David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 ... (I'm glad to see that everyone here agrees that we'd all be better off with access to the original scans!) John been my mantra for years Dr. John. Great to seeya, mate! Hope you and your family had a great Christmas. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 ... (I'm glad to see that everyone here agrees that we'd all be better off with access to the original scans!) John been my mantra for years Dr. John. Great to seeya, mate! Hope you and your family had a great Christmas. David You too, mate. Takes a sniff of those original scans to get me out of the woodwork ... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Hi Patrick, Interesting post. Not inconsistent with what many have been saying for a long time (four decades?), but your source material has piqued my interest. My "edit" was based solely on the images contained on the MPI DVD, and suffers from the very low quality of that source. The "zoomed" sequences on the DVD give good resolution, but only for the region of each frame around JFK, and only for a subset of all the frames. Hence my overall "edit" set is based on the set of images showing the full frame including the sprocket holes. (Plus the few that they managed to lose, plus the ones "damaged by LIFE", both categories reconstructed from old Groden VHS videos, digitised to MPEG ... yuk!) Those MPI images were at best DVD quality to start with, and MPI screwed them around so much (see my final Appendix in the book The Great Zapruder Film Hoax) that they aren't even that. They're terrible. I accidentally came across someone with the digital scans you mention when I was first looking for Zapruder frames back in 2001, but he clammed up when he realised I didn't have "official" status (i.e. I wasn't in the tent). I (naively) approached Gary Mack about it, who didn't seem to want to help me get hold of them. (Surprise, surprise! As I said, I was new to this back then.) I haven't revealed the gentleman's name over the years, but haven't forgotten the existence of those scans in his safe, either. Patrick, I'd love to redo my "edit" with the original scans. If your Director friend will send them to me, I'll see what I can do. (Terabytes aren't as scary today as they were in 2001, and if you're right that one frame is 79 MB, then we're only talking around 40 GB anyway. A dozen DVD-Rs should do it.) I guess what I'm saying is that you're extremely lucky to have had access to material that few have been given the chance to work with. Let's hope that the public will finally be given their "reference digitisation" that U.S. taxpayers paid $16 million for ... John G'day Mate, Glad you could join us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 lmao.... 3D model to determine shadow location? Is this turning into the Dale *see my emmy* Myers school of photo interpretation? Come on craigster, LMAO! There's a few others here that I suspect have seen these frames, some, the entire 35mm *in-motion* film. You got a problem with Farid? And yes you might be surprised to know who has seen what... So step up the the plate dave and take a swing. That would be a novel idea for you. swing at what, a wiffle ball? Perhaps someone someday soon will show Farid a frame or two, blows non-conspiracy right out of the water... Appears even Jimmy D. is getting a chance to see... the question dude is this: did someone (not who) screw with the NARA held, in-camera original Z-film? If so, why? Focus son! You are woefully uninformed. No internet in the cage? It's not secret son that belief in the WCR these days is purely a matter of FAITH. Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome kinda FAITH. Informed common sense not withstanding.... Say, by-the-way, did you guys ever, EVER find a lone-nut leaning film-photo compositor, expert yet? Oh-well, its only its been 10 years since you started the search! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I've seen the frames, know the Z-film imagery pedigrey-lineage, what's to step up to? The 1963 imagery-frames don't lie... You and most Z-film non-alteration advocates have a problem, Indiana. Of course they don't lie dave,and like I said you might be suprised to know who has seen what...in any case, lots of places in this thread for you to step up to the plate. But of course you don't and won't as is your history. Meaningless posts on the the hand are your stock in trade. Later dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It's not secret son that belief in the WCR these days is purely a matter of FAITH. Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome kinda FAITH. Informed common sense not withstanding.... Say, by-the-way, did you guys ever, EVER find a lone-nut leaning film-photo compositor, expert yet? Oh-well, its only its been 10 years since you started the search! density becomes you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It's not secret son that belief in the WCR these days is purely a matter of FAITH. Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome kinda FAITH. Informed common sense not withstanding.... Say, by-the-way, did you guys ever, EVER find a lone-nut leaning film-photo compositor, expert yet? Oh-well, its only its been 10 years since you started the search! density becomes you.... your only retreat, son! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) your only retreat, son! Retreat? ROFLMAO. Bye dave, get back to us when you have something of value to offer. Edited January 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) delete dupe Edited January 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Say, by-the-way, did you guys ever, EVER find a lone-nut leaning film-photo compositor, expert yet? Oh-well, its only its been 10 years since you started the search! I don't know about LNTs but Oliver Stone, Rollie Zavada (inventor of the film used by Zapruder), Ray Feilding (literally wrote the book on the Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography) among other said alterationist theories are bunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) This friend is the Director of what today is what is regarded as probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world. I've known him for ten years, and he is one of the most straightforward and sensible people I've ever met. I didn't ask him his opinion about the assassination. I gave him no background whatsoever about the medical witnesses and the hole on the rear of the President's head, or anything else. All I did was offer him a blind-look at a few frames of the new, digital copy of the Z film starting at frame 311 to see what he had to say as a neutral, but expert party. His reaction was exactly the same as mine. He was horrified at the obviousness of the black painted-in artwork present on frame 317. He went from interested professional casually examining a colleagues curious request to a man who suddenly was faced with alteration to this vital evidence which sits in the National Archives of the United States of America. The above (especially the highlighted areas) are what I find so interesting about Patrick's post. We are not talking about Joe Shmoe here. Or about a photographic technician. But about a guy who knows state of the art movie special effects. I am sure Patrick has heard of the illustrious Albert Whitlock and Doug Trumbull. I am assuming this person has that kind of stature and experience and knowledge. This is the kind of testimony you cannot just disregard and cast aside with homemade experiments concerning still cameras. These kinds of people know of what they speak, and they have decades of experience and knowledge. They are in the front lines of doing MOTION PICTURE special effects. So yes, I am now going to get in contact with Sydney since I want to see this for myself. Sure you can Jim, Either they get the basic principles correct or they don't. If you blow the basics you blow it all. And don't forget Jim, movies are NOTHING more than a long string of stills that don't get subject to very close inspection often...they are stills. Period. We can see form this initial post Patrick gets step one wrong. He Fails to understand that the only sharp edge shadow transitions in 317 for example are the ones that MUST be sharp..the one above the ear there the scalp has been blown away...leaving a hard edge and the hard edge created by the ear. Knee jerk reaction which match exactly the knee jerk reaction of this director friend. Then we move to mistake two, Patrick's claim the back of the head should move more into the light and the frames progress. Sadly he gets that wrong too. Playing the frames as a gif and UNDERSTANDING the relationship of the head to the sun shows the shadows move exactly as expected and that expected movement is NOT one that adds more light to the back of the head. And finally mistake three. The shadow in no way looks "painted in"? Review the frames and observe the shadows on Jackie and Kellerman's hair. Better yet MEASURE. THEM. I have. There is nothing unusual about the shadow on the back of JFK's head. The head shadow is consistent with the rest of the shadows in the frame. In fact its not even pure black. The back of JFK's coat is darker than his shadowed hair! And the shadow if his hair is well above film base plus fog. Are you going to tell me the black paint was transparent? The testimony of an expert is only as good as the data he presents. His credentials really mean nothing if he gets it wrong. And we all now know that Jim DiEugino has a very weak grasp on what an expert really means. Instead he simply shows his massive bias. I look forward to seeing their so called experts present their case. If it's anything like the one we got today they are in very big trouble. Edited January 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Block Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Hi Patrick, Welcome aboard. Thank you for your expert opinion on the Ztoon. In case you haven't watched the new film "The Lost Bullet", here is another version of 317 for you. This is the best I've been able to acquire. http://24.152.179.96:8400/A524C/317.png Fortunately, it sounds like you have something much nicer to work with. chris The above link to frame #317 by Chris Davidson is a nice, clear look at this frame of the film. The black patch on the back of the President's head jumps right out at you, especially when you compare it to 312, to see JFK's true hair color in shadow. I invite everyone to give the above link from Chris a hard and long look. Thank you all very much for the kind welcome to the board- on both sides of the issue. Mr. Costella, I've used and appreciated your cobbled-together version of the Z frame for study for a long time, but I am not the one who shelled out a lot of cash to have the new copy made. I expect it will be published someday, and I think it is only morally decent to let the person who bought it to be the first to publish. Mr. Lamson, to answer your question, I have no idea when the images might be released online. As I said in my longish post, I'm just a guy who works in the same industry as the purchaser of the copy of the film who has had a long time interest in the case. I was lucky to see them. I respectfully disagree that the only sharp edge of the black patch is near the ear. There is nowhere that there isn't a sharp edge, and the brown of JFK's hair is remarkably light outside of the edge, as he tilts into the light. JFK's head is moving quickly and slightly blurred, but, the patch edge is in focus and sharp, which you would expect with painted art. Yes, there is a big change between frames 314 and 315, and only between those two frames. I sat for a long time bouncing between pairs of frames while studying the film. If you take frame 314 and 315, and cycle between them, you have brown hair/black patch over and over in a rather obvious manner. This happens no where else in the film and is quite dramatic in a neutral scan of the film. Before 315, throughout the entire film, JFK's hair is light brown. It's much lighter than say, Kellerman's very dark hair. From frame 315 onward there is jet black paint only on the back of the President's head. I suppose that if the film is otherwise unaltered, that a hole was not created in the rear of JFK's head until frame 315. As Mr. DiEugenio has noted, this alteration of Zapruder's home movie would be fairly easy to do. I suspect I could do it myself in a short period of time, if I was given a copy of the film blown up to a larger format. Mr. MacRae makes the observation that when you blow up images in the extreme, patches don't resemble paint. However, I might make the observation that when you get that large that you don't get things resembling President Kennedy, either. Sometimes the answers are right in front of us, and are much, much simpler than we try to make them. I know you guys have had endless discussions over all manner of perceived irregularities in the Z film, some crying bullxxxx, and others seeing fraud. I don't know about most of those things, but I am quite confident of this. All you need do is look with your eyeballs at one frame, 317, and compare with 312. It's obvious to this artist, and the link at the top of this post shows a nice image of this frame- a frame notably absent over the years from most of the magazines and books publishing images from the assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) (snip) Sometimes the answers are right in front of us, and are much, much simpler than we try to make them. Yes they are, a wound edge and an ear...... I know you guys have had endless discussions over all manner of perceived irregularities in the Z film, some crying bullxxxx, and others seeing fraud. I don't know about most of those things, but I am quite confident of this. And with all due respect, you got it wrong. All you need do is look with your eyeballs at one frame, 317, and compare with 312. It's obvious to this artist, and the link at the top of this post shows a nice image of this frame- a frame notably absent over the years from most of the magazines and books publishing images from the assassination. Yes, DO use your eyeballs and notice the edge of the wound and the EAR...and then you will grasp exactly WHY the so called painted in shadow fails. Edited January 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 So, Craig Lamson has successfully hijacked yet another thread! BRAVO Craig! Craig, I have a few questions for you. I would appreciate it if you would attempt to answer them DIRECTLY. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from AD HOMINEM attacks--direct or indirect--as the latter are COMPLETELY LOST on the moderation team! 1) Why is there no "turn onto Elm Street from Houston Street" seen in the extant Zapruder Film? [Zapruder told the Warren Commission that he filmed the turn. Where did it go--and why?] 2) Why is the SS-100-X "gliding" along on Elm Street, as though it is "sliding on ice" and not in contact with the asphalt? [this is not an interpretation--it is empirically observable] 3) Why is the Stemmon's Freeway sign at an angle consistent with it having been "painted in" -- IT IS FLAT -- rather than naturally occurring (angled consistent with the curve of Elm Street)? 4) Why is Zapruder's image obscured, as is Sitzman's, IN EVERY AVAILABLE FILM, PHOTOGRAPH, and even in every RECOLLECTION of the eyewitnesses? (Even Zapruder had difficulty finding HIMSELF in his WC testimony and only ASSUMED he must have been there)! 5) Why are there indications (in the physical elements of the motorcycles) of EXTREME braking and rapid acceleration (within the sprocket hole images) that are not evident in the film itself? (notice the compression of the front forks vs the rapid subsequent expansion when no such corresponding motion is seen elsewhere in the film) 6) How is it that Connally held on to his hat AFTER he had already been hit? (this has been established elsewhere. If you are unaware--do some research). 7) Why isn't there blur in the stationary objects if the limo, which was not blurred, was indeed moving within the same frame? 8) How is it that Greer was capable of the impossible "head turns" that we see? 9) Why was the Stemmon's Freeway sign REMOVED post haste forever from the scene of the crime? 10) Why did "officials" illegally confiscate all photographic/film evidence under the "color of authority" that day? 11) Why isn't Chaney's motoring to the lead car seen in the Zapruder film? 12) Why is Clint Hill's recollection of the events at odds with what we see in the Zapruder film? 13) Why do more than a dozen witnesses say the limo STOPPED when the film shows no such thing? 14) Why do SCORES of witnesses say the limo either stopped or dramatically slowed down when the film shows no such thing? 15) Why is there no brain/blood/skull matter present on the trunk as seen in the Zapruder film when Officer Hargis was struck by a skull fragment while he was to the rear of the limo? 16) Why is Jackie in almost as pristine condition as CE 399 is, with no blood or brain matter on her in the film, yet ALL witnesses who saw her reported the opposite? 17) Why are the bystanders on the north side of Elm seemingly MOTIONLESS--like wax figures? Inquiring minds want to know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317. We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. These discussions have been going on for years. I am certainly no photo expert but I am told that a 3D study of Z 317 would disclose immediately and definitively whether anything had been painted in on the back of JFK's head. Am I right about this? If so, wouldn't a 3D study be the quickest,easiest and cheapest way to resolve the question? You folks are down in Hollywood where this kind of a study could be pretty easily arranged. The rest of us have our hands tied because we don't have the scans you folks keep talking about and are using as evidence. JT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now