Chris Davidson Posted January 10, 2012 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 Hi Josiah, Can you please post the full frame version "sprocket holes included if possible" of your cropped 317 frame. thank you, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2012 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 ...I am certainly no photo expert... couldn't agree more, Dr. Thompson? The above image of yours (for our consideration) is, ah, how do I say it without offense, worthless... Perhaps someone will make arrangements for YOU to see the frame, yes frame... that's all that's needed to prove Zapruder film alteration, yes? (p.s. the secret? think 'contrast') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Sure John. The camera-original is in NARA’s deep freeze and hence not available. I'm not sure what you mean by "fake stereo." However, surely you know that photo interpretation experts have known for a long time that the sure way to catch fakery in a movie film is to compare adjacent frames. Since this has been kind of elementary knowledge in that field, I'm curious as to why the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" haven't tried it. Or maybe they have and got the wrong result. We don't know since all they've produced is a deafening silence that now stretches for several years. 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 Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames? (Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.) John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 ... So Jim, while DSL makes a lot of sense, we really do not know if anyone was working with a camera original after that weekend.... ... Let me explain a simple fact of Z-film life to you and others: you, can't prove that the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original, housed at NARA is in fact the *actual* in-camera original, therefore, what you see in this thread is all speculation, on all of our parts... O-P-I-N-I-O-N Having said that: in this specific thread, some speculation and explanation regarding Z-film authenticity comes from more "informed-experienced" folks than others... explaining your own expertise-experience in matters such as possible film alteration might lend to your contribution here. Just a suggestion, after all we do get a lot of uninformed opinion concerning this specific subject matter and those new to the ways of Photshop-like software packages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Sorry, Chris, but I can't. I think the reason I can't you might find interesting. This all came up two years ago in January 2010. I took my Ektachrome slides to a commercial scanning outfit in San Francisco and had a series from about 310 scanned by their super equipment. But it was expensive. Real expensive. I think I ended up spending $600 or $700 on this. When we did the scan I limited down the area to be scanned largely to reduce the cost. Hence, I have the full-frame as an Ektachrome slide but not as a scan. So I have nothing in digital form to send you. Your full frame version of 317 from the National Geographic Program shows a lot of contrast buildup that certainly makes the back of JFK's head look like something has been patched there. Neither my close-up from 317 nor the close-up posted by John Costella from the same program shows this contrast buildup and oddity at the back of JFK's head. Apparently, there is a regular version of this program on DVD and then a HD definition program. I take it your posting came from the DVD and hence the regular version. Am I right? JT 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 Hi Josiah, Can you please post the full frame version "sprocket holes included if possible" of your cropped 317 frame. thank you, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 ..the one above the ear there the scalp has been blown away...leaving a hard edge and the hard edge created by the ear. What kind of Bravo Sierra are you talking about now Craig? Can we see your pixel count or interpolation method for this study? The edge of the wound and the ear are quite visable. Are you too blind to see them? No interpolation needed...and more pixels than you can imagine. All in due time....this is shaping up to become a wonderful game. 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. Well I see the master of light Vermeer hath spoken. Show us how you claim to now know the expected is as expected. Kennedy's head was not cubic in shape! You are generalizing something rather than being specific. Not at all. The position of the sun is very well known. The angle of incidence is also well known. We can SEE how JFK's head moves. THE ONLY WAY OFR MORE LIGHT to reach the back of his head is for his head to continue to lean forward. It goes backwards. Simple lighting 101, you you just failed. 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? Your basing this on assumptions, you have no evidence to support said assumptions. You would never pass the Daubert standard. But please continue I am in need of more humor whilst performing my morning ritual. No, I'm not basing this on any "assumptions". It is based on DIRECT MEASUREMENTS. Learn to read. Then flush your post away. it is made of the same material in your bowl. 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 strong grasp on what testimony means. Unlike your bias Lamson. Jim has his head firmly planted in a moist dark area. As we can see yours is as well. Testimony is only as good as the facts it presents. This is 1963 tech. It is basic stuff. And even that is beyond your grasp. Bub bye. ya gotta except defeat with grace Craigster... you've had a good lone nutter-xxxxx run....gotta be a giant among man! Carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) ya gotta except defeat with grace Craigster... you've had a good lone nutter-xxxxx run....gotta be a giant among man! Carry on! Oh dave the game is just starting again, no defeat in sight. I mean look at this argument...I'm a cartoonist/teacher/lottery guy/old time CT/new school special effects dude and the shadows looks painted in to me. Just believe me because I know I'm right. This is going to be a blast! It will be a very interesting series of months. Hold on to your butt dave. Edited January 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Cliff, While I otherwise agree with your response to Lifton, especially that, simply by locating where JFK was hit in the back, the existence of conspiracy is proven (since it was 5.5" below the collar at a downward angle and had no exist, the wounds to the throat and to Connally--not to mention the head wounds--have to be accounted for on the basis of other shots made by other shooters), there was no effort to conceal the back wound. Indeed, if you review the reenactment photographs that I include in "Reasoning about Assassinations", you can see that they acknowledge the back wound with a large patch. Indeed, the Secret Service and the FBI both concluded that day that there had been three shots and three hits: the first shot hit JFK in the back; the second hit Connally in the back; and the third hit JFK in the back of the head, killing him. Your conjecture that the edition of the film was intended to conceal the back shot is highly implausible and contradicted by the evidence. The limo stop, however, was such an obvious indication of Sercret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit that it had to be removed and, once it had been taken out, there was not enough time for Clint Hill's actions--and Chaney motoring forward was scrapped along with it. Jim Back to the topic at hand: I'm of the opinion that any editing out of the limo stop was incidental -- what was edited out/altered was the back shot which just happened to correspond with the limo stop post Z255. Jim, the re-enactment photos with the white patch in the correct location are photos taken during the May 24, 1964 re-enactment. This re-enactment was performed by the FBI and Secret Service, under the direction of Arlen Specter. The FBI and Secret Service did not come to a three hit conclusion based upon this re-enactment. They had come to that conclusion back in December. There is no evidence they actually came to the conclusion there was three shots, three hits, moreover. When one looks at the timeline, in fact, it seems likely they simply deferred to Governor Connally's recollections, and pretended the films supported his recollections. The WC counsel, however, after studying the films, realized this wouldn't fly, as Connally was hit far too close to Kennedy's first being hit to support the three shots/three hits scenario. Thus, the May re-enactment. Thus, the single-bullet theory. The correct placement of the patch during the re-enactment is of course a smoking gun. Specter admitted studying the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment. The FBI's Robert Frazier, moreover, admitted using the autopsy measurements in the placement of the patch. The Secret Service's Thomas Kelley, however, claimed they'd used the Rydberg drawings--which place the wound on the back of the neck. And the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt did his part by saying that their single-bullet re-enactment established that a bullet fired when the Commission proposed would have “passed through a point on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound.” Specter then entered into evidence a photo taken from the front, that did not show the entrance wound location on Kennedy's back. NO photos of the white patch designating this location were entered into evidence, or published by the Commission, even in the 26 volumes. That this was a deliberate deception is proved, moreover, by Specter's acknowledgement in his book that the man showing him the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment was none other than Thomas Kelley, whose testimony he took but days later, and who, under Specter's questioning, made the false claim the back wound location came from the Rydberg drawings. As far as the head wound... While you insist those claiming the limo stopped must be correct, and that the Zapruder film must therefore be a fake, this is inconsistent with your claim there was a large blow-out on the back of Kennedy's head. You see, NONE of the Dealey Plaza witnesses you rely upon to establish your limo stop described such a wound. Do you really believe that William Newman, Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, Emmett Hudson, Charles Brehm, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Douglas Jackson, Sam Kinney, Emory Roberts, Kenneth O'Donnell, Dave Powers, and George Hickey were WRONG when they described an explosion from the top right side of the head, and failed to mention an explosion from the low back of the head behind the ear, where you propose the large head wound was located? Regarding the string of witnesses you are citing, here is my opinion as to their credibility: William Newman, Gayle Newman, Emmett Hudson, Charles Brehm - - important witnesses, whose initial statements are significant and must be taken seriously. Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman. . . a "special case" because Zapruder, I believe, was approached by the "government" within a day, and "talked to." However, I think his original WFAA statement in the Jay Watson interview was a truthful account of what he saw, from his perspective. As for Sitzman, I don't think she was interviewed until 1966, by Josiah Thompson. (If I'm wrong, please do correct me on this). All four motorcycle cops--questionable, because of their likely prior involvement in this affair. The Secret Service agents you cite: questionable, for the same reason: that's correct, prior involvement of Emory Roberts and Kellerman (and others) in the plot (and/or the coverup) Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers: questionable, because of influence of "the [Kennedy] family," their accounts cannot be trusted. After all is said and done. . what remains, essentially, is the Parkland medical record. That's far more important than anything seen in Dealey Plaza, because the Parkland witnesses had a close-up view, and it lasted for minutes, in the setting of an Emergency Room, whereas the Dealey Plaza witnesses had just seconds. DSL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Tink, I've got no problem with comparing adjacent frames (and I have no allegiance to the "Hollywood Seven"), but if you're talking about using adjacent frames as a stereo pair (e.g. frame 316 to the right eye, frame 317 to the left eye) then this method is completely useless -- worse, it's absolutely misleading and meaningless. The only reason it appears to do something useful is because the limo is moving from left to right. Using two different frames puts the limo (as a whole) in front of two different background positions, which approximates the effect of looking at the limo from each of your two eyes. By showing the earlier frame to your right eye, and the later frame to your left eye, you get a "fake 3D" effect because the limo appears to lift out from the background. One way to understand this: hold your arm out, finger up (yes, you can flip me the bird if you like), and look at it through your right eye, then your left eye. If you concentrate on the background of wherever you are, you'll see that your finger appears to move to the right. Of course, your finger isn't moving at all: it just appears to, because you've broken a single stereo view of it into a time sequence of two individual monocular views of it. (And reversing the order -- doing your left eye then your right -- will make your finger appear to move from right to left.) Making a stereo pair of adjacent Z frames does the converse of this -- it takes a time sequence of two absolutely monocular views of a moving object, and fuses them together to give the illusion of a single stereo view. But, just as your finger wasn't moving in the first example, so too isn't the second example really 3D -- it's just the illusion of 3D. Another way of recognizing this is to look at not the limo, but the bystanders. If you try this trick (adjacent Z frames into a fake stereo pair) with Mary and Jean, then you'll find it doesn't work at all: even though they are almost as far in front of the background (peristyle etc.) as the limo, they won't give you the same fake-3D effect. Why? Because they're not moving to the right like the limo is. This tells you that what you're looking at isn't true 3D -- if it were, it would work on Mary and Jean and everything else just as well as it does for the limo. It's just an illusion of 3D. Likewise, if you apply this technique to the limousine and its occupants, then you get a really misleading result. The limo seems to float out in front of the background, because of the 3D illusion described above. That tricks your brain into believing that you're truly looking at something with true stereo vision. You then add on top of this the motion of the occupants (or parts of them) relative to the limousine, and you get another layer of fake 3D. If something inside the limo were moving to the left, relative to the limo, then it would appear to be behind the limo. (For example: if something were moving to the left at the same rate that the limo is moving to the right -- i.e., would be stationary above the pavement of Elm Street if viewed from a satellite camera from above -- then it would appear to be part of the background, not inside the limo at all.) Likewise, something moving to the right relative to the limo (i.e. moving faster relative to the pavement of Elm Street than the limo) would appear to be closer to you than the limo. This is not to say that you couldn't get really interesting (in a psychedelic sense -- you'll have to help me here; you and Jim were around for the '60s; I was only being born) effects by looking at adjacent frames of the Z head shot through a Disney 3D-View-Master. I believe some "researchers" have put serious effort into this meaningless pastime. But the results have nothing to do with three-dimensional reality. At best, this technique might be useful for detecting motion (in the same way that astronomers used to flip between two different photos of the night sky to look for comets, planets, etc.). But in the case we have here -- a film in which the motion of objects (i.e. the President, and parts of his head) is as plain as day -- all it gives you is a 3D Rorschach Test. (I'm stating all this independently of our differing opinions on some topics -- like Z alteration -- even though we agree on others -- like the extant Moorman's camera position. I'm hoping we can get agreement on this point, similarly independent of its consequences re the Z film.) John Sure John. The camera-original is in NARA's deep freeze and hence not available. I'm not sure what you mean by "fake stereo." However, surely you know that photo interpretation experts have known for a long time that the sure way to catch fakery in a movie film is to compare adjacent frames. Since this has been kind of elementary knowledge in that field, I'm curious as to why the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" haven't tried it. Or maybe they have and got the wrong result. We don't know since all they've produced is a deafening silence that now stretches for several years. 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 Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames? (Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.) John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Sorry, Chris, but I can't. I think the reason I can't you might find interesting. This all came up two years ago in January 2010. I took my Ektachrome slides to a commercial scanning outfit in San Francisco and had a series from about 310 scanned by their super equipment. But it was expensive. Real expensive. I think I ended up spending $600 or $700 on this. When we did the scan I limited down the area to be scanned largely to reduce the cost. Hence, I have the full-frame as an Ektachrome slide but not as a scan. So I have nothing in digital form to send you. Your full frame version of 317 from the National Geographic Program shows a lot of contrast buildup that certainly makes the back of JFK's head look like something has been patched there. Neither my close-up from 317 nor the close-up posted by John Costella from the same program shows this contrast buildup and oddity at the back of JFK's head. Apparently, there is a regular version of this program on DVD and then a HD definition program. I take it your posting came from the DVD and hence the regular version. Am I right? JT 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 Hi Josiah, Can you please post the full frame version "sprocket holes included if possible" of your cropped 317 frame. thank you, chris Thanks Josiah, Yes, you are correct. The frame I posted was from the DVD. As I stated previously, it was the best I have come across. You actually answered part of my next question by describing the process by which you had the slides converted. Professionally, it appears. With that said, whenever something old is newly introduced, I like to compare it with other versions for differences. It appears that the cropped 317 frame you have provided is rotated 3.25 degrees CW compared to these 3 film versions in existence. MPI, Groden Uncut, "Lost Bullet" movie. Have you ever checked to see if the digital image of the slide, is in alignment with the physical slide? Or, did you somewhere along the line, rotate your digital image before posting? Why do I ask? Because the Elm St. grade/incline is approx 3.15-3.5 degrees. Here is a quick gif with all four versions layered. Your's has the red outline allowing you to see the angle change which aligns it with the rest. http://24.152.179.96:8400/3C333/317A.gif Any insight would be appreciated, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Sure Chris. Back in November 1966, the 4" by 5" transparency was put on a light table under a homemade copying stand containing my 35 mm Nikon. There were a lot of frames to do and only limited time. Hence, I did not take up any time making sure the transparency was aligned perfectly under the copying stand. I would expect there would be variation from frame to frame and from a perfect vertical as the copying process proceeded. Perhaps you could let me know if this is significant and why. JT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Sorry John, but I don't think we can get agreement here. I really don't have enough interest in the point to continue discussing it. This point is something basic to photo interpretation work and the experts in photo interpretation will decide whether your gloss on the procedure is correct. Perhaps one or more of them will take up the discussion. JT Tink, I've got no problem with comparing adjacent frames (and I have no allegiance to the "Hollywood Seven"), but if you're talking about using adjacent frames as a stereo pair (e.g. frame 316 to the right eye, frame 317 to the left eye) then this method is completely useless -- worse, it's absolutely misleading and meaningless. The only reason it appears to do something useful is because the limo is moving from left to right. Using two different frames puts the limo (as a whole) in front of two different background positions, which approximates the effect of looking at the limo from each of your two eyes. By showing the earlier frame to your right eye, and the later frame to your left eye, you get a "fake 3D" effect because the limo appears to lift out from the background. One way to understand this: hold your arm out, finger up (yes, you can flip me the bird if you like), and look at it through your right eye, then your left eye. If you concentrate on the background of wherever you are, you'll see that your finger appears to move to the right. Of course, your finger isn't moving at all: it just appears to, because you've broken a single stereo view of it into a time sequence of two individual monocular views of it. (And reversing the order -- doing your left eye then your right -- will make your finger appear to move from right to left.) Making a stereo pair of adjacent Z frames does the converse of this -- it takes a time sequence of two absolutely monocular views of a moving object, and fuses them together to give the illusion of a single stereo view. But, just as your finger wasn't moving in the first example, so too isn't the second example really 3D -- it's just the illusion of 3D. Another way of recognizing this is to look at not the limo, but the bystanders. If you try this trick (adjacent Z frames into a fake stereo pair) with Mary and Jean, then you'll find it doesn't work at all: even though they are almost as far in front of the background (peristyle etc.) as the limo, they won't give you the same fake-3D effect. Why? Because they're not moving to the right like the limo is. This tells you that what you're looking at isn't true 3D -- if it were, it would work on Mary and Jean and everything else just as well as it does for the limo. It's just an illusion of 3D. Likewise, if you apply this technique to the limousine and its occupants, then you get a really misleading result. The limo seems to float out in front of the background, because of the 3D illusion described above. That tricks your brain into believing that you're truly looking at something with true stereo vision. You then add on top of this the motion of the occupants (or parts of them) relative to the limousine, and you get another layer of fake 3D. If something inside the limo were moving to the left, relative to the limo, then it would appear to be behind the limo. (For example: if something were moving to the left at the same rate that the limo is moving to the right -- i.e., would be stationary above the pavement of Elm Street if viewed from a satellite camera from above -- then it would appear to be part of the background, not inside the limo at all.) Likewise, something moving to the right relative to the limo (i.e. moving faster relative to the pavement of Elm Street than the limo) would appear to be closer to you than the limo. This is not to say that you couldn't get really interesting (in a psychedelic sense -- you'll have to help me here; you and Jim were around for the '60s; I was only being born) effects by looking at adjacent frames of the Z head shot through a Disney 3D-View-Master. I believe some "researchers" have put serious effort into this meaningless pastime. But the results have nothing to do with three-dimensional reality. At best, this technique might be useful for detecting motion (in the same way that astronomers used to flip between two different photos of the night sky to look for comets, planets, etc.). But in the case we have here -- a film in which the motion of objects (i.e. the President, and parts of his head) is as plain as day -- all it gives you is a 3D Rorschach Test. (I'm stating all this independently of our differing opinions on some topics -- like Z alteration -- even though we agree on others -- like the extant Moorman's camera position. I'm hoping we can get agreement on this point, similarly independent of its consequences re the Z film.) John Sure John. The camera-original is in NARA's deep freeze and hence not available. I'm not sure what you mean by "fake stereo." However, surely you know that photo interpretation experts have known for a long time that the sure way to catch fakery in a movie film is to compare adjacent frames. Since this has been kind of elementary knowledge in that field, I'm curious as to why the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" haven't tried it. Or maybe they have and got the wrong result. We don't know since all they've produced is a deafening silence that now stretches for several years. 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 Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames? (Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.) John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 If you don't have any knowledge of its validity, nor enough interest in it to learn, then why recommend it at all? I think the community expects more from you than that. If you're no longer a researcher, but merely a commentator, then let's get that on the record so that we can ignore your commentaries in the future. John Sorry John, but I don't think we can get agreement here. I really don't have enough interest in the point to continue discussing it. This point is something basic to photo interpretation work and the experts in photo interpretation will decide whether your gloss on the procedure is correct. Perhaps one or more of them will take up the discussion. JT Tink, I've got no problem with comparing adjacent frames (and I have no allegiance to the "Hollywood Seven"), but if you're talking about using adjacent frames as a stereo pair (e.g. frame 316 to the right eye, frame 317 to the left eye) then this method is completely useless -- worse, it's absolutely misleading and meaningless. The only reason it appears to do something useful is because the limo is moving from left to right. Using two different frames puts the limo (as a whole) in front of two different background positions, which approximates the effect of looking at the limo from each of your two eyes. By showing the earlier frame to your right eye, and the later frame to your left eye, you get a "fake 3D" effect because the limo appears to lift out from the background. One way to understand this: hold your arm out, finger up (yes, you can flip me the bird if you like), and look at it through your right eye, then your left eye. If you concentrate on the background of wherever you are, you'll see that your finger appears to move to the right. Of course, your finger isn't moving at all: it just appears to, because you've broken a single stereo view of it into a time sequence of two individual monocular views of it. (And reversing the order -- doing your left eye then your right -- will make your finger appear to move from right to left.) Making a stereo pair of adjacent Z frames does the converse of this -- it takes a time sequence of two absolutely monocular views of a moving object, and fuses them together to give the illusion of a single stereo view. But, just as your finger wasn't moving in the first example, so too isn't the second example really 3D -- it's just the illusion of 3D. Another way of recognizing this is to look at not the limo, but the bystanders. If you try this trick (adjacent Z frames into a fake stereo pair) with Mary and Jean, then you'll find it doesn't work at all: even though they are almost as far in front of the background (peristyle etc.) as the limo, they won't give you the same fake-3D effect. Why? Because they're not moving to the right like the limo is. This tells you that what you're looking at isn't true 3D -- if it were, it would work on Mary and Jean and everything else just as well as it does for the limo. It's just an illusion of 3D. Likewise, if you apply this technique to the limousine and its occupants, then you get a really misleading result. The limo seems to float out in front of the background, because of the 3D illusion described above. That tricks your brain into believing that you're truly looking at something with true stereo vision. You then add on top of this the motion of the occupants (or parts of them) relative to the limousine, and you get another layer of fake 3D. If something inside the limo were moving to the left, relative to the limo, then it would appear to be behind the limo. (For example: if something were moving to the left at the same rate that the limo is moving to the right -- i.e., would be stationary above the pavement of Elm Street if viewed from a satellite camera from above -- then it would appear to be part of the background, not inside the limo at all.) Likewise, something moving to the right relative to the limo (i.e. moving faster relative to the pavement of Elm Street than the limo) would appear to be closer to you than the limo. This is not to say that you couldn't get really interesting (in a psychedelic sense -- you'll have to help me here; you and Jim were around for the '60s; I was only being born) effects by looking at adjacent frames of the Z head shot through a Disney 3D-View-Master. I believe some "researchers" have put serious effort into this meaningless pastime. But the results have nothing to do with three-dimensional reality. At best, this technique might be useful for detecting motion (in the same way that astronomers used to flip between two different photos of the night sky to look for comets, planets, etc.). But in the case we have here -- a film in which the motion of objects (i.e. the President, and parts of his head) is as plain as day -- all it gives you is a 3D Rorschach Test. (I'm stating all this independently of our differing opinions on some topics -- like Z alteration -- even though we agree on others -- like the extant Moorman's camera position. I'm hoping we can get agreement on this point, similarly independent of its consequences re the Z film.) John Sure John. The camera-original is in NARA's deep freeze and hence not available. I'm not sure what you mean by "fake stereo." However, surely you know that photo interpretation experts have known for a long time that the sure way to catch fakery in a movie film is to compare adjacent frames. Since this has been kind of elementary knowledge in that field, I'm curious as to why the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" haven't tried it. Or maybe they have and got the wrong result. We don't know since all they've produced is a deafening silence that now stretches for several years. 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 Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames? (Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.) John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 The procedure described is valid and it's validity has been shown on numerous occasions. It's validity will be shown once again when the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven" come out of hibernation and give us scans to deal with. Until then, I have better things to do than to continue a discussion with you about a procedure that has to remain hypothetical until we have something real to work with. You may enjoy discussing every thing that comes up with respect to your claim of Zapruder film forgery. I don't. JT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The procedure described is valid and it's validity has been shown on numerous occasions. It's validity will be shown once again when the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven" come out of hibernation and give us scans to deal with. Until then, I have better things to do than to continue a discussion with you about a procedure that has to remain hypothetical until we have something real to work with. You may enjoy discussing every thing that comes up with respect to your claim of Zapruder film forgery. I don't. JT The procedure is not hypothetical. You proposed its use here. If its validity has been shown on numerous occasions, point us to those proofs. Absent that, researchers may safely assume that it is junk science. Whether the "Hollywood Seven" gives you something to apply the procedure to is hypothetical. If they do, your Disney 3D-View-Masters of it will be as useless as those of the 313 head spray effect. 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