

Sincerely, my best to you,

Jerry

Thanks...but, try again. Oh, and BTW: there are a number of professional film makers who do not agree with your assessment either. However, that proves nothing--except that we both know professionals with opposing views on the subject.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

deleted dupe

Have you ever considered to be a bit more careful Craig?

A person with that skills should be a bit more qualitative.

Sorry Martin, I'm posting while processing files and I hit the post button twice while my computer was crunching a 1gb file. It was a mistaken double post.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig:

I don't have a dog in this fight. As you can see.

But please explain why Jack is ignorant about his point.

Why? Because careful inspection of the frame in question shows gross motion blur that obscured detail in all the faces in the frame.

To suggest that this is "animation error' is just silly.

It shows a decided ignorance of the process on Whites part...