BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Matt Cloud]

Just now, Matt Cloud said:

Zapruder's equipment did not permit an 11 degree field of view.  End of story.  If the math on the frame shows 11 degrees, the Zapruder Film has had telephoto work done on it.  There's no other way around it.  That would be something that the blow-up technicians at NPIC (Homer McMahon) could do, with their enlarger.  Enlarge the 8mm frame, take a bigger picture of that and then re-insert a cropped image back into the 8mm strip.  That's it.  11 degree FOV  was not within Zapruder's capability.  Nothing more to say.  I'll accept your math.  Well done.

If you had photographic experience you would know that an 11 degree FOV should never be brought up in this context.  It is fatal to the anti-alterationists.  It proves alteration.

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Matt Cloud said:

If you had photographic experience you would know that an 11 degree FOV should never be brought up in this context.  It is fatal to the anti-alterationists.  It proves alteration.

I couldn't even believe you were saying that; that's why I kept asking for clarification!  Well, I got it.  

[Chris Bristow]

1 minute ago, Matt Cloud said:

Zapruder's equipment did not permit an 11 degree field of view.  End of story.  If the math on the frame shows 11 degrees, the Zapruder Film has had telephoto work done on it.  There's no other way around it.  That would be something that the blow-up technicians at NPIC (Homer McMahon) could do, with their enlarger.  Enlarge the 8mm frame, take a bigger picture of that and then re-insert a cropped image back into the 8mm strip.  That's it.  11 degree FOV  was not within Zapruder's capability.  Nothing more to say.  I'll accept your math.  Well done.

"Zapruder's equipment did not permit an 11 degree field of view.  End of story. "
 Provide proof other than your assumption based on a scopes FOV and you opinions. If alteration was so easily proven by the 11 degree field of view it would have been discovered many years ago. John Costello was an optical Physicist who has thoroughly examined the film and pointed out some good evidence of alteration. If the 11 degree field of view was proof of alteration why did the physicist miss it? He was very qualified and weighed in on the size of the Stemmons which appeared to be a few inches too wide when seen in the sprocket area. However he modified that the it was pointed out that the sprocket area is more magnification than the main field of the frames. If the 11 degree FOV was proof of alteration he certainly would have found it and proven fakery. He is well qualified to speak but you do not seem to be. 
  Just to clarify I do not argue against alteration but your claim about the lamppost was just wrong. The provable 11 degree FOV completely explains why we don't see the lamppost. It is not because the other evidence was altered to misrepresent the location of the lamppost.

[Chris Bristow]

13 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

I couldn't even believe you were saying that; that's why I kept asking for clarification!  Well, I got it.  

I am not an anti alterations as I just mentioned in another post.

[Kevin Balch]

5 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Nevermind.  Took too long.  West is to the left.  That's correct, that source -- the Muchmore film -- depicts them as to the left of the lamp post.  But as I said before Willis-5 has them in front of the lamp post which is to the East, to the right.  

 

Strange indeed!

In Willis 5, you have to extend the lamp post down to the curb. That would put the Newman’s (just to the left of the motorcycle helmet) to the west (left if your are looking north to the knoll), consistent with the Muchmore film.

What would be the purpose of moving the lamp post in Willis 5?

[Paul Bacon]

This thread has left me curious.

IF, the field of view, as measured by Chris B., is 11 degrees AND the specs of Zapruder's lens don't allow for that, it can only mean the existing film was altered in the Hawkeye Works darkroom--zoomed in.

Any ideas about why that may have been done?  Might that have made it easier to manipulate certain frames, or eliminate incriminating evidence outside of the crop?  Or, even, hide the limo stop?

I have no doubt that the Z film was altered.  Like Chris B. I wonder how it was done.

[Kevin Balch]

Field of View (Angle of View) can be calculated with a very simple equation if you have a calculator with inverse trigonometric functions or trig tables.

Did anyone consider doing the calculation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view_(photography)

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

This thread has left me curious.

IF, the field of view, as measured by Chris B., is 11 degrees AND the specs of Zapruder's lens don't allow for that, it can only mean the existing film was altered in the Hawkeye Works darkroom--zoomed in.

Any ideas about why that may have been done?  Might that have made it easier to manipulate certain frames, or eliminate incriminating evidence outside of the crop?  Or, even, hide the limo stop?

I have no doubt that the Z film was altered.  Like Chris B. I wonder how it was done.

 

Suppose a frame is removed to speed up the limo. Removal of the frame will result in a jerk in the image. The jerk could be camouflaged by introducing a fake camera jerk on the frame. (It will look as though Zapruder jerked the camera a bit.) Unfortunately, the edge of the frame will be jerked as well and this will reveal the alteration.

However, that could be resolved by enlarging the whole film a bit, and then cropping the excess off of each frame so the frames are restored to their original size. The jerked motion around the edge of the jerk-added frame would also be cut off. Problem solved.

 

 

[Paul Bacon]

Great thought Sandy!  Thanks.

[Kevin Balch]

Given that:

The focal length of Zapruder’s camera was 27mm.

The sensitive area of 8mm film has dimensions of 4.5mm (horizontal) and 3.3mm (vertical).

I calculate an Angle of View of:

9.5 degrees (horizontal)

7.0 degrees (vertical)

[Matt Cloud]

13 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

"Zapruder's equipment did not permit an 11 degree field of view.  End of story. "
 Provide proof other than your assumption based on a scopes FOV and you opinions. If alteration was so easily proven by the 11 degree field of view it would have been discovered many years ago. John Costello was an optical Physicist who has thoroughly examined the film and pointed out some good evidence of alteration. If the 11 degree field of view was proof of alteration why did the physicist miss it? He was very qualified and weighed in on the size of the Stemmons which appeared to be a few inches too wide when seen in the sprocket area. However he modified that the it was pointed out that the sprocket area is more magnification than the main field of the frames. If the 11 degree FOV was proof of alteration he certainly would have found it and proven fakery. He is well qualified to speak but you do not seem to be. 
  Just to clarify I do not argue against alteration but your claim about the lamppost was just wrong. The provable 11 degree FOV completely explains why we don't see the lamppost. It is not because the other evidence was altered to misrepresent the location of the lamppost.

Zapruder had a Varimat 9-27mm f1.8 zoom lens.  The camera had setting from "wide" to "normal".  None of those setting are telephoto.  A 9mm lens has a FOV upwards of around 100 degrees.  That would be the widest possible setting.  The narrowest setting has a FOV of approx 54 degrees in the horizontal (the measurement you are using I presume) or, as already stated, about 63 degrees in the diagonal.  Give or take.  Nowhere in this range is anything even approximating 11 degrees.  To get an 11 degree FOV lens today, you need to use something like the canon rf 200-800, a $2,000 lens.  

Have a look at here:

 

https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/lenses/rf-200-800mm.html

RF 200-800mm f6.3-9 IS USM specifications

• Diagonal angle of view: 12º – 3º 

Zapruder did not have anything like that.  You need roughly a 200mm lens to get that FOV.  He had a wide to normal lens.  

 

Statements about who would have spotted what when are beside the point.  If you're the first to state the 11 degree FOV it does not mean you are the first to learn of it.  It means possibly you're the first who didn't realize that stating that proves alteration.

 

Edited May 18 by Matt Cloud

[Matt Cloud]

2 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

This thread has left me curious.

IF, the field of view, as measured by Chris B., is 11 degrees AND the specs of Zapruder's lens don't allow for that, it can only mean the existing film was altered in the Hawkeye Works darkroom--zoomed in.

Any ideas about why that may have been done?  Might that have made it easier to manipulate certain frames, or eliminate incriminating evidence outside of the crop?  Or, even, hide the limo stop?

I have no doubt that the Z film was altered.  Like Chris B. I wonder how it was done.

All good points.  

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

Given that:

The focal length of Zapruder’s camera was 27mm.

The sensitive area of 8mm film has dimensions of 4.5mm (horizontal) and 3.3mm (vertical).

I calculate an Angle of View of:

9.5 degrees (horizontal)

7.0 degrees (vertical)

Not even close to the correct math, although you don't provide the math.

[Kevin Balch]

Just now, Matt Cloud said:

Not even close to the correct math, although you don't provide the math.

Why don’t you do so?

[Matt Cloud]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Field of View (Angle of View) can be calculated with a very simple equation if you have a calculator with inverse trigonometric functions or trig tables.

Did anyone consider doing the calculation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view_(photography)

I fully accept the 11 degree FOV.  Th math is correct.  The implications form that however have thus far been incorrect.  The implications are that the frame is altered.  An 11 degree FOV is not possible with the equipment Zapruder had.