The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

When did you see this film? Did it look to you like a clear copy of the Z-film? 

If so there’s about a 100% chance that what you saw was not the original log scan, but a digitally enhanced version of it. 

As noted previously, log scans are very flat and low contrast. Highlights and shadows will appear washed out. This page has an example of what a raw log scan actually looks like:

https://graination.ca/log-scanning-service/

The scans tend to retain a greater dynamic range because the densities of the different dye layers in film i.e. color are proportional to the log of exposure at a particular wavelength, so log color space is supposedly a more accurate representation of analog film, or something like that. However, log color is totally different than what we actually see, so a log scan needs to be color corrected to look anything like the original film. 

Did Wilkinson and Co. color correct their log scan before screening it to others? If so, how exactly was that done? Color correction and color grading are not simple processes; and I bet trying to reproduce the true color from an obscure type of Kodak film from the ‘60s wouldn’t make it any easier. 

You also cut-pasted something saying that Wilkinson used a Northlight scanner. I found an interesting paper that describes the features of that scanner in depth, and one passage caught my eye: 

Another interesting and flexible tool is the setting of the so-called exposure offset…the exposure offset is basically a tool to set the black point of the image material used. This can be done automatically using the frame line, or it can be done manually by the user picking a point within the image or from any area of an overscan image. Alternatively any other point can be defined as middle gray or the white point. The exposure offsets calculated this way can be further adjusted manually with separate sliders for red, green and blue. There are no other color grading options…

https://diastor.ch/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/flueckigeretal_investigationfilmmaterialscannerinteraction_2018_v_1-1b.pdf p.45 

In other words, there are built-in settings on Northlight film scanners that digitally manipulate the resulting image. Could settings like “exposure offset” modify the appearance of natural shadow if used incorrectly? It sure sounds like it. What exact settings were used when scanning the film? 

To get an idea of how not-straightforward color correcting and color grading can be, this article goes into some of the relevant issues: 

https://medium.com/@alexi.maschas/color-negative-film-color-spaces-786e1d9903a4

Like Jonathan said, the burden of proof is not on the skeptics. We shouldn’t have to make a Facebook appointment and have a curated viewing to examine evidence these people are touting as proof of one of the most controversial topics in all of JFK research. We should all be able to click a button, download the original log scan and examine it for ourselves. 

Most people who actually believe that their ‘historic evidence’ will withstand scrutiny don’t conceal it from scrutiny. How many years ago were the scans made again? 

Any efforts to prove a contentious topic like Z-film alteration must be absolutely meticulous, completely transparent, and subjected to peer review to be credible. Period. Wilkinson’s documentary project appears to be 0/3. 

Although I am basically an anti-alterationist, I remain open-minded as to someone darkening the back of the head to hide a gruesome or problematic detail or some such thing. As a consequence, I was invited to a showing of the Wilkinson film to see for myself or whatever. As I had a young child to take care of at the time, and was lacking transportation, I declined under the belief it would all become public within a short period. It never happened. 

Ironically, over the intervening years, I performed an in-depth study of wound ballistics and realized that what is shown on the film--the giant head wound--the fragments flying skywards--was every bit as if not more problematic to the single assassin solution than the supposed wound on the back of the head. 

So to me it's like someone counting up a stack of bills hoping it will add up to fifty bucks, and falling four dollars short...And then going back through the stack looking for a ten...And finding out there was a five that was counted as a one. 

There's no need to look for the ten. We have the fifty bucks. 

Something like that...

Edited June 12 by Pat Speer

[Paul Bacon]

Any of the naysayers to alteration ought to watch Horne's interview with Brugioni.  It's not Horne who makes the point, it's Brugioni--he was shocked--just watch him.

I would make a minor correction for Roger.  Zap didn't keep all the "copies" made Friday afternoon, one went to the Secret Service and one to the FBI on Friday night...

[Jean Ceulemans]

6 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

When did you see this film? Did it look to you like a clear copy of the Z-film? 

If so there’s about a 100% chance that what you saw was not the original log scan, but a digitally enhanced version of it. 

As noted previously, log scans are very flat and low contrast. Highlights and shadows will appear washed out. This page has an example of what a raw log scan actually looks like:

https://graination.ca/log-scanning-service/

The scans tend to retain a greater dynamic range because the densities of the different dye layers in film i.e. color are proportional to the log of exposure at a particular wavelength, so log color space is supposedly a more accurate representation of analog film, or something like that. However, log color is totally different than what we actually see, so a log scan needs to be color corrected to look anything like the original film. 

Did Wilkinson and Co. color correct their log scan before screening it to others? If so, how exactly was that done? Color correction and color grading are not simple processes; and I bet trying to reproduce the true color from an obscure type of Kodak film from the ‘60s wouldn’t make it any easier. 

You also cut-pasted something saying that Wilkinson used a Northlight scanner. I found an interesting paper that describes the features of that scanner in depth, and one passage caught my eye: 

Another interesting and flexible tool is the setting of the so-called exposure offset…the exposure offset is basically a tool to set the black point of the image material used. This can be done automatically using the frame line, or it can be done manually by the user picking a point within the image or from any area of an overscan image. Alternatively any other point can be defined as middle gray or the white point. The exposure offsets calculated this way can be further adjusted manually with separate sliders for red, green and blue. There are no other color grading options…

https://diastor.ch/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/flueckigeretal_investigationfilmmaterialscannerinteraction_2018_v_1-1b.pdf p.45 

In other words, there are built-in settings on Northlight film scanners that digitally manipulate the resulting image. Could settings like “exposure offset” modify the appearance of natural shadow if used incorrectly? It sure sounds like it. What exact settings were used when scanning the film? 

To get an idea of how not-straightforward color correcting and color grading can be, this article goes into some of the relevant issues: 

https://medium.com/@alexi.maschas/color-negative-film-color-spaces-786e1d9903a4

Like Jonathan said, the burden of proof is not on the skeptics. We shouldn’t have to make a Facebook appointment and have a curated viewing to examine evidence these people are touting as proof of one of the most controversial topics in all of JFK research. We should all be able to click a button, download the original log scan and examine it for ourselves. 

Most people who actually believe that their ‘historic evidence’ will withstand scrutiny don’t conceal it from scrutiny. How many years ago were the scans made again? 

Any efforts to prove a contentious topic like Z-film alteration must be absolutely meticulous, completely transparent, and subjected to peer review to be credible. Period. Wilkinson’s documentary project appears to be 0/3. 

An easy way to look at it is comparing the scan to the RAW format in digital cameras.  Basically that is not a picture, but a large collection of data collected by the sensor with the used settings of the camera.  Later this data is used to "create" the picture tuning it with a bunch of settings.

Some things are pre-set (but adjustable), like the white balance WB (the WB can be distorted by e.g. a lot of snow, to make snow look normal you need to adjust the WB).  Same goes for a bunch of other setting.  

Whenever one is digital scanning or making digital  pictures, some tuning is a must.  The settings for a RAW can be different, so will the result. 

All camera´s will also produce a JPG ready to go format that uses some standard settings, over the last decades JPG quality has improved (also due to better sensor and high MP´s).  JPG´s can also be tuned.

Now, most important, in going from analog to digital you must have some adjustable settings that will influence the result.  Kinda like setting your home scanner for pictures, or documents, just way more advanced.

You can not scan the Z film without those settings.  The Z film scanned "as is" would still need tuning settings no matter what.  To see what it really is, we must watch the original analog being played.  

I am not saying the black patch is fake, but IMO it will look different even with a minimum of diff. pre-settings, especially in the graytones and WB (the scanners I know all at least will ask for these to set)

[Charles Blackmon]

11 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

They've both forgotten more than you will ever know...

What exactly has "researcher" Jonathan Cohen ever contributed to the JFKA understanding beyond snarky comments?

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

An easy way to look at it is comparing the scan to the RAW format in digital cameras.  Basically that is not a picture, but a large collection of data collected by the sensor with the used settings of the camera.  Later this data is used to "create" the picture tuning it with a bunch of settings.

Some things are pre-set (but adjustable), like the white balance WB (the WB can be distorted by e.g. a lot of snow, to make snow look normal you need to adjust the WB).  Same goes for a bunch of other setting.  

Whenever one is digital scanning or making digital  pictures, some tuning is a must.  The settings for a RAW can be different, so will the result. 

All camera´s will also produce a JPG ready to go format that uses some standard settings, over the last decades JPG quality has improved (also due to better sensor and high MP´s).  JPG´s can also be tuned.

Now, most important, in going from analog to digital you must have some adjustable settings that will influence the result.  Kinda like setting your home scanner for pictures, or documents, just way more advanced.

You can not scan the Z film without those settings.  The Z film scanned "as is" would still need tuning settings no matter what.  To see what it really is, we must watch the original analog being played.  

I am not saying the black patch is fake, but IMO it will look different even with a minimum of diff. pre-settings, especially in the graytones and WB (the scanners I know all at least will ask for these to set)

It’s good to have input from someone who knows what they are talking about. 

I figured that was probably the case, that certain settings need to be adjusted to obtain an accurate image. My concern however is not that various settings were used, my concern is that Wilkinson and Co. to my knowledge have not made available an exact accounting of their methods.

Without knowing what settings and techniques were used in every step of the process like scanning, post-processing etc. their work is not reproducible, and forensically worthless. 

Edited June 12 by Tom Gram

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Any of the naysayers to alteration ought to watch Horne's interview with Brugioni.  It's not Horne who makes the point, it's Brugioni--he was shocked--just watch him.

I would make a minor correction for Roger.  Zap didn't keep all the "copies" made Friday afternoon, one went to the Secret Service and one to the FBI on Friday night...

I know the SS and the FBI were supposed to get copies.  How do we know that was done Friday night, Paul?

Zapruder's deal with Life wasn't struck until Saturday morning.  Life was to pay Zapruder a lot of money ($ 50,000 up front, eventually $150,000 when the deal was changed on Sunday, in '63 dollars) for rights to the original film, not a copy.  There is no question Life left Dallas with the original film.

Under the original deal Life's right to the original film extended only for a few days to allow them to make stills for their magazine. Then Life was to return the original to Zapruder in exchange for one of his copies.

So we know Zapruder had to keep at least one copy that weekend.  Which creates room for your scenario that he gave the other 2 copies to the SS and FBI that weekend, perhaps Friday night.

Both messengers with the film--to NPIC and later from HW back to the NPIC--said they were from the SS. Which means, if true, it was a copy that cycled thru the NPIV to HW and back, while the original did in fact go straight Life headquarters in Chicago.

Could the film that cycled through the CIA's two labs that weekend have been a copy while the original was flown to Chicago as we had been told for decades?  Is that an equally plausible scenario to the one I offered?  I don't think so.

I hope people can accept the idea that the movement of the film among two of its labs that weekend had to have been directed by the CIA.  As I said, no one else even knew HW existed back then.

Given the choice, why would the CIA send a copy to the NPIC for briefing boards to be made and the original to Life's head quarters in Chicago?  The answer turns on the purpose of the job done at each location.

The briefing boards were said to have been made at NPIC for the directors of the CIA and SS.  It's true; the CIA needed to know exactly what the original film showed and they needed to know it that weekend. Their Oswald story was already up and running.  They didn't even wait until the boards were completed--they could see what the film showed from the prints of the enlarged frames--to rush the film off the HW early Sunday morning.  Given a choice and the need for clarity, would the CIA really have chosen to make the boards from a copy instead of the original? 

It is apparent from everything we now know about Life's role in the whole saga that the job done on the stills at Life had essentially the opposite purpose.  Not to illuminate what had happened, but to conceal it. Why would they use the original to do their work instead of the altered copy that came back from HW?. The original would only make their job more difficult.  There would be more to conceal. I think the main purpose of publishing the stills while hiding the film was to convince the public that it had seen everything about what happened.

Thanks for offering that correction, Paul. But even if true, as you say, it is indeed minor.  It doesn't change anything important about what we know.

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

On 6/9/2024 at 8:28 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

 

I guess the research community has abandoned the notion that the large head wound was the size of an egg?

[Mark Knight]

In case no one has noticed, the three threads regarding the verbal flogging of Pat Speer have been merged into one.

After all, they are NOT separate topics.

[Jean Ceulemans]

8 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

It’s good to have input from someone who knows what they are talking about. 

I figured that was probably the case, that certain settings need to be adjusted to obtain an accurate image. My concern however is not that various settings were used, my concern is that Wilkinson and Co. to my knowledge have not made available an exact accounting of their methods.

Without knowing what settings and techniques were used in every step of the process like scanning, post-processing etc. their work is not reproducible, and forensically worthless. 

It´s hard to judge the Z film without even knowing how they made copies in those first days.  I can see advanced labs making copies with optical printing (play the original through a lens on a "secondary" film, like they did for duplicating cinemafilm for distribution). Or the inter-positive, -negative process. 

No idea... but looking at the bunch of Z films out there now, it looks they used different methods (both have pro´s and con´s).

Next, enter the digital era... backtracking has become pretty much impossible, not to mention the countless little DIY "improvements".

It´s telling how many somewhat different colours the same objects have in all those versions... not to mention something in the shadows. Yes, in some versions the dark spot is very pronounced, but in others it is less, so.. I don´t know.

We all need to see a decent early analog version on a screen... with the current projectors one can even show a still without burning it.

But I don´t know how many analog versions there are out there anyway?

I have some 1950´s analog film that still looks very good when projected (they were made to be used like that.. hehehe). 

Ps : know any good book(s) on the history of the Zapruder film ? Or books that contain a nice part about it? Or articles / essays?  There is so much out there, it´s a bit of a struggle finding the good bits..., especially the more up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12 by Jean Ceulemans
Typo

[Micah Mileto]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:05 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

If I penalize you for both these lies, you will be issued 20 penalty points. In addition, you will receive another 20 points because another member (Keven) has asked you to remove these forum violations.

The following is a table showing how many days of posting privileges a member loses based on their accumulated penalty points:

10 Points  =  1 day
20 Points  =  2 days
30 Points  =  4 days
40 Points  =  8 days

Please remove these lies ASAP to save yourself from being penalized.

Note that, should you restate what you've said in a way that indicates they are your interpretation or your opinion, doing so would effectively change your lies to factual statements, given that you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe... regardless of how intellectually dishonest it may be.

 

This is why I say free speech is God, pretty much any level of censorship will always devolve into this.

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Any of the naysayers to alteration ought to watch Horne's interview with Brugioni.  It's not Horne who makes the point, it's Brugioni--he was shocked--just watch him.

I would make a minor correction for Roger.  Zap didn't keep all the "copies" made Friday afternoon, one went to the Secret Service and one to the FBI on Friday night...

Bit I thought Brugioni said the explosion of skull from the top of the head he remembered viewing in 1963 was much greater than what is shown in the current film. This is the EXACT opposite of what Horne et al want you to believe, correct? 

I've pointing this kind of thing out for 15 years, at least. 

A witness will, say yeah "this photo doesn't match my recollections--what I saw as (A). This photo may even be fake." And people selling books and theories then blurt "See!  He says the photo is fake! And that is why we know it was (B)."

It's bait and switch, essentially. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Bit I thought Brugioni said the explosion of skull from the top of the head he remembered viewing in 1963 was much greater than what is shown in the current film. This is the EXACT opposite of what Horne et al want you to believe, correct? 

RO:  No, it's not, Pat. Can you say where you got this idea?  In Horne's interviews of him, Brugioni said the  head shot explosion he had seen differed markedly in its intensity and duration from what now appears in the extant film. I took this as a major point of emphasis. with which  Horne agreed.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

Yes, he said the explosion he saw in 1963 was greater than the one he was shown by Horne. Well, think about it. In Horne's theory there was no explosion from the top of the head...of any kind. So how could the explosion viewed by Brugioni in 1963 be more extensive than the one in the current film--which shows the top of the head come off--and still support Horne's theory...holding that there was no explosion from the top of the head? 

If someone tells you A > B

and you believe B > C

you should not pretend A = C

[Ron Bulman]

22 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ron, So posting Big Bird  and some meme of the Joker is not demeaning and insulting, besides being a lot of childish nonsense we can do without?

Over the years there's a considerable amount of information that has been accepted as fact by no real standards of proof but by virtue of nothing more than someone was impressed with somebody's presentation.

 

 

 

 

 

Big Bird/The Joker were dealt with this morning by Mark.  Keven is taking a vacation from posting for several days.

[Chris Davidson]