Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[Greg Burnham]

I would like to thank all who have contributed in a meaningful way to this thread. I would also like to thank all (you know who you are) who "chose to agitate" those who subsequently contributed in a meaningful way to this thread, but did so as a direct result of having been so agitated.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

I would like to thank all who have contributed in a meaningful way to this thread. I would also like to thank all (you know who you are) who "chose to agitate" those who subsequently contributed in a meaningful way to this thread, but did so as a direct result of having been so agitated.

Don't you hate it Burnham, when you get your hat handed to you....like you did in this tread. One would think you might learn from your mistakes.....

Why not end this tread with this wonderful quote from Healy's hero, Dean Fielding:

“You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2 in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve."

What was the title of this tread again? Oh yea,

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

Burnham turned to dust again LOL!

Edited August 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

I would like to thank all who have contributed in a meaningful way to this thread. I would also like to thank all (you know who you are) who "chose to agitate" those who subsequently contributed in a meaningful way to this thread, but did so as a direct result of having been so agitated.

Don't you hate it Burnham, when you get your hat handed to you....like you did in this tread. One would think you might learn from your mistakes.....

Why not end this tread with this wonderful quote from Healy's hero, Dean Fielding:

“You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2 in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve."

What was the title of this tread again? Oh yea,

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

Burnham turned to dust again LOL!

With a vivid imagination like yours you might do well in the photo industry, son. A little schooling and training from the right pros you may make a decent entry level composing artist... but, we know where the likes of cyber-armchair warriors with too much time on their hands end up... LMFAO!

P.S. NASA does hire free-lance photogs, btw... all ya need is something of value to offer - best of luck to ya, you'll need it!

[Craig Lamson]

With a vivid imagination like yours you might do well in the photo industry, son. A little schooling and training from the right pros you may make a decent entry level composing artist... but, we know where the likes of cyber-armchair warriors with too much time on their hands end up... LMFAO!

P.S. NASA does hire free-lance photogs, btw... all ya need is something of value to offer - best of luck to ya, you'll need it!

Hey look everyone, it's the guy who is technically naive! Got that resume ready for review yet davie? Love to see your film based compositing reel. Where can we find it?

What? No need to make composites when you are a tv tech, shoot the evening news and corporate training vidoes you say? Imagine that.

Can you say POSER? I knew that you could.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Like I said, Craig, "You know who you are..."

I would like to thank all who have contributed in a meaningful way to this thread. I would also like to thank all (you know who you are) who "chose to agitate" those who subsequently contributed in a meaningful way to this thread, but did so as a direct result of having been so agitated.

Don't you hate it Burnham, when you get your hat handed to you....like you did in this tread. One would think you might learn from your mistakes.....

Why not end this tread with this wonderful quote from Healy's hero, Dean Fielding:

You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2 in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve."

What was the title of this tread again? Oh yea,

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

Burnham turned to dust again LOL!

Edited August 25, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

Like I said, Craig, "You know who you are..."

Yea, I'm one if the few SANE people in this silly and ignorant thread. I know who YOU are too. Never let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy eh Greg?

Edited August 26, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Martin Hinrichs]

Jerry,

Enlarged 300%, running at approx 18 FPS.

chris

Chris, thank you very much for this large stable GIF.

I hope you don't mind that i've reworked you fine GIF a bit attaching my layer opacity technique.

I think sometimes it helps to get a better view.

Here i picked some 10 frames from your GIF. This is in slowmotion to help the movements and motion in this

area.

After watching it over and over again it appears to me clear a man (maybe a black man?) was walking

behind "fast-arm man" northwards, towards the TSBD direction. We can even see his shadow on the backside of a person with white clothes.

I think it's possible "fast-arm man" has his right upper arm already in position as black man walked behind him

(not to distinguish cause same darkness) and extended his lower arm suddenly at Zapruder frame 224, the moment where

a loud shot rang out in DP.

Here i've shortened the GIF:

What do you think Chris, John, Jerry, Robin...all?

Thanks

Martin

[Greg Burnham]

Nice work, Martin!

I don't claim to know what the following observation means, if anything, but earlier in the thread a few people commented on the unusually rapid pace of Apron Man clapping his hands. But, when compared to the maneuver of the "paper" in the top of the clip--the latter really seems fast to me.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Nice work, Martin!

I don't claim to know what the following observation means, if anything, but earlier in the thread a few people commented on the unusually rapid pace of Apron Man clapping his hands. But, when compared to the maneuver of the "paper" in the top of the clip--the latter really seems fast to me.

Thank you Greg.

Sure, some motions seem to very fast in particular when examining special areas in just two frames.

Foster's feet, Apron Man hand clapping, Greers head turn and also "fast clapping man" in this GIF behind the white concrete pergola at Houston.

I like to draw you attention to Zframes 327-339.

Here you can see a crop stable in motion in realtime.

The focus is on Jackies right arm on Jack's right shoulder.

This GIF covers just 13 frames and runs 7/10 of a second.

Thats really fast. I think we can witness this phenomenon also in other films taken that day.

best to you

Martin

[Greg Burnham]

Nice work, Martin!

I don't claim to know what the following observation means, if anything, but earlier in the thread a few people commented on the unusually rapid pace of Apron Man clapping his hands. But, when compared to the maneuver of the "paper" in the top of the clip--the latter really seems fast to me.

Thank you Greg.

Sure, some motions seem to very fast in particular when examining special areas in just two frames.

Foster's feet, Apron Man hand clapping, Greers head turn and also "fast clapping man" in this GIF behind the white concrete pergola at Houston.

I like to draw you attention to Zframes 327-339.

Here you can see a crop stable in motion in realtime.

The focus is on Jackies right arm on Jack's right shoulder.

This GIF covers just 13 frames and runs 7/10 of a second.

Thats really fast. I think we can witness this phenomenon also in other films taken that day.

best to you

Martin

What do you think this "phenomenon" (as you called it) means?

[Martin Hinrichs]

What do you think this "phenomenon" (as you called it) means?

Greg, i hope to use the right attitude and do not offend you when

i say it's quite possible our eyes are trained to watch movies at 25fps than at 18 or 16 fps.

The amateur movie cameras used that day were running mostly at 16 or 18 frames per second.

There is a longer time gap between the frames taken than today.

When motions getting quick, it's just natural that movements are missing in that captured frames on

old standard cameras.

I was suspicious as many others as i observered some fast turns.

The photographic evidence is my hobby horse in the JFK assassination research.

I'am online since almost 2 years on forums and until now i've never seen any contradiction

of the Zapruder film with other Movies and still photographs taken that day.

They are all in harmonic sync.

I have great doubts of a Zapruder film alteration cause this film is in perfect harmony with all

the other footages taken on november 22, 1963.

Don't get me wrong. I'am not saying alteration supporter having an agenda or like to mislead.

I know that you're a friend of the late Rich DellaRosa (god bless him) believed in the alteration of this fim too,

but you should consider that (i hope so) that some of us see it otherwise.

I believe the Zapruder film, as it is, is the key of the proof of conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

This original film ( please allow me that statement) is the proof that John F. Kennedy was under cross fire

in Dealey Plaza on november 22, 1963.

My very best to you

Martin

Ps: Don't expect at any time that i might insult you or call you names. I believe in a friendly way of communication.

[Greg Burnham]

Greg, i hope to use the right attitude and do not offend you when i say it's quite possible our eyes are trained to watch movies at 25fps than at 18 or 16 fps. The amateur movie cameras used that day were running mostly at 16 or 18 frames per second. There is a longer time gap between the frames taken than today. When motions getting quick, it's just natural that movements are missing in that captured frames on old standard cameras.

Thanks Martin. I agree that our eyes are more used to viewing a different frame rate. Perhaps that might explain some of it.

I was suspicious as many others as i observered some fast turns. The photographic evidence is my hobby horse in the JFK assassination research. I'am online since almost 2 years on forums and until now i've never seen any contradiction of the Zapruder film with other Movies and still photographs taken that day. They are all in harmonic sync.

Well, it sounds like you have your work cut out for you.

I have great doubts of a Zapruder film alteration cause this film is in perfect harmony with all the other footages taken on november 22, 1963. Don't get me wrong. I'am not saying alteration supporter having an agenda or like to mislead. I know that you're a friend of the late Rich DellaRosa (god bless him) believed in the alteration of this fim too, but you should consider that (i hope so) that some of us see it otherwise. I believe the Zapruder film, as it is, is the key of the proof of conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

Martin, I think that there are many sincere researchers who believe as you do. I appreciate your sincerity and your civil tone.

This original film ( please allow me that statement) is the proof that John F. Kennedy was under cross fire

in Dealey Plaza on november 22, 1963.

My very best to you

Martin

Ps: Don't expect at any time that i might insult you or call you names. I believe in a friendly way of communication.

Thanks for that...