Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Craig, I remember watching the Adobe presentation a few months ago and thought it had promise. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a fabrication. Adobe got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. We just got an email back from Jue Wang (from Adobe Research and the presenter of the deblurring sneak peek), who explained the history of the images used in the demo… There’s no issue to speak of really – here’s what he wrote us: Hi, we have updated our recent blog post to include a statement on this. If you could point readers to this post that would be great. -Jue And that post addition says: UPDATE: For those who are curious – some additional background on the images used during the recent MAX demo of our “deblur” technology. The first two images we showed – the crowd scene and the image of the poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image taken from the web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic blur was created by extracting the camera shake information from another real blurry image and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to create a realistic simulation. This kind of blur is created with our research tool. Because the camera shake data is real, it is much more complicated than anything we can simulate using Photoshop’s blur capabilities. When this new image was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur plug-in, the software has no idea it was synthetically generated. This is common practice in research and we used the Kevin example because we wanted it to be entertaining and relevant to the audience – Kevin being the star of the Adobe MAX conference! For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out: grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/mdf_deblurring/synth_results/ cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/projects/robust_deblur/ wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~levina/papers/deconvLevinEtalCVPR09.pdf chris No "hand in the cookie jar"and the info you related was included in my links. I suggest you read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Egad! David, don't you realized that you are TAKING FOR GRANTED that the Zapruder is authentic in fashioning this argument? Why don't you take a took at what CLINT HILL has to say about his actions that day: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/ He explains that he pushed Jackie down, lay across their bodies, and peered into the gaping, fist-sized hole in the back of his head. Why in the world are you committing such and obvious and blatant blunder re a fake film? Sometimes, I like to look at this lowly little item on YouTube, which has certain qualities of framing that aren't available in more exacting assemblages of Zapruder frames. Ignore, please, the fatuous soundtrack, and take a look at Clint Hill in this version: Using John Costella's frames for reference, we can see in this film, and by Costella frames 406-7, that Clint hill is both touching Jackie's arm, and is close enough to the limo rear seat to see JFK's wounding. (We see this by those frames, not necessarily exclusively in their duration.) Did he see the wound perfectly then? Perhaps not, but what he adduced then was confirmed soon after, during the ride to Parkland. Did Clint Hill really "push" Jackie back into her seat? I doubt it. He touched her. He was prepared to push her down, but she responded to his presence and guidance. Climbing over a moving car trunk under gunfire probably made the act of seating Jackie seem more physical than it was. (How, exactly, could the act of pushing Jackie into her seat be eliminated from the film and replaced with the more gentle actuality, using the available frames and matte work or other special effects?) In this YouTube framing of the Zapruder film, we can see that by Costella frames 423-427, Hill is looking back to the Queen Mary - Hill rises, noticeably, from his forward crouch, and we can see his left facial profile for the only time in Zapruder. We can see his motion begin at 0:26 in the YouTube version above, which corresponds to frame 423 Costella. Hill rises and turns at the moment when he is partly obscured to Zapruder by an upright stalk of the Pyracanthus bush, and we can see him up and looking back at least as far as frame 427 Costella. After that, he is lost in the sprocket holes in Costella, and in Zapruder he is obscured by the second freeway sign. Compare the film version and the Cosrella frames. Hill rises and turns between the upright stalk and the sign edge. We can't see what Hill did while obscured by the sign, but his actions are consistent with his testimony, and he did have opportunity to flash a "Thumbs-down" back to the Queen Mary. Unfortunately, this moment is not available for comparison in Nix and Muchmore. After the limo emerges from behind the second freeway sign, we see that Hill is returned to his more stable position on the bumper step. Yes, he is not shown draped over Jackie and JFK before the Triple Underpass, as he testified. But such is memory under panic and regret. I submit that what we see in this YouTube version is essentially the enactment of Clint Hill's testimony, given the conditions which necessitated his testimony. There are many alterations to Zapruder, but I don't believe gross alteration of the Hill-Jackie motions are among them (as opposed to frames cut in this sequence to change duration). Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) David, I put to you the same question I have posed to Kathy above. Knowing that at least fourteen (14) witnesses reported a limo stop, why do you want to deny that a limo stop occurred? Now we are not talking about a group of lunatics. These witnesses included the motorcycle escort officers, who, of all people, would be in an impeccable position to know. So I really do not understand where you are coming from. Let me ask a few questions. Do you know ANYONE who would REPORT a limo stop (an automobile accident, whatever) if a limo stop (motorcycle accident, whatever) had not happened? I don't know anyone like that. So what is the probability that 14 witnesses would report a limo stop (many right under their noses) if no limo stop had occurred? And what is the probability that those same witnesses would have reported a limo stop if one actually had occurred? Do you get my point? By dismissing these witnesses--a list that does not include Toni Foster or Louis Witt, by the way, so there is no telling how many more there may be!--you are suggesting that something wildly improbable has occurred, namely: that 14 witnesses (let's make it 16) have reported a limo stop that actually did not occur! My best guess is that that would have a probability of approximate zero. Would you agree? On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine that, when we are talking about a limo stop involving the President of the United States, the probability of reporting a limo stop if a limo stop had actually occurred would be very high, say, around one. In fact, if a limo stop had in fact occurred, I would think ONLY those who had not seen it or who had seen it only in part (slowing but not stopping) would not report A STOP. Wouldn't you agree? Since the probability of reporting a limo stop if one had not occurred is incredibly low, while reporting a limo stop if one had occurred is incredibly high, do you think we REALLY ARE dealing with loons? Because the improbability of this many witnesses reporting a limo stop at the same place and the same time WHEN IT DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN is vanishing small. That value has to be infinitesimal, where I quantify it as equal to zero. You appear to be assuming that the FBI conducted a real investigation of this, which is completely false. As I understand it, the ten closest witnesses, including the escort officers, were not even called to testify. We know that many who were questioned were not asked about their most important information. Others who gave testimony at odds with the predetermined conclusion had their testimony changed. Are you unaware of all of this? Some of your questions betray a lack of familiarity of the depth and extent of our research on the film. John and others have long since address the slo-mo question. I asked before and you have not answered which of the books and articles I have listed you have read. I infer you have never read HOAX (2003) nor watched Costella's tutorial, much less the 66-part serious on the Zapruder film, nor read INSIDE THE ARRB. Am I mistaken? Go back and reread the list of those fourteen (14) unequivocal limo stop witnesses, expanded to sixteen (16) by Foster and Witt. We know from studied done at Harvard that witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete when what they are viewing is salient (significant) to them. What could be more salient than that the president's limousine CAME TO A STOP during an assassination? I hope you can give this matter more serious thought. Jim Jim - You ask why so many state the limo stopped... We have testimony stating everything from a split second to 2-3 seconds.. again - HUGE difference If it had stopped for a full 2-3 seconds, one would think there would be better corroboration..... In terms of the ghost images.... I'd guess that's why we can't see the actual z film's structure (like doug would like) to determine if it was exposed with natural or artificial light... a reworked film would have been entirely filmed to allow for these ghost images to be correct from frame to frame...... but it would be done with artificial light... I was specific in my post about not knowing HOW... just that frames SEEM to be excised in a number of places... AND the ghost images work. Again - has anyone done a comparison in the same type of camera (or anycamera) and looked at the frames side by side? If the Z camera was operating at 48fps - slow motion - wouldn't it be more likely that we'd get full frame clarity? Thanks DJ Brehm puts it very well: BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. This phenomenon is reported all the time during intense memory acquisition... seeing the pres shot would qualify, no? http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html Instead, such time warping seems to be a trick played by one's memory. When a person is scared, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that go along with those normally taken care of by other parts of the brain. http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/why-time-slows-down-in-near-death-experiences/ Eagleman’s theory? The brain records more sensory information in traumatic experiences. Time isn’t slowing down, but the hyper-memory makes it seem like it is by processing and storing all this additional information. Or, as NPR puts it, “you’re getting a peek into all the pictures and smells and thoughts that usually just pass through your brain and float away, forgotten forever.” Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Craig, I remember watching the Adobe presentation a few months ago and thought it had promise. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a fabrication. Adobe got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. We just got an email back from Jue Wang (from Adobe Research and the presenter of the deblurring sneak peek), who explained the history of the images used in the demo… There’s no issue to speak of really – here’s what he wrote us: Hi, we have updated our recent blog post to include a statement on this. If you could point readers to this post that would be great. -Jue And that post addition says: UPDATE: For those who are curious – some additional background on the images used during the recent MAX demo of our “deblur” technology. The first two images we showed – the crowd scene and the image of the poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image taken from the web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic blur was created by extracting the camera shake information from another real blurry image and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to create a realistic simulation. This kind of blur is created with our research tool. Because the camera shake data is real, it is much more complicated than anything we can simulate using Photoshop’s blur capabilities. When this new image was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur plug-in, the software has no idea it was synthetically generated. This is common practice in research and we used the Kevin example because we wanted it to be entertaining and relevant to the audience – Kevin being the star of the Adobe MAX conference! For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out: grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/mdf_deblurring/synth_results/ cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/projects/robust_deblur/ wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~levina/papers/deconvLevinEtalCVPR09.pdf chris No "hand in the cookie jar"and the info you related was included in my links. I suggest you read it again. Craig, Here's another link others might want to read. I suggest reading some of the comments also. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/10/18/adobeclarifies chris Edited January 8, 2012 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Have you seen the movie VANTAGE POINT Jim? Not a cinematic marvel but a very good example of how what we see people seeing, without context, is not always what occurred... Yet each person's account is not less truthful from their POV... I do not believe I denied anything regarding a limo stop, in fact I posted previously ion this thread in fact that studies I DID to determine how fast Hill would have to run to catch the limo, if traveling at the 8mph offered, would be almost 20mph at even the latest launching point... imo the limo had slowed to less than 3mph for Hill to catch it so fast... IN THE FILM WE SEE... That Zap states he kept filming... very suspicious, the removal of the turn.... Simple stated... what we see in this film is representative of events that DID OCCUR, yet is not an accurate representation of them or of everything that happened. Fair? Jim - so I understand Was any part of what we see as the Zfilm ever exposed in his camera? yes or no As to your question about what I've read or not... reading MORE of your POV is not needed and what I'd suggest for you Dr F... is to allow alternative positions thier due, regardless of how they conflict with your IRONCLAD CONCLUSIONS I still appreciate your talents, your immense contributions and ongoing attack on the whitewash... Sure would be nice to see the Hollywood 7 analysis, on the big screen, and put this all to rest.... DJ David, I put to you the same question I have posed to Kathy above. Knowing that at least fourteen (14) witnesses reported a limo stop, why do you want to deny that a limo stop occurred? Now we are not talking about a group of lunatics. These witnesses included the motorcycle escort officers, who, of all people, would be in an impeccable position to know. So I really do not understand where you are coming from. Let me ask a few questions. Do you know ANYONE who would REPORT a limo stop (an automobile accident, whatever) if a limo stop (motorcycle accident, whatever) had not happened? I don't know anyone like that. So what is the probability that 14 witnesses would report a limo stop (many right under their noses) if no limo stop had occurred? And what is the probability that those same witnesses would have reported a limo stop if one actually had occurred? Do you get my point? By dismissing these witnesses--a list that does not include Toni Foster or Louis Witt, by the way, so there is no telling how many more there may be!--you are suggesting that something wildly improbable has occurred, namely: that 14 witnesses (let's make it 16) have reported a limo stop that actually did not occur! My best guess is that that would have a probability of approximate zero. Would you agree? On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine that, when we are talking about a limo stop involving the President of the United States, the probability of reporting a limo stop if a limo stop had actually occurred would be very high, say, around one. In fact, if a limo stop had in fact occurred, I would think ONLY those who had not seen it or who had seen it only in part (slowing but not stopping) would not report A STOP. Wouldn't you agree? Since the probability of reporting a limo stop if one had not occurred is incredibly low, while reporting a limo stop if one had occurred is incredibly high, do you think we REALLY ARE dealing with loons? Because the improbability of this many witnesses reporting a limo stop at the same place and the same time WHEN IT DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN is vanishing small. That value has to be infinitesimal, where I quantify it as equal to zero. You appear to be assuming that the FBI conducted a real investigation of this, which is completely false. As I understand it, the ten closest witnesses, including the escort officers, were not even called to testify. We know that many who were questioned were not asked about their most important information. Others who gave testimony at odds with the predetermined conclusion had their testimony changed. Are you unaware of all of this? Some of your questions betray a lack of familiarity of the depth and extent of our research on the film. John and others have long since address the slo-mo question. I asked before and you have not answered which of the books and articles I have listed you have read. I infer you have never read HOAX (2003) nor watched Costella's tutorial, much less the 66-part serious on the Zapruder film, nor read INSIDE THE ARRB. Am I mistaken? Go back and reread the list of those fourteen (14) unequivocal limo stop witnesses, expanded to sixteen (16) by Foster and Witt. We know from studied done at Harvard that witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete when what they are viewing is salient (significant) to them. What could be more salient than that the president's limousine CAME TO A STOP during an assassination? I hope you can give this matter more serious thought. Jim Jim - You ask why so many state the limo stopped... We have testimony stating everything from a split second to 2-3 seconds.. again - HUGE difference If it had stopped for a full 2-3 seconds, one would think there would be better corroboration..... In terms of the ghost images.... I'd guess that's why we can't see the actual z film's structure (like doug would like) to determine if it was exposed with natural or artificial light... a reworked film would have been entirely filmed to allow for these ghost images to be correct from frame to frame...... but it would be done with artificial light... I was specific in my post about not knowing HOW... just that frames SEEM to be excised in a number of places... AND the ghost images work. Again - has anyone done a comparison in the same type of camera (or anycamera) and looked at the frames side by side? If the Z camera was operating at 48fps - slow motion - wouldn't it be more likely that we'd get full frame clarity? Thanks DJ Brehm puts it very well: BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. This phenomenon is reported all the time during intense memory acquisition... seeing the pres shot would qualify, no? http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html Instead, such time warping seems to be a trick played by one's memory. When a person is scared, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that go along with those normally taken care of by other parts of the brain. http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/why-time-slows-down-in-near-death-experiences/ Eagleman’s theory? The brain records more sensory information in traumatic experiences. Time isn’t slowing down, but the hyper-memory makes it seem like it is by processing and storing all this additional information. Or, as NPR puts it, “you’re getting a peek into all the pictures and smells and thoughts that usually just pass through your brain and float away, forgotten forever.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Egad! David, don't you realized that you are TAKING FOR GRANTED that the Zapruder is authentic in fashioning this argument? Why don't you take a took at what CLINT HILL has to say about his actions that day: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/ He explains that he pushed Jackie down, lay across their bodies, and peered into the gaping, fist-sized hole in the back of his head. Why in the world are you committing such and obvious and blatant blunder re a fake film? Sometimes, I like to look at this lowly little item on YouTube, which has certain qualities of framing that aren't available in more exacting assemblages of Zapruder frames. Ignore, please, the fatuous soundtrack, and take a look at Clint Hill in this version: Using John Costella's frames for reference, we can see in this film, and by Costella frames 406-7, that Clint hill is both touching Jackie's arm, and is close enough to the limo rear seat to see JFK's wounding. (We see this by those frames, not necessarily exclusively in their duration.) Did he see the wound perfectly then? Perhaps not, but what he adduced then was confirmed soon after, during the ride to Parkland. Did Clint Hill really "push" Jackie back into her seat? I doubt it. He touched her. He was prepared to push her down, but she responded to his presence and guidance. Climbing over a moving car trunk under gunfire probably made the act of seating Jackie seem more physical than it was. (How, exactly, could the act of pushing Jackie into her seat be eliminated from the film and replaced with the more gentle actuality, using the available frames and matte work or other special effects?) In this YouTube framing of the Zapruder film, we can see that by Costella frames 423-427, Hill is looking back to the Queen Mary - Hill rises, noticeably, from his forward crouch, and we can see his left facial profile for the only time in Zapruder. We can see his motion begin at 0:26 in the YouTube version above, which corresponds to frame 423 Costella. Hill rises and turns at the moment when he is partly obscured to Zapruder by an upright stalk of the Pyracanthus bush, and we can see him up and looking back at least as far as frame 427 Costella. After that, he is lost in the sprocket holes in Costella, and in Zapruder he is obscured by the second freeway sign. Compare the film version and the Cosrella frames. Hill rises and turns between the upright stalk and the sign edge. We can't see what Hill did while obscured by the sign, but his actions are consistent with his testimony, and he did have opportunity to flash a "Thumbs-down" back to the Queen Mary. Unfortunately, this moment is not available for comparison in Nix and Muchmore. After the limo emerges from behind the second freeway sign, we see that Hill is returned to his more stable position on the bumper step. Yes, he is not shown draped over Jackie and JFK before the Triple Underpass, as he testified. But such is memory under panic and regret. I submit that what we see in this YouTube version is essentially the enactment of Clint Hill's testimony, given the conditions which necessitated his testimony. There are many alterations to Zapruder, but I don't believe gross alteration of the Hill-Jackie motions are among them (as opposed to frames cut in this sequence to change duration). Dr. Fetzer, I changed the post that you quote above, adding Costella frame 407 to show Clint Hill close enough to the rear seat to tell it's a "Thumbs-down" wound. As I said, I think the Z-film is altered in many places, some of which your work introduced me to. The Clint Hill limo dash and trunk climb sequence may indeed be edited to obscure a limo stop, and to otherwise collapse or expand time and motion. But I believe Hill's testimony corresponds with what we see, to the limits of human capacity after that experience. He gets Jackie in her seat; he doesn't push her, but he was determined to do so if he had to. He is, in Costella 407, close enough to JFK to judge the situation; he doesn't cover the presidential couple with his body in Dealey, but there are several photos of him doing so after the underpass. And he does rise, turn, and look back at the Queen Mary, and has opportunity to make the "Thumbs-down" gesture while the limo is obscured by the second freeway sign. It may be telling that the view of Hill at the time the sign is between him and Zapruder is not seen in Nix or Muchmore. Some of the authoritarian pressure applied to get the film altered, and quickly, had to be justified at some point, to some personnel, as the need to protect the reputation of the Secret Service. Did anyone want a filmed record of an agent giving the "Thumbs-down" over a president's body? So it disappeared from Nix and Muchmore. If anyone involved in film alterations questioned the obscuring of the limo stop, the same logic of protecting the Secret Service in the interest of National Security could be applied. Clint Hill was in no position to ever retract or alter anything he said about his experience: to do so would have invited questions like ours earlier and ad infinitum. He testified and he told his story on film after, using the same elisions of time that make it seem opposed to the Zapruder footage. Perhaps Hill just didn't want to look closely at that film, even when compelled to lecture about it, because it was too painful, or because he felt that his stated recollections would become further confused. I don't see how, technically, the Hill-Jackie motions should be considered altered in Zapruder, other than in the cutting or adding of frames to change the motion of the limo. But we can see that Hill does get close enough to see a head wound, and is poised to make the "Thumbs-down" gesture behind the sign, before he returns to the bumper step. Edited January 9, 2012 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Craig, Here's another link others might want to read. I suggest reading some of the comments also. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/10/18/adobeclarifies chris Sheesh...did you even READ your own links? They used ONE image with simulated camera shake and TWO images with real camera shake. The simulated image was for RESEARCH and THEATRICAL EFFECT. And lets not forget was a SNEAK PEEK and ongoing research. Which was also clearly stated. Of course its the very same info I posted ORIGINALLY. More images, from the presenter using the Adobe tech... http://www.juew.org/deblurFamousPhoto.html And a little bit of inside scoop for you, DPReview is the SEWER of photographic forums.... Edited January 8, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Jim - You ask why so many state the limo stopped... We have testimony stating everything from a split second to 2-3 seconds.. again - HUGE difference If it had stopped for a full 2-3 seconds, one would think there would be better corroboration..... In terms of the ghost images.... I'd guess that's why we can't see the actual z film's structure (like doug would like) to determine if it was exposed with natural or artificial light... a reworked film would have been entirely filmed to allow for these ghost images to be correct from frame to frame...... but it would be done with artificial light... I was specific in my post about not knowing HOW... just that frames SEEM to be excised in a number of places... AND the ghost images work. Again - has anyone done a comparison in the same type of camera (or anycamera) and looked at the frames side by side? If the Z camera was operating at 48fps - slow motion - wouldn't it be more likely that we'd get full frame clarity? Thanks DJ Brehm puts it very well: BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. This phenomenon is reported all the time during intense memory acquisition... seeing the pres shot would qualify, no? http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html Instead, such time warping seems to be a trick played by one's memory. When a person is scared, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that go along with those normally taken care of by other parts of the brain. http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/why-time-slows-down-in-near-death-experiences/ Eagleman’s theory? The brain records more sensory information in traumatic experiences. Time isn’t slowing down, but the hyper-memory makes it seem like it is by processing and storing all this additional information. Or, as NPR puts it, “you’re getting a peek into all the pictures and smells and thoughts that usually just pass through your brain and float away, forgotten forever.” David, The only footage I have found is this: http://24.152.179.96:8400/6F35C/48fps_.mov The author states that it came from a B/H 414 PD, shot on Cinechrome40RIP stock at 48 FPS. I will discard the interlaced frames and supply you with a gif at approx the same speed as the original. Then, I will discard frames in a "save 2 discard 3" pattern, and have that gif run at approx 17fps. I believe there are approx 135 progressive frames to begin with, before using the "save 2 discard 3" pattern. chris Edited January 9, 2012 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Interlaced frames removed. Approx 135 progressive frames. Compare length of movie to the original. http://24.152.179.96:8400/39938/InterlacedRemove.gif chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Frames removed in a"keep2 discard3" pattern. Should run at approx 17fps. http://24.152.179.96:8400/8E10C/Keep2_Discard3.gif chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) David, Have you read, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", which includes a video of Clint Hill explaining what he did then in Dealey Plaza? I believe Hill's testimony corresponds with what we see, to the limits of human capacity after that experience. He gets Jackie in her seat; he doesn't push her, but he was determined to do so if he had to. He is, in Costella 407, close enough to JFK to judge the situation; he doesn't cover the presidential couple with his body in Dealey, but there are several photos of him doing so after the underpass. And he does rise, turn, and look back at the Queen Mary, and has opportunity to make the "Thumbs-down" gesture while the limo is obscured by the second freeway sign. I think you are making a sincere effort to sort this out. I am the least bit troubled that I do not see any indications that you have read, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" Please share that with me. Clint has been consistent about this for more than 47 years. Have you gone to John Costella's collation of the witness testimony on this point? Tink has graciously conceded that Forrest Sorrels' testimony about Officer Chaney's riding forward is inconsistent with his suggestion that that only happened at the entrance to the Stemmons Freeway. That was certainly more than I had expected from Tink. I will post the relevant portions of John's collation no later than tomorrow. I would like to know what you think about the following reports, especially after you have watched and listened to Clint Hill himself. Remember, we are assessing the authenticity of the film. His report of having peered down into the massive, fist-sized hole in the back of his head is an addition proof that there was a massive, fist-sized hole in the back of his head, which is not seen in the film until frame 374. I think there is ample proof here that his actions were more vigorous and extensive than you are inclined to believe, where his "thumbs down" may have taken place after passing the Triple Underpass, but rather clearly pushing Jackie down and lying across their bodies occurred prior to that event. Jim Secret Service agent Clint Hill climbs over the trunk of the Presidential limousine and pushes Mrs. Kennedy back down into her seat. Hugh Betzner, Jr. (on south side of Elm Street, running from the corner of Houston to try to keep up with the Presidential limousine in order to take more photographs), November 22, 1963: “Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up then sitting back down in the car.” [sheriff’s Department affidavit: 24H200] Emory Roberts (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 29, 1963: “… I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left. Mrs. Kennedy was leaning toward the President, however, she immediately raised up in the seat and appeared to be getting up on back of same. About this time I saw S[pecial] A[gent] Clinton Hill trying to get on the left rear step of the President’s car. He got aboard and climbed up over the back of the car ….” [statement: CE1024: 18H734] Clint Hill, November 30, 1963: “I saw the President slump more toward his left. I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, ‘They’ve shot his head off;’ then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat ….” [statement: CE1024: 18H742] Roy Kellerman (Secret Service agent, in the front passenger seat of the Presidential limousine), March 9, 1964: “Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car [the Presidential limousine] ….” [Later:] “This is when I first viewed Mr. Hill, who was on the back of the——” (Mr. Specter: “Precisely where was he in that instant?”) Mr. Kellerman: “Lying right across the trunk of the car with Mrs. Kennedy on the left rear, Mr. Hill’s head was right up in back of her.” (Mr. Specter: “When you describe the left rear you mean as the car was facing?”) Mr. Kellerman: “As the car is traveling, sir; yes, sir. He was lying across the trunk of this car, feet on this side.” (Mr. Specter: “Was he flat across the trunk of the car?”) Mr. Kellerman: “Flat; that is right.” (Mr. Specter: “What was the position of Mrs. Kennedy’s body at that time?”) Mr. Kellerman: “She was sitting up in the corner of this back seat, like this.” (Mr. Specter: “So that she was on the buttocks area of her body at that time?”) Mr. Kellerman: “Yes, sir.” (Mr. Specter: “And what movement, if any, did you observe Mrs. Kennedy make at that time?”) Mr. Kellerman: “I never did see Mrs. Kennedy leave that back seat, sir.” (Mr. Specter: “When you see the back seat, are you referring——” Mr. Kellerman: “The seat she was sitting on.” (Mr. Specter: “Are you referring to the seat itself of the automobile?”) Mr. Kellerman: “Right.” [Warren Commission testimony: 2H74, 76–77] James Foster (Dallas Police Patrolman, on top of the triple overpass), March 25, 1964: “Immediately after President Kennedy was struck with a second bullet, the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb, the motorcycle escorts started maneuvering and scattering, a man which he recognized to be a Secret Service agent jumped on to the rear of the President’s car and pushed Mrs. Kennedy down and then climbed into the car….” [FBI report: CD897] Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presidential limousine), April 23, 1964: “… I recall seeing Agent Hill on the rear of the President’s car [while] receiving a radio message that we should proceed to the nearest hospital.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4H353] Ambiguous: Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presidential limousine), December 1, 1963: “I noticed Agent Hill hanging on to the rear of the President’s vehicle.” [statement: CE772: 17H632] Secret Service agent Clint Hill puts his body over the President and Mrs. Kennedy. Emory Roberts (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 22, 1963: “Just as the first or second shot was fired Hill ran from follow-up car to President’s car—jumped aboard and placed him self over Mrs. Kennedy and the President.” [statement: CE1024: 18H739] Emory Roberts (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 29, 1963: “About this time I saw S[pecial] A[gent] Clinton Hill trying to get on the left rear step of the President’s car. He got aboard and climbed up over the back of the car and placed himself over the President and Mrs. Kennedy.” [statement: CE1024: 18H734] Rufus Youngblood (Secret Service agent in the Vice Presidential car, two cars behind the Presidential limousine), November 29, 1963: “I could see an agent (who had previously run from the Presidential follow-up car, although I did not observe this when it happened) lying across the trunk turtle of the Presidential car above the President and Mrs. Kennedy.” [statement: CE1024: 18H768] Clint Hill, November 30, 1963: “I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, ‘They’ve shot his head off;’ then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy.” [statement: CE1024: 18H742] George Hickey (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 30, 1963: “Agent Clint Hill was riding across the rear and the top of [the Presidential limousine] in a horizontal position.” [statement sent to Special Agent in Charge of White House Detail, Gerald A. Behn: 18H763] Paul Landis (Secret Service agent, on the right running-board of the follow-up car), November 30, 1963: “After we rode under the overpass I again looked at the President’s car and saw Special Agent Clint Hill lying across the trunk. He was looking back towards the Follow-up car shaking his head back and forth and gave a thumbs-down sign with his hand.” [statement: CE1024: 18H755] Ruth Smith (watching from the old red courthouse), December 21, 1963: “The car seemed to slow or perhaps stop after the first shot and then just after the third shot a Secret Service man from the second car ran to the rear of the President’s car and threw himself into the rear seat.” [FBI report: CD206] Senator Ralph Yarborough (in the Vice Presidential car, two cars behind the Presidential limousine), July 10, 1964: “After we went under the underpass, on the upward slope I could see over the heads of the occupants of the second car (Secret Service car) and could see an agent lying across the back or trunk of the Presidential car, with his feet to the right side of the car, his head at the left side. He beat the back of the car with one hand, his face contorted by grief, anguish, and despair, and I knew from that instant that some terrible loss had been suffered.” [Warren Commission affidavit: 7H440] Egad! David, don't you realized that you are TAKING FOR GRANTED that the Zapruder is authentic in fashioning this argument? Why don't you take a took at what CLINT HILL has to say about his actions that day: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/ He explains that he pushed Jackie down, lay across their bodies, and peered into the gaping, fist-sized hole in the back of his head. Why in the world are you committing such and obvious and blatant blunder re a fake film? Sometimes, I like to look at this lowly little item on YouTube, which has certain qualities of framing that aren't available in more exacting assemblages of Zapruder frames. Ignore, please, the fatuous soundtrack, and take a look at Clint Hill in this version: Using John Costella's frames for reference, we can see in this film, and by Costella frames 406-7, that Clint hill is both touching Jackie's arm, and is close enough to the limo rear seat to see JFK's wounding. (We see this by those frames, not necessarily exclusively in their duration.) Did he see the wound perfectly then? Perhaps not, but what he adduced then was confirmed soon after, during the ride to Parkland. Did Clint Hill really "push" Jackie back into her seat? I doubt it. He touched her. He was prepared to push her down, but she responded to his presence and guidance. Climbing over a moving car trunk under gunfire probably made the act of seating Jackie seem more physical than it was. (How, exactly, could the act of pushing Jackie into her seat be eliminated from the film and replaced with the more gentle actuality, using the available frames and matte work or other special effects?) In this YouTube framing of the Zapruder film, we can see that by Costella frames 423-427, Hill is looking back to the Queen Mary - Hill rises, noticeably, from his forward crouch, and we can see his left facial profile for the only time in Zapruder. We can see his motion begin at 0:26 in the YouTube version above, which corresponds to frame 423 Costella. Hill rises and turns at the moment when he is partly obscured to Zapruder by an upright stalk of the Pyracanthus bush, and we can see him up and looking back at least as far as frame 427 Costella. After that, he is lost in the sprocket holes in Costella, and in Zapruder he is obscured by the second freeway sign. Compare the film version and the Cosrella frames. Hill rises and turns between the upright stalk and the sign edge. We can't see what Hill did while obscured by the sign, but his actions are consistent with his testimony, and he did have opportunity to flash a "Thumbs-down" back to the Queen Mary. Unfortunately, this moment is not available for comparison in Nix and Muchmore. After the limo emerges from behind the second freeway sign, we see that Hill is returned to his more stable position on the bumper step. Yes, he is not shown draped over Jackie and JFK before the Triple Underpass, as he testified. But such is memory under panic and regret. I submit that what we see in this YouTube version is essentially the enactment of Clint Hill's testimony, given the conditions which necessitated his testimony. There are many alterations to Zapruder, but I don't believe gross alteration of the Hill-Jackie motions are among them (as opposed to frames cut in this sequence to change duration). Dr. Fetzer, I changed the post that you quote above, adding Costella frame 407 to show Clint Hill close enough to the rear seat to tell it's a "Thumbs-down" wound. As I said, I think the Z-film is altered in many places, some of which your work introduced me to. The Clint Hill limo dash and trunk climb sequence may indeed be edited to obscure a limo stop, and to otherwise collapse or expand time and motion. But I believe Hill's testimony corresponds with what we see, to the limits of human capacity after that experience. He gets Jackie in her seat; he doesn't push her, but he was determined to do so if he had to. He is, in Costella 407, close enough to JFK to judge the situation; he doesn't cover the presidential couple with his body in Dealey, but there are several photos of him doing so after the underpass. And he does rise, turn, and look back at the Queen Mary, and has opportunity to make the "Thumbs-down" gesture while the limo is obscured by the second freeway sign. It may be telling that the view of Hill at the time the sign is between him and Zapruder is not seen in Nix or Muchmore. Some of the authoritarian pressure applied to get the film altered, and quickly, had to be justified at some point, to some personnel, as the need to protect the reputation of the Secret Service. Did anyone want a filmed record of an agent giving the "Thumbs-down" over a president's body? So it disappeared from Nix and Muchmore. If anyone involved in film alterations questioned the obscuring of the limo stop, the same logic of protecting the Secret Service in the interest of National Security could be applied. Clint Hill was in no position to ever retract or alter anything he said about his experience: to do so would have invited questions like ours earlier and ad infinitum. He testified and he told his story on film after, using the same elisions of time that make it seem opposed to the Zapruder footage. Perhaps Hill just didn't want to look closely at that film, even when compelled to lecture about it, because it was too painful, or because he felt that his stated recollections would become further confused. I don't see how, technically, the Hill-Jackie motions should be considered altered in Zapruder, other than in the cutting or adding of frames to change the motion of the limo. But we can see that Hill does get close enough to see a head wound, and is poised to make the "Thumbs-down" gesture behind the sign, before he returns to the bumper step. Edited January 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) David, I am doing my best to take you seriously. There is nothing about "vantage point" that would lead sixteen witnesses (16) to report a limo stop if no limo stop had occurred. Have you ever known ANYONE who would report a limo stop (an automobile accident, whatever) if they had not seen a limo stop (an automobile accident, whatever)? You are dreaming. These people were not fantasizing. They were there--and they reported what they saw. Clint Hill was able to catch up to the limo so fast BECAUSE IT HAD COME TO A STOP. Have you listened to Clint's recalling the actions that he took in Dealey Plaza that day? If you haven't watched the video embedded in my article, "Who's telling the truth?", by now, then I have to question the sincerity of your interest in this question. YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE. CLINT'S REPORTS OF HIS ACTIONS--WHICH I SUMMARIZE THERE--HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT FOR 47 YEARS WHEN HE MADE THIS APPEARANCE AT THE BOOK STORE. LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAS TO SAY. Jim P.S. I have already observed that some bystanders were in the position to watch the whole sequence of events with the limo dramatically slowing as it came to a complete halt, others only saw it dramatically slowing. So in that repect, their point of view (vantage point, obstructions and distractions) no doubt made a difference to HOW MANY SAW THE COMPLETE SEQUENCE. The probability that sixteen witnesses reported a limo stop that did not occur is zero. P.P.S. OF COURSE, THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE WAS THE STARTING POINT. THEY USED THE SOPHISTICATED TECHNIQUES OF OPTICAL PRINTING AND SPECIAL EFFECTS TO CREATE A NEW FILM, WHERE THE COULD COMBINE ANY FOREGROUND WITH ANY BACKGROUND AND ADD EVENTS THAT DID NOT OCCUR AND REMOVE EVENTS THAT DID. I HAVE PUBLISHED THREE BOOKS THAT DISCUSS THE FILM EXTENSIVELY, ESPECIALLY HOAX (2003). IF I SEEM IMPATIENT, IT'S BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT OUR EXTENSIVE AND PAINSTAKING WORK ON THE FILM(S). Have you seen the movie VANTAGE POINT Jim? Not a cinematic marvel but a very good example of how what we see people seeing, without context, is not always what occurred... Yet each person's account is not less truthful from their POV... I do not believe I denied anything regarding a limo stop, in fact I posted previously ion this thread in fact that studies I DID to determine how fast Hill would have to run to catch the limo, if traveling at the 8mph offered, would be almost 20mph at even the latest launching point... imo the limo had slowed to less than 3mph for Hill to catch it so fast... IN THE FILM WE SEE... That Zap states he kept filming... very suspicious, the removal of the turn.... Simple stated... what we see in this film is representative of events that DID OCCUR, yet is not an accurate representation of them or of everything that happened. Fair? Jim - so I understand Was any part of what we see as the Zfilm ever exposed in his camera? yes or no As to your question about what I've read or not... reading MORE of your POV is not needed and what I'd suggest for you Dr F... is to allow alternative positions thier due, regardless of how they conflict with your IRONCLAD CONCLUSIONS I still appreciate your talents, your immense contributions and ongoing attack on the whitewash... Sure would be nice to see the Hollywood 7 analysis, on the big screen, and put this all to rest.... DJ David, I put to you the same question I have posed to Kathy above. Knowing that at least fourteen (14) witnesses reported a limo stop, why do you want to deny that a limo stop occurred? Now we are not talking about a group of lunatics. These witnesses included the motorcycle escort officers, who, of all people, would be in an impeccable position to know. So I really do not understand where you are coming from. Let me ask a few questions. Do you know ANYONE who would REPORT a limo stop (an automobile accident, whatever) if a limo stop (motorcycle accident, whatever) had not happened? I don't know anyone like that. So what is the probability that 14 witnesses would report a limo stop (many right under their noses) if no limo stop had occurred? And what is the probability that those same witnesses would have reported a limo stop if one actually had occurred? Do you get my point? By dismissing these witnesses--a list that does not include Toni Foster or Louis Witt, by the way, so there is no telling how many more there may be!--you are suggesting that something wildly improbable has occurred, namely: that 14 witnesses (let's make it 16) have reported a limo stop that actually did not occur! My best guess is that that would have a probability of approximate zero. Would you agree? On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine that, when we are talking about a limo stop involving the President of the United States, the probability of reporting a limo stop if a limo stop had actually occurred would be very high, say, around one. In fact, if a limo stop had in fact occurred, I would think ONLY those who had not seen it or who had seen it only in part (slowing but not stopping) would not report A STOP. Wouldn't you agree? Since the probability of reporting a limo stop if one had not occurred is incredibly low, while reporting a limo stop if one had occurred is incredibly high, do you think we REALLY ARE dealing with loons? Because the improbability of this many witnesses reporting a limo stop at the same place and the same time WHEN IT DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN is vanishing small. That value has to be infinitesimal, where I quantify it as equal to zero. You appear to be assuming that the FBI conducted a real investigation of this, which is completely false. As I understand it, the ten closest witnesses, including the escort officers, were not even called to testify. We know that many who were questioned were not asked about their most important information. Others who gave testimony at odds with the predetermined conclusion had their testimony changed. Are you unaware of all of this? Some of your questions betray a lack of familiarity of the depth and extent of our research on the film. John and others have long since address the slo-mo question. I asked before and you have not answered which of the books and articles I have listed you have read. I infer you have never read HOAX (2003) nor watched Costella's tutorial, much less the 66-part serious on the Zapruder film, nor read INSIDE THE ARRB. Am I mistaken? Go back and reread the list of those fourteen (14) unequivocal limo stop witnesses, expanded to sixteen (16) by Foster and Witt. We know from studied done at Harvard that witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete when what they are viewing is salient (significant) to them. What could be more salient than that the president's limousine CAME TO A STOP during an assassination? I hope you can give this matter more serious thought. Jim Jim - You ask why so many state the limo stopped... We have testimony stating everything from a split second to 2-3 seconds.. again - HUGE difference If it had stopped for a full 2-3 seconds, one would think there would be better corroboration..... In terms of the ghost images.... I'd guess that's why we can't see the actual z film's structure (like doug would like) to determine if it was exposed with natural or artificial light... a reworked film would have been entirely filmed to allow for these ghost images to be correct from frame to frame...... but it would be done with artificial light... I was specific in my post about not knowing HOW... just that frames SEEM to be excised in a number of places... AND the ghost images work. Again - has anyone done a comparison in the same type of camera (or anycamera) and looked at the frames side by side? If the Z camera was operating at 48fps - slow motion - wouldn't it be more likely that we'd get full frame clarity? Thanks DJ Brehm puts it very well: BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. This phenomenon is reported all the time during intense memory acquisition... seeing the pres shot would qualify, no? http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html Instead, such time warping seems to be a trick played by one's memory. When a person is scared, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that go along with those normally taken care of by other parts of the brain. http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/why-time-slows-down-in-near-death-experiences/ Eagleman’s theory? The brain records more sensory information in traumatic experiences. Time isn’t slowing down, but the hyper-memory makes it seem like it is by processing and storing all this additional information. Or, as NPR puts it, “you’re getting a peek into all the pictures and smells and thoughts that usually just pass through your brain and float away, forgotten forever.” Edited January 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Chris, Not only are you fantasizing that witnesses would report a limo stop if it had not occurred--WOULD YOU OR ANYONE YOU KNOW DO THAT?--but you seem to be oblivious of the ghost panels and their significance. These are double-exposures in the vicinity of the sprocket holes that link one frame to another. Any of the simple techniques of frame removal (every other frame, every third frame, and all that) would have been IMMEDIATELY DETECTABLE. This is the reason they had to re-shoot most of the frames in the lab--to create a new sequence of ghost panels that corresponded to the revised film. This is why John Costella has referred to the whole film as a "fabrication". For some reason, I continue to take for granted that those posting here ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES. That, however, is clearly not the case. You need to get a copy of HOAX (2003) and study it, because you are wasting your time posting when you don't know the score. And every witness who reported a limo stop had to have seen a stop that was significant enough to notice. Some may have been momentarily distracted and not seen it for its entire duration, but this theme that keeps emerging here--that sixteen witnesses would report having seen a limo stop that they had not seen!--is simply fantastic. They were not loons. The probability of that is equal to zero. Jim Jim - You ask why so many state the limo stopped... We have testimony stating everything from a split second to 2-3 seconds.. again - HUGE difference If it had stopped for a full 2-3 seconds, one would think there would be better corroboration..... In terms of the ghost images.... I'd guess that's why we can't see the actual z film's structure (like doug would like) to determine if it was exposed with natural or artificial light... a reworked film would have been entirely filmed to allow for these ghost images to be correct from frame to frame...... but it would be done with artificial light... I was specific in my post about not knowing HOW... just that frames SEEM to be excised in a number of places... AND the ghost images work. Again - has anyone done a comparison in the same type of camera (or anycamera) and looked at the frames side by side? If the Z camera was operating at 48fps - slow motion - wouldn't it be more likely that we'd get full frame clarity? Thanks DJ Brehm puts it very well: BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. This phenomenon is reported all the time during intense memory acquisition... seeing the pres shot would qualify, no? http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html Instead, such time warping seems to be a trick played by one's memory. When a person is scared, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that go along with those normally taken care of by other parts of the brain. http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/why-time-slows-down-in-near-death-experiences/ Eagleman’s theory? The brain records more sensory information in traumatic experiences. Time isn’t slowing down, but the hyper-memory makes it seem like it is by processing and storing all this additional information. Or, as NPR puts it, “you’re getting a peek into all the pictures and smells and thoughts that usually just pass through your brain and float away, forgotten forever.” David, The only footage I have found is this: http://24.152.179.96:8400/6F35C/48fps_.mov The author states that it came from a B/H 414 PD, shot on Cinechrome40RIP stock at 48 FPS. I will discard the interlaced frames and supply you with a gif at approx the same speed as the original. Then, I will discard frames in a "save 2 discard 3" pattern, and have that gif run at approx 17fps. I believe there are approx 135 progressive frames to begin with, before using the "save 2 discard 3" pattern. chris Edited January 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Jim, Why not take a look at the final version of the film I just supplied. Then go ahead and tell me that you knew the original was shot at 48fps. Then let me know the process by which you came to that conclusion. Do you know what frame rates were available back in 63 via the US government? Frame removal at what camera speeds? Please don't bother me with ghost image explanations, I'm fully aware of what they are and where they belong. http://24.152.179.96:8400/FD71E/GHOST_IMAGE.gif chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed LeDoux Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 [quote name=Craig Lamson' date='08 January 2012 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1326046454' No its NOT. All you have is hearsay. You can't produce the film. YOU CAN'T EVEN PRODUCE GENERATIONAL COPIES. You want to see you the original Z film, go to the archives. EPIC FAIL. Thanks for playing. Beyond funny! Oh sure I'm going to the archives for the original? Hahaha How do you as a advertising 'professional' have the CV to even state such? So sorry you don't. Others have viewed the other film independently, their description corroborates each other. PERIOD. What you are saying is that the film that they witnessed had been faked? Things were added to it!?! That is ridiculous Craig. You are the one saying the "Original" could not be faked in such a manner yet the other was by adding more information, extra frames, things that don't exist on the reported 'original'...PLEASE. Things are getting sillier and sillier the longer you post. How did they do this Craig? Were special effects used to make these excised 'frames' appear? Or is it more likely the extant film has been excised to remove frames? Remove frames from the ORIGINAL OTHER FILM. Craig, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness. Greg Burnham is a WITNESS. Your talking to him, thus it is not hearsay. You have received DIRECT TESTIMONY. Wanna try again spin doctor Lamson? Have you no clue Lamson? Maybe if you listened YOU might learn something in regards to Kennedy's murder and the evidence. Why would you care though, unless this is a print assignment for a publication. CATASTROPHIC FAIL Ed 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