Jump to content
The Education Forum

A proposal to test the Z alteration scenario


Recommended Posts

I have a suggestion that might help to clarify the Z alteration issue. How about somebody take an 8 mm movie camera and film a similar scene of a car traveling at 11 mph from left to right with people moving in the background, then slowing to a stop then picking up speed.

Process it. Then alter it taking out the stop, using techniques available in 63-64 as much as possible. Release both. At least that would show whether the alteration scenario is plausible. Wouldn’t it?

:sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Richard,

I purchased a camera identical to that of Zapruder a number of years ago and I also purchased ALL of the remaining Kodachrome film stock in existence at the time. Kodak has since discontinued Kodachrome production and processing. I filmed the last possible sequence from the Zapruder pedestal on November 22nd, 2010 that could still be processed. History in the making... Now, while it's true that Ektachrome film would suffice for the same purposes, it's also true that the nay sayers would possibly, if not most certainly, have discredited the experiment if the FILM STOCK did not match Zapruder's Kodachrome--even as irrelevant as that is. So, I took no chances.

Suffice it to say that a number of studies are imminent. My recent surgery has delayed the process, but some progress has been made.

I did not have the opportunity to conduct the experiment that you are suggesting because it is very difficult--if not impossible--to get the City of Dallas to cooperate. After all, Elm Street is heavily trafficked and such a project would have required the street to have been shut down for a period of time by the DPD. However, I think your experiment could be conducted using Ektachrome film and could perhaps be set on a less trafficked street.

It is also important to note that restricting the experiment to 1963 technology is harder that it sounds. Much of that technology exists only in the memory of those who worked with it 50 years ago, but by now it has passed into the void of obsolescence.

Having said all of that, I think your suggestion is instructive--albeit challenging to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

I purchased a camera identical to that of Zapruder a number of years ago and I also purchased ALL of the remaining Kodachrome film stock in existence at the time. Kodak has since discontinued Kodachrome production and processing. I filmed the last possible sequence from the Zapruder pedestal on November 22nd, 2010 that could still be processed. History in the making... Now, while it's true that Ektachrome film would suffice for the same purposes, it's also true that the nay sayers would possibly, if not most certainly, have discredited the experiment if the FILM STOCK did not match Zapruder's Kodachrome--even as irrelevant as that is. So, I took no chances.

Suffice it to say that a number of studies are imminent. My recent surgery has delayed the process, but some progress has been made.

I did not have the opportunity to conduct the experiment that you are suggesting because it is very difficult--if not impossible--to get the City of Dallas to cooperate. After all, Elm Street is heavily trafficked and such a project would have required the street to have been shut down for a period of time by the DPD. However, I think your experiment could be conducted using Ektachrome film and could perhaps be set on a less trafficked street.

It is also important to note that restricting the experiment to 1963 technology is harder that it sounds. Much of that technology exists only in the memory of those who worked with it 50 years ago, but by now it has passed into the void of obsolescence.

Having said all of that, I think your suggestion is instructive--albeit challenging to accomplish.

Greg, I appreciate your response. What I had in mind was not a duplication of DP, but an approximation showing a car at about the distance of the limo from Zapruder moving in the same direction, etc. etc. Doesn't have to be Dallas especially. Can an 8 mm film be altered the way the alterationists say it was....that was my only point. Obviously using current technology it could. As to 1963 era technology, doesn't Douglas Horne describe how it would have been done? Optical printers, traveling mattes and such? I've seen documentaries showing how effects were achieved in the silent era - surely there are techies who could explain what was possible in the 60s.

Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Anscochrome, who cares? This would only be a demonstration, not courtroom worthy proof. I'm agnostic on the subject of alteration, but if it can be demonstrated it was at least possible, wouldn't that be a valuable contribution to the discussion? Likewise, if it can't be done, well...... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

I purchased a camera identical to that of Zapruder a number of years ago and I also purchased ALL of the remaining Kodachrome film stock in existence at the time. Kodak has since discontinued Kodachrome production and processing. I filmed the last possible sequence from the Zapruder pedestal on November 22nd, 2010 that could still be processed. History in the making... Now, while it's true that Ektachrome film would suffice for the same purposes, it's also true that the nay sayers would possibly, if not most certainly, have discredited the experiment if the FILM STOCK did not match Zapruder's Kodachrome--even as irrelevant as that is. So, I took no chances.

Suffice it to say that a number of studies are imminent. My recent surgery has delayed the process, but some progress has been made.

I did not have the opportunity to conduct the experiment that you are suggesting because it is very difficult--if not impossible--to get the City of Dallas to cooperate. After all, Elm Street is heavily trafficked and such a project would have required the street to have been shut down for a period of time by the DPD. However, I think your experiment could be conducted using Ektachrome film and could perhaps be set on a less trafficked street.

It is also important to note that restricting the experiment to 1963 technology is harder that it sounds. Much of that technology exists only in the memory of those who worked with it 50 years ago, but by now it has passed into the void of obsolescence.

Having said all of that, I think your suggestion is instructive--albeit challenging to accomplish.

Greg, I appreciate your response. What I had in mind was not a duplication of DP, but an approximation showing a car at about the distance of the limo from Zapruder moving in the same direction, etc. etc. Doesn't have to be Dallas especially. Can an 8 mm film be altered the way the alterationists say it was....that was my only point. Obviously using current technology it could. As to 1963 era technology, doesn't Douglas Horne describe how it would have been done? Optical printers, traveling mattes and such? I've seen documentaries showing how effects were achieved in the silent era - surely there are techies who could explain what was possible in the 60s.

Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Anscochrome, who cares? This would only be a demonstration, not courtroom worthy proof. I'm agnostic on the subject of alteration, but if it can be demonstrated it was at least possible, wouldn't that be a valuable contribution to the discussion? Likewise, if it can't be done, well...... :blink:

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

Lets instead go TO AUTHORITY to debunk the silly video technician dave healy

Zavada to Horne:

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

Horne to Zavada:

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.

Zavada nails the silly video repairman dave healy to the wall...

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

I purchased a camera identical to that of Zapruder a number of years ago and I also purchased ALL of the remaining Kodachrome film stock in existence at the time. Kodak has since discontinued Kodachrome production and processing. I filmed the last possible sequence from the Zapruder pedestal on November 22nd, 2010 that could still be processed. History in the making... Now, while it's true that Ektachrome film would suffice for the same purposes, it's also true that the nay sayers would possibly, if not most certainly, have discredited the experiment if the FILM STOCK did not match Zapruder's Kodachrome--even as irrelevant as that is. So, I took no chances.

Suffice it to say that a number of studies are imminent. My recent surgery has delayed the process, but some progress has been made.

I did not have the opportunity to conduct the experiment that you are suggesting because it is very difficult--if not impossible--to get the City of Dallas to cooperate. After all, Elm Street is heavily trafficked and such a project would have required the street to have been shut down for a period of time by the DPD. However, I think your experiment could be conducted using Ektachrome film and could perhaps be set on a less trafficked street.

It is also important to note that restricting the experiment to 1963 technology is harder that it sounds. Much of that technology exists only in the memory of those who worked with it 50 years ago, but by now it has passed into the void of obsolescence.

Having said all of that, I think your suggestion is instructive--albeit challenging to accomplish.

Greg, I appreciate your response. What I had in mind was not a duplication of DP, but an approximation showing a car at about the distance of the limo from Zapruder moving in the same direction, etc. etc. Doesn't have to be Dallas especially. Can an 8 mm film be altered the way the alterationists say it was....that was my only point. Obviously using current technology it could. As to 1963 era technology, doesn't Douglas Horne describe how it would have been done? Optical printers, traveling mattes and such? I've seen documentaries showing how effects were achieved in the silent era - surely there are techies who could explain what was possible in the 60s.

Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Anscochrome, who cares? This would only be a demonstration, not courtroom worthy proof. I'm agnostic on the subject of alteration, but if it can be demonstrated it was at least possible, wouldn't that be a valuable contribution to the discussion? Likewise, if it can't be done, well...... :blink:

Richard,

As you noted above, the shooting of the test film would not be a problem if certain allowances--as to setting and film stock--are granted. The challenge is finding both the equipment and the personnel trained to properly operate the equipment needed to manipulate the original. I would guess that if the film had indeed been altered at "Hawkeyeworks" in Rochester, NY, it is probable that even THEY no longer have that equipment or the personnel trained to use it today. And--even if THEY still have it and the personnel--I hear they would not be willing to help.

I'm not suggesting that this is an impossible task, just a daunting one. Lest we commit a fallacy assuming otherwise, I would also add that: Notwithstanding the absence of this proof of alteration, same does not constitute proof of authenticity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

Lets instead go TO AUTHORITY to debunk the silly video technician dave healy

Zavada to Horne:

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

Horne to Zavada:

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.

Zavada nails the silly video repairman dave healy to the wall...

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

you sound like a broken down old record-fossil, Lampoon... Zavada to Healy: "yes, KODAK manufactured double 8 film with no edge markings.." use your imagination toots..... whoops, with no film-image compositing experience you haven't a clue do ya?

It would benefit your inexperienced, lone nut teammates and yourself if your experience extended a bit further than simpleminded Adobe Photoshop layers... you need a full understanding of the craftmanship and compositing skills of 1963 optical film lab artists, not to mention glass painters.. Carry with the disinfo, thank you -- Management LMAO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

Lets instead go TO AUTHORITY to debunk the silly video technician dave healy

Zavada to Horne:

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED at Jim Fetzers

May 2003 conference and Professor Fieldings book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore Davids analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

Horne to Zavada:

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.

Zavada nails the silly video repairman dave healy to the wall...

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzers May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

you sound like a broken down old record-fossil, Lampoon... Zavada to Healy: "yes, KODAK manufactured double 8 film with no edge markings.." use your imagination toots..... whoops, with no film-image compositing experience you haven't a clue do ya?

It would benefit your inexperienced, lone nut teammates and yourself if your experience extended a bit further than simpleminded Adobe Photoshop layers... you need a full understanding of the craftmanship and compositing skills of 1963 optical film lab artists, not to mention glass painters.. Carry with the disinfo, thank you -- Management LMAO!

Poor tape recorder repairman. Stuffed under the bus by the very guy who you tried to use as a source to play your "I edit film, listen to me" baloney.

Earth to Davy. I got my chops in a production house and went on to produce MANY pieces composited on film that withstood PROLONGED inspection as advertising stills. What you gonna bring to the table, repairman? Corporate HR videos? Roflmao.

Oh, consider yourself refuted BY authority.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

Craig Lampoon Lamson was one of the Gang of Eight trying to put down Zapruder film alteration scenarios, especially those that came from the 2003 Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth symposium on the Zapruder Film. He's been chasing his tail ever since. You'd think after 10 years they'd find a Hollywood type to shred my simple presentation... he can't they're on my side of the question. 'Poon' claims to be a dark room maven, unfortunately he's never even seen a film optical film printer, nor, based by his comments here and elsewhere, worked a film lab of any type... so the poor guy is completely lost when the alteration conversation comes up...

He reverts to holding Dr. Josiah Thompson hand and position when Rollie Zavada comes up.... what the dude won't tell you is Rollie Zavada has acknowledged he has no clue concerning the content of the Zapruder film, about the only thing Zavada can tell us is the film he looked at (the alleged Zapruder Film) is KODAK film. That's it!

Hell, Roland Zavada was under the impression that UofMinn. Zapruderalteration discussion was based on 8mm to 8mm optical printing with no blow ups... Neither Zavada, Lamson or the remaining Gang of Eight members have the chops to even discuss the topic, much let alone to tell experienced image compositors what compositing possibilites are.

The old adage, give a photog a camera, access to Photoshop (the software) and they think they're Ansel Adams re-incarnated or they have chops.... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

nice presentation but your obvious flaw is obvious:

1) you have never replicated this feat using contemporaneous equipment

2) you used modern after effects/photoshop to rotoscope and left out the process of "bi-packing" which makes another intermediate. while this may have been for "display/example" purposes, it blows your whole thing out of the water. Bi-packing also creates grain and it loses a generation.

3) you can't seem to show the obvious matte lines that appear using optical printing. those same matte lines would be HUGE on 8, 16 or 35.**

4) none of the 8mm/16 split cameras in those days were pin registered to sync, nor were they 100%. even blowing up to an intermediate and rostrom printing back down would create boiling...and matte lines... optical printing even worse.

5) (from your link) "Can I draw paralells between how thing’s we’re done in the film optical business of 61-64 and video compositing post production troday? Yeah."

no...you can't. not without looking foolish..why? because rotoscoping then was done one of two ways:

photochemically ( removing the blue screen by printing a high-con matte from it which also required garbage mattes) or

by hand.

both produce a loss of generation and grain, both produce boiling and at no point in time, until the arrival of computer compositing was it possible to remove these things not to mention the tell tale matte lines.

**a great example is the original ILM and Star Wars...they had to do NUMEROUS takes to get the perfs to line up perfectly and even with those, there was significant boiling and mattelines.

they also shot all those plates on 70mm. 8mm to 16 to 35? c'mon. nonsense.

was it possible in 1962-63? sure. and the result would be garbage. it would look fairly obvious.

now, changing the speed of the playback during a dupe? yeah that's entirely possble. but then you have to look at frame rates. faster? less frames.

so if Z was shooting at 24, the way to speed it up is to overcrank the print to 18 fps. that's one example.

or batch print, ommiting frames.

to suggest that someone would bi-pack and optical print a film that just as easilly be duped frame by frame to speed it up or slow it down is nonsense.

the split at the roadsign could have been enough frames to speed it up...

i have the "chops" to discuss this as I have worked in effects and editing for a long time in both ntsc and film.

the presentation was great..and possible...but improbable and again, the quality of that kind of duping results in major quality loss, to the point that it would be not only an obvious fake, but a grainy matte lined fake at that.

so i wouldn't get to high and mighty about it being case closed on alteration using your theory here.

good work , nice presentation anyway.

Edited by Blair Dobson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

Craig Lampoon Lamson was one of the Gang of Eight trying to put down Zapruder film alteration scenarios, especially those that came from the 2003 Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth symposium on the Zapruder Film. He's been chasing his tail ever since. You'd think after 10 years they'd find a Hollywood type to shred my simple presentation... he can't they're on my side of the question. 'Poon' claims to be a dark room maven, unfortunately he's never even seen a film optical film printer, nor, based by his comments here and elsewhere, worked a film lab of any type... so the poor guy is completely lost when the alteration conversation comes up...

He reverts to holding Dr. Josiah Thompson hand and position when Rollie Zavada comes up.... what the dude won't tell you is Rollie Zavada has acknowledged he has no clue concerning the content of the Zapruder film, about the only thing Zavada can tell us is the film he looked at (the alleged Zapruder Film) is KODAK film. That's it!

Hell, Roland Zavada was under the impression that UofMinn. Zapruderalteration discussion was based on 8mm to 8mm optical printing with no blow ups... Neither Zavada, Lamson or the remaining Gang of Eight members have the chops to even discuss the topic, much let alone to tell experienced image compositors what compositing possibilites are.

The old adage, give a photog a camera, access to Photoshop (the software) and they think they're Ansel Adams re-incarnated or they have chops.... :)

Poor davie, ever worked an Oxberry ammimation camera? I have. Optical printer? Yep? Spent any time running and doing process control on cine, RT, tube and Dip and Dunk E3, E6, and C41 davie boy? I have. How about EP2 and RA4?: How many process cameras have you used? Made any large format (and by that I mean 11x14 film) composites that need to withstand inspection FOREVER as a still frame? I have. Photoshop, yea what a wonderful invention. I have enjoyed it since V2 and a Kodak DCS200....

Those are my chops davie, not to mention my decades of shooting advertising stills. You got yours by shooting ENG and repairing the gear? ROFLMAO!

Now lets find that Hollywood type again to refute your little scam.

Zavada:

"I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve."

Finally lets add Moe Weitzman to the list. You know another film guy who had the original in his hands....sent me this in a series of very nice emails...

"The fools who think hardware or skill existed back then to alter 8mm film back then are living in la la land. I gave a talk to the SMPTE on 8mm film capabilities once. Cameras were the problem then not film. No two single 8mm cameras even from the

same manufacturer could place successive frame in registration. Later magazine loads helped some. I recommended

Rollie Zavada to the JFK museum when the question of edge numbers on 35mm blowup footage duplicates arose."

"I had the film in my possession twice. The first time commissioned by time life and

the second time by a network. The first time Ed Willett who worked for Oxberry machine recommended me

because I had camera shuttles in 8mm. I jury rigged it to use as a projector shuttle but I had no sprocket

advance and had to use 16mm (same distance between sprocket holes except twice a many on double 8mm).

To answer your question, on both occasions I had original film definitely not a duplicate. If it were duplicated

to read as an original it would have had to been done on an Optical printer so it could read properly thru the

base. There did not exist at the time an 8mm projection shuttle. And even if it did exist why did they bother

to put a splice where it was torn when a lab tried to make a contact print. the film was the original both times

I had it in my possession."

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

one other thing...

this image? this image here?

Picture10_2.jpg

this was done in camera..not by compositing.

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

Craig Lampoon Lamson was one of the Gang of Eight trying to put down Zapruder film alteration scenarios, especially those that came from the 2003 Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth symposium on the Zapruder Film. He's been chasing his tail ever since. You'd think after 10 years they'd find a Hollywood type to shred my simple presentation... he can't they're on my side of the question. 'Poon' claims to be a dark room maven, unfortunately he's never even seen a film optical film printer, nor, based by his comments here and elsewhere, worked a film lab of any type... so the poor guy is completely lost when the alteration conversation comes up...

He reverts to holding Dr. Josiah Thompson hand and position when Rollie Zavada comes up.... what the dude won't tell you is Rollie Zavada has acknowledged he has no clue concerning the content of the Zapruder film, about the only thing Zavada can tell us is the film he looked at (the alleged Zapruder Film) is KODAK film. That's it!

Hell, Roland Zavada was under the impression that UofMinn. Zapruderalteration discussion was based on 8mm to 8mm optical printing with no blow ups... Neither Zavada, Lamson or the remaining Gang of Eight members have the chops to even discuss the topic, much let alone to tell experienced image compositors what compositing possibilites are.

The old adage, give a photog a camera, access to Photoshop (the software) and they think they're Ansel Adams re-incarnated or they have chops.... :)

Poor davie, ever worked an Oxberry ammimation camera? I have. Optical printer? Yep? Spent any time running and doing process control on cine, RT, tube and Dip and Dunk E3, E6, and C41 davie boy? I have. How about EP2 and RA4?: How many process cameras have you used? Made any large format (and by that I mean 11x14 film) composites that need to withstand inspection FOREVER as a still frame? I have. Photoshop, yea what a wonderful invention. I have enjoyed it since V2 and a Kodak DCS200....

Those are my chops davie, not to mention my decades of shooting advertising stills. You got yours by shooting ENG and repairing the gear? ROFLMAO!

Now lets find that Hollywood type again to refute your little scam.

Zavada:

"I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve."

Finally lets add Moe Weitzman to the list. You know another film guy who had the original in his hands....sent me this in a series of very nice emails...

"The fools who think hardware or skill existed back then to alter 8mm film back then are living in la la land. I gave a talk to the SMPTE on 8mm film capabilities once. Cameras were the problem then not film. No two single 8mm cameras even from the

same manufacturer could place successive frame in registration. Later magazine loads helped some. I recommended

Rollie Zavada to the JFK museum when the question of edge numbers on 35mm blowup footage duplicates arose."

"I had the film in my possession twice. The first time commissioned by time life and

the second time by a network. The first time Ed Willett who worked for Oxberry machine recommended me

because I had camera shuttles in 8mm. I jury rigged it to use as a projector shuttle but I had no sprocket

advance and had to use 16mm (same distance between sprocket holes except twice a many on double 8mm).

To answer your question, on both occasions I had original film definitely not a duplicate. If it were duplicated

to read as an original it would have had to been done on an Optical printer so it could read properly thru the

base. There did not exist at the time an 8mm projection shuttle. And even if it did exist why did they bother

to put a splice where it was torn when a lab tried to make a contact print. the film was the original both times

I had it in my possession."

and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again?

What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do.

Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in.

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...