Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[Robert Harris]

Nobody here is qualified to discuss Z alteration UNLESS they have thoroughly studied:

1. THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX by Fetzer, et al

2. Dr. Costella's webpage on the Z film

3. Everything on Z alteration at the ASSASSINATION SCIENCE website.

4. Doug Horne's Chapter on the film.

Study these things and address specifics they raise. Generalities are meaningless.

What Zavada says is meaningless. What forum members say is meaningless. What

the WR says is meaningless. What the FBI says is meaningless.

Discuss specifics like...DID CHANEY RIDE FORWARD?...DID 56 WITNESSES SAY THE

MOTORCADE CAME TO A HALT?...DID ZAPRUDER SHOOT THE EXTANT FILM?...ETC.

Jack

Jack, rather than tell us to go read something by a nutcase like Fetzer, why don't you just tell us here and now, how this was done?

Are you suggesting that all of it was alteration or did they bring in extras and a camera crew and shoot it all in Hollywood?

Perhaps, you could just start with the alteration part. Which frames do you think were moved and from where to where? Give us some specific details about how this was done.

[Craig Lamson]

If you can't PROVE your point, you HAVE no t'point.

He can't be from Yorkshire, surely? Well, he unquestionably gets straight t'point. And spells like a Tyke:

http://www.yorkshire-dialect.org/authors/sandra_mills.htm#a_consultation_fer_nowt

Extraordinary. Case closed. After three: "On Lamson Moor Baht 'at..."

Thanks for pointing out my typing mistake riggy.

I'll fix it.

Now about your gross error on the shadow thing. You ever gonna fix that?

I'm guessing not.

You are a charter member of the Ed Forum, photo know nothings.

[Robert Harris]

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" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)...

Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip...

Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY:

That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations.

Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology.

Robert,

If there is one frame altered, removed or added, that would constitute alteration.

chris

Ok, I am really, really trying to remain civil. The "special effects" in that film are the result of snapping a lot of still photos and then playing them back in a sequence. It has nothing to do with the kind of alteration you are describing.

Let me make a very simple suggestion for you. Go download all the open source video and image alteration software you can find and just alter ONE freaking frame for me.Cut out the limo and the occupants at say 225 and put them in say, 190, replacing the limo and occupants.

Or if you prefer, reverse the process and put the 190 limo into 225.

Then show us your results.

After several weeks of trying and after your throw your hands up in frustration, think about how you would do that WITHOUT a computer to simplify your task. And then think about doing that hundreds of times in other frames.

Perhaps Jack or Mr. Fetzer would like to give you a hand

[Bernie Laverick]

If you can't PROVE your point, you HAVE no t'point.

He can't be from Yorkshire, surely? Well, he unquestionably gets straight t'point. And spells like a Tyke:

http://www.yorkshire-dialect.org/authors/sandra_mills.htm#a_consultation_fer_nowt

Extraordinary. Case closed. After three: "On Lamson Moor Baht 'at..."

Hey Paul I'm from Yorkshire and even I can't understand it. Must be a village near Keighley where he's picked up the accent! Reminds me of a friend from Doncaster who was looking for a packet of cigarette papers. His wife told him they were in the tobacco tin. After rummaging about and not finding them he then uttered the immortal line... "'tin't in tin"

That must be more incomprehensible to our American friends than Craig's last post is to us!

[Craig Lamson]

If you can't PROVE your point, you HAVE no t'point.

He can't be from Yorkshire, surely? Well, he unquestionably gets straight t'point. And spells like a Tyke:

http://www.yorkshire-dialect.org/authors/sandra_mills.htm#a_consultation_fer_nowt

Extraordinary. Case closed. After three: "On Lamson Moor Baht 'at..."

Hey Paul I'm from Yorkshire and even I can't understand it. Must be a village near Keighley where he's picked up the accent! Reminds me of a friend from Doncaster who was looking for a packet of cigarette papers. His wife told him they were in the tobacco tin. After rummaging about and not finding them he then uttered the immortal line... "'tin't in tin"

That must be more incomprehensible to our American friends than Craig's last post is to us!

Let me make it really easy for you bernie.

PROVE MY ARGUMENTS WRONG.

Can you do that?

Edited August 12, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Bernie Laverick]

Nobody here is qualified to discuss Z alteration UNLESS they have thoroughly studied:

1. THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX by Fetzer, et al

2. Dr. Costella's webpage on the Z film

3. Everything on Z alteration at the ASSASSINATION SCIENCE website.

4. Doug Horne's Chapter on the film.

Study these things and address specifics they raise. Generalities are meaningless.

What Zavada says is meaningless. What forum members say is meaningless. What

the WR says is meaningless. What the FBI says is meaningless.

Discuss specifics like...DID CHANEY RIDE FORWARD?...DID 56 WITNESSES SAY THE

MOTORCADE CAME TO A HALT?...DID ZAPRUDER SHOOT THE EXTANT FILM?...ETC.

Jack

Jack, rather than tell us to go read something by a nutcase like Fetzer, why don't you just tell us here and now, how this was done?

Are you suggesting that all of it was alteration or did they bring in extras and a camera crew and shoot it all in Hollywood?

Perhaps, you could just start with the alteration part. Which frames do you think were moved and from where to where? Give us some specific details about how this was done.

Hi Bob

Any chance you could furnish us with the technical details of how the 1928 film was altered. Please tell me you don't think that's real as well! You can see that that has been altered too can't you?

Do you need to be an expert in photography to see this? Do tables disappear through walls in real life?

The fact has been established. In 1928 the technology existed to manipulate and alter film so as to give a different 'reality'. FACT!

But 35 years later we are led to believe that it couldn't be done...even if it was to cover up the crime of the century.

The trouble is, many on here have spent years formulating and gestating their own pet theories. Rather than be honest and re-assess those views in the light of further dicoveries, it's just so much easier to dig your heels in and refuse to accept it.

And truth becomes the victim!

[Paul Rigby]

That must be more incomprehensible to our American friends than Craig's last post is to us!

Inconceivable! We need a Hamson-Lamson to help us interpret. Anything. Something.

[Bernie Laverick]

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" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)...

Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip...

Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY:

That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations.

Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology.

Robert,

If there is one frame altered, removed or added, that would constitute alteration.

chris

Ok, I am really, really trying to remain civil. The "special effects" in that film are the result of snapping a lot of still photos and then playing them back in a sequence. It has nothing to do with the kind of alteration you are describing.

Let me make a very simple suggestion for you. Go download all the open source video and image alteration software you can find and just alter ONE freaking frame for me.Cut out the limo and the occupants at say 225 and put them in say, 190, replacing the limo and occupants.

Or if you prefer, reverse the process and put the 190 limo into 225.

Then show us your results.

After several weeks of trying and after your throw your hands up in frustration, think about how you would do that WITHOUT a computer to simplify your task. And then think about doing that hundreds of times in other frames.

Perhaps Jack or Mr. Fetzer would like to give you a hand

"That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing"

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Unbelievable! NO ONE IS SAYING THIS!!!

Just that - now take a deep breath Bob and please try - just that the technology existed in 1928 to create a different reality by manipulating and altering film.

Not so difficult is it?

[Craig Lamson]

That must be more incomprehensible to our American friends than Craig's last post is to us!

Inconceivable! We need a Hamson-Lamson to help us interpret. Anything. Something.

Poor paulie, let me interpret this for you.

You don't understand how the sun works....how in the world can you understand anything else photographic?

The answer..you can't.

But lets put you to the test anyway.

Tell us why YOU think the shadow VPA's presented to counter your silly shadow claims fail.

Technical details please.

[Bernie Laverick]

If you can't PROVE your point, you HAVE no t'point.

He can't be from Yorkshire, surely? Well, he unquestionably gets straight t'point. And spells like a Tyke:

http://www.yorkshire-dialect.org/authors/sandra_mills.htm#a_consultation_fer_nowt

Extraordinary. Case closed. After three: "On Lamson Moor Baht 'at..."

Hey Paul I'm from Yorkshire and even I can't understand it. Must be a village near Keighley where he's picked up the accent! Reminds me of a friend from Doncaster who was looking for a packet of cigarette papers. His wife told him they were in the tobacco tin. After rummaging about and not finding them he then uttered the immortal line... "'tin't in tin"

That must be more incomprehensible to our American friends than Craig's last post is to us!

Let me make it really easy for you bernie.

PROVE MY ARGUMENTS WRONG.

Can you do that?

No. Because you don't have any independent arguments.

Rottweilers bite at anything that moves, that's why some aggressive people buy them. Metaphorically that is your job on this forum. Bite at anything that suggests conspiracy. Trouble is Craig you really do overdo it.

You have created nearly 4,000 posts on here. Why? When in your opinion nearly everyone who contributes is "ignorant" a "loony" and heaps of other childish insults.

If I came across a Flat Earth Society Forum I can't imagine why I would want to waste my time (and 4,000 posts is a very long time) trying to correct the errors of their ways. Such ignorant people must be totally harmless and have no influence anywhere. Best leave them to it.

So why do YOU persist communicating with people you obviously feel are your inferiors, and who have such "ridiculous" views?

[Jerry Logan]

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" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)...

Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip...

Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY:

That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations.

Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology.

Robert,

If there is one frame altered, removed or added, that would constitute alteration.

chris

Hello Chris,

Using your definition of alteration it would appear that the film clip you posted is unaltered.

It seems to be a simple stop frame animation where the camera stopped, the physical content of the scene is changed and the film is started to record the new physical reality.

When the film is played back it appears as though a mysterious transformation has occurred in a moment but what the film doesn't show is the time interval where an assistant stepped into the scene and removed the the fake nose.

It's not the film that has been altered in this instance, it's the scene that's changed. The film maker plays on your assumption that filming was uninterrupted and in real time.

But no frame was altered, moved or added - that's exactly what the camera saw while it was recording.

Assuming that the motorcade wasn't stopped along Elm to add or remove elements from the scene it's hard to see how stop frame animation could have played a role in the Zapruder film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Edited August 12, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Dean Hagerman]

Hello Chris,

Using your definition of alteration it would appear that the film clip you posted is unaltered.

It seems to be a simple stop frame animation where the camera stopped, the physical content of the scene is changed and the film is started to record the new physical reality.

When the film is played back it appears as though a mysterious transformation has occurred in a moment but what the film doesn't show is the time interval where an assistant stepped into the scene and removed the the fake nose.

It's not the film that has been altered in this instance, it's the scene that's changed. The film maker plays on your assumption that filming was uninterrupted and in real time.

But no frame was altered, moved or added - that's exactly what the camera saw while it was recording.

Assuming that the motorcade wasn't stopped along Elm to add or remove elements from the scene it's hard to see how stop frame animation could have played a role in the Zapruder film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film

If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered

Edited August 13, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Robert Harris]

Nobody here is qualified to discuss Z alteration UNLESS they have thoroughly studied:

1. THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX by Fetzer, et al

2. Dr. Costella's webpage on the Z film

3. Everything on Z alteration at the ASSASSINATION SCIENCE website.

4. Doug Horne's Chapter on the film.

Study these things and address specifics they raise. Generalities are meaningless.

What Zavada says is meaningless. What forum members say is meaningless. What

the WR says is meaningless. What the FBI says is meaningless.

Discuss specifics like...DID CHANEY RIDE FORWARD?...DID 56 WITNESSES SAY THE

MOTORCADE CAME TO A HALT?...DID ZAPRUDER SHOOT THE EXTANT FILM?...ETC.

Jack

Jack, rather than tell us to go read something by a nutcase like Fetzer, why don't you just tell us here and now, how this was done?

Are you suggesting that all of it was alteration or did they bring in extras and a camera crew and shoot it all in Hollywood?

Perhaps, you could just start with the alteration part. Which frames do you think were moved and from where to where? Give us some specific details about how this was done.

Hi Bob

Any chance you could furnish us with the technical details of how the 1928 film was altered. Please tell me you don't think that's real as well! You can see that that has been altered too can't you?

Do you need to be an expert in photography to see this? Do tables disappear through walls in real life?

The fact has been established. In 1928 the technology existed to manipulate and alter film so as to give a different 'reality'. FACT!

But 35 years later we are led to believe that it couldn't be done...even if it was to cover up the crime of the century.

The trouble is, many on here have spent years formulating and gestating their own pet theories. Rather than be honest and re-assess those views in the light of further dicoveries, it's just so much easier to dig your heels in and refuse to accept it.

And truth becomes the victim!

Of course I will be happy to explain the "technical details" again for you. They shot a series of still frames. If you wanted to make a hat disappear from your actor's head for example, you snap a dozen or so stills of him with the hat on and while he stands motionless, someone takes the hat off and then more photos or film is shot. The end result is that when the film is played, the hat seems to instantly disappear. Every "effect" in that movie was done that way.

Cutting out an image of the limousine and its occupants and replacing it somewhere else in the film is beyond difficult. It is virtually impossible to do without the result looking ridiculously obvious. Haven't you noticed how enthusiastic Fetzer and White have been to answer my request that they explain how this was done

[Craig Lamson]

No. Because you don't have any independent arguments.

Really? Are you blind as well as being a photographic incompetent?

Try this one and show us why it fails.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Rottweilers bite at anything that moves, that's why some aggressive people buy them. Metaphorically that is your job on this forum. Bite at anything that suggests conspiracy. Trouble is Craig you really do overdo it.

Clearly you don't have reading nor memory skills worth a hill of beans.

I could care less about conspiracy. I study the photographic claims and see if they are technically correct. Quite often I test and share the results. I don't ask people to believe me, I want them to test for themself and find the truth. Oh sure I stray a bit once in a while to slap aroound speculators, but its not the subject but rather the person that interests me.

None of this is news. I've been open about for years. This is entertainment and sport.

You have created nearly 4,000 posts on here. Why? When in your opinion nearly everyone who contributes is "ignorant" a "loony" and heaps of other childish insults.

Because I ENJOY it. And this place is a target rich environment. Ther is more photographic ignorance in this place than anywhere else I have ever visited.

If I came across a Flat Earth Society Forum I can't imagine why I would want to waste my time (and 4,000 posts is a very long time) trying to correct the errors of their ways. Such ignorant people must be totally harmless and have no influence anywhere. Best leave them to it.

You are not me. But its very clear that ignorance really does breed ignorance.

So why do YOU persist communicating with people you obviously feel are your inferiors, and who have such "ridiculous" views?

This post by you pretty much sums it up. Sport. Entertainment. LOL funny photo analysis by the the great unwashed. Heck, yhis place has it all!

[Craig Lamson]

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again?