The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[Chris Davidson]

On 3/5/2022 at 1:56 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

 

Do you consider "splices" in a film as transitions?

Perhaps the splice at extant z157 started one of the frame removal series.

I'll provide another example of this, connected to the drummer lady reference.

Comparing should be a little easier that way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 3/5/2022 at 9:00 AM, 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.

 

Compare the following gifs(waving in background) to the Z drummer lady above.

I've removed the distraction(pretend it's the limo) and sequentially removed every other frame. Now compare it to the Z wave.

Then test it yourself by standing in place waving, then start walking backwards and keep waving, while trying to keep the same waving speed. What happens?

Humans are capable of certain actions, just not some of what we see in the extant zfilm.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Do you consider "splices" in a film as transitions?

Perhaps the splice at extant z157 started one of the frame removal series.

I'll provide another example of this, connected to the drummer lady reference.

Comparing should be a little easier that way.

 

Well a splice is certainly a transition. But when I said "transition" I meant simply the frame where the prior frames have no frames removed and the subsequent frames do have frames removed. Or vice versa.

BTW, when you speak of the drummer lady, are you talking about the lady on the other side of Elm who at first backs up behind a man in a dark suit, and after that moves forward? She appears to be waving.

If that's the one...

Well, it's hard for me to tell if she is waving too fast. But she sure turns her head fast. It would be useful to know how long it takes her to turn her head.  How many frames. And if there is a splice or not during the time she is turning her head. It looks like it might be impossible.

 

[Jamey Flanagan]

@Sandy Larsen, if turning your head were an Olympic event then Greer would take the gold every time! 😂😂😂

[Ron Bulman]

17 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

@Sandy Larsen, if turning your head were an Olympic event then Greer would take the gold every time! 😂😂😂

For a second or two he was focused on back and to his right as he slowed down.  Then he looked forward and sped up.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

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.

Pat Speer has worked it out:

Quote

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

Of course the leg doesn't grow and shrink! It's an illusion caused by the poor quality of the copies John is using.

In the few frames leading up to and including frame 154, Phil Willis is standing with his right leg in the road. As the police motorcyclists approach, Willis moves out of their way. He lifts his right foot off the road and leans backwards. A few frames later, he ends up with his right leg back on the curb.

As Willis lifts his right foot off the road, the distance between his hips and the road increases. Because the foot is close to the road, it casts a shadow. The poor quality of the frames John is using obscures the distinctions between his trouser leg, his foot, the shadow cast by his foot, and the side of the curb that is in shadow. They are all rendered as pretty much the same shade of dark grey. Result: one extra-long leg. But it's an illusion.

Better-quality images, with more varied tonal gradation, may show these distinctions. If John has a copy of Robert Groden's heavily illustrated book, The Killing of a President, he should turn to pages 20 and 21, where he will find clear versions of frames 153 and 161. You can make out distinctions between the curb, the shadow, and Willis himself.

But sometimes even good-quality copies aren't enough. A frame of 8mm film like Zapruder's is very small, and many details simply can't be recorded. What might appear to be anomalies are the product of the limitations of the medium.

Like most of the supposed anomalies in the Zapruder film and other assassination images, Phil Willis's non-existent extra-long leg is down to uncritical interpretation of poor-quality images. We've had 30 years of this anomaly-spotting nonsense. You'd think people would have learned their lesson by now.

John should have been able to work out that there's nothing sinister going on here by asking himself a simple question. Why on earth would anyone have wanted to paint an extra-long leg onto Phil Willis? What were they trying to cover up? Did he have a top-secret, state-of-the-art, remote-controlled miniature gun concealed in his right shoe?

There's a lesson here for anyone who thinks that this or that film or photo has been faked. If you can't come up with a plausible reason why a particular alteration was done, you can safely assume that it wasn't done.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

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.

What does artificial intelligence have to do with it? Does Sandy really not understand the point I was making?

He was claiming that his new anomaly "defies the laws of physics" and "cannot have occurred naturally." He is implying that his anomaly cannot be the result of any cause other than deliberate alteration.

If that is what he meant, then he needs to prove it, by ruling out every other possible cause, including the most obvious candidates:

• the workings of Zapruder's camera, and
• the physical and digital processes involved in creating the copies in which Sandy has spotted his new anomaly.

The copying process in particular needs to be ruled out, because it has been the cause of umpteen other unsupported claims of alteration that anomaly-spotters have come up with over the last few decades. As we have just seen, Phil Willis's extra-long leg is a simple product of the copying process (combined with a lack of critical thinking, another feature of unsuccessful anomaly-spotting claims over the decades).

Perhaps Sandy isn't claiming that his new anomaly must be the product of deliberate alteration, but merely that it may be the product of deliberate alteration. Well, I'd agree with him. It may be the product of alteration by all-powerful conspirators with no apparent motivation, who just felt like stretching their photo-alteration wings. It may be the product of alteration by the same people who went on the fake the moon-landings photos, or by extraterrestrials, or by the lizard people.

If it may be the product of alteration, why should we care about it? Why should we assume that this example is any different from all the other claims? No-one has yet proved that their pet anomaly must be the product of deliberate alteration. Why should we take Sandy's claim seriously if he is unable or unwilling to look for straightforward, everyday explanations for his pet anomaly?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/7/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What does artificial intelligence have to do with it? Does Sandy really not understand the point I was making?

 

Of course I understand the point that Jeremy was making. Problem is, it isn't applicable to my proof, as I have shown.

So here he is doubling down again.

 

On 3/7/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[Sandy] was claiming that his new anomaly "defies the laws of physics" and "cannot have occurred naturally." He is implying that his anomaly cannot be the result of any cause other than deliberate alteration.

On 3/7/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If that is what he meant, then [Sandy] needs to prove it, by ruling out every other possible cause, including the most obvious candidates:

 

That is like asking me to prove that a straight line drawn on a sheet a paper cannot spontaneously change its shape to a circle. I would say that's impossible, to which Jeremy would insist that I need to rule out every possible cause of that happening before ruling it impossible. All because he is incapable of accepting that it's impossible.

To this I say, no Jeremy, I do not need to examine every possible cause you can think of just because you don't understand the physics and reasoning I (and others) use to show something's impossible. Rather you need to study it for yourself because you're one of the very few who don't understand it.

BTW, here's a link to my proof:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27659-simple-proof-that-the-zapruder-film-has-been-altered/

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen clearly doesn't understand the point I was making. He writes:

Quote

That is like asking me to prove that a straight line drawn on a sheet a paper cannot spontaneously change its shape to a circle. I would say that's impossible

It is indeed impossible for a straight line to transform itself into a circle. The impossibility is a simple consequence of the accepted definitions of the terms 'straight lines' and 'circle'.

But Sandy's "proof" of alteration is not a matter of defining the terms. His analogy does not apply.

He is claiming that, of all the conceivable causes of the presence or absence of blurring in this or that frame of a much-copied 59-year-old 8mm film, every cause but one is impossible. This is an empirical matter. It relies not on the definitions of terms, but on empirical evidence.

Because anomalies in films are an empirical matter, Sandy needs to demonstrate that his claim is true. In order to demonstrate that his claim is true, Sandy needs to rule out every conceivable cause other than the one he mentions: deliberate alteration by unknown parties for unknown reasons.

Unfortunately, as Sandy probably worked out to his dismay shortly after he made his claim, it is almost impossible to rule out all of these causes.

Home movie cameras and 8mm films are physical objects and will inevitably possess physical imperfections. These physical imperfections will often manifest themselves as visual anomalies on the film, and on copies of the film. Digital copes of films and photos, and software manipulation of those copies, can also introduce visual anomalies. John Butler has recently joined the large club of anomaly-spotters who have reluctantly become acquainted with these elementary facts.

Sandy needs to rule out all of these potential causes. As I pointed out earlier, I don't think he will be able to do so, but it would be good if he could at least make the effort.

He not yet shown that his preferred explanation is even plausible, let alone conclusive. This too might be an almost impossible task. Before he heads off to College Park to find evidence that his pet anomaly actually exists on the original film, perhaps he could start by answering a few basic questions:

• What sort of deliberate alteration might have caused Sandy's pet anomaly?
• Who would have wanted to make that particular alteration?
• Why would this person or group have wanted to make that alteration?
• How might the alteration have been made? 
• Was the alteration physically possible, given the time and materials that were available?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/9/2022 at 2:41 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Because anomalies in films are an empirical matter, Sandy needs to demonstrate that his claim is true. In order to demonstrate that his claim is true, Sandy needs to rule out every conceivable cause other than the one he mentions: deliberate alteration by unknown parties for unknown reasons.

 

I did that a couple weeks ago. The ONLY conceivable cause of "selective blurring" or "selective deblurring" is human intervention. Because it requires some form of intelligence to distinguish where on the film motion blur exists and where it doesn't exist.

I can think of no other conceivable cause.

The onus is now on Jeremy or any other critic to present me with alternative cause(s) for me to rule in or out.

Please present me with your alternative causes of selective DEblurring only, as I have discovered  from reading John Costella's material that between Zapruder frames 310 and 311, the one with motion blur, Z311, is the normal one. (Because Zapruder's camera had a slow shutter speed, and so motion blur would be quite obvious.) Something has removed the motion blur from the stationary objects in Z310. And did so without affecting the moving objects.

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/9/2022 at 2:41 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

He not yet shown that his preferred explanation is even plausible, let alone conclusive. This too might be an almost impossible task. Before he heads off to College Park to find evidence that his pet anomaly actually exists on the original film, perhaps he could start by answering a few basic questions:

• What sort of deliberate alteration might have caused Sandy's pet anomaly?
• Who would have wanted to make that particular alteration?
• Why would this person or group have wanted to make that alteration?
• How might the alteration have been made? 
• Was the alteration physically possible, given the time and materials that were available?

 

Zapruder frame 310 has no motion blur at all even though the limo was moving fast enough to exhibit significant motion blur. (The motion blur would have been on all the stationary objects given that the camera was closely following the limo.) Physics says that motion blur must be in the frame. Therefore frame 310 violates the laws of physics.

None of your above questions are relevant to that basic fact.

 

Z311 - Motion blur is present on all stationary objects, as expected.

 

Z310 - No motion blur is present on any object... this violates the laws of physics given that the limo was moving.

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited March 11, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

The ONLY conceivable cause of "selective blurring" or "selective deblurring" is human intervention.

As I pointed out earlier, Sandy is asserting something which he needs to demonstrate.

Quote

Because it requires some form of intelligence to distinguish where on the film motion blur exists and where it doesn't exist.

Again, Sandy is merely asserting something that he needs to demonstrate.

Quote

I can think of no other conceivable cause.

That's the problem.

There are all sorts of conceivable causes of visual anomalies in digital copies of physical films:

• Anomalies in 8mm home movies can result from the physical properties of the original camera, lens and film.
• Anomalies in digital copies, such as the ones Sandy is using, can result from the physical and digital copying processes, as John Butler has recently discovered with Phil Willis's non-existent extra-long leg.

Since Sandy has presumably not examined the actual camera, lens or film, and since he presumably cannot identify all of the physical and digital adjustments that have produced the copies he is using, I suspect he will have trouble ruling out each of these conceivable causes.

Until Sandy does rule out each of these conceivable causes, all we are left with is one more speculative, unproven claim of alteration.

[Sean Coleman]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Zapruder frame 310 has no motion blur at all even though the limo was moving fast enough to exhibit significant motion blur. (The motion blur would have been on all the stationary objects given that the camera was closely following the limo.) Physics says that motion blur must be in the frame. Therefore frame 310 violates the laws of physics.

None of your above questions are relevant to that basic fact.

 

Z311 - Motion blur is present on all stationary objects, as expected.

 

Z310 - No motion blur is present on any object... this violates the laws of physics given that the limo was moving.

 

Could Z310 be blurless due to Zap not panning right with his camera due to the limo slowing/stopping- so for a few frames his camera is almost stationary, bringing all subject matter into focus?

[Mark Knight]

11 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Could Z310 be blurless due to Zap not panning right with his camera due to the limo slowing/stopping- so for a few frames his camera is almost stationary, bringing all subject matter into focus?

You just MAY have found the "Rosetta Stone" of film alteration. Some of the witnesses said that the limo slowed/stopped PRIOR to the fatal headshot. If the limo slowed/stopped at approximately Z-310, that would confirm what the witnesses claimed. But since the extant Z-film appears to show no slowing/stop of the limo, that would mean that frame removal may have occurred around this point if the witnesses are correct.

I'm not saying that is or isn't the case. I'm saying that would make sense IF it occurred. Would the SS allow the record to show the limo slowed or stopped 3 frames PRIOR to the fatal headshot? That would make Greer appear to be at fault, to some degree or another, in JFK's murder. [No that doesn't make him a knowledgeable accomplice.]

It's something worth considering. Chris Davidson, does this pass a plausibility test?