Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[Greg Burnham]

Greg:

I actually think that Jerry is right on this point, or at lest more right than the film you produced from 1928 is.

In the film you were posting, most of those effects could be done with simple stop action or some animation. ANd they are all done on a very small scale. WHich I mentioned before since they were either close in or medium shots. Very little if any background to worry about.

What Horne is talking about is something quite different and dealing with matching many other people--who you could call extras--in a background against action in the foreground which also includes extras, and also what we could call main actors. And like I said, if this was done, it was an amazing job. No film I know of from that time period interweaved composite shots or traveling mattes as seamlessly.

If you know anything about how hard this stuff is to do to make it undetectable, it is truly a feat for 1963. I disagree a bit with Jack on this point. Although it is technically true to say that the techniques did exist to do the things Horne is saying was done, the point is if the proficiency had advanced by that time to do it as well as it was done here. Like I said, I used to be an avid film goer. I don't recall these effects being done as well until 2001.

I mean if what you are saying is true the traveling mattes had to be just about perfectly done and then the composite photography was also perfect. Because I cannot detect any kind of rear projection or blue screen process photography.

Jim,

The best and the most highly advanced techniques to alter and/or manipulate film in 1963 were, far and away, most readily available to the US Federal Government--as they are even today.

This should not even be in question.

If we accept the above as true, then is it really a giant stretch to conclude that between the Hawkeye and NPIC facilities, that TOP SECRET "STATE OF THE ART" technology was, in fact, available to the US Federal Government? Is it a stretch to conclude that the technology (TOP SECRET) that was available to the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT might have exceeded even Hollywood's best special effects?

Given the magnitude of the "cover-up challenge" to the perpetrators of the crime, and given an unlimited budget, when do you think such technology would have been employed for use on an URGENT basis? Seems like this would have been opportune, no?

Edited August 16, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jerry Logan]

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.

Greg,

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interested parties can check here to learn more about the Bowers process and make up their own minds.

h**p://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68charleybowers.php

Just for my information, exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed, for example, the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?

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.

Greg,

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interested parties can check here to learn more about the Bowers process and make up their own minds.

h**p://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68charleybowers.php

Just for my information, exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed, for example, the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?

Jerry

No offense taken. How did your professionals address those irrelevant issues, Jerry? Mine didn't address them at all! They are more concerned with actual issues--content inconsistencies, and impossibilities. The Zapruder film is interestingly similar to the Warren Commission Report, in that it is "internally" inconsistent with itself.

[Jerry Logan]

Greg,

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interested parties can check here to learn more about the Bowers process and make up their own minds.

h**p://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68charleybowers.php

Just for my information, exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed, for example, the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?

Jerry

No offense taken. How did your professionals address those irrelevant issues, Jerry? Mine didn't address them at all! They are more concerned with actual issues--content inconsistencies, and impossibilities. The Zapruder film is interestingly similar to the Warren Commission Report, in that it is "internally" inconsistent with itself.

Greg,

I'm not trying to be difficult (well..maybe just a little but not in a mean way). You're the guy who started the thread about how all the technology arguments were irrefutably rebutted by the existence of "There it Is" in 1928. It's disappointing to learn you started a thread on "irrelevant issues" about which your film experts haven't even expressed an opinion.

That's why I wrote (and I should have used kinder language) that the thread was embarrassing. Because there's an entire host of technical issues on which "There it Is" is completely silent and the first time I raise just one of them it's time to change the subject to content.

Hey, I'm willing to go there - I thought the whole thread was silly from the very start. So if you've got something post it in a new thread and let's look at content.

Jerry

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interested parties can check here to learn more about the Bowers process and make up their own minds.

h**p://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68charleybowers.php

Just for my information, exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed, for example, the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?

Jerry

No offense taken. How did your professionals address those irrelevant issues, Jerry? Mine didn't address them at all! They are more concerned with actual issues--content inconsistencies, and impossibilities. The Zapruder film is interestingly similar to the Warren Commission Report, in that it is "internally" inconsistent with itself.

Greg,

I'm not trying to be difficult (well..maybe just a little but not in a mean way). You're the guy who started the thread about how all the technology arguments were irrefutably rebutted by the existence of "There it Is" in 1928.

That is NOT what I said! Not even close. You are NOT cognitively impaired. Please don't continue to misrepresent yourself as such...it will gain little sympathy.

It's disappointing to learn you started a thread on "irrelevant issues" about which your film experts haven't even expressed an opinion.

Try again because that was LAME(son).

That's why I wrote (and I should have used kinder language) that the thread was embarrassing. Because there's an entire host of technical issues on which "There it Is" is completely silent and the first time I raise just one of them it's time to change the subject to content.

Huh? What are you talking about now? Several of the rudimentary techniques in use in this 1928 film demonstrate the technology (however accomplished in 1928) to ALTER FILM. The 1928 film displayed formidable "credibility" in its presentation. The Zapruder film was shot and processed 35 years later! So, even more advanced technology was available to our government in 1963, coupled with an unlimited budget to implement the technology.

Hey, I'm willing to go there - I thought the whole thread was silly from the very start. So if you've got something post it in a new thread and let's look at content.

Jerry

If you thought it silly, then WHY CONTRIBUTE TO THE THREAD AT ALL? You parrot the position of others in your post. Similar defense tactics have been employed by the CIA to support the WCR, although they appear innocuous on their face--just like your cordial nonsense does.

Countering Criticism of the Warren Report

1 April 1967

Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases

Document Number 1035-960

for FOIA Review on Sep 1976

SUBJECT: Countering Criticism of the Warren Report

PSYCH

1. Our Concern: From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addressees are requested:

CS COPY

9 attachments h/w

DATE 4/1/67

1- Satts

8-Unclassified

DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED

JFK 01, p.2

a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where contested by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private or media discussion not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been much more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual eyewitnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent -- and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the commission for good and sufficient reason.

JFK 01, p.3

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory; or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

JFK 01, p.4

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed-up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some more natural way: e.g., the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the Report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

[Jack White]

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

[Greg Burnham]

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

[Bernie Laverick]

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

Oh dear! Have I been had?

You're too trusting Bernie......

[Greg Burnham]

Greg:

Let us try and be civil.

I don't think we should imply someone is a spook if they don't believe in film alteration. OK.

There are many decent people who are either on the fence or disagree about that issue.

Like say Gary Aguilar and Randy Robertson.

Those are people who full well believe in conspiracy. But just not that aspect of it.

What are you talking about, Jim? Nobody implied anyone was a "spook" -- sheesh. However, similar tactics can be employed by the un-employed...as they were in this case.

I do not require that anyone believes the Zapruder film is altered in order to "prove" they are honest, intelligent, sincere, etc.

[Jerry Logan]

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

Greg,

I'm sorry to see you seem to be following Jack into name calling. The issue is really simple.

You wrote....

"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, "There It Is" --"

Since at least 2003 Roland Zavada and others have argued that it was technically impossible to create an undetectable forgery of the Zapruder film because of the grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film.

Certainly, copying (and in Horne and White's view) enlarging and recopying are part of the alteration process so I simply asked you to demonstrate how the techniques in "There it Is" refuted or even addressed this basic question.

Apparently that one's too hard so how about contrast and registration problems with mattes, not to mention traveling mattes? First, are there any mattes at all in "There is Is"? If so, where exactly do they appear in the film? Second, what specific matte techniques were used in "There it Is" that could be applied or extended to the Zapruder film?

These are simple questions that go to the heart of your clearly stated assertion - the nature of your response so far makes me think you can't answer but I could be wrong.

I am certain that calling names and posting circulars about pys ops isn't an answer. And I'm almost certain you didn't have a clue about the actual techniques used in "There it Is",

You shot from the hip and now it's uncomfortable to be confronted with questions about what's actually in the movie and how it could possibly apply to Zapruder.

In my experience everyone thinks better of you if you just admit a mistake and move on - there were lots of movies in the 20's and 30's that could actually apply at least tangentially to the Zapruder film. Why don't you pick one of those? "There is Is" is no place to make your last stand.

Jerry

Edited August 16, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Greg Burnham]

Greg, this is what you said:

"Similar defense tactics have been employed by the CIA to support the WCR, although they appear innocuous on their face--just like your cordial nonsense does. "

You then posted the famous CIA memo on Countering the Critics of the Warren Report.

That's cutting it kind of close.

So be it.

[Jerry Logan]

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

Oh dear! Have I been had?

You're too trusting Bernie......

No Bernie, no....don't go tribal on me. I'm a lawyer. My natural inclination is to ask questions and probe for weaknesses.

All I did was ask Greg a question he can't seem to answer - "...exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed...the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?"

Does that makes me part of the suppression apparatus?

Jerry

[Greg Burnham]

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

Greg,

I'm sorry to see you seem to be following Jack into name calling. The issue is really simple.

You wrote....

"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, "There It Is" --"

Since at least 2003 Roland Zavada and others have argued that it was technically impossible to create an undetectable forgery of the Zapruder film because of the grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film.

Certainly, copying (and in Horne and White's view) enlarging and recopying are part of the alteration process so I simply asked you to demonstrate how the techniques in "There it Is" refuted or even addressed this basic question.

Apparently that one's too hard so how about contrast and registration problems with mattes, not to mention traveling mattes? First, are there any mattes at all in "There is Is"? If so, where exactly do they appear in the film? Second, what specific matte techniques were used in "There it Is" that could be applied or extended to the Zapruder film?

These are simple questions that go to the heart of your clearly stated assertion - the nature of your response so far makes me think you can't answer but I could be wrong.

I am certain that calling names and posting circulars about pys ops isn't an answer. And I'm almost certain you didn't have a clue about the actual techniques used in "There it Is",

You shot from the hip and now it's uncomfortable to be confronted with questions about what's actually in the movie and how it could possibly apply to Zapruder.

In my experience everyone thinks better of you if you just admit a mistake and move on - there were lots of movies in the 20's and 30's that could actually apply at least tangentially to the Zapruder film. Why don't you pick one of those. "There is Is" is no place to make your last stand.

Jerry

This is not my last stand. Why suggest it is? In fact, why are you raising issues (that I didn't raise) and then attributing them to me? Knock it off! It's a poor representation of your intellectual prowess.

Seriously, Jerry...you are attributing WAY MORE to me than what I actually said. I don't like it. Even Jim D is getting swallowed up in it...not his fault. He is agnostically gullible on this issue. But you are not.

'nuff said--

[Jerry Logan]

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

Greg,

I'm sorry to see you seem to be following Jack into name calling. The issue is really simple.

You wrote....

"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, "There It Is" --"

Since at least 2003 Roland Zavada and others have argued that it was technically impossible to create an undetectable forgery of the Zapruder film because of the grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film.

Certainly, copying (and in Horne and White's view) enlarging and recopying are part of the alteration process so I simply asked you to demonstrate how the techniques in "There it Is" refuted or even addressed this basic question.

Apparently that one's too hard so how about contrast and registration problems with mattes, not to mention traveling mattes? First, are there any mattes at all in "There is Is"? If so, where exactly do they appear in the film? Second, what specific matte techniques were used in "There it Is" that could be applied or extended to the Zapruder film?

These are simple questions that go to the heart of your clearly stated assertion - the nature of your response so far makes me think you can't answer but I could be wrong.

I am certain that calling names and posting circulars about pys ops isn't an answer. And I'm almost certain you didn't have a clue about the actual techniques used in "There it Is",

You shot from the hip and now it's uncomfortable to be confronted with questions about what's actually in the movie and how it could possibly apply to Zapruder.

In my experience everyone thinks better of you if you just admit a mistake and move on - there were lots of movies in the 20's and 30's that could actually apply at least tangentially to the Zapruder film. Why don't you pick one of those. "There is Is" is no place to make your last stand.

Jerry

This is not my last stand. Why suggest it is? In fact, why are you raising issues (that I didn't raise) and then attributing them to me? Knock it off! It's a poor representation of your intellectual prowess.

Seriously, Jerry...you are attributing WAY MORE to me than what I actually said. I don't like it. Even Jim D is getting swallowed up in it...not his fault. He is agnostically gullible on this issue. But you are not.

'nuff said--

Greg,

I'm more than willing to drop the subject. Everyone who cares can read my questions and your statements and judge for themselves.

However, I'm pretty sure that Jim DiEugenio can take care of himself :>)

Jerry

[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

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

Jerry,

I'm not necessarily saying that this is the exact process that was used. Either 1 or 2 frames at a time.

I just introduced the idea so a comparison could ensue.

When I asked about the speed of the motorcycles, I should have been more descriptive.

Actually, I should have broken the cycle clip into distinct parts.

What I'm seeing is a very noticeable speed increase in the panning and inner frame (all elements) movements between the first part and the last.

The two gifs running side by side, will give you a better ideal of what I'm describing.

Both gifs are set with a .06sec delay between frames.

When played back in Quicktime Pro, this equates to 18FPS.

Or, play them in 2 separate browser windows simultaneously.

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/95FBB/2A.gif

http://98.155.4.83:8400/8317A/3A.gif

Edited August 16, 2010 by Chris Davidson