news about the Darnell film

[Denis Morissette]

20 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Great. So now maybe Sandy Larsen can retract his falsehoods about said alteration?

My popcorn is ready.

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

In other words, it [the 6FM copy of the Darnell film] certainly has not been "altered" within the past few years for the purposes of embarrassing specific researchers, as has been claimed.

Exactly right. Just as I said three days ago:

On 9/13/2024 at 6:27 PM, David Von Pein said:

There's absolutely nothing that is "very different" in this Darnell film clip when compared to previously published versions of the same images.

It's just that the newer version posted by Mark Ulrik is a higher-quality and more stabilized version.

 

Edited September 16 by David Von Pein

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I hope this rather embarrassing incident stops people jumping to the conclusion that, just because version A of an image looks a bit different to version B of the same image, the difference must be due to deliberate alteration.

Each time a physical image gets copied, the copying process generates visual anomalies. The copy is never exactly the same as the original: the contrast will be different; the copy will probably be less sharp than the original; some areas might become lighter; some areas might become darker; and so on. The same goes for making a digital copy of a physical image. Even making digital copies of digital images often involves changing the resolution or the contrast or some other feature of the original image.

Whenever you see different versions of an image and they don't look identical, the differences are almost guaranteed to be the innocent results of the copying and editing processes. We've seen this sort of thing numerous times with the Zapruder film (Look! That woman is eight feet tall! That car is back to front!). You'd think people would have learned their lesson by now.

If you feel the urge to claim that a particular version of an image has been deliberately altered in order to deceive the viewer, you need to do more than simply point out anomalies. You need to construct a plausible scenario to explain those anomalies. How might that alteration have been achieved? Was it physically possible? How exactly did that particular alteration generate those specific anomalies? If you don't answer those sorts of questions, you're doing exactly what moon-landings deniers do. The JFK assassination is a serious historical event, and should be treated like one.

In any case, there's really no need to presume that the Darnell or Wiegman films have been altered. It would be no great loss if a high-quality image from either film were to show the Prayer Man figure to be someone other than Oswald, since good evidence already exists which places Oswald on the ground floor a few minutes before the shooting, at a time when a gunman had already been seen on the sixth floor.

Of course, it would be momentous if one or both of the films did provide confirmation of Oswald's alibi: that he was on the ground floor when JFK passed by the building.

For now, the quality of the available images allows the possibility that the figure on the steps was a young white man with a receding hairline, wearing a dark work shirt. Given the lack of evidence that any other TSBD employee was standing in that specific location, and the lack of evidence that some random member of the public had mingled with the employees on the steps, and the weakness of the evidence placing Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting, the most likely candidate would appear to be Oswald.

[John Cotter]

30 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I hope this rather embarrassing incident stops people jumping to the conclusion that, just because version A of an image looks a bit different to version B of the same image, the difference must be due to deliberate alteration.

Each time a physical image gets copied, the copying process generates visual anomalies. The copy is never exactly the same as the original: the contrast will be different; the copy will probably be less sharp than the original; some areas might become lighter; some areas might become darker; and so on. The same goes for making a digital copy of a physical image. Even making digital copies of digital images often involves changing the resolution or the contrast or some other feature of the original image.

Whenever you see different versions of an image and they don't look identical, the differences are almost guaranteed to be the innocent results of the copying and editing processes. We've seen this sort of thing numerous times with the Zapruder film (Look! That woman is eight feet tall! That car is back to front!). You'd think people would have learned their lesson by now.

If you feel the urge to claim that a particular version of an image has been deliberately altered in order to deceive the viewer, you need to do more than simply point out anomalies. You need to construct a plausible scenario to explain those anomalies. How might that alteration have been achieved? Was it physically possible? How exactly did that particular alteration generate those specific anomalies? If you don't answer those sorts of questions, you're doing exactly what moon-landings deniers do. The JFK assassination is a serious historical event, and should be treated like one.

In any case, there's really no need to presume that the Darnell or Wiegman films have been altered. It would be no great loss if a high-quality image from either film were to show the Prayer Man figure to be someone other than Oswald, since good evidence already exists which places Oswald on the ground floor a few minutes before the shooting, at a time when a gunman had already been seen on the sixth floor.

Of course, it would be momentous if one or both of the films did provide confirmation of Oswald's alibi: that he was on the ground floor when JFK passed by the building.

For now, the quality of the available images allows the possibility that the figure on the steps was a young white man with a receding hairline, wearing a dark work shirt. Given the lack of evidence that any other TSBD employee was standing in that specific location, and the lack of evidence that some random member of the public had mingled with the employees on the steps, and the weakness of the evidence placing Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting, the most likely candidate would appear to be Oswald.

Dogmatic statements one way or the other about this matter should be avoided - unless of course you have inside information.

If you have, please share it.

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Dogmatic statements one way or the other about this matter should be avoided - unless of course you have inside information.

If you have, please share it.

According to what Stephen Fagin of the 6th floor museum told Denis Morissette, we're back at square one in trying the get access to the original Darnell film.

 

The 6th floor museum did not get the original film in its August transaction with NBC, and does not have it. Fagin thinks it's still with NBC in NY, *if it still exists*

 

The museum has had a copy of the film since 2006.  Gary Mack had said their copy was a first gen, but Fagin is not sure.

 

However, possession of the film did not include the rights to do much of anything with it without NBC5's permission  (NBC5 is the local affiliate for whom the film was shot by Darnell)  As I recall, when the museum was asked for access to the film, their stock answer was we don't have the film rights necessary for that.  The museum has allowed researchers to view the museum's copy of the film by appointment in the their reading room.

 

In its August 19 press release, the museum announced the "acquisition" of JFKA  footage from local affiliate NBC5, including the Darnell film.  But in the case of the  film, as Fagin explained, all that happened was NBC5 finally gave the museum the right to "share publicly" what it already had by putting it online.  The museum's copy is now posted on its website in the NBC 5 Archive, Assassination Aftermath in Dealey Plaza.

 

More people are likely now to come across the film and perhaps some of them will puzzle over who that figure is on the steps.  But enhancing the original is still the key to answering that question and we're no closer to being able to do that as long as NBC still hides the original film.

 

Regardless of what the museum has, the original film belongs in the JFKA Collection at NARA, which was established for that purpose by the JFK Act in '92.  Three years after the museum opened its doors.  Think of all the trouble the ARRB went to--court battles and paying the family $16 million--to get what it thought was the original Z film from the Zapruder family.

 

NARA's Collection was set up by Congress to be the official place for all JFKA records, where anyone could go to determine for themselves what happened that day. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Roger, do you agree with other claims on this thread that the Sixth Floor Museum is in possession of an "altered" copy of the film?

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Roger, do you agree with other claims on this thread that the Sixth Floor Museum is in possession of an "altered" copy of the film?

I don't know, Jonathon, nor do I care that much.  The museum only has a copy, not the original.  Fagin admits it may not be that good of a copy.

 

There are copies floating around that have been altered by charlatans.

 

I am concerned about the original film that NBC has hidden for 60 years.  People who know what their talking about say it is necessary to enhance the original if we can have any hope of IDing the figure on the steps.

 

I'm worried that NBC has had an incentive, and lots of time, to alter or destroy the original.  They once told Alec Baldwin their corporate policy was to back the Warren Report.

 

I'm concentrating on trying to figure out ways to get NBC to cough up the original (if you have any ideas, let me know).  As you know for example, the ARRB took the Zapruder film, they thought was the original, from the family and added it to the JFKA Collection at NARA.  But the Board closed its doors 26 years ago, and NARA is now denying in court that they have the responsibility to continue the work left unfinished by the Board.

[John Cotter]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

According to what Stephen Fagin of the 6th floor museum told Denis Morissette, we're back at square one in trying the get access to the original Darnell film.

 

The 6th floor museum did not get the original film in its August transaction with NBC, and does not have it. Fagin thinks it's still with NBC in NY, *if it still exists*

 

The museum has had a copy of the film since 2006.  Gary Mack had said their copy was a first gen, but Fagin is not sure.

 

However, possession of the film did not include the rights to do much of anything with it without NBC5's permission  (NBC5 is the local affiliate for whom the film was shot by Darnell)  As I recall, when the museum was asked for access to the film, their stock answer was we don't have the film rights necessary for that.  The museum has allowed researchers to view the museum's copy of the film by appointment in the their reading room.

 

In its August 19 press release, the museum announced the "acquisition" of JFKA  footage from local affiliate NBC5, including the Darnell film.  But in the case of the  film, as Fagin explained, all that happened was NBC5 finally gave the museum the right to "share publicly" what it already had by putting it online.  The museum's copy is now posted on its website in the NBC 5 Archive, Assassination Aftermath in Dealey Plaza.

 

More people are likely now to come across the film and perhaps some of them will puzzle over who that figure is on the steps.  But enhancing the original is still the key to answering that question and we're no closer to being able to do that as long as NBC still hides the original film.

 

Regardless of what the museum has, the original film belongs in the JFKA Collection at NARA, which was established for that purpose by the JFK Act in '92.  Three years after the museum opened its doors.  Think of all the trouble the ARRB went to--court battles and paying the family $16 million--to get what it thought was the original Z film from the Zapruder family.

 

NARA's Collection was set up by Congress to be the official place for all JFKA records, where anyone could go to determine for themselves what happened that day. 

Many thanks, Roger, for that most informative reply.

Edited September 17 by John Cotter

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/16/2024 at 2:15 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Great. So now maybe Sandy Larsen can retract his falsehoods about said alteration?

 

On 9/16/2024 at 2:36 PM, Denis Morissette said:

My popcorn is ready.

 

You guys could save yourselves from looking like fools when criticizing those who have greater knowledge on the subject at hand... if you'd just pay more attention to what the target of your criticism has posted.

One very important thing I've posted is my observation is that the Darnell clip posted by Mark Ulrik has alterations in it that are not found in the 6FM NBC5 copy. I pointed that out because forum members had begun conflating the two clips. They are definitely not the same clip.

So now we have Jonathan Cohen and Denis Morissette conflating those two clips in their criticism of what I said. The alterations I spoke of are on the clip posted by Mark Ulrik, NOT the 6FM NBC5 copy. And Andrej  Stancak confirmed the alterations exist. The alterations are indeed present.

 

[Mark Ulrik]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You guys could save yourselves from looking like fools when criticizing those who have greater knowledge on the subject at hand... if you'd just pay more attention to what the target of your criticism has posted.

One very important thing I've posted is my observation is that the Darnell clip posted by Mark Ulrik has alterations in it that are not found in the 6FM NBC5 copy. I pointed that out because forum members had begun conflating the two clips. They are definitely not the same clip.

So now we have Jonathan Cohen and Denis Morissette conflating those two clips in their criticism of what I said. The alterations I spoke of are on the clip posted by Mark Ulrik, NOT the 6FM NBC5 copy. And Andrej  Stancak confirmed the alterations exist. The alterations are indeed present.

Could you be more precise about what you mean by alterations, Sandy? Also please feel free to create your own GIF and show us how it's supposed to look without alterations. In the spirit of full disclosure: I used the VLC media player to capture screenshots from the downloaded video, then Paint.NET for cropping and bringing the images into alignment by rotating and moving them (no resizing or compression). Since I don't presently have access to PhotoShop, an online tool (Animated GIF Maker) was used to create the final GIF.

Edited September 18 by Mark Ulrik

[Sandy Larsen]

Earlier, @Mark Ulrik posted a hoax version of the Darnell film that has been altered in such a way as to embarrass or discredit promoters of Prayer Man. He asked me be more specific about the alteration.

What the alteration artist did was to add a woman's neckline to the shirt of Prayer Man... one of this style:

This is known as a scoop neckline, BTW.

A scoop neckline has definitely been added to the shirt in the Hoax Version of Darnell. To see it you will have too zoom way in. Do this by clicking the video TWICE to open it in a new window, and then hold down the <Ctrl> keyboard button while hitting the + key several times to zoom way in.

 

 

Edited September 18 by Sandy Larsen

[Jonathan Cohen]

Really? Now the evil alterationists are adding "fake necklines" to images that are already absurdly small and low resolution in the first place? Does it ever end?

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

One very important thing I've posted is my observation is that the Darnell clip posted by Mark Ulrik has alterations in it that are not found in the 6FM NBC5 copy. I pointed that out because forum members had begun conflating the two clips. They are definitely not the same clip.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2359.msg72598.html#msg72598

 

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What the alteration artist did was to add a woman's neckline to the shirt of Prayer Man... one of this style:

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Earlier, @Mark Ulrik posted a hoax version of the Darnell film that has been altered in such a way as to embarrass or discredit promoters of Prayer Man. He asked me be more specific about the alteration.

What the alteration artist did was to add a woman's neckline to the shirt of Prayer Man... one of this style:

This is known as a scoop neckline, BTW.

A scoop neckline has definitely been added to the shirt in the Hoax Version of Darnell. To see it you will have too zoom way in. Do this by clicking the video TWICE to open it in a new window, and then hold down the <Ctrl> keyboard button while hitting the + key several times to zoom way in.

 

 

I compared both versions, Sandy, and the rounded neckline is, if anything, more clear in the unstabilized version than the version posted by Mark. If you could post the identical frames from these versions side by side it may prove helpful. (The film is so blurry that the appearance of the subject varies from frame to frame, but the identical frames from the gifs seem to match up, and show no evidence of any sneaky stuff by Mark.)

Edited September 18 by Pat Speer

[Mark Ulrik]

48 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Really? Now the evil alterationists are adding "fake necklines" to images that are already absurdly small and low resolution in the first place? Does it ever end?

Not only that. Sandy was accusing another poster (me) of being one of these evil alterationists. He claims that my GIF "has alterations in it that are not found in the 6FM NBC5 copy." But the GIF is based on the NBC5 version currently on the 6FM website. I even explained the process to him. The only "alterations" I did were to crop individual "frames" and slightly rotate and move them for alignment purposes.