The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Keven Hofeling]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Nope. That's not evidence. That's two people making a (flimsy) claim, and not showing their work or their specific reasons for believing what they believe other than "this doesn't look right to me." You also have not addressed Tom Gram's earlier questions about the Wilkinson study, including that they are working from at best a fourth- or fifth-generation copy of the film.

As I predicted, Mr. Cohen, you don't understand or agree with the method that our civilization has designated as the means by which questions of fact and authenticity are ultimately decided. Authentication relies upon the testimony of expert witnesses, and if you don't like that, you can take it up with the legislature.

I also predict that you will not understand, and will not agree with the fact that Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's 6k scans of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film that they purchased from the National Archives have resolution that is superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" film (struck directly from the extant "original" Zapruder film) because of the differences between logarithmic vs. linear color: 

And why are Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scans superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" stills?

 

The answer has to do with the distinction between and utility of logarithmic color versus standard colorization. The scratches and mold that you can see on the film are because the 6k scans were made in log color. Sydney Wilkinson explained this to Doug Horne in a letter that he read while being interviewed on the 1/7/2019 Midnight Writer News, Episode 107, https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ , as follows:

----------------------------------------------------

SYDNEY WILKINSON WROTE:

 

 "Our scans show everything in the frame, the good, the bad, and the ugly." By that they mean the scratches and the mold on the film. They wrote "There is so much detail that individual grains of 8mm film stock are evident in the 6k logarithmic scans. It's hardly pretty, but the images are glaringly sharp. That is why we see all the scratches, mold, dirt, stains, and other film anomalies. Linear color is what we view on our TVs and computers, the color looks right to us. The versions of the Zapruder film we see on television documentaries or DVDs like "Images of an Assassination" sold in 1998 or on YouTube have been cleaned up and color corrected. Much of the scratches, dirt, mold, etc., have been removed along with color correcting each scene to create a much richer looking element. The processes used to do this can be grueling and take a long time depending upon how much money and how much time the producers want to spend on it. But we did not want to make our images look prettier. We did not want to touch anything because our goal was to conduct a forensic scientific study of the film. We wanted to see what was really there in every frame not what might have been hidden or obscured by cleaning or color correcting. So logarithmic color, or log color for short, is what professionals use when coming from or going to film because it brings out much more detail in blacks and mid-blacks by stretching the blacks into grays. However, without color correction, which we have not done, the image looks a little washed out, but the amount of information in the blacks is substantially increased. The primary reason we want log color space was to see all the information in the shadows, and what we saw was astounding. If our transfer was linear color we never would have seen the patch on the back of the head in frame 317 or it would have looked like a shadow. Most importantly, log shadow space does not make a shadow look like a patch." 

----------------------------------------------------

And here are some additional technical details from Sydney Wilkinson which others who are genuinely interested in this subject may find useful:

"...A BRIEF HISTORY OF OUR 35MM DUPLICATE NEGATIVE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (SW)

 

In 2008, my partner (and husband), Thom Whitehead, sold our startup editing company to Deluxe Film Labs. Thom was hired to oversee their newly created editorial department in Burbank, and I chose a new path. After spending over twenty years in sales and development in the post-production industry, I was ready for a new challenge.

 

I have been interested in the JFK assassination history for decades. In 1978, I spent a memorable college semester in Washington, D.C., working as a congressional intern and studying the activities of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). One of the key subjects that piqued my interest was the iconic Zapruder film. In 2008, I rekindled my interest and began to read about the film with a renewed vigor. I was surprised to discover there were serious concerns about its authenticity. Most notably, there had never been a truly independent, forensic, imaging study---one that was not connected to a government or private entity. It suddenly dawned on me that I might have a golden opportunity to delve deeper into the film imagery by utilizing the resources of Deluxe Labs92--one of the largest and most prestigious professional film labs in history. We knew they would allow us to use any/all of their state-of-the-art film and digital technology. Additionally, considering that Thom and I had spent years working with the top film restoration and post-production experts in the world, I felt confident we would be able to solicit their professional, unbiased guidance. With the absolute best technology and talent available at the time, all we needed was the best possible film element to study.

 

In November 2008, we purchased a 35mm duplicate negative (dupe neg) of the "forensic version' of the Zapruder "camera original" 8 mm film housed at NARA. It is a US government authorized and certified, third generation film copy. To our surprise, and to the best of our knowledge (as of 2018), it is the only third generation 35mm dupe neg acquired for the purpose of an independent, expert evaluation since NARA made such elements available to the public in 2003.

 

The following is a brief timeline of the steps I had to take to acquire our 35 mm dupe neg from NARA. It took eight months, and they certainly did not make it convenient, or cost effective in 2008. I hope they have simplified the process since then.

1. I called NARA in March 2008 and was referred to James Mathis, PhD Archivist, Special Access and FOIA Staff. I asked him about access to the original Zapruder film for a potential documentary film project, and what I needed to do in order to purchase the best possible film copy for research purposes. I was baffled when he informed me that the first step (for some forever unexplained reason) was to purchase a copy of the (Roland) Zavada Report93 that had been commissioned by the Assassination Records and Review Board (ARRB) during its tenure. He said NARA considered the report to be the definitive work on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and only after I had carefully read it, and still had questions would they consider moving forward with my request. I did not know any better at the time, so I paid $553.50 for a photocopy of the Zavada Report94 and read all of it--well, at least, the pages that were legible. (The black and white photographic prints of versions of the Zapruder film were useless.)

2. A few months later, I called Leslie Waffen, who at the time was Branch Chief of the Sound and Motion Picture Branch at Archives II, in College Park, Maryland. I introduced myself and told him I had read the Zavada Report and would like to move forward with purchasing a 35mm duplicate negative film copy of the original Zapruder film. To my surprise, he said he had no idea why I had been told I needed to buy, and read, the Zavada Report before moving forward. Really? He explained that my next step was to get written permission from the Sixth Floor Museum95 who owned the copyright to the Zapruder film.

3. In August, I contacted the Sixth Floor Museum and spoke with Gary Mack, who referred me to Megan Bryant. I explained to her that, presently, we were going to use the 35mn dupe neg for research purposes only but were hoping to eventually include it in documentary project sometime in the future. I understood that she would send me the licensing fees if that came to fruition. I followed her instructions on how to obtain their official authorization by completing the 'Formal Reproduction Request" form on their web site, followed by multiple phone conversations with Ms. Bryant.

4. In October, the Sixth Floor Museum approved my request and Ms. Bryant faxed an authorization letter directly to Mr. Waffen at NARA.

5. A few days later, Mr. Waffen96 gave me the names of three ARA­ authorized post-production facilities from which to order our film element directly. I contacted all three, but only one facility (Colorlab film transfers. I paid $795 directly to them and received our film via FedEx a few weeks later.

According to NARA, the film element used to complete my transfer was their 35mm Intermediate (or "reproduction") copy, which is an interpositive,97 silent, color film descended from the direct blow-up 35mm Internegative. NARA considered it to be a "preservation master." At that time, they offered two versions to the public: (1) a "forensic” version--a 35mm, direct optical blow-up Internegative (without any image improvement) from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original,"98 and (2) a “de-scratched" version--a 35mm film element that has been "cleaned up" to look visually appealing. The latter effectively removes dirt and scratches via "a diffused light source in analog printing instead of using a traditional wet-gate method.99 We chose the forensic version because we wanted to work with unadulterated images--as close to the "original" as possible--where nothing had been done to enhance or improve them in any way.

 

TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF OUR 6K SCANS (SW)

 

We scanned our 35mm dupe neg directly to 6k files using a Northlight film scanner. At the time, the Northlight scanner was instrumental in the production of Hollywood films and was considered state-of-the-art technology in post­ production.100 It created digital files from the optical image of a film. Great care was accorded to this process in a post-production environment because the introduction of any artifacts or discontinuities could ruin the day for a film director or director of photography. The digital file that is created must replicate exactly the image on the film and reveal all the information present on each film frame.

 

Due to the relatively small size of the original 8mm Zapruder film (when viewing the entire 35 mm frame on the dupe neg) we decided to scan at Northlight’s maximum available scan size of 6k. The 6k refers to a size of 6144 x 4668 pixels with an effective size of 114.7 Mb of digital data per frame. To put this into perspective, a home HDTV only presents 1920 x 1080 pixels with about 9.7 Mb per frame. Therefore, our scans have more than ten times the resolution and data size as an HD television image. This additional resolution allowed us to electronically zoom into the image without any apparent loss of detail or fidelity. Finally, we could see down to the grain of the 8mm film with complete sharpness and detail--including all of the inter-sprocket and edge areas. As far as we know, the Zapruder film had never been reproduced or studied at this level of digital resolution.

 

Another important aspect of our scanning process was the use of logarithmic color space, rather than linear color space. This is critical because the use of logarithmic color allows all the color information of the image to be present in the scans, preserving all of the highlight and shadow information. Linear color is what we are accustomed to seeing on TV and computer screens. Although linear color looks correct/normal and lifelike to our eyes, very bright and dark areas of the image must be "clipped" in order to make the majority of the image appear correctly. Logarithmic color, although looking to the untrained eye as "muddy" or "flat," is actually the best way to retain all of the color information in the film.

 

Finally we used the film industry standard "DPX" (Digital Picture eXchange)101 format to allow easy transfers between various professional workstations. One of the state-of-the-art workstations we continue to use is an Autodesk product called Smoke.102..."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/page/7/#comment-528713

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

22 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

As I predicted, Mr. Cohen, you don't understand or agree with the method that our civilization has designated as the means by which questions of fact and authenticity are ultimately decided. Authentication relies upon the testimony of expert witnesses, and if you don't like that, you can take it up with the legislature.

I also predict that you will not understand, and will not agree with the fact that Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's 6k scans of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film that they purchased from the National Archives have resolution that is superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" film (struck directly from the extant "original" Zapruder film) because of the differences between logarithmic vs. linear color: 

This is just more blather. I don't care when these people became interested in the assassination or the steps they took to get a copy of the Zapruder film. Where is their actual technical analysis? Where are their working papers? Their peer-reviewed research? In the absence of that, their claims are nothing but hot air.

In contrast, Roland Zavada provided detailed technical analysis to the ARRB demonstrating the camera-original Zapruder film is indeed authentic. Why can't Wilkinson and company do the same?

[Tom Gram]

54 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

As I predicted, Mr. Cohen, you don't understand or agree with the method that our civilization has designated as the means by which questions of fact and authenticity are ultimately decided. Authentication relies upon the testimony of expert witnesses, and if you don't like that, you can take it up with the legislature.

I also predict that you will not understand, and will not agree with the fact that Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's 6k scans of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film that they purchased from the National Archives have resolution that is superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" film (struck directly from the extant "original" Zapruder film) because of the differences between logarithmic vs. linear color: 

And why are Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scans superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" stills?

 

The answer has to do with the distinction between and utility of logarithmic color versus standard colorization. The scratches and mold that you can see on the film are because the 6k scans were made in log color. Sydney Wilkinson explained this to Doug Horne in a letter that he read while being interviewed on the 1/7/2019 Midnight Writer News, Episode 107, https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ , as follows:

----------------------------------------------------

SYDNEY WILKINSON WROTE:

 

 "Our scans show everything in the frame, the good, the bad, and the ugly." By that they mean the scratches and the mold on the film. They wrote "There is so much detail that individual grains of 8mm film stock are evident in the 6k logarithmic scans. It's hardly pretty, but the images are glaringly sharp. That is why we see all the scratches, mold, dirt, stains, and other film anomalies. Linear color is what we view on our TVs and computers, the color looks right to us. The versions of the Zapruder film we see on television documentaries or DVDs like "Images of an Assassination" sold in 1998 or on YouTube have been cleaned up and color corrected. Much of the scratches, dirt, mold, etc., have been removed along with color correcting each scene to create a much richer looking element. The processes used to do this can be grueling and take a long time depending upon how much money and how much time the producers want to spend on it. But we did not want to make our images look prettier. We did not want to touch anything because our goal was to conduct a forensic scientific study of the film. We wanted to see what was really there in every frame not what might have been hidden or obscured by cleaning or color correcting. So logarithmic color, or log color for short, is what professionals use when coming from or going to film because it brings out much more detail in blacks and mid-blacks by stretching the blacks into grays. However, without color correction, which we have not done, the image looks a little washed out, but the amount of information in the blacks is substantially increased. The primary reason we want log color space was to see all the information in the shadows, and what we saw was astounding. If our transfer was linear color we never would have seen the patch on the back of the head in frame 317 or it would have looked like a shadow. Most importantly, log shadow space does not make a shadow look like a patch." 

----------------------------------------------------

And here are some additional technical details from Sydney Wilkinson which others who are genuinely interested in this subject may find useful:

"...A BRIEF HISTORY OF OUR 35MM DUPLICATE NEGATIVE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (SW)

 

In 2008, my partner (and husband), Thom Whitehead, sold our startup editing company to Deluxe Film Labs. Thom was hired to oversee their newly created editorial department in Burbank, and I chose a new path. After spending over twenty years in sales and development in the post-production industry, I was ready for a new challenge.

 

I have been interested in the JFK assassination history for decades. In 1978, I spent a memorable college semester in Washington, D.C., working as a congressional intern and studying the activities of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). One of the key subjects that piqued my interest was the iconic Zapruder film. In 2008, I rekindled my interest and began to read about the film with a renewed vigor. I was surprised to discover there were serious concerns about its authenticity. Most notably, there had never been a truly independent, forensic, imaging study---one that was not connected to a government or private entity. It suddenly dawned on me that I might have a golden opportunity to delve deeper into the film imagery by utilizing the resources of Deluxe Labs92--one of the largest and most prestigious professional film labs in history. We knew they would allow us to use any/all of their state-of-the-art film and digital technology. Additionally, considering that Thom and I had spent years working with the top film restoration and post-production experts in the world, I felt confident we would be able to solicit their professional, unbiased guidance. With the absolute best technology and talent available at the time, all we needed was the best possible film element to study.

 

In November 2008, we purchased a 35mm duplicate negative (dupe neg) of the "forensic version' of the Zapruder "camera original" 8 mm film housed at NARA. It is a US government authorized and certified, third generation film copy. To our surprise, and to the best of our knowledge (as of 2018), it is the only third generation 35mm dupe neg acquired for the purpose of an independent, expert evaluation since NARA made such elements available to the public in 2003.

 

The following is a brief timeline of the steps I had to take to acquire our 35 mm dupe neg from NARA. It took eight months, and they certainly did not make it convenient, or cost effective in 2008. I hope they have simplified the process since then.

1. I called NARA in March 2008 and was referred to James Mathis, PhD Archivist, Special Access and FOIA Staff. I asked him about access to the original Zapruder film for a potential documentary film project, and what I needed to do in order to purchase the best possible film copy for research purposes. I was baffled when he informed me that the first step (for some forever unexplained reason) was to purchase a copy of the (Roland) Zavada Report93 that had been commissioned by the Assassination Records and Review Board (ARRB) during its tenure. He said NARA considered the report to be the definitive work on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and only after I had carefully read it, and still had questions would they consider moving forward with my request. I did not know any better at the time, so I paid $553.50 for a photocopy of the Zavada Report94 and read all of it--well, at least, the pages that were legible. (The black and white photographic prints of versions of the Zapruder film were useless.)

2. A few months later, I called Leslie Waffen, who at the time was Branch Chief of the Sound and Motion Picture Branch at Archives II, in College Park, Maryland. I introduced myself and told him I had read the Zavada Report and would like to move forward with purchasing a 35mm duplicate negative film copy of the original Zapruder film. To my surprise, he said he had no idea why I had been told I needed to buy, and read, the Zavada Report before moving forward. Really? He explained that my next step was to get written permission from the Sixth Floor Museum95 who owned the copyright to the Zapruder film.

3. In August, I contacted the Sixth Floor Museum and spoke with Gary Mack, who referred me to Megan Bryant. I explained to her that, presently, we were going to use the 35mn dupe neg for research purposes only but were hoping to eventually include it in documentary project sometime in the future. I understood that she would send me the licensing fees if that came to fruition. I followed her instructions on how to obtain their official authorization by completing the 'Formal Reproduction Request" form on their web site, followed by multiple phone conversations with Ms. Bryant.

4. In October, the Sixth Floor Museum approved my request and Ms. Bryant faxed an authorization letter directly to Mr. Waffen at NARA.

5. A few days later, Mr. Waffen96 gave me the names of three ARA­ authorized post-production facilities from which to order our film element directly. I contacted all three, but only one facility (Colorlab film transfers. I paid $795 directly to them and received our film via FedEx a few weeks later.

According to NARA, the film element used to complete my transfer was their 35mm Intermediate (or "reproduction") copy, which is an interpositive,97 silent, color film descended from the direct blow-up 35mm Internegative. NARA considered it to be a "preservation master." At that time, they offered two versions to the public: (1) a "forensic” version--a 35mm, direct optical blow-up Internegative (without any image improvement) from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original,"98 and (2) a “de-scratched" version--a 35mm film element that has been "cleaned up" to look visually appealing. The latter effectively removes dirt and scratches via "a diffused light source in analog printing instead of using a traditional wet-gate method.99 We chose the forensic version because we wanted to work with unadulterated images--as close to the "original" as possible--where nothing had been done to enhance or improve them in any way.

 

TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF OUR 6K SCANS (SW)

 

We scanned our 35mm dupe neg directly to 6k files using a Northlight film scanner. At the time, the Northlight scanner was instrumental in the production of Hollywood films and was considered state-of-the-art technology in post­ production.100 It created digital files from the optical image of a film. Great care was accorded to this process in a post-production environment because the introduction of any artifacts or discontinuities could ruin the day for a film director or director of photography. The digital file that is created must replicate exactly the image on the film and reveal all the information present on each film frame.

 

Due to the relatively small size of the original 8mm Zapruder film (when viewing the entire 35 mm frame on the dupe neg) we decided to scan at Northlight’s maximum available scan size of 6k. The 6k refers to a size of 6144 x 4668 pixels with an effective size of 114.7 Mb of digital data per frame. To put this into perspective, a home HDTV only presents 1920 x 1080 pixels with about 9.7 Mb per frame. Therefore, our scans have more than ten times the resolution and data size as an HD television image. This additional resolution allowed us to electronically zoom into the image without any apparent loss of detail or fidelity. Finally, we could see down to the grain of the 8mm film with complete sharpness and detail--including all of the inter-sprocket and edge areas. As far as we know, the Zapruder film had never been reproduced or studied at this level of digital resolution.

 

Another important aspect of our scanning process was the use of logarithmic color space, rather than linear color space. This is critical because the use of logarithmic color allows all the color information of the image to be present in the scans, preserving all of the highlight and shadow information. Linear color is what we are accustomed to seeing on TV and computer screens. Although linear color looks correct/normal and lifelike to our eyes, very bright and dark areas of the image must be "clipped" in order to make the majority of the image appear correctly. Logarithmic color, although looking to the untrained eye as "muddy" or "flat," is actually the best way to retain all of the color information in the film.

 

Finally we used the film industry standard "DPX" (Digital Picture eXchange)101 format to allow easy transfers between various professional workstations. One of the state-of-the-art workstations we continue to use is an Autodesk product called Smoke.102..."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/page/7/#comment-528713

 

 

Jonathan is absolutely right. This is drivel. You answered literally none of the questions from my original reply. The only bit of information in this comment on methodology that I don’t recall seeing is the brand of scanner they used. Like Jonathan said: 

Where is their actual technical analysis? Where are their working papers? Their peer-reviewed research? In the absence of that, their claims are nothing but hot air.

I’ll add one other point from my original comment that you have not yet answered. Where can we all see these 10-bit DPX log scans for ourselves? Surely Wilkinson isn’t restricting access to what he claims is evidence of forgery in the most important film of the 20th century, right? 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is just more blather. I don't care when these people became interested in the assassination or the steps they took to get a copy of the Zapruder film. Where is their actual technical analysis? Where are their working papers? Their peer-reviewed research? In the absence of that, their claims are nothing but hot air.

In contrast, Roland Zavada provided detailed technical analysis to the ARRB demonstrating the camera-original Zapruder film is indeed authentic. Why can't Wilkinson and company do the same? @Tom Gram

The analyses will become available once Wilkinson and Whitehead have surmounted the hurdles your friends at the Sixth Floor Museum are deploying in an effort to prevent them from publishing their documentary, Alteration, which I am confident they eventually will.

And as for "blather," the blather that seems to be repeated so often by the two finger wonders who can do no better than type a few critical lines on this forum, without ever providing any evidence, is to throw around the name Zavada, a Kodak chemist who was neither qualified nor commissioned by the ARRB to perform content analysis of the Zapruder film. All that Zavada was qualified to do was confirm that the extant "original" Zapruder film used Kodak film product, which of course it does, as Hawkeyeworks was a joint CIA/Kodak facility. Zavada would later go beyond his ARRB mandate and privately attempted to perform content analysis of the Zapruder film, but he simply never had the needed expertise and qualifications to do so.

With regard to frame 317 of the Zapruder film, even Rollie Zavada has acknowledged the black patch and conceded that "...it certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration...."
 
Again, note that Rollie Zavada is not and never claimed to be an expert on film alteration or cinematography. Zavada was a Kodak employee with expertise in Kodachrome II film, and thus is not qualified to evaluate the Zapruder film for content falsification, and the ARRB  mandate that Zavada presented to Zavada did not include "content analysis" for which he is not qualified.  Zavada authenticated that the extant Zapruder film is on Kodak Kodachrome II film -- which is no surprise given that Hawkeyeworks was a joint CIA/Kodak facility -- and then went beyond his expertise to claim that the film had not been altered. But as you can see below, even Rollie Zavada, viewing an inferior copy of Z-317,  admitted that the black patch looks like an alteration, but not being an expert in film alteration, simply said he refused to believe it because he hadn't seen evidence of how it could have been done....

"It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it."  

Having no expertise in film alteration whatsoever he resorted to blind faith in a sacred cow instead of following the evidence wherever it leads -- even though the Heavens may fall... 

But the Hollywood professionals enlisted by Wilkenson and Whitehead, who are genuinely true and tried experts in cinematography, are qualified to perform content analysis, and their conclusions are that the extant "original" Zapruder film is not authentic:

--------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG HORNE TAKES ROLLIE ZAVADA TO TASK OVER ZAPRUDER FRAME 317 [THE BLACK PATCH SUPERIMPOSED OVER JFK'S OCCIPITAL BLOW OUT WOUND]:

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html

"...In the breakout session, when Josiah Thompson asked him to display the controversial frame 317 and comment on whether the black object covering the rear of JFK's head was a natural shadow or evidence of alteration, Rollie [Zavada] put up the slide (a very dark, muddy image of 317 with much contrast present---an image greatly inferior to the Hollywood scans of the forensic copy), and then said words to the effect: "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." [This is very close to a verbatim quote---guaranteed to be accurate in its substance.]

I and several others, including Leo Zahn of Hollywood, then suggested---demanded, actually---that Rollie display ALL of frame 317---not just the portion showing JFK's head. When this slide was finally displayed, I asked everyone present in the room what explanation those who were against alteration had for the extreme difference in density between the shadow on Governor Connally's head, and the extremely dense and dark (almost D-max) "anomaly" on JFK's head in that same frame. The two so-called "shadows" have absolutely no relation or similarity to each other, yet both men were photographed in the same frame, at the same instant in time, on the same planet, with the same light source (i.e., the sun). The ensuing silence was more profound than that inside the whale that swallowed Jonah. Rollie and Tink had no explanation for this. Nor does anyone else, who believes that the Zapruder film is an unaltered film. The most reasonable, and currently the only known explanation for this paradox in frame 317, is alteration---the blacking out of the true exit wound on the back of JFK's head in that frame, and in many others, with crude animation...."

'JOSIAH THOMPSON AND ROLLIE ZAVADA AT JFK LANCER: A CRITICAL REPORT' by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html

 

Edited June 11 by Keven Hofeling

[Tom Gram]

6 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

The analyses will become available once Wilkinson and Whitehead have surmounted the hurdles your friends at the Sixth Floor Museum are deploying in an effort to prevent them from publishing their documentary, Alteration, which I am confident they eventually will.

So Wilkinson and co. are prioritizing making a movie over releasing their alleged evidence for peer review? Are they not letting anyone see their original scans until they can profit off them? Wouldn’t a peer reviewed analysis make their prospective movie a million times more credible, and more profitable? 

These people are claiming to have evidence that proves alteration of the Z-film. Like I said previously, complete transparency is absolutely critical for something like this to have any credibility at all. So far I’ve seen the exact opposite from this Wilkinson project.

When were the scans actually made again? How many years have Wilkinson and co. been sitting on this exclusive evidence? Where can we all see these 10-bit log scans for ourselves? 

My confidence is not inspired. 

[Benjamin Cole]

50 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

So Wilkinson and co. are prioritizing making a movie over releasing their alleged evidence for peer review? Are they not letting anyone see their original scans until they can profit off them? Wouldn’t a peer reviewed analysis make their prospective movie a million times more credible, and more profitable? 

These people are claiming to have evidence that proves alteration of the Z-film. Like I said previously, complete transparency is absolutely critical for something like this to have any credibility at all. So far I’ve seen the exact opposite from this Wilkinson project.

When were the scans actually made again? How many years have Wilkinson and co. been sitting on this exclusive evidence? Where can we all see these 10-bit log scans for ourselves? 

My confidence is not inspired. 

I concur with Tom Gram, in regards to transparency. 

For decades, the JFKA research community has been approached by people who claim to have some powerful evidence...but who do not want their evidence to be independently and expertly scrutinized. 

Sheesh, going all the way back to Richard Case Nagell, who said he had the answer to the JFKA in some boxes (this was the paper document days), but he was going to wait until he made sure he got his pension before he revealed the truth about the JFKA. 

If you have something, show us. 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

So Wilkinson and co. are prioritizing making a movie over releasing their alleged evidence for peer review? Are they not letting anyone see their original scans until they can profit off them? Wouldn’t a peer reviewed analysis make their prospective movie a million times more credible, and more profitable? 

These people are claiming to have evidence that proves alteration of the Z-film. Like I said previously, complete transparency is absolutely critical for something like this to have any credibility at all. So far I’ve seen the exact opposite from this Wilkinson project.

When were the scans actually made again? How many years have Wilkinson and co. been sitting on this exclusive evidence? Where can we all see these 10-bit log scans for ourselves? 

My confidence is not inspired. 

Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead on many occasions opened their home for JFKA researchers for screenings of the film and to share their data over a decade ago when their journey first began, and in more recent years they have taken their documentary to JFKA conferences and shown it to audiences. I think the snap judgments you are making about them and a supposed lack of transparency are completely unwarranted, and drawn from a state of ignorance more than anything else.

This is a Facebook address at which Thom Whitehead can be reached:   https://www.facebook.com/thom.whitehead.3

Before you continue on with your disparagement of Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead, I suggest you contact them and express interest in screening the film and seeing their data. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be perfectly happy to do so, and neither do you.

And that goes for you too @Benjamin Cole.

 

Edited June 12 by Keven Hofeling

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Before you continue on with your disparagement of Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead, I suggest you contact them and express interest in screening the film and seeing their data. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be perfectly happy to do so, and neither do you.

Meaning that you have .... never asked for this information yourself? And you're simply going along with whatever limited analysis they've made public? The burden of proof is on you here, not us.

[Keven Hofeling]

Just now, Jonathan Cohen said:

Meaning that you have .... never asked for this information yourself? And you're simply going along with whatever limited analysis they've made public? The burden of proof is on you here, not us.

I don't have the lone nutter predilection for the battle cry of the Ostrich that you have with regard to such serious issues, Mr. Cohen; and though I have not directly screened the film at the Wilkinson/Whitehead home myself, I have seen the film; have read all of the available information about it and the issues involved; I trust the accounts given by researchers who did attend those screenings such as Jim DiEugenio, Dr. David Mantik Doug Horne and others; and I find same to be completely credible. That you know nothing about any of this tells me that you yourself -- who constantly posts claims about what a world-renowned researcher you think you are  -- have never even had the slightest clue about the existence of the highly significant work that Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead have contributed to JFKA research concerning the Zapruder film. It's high time that you pull your head out of the sand and hit the books, don't you think, Mr. Cohen?

[Benjamin Cole]

22 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead on many occasions opened their home for JFKA researchers for screenings of the film and to share their data over a decade ago when their journey first began, and in more recent years they have taken their documentary to JFKA conferences and shown it to audiences. I think the snap judgments you are making about them and a supposed lack of transparency are completely unwarranted, and drawn from a state of ignorance more than anything else.

This is a Facebook address at which Thom Whitehead can be reached:   https://www.facebook.com/thom.whitehead.3

Before you continue on with your disparagement of Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead, I suggest you contact them and express interest in screening the film and seeing their data. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be perfectly happy to do so, and neither do you.

And that goes for you too @Benjamin Cole.

 

KH-

I live in SE Asia, so probably that is out. 

If Wilkinson and Whitehead are totally transparent in their operation, then I salute them. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I don't have the lone nutter predilection for the battle cry of the Ostrich that you have with regard to such serious issues, Mr. Cohen; and though I have not directly screened the film at the Wilkinson/Whitehead home myself, I have seen the film; have read all of the available information about it and the issues involved; I trust the accounts given by researchers who did attend those screenings such as Jim DiEugenio, Dr. David Mantik Doug Horne and others; and I find same to be completely credible. That you know nothing about any of this tells me that you yourself -- who constantly posts claims about what a world-renowned researcher you think you are  -- have never even had the slightest clue about the existence of the highly significant work that Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead have contributed to JFKA research concerning the Zapruder film. It's high time that you pull your head out of the sand and hit the books, don't you think, Mr. Cohen?

More infantile nonsense from you. You don't have a clue what I know or don't know about anything, much less Zapruder film alteration. The fact that you "find" David Mantik and Doug Horne credible on this and other issues speaks volumes about your own lack of understanding of this case.

[Keven Hofeling]

1 minute ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

More infantile nonsense from you. You don't have a clue what I know or don't know about anything, much less Zapruder film alteration. The fact that you "find" David Mantik and Doug Horne credible on this and other issues speaks volumes about your own lack of understanding of this case.

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

[Ron Bulman]

17 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

More infantile nonsense from you.

That's not acceptable per forum rules about a direct insult to another member.

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

though I have not directly screened the film at the Wilkinson/Whitehead home myself, I have seen the film;

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. 

Edited June 12 by Tom Gram

[Kirk Gallaway]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

That's not acceptable per forum rules about a direct insult to another member.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12 by Kirk Gallaway