BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Chris Bristow]

In some Z film frames there are motion blurred people like Altgens or the Franzen family who have shadows that are barley blurred at all. This is thought to be an artifact of alteration. But I think the reason is that the motion blur matches the direction that the shadows lay on.
The image below shows the unaltered frame 342 on the right and a motion blurred version on the left. A copy of Mr Bothun's shadow has been added in a vertical position. The image on the left shows the vertical shadow to be very blurred but the original horizontal shadow is much clearer even though the the motion blur was added to the entire frame. 
  When the motion blur smears the vertical shadow it is very obvious on the sides of the shadow. But in the original horizontal shadow the blur is spread along the length and so will show mostly at the head and feet while the sides are effected much less. Additionally motion blur is visible on Bothun's coat and tie and his face. But the shadow has no detail and no blur can seen within the shadow. I think both those factors are the reason the shadows of some people on Elm have much less visible motion blur than the people casting the shadows.

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/12/2024 at 7:27 AM, Chris Bristow said:

 

x

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Chris Bristow]

13 hours ago, Richard Bertolino said:

This is correct, but it does not disprove alteration. Alteration is proven in many other ways.

I am not trying to debunk alteration theory, just looking at each claim individually and trying to give it an honest evaluation. I would say the back of the head in the Z film is very likely altered. Based on the testimony of the 4 bike cops I would say maybe a limo stop was removed. Very very hard to do that as just removing frames or using a traveling mat will fail badly. 
 Skeptics argue that you could not have altered all those different films of the assassination but at least when it comes to the head wound, that is a straw man.
  Removing the right occipital head wound was not needed for the Hughes, Bell and  Paschell films because none of them their films show the head with any clarity and start well after frame 313. Nix and Bronson had no view to JFK's right occipital parietal because his head was turned about 25 degrees left. Even Muchmore had a very limited mostly side on view of that part of the head. But Muchmore's view is also blocked by Hill, then Hargis and Moorman just 2 frames after the headshot. So it is very unlikely Muchmore would have filmed the 4th shot anyway. Moorman was taken too soon after the headshot to have recorded a 4th shot even if it happened 1/4 second after the headshot. Taking out a head wound would have to have been done on the Z film but that is about it.
 Another strawman argument claims they would have to alter the actual 8mm film which sounds way too small to airbrush. But a technique used in animation projects the frames onto a table with a large, maybe 8" square cell, aligned to the projection. They draw or airbrush onto the cell using the projected image overlay as a reference. Then that cell is reduced and integrated into an 8mm copy with an optical printer. 
 It is also claimed the tractor feed marks on the sprocket area of the Z film perfectly match Z's camera so it must be a camera original. But they, FBI/SS, had possession of the camera and could have run the film stock for their altered copy through Z's camera. Considering the people who are suspected of faking the film are the ones who provide us with the full provenance of the film it is hard to know what they could have gotten away with that weekend.
 But even though I am a CT with regard to alteration and to Parkland, there are many claims that can be debunked. No surprise really. JFK's assassination is the most popular whodunit in the last century and people love to solve a whodunit.
 

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/12/2024 at 9:40 PM, Chris Bristow said:

I am not trying to debunk alteration theory, just looking at each claim individually and trying to give it an honest evaluation. I would say the back of the head in the Z film is very likely altered. Based on the testimony of the 4 bike cops I would say maybe a limo stop was removed. Very very hard to do that as just removing frames or using a traveling mat will fail badly. 
 Skeptics argue that you could not have altered all those different films of the assassination but at least when it comes to the head wound, that is a straw man.
  Removing the right occipital head wound was not needed for the Hughes, Bell and  Paschell films because none of them their films show the head with any clarity and start well after frame 313. Nix and Bronson had no view to JFK's right occipital parietal because his head was turned about 25 degrees left. Even Muchmore had a very limited mostly side on view of that part of the head. But Muchmore's view is also blocked by Hill, then Hargis and Moorman just 2 frames after the headshot. So it is very unlikely Muchmore would have filmed the 4th shot anyway. Moorman was taken too soon after the headshot to have recorded a 4th shot even if it happened 1/4 second after the headshot. Taking out a head wound would have to have been done on the Z film but that is about it.
 Another strawman argument claims they would have to alter the actual 8mm film which sounds way too small to airbrush. But a technique used in animation projects the frames onto a table with a large, maybe 8" square cell, aligned to the projection. They draw or airbrush onto the cell using the projected image overlay as a reference. Then that cell is reduced and integrated into an 8mm copy with an optical printer. 
 It is also claimed the tractor feed marks on the sprocket area of the Z film perfectly match Z's camera so it must be a camera original. But they, FBI/SS, had possession of the camera and could have run the film stock for their altered copy through Z's camera. Considering the people who are suspected of faking the film are the ones who provide us with the full provenance of the film it is hard to know what they could have gotten away with that weekend.
 But even though I am a CT with regard to alteration and to Parkland, there are many claims that can be debunked. No surprise really. JFK's assassination is the most popular whodunit in the last century and people love to solve a whodunit.
 

x

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Chris Bristow]

14 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

You make a good point about head shot alteration, but more extensive alteration including more films would have been facilitated by having another film to contribute Zapruder film footage. That is, if there were two "Zapruder film photographers" in similar locations, then these nearly impossible alterations could have been more easily achieved. Film contributed by a photographer in the pergola shelter or in the Black Dog Man location could have made these alterations feasible. Then the other films could have been matched to the resultant Zapruder film by simpler alterations.

I have to disagree on this 2nd photographer theory. Even standing a few feet behind Zapruder would significantly alter many lines of sight as he panned the camera.  If a 2nd film was taken directly behind Z, let alone many feet behind him in the pergola, then only one line of sight would line up in both films. People post videos on YouTube and say they filmed it from Z's location. But the lines of sight easily prove they got lazy and just stood behind the pedestal. Only a couple feet difference but easily measurable in their lines of sight in he plaza
  In the Z film we can see the subtle parallax effects as he pans his camera to the right This matches his location throughout the Z film. Any frame that give clues to his location, like the alignment of lampposts to the background verifies his location as being on the pedestal which is less than 24" wide. Any variation on Z's location would verify a 2nd cameraman. But I have tested the lines of sight throughout the film and they all lead back to Z.
  Maybe a 2nd film could be made to assist with alteration but it would have to be taken from Z's pedestal. 11/22 was  29 days before the solstice. if you wanted to make a 2nd film to assist with alteration and it was taken 29 days after the solstice on Jan 19th the the Sun's elevation and azimuth would match if taken at 10:30 am on Jan 19th. 

[Richard Bertolino]

k

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Richard Bertolino said:

The second photographer's material would not be needed for the whole film. And I don't see how you can say that the Zapruder film all had to have been taken from the Zapruder pedestal. Minor differences in perspective can be adjusted for in production if there are no obstructions at those points. The critical area of the film, around the head shot and limo stop has no obstructions. I think you should reconsider.

"Minor differences in perspective can be adjusted for in production".
  Any image taken from the pergola would mean cutting and pasting Mary Moorman and Foster and the people behind Foster into a different location by about 3 ft. It also means adjusting the relative size of the limo to Moorman and the others in the background. The pergola film would have a 4 degree difference in angle to the limo. Modifying that is much more complicated than just skewing the perspective of the image in post production. As an example the side window on the passenger side lines up to the same window on the drivers side in a specific way. Every part of the limo that has a matching component on the far side would have to individually altered otherwise the vanishing point would be off. That means the angle of the crossbar and the antenna on the rear trunk and the angle of the windshield and the angle of the back seat would have to be individually altered to different degrees to keep the lines of sight through the limo correct.
 Just manipulating Z's film would be less cumbersome than trying to adjust a 2nd film to match Z even if just a few frames around the headshot. Trying to use a second film from a different location is nonsensical. 

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/13/2024 at 3:27 AM, Chris Bristow said:

"Minor differences in perspective can be adjusted for in production".
  Any image taken from the pergola would mean cutting and pasting Mary Moorman and Foster and the people behind Foster into a different location by about 3 ft. It also means adjusting the relative size of the limo to Moorman and the others in the background. The pergola film would have a 4 degree difference in angle to the limo. Modifying that is much more complicated than just skewing the perspective of the image in post production. As an example the side window on the passenger side lines up to the same window on the drivers side in a specific way. Every part of the limo that has a matching component on the far side would have to individually altered otherwise the vanishing point would be off. That means the angle of the crossbar and the antenna on the rear trunk and the angle of the windshield and the angle of the back seat would have to be individually altered to different degrees to keep the lines of sight through the limo correct.
 Just manipulating Z's film would be less cumbersome than trying to adjust a 2nd film to match Z even if just a few frames around the headshot. Trying to use a second film from a different location is nonsensical. 

v

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/13/2024 at 3:35 AM, Richard Bertolino said:

I think you are thinking two dimensionally in a three dimensional world, so to speak. Lots of moving parts here. The people on the south side of Elm can be from one film while the limo and the people in it are from another. This requires some meticulous editing for the relatively short critical area of the film, but there was enough time for that. The earliest frames which were made public could have been "target frames," with the vast majority of work left to be done in the unpublished intervening frames. One must think like a criminal photographic genius to understand. It takes time for us mere mortals.

n

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Chris Bristow]

The manipulation needed of just a few frames around 313 is huge and it would be far easier to  manipulate the actual Z film. Now you are saying the 2nd film would be used from fr 269 to 330. That is absolutely absurd. Maybe you should put me on ignore because you are spouting completely crazy stuff now.

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:11 AM, Chris Bristow said:

The manipulation needed of just a few frames around 313 is huge and it would be far easier to  manipulate the actual Z film. Now you are saying the 2nd film would be used from fr 269 to 330. That is absolutely absurd. Maybe you should put me on ignore because you are spouting completely crazy stuff now.

O

Edited May 16 by Richard Bertolino

[Sandy Larsen]

Chris,

What more needs explaining in the extant Z film other than the following:

1. The gaping wound in the back of the head seen by nearly every witness, but not seen in the Z film.
2. The gaping wound in the right temple as seen in the Z film, but not seen by any witness.
3. The stop or near-stop of the presidential limo seen by dozens of witnesses, but not seen on the Z film.

Regarding #1, the color logarithmic scans proves for a fact that the hole in  back of the head was painted over.

Regarding #2, it seems likely that the "blob" and gaping wound in the temple area were simply painted in. IMO, there is no question about this.

Regarding #3, it seems that in the commotion, several witnesses could have gotten wrong what the thought they saw. For example, maybe the limo slowed down but didn't stop. Maybe some witnesses thought they saw people run between the limo and the car following it, when in reality no such thing happened other than Clint Hill running and jumping on the back of the limo. And that, finally, to remove the slowdown, all that we needed was to remove a few frames and touch up some motion blur to make it look natural. Or, ADD motion blur to the whole frame to hide anything that looked unnatural.

Don't you think that those three things were the only things needed to explain the known major discrepancies?

 

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Chris,

What more needs explaining in the extant Z film other than the following:

1. The gaping wound in the back of the head seen by nearly every witness, but not seen in the Z film.
2. The gaping wound in the right temple as seen in the Z film, but not seen by any witness.
3. The stop or near-stop of the presidential limo seen by dozens of witnesses, but not seen on the Z film.

Regarding #1, the color logarithmic scans proves for a fact that the hole in  back of the head was painted over.

Regarding #2, it seems likely that the "blob" and gaping wound in the temple area were simply painted in. IMO, there is no question about this.

Regarding #3, it seems that in the commotion, several witnesses could have gotten wrong what the thought they saw. For example, maybe the limo slowed down but didn't stop. Maybe some witnesses thought they saw people run between the limo and the car following it, when in reality no such thing happened other than Clint Hill running and jumping on the back of the limo. And that, finally, to remove the slowdown, all that we needed was to remove a few frames and touch up some motion blur to make it look natural. Or, ADD motion blur to the whole frame to hide anything that looked unnatural.

Don't you think that those three things were the only things needed to explain the known major discrepancies?

 

"Don't you think that those three things were the only things needed to explain the known major discrepancies?"
 I think those suggest alteration, especially regarding the back of the head. 
 My approach is to look at specific claims of alteration and see if I can test them. If I find a plausible explanation that may debunk an alteration claim then that is what I state.
  I think it is important to separate the wheat from the chaff and eliminate alteration theories that can be debunked or have possible solutions. Other times I find the skeptics answers fall short and can be debunked.
  I have found people new to the CT side who are convinced simply because there are so many claims of alteration that they must be real. I personally think after 60 years most agree there are many false alteration theories that have been floated. Those muddy the waters and I think it is beneficial to debunk the ones that don't hold up to scrutiny. I think the debunks add significantly to our overall understanding of photographic manipulation. The more we know the better we can evaluate the mountain of alteration claims.

  HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SUPPORT FOR AND DEBUNKING OF ALTERATION THEORIES.

   Airbrushing is a tried and tested technique that goes way back in the 1880's.  Covering the wound with a dark shadow instead of trying to simulate hair would also make it much easier to pull off. As I mentioned earlier the Z film has the only angle that allowed for a direct view of the rights O.C area and the only film that needed serious work. Skeptics often claim you would have to alter all the films but this is not true for the O.C wound. 

 Some people have looked at the lack of parallax of the lamppost(Z frames 261/281), first noticed by Dr Costella, and are completely convinced it is absolute proof of alteration. I also found it very compelling. After placing it on the back burner for a year I realized a possible answer for it. Not saying it is debunked, but there is a plausible answer.
  From the time we see Z in Willis 5 to the Moorman photo he has turned his stance by about 90 or more degrees. If he initiated that pivot by moving his right foot first he would have to start by shifting his weight onto his left leg. That moves his torso and the camera lens an inch or two to the left while at the same time Z was panning to the right. That shifting of weight cancels out the rightward pan and the parallax effect in that moment.  I tested this by reproducing Z's panning  and shifting of weight while capturing an image of a pole and background that match the distances of the lamppost and bushes in the background. I found the parallax was very effectively cancelled out as my weight shifted. This is not a debunking but to me it means the missing parallax has another possible explanation. Prior to that finding I was considering the theory could be  a definitive proof of alteration but now there is room for doubt.
  I have also heard many people on Facebook who stood behind the knoll fence and decided they would be too easily be seen by the witnesses on Elm. This one factor caused them to claim they knew for sure there was no gunman there. But besides the 5 ft fence hiding most of the individual, they did not realize the tree at the fence left only a 5 inch tall gap between the fence top and the trees leaves and branches on 11/22. The Shadow of the tree would also have left a shooter in shadow at 12:30. A shooter firing over the fence and under the tree would mean they would be hunched over to aim through the sites leaving even less of them visible. The angle to frame 313 would allow them to be tucked  up closer to the fence. People claim Z would have seen a shooter there but the first tree from the corner on the east facing fence completely blocked Z's view to a knoll shooter location. This is proven by the last frames of the Z film when he looks directly at the theorized knoll shooter position. I don't know if there was a shooter there but I know if there was they had much better coverage than people assume.

When it comes to the limo slowing lets say it slowed to 2mph. You could take out 3 out of every 4 frames and a 2mph speed would become 8 mph. That is doable. But when it comes to the deceleration part taking frames out fails.  Say  that during the deceleration the speed first drops by 25%. How do you make the limo look like it is going 25% faster? The intuitive answer is take out every 4th frame but that does not work. If you tried to take out frames 4 and 8 it would be 25% less frames. But from frame 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 the speed would not change. If you took out frame 4 the limo would travel twice as far from frame 3 to frame 5, so the speed would appear to double. The limo would end up lurch down the road in an unrealistic manner. 
  Using just a traveling matte process would also fail after a few frames as the perspective/angle to the limo and the angle of the curb from the vanishing point would quickly become mismatched. Prior to frame 313 the vanishing point of the street makes the curb angle upward to the left side of the screen. At 313 Z is perpendicular to the street and the curb looks level in that frame. Then after 313 the curb starts angling up to the right/opposite side of the frame. That constantly changing vanishing point perspective of the street means you can't mismatch the angle from the limo to Z and to the background by more than a couple feet. And you can't just rotate the frame without making all vertical objects like people start leaning. A Limo stop or extreme slowing would have made for a 40+ ft difference in the limo to the background by the time it re accelerated. That is too much for the matte process. I think there might be a way to use a combination of matte and frame removal to solve those problems but it would be tricky. How they could remove a Limo stop is a bit of a mystery to me but. It would not be a simple process. 

[Paul Bacon]

Chris, do you think that, if the film was shot at 48 fps, that that would have aided in frame removal to produce an authentic looking 16 fps?  You'd have more frames to work with to produce the "new" film...

[Matt Cloud]

Two points;

 

1. In addition to the sharp shadows, many of the shadows are deep black, "crushed blacks" as videographers say without seemingly any detail left on the ground overwhich the shadows lie.  The Charles Brehm shadow for instance is particular egregious in this regard.  This suggests some persons were simply cut and pasted-in and their shadows drawn-in, in black.

 

2. About ten feet beyond the Stemmons Freeway sign was a lamp post all the way out at the edge of the curb.  "Dark-complected man," when he waves/signals his hand, based on some still images, stands evidently between the sign and the post.  But the Z-film, at frame 232 for instance, shows no lamp post although it would be expected to be seen at the right-hand edge of the frame by about that frame at least.  It's not until frame 261 that the lamp post finally enters the picture.  Of course, today, the Stemmons sign is no more, having been taken down in spring 1964.  All of the lamp posts have been moved from their 1963 positions, back away from the curb edge to now on the grass edge.  (The entire width of the sidewalk at least in other words.)  That positioning of the lamp post at issue, now, not surprisingly, corresponds much better to where the Z-film shows it, but of course that is not where that lamp post was on 11/22/63.