Simple proof that the Zapruder film has been altered.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You don't find it obvious that those double images are due to double exposing the film? What else could possibly do that doubling?

Mark Tyler has just explained it to you. So much for your "obvious facts." I won't wait around for your apology.

[Chris Davidson]

2 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

Hi Sandy

I think this is a function of an 18 FPS input film being adjusted for a different output rate (e.g. 24/30 FPS for film/NTSC output).  Have a look at this article for an explanation of the "pulldown" and the image blending:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:2_pulldown

I think @Chris Davidson wrote some things about this a while ago too.

The limo doesn't have the same problem because Zapruder is panning so the error isn't so obvious in that portion of the image.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/7/2022 at 5:08 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

On 7/7/2022 at 2:43 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

You don't find it obvious that those double images are due to double exposing the film? What else could possibly do that doubling?

 

On 7/7/2022 at 5:08 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Mark Tyler has just explained it to you. So much for your "obvious facts." I won't wait around for your apology.

 

You might want to hold onto your smug remark, Jonathan.

I've been studying telecine machines and 2:3 pulldown as suggested by Mark Tyler and, as it turns out, I was right about those artifacts being double exposures!

Pulldowns like the 2:3 one actually double expose the target frame, combining one frame from the source film with its very next frame. Almost exactly what Chris Bristow did "by hand" with frames 274 and 275 of the extant Z film, posted above.

Here is Chris's result:

 

Compare that to same frame from the Secret Service film:

 

They look virtually the same.

Technically speaking, though, the one produced by the telecine machine (the one from the Secret Service film) uses only the even scan lines from one of the source frames and odd scan lines from the other.

I'll have more to say about this later.

My thanks to Mark, Chris B., and Chris D.

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Mark Tyler]

On 7/7/2022 at 10:57 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mark,

Thanks for your reasoned response.

Your idea seems to have some merit. I recall that the odd and even lines in the video standard in the U.S. (NTSC) are split into two frames (interlacing), and they are displayed alternately. If there is a time delay in the scanning of one frame relative to the other, the end result would be that the images in the two frames would no longer line up horizontally and you would see two of every object on the display. Of course, each of these would be half the vertical resolution as the normal de-interlaced image.

Is that what you're getting at?

 

Yes, the interlacing is the core of the problem when transferring film to video, as it always has the effect of blending different images from fractionally different times (and creating ghost images in a single frame).  It's mentioned elsewhere on the web such as here:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/after-effects-discussions/how-to-fix-ghosting-double-image/m-p/9481267

In the case of the Zapruder film, because the pan is left/right, the tell-tale sign is the left/right ghosting as @Chris Bristow and @Chris Davidson helpfully showed in their posts.

Overall, I don't think there is anything suspicious about what we see in this video.  However, as I always say about this case, no stone should remain unturned when looking for the truth.

[Sandy Larsen]

Before moving on, I want to undo some damage to my reputation that Jonathan Cohen may have caused.

(Of course, everybody makes a mistake now and then, and I've made my own. There is no shame in getting something wrong, as long as one remains honest and takes reasonable care in their actions. But...)

I don't want to be accused of making a mistake in cases where I have not made a mistake! And I have not made a mistake regarding this Secret Service copy of the Z film. (So far... knock on wood.)

Here is what I originally said:

 

On 7/7/2022 at 5:20 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't have what is needed to view the film frame by frame, but by using the YouTube pause button I was able to find and copy a few frames that definitely indicate alteration by humans.

Before anybody leaps out of their chair in excitement, I want to point out that I can't think of any reason why anybody would want to make the alterations I found. But they are nonetheless alterations that required human intervention.

 

We now know that alterations were indeed made. And that their creation required human intervention. It was the "telecine" process that created them.

The purpose of "telecine" is to transfer a cinematographic film to a television signal (thus the name). Doing so usually means changing the refresh rate of the movie. For example, the film might have a refresh rate of 18 frames per second (fps) whereas original television in the U.S. has a refresh rate of 30 fps. Without going into details (like "interlacing") this means that some frames of the TV signal must be "double exposed" with two consecutive frames of the film in order to make the conversion fit.

This double exposure is an alteration intentionally created by human intervention. And that is what I said those double exposures indicated. I never said they were signs of government coverup. In fact, I said that nobody should leap out of their chairs in excitement, because I couldn't figure out why these alterations were made.

Well, now thanks to Tyler we all know why those alterations were made. There is nothing nefarious in those particular alterations we see in the Z film shown in the Secret Service video.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

Before moving on, I want to undo some damage to my reputation that Jonathan Cohen may have caused.

(Of course, everybody makes a mistake now and then, and I've made my own. There is no shame in getting something wrong, as long as one remains honest and takes reasonable care in their actions. But...)

I don't want to be accused of making a mistake in cases where I have not made a mistake! And I have not made a mistake regarding this Secret Service copy of the Z film. (So far... knock on wood.)

Here is what I originally said:

 

 

We now know that alterations were indeed made. And that their creation required human intervention. It was the "telecine" process that created them.

The purpose of "telecine" is to transfer a cinematographic film to a television signal (thus the name). Doing so usually means changing the refresh rate of the movie. For example, the film might have a refresh rate of 18 frames per second (fps) whereas original television in the U.S. has a refresh rate of 30 fps. Without going into details (like "interlacing") this means that some frames of the TV signal must be "double exposed" with two consecutive frames of the film in order to make the conversion fit.

This double exposure is an alteration intentionally created by human intervention. And that is what I said those double exposures indicated. I never said they were signs of government coverup. In fact, I said that nobody should leap out of their chairs in excitement, because I couldn't figure out why these alterations were made.

Well, now thanks to Tyler we all know why those alterations were made. There is nothing nefarious in those particular alterations we see in the Z film shown in the Secret Service video.

 

 

Having said all that, I want to note that two issues remain:

1. It would be useful to compare individual frames of the Secret Service's copy of the Z film to the corresponding frames of the extant Z film.
2. There are (minor) selective double exposures in the Costella copy of the Z film, such as in frame 311. I've always assumed that Costella's copy had never been converted to a television format as doing so would substantially lower the resolution of the frames.
   
   If Costella's film hasn't been converted to TV video: What is the cause of the selective double exposure?
   
   If Costella's film HAS been converted to TV video: Why isn't the selective double exposure severe, like it is in the Z film contained in the Secret Service film?

 

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Having said all that, I want to note that two issues remain:

1. It would be useful to compare individual frames of the Secret Service's copy of the Z film to the corresponding frames of the extant Z film.
2. There are (minor) selective double exposures in the Costella copy of the Z film, such as in frame 311. I've always assumed that Costella's copy had never been converted to a television format as doing so would substantially lower the resolution of the frames.
   
   If Costella's film hasn't been converted to TV video: What is the cause of the selective double exposure?
   
   If Costella's film HAS been converted to TV video: Why isn't the selective double exposure severe, like it is in the Z film contained in the Secret Service film?

 

I thought The set of Z frames you can download from the Costella site is the same set of frames made available to download  from the National Archives? I assumed because you can download the set of 486 single frames they had noting to do with adaptation for video.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I thought The set of Z frames you can download from the Costella site is the same set of frames made available to download  from the National Archives? I assumed because you can download the set of 486 single frames they had noting to do with adaptation for video.

 

I didn't know you could download individual frames from the National Archives. But if that is the case, then I'm sure that Costella's frames have never been through a telecine machine. Costella naturally wanted to post frames from the best copy of Zapruder available, and one that's been converted to (analog) video is only going to be made worse.

So what caused the apparent selective double exposure in frame 311 and others?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Each woman has a dominant image and a more faint, "ghost" image.

Red Lady's ghost image is on the right (our right). (Note her face) Blue Lady's ghost image is on the left. (Note the bottom of her dress.) I'm not sure if Beige Lady has a ghost image. But if she does, I think it's on the right.

It's not something in the sprocket area that's causing the ghost images... otherwise the police officer's helmet would have one.

The offset distance of the Blue Lady ghost seems to be greater than it is for Red Lady.

 

[Chris Davidson]

[Bill Brown]

.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Before moving on, I want to undo some damage to my reputation that Jonathan Cohen may have caused.

(Of course, everybody makes a mistake now and then, and I've made my own. There is no shame in getting something wrong, as long as one remains honest and takes reasonable care in their actions. But...)

I don't want to be accused of making a mistake in cases where I have not made a mistake! And I have not made a mistake regarding this Secret Service copy of the Z film. (So far... knock on wood.)

Here is what I originally said:

 

 

We now know that alterations were indeed made. And that their creation required human intervention. It was the "telecine" process that created them.

The purpose of "telecine" is to transfer a cinematographic film to a television signal (thus the name). Doing so usually means changing the refresh rate of the movie. For example, the film might have a refresh rate of 18 frames per second (fps) whereas original television in the U.S. has a refresh rate of 30 fps. Without going into details (like "interlacing") this means that some frames of the TV signal must be "double exposed" with two consecutive frames of the film in order to make the conversion fit.

This double exposure is an alteration intentionally created by human intervention. And that is what I said those double exposures indicated. I never said they were signs of government coverup. In fact, I said that nobody should leap out of their chairs in excitement, because I couldn't figure out why these alterations were made.

Well, now thanks to Tyler we all know why those alterations were made. There is nothing nefarious in those particular alterations we see in the Z film shown in the Secret Service video.

 

You don't need any help from me to damage your reputation. You've done it all by yourself on this thread! Do you really expect us to believe that by using the word "alteration" you weren't implying some conspiratorial motive on the part of the "alterationists" ? Nobody went in and created those double exposures on purpose. They are simply part of the transfer process, as Mark and Chris have shown. So your use use of the word "alteration" to describe them is disingenuous, to say the least...

[Sandy Larsen]

39 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Do you really expect us to believe that by using the word "alteration" you weren't implying some conspiratorial motive on the part of the "alterationists" ?

I didn't know what to believe. But the only thing I claimed was that the film was altered by human intervention, i.e. it was not natural. I specifically said that the alterations made no sense to me.

But unlike you, I don't routinely kick difficult things under the rug. I left it open for exploration. And doing so paid off.

Make no mistake about it... the telecine machine alters the frames and it does so in the way it was designed to. By humans. That is called human intervention.

 

[Phillip Pratt]

I recommend watching the new series “Light and Magic” (Disney+) which tells the story of George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) special effects from Star Wars (1977) through to Jurassic Park (1993) when they transitioned to CGI.

The original methods were all stop motion, matte paintings and optical printers.

The original ILM crew were a ragtag bunch who came together organically and had to invent all the techniques on the fly. Noticeable is how SLOW this work was in the early days.

Also mentioned, for Star Wars they dug out Paramount’s ‘Vista vision” equipment and customised/modernised it. This kit hadn’t been used since ‘The Ten Commandments’ (1956).

The series explains the limitations of the old special effects techniques. 
And as an illustration of how hard it is to ‘re-animate’ humans on old film, look how crap Han Solo looks in the 90’s re-edit of Star Wars, when he walks up over Jabba’s tail (and that was done with computers).

My point is, all this was very specialised work, originating in the mid 70’s with a bunch of techy hippies - not the deep state.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Phillip Pratt

[Barry Keane]

Because of the head snap any alteration of the film is negated. So why go to great lengths to hide the reality of the film if the back and to the left movement is retained? If conspirators had the power and sophistication to alter the film why not just make it disappear?