BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Kevin Balch]

12 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Ok so he could look through the viewfinder and maybe practice his pivot while maintaining a smooth pan. Imagine having to change your stance on a 4 ft high 2 ft wide pedestal top without being able to look away from the viewfinder to make sure you don't step off the edge and fall 4 ft. In addition much of our balance is linked to vision. All he had to look at was a tiny image and the closest object viewable is the sign 50 ft away. Precarious! 

Zapruder’s secretary, Marylyn Sitzman was on the pedestal with him for stability. You can see them both in Willis 5.

[Chris Bristow]

1 minute ago, Kevin Balch said:

Zapruder’s secretary, Marylyn Sitzman was on the pedestal with him for stability. You can see them both in Willis 5.

Yes I think she said he specifically felt uneasy standing up on the pillar.

[Matt Cloud]

6 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes I think she said he specifically felt uneasy standing up on the pillar.

But all the more reason why he would have his camera set to a workable setting before the shot.  You wouldn't want to get up there and find that you were either too tight or too wide at the needed moment.  Certainly not too tight.  And since he doesn't make zoom alterations during "the Zapruder film" we can assume his settings were set and agreeable to him before the actual shot.

Edited May 21 by Matt Cloud

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Good picture of the sidewalk and the expansion joints here.  It's three joints evidently in between the lamp post and the sign, not one.  Could well be 18 feet.  Again find the measurements of those squares on the sidewalk and we should have a pretty good idea of the distance along one axis.  And it could be outside of an 11 degree FOV, from Zapruder's POV, as between the post and the Stemmons sign, yes.  (The limo was 21 feet, and evidently not all of its width could be captured at a distance of 65 feet.)  But it still seems unusual that it would take approx two seconds of run time from the Stemmons sign leaving the frame to get the lamp post in the frame.  

 

https://ar.europeanwriterstour.com/images-2023/kennedy-assassination-grassy-knoll

 

And just to reiterate, I think, where we are is this 

The Zapruder film shows an 11 degree FOV.  An 11 degree FOV was within the technical limits of his equipment -- the camera and lens.  What we don't know was whether an 11 degree FOV was within the technical limits of the human operator, Zapruder, whether at that focal length (a 200mm full-frame equivalent more or less), obtaining as stable footage as he did was possible.  

 

In addition, does the presence of "blurry people with sharp shadows" possibly indicate post-acquisition film manipulation as in say, narrowing the FOV some time after Zapruder shot the film through an enlargement and then crop and reinsertion procedure?  This would assume that Zapruder had shot his film at a focal length setting of something less than 27 degrees.  A normal setting, which wold have had a wider FOV, for instance, would be easier for the operator to shoot and achieve stable footage.

 

Finally, there are indications of possible film editing (splicing and cut and paste marks) and possible conflicts in imagery relating to the sign and the lamp post both in the extant Zapruder film, as well as some still photographs of the area, some which of which have been pointed out in this thread.

You could also determine the height of the lamppost and then the length of its shadow based on the Sun's elevation of 37 degrees. Add the sight angle of the shadow across the sidewalk and you have a yardstick to find the distance from lamppost to the sign.

[Matt Cloud]

Just now, Chris Bristow said:

You could also determine the height of the lamppost and then the length of its shadow based on the Sun's elevation of 37 degrees. Add the sight angle of the shadow across the sidewalk and you have a yardstick to find the distance from lamppost to the sign.

Yes, no doubt.

[Matt Cloud]

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

But all the more reason why he would have his camera set to a workable setting before the shot.  You wouldn't want to get up there and find that you were either too tight or too wide at the needed moment.  Certainly not too tight.  And since he doesn't make zoom alterations during "the Zapruder film" we can assume his settings were set and agreeable to him before the actual shot.

That said however it occurs to me he could make setting determinations without actually filming I suppose.  

[Matt Cloud]

Also evidently Grodon himself stabilized the footage.  This whole thing is such a mess indeed.

 

"In 1967, Life hired New Jersey film lab Manhattan Effects to make a 16 mm film copy of the Zapruder film's original version. Pleased with the results, they asked for a 35 mm internegative to be made. Mo Weitzman made several internegatives in 1968, giving the best to Life and retaining the test copies. Weitzman set up his own optical house and motion-picture postproduction facility later that year. Hired in 1969, employee and assassination buff Robert Groden used one of Weitzman's copies and an optical printer to make versions of the Zapruder film with close-ups and minimize the shakiness of Zapruder's camera."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

[Matt Cloud]

5 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Also evidently Grodon himself stabilized the footage.  This whole thing is such a mess indeed.

 

"In 1967, Life hired New Jersey film lab Manhattan Effects to make a 16 mm film copy of the Zapruder film's original version. Pleased with the results, they asked for a 35 mm internegative to be made. Mo Weitzman made several internegatives in 1968, giving the best to Life and retaining the test copies. Weitzman set up his own optical house and motion-picture postproduction facility later that year. Hired in 1969, employee and assassination buff Robert Groden used one of Weitzman's copies and an optical printer to make versions of the Zapruder film with close-ups and minimize the shakiness of Zapruder's camera."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

Sic -- Groden

 

However, the citation at the footnote for that claim (the ARRB Final Report) does not appear to support that claim that Gordon stabilized the footage.

 

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Final_Report_of_the_Assassination_Record/-qjaSE11QWcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=stabli

[Matt Cloud]

Finally, perhaps, although this should have been brought in here long ago, Zapruder testified about the telephoto lens, and although he does not state it specifically, the inference I think is that he was fully zoomed-in.

 

http://www.jfk-info.com/wc-zapr.htm

 

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).

...

 

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that--I don't know how that is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, there are many different theories about that. One thing I would like you to do now--we have a series-- a little book here that is Commission Exhibit No. 885 and it consists of a number of frames from motion pictures and I want to show you certain numbers of them which are important to our work and ask you if those look like they were taken from your film and if in fact you could recognize it as you look through this book that these are individual frame-by-frame pictures of the pictures that you took.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, they are frame by frame and they weren't very clear, for the simple reason that on the telephoto lens it's good to take stills--when you move did you ever have binoculars and every time you move everything is exaggerated in the move that's one reason why they are kind of blurred--the movement. Now, you want me to identify whether these are my pictures?

Edited May 21 by Matt Cloud

[Matt Cloud]

Chris Bristow,

I don't know if you're familiar with David W Mantik's work (I was not), but evidently he found "mismatch" as between the expected lens FOV and the actual FOV as seen in the Zapruder film.  In a 1998 letter to the DOJ, Mantik wrote:

 

"There has been serious speculation that the images on the extant Zapruder film have been magnified in the process of alteration and therefore cannot be the original. I have personally calculated the expected angle of view from the known optical parameters of this camera. Using known sized objects in the actual field of view (e.g., the limousine, the background buildings) it is also possible to calculate the angle of view that is actually seen in the film. The disagreement between these two numbers is larger than I would expect at the full zoom (telephoto) setting that Zapruder said he used. And if the camera had actually been set at less than full zoom, the mismatch is even worse. The direction of this disagreement does suggest that the extant images are too large, as has been implied previously."  (P. 41.)

 

https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy?uc-sb-sw=69890835

 

FYI.

[Matt Cloud]

On 5/19/2024 at 11:54 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Paul,

You're absolutely correct.

Zoomed and strangely cropped.

That's an odd shape for the StemmonsSign corner, especially since both frames were shot with the same camera, from the same location, within months of each other.

It's as if some splicing has occurred, based on the black cut lines in that area. imo

 

 

 

Evidently, the FBI in its re-enactment took still images with a Graflex Speed Graphic camera as well as motion images with a Bell & Howell.  The "strangely cropped" still may be the former, which would account for difference in aspect ratio among other things.  

 

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/lce7RpzjqaI/m/eXimdF6V5nUJ

[Paul Bacon]

You're a dog with a bone Matt.  Great work!  This thread has given me a lot to think about...

[Matt Cloud]

4 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

You're a dog with a bone Matt.  Great work!  This thread has given me a lot to think about...

Probably too much!  But thanks.  It's well-trodden ground with still little resolution -- just like the Z-film itself.  Seems like the simplest thing that ought to have been done somewhere along the line here was recreation of Zapruder's footage with his equipment.  Some may have done so -- would love to hear from them.