The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Pat Speer]

Jim, I have highlighted sections of post #280 that are clearly in violation of Rule iv of the forum, which reads:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

I am bringing this to your attention as a fellow member. It is my hope that ALL members choose to cite Rule iv when other members cross the line, rather than return fire. As a consequence, I am asking you to soften or remove the offending passage. If you feel others on this thread are also in violation, I request you similarly cite Rule iv, and ask them to edit their posts as well.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Evan Burton]

We are reading the information contained in the pixels NOT what is displayed on the monitor.

Changing the monitor calibration settings will change the way those pixels look WHEN THEY ARE DISPLAYED, but that does not change the data contained in those pixel.

That is correct, to the best of my knowledge.

http://www.digital-p...te-your-monitor

[Craig Lamson]

Tink,

We hope that your game plan is not to attempt to create as much uncertainty as possible so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. The "forensic copy" that the Hollywood group has been studying is earlier than you suggest and shows the details of each frame comparable to what Pat Block has reported. I have visited with them and seen what they have. It is remarkable for its clarity and its detail.What precisely is your position supposed to be? That this extremely conspicuous feature of the back of the head, which not only he and his friend, who are both experts, have confirmed but which has also been identified by the Hollywood group IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE?

Jim

So exactly were it the DATA to support these claims? You know the I see it, just believe me claims? If you have no better than that you simply lose Jim.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Thanks. I have revised the first sentence. But how am I supposed to raise suspicions that those slides "went missing" so they could be revised using digital technology? I only ASKED THE QUESTION, BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE ASKED. How else am I supposed to phrase it? And questions are not accusations. Surely he can answer it.

Jim

Jim, I have highlighted sections of your post that are clearly in violation of Rule iv of the forum, which reads:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

I am bringing this to your attention as a fellow member. It is my hope that ALL members choose to cite Rule iv when other members cross the line, rather than return fire. As a consequence, I am asking you to soften or remove the offending passage. If you feel others on this thread are also in violation, I request you similarly cite Rule iv, and ask them to edit their posts as well.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Pat Speer
To remove quote from post #280

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson,

All that is necessary to know that "it's over" for the other side is to locate the wound to JFK's back, which

by itself demonstrates there was no "magic bullet". See "Reasoning about Assassinations", which also

means that the wounds to his head and throat and to Connally require other shots and other shooters.

It was "over" for the other side when David Mantik determined that the blow-out to the back of the skull

had been "patched" by using some material that was far too dense to be human bone, where the outline of

the patched area "P" closely corresponds to the wound as described my dozens and dozens of witnesses.

And it was "over" when I discovered that you can actually see the blow out in a later frame of Zapruder,

374, which those who were editing and revising it apparently overlooked in their efforts to conceal the

true causes of his death from the American people, which BY ITSELF refutes authenticity of the film:

Since Mantik's discovery was published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and blew the cover-up out of

the water, what was Tink's response? He referred to the book as "ASSASSINATED SCIENCE", even though

it was presenting the most important developments in the history of the study of the JFK medical evidence.

And what is there not to understand about the blow-out WHEN YOU CAN SEE IT IN FRAME 374? Don't

you understand that this frame, BY ITSELF, proves that the film is a fabrication? How you can continue

to defend a position that has long since been refuted is beyond me. You can't be serious--and never were!

Jim

So exactly were it the DATA to support these claims? You know the I see it, just believe me claims? If you have no better than that you simply lose Jim.

[Craig Lamson]

Fetzer, TRY AND STAY ON TOPIC....

Ill ask again, where is the data that supports the claims...ABOUT THE SO CALLED BLACK PATCH?

You know the, I see it so believe me claim?

Now how hard is this anyways?

Oh Wait, THERE STILL IS NO DATA..years later.

Now we can all understand why Fetzer tried to go all bait and switch on us. HE HAS NOTHING!

[Craig Lamson]

The "forensic copy" that the Hollywood group has been studying is earlier than you suggest and shows the details of each frame comparable to what Pat Block has reported. I have visited with them and seen what they have. It is remarkable for its clarity and its detail.

Lets see what it is they might have.

Ground zero...

Z film

Gen 1:

Master Color negative, optical blowup

Gen 2:

Master positive print

Gen 3:

Working color negative(s)

Gen 4:

Working color print(s)

Gen 5:

Hollywood 7 negative

So Fetzer, what is it?

[David G. Healy]

The "forensic copy" that the Hollywood group has been studying is earlier than you suggest and shows the details of each frame comparable to what Pat Block has reported. I have visited with them and seen what they have. It is remarkable for its clarity and its detail.

All the above is meagre hearsay as far as this forum is concerned, until you can provide evidence that all of the above is as you say it is.

At the moment, the Hollywood 7 studies are just a propoganda rumour.

You are normally not one to hold back evidence, what's the problem in this instance?

All Z-film related postings here are mere hearsay and opinions dude. Unless you, of course, spend your time sitting in the archives gazing....

This thread has new, recent "professional input", unlike yours and some other uninformed "opinions". Without professional chops, I'm afraid your opinion drops to the bottom of the pile... Now imagine this: folks that really do understand Photoshop, AfterEffects, film and photo image composition, and manipulation are monitoring this thread... Plenty of folks have seen the Hollywood Z-film images -- professional film colorists AND matte artists **KNOW** what they're looking at....

So.... until you can provide Z-film authenticity and in-camera original verification (which you can't and/or won't do) you're simply advancing old news, old news that's had a thousand holes blown into it over the past 10 years (especially the last 10 years)... Old news advanced by the same DP history preservers of yore (for 45 years now)... What's fascinating is those very preservers of DP history and adherents don't seem to enjoy the advances we've made in the image technology field... maybe we should let them in on 3D commercial film making...

Edited January 11, 2012 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

Plenty of folks have seen the Hollywood Z-film images -- professional film colorists AND matte artists **KNOW** what they're looking at....

Then it's time for these "experts" to prove their case. After all they have had what, a couple of years now?

So show us the proof.

How hard is it?

Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

The "forensic copy" that the Hollywood group has been studying is earlier than you suggest and shows the details of each frame comparable to what Pat Block has reported. I have visited with them and seen what they have. It is remarkable for its clarity and its detail.

Lets see what it is they might have.

Ground zero...

Z film

Gen 1:

Master Color negative, optical blowup

Gen 2:

Master positive print

Gen 3:

Working color negative(s)

Gen 4:

Working color print(s)

Gen 5:

Hollywood 7 negative

So Fetzer, what is it?

speaking of what is it? what Photoshop algorithm did you use on Dr. Thompson's .jpg frame?

[Craig Lamson]

speaking of what is it? what Photoshop algorithm did you use on Dr. Thompson's .jpg frame?

Exactly what are you mumbling about now dave?

Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Something Lamson and Thompson are concealing is that David Mantik already visited the Museum and confirmed the presence of the patch. He is a summary by Doug Horne at http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/3251.html It's already been done.

Studying Zapruder Film Anomalies: Clarifying the Record

insidethearrb

January 15th, 2010

TEXT REVISED ON JANUARY 20, 2010

In my book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" (in Chapter 14), I discussed in some detail how the Hollywood research group has been using high resolution digital scans of a 35 mm dupe negative of the extant film in the National Archives to study the apparent alteration of the image content of the Zapruder film. I also discussed the provenance of any such film duplicates obtained from NARA, and explained that the 35 mm dupe negative being studied is a fifth generation copy (if one counts the extant film as "zero").

As I pointed out in Chapter 14, the 4" by 5" large format Ektrachrome color positive transparencies of each frame of the extant film in the Archives---commissioned by the Zapruder family and created by a subcontractor working for MPI video in 1997---could be used to verify that the image content in the 35 mm dupe negative has NOT been altered in any way by those studying the film in Hollywood.

This has already been done. On November 20, 2009, Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., examined the MPI color positive transparencies that are now owned by the Sixth Floor Museum. During a detailed examination which lasted for some time, Dr. Mantik (who had already seen the research results of the Hollywood group) verified to his own satisfaction that the anomalies discussed in my book regarding frames 220, 313, and 317 (as well as in frames 321 and 323, for example) were also present on the color positive transparencies. In fact, he reported to me that the same anomalies were particularly stunning when viewed on the color positive transparencies, which are a FIRST GENERATION product. Gary Mack, and the Museum's Director of Collections and Intellectual Property (Megan Bryant), were both present during his examination. Dr. Mantik was also accompanied by a member of the Hollywood research group.

I report this to emphasize that the examination verified, by use of a "control" (the first generation color positive transparencies), that the anomalies being studied in the 35 mm dupe negative are also present in another film product created independently from the extant film in the Archives. (In fact, I was present in 1997 when MPI's subcontractor photographed the extant film using the large format Ektachrome transparencies.) The validity and accuracy of the 35 mm dupe negative has thus been verified. No one can now claim that the digital scans of the 35 mm dupe negative being studied by film professionals in Hollywood have been tampered with or altered by those studying them; Mantik's examination verified that the same anomalies present on the high resolution scans of the 35 mm dupe negative are indeed present on the MPI transparencies. Anyone who wishes to make the same comparisons (with the images of frames 220 and 317 in my book) can request access to the MPI transparencies through the Museum's Director of Collections and Intellectual Property, using the Museum's website. This is the procedure Dr. Mantik followed.

It has been suggested recently in the postings of one blogger that the Hollywood research group's study of the 35 mm dupe negative is somehow "invalid" simply because it is a fifth generation product, since an earlier generation product (the first generation MPI transparencies) exists. This is specious nonsense, of course, and simply an attempt to throw stones and to change the subject.

The Hollywood research group did the right thing by going directly to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to obtain a duplicate negative of the extant film whose provenance could not be questioned. The fact that it happens to be a fifth generation copy was beyond the control of the Hollywood group---this was a function of how the Archives commissioned its Forensic Copy and follow-on products. In fact, when Sydney Wilkinson first asked Les Waffen (a Senior Official in the NARA Sound and Motion Picture Branch) how to obtain the clearest possible copy of the extant Zapruder film, he told her that the clearest images of the extant film could only be obtained from the National Archives; she followed his advice, and purchased her dupe negative of the Archives' Forensic Copy. Les Waffen did not mention the MPI transparencies, and at the time Sydney did not know they were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum, or whether they still existed, or not. She followed the advice she was given by NARA, and obtained a dupe negative of the Archives' Forensic Copy created by Monaco Film Lab.

Now that the Hollywood research group has performed a "6K" scan of each frame of the 35 mm dupe negative, that high definition digital visual record is currently the BEST TOOL that can be used for empirical study of the extant film, for it permits close examination, at great magnification, of high resolution digital images---whereas the first generation color positive transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum can only be studied with the human eyeball. The human eye and brain cannot make empirical measurements of grain structure or luminosity or color; the human eye, in conjunction with the human brain, can only render subjective (and not empirical) judgments.

Before David Mantik viewed the MPI transparencies on November 20, 2009, the Sixth Floor Museum made known its position that he could not digitally scan or copy the transparencies during his visit. If the Museum were to persist in that position, in light of the current debate about the film's alteration, then that decision would be contrary to good science, and would undoubtedly be viewed by many as de facto suppression of crucial evidence. If, on the other hand, the Sixth Floor Museum were to allow high resolution digital scans to be performed of the MPI transparencies of selected Zapruder film frames, and release those scans free of charge to any and all interested researchers (for research purposes only, not for commercial use), such action would materially assist in Zapruder film research.

Until or unless the MPI transparencies are digitally scanned at a very high resolution (i.e., the state of the art "6K"---or even the "4K" process which is now standard in the motion picture industry for the restoration of motion picture films), these vaunted MPI transparencies (which can presently only be viewed by the human eye) will remain a study tool that is inferior to the "6K" scans that presently exist of the 35 mm dupe negative.

Here is why I say this: each individual "6K" scan of only one frame in the 35 mm dupe negative contains 72.9 MB (megabytes) of information. (Each so-called "6K" scan being used by the Hollywood research group is actually a cropped version of the master scan of the 35 mm image frame, reduced in size to eliminate unused space on the 35 mm frame so that in its cropped form it approximates what in Hollywood is called a "4K" scan. The entire Zapruder film frame was captured in each cropped image, but not the unused portion of the 35 mm image.) That is, each cropped "6K" scan is an image that is 4096 pixels wide on the horizontal axis, and 3112 pixels in length on the vertical axis. This yields a stunning total of 12.75 million pixels in each image of every single frame of the Zapruder film on the 35 mm dupe negative. Clearly, this kind of detail is superior as a research tool to any fleeting impression that can be obtained by examination of the MPI transparencies with the human eye. The human eye/brain combination is a wonderful tool, but what is sees cannot be recorded for further detailed and empirical study.

If the Sixth Floor Museum were to permit high resolution digitization of the MPI transparencies, at say, "4K" resolution, then that digital product would in theory be superior to the existing scans obtained from the 35 mm dupe negative. [i am talking about image content here; we all know by now that some Zapruder frames---341, 350, and 486---were inadvertently skipped, and not photographed, by the MPI subcontractor in 1997, and that in the resulting video sold by MPI, the order of two frames---331 and 332---was also reversed.] But that is a big "IF." It remains to be seen whether the Museum that trumpets Oswald's guilt and the authenticity of the Zapruder film will be open-minded enough to permit digitization of what may potentially be the best evidence (apart from the extant film in cold storage in the National Archives) that the film's image content has been altered.

Unless or until the MPI transparencies are digitized at the proper resolution, the existing HD scans of the 35 mm dupe negative (4096 x 3112 pixels per Zapruder frame, at 72.9 MB each) will remain the best research tool available for studying the blacked out areas of the back of JFK's head (and the Stemmons Freeway sign) in the extant Zapruder film.

END

Fetzer, TRY AND STAY ON TOPIC....

Ill ask again, where is the data that supports the claims...ABOUT THE SO CALLED BLACK PATCH?

You know the, I see it so believe me claim?

Now how hard is this anyways?

Oh Wait, THERE STILL IS NO DATA..years later.

Now we can all understand why Fetzer tried to go all bait and switch on us. HE HAS NOTHING!

Edited January 11, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Something Lamson and Thompson are concealing is that David Mantik already visited the Museum and confirmed the presence of the patch. He is a summary by Doug Horne.

I'm CONCEALING? That's a pretty baseless charge Fetzer and you can in no way back it up. I mean, sheesh the stuff is ON THE INTERNET! How lame can you get Fetzer?

But even now you are STILL left with "I see it, so believe me".

So again WHERE is the data that proves this so called patch is actually not natural occurring?

Oh yes, I forget.

YOU DON"T HAVE ANY!

And the beat goes on.....

Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

Plenty of folks have seen the Hollywood Z-film images -- professional film colorists AND matte artists **KNOW** what they're looking at....

Then it's time for these "experts" to prove their case. After all they have had what, a couple of years now?

So show us the proof.

How hard is it?

experts? who said anything about "experts"? PROFESSIONALS ! Wishing and hoping' there Craigster?

[Craig Lamson]

experts? who said anything about "experts"? PROFESSIONALS ! Wishing and hoping' there Craigster?

Choose whatever term you wish...

Show us the proof.