The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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

 

 

So the removal of frames sped up the action. This demonstrates that (should frames have been removed)the limo would have to have been moving much slower than is shown in the film.

Well, that's completely counter-productive. When you actually study the early reports and documents regarding the Z-film, the FBI and WC were concerned the film was too fast, i.e., that the speed of the film was such that the shooting scenario would have been impossible for one man. This was such a problem, in fact, that the SS and FBI December re-enactments moved the location of the head shot further down the street than is shown in the film. 

In any event, the removal of frames without a correlating deception regarding the fps would have been obvious. And this feeds back to my earlier statement: someone needs to compare the Z-film with other films of cars in a parade, recorded and played-back at a known fps, to see if the movements of the crowd are comparable, or if the Z-film action appears sped up or slowed-down.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/4/2022 at 3:19 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

 

I didn't merely assert that selective blurring is a physical impossibility, I showed why it was. It's just that it is so easy to understand that my explanation was short and Jeremy apparently missed it. Either that or he didn't understand it.

I just created a thread for Jeremy that explains the proof in more detail.

 

On 3/4/2022 at 3:19 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

 

That is impossible. There is no way for a camera to determine which objects in its field of view are stationary and which are moving. Yet the added blur occurred on every stationary object but not on any object moving with the limousine.

Remember, we're talking about selective blurring here.

 

On 3/4/2022 at 3:19 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

To do that, he needs to demonstrate that the physical properties of the actual camera, lens and film cannot produce the blurring effect.

 

No I don't. I just used simple reasoning to prove my point (above).

 

On 3/4/2022 at 3:19 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

2 - The blurring is a result of the copying process.

 

That is impossible. There is no way for a film copying machine to determine which objects in its field of view are stationary and which are moving. Yet the added blur occurred on every stationary object but not on any object moving with the limousine.

Remember, we're talking about selective blurring here.

 

On 3/4/2022 at 3:19 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy will need to provide a plausible account of how a particular alteration might have produced that particular effect.

 

No, I don't need to do that. Just the presence of impossible anomalies prove that alteration took place. The key to this fact is that the anomalies are selective. Maybe 1960s era camera and copy machine can think in Jeremy's world, but not so in the real world.

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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

 

 

 

Thanks Chris. Looks great. (Not surprisingly.) Gil Jesus also had a good demonstration.

Now, suppose for argument's sake that this film began where the girl is walking around from the shallow to the deep end of the pool. And suppose that guy is moving around a bit before she begins to dive. And suppose we want to speed up her dive but nothing else before that.

You could remove a lot of frames during the dive, just as you did here, but leave the rest of the film alone. It seems to me that we'd see some kind of unnatural looking "jerk" (for lack of a better word) at the point in time when the film transitions from the no-frames-removed portion to the yes-frames-removed portion. If so, you might be able to fix that by adding motion blur to appropriate objects. Or maybe even insert frames at the transition that you put together yourself from elements of other nearby frames.

I'm just wondering if that might explain the motion blur anomalies. Or the frames without motion blur.

Any thoughts?

 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So the removal of frames sped up the action. This demonstrates that (should frames have been removed)the limo would have to have been moving much slower than is shown in the film.

Well, that's completely counter-productive. When you actually study the early reports and documents regarding the Z-film, the FBI and WC were concerned the film was too fast, i.e., that the speed of the film was such that the shooting scenario would have been impossible for one man.

 

Pat,

Alterationists conjecture that frames were remove only around the time of the fatal shot, not the whole film.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Jeremy claims that all of this is "copying" errors.

No, that's not what I claimed. John is either mistaken or dishonest. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is mistaken due to his blind devotion to the preposterous belief that every film and photo taken in Dealey Plaza has been faked. I suspect he didn't bother reading my comment, or at least didn't read it carefully enough. I hope that's what happened, and that he wasn't deliberately misrepresenting what I had claimed.

My claim was that the copying process can produce visual anomalies. We know that this happens. Just look at some of the many versions of the Zapruder film and other assassination-related films and photos that are available online and in print. The quality varies. Some show more detail than others. You can see blobs, lines, and other objects in one version of a particular film frame or photo that you won't see in other versions. That can only be caused by the copying process. It's the result of factors such as the number of generations between the original and the copy in question, the equipment that has been used to make the copy, the type of film used, and software adjustments to digital copies.

All of this may be news to John, but it really isn't controversial to anyone who knows the first thing about photography, a group of which John appears not to be a member.

Quote

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. ... As far as copying errors, he won't explain how that happens.

No-one needs to prove any of those things. John is the one making claims that certain anomalies, such as the extra-long leg, are due to alteration. He needs to support his claims.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. If John wants us to accept that all the films and photos were altered, he needs to offer proof, not merely empty claims.

He could start by justifying his claim that the Zapruder film was altered to produce Phil Willis's "extra-long leg". How might that have been done, exactly? Why was it done? Was it done deliberately, or was the "extra-long leg" an accidental by-product of an alteration done for another reason? If so, what was that reason? The more detail John can provide, the less ridiculous his claim will be.

Going back to an earlier claim that John has been asked several times to prove, so far without success, can John finally show us how the Moorman photo could have been altered in the two and a half hours between the assassination and its broadcast on TV? If he can't even show that such a thing was physically possible, why should we take his claim seriously? Not that anyone does take any of his claims seriously, as far as I can tell.

Quote

Jeremy is a supporter of the Warren Commission conclusions

Again, John is either mistaken or dishonest. Since I have mentioned more than once that I am not a "supporter of the Warren Commission conclusions", John is unlikely to be mistaken.

He has recently, and falsely, claimed that Pat Speer and Jonathan Cohen are also "Lone-Nutists". Why does John keep making these false claims? Is he being deliberately dishonest, or does he sincerely believe that anyone who questions his belief must be a supporter of the lone-gunman idea?

If it's the former, he should resign from the forum. If it's the latter, he is absolutely wrong. The arguments against the lone-gunman idea do not require any, let alone all, of the Dealey Plaza photographic evidence to have been faked. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Zapruder film invalidates the lone-nut idea. If you want to dispose of the Zapruder film, you are disposing of the strongest item of evidence against "Lone-Nutism".

Quote

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

Indeed so. And none of those 'researchers' has managed to do more than spot what they think are anomalies in the film, then jump to the conclusion that if something doesn't look quite right to them, the film must be a fake.

It's amateurish, and it gives a bad impression of JFK assassination research in general. After maybe 30 years of trying, no-one has come up with anything that approaches proof of alteration.

Anomaly-spotting is just a game, something to keep people busy who have nothing more productive to do. John Butler, in particular, really needs to find a new hobby, one that doesn't tempt him to make dishonest or mistaken claims about serious Warren Commission critics.

Collecting beer-bottle caps, for example, is a fine hobby that many people find intellectually satisfying. Building scale models of the Eiffel Tower and Sydney Opera House out of matchsticks is a bit more demanding, but would at least keep John busy. Anything to prevent him embarrassing himself further by making absurd claims that all the assassination films and photos are fakes.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[Chris Davidson]

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In any event, the removal of frames without a correlating deception regarding the fps would have been obvious. And this feeds back to my earlier statement: someone needs to compare the Z-film with other films of cars in a parade, recorded and played-back at a known fps, to see if the movements of the crowd are comparable, or if the Z-film action appears sped up or slowed-down.

When I start my next band, I'll take the woman next to Croft as my drummer.

btw, this gif starts purposely at the extant z157 split.

 

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

When I start my next band, I'll take the woman next to Croft as my drummer.

btw, this gif starts purposely at the extant z157 split.

 

And, a dancer too.  She seems to be doing what is now called a shuffle dance.

[Chris Davidson]

A few other obvious signs of an increasing frame rate.

Her number one fan(woman second from the left side of Stemmons) clapping.

Watch as the limo moves closer to her, just as the lower sprocket hole touches her, the clapping speed increases even more.

Once you have adjusted to that, then immediately after, look at the head turn by our new drummer lady.

 

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Referring to the suggestion that a particular anomaly might be due to the normal operation of the camera, Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

That is impossible.

And, referring to the suggestion that a particular anomaly might be due to the copying process:

Quote

That is impossible.

I'll try yet again. Sandy needs to do a lot more than simply declare that something is impossible. He needs to explain in detail why it is impossible.

He is claiming that the selective blurring which he sees in a copy (of a copy, of a copy, etc) of the Zapruder film cannot be due to anything other than deliberate alteration of the film.

He has used the phrases "defies the laws of physics" and "cannot have occurred naturally." He is claiming that every cause other than deliberate alteration is impossible. That's a big claim to make, and a high hurdle of proof to overcome. It is up to him to demonstrate, and not merely assert, that every other conceivable cause is impossible.

To do this, he needs to consider the conceivable causes I mentioned, and show why they cannot have happened. Of course, other conceivable causes may come to mind in the future, each of which would also need to be ruled out.

Let's start with physical imperfections in the mechanism of Zapruder's camera or lens or the film he was using. Has Sandy, or anyone else, examined that particular model of camera and that particular model of lens? If not, are there any plans to do so?

How is it impossible for such factors to have caused the anomaly? Were the shutter mechanism, the sprocket mechanism, the lens, and every other component so precisely engineered and manufactured that all physical factors can be definitively ruled out?

Then there's the copying process. I presume Sandy has only looked at copies of the film and not the actual film that's in the National Archives. In fact, I suspect that Sandy has only looked at relatively poor-quality copies, such as the Costella frames he has posted here. Has Sandy inspected any good-quality copies?

If he has, how good were they? If not, how would he rule out the possibility that better-quality copies than the ones he is using will not show the anomaly in question (as we have seen with other claims of alteration such as John Butler's claim about Phil Willis's extra-long leg)?

Given the number of physical and digital processes that can be used in the copying of films, how is it impossible for any copying process to generate the anomaly? Does Sandy have a comprehensive list of the copying processes, both physical and digital, which were involved in creating the images he is using? If not, how can he rule out the possibility that an unknown copying process caused the anomaly?

That should keep him busy for a while.

If Sandy were following the usual pattern, and merely claimed that something in the film doesn't look quite right to him and he can't think of a non-sinister explanation so maybe it's due to alteration, then I'd be tempted to agree with him. Maybe the anomaly is due to alteration. Maybe it isn't. So what? Who cares? Until someone comes up with proof, it's just one more anomaly to add to the three-decades-old pile of worthless anomalies and unproved speculations.

But since Sandy has decided to go all dogmatic and is actually making the positive claim that any explanation is impossible that doesn't involve alteration, he's given himself a big problem to solve. It's up to him to prove that every reasonable explanation that doesn't involve alteration is impossible.

It's a huge task. I don't think he'll be able to do it, but it would be good if he could at least make an effort.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Added a link

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

The Burden of Proof, Explained

John continues:

Quote

They can't really refute what I have said or shown.  They said things like the burden of proof is on me and not themselves.  This relieves them to make any claim they want

The burden of proof is on John. He made a positive claim, so the onus is on him to support that claim. That's how things work. It isn't up to anyone else to disprove his claim.

The claim in question was about Phil Willis's magical extra-long leg. Here's John showing us that he hasn't managed to grasp the burden-of-proof idea:

Quote

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.

Nope. No-one "needs to show that it is not painted into the frame." If John is claiming that the extra-long leg was "painted into the frame", it's up to him to prove it.

Would John like to try?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Phil Willis's Extra-Long Leg, Explained

John has claimed more than once that the Zapruder film must have been altered because it shows Phil Willis with an extra-long leg. He claims that Willis's leg has been "painted into the frame".

As we have seen with Sandy a few posts ago, if you're claiming certainty about something as far-fetched as film alteration, you will end up looking silly if you can't prove your claim. The way to avoid embarrassment is to check for alternative explanations, and then carefully rule them all out. Did John do that? Evidently not.

One alternative explanation that comes to mind is that John has been using poor-quality versions of the frames in question, and that better-quality versions will not show Willis with an extra-long leg. The extra-long leg would be an illusion caused by the copying process.

If John doesn't yet have a copy of David Wrone's excellent book, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003), he should buy one as soon as possible, as should Sandy. It's essential reading for anyone who thinks the Zapruder film has been altered.

Open Wrone's book and turn to the glossy photo spread between pages 180 and 181. Look at the reproductions of frames 199, 200 and 201. You'll see Phil Willis standing by the curb with his camera held up to his eyes, and the Secret Service car approaching from his right, the viewer's left.

In each of these frames, look at Willis's legs and feet. Both legs look like perfectly normal legs, ending in perfectly normal feet. You can clearly see the curb in front of his feet. Both legs appear to be the same length, give or take the normal human variation.

Look at the Secret Service car. A Secret Service agent, presumably Clint Hill, is standing on the left front running board. The agent is wearing a black jacket, and his left arm is hanging down by his side. There is a small white rectangle on the left-hand side of his chest, possibly a badge or more likely a handkerchief that's protruding from his breast pocket.

Now look at Wrone's larger, more detailed reproduction of frame 202. You will notice that the Secret Service car has just reached Willis. Look at the agent's left arm and the white shape on his chest. The agent's shoulder and arm are lined up with Willis's right leg. The agent's jacket and Willis's trousers are both black, which might give the impression to an inattentive viewer that Willis's leg has almost doubled in length.

But we can tell that his leg hasn't doubled in length, and that the extra length is actually the agent's body, in front of Willis. We know this because we can still see the agent's badge or handkerchief half-way down Willis's apparently elongated leg.

What John Butler thinks is an extra-long leg is actually nothing more sinister than part of the Secret Service agent who has moved between Willis and Zapruder in frame 202.

How did John make such an obvious mistake? Presumably, he used poor-quality versions of the Zapruder frames, while putting his brain in neutral.

The moral of the story is: if you're going to claim that a particular image looks wrong, make sure that you are using the best-quality version you can find, because the copying process invariably degrades the quality of images. Everyone, please note that if you don't take this elementary precaution, you may end up looking like John Butler.

Of course, that's assuming that the version of frame 202 which John used is in fact of such poor quality that it doesn't show Clint Hill's handkerchief, or whatever the white rectangle is. If John was using an image that does show this, and he just didn't notice it ... well, I don't think any of us would be surprised.

[John Butler]

Hey editors,

What happened to my long reply to Jeremy?  I saved it.  And, it is not here.  What is happening?

Meanwhile, I have prepared this gif showing that Phil's extra, long leg grows and shrinks from Z frame 154 to Z frame 160.  It does so in a consistent manner and not in a random way as would be some sort of film imperfection.

I have no further comments to make in this thread.

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by John Butler

[James R Gordon]

From Admin,

We have received two complaints about the use of insults within 24 hours.

Though I have not read the entire thread, I have read enough to acknowledge the veracity of the complaint. I have hidden two posts.

If some find it impossible to refrain from insulting fellow members, I suggest you take a break and do something else. If I have a further report I will scrupulously read through the entire thread and immediately give the offending mmembers a break from this site - without warning.

You all know how to address one another - even on a topic that is controversial. Offending other members does not just offend the particular member - it offends all who have to read your post.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Hey editors,

What happened to my long reply to Jeremy?  I saved it.  And, it is not here.  What is happening?

Meanwhile, I have prepared this gif showing that Phil's extra, long leg grows and shrinks from Z frame 154 to Z frame 160.  It does so in a consistent manner and not in a random way as would be some sort of film imperfection.

I have no further comments to make in this thread.

 

Could it be that what you think is his leg is a combination of his leg and the shadow of his leg and foot? 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Referring to the suggestion that a particular anomaly might be due to the normal operation of the camera, Sandy Larsen writes:

And, referring to the suggestion that a particular anomaly might be due to the copying process:

I'll try yet again. Sandy needs to do a lot more than simply declare that something is impossible. He needs to explain in detail why it is impossible.

He is claiming that the selective blurring which he sees in a copy (of a copy, of a copy, etc) of the Zapruder film cannot be due to anything other than deliberate alteration of the film.

He has used the phrases "defies the laws of physics" and "cannot have occurred naturally." He is claiming that every cause other than deliberate alteration is impossible. That's a big claim to make, and a high hurdle of proof to overcome. It is up to him to demonstrate, and not merely assert, that every other conceivable cause is impossible.

To do this, he needs to consider the conceivable causes I mentioned, and show why they cannot have happened. Of course, other conceivable causes may come to mind in the future, each of which would also need to be ruled out.

Let's start with physical imperfections in the mechanism of Zapruder's camera or lens or the film he was using. Has Sandy, or anyone else, examined that particular model of camera and that particular model of lens? If not, are there any plans to do so?

How is it impossible for such factors to have caused the anomaly? Were the shutter mechanism, the sprocket mechanism, the lens, and every other component so precisely engineered and manufactured that all physical factors can be definitively ruled out?

Then there's the copying process. I presume Sandy has only looked at copies of the film and not the actual film that's in the National Archives. In fact, I suspect that Sandy has only looked at relatively poor-quality copies, such as the Costella frames he has posted here. Has Sandy inspected any good-quality copies?

If he has, how good were they? If not, how would he rule out the possibility that better-quality copies than the ones he is using will not show the anomaly in question (as we have seen with other claims of alteration such as John Butler's claim about Phil Willis's extra-long leg)?

Given the number of physical and digital processes that can be used in the copying of films, how is it impossible for any copying process to generate the anomaly? Does Sandy have a comprehensive list of the copying processes, both physical and digital, which were involved in creating the images he is using? If not, how can he rule out the possibility that an unknown copying process caused the anomaly?

That should keep him busy for a while.

If Sandy were following the usual pattern, and merely claimed that something in the film doesn't look quite right to him and he can't think of a non-sinister explanation so maybe it's due to alteration, then I'd be tempted to agree with him. Maybe the anomaly is due to alteration. Maybe it isn't. So what? Who cares? Until someone comes up with proof, it's just one more anomaly to add to the three-decades-old pile of worthless anomalies and unproved speculations.

But since Sandy has decided to go all dogmatic and is actually making the positive claim that any explanation is impossible that doesn't involve alteration, he's given himself a big problem to solve. It's up to him to prove that every reasonable explanation that doesn't involve alteration is impossible.

It's a huge task. I don't think he'll be able to do it, but it would be good if he could at least make an effort.

 

Jeremy seems to think that cameras and photographic copy machines might have some kind of artificial intelligence that is capable of identifying motion blur, and the processing power to remove it. And that it does this randomly (or whenever it wants?). He says that it's my responsibility to identify just how the machine does this. Which I can't because it's impossible.

When I note that it's impossible, Jeremy demands that I prove it's impossible.

If I were to claim that it is impossible for a straight line drawn on a sheet of paper to spontaneously change its shape to a circle, Jeremy would demand that I need to prove it's impossible.

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by Sandy Larsen