The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Jeremy moved the goal posts. I said that a large number of corroborating witnesses are likely to be right. Here he is saying that that is not so given that witnesses often make mistakes. While that statement is true, it's only true because he removed the qualifiers "large number" and "corroborating."

Sandy seems to misunderstand my point, which is that the two forms of evidence in question are not equally reliable. On the one hand, films and photos in general are very rarely altered. On the other hand, witnesses in general are often wrong. In real life, witnesses are mistaken a lot more often than films and photos get faked.

If there is a conflict between a generally reliable form of evidence, such as films or photos, and a generally unreliable form of evidence, such as the recollections of human witnesses, surely it is rational to believe the former over the latter, all other factors being equal.

At what point should the number of fallible human witnesses make a difference? More to the point, how many witnesses would there have to be for Sandy to believe them over, say, the Zapruder film or the Moorman photo?

We've seen on the other current Zapruder film-based thread that the large-numbers-of-witnesses argument doesn't support the most popular claim for alteration, namely that frames were removed to conceal a car-stop:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27630-the-other-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=455484

Quite the opposite, in fact. Only a minority of witnesses claimed that the car stopped; many more claimed that the car slowed down, just as we see on the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films. If you put credence on the numbers of witnesses, the evidence becomes even stronger that the film wasn't altered. Is there any claim for alteration to which the large-numbers-of-witnesses argument applies?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy continues:

Quote

It was only after I found an instance of selective blurring that I realized it was actually proof of alteration, because it cannot be present in an unaltered film.

There are a few questions that need to be answered before we can conclude that 'selective blurring' shows that the Zapruder film is a fake. Let's start with these:

How do we know that selective blurring "defies the laws of physics", as Sandy described it earlier? That needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted, Butler-style.

How do we know that selective blurring exists on the actual Zapruder film in the National Archives? Has the phenomenon been reported by anyone who has examined the original? If it exists only in copies and not in the original, then that's the end of the matter; it has to be a product of the copying process, even if we can't yet explain exactly how.

If it does exist on the original film, how can we rule out physical and mechanical causes to do with the camera, the lens, or the film?

If no-one has examined the actual film, and the only examples we have are from copies such as the Costella frames, how can we rule out the copying process as the cause? After all, pretty much every anomaly that has been claimed as proof of alteration over the last 30 years (Phil Willis has an extra-long leg! It's a fake!) has turned out to be due to the copying process.

Does anyone know what physical transfers and software adjustments were used to produce the Costella frames and other online copies? If anyone does know this, have they used the same process again to see whether the same phenomenon is reproduced?

Are there any better-quality copies available than the Costella frames? Do they show selective blurring? If they don't, then again it's all down to the copying process.

If, as Sandy seems to be implying, selective blurring indicates that frames have been removed, how exactly would the removal of frames produce that particular effect?

N.B. Jamey has pointed out correctly that this thread has wandered off-topic. Assuming that Sandy will give a detailed explanation for why 'selective blurring' indicates forgery, it might be best if he set up a new thread for that topic.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Added a paragraph

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy said:

Jeremy moved the goal posts. I said that a large number of corroborating witnesses are likely to be right. Here he is saying that that is not so given that witnesses often make mistakes. While that statement is true, it's only true because he removed the qualifiers "large number" and "corroborating."

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy seems to misunderstand my point, which is that the two forms of evidence in question are not equally reliable. On the one hand, films and photos in general are very rarely altered. On the other hand, witnesses in general are often wrong. In real life, witnesses are mistaken a lot more often than films and photos get faked.

 

I do understand Jeremy's point, and in fact I agree with what he says. Problem is, the argument he makes -- which again I agree with  -- is irrelevant to my earliest statement, the one he is trying to debunk or disprove.

He says in his argument that "witnesses in general are often wrong." But in my statement, the one he contests, I said "numerous witnesses whose testimonies corroborate each other are probably right." Both statements are correct. But Jeremy keeps trying to use his statement to show that mine is wrong.

Here is how Jeremy changed the goalposts...

Original Goalpost:    "Numerous corroborating witness testimonies"

Jeremy's Goalpost:  "Witness testimonies"

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/2/2022 at 2:51 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There are a few questions that need to be answered before we can conclude that 'selective blurring' shows that the Zapruder film is a fake. Let's start with these:

 

For me this is a trivial task and I'm finished with it. Others who want to delve into it may want to read Ed Ledoux's thread over on the ROKC forum, which is on this same topic.

The reason I don't want to do any more on it is because I know that virtually any intelligent, unbiased, expert photographer would draw the same conclusion as mine.

This means that I am now in the camp of the Zapruder film alterationists. I was undecided before now.

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

numerous witnesses whose testimonies corroborate each other are probably right.

The more mutually corroborating witnesses there are, the more likely they are to be right, in the absence of other factors.

When dealing with purely witness evidence, it is relative numbers, not absolute numbers, that is the deciding factor. A larger group of mutually corroborating witnesses is more likely to be right than a smaller group. When one group of witnesses says that X happened and another group says that X didn't happen, we can reasonably decide which group is more likely to be right purely by counting the number of witnesses.

We saw this recently with the question of whether JFK's car stopped on Elm Street. A smaller number of witnesses claimed that the car stopped, and a larger number of witnesses claimed that the car merely slowed down. Going by witness evidence alone, we must conclude that the car probably didn't stop.

But when the question is one of witness evidence versus physical evidence, we need to consider the reliability of each type of evidence. Witness evidence is inherently unreliable; people often make mistakes when recalling events. Certain types of physical evidence, such as home movies and photographs, are inherently more reliable than the recollections of human witnesses. Home movies and photographs may be imperfect in that they sometimes contain visual anomalies, but they are not routinely faked.

If a group of witnesses says that X happened, and a home movie or photograph shows that X didn't happen, we are surely obliged to go with the home movie or photograph, simply because, in the real world, it is far more likely that the witnesses were mistaken than that the home movie or photograph was faked.

Now, if there is good, independent evidence that the home movie or photograph in question had in fact been faked, the inherent reliability of that physical evidence would no longer apply. Note the word 'independent' there. Independent evidence would not include any witnesses who simply contradict what the home movie or photograph shows.

The faking of physical evidence needs to be demonstrated independently of such witnesses. As we saw a few pages ago when trying unsuccessfully to get John Butler to demonstrate how the Moorman photo was faked, it's a much more difficult task than the average 'everything is a fake' merchant thinks.

Quote

I am now in the camp of the Zapruder film alterationists.

In that case, the onus is on Sandy to demonstrate that the film has been altered. Again, there are questions that will need to be answered, such as:

Which parts were altered? Was the entire film constructed from scratch? Or were one or more sections of the film altered?

How was any alteration done? Sandy needs to show, at the very least, that whatever alteration he is proposing was physically possible, given the materials and time available. The more detailed his explanation, the less speculative his case will be.

If he claims that a scene has been altered, and that same scene appears in another home movie or photograph, he will need to demonstrate that the other film or photo was altered too. How was it done? Again, the more details Sandy can provide, the better.

No doubt there are other questions Sandy will need to answer, but these should keep him busy for now.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy said:

I am now in the camp of the Zapruder film alterationists.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jeremy replied:

In that case, the onus is on Sandy to demonstrate that the film has been altered.

 

What I have shown, to my satisfaction and perhaps to the satisfaction of other forum readers, is that there are anomalies in the blurring of certain objects in certain frames that cannot have occurred naturally.

Since they cannot have occurred naturally, they must have been introduced, either supernaturally or as a result of film alteration. I choose the latter.

 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Again, there are questions that will need to be answered, such as:

Which parts were altered? Was the entire film constructed from scratch? Or were one or more sections of the film altered?

How was any alteration done? Sandy needs to show, at the very least, that whatever alteration he is proposing was physically possible, given the materials and time available. The more detailed his explanation, the less speculative his case will be.

If he claims that a scene has been altered, and that same scene appears in another home movie or photograph, he will need to demonstrate that the other film or photo was altered too. How was it done? Again, the more details Sandy can provide, the better.

No doubt there are other questions Sandy will need to answer, but these should keep him busy for now.

 

While it would be a good thing for someone to figure out what alterations were made, doing so is not necessary to prove the film was altered. The unnatural blurring alone proves that the film was altered.

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/1/2022 at 9:45 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Sandy,

That would have been 48fps = slow motion mode on the B/H 414 camera.

The same concept as an automobile that slows down thus creating more frames in the same time/distance span regardless of the frame rate.

 

Sorry about getting the slow motion fps wrong. I recalled that the normal frame rate was 18 fps and that the slo-mo rate was double that. I remembered wrong.

 

On 3/1/2022 at 9:45 AM, Chris Davidson said:

I didn't introduce anything related to blurring.

 

Did you actually make a film and then try speeding up a portion of it by removing frames?

 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Sorry about getting the slow motion fps wrong. I recalled that the normal frame rate was 18 fps and that the slo-mo rate was double that. I remembered wrong.

 

 

Did you actually make a film and then try speeding up a portion of it by removing frames?

 

The original film has been studied and the "frames-were-removed-to-speed-it-up" theory has been rejected, even by John Costella, if I'm not mistaken. The key, as I recall, was that each frame has a "ghost image" in the sprocket hole section, that connects it to the frame before. IOW, each of the available frames is linked to the frame before.

Now, of course, there are some frames missing from the original. But no one proposes the limo made a sudden stop as Kennedy went behind the sign in the film. No, people presume frames are missing at the time of the headshot in the film. And the "ghost images" as I recall prove this to be a non-issue.

So I think you're gonna need to study "ghost images," and the work of Rollie Zavada and others before you can make an effective argument frames were removed.

Now, that said, I have never been entirely convinced the camera was running at 18.3 fps during the shooting. It may have been running a bit faster, IMO. A friend gave me a (non-functioning) camera that is identical to Zapruder's. And the guidebook and camera make no reference to 18.3 fps. I think the slowest is 24 fps. If I recall, the timing was determined by a spring, and the speed changed a bit as the camera wound down. The FBI, in its tests, determined the average speed to be 18.3 fps. Later, CBS purchased a number of identical cameras, and found the speed varied from camera to camera. I think it was something like 16-21 fps. In any event, CBS' concern the film portrayed a shooting scenario in which the shots were fired too close together led them to suggest the first shot missed--which was grossly at odds with the witness statements. Unfortunately, many followed suit, and now most TV specials and LN books insist the first shot missed--which is total BS, IMO. 

My concern on this issue was somewhat relieved when I saw--I think it was on YouTube--a version of the film that was sped up a bit. It didn't look natural. But maybe that's because I'm so used to viewing the film at its supposed rate. 

Perhaps, then, someone concerned the film was actually recorded at a faster rate than 18.3 fps could create a film of a car driving down the road with people in the background--film of a parade, perhaps--and then play this film at different speeds side by side with the Zapruder film. Such a study might lead to a convincing argument the car was traveling at a faster rate than it appears in the film, and that the timing of the shots was such that it would have been unlikely for one man to have fired the shots, even if the first shot missed. 

 

[Chris Davidson]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Did you actually make a film and then try speeding up a portion of it by removing frames?

 

No. I did not shoot any footage in Slo-Mo on my B/H 414.

But, I do have Slo-Mo material from either 8 and/or 16mm films to work with.

I'll provide some examples including frame removal in a bit.

There are other problems(not my work) besides blurring in that area of the Zfilm, here's another to consider:

This is the same (problem) idea that we encounter with Jackie down around the Z411/Nix sync.

The early Bell frame(in terms of syncing) tells us more (Zframes) time is needed.

Humans are not capable of moving this fast no matter what your eyes are being shown.

And, no-one is brave enough to try and reproduce Jackie's action in the allotted time because the results speak for themselves.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The original film has been studied and the "frames-were-removed-to-speed-it-up" theory has been rejected, even by John Costella, if I'm not mistaken. The key, as I recall, was that each frame has a "ghost image" in the sprocket hole section, that connects it to the frame before. IOW, each of the available frames is linked to the frame before.

 

I looked at several frames of the Z film just before the head shot and I couldn't see any image from an adjacent frame "bleeding over" (for lack of a better term) into the frame of interest. At least nothing recognizable.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

What I have shown, to my satisfaction and perhaps to the satisfaction of other forum readers, is that there are anomalies in the blurring of certain objects in certain frames that cannot have occurred naturally.

I'll try again. Sandy has not "shown" that the anomalies he mentions "cannot have occurred naturally". He has asserted that they cannot have occurred naturally. It needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted.

Sandy has not yet demonstrated this. No-one has done so at the ROKC forum thread either:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2523p25-peculiarity-of-frame-303

There appear to be three possible explanations:

1 - The blurring is the result of the normal operation of Zapruder's model of camera and lens on Kodachrome double-8 film. I presume Sandy is claiming that this cannot happen because it is a physical impossibility. Maybe Sandy will turn out to be correct, but he still needs to demonstrate that what he claims to be a physical impossibility is in fact a physical impossibility.

To do that, he needs to demonstrate that the physical properties of the actual camera, lens and film cannot produce the blurring effect. As far as I'm aware (but I may be wrong), Sandy has not yet examined the actual camera, or a similar model of camera, or the actual lens, or a similar model of lens, or the actual Kodachrome film that is in the National Archives.

2 - The blurring is a result of the copying process. I presume Sandy is claiming that it is a physical impossibility for any copying process to produce the blurring effect. Again, if he is, he needs to demonstrate this.

I doubt that he will be able to do so, since it is an uncontroversial fact that the copying of physical films can generate a range of visual anomalies, as can the copying and digital manipulation of digital copies.

Numerous previous claims of alteration, such as John Butler's groundbreaking discovery that the film must have been altered because a copy of a copy of a copy shows Phil Willis with an extra-long leg, have turned out to be enthusiastic misreadings of simple visual anomalies caused by the copying process.

Given the range of anomalies that the copying process can generate, and the depressing history of the amateurish and unsuccessful everything-is-a-fake anomaly-spotting craze over the last 30 years or so, the copying process surely provides an explanation that is plausible and almost impossible to refute.

As far as I'm aware (but I may be wrong), Sandy has only examined digital copies of the film, not the actual Zapruder film that is in the National Archives. There are dozens of branches of NARA all over the US, but the one with JFK assassination-related material is at College Park, Maryland. Sandy can find contact details, directions, opening hours, and other useful information for his forthcoming visit by clicking this link:

https://www.archives.gov/college-park

If, on his visit to College Park, Sandy finds no blurring in the actual Zapruder film, he will know that it must be due to the copying process.

He may be able to save himself the bother of a visit, by getting hold of better-quality copies than the ones he has used so far. If the better-quality copies don't show any blurring, again it must be due to the copying process.

3 - The blurring is the result of nefarious alteration. Once he has demonstrated the physical impossibility of options 1 and 2, Sandy will need to provide a plausible account of how a particular alteration might have produced that particular effect. Ideally, he would also be able to tell us why the alteration in question needed to have been made.

In other words, he needs to answer three questions:

• How exactly was the film altered to produce the blurring effect?
• How was that particular alteration physically possible, given the materials and time available?
• What was so incriminating about that part of the film that it needed to be altered?

I'd be surprised if Sandy can come up with plausible answers to those questions, since no-one has yet come up with a plausible answer to a more fundamental question. Why would anyone have wanted to alter the Zapruder film at all?

Edited March 4, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

2 - The blurring is a result of the copying process. I presume Sandy is claiming that it is a physical impossibility for any copying process to produce the blurring effect. Again, if he is, he needs to demonstrate this.

I doubt that he will be able to do so, since it is an uncontroversial fact that the copying of physical films can generate a range of visual anomalies, as can the copying and digital manipulation of digital copies.

Numerous previous claims of alteration, such as John Butler's groundbreaking discovery that the film must have been altered because a copy of a copy of a copy shows Phil Willis with an extra-long leg, have turned out to be enthusiastic misreadings of simple visual anomalies caused by the copying process.

I don't deal with the technical aspects of the film.  I leave that to folks who are more knowledgeable.  Anyone can see a content error.  Some image in a frame is not as it should be.  Jeremy claims that all of this is "copying" errors.  I think he needs to show how copying would stretch Phil Willis' leg to a ridiculous length.  He needs to show that it is not painted into the frame.  Nothing surrounding Phil is distorted except his leg.  The long leg has a shadow painted in.  Would that be a "copying error" too?  The distortion problem applies to Altgen 6 with the VPs security vehicle being greatly distorted.  The folks behind the vehicle are not distorted and the folks in the front of the vehicle are not distorted in a manner similar to the VPs security vehicle.  Film "copying" error or magic camera or photo alteration?  Oh, I forgot Altgens, a photo editor, and crew at the Daily Morning News didn't have time to alter the film.  

In Z 157, does copying errors reverse the top of the VP's security vehicle showing the body going in one direction and the top in another?  Does copying errors leave out the head of the President (film splicing I believe)?   Jeremy should prove his "copying error" theory.  What about simple "missreadings" on the parts you don't like that other's mention. 

Lone Nutism is defined by yours truly as a quasi-religious belief system engendering a world view that allows one to deny the truth and support falsehoods in the Kennnedy assassination.  Jeremy is a supporter of the Warren Commission conclusions and a supporter of a pristine, and unaltered Zapruder Film.  What more needs to be said.

The Forum is clogged with many, many researchers over the years and decades pointing out the anomalies found in the Zapruder film.  

As far as copying errors, he won't explain how that happens.  He just asserts it and moves on as if nothing more need be said.  He doesn't have to prove anything and just make various illogical assertions.  He's said that on numerous occasions. 

Edited March 4, 2022 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

On 3/3/2022 at 3:41 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Did you actually make a film and then try speeding up a portion of it by removing frames?

 

All three are playing at the same(Photoshop Setting) approx 17fps speed, the only difference is the sequential removal of frames:

 

 

[John Butler]

On 3/2/2022 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy seems to misunderstand my point, which is that the two forms of evidence in question are not equally reliable. On the one hand, films and photos in general are very rarely altered.

Can this be proven?  Keep in mind the context of photo editing in 1963.  Most newspapers did edit photos in order to advertise, or make a news story clearer, or simply make a photo clearer.  Ike Altgens was a photo editor with long experience at the AP at the Dallas Morning News.

Altgens said he was on the Triple Underpass at 11:15 AM.  How long was he in Dealey Plaza before 11:15 AM?  He had enough time to photograph all of Dealey Plaza.  Did he?  He claimed that he took only 8 photos.

OBTW, Altgens' wife was a Haliburton.  Wondered if she was connected to the company which had a different name in those days.

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

52 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Most newspapers did edit photos in order to advertise, or make a news story clearer, or simply make a photo clearer.  Ike Altgens was a photo editor with long experience at the AP at the Dallas Morning News.

John, who are you trying to fool with this false equivalency? Nobody here has ever tried to deny that newspaper photos weren't edited for size or for the purposes of advertisements. You are claiming a level of film and photo alteration that is worlds apart from your average, run-of-the-mill tweak for the purposes of publication and which is frankly impossible given the time constraints not only for Altgens 6 but Mary Moorman's Polaroid.