Zapruder alteration - possible?

[John Dolva]

Duncan, I think I get your point. I guess my answer would still be that any 'fakery' to stand scrutiny for 40+ years, and a suggestion that there is a fake is hotly debated, would happen with the faking having to take into account so many factors* that it would be very hard to not detect some aspect of the fake. I don't think It has been demonstrated convincingly as a possibility which is what I assumed you were trying to do.

Once it is pointed out it is no longer 'undetectable'. Personally I don't subscribe to the alteration hoax, partly beacause I have seen no convincing example of an undetectable alteration.

*Sizing and overall sense makes it an easy 'fake' to spot. Perpective/size/shading and light changes that occur with just slight changes of position of an object like that is hard to duplicate in a thoroughly convincing way.

I must admit that this zframe caught me unawares. Once you see though it's obvious.

Edited January 27, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

Duncan, apart from the color adjusrtments, sooner or later someone would notice the duplication of the mc cop. The feathering isn't all that precise either. Also the perspective and the location of it in front of the SS guys and so on gives it a 'doesn't make sense' quality that's quite different from the frame by frame changes from just tilting the camera lens slightly.

John and Dunc

Here's a few things for consideration --

IF the Z-film was altered, WHY? Simple Ans: To reinforce the SBT - assure the guilt of LHO thus confirming to the world, they'll be no WW3 over this "Dallas" incident.

IF the Z-film was altered who was the intended audience for said altered film? Simple Ans:The WC prior to the end of February 1964... What happens after that, who cares...

We understand in near recent past the alledged camera original Zapruder film was altered, MPI did so, in fact -- colorized, slo-moed, reframed, stabilized frames, deleted frames (accident?) -- amongst other things... package up same, sold thru BLOCKBUSTER (amongst other places) ALL for our viewing pleasure, of course.

Since then we've been infested with 'no nothing types' claiming film expertise, with no demonstrable credit list not to mention the ability to judge work in a industry they hadn't heard of prior to 2000...

Is there anyone around today who can tell you, me or anyone else, what film and prove what film; the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three original optical prints, OR a dupe of one of the original three optical prints -- the WC screened in their chambers? If there is, I'd like to know what control number was on the head of the reel when THAT film was laced up.... If the screend film wasn't the camera original...

Quite frankly there's a few elementary questions that need answering regarding immediate Zapruder film screening (at Kodak on 11/22 and Zapruder's office 11/23 with and without Stolley ) split or unsplit...

Keep up the good work, Dunc! ----

Don't let a few "seamless DP film advocates" dim you research beacon -- that's what they're hoping for -- they can't prove you wrong, they keep up their losing mantra -- "it's impossible" -- they've already lost the "impossible" battle, now it's a PR battle....

David

Edited January 27, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

Anyway...David is correct.You are completely out of your depth here as his expertise and knowledge in this particular field is superior to anything you can offer..

Healy has yet to demonstrate that he has ANY experience doing film compositing with an optical printer. At this point I suspect he has none.

The fact is non deniable..The technology to fake films beyond detected fakery existed in 1963 and earlier..live with it.

Roland Zavada who knows far more about the subject than you and Healy begs to differ. Apperently Fielding and Oliver Stone agree. Do you have any evidence to support you claim?

.I have uploaded a faked Zapruder frame.I wonder how many people who have never had access to this frame could spot the fakery.99.9%plus i suspect.

Alteration done on a computer proves nothing such technology was not available in 1963. Evidence of fakery is harder to detect on a computer image - the original film has already been examined for evidence of fakery.

Poor Healy was doing so poorly on the other thread he started a new one as a distraction. Nice try Dave I don't think it will work. I propose that no one else responds to this thread and we instead continue debate on the "Four Questions" one.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...771entry51771

a prime example of shuck and jive -- Mr. Colby da dufus be back .... you might want to place your bonifides right below here -- we'd like to know you INexperience re motion picture film and processing and manipulation of same, if you have any experience please let us know... till you demonstrate your *expertise* just step over there and play in Bill Miller's sandbox....

David you never cease to be an asshole do you? As for establishing bonafides you have yet to demonstrate any experience compositing without a computer. I imagine you were too full of yourself to notice I already said I have no experience in those fields, that does make the points that I'm raising any less vaild. Surely an"expert" like you should be able to cite a single movie or a pasage from Fielding or any other source to back your argument. People who know far more than you claim to say you are wrong. I am not arguing technical points I'm asking you simple questions that you can't answer.

All you can do to back your claim that such alteration was possible back in 1963 is mention a book without quoting any passages. A book who's author says you're wrong.

EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same.....

Every movie? Are you sure there wasn't one movie made 1920 - 79 that didn't use optical printing? Once again you are making an issue of something that is not in dispute. No one is denying that optical printing had been around long before the assassination. You've been told this repeatedly this is really getting tiring.

To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347....

note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience –

Dave your exercise was laughably silly and irrelevant - we already pointed out to you that examples of compositing done on a computer 2002 - 06 in no way strengthen your argument that such doctoring could have been done in 1963

I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..."

You've got your burden of proof backwards. It is up to your to offer up the slightest evidence that it was possible, something you have failed to do so far. You told us that MOST optical printing labs have gone out of business, so I imagine some are still around. Go to one of them get them to do what your co-authors claim was done to the Z-film and come back to us with the results.

If Fielding's book is proof that such doctoring was possible back then perhaps you can cite some page numbers or passages to prove your point, that is SOP when someone cite a book on a forum esp. a book that few forum members have easy access to. I've asked you to do this before but you have yet to respond.

Since according to Zavada, Fielding himself says that such alterations were impossible it's really incumbent on you to quote his book to prove your point. If the book really does support your theory why the reluctance to actually quote it?

Zavada of course already said why the Z-film could not have been a copy AND that any such alterations would have been had to have realized using "unknown technology" and would have been easily detectable.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Len Colby

[David G. Healy]

Anyway...David is correct.You are completely out of your depth here as his expertise and knowledge in this particular field is superior to anything you can offer..

Healy has yet to demonstrate that he has ANY experience doing film compositing with an optical printer. At this point I suspect he has none.

The fact is non deniable..The technology to fake films beyond detected fakery existed in 1963 and earlier..live with it.

Roland Zavada who knows far more about the subject than you and Healy begs to differ. Apperently Fielding and Oliver Stone agree. Do you have any evidence to support you claim?

.I have uploaded a faked Zapruder frame.I wonder how many people who have never had access to this frame could spot the fakery.99.9%plus i suspect.

Alteration done on a computer proves nothing such technology was not available in 1963. Evidence of fakery is harder to detect on a computer image - the original film has already been examined for evidence of fakery.

Poor Healy was doing so poorly on the other thread he started a new one as a distraction. Nice try Dave I don't think it will work. I propose that no one else responds to this thread and we instead continue debate on the "Four Questions" one.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...771entry51771

a prime example of shuck and jive -- Mr. Colby da dufus be back .... you might want to place your bonifides right below here -- we'd like to know you INexperience re motion picture film and processing and manipulation of same, if you have any experience please let us know... till you demonstrate your *expertise* just step over there and play in Bill Miller's sandbox....

David you never cease to be an asshole do you? As for establishing bonafides you have yet to demonstrate any experience compositing without a computer.

All you can do to back your claim that such alteration was possible back in 1963 is mention a book without quoting any passages. A book who's author says you're wrong.

Gott'a follow the threads Len ole buddy -- I've already requested Fielding or Zavada to drop by and show me the errors of my way's -- no luck so far -- why don't YOU give them a call, better yet -- get a message to me Zavada would like to speak -- he's done that before, he knows who to call -- same number same person as before -- I'll get the message within a hour...

Man, I see your name and Gary's name viewing this thread eachtime I've come here today.... you move to Dallas, Leonard?

Edited January 27, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

Wanna see a fake Zapruder frame? Here's one I faked in about ten

minutes. I made more than a dozen alterations. Some easy to

spot, some not. Bet you can't find all the alterations. I made one

of them pretty obvious, to give you a clue. Have fun.

Jack

PS...try faking a few. See how easy it is. You might become convinced.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

Dave briefly summarize for us YOUR experience film compositing with an optical printer and quote a passage from Fielding to back your argument. Otherwise it will be clear to everyone that you are full of xxxx

PS A name of a movie with realistic compositing as intricate as you allege was done to the Z-film would be nice. According to your co-authors the limo was pasted into background of Elm St. shot earlier, items like signs and lampposts were also pasted in, people in DP were moved from one spot to another and the arms and legs of the limo's occupants were made to move around differently than they had originally. Mary Poppins which Jack cited does not have compositing anywhere near as complex as that

Jack, did you fake that frame on a computer or with an circa 1963 optical printer? If you you used the former your demonstration proves nothing, Healy and Duncan and you can fake Z frames till the US elects a transexual president and it won't and creedence to the notion that such fakery could have been done in 1963. A single frame is relatively easy, try faking the whole film, try doing alterations as extensive as you say were done to the z-film using 1963 technology without being obviously fake or eailly detectable

Edited January 28, 2006 by Len Colby

[John Dolva]

5 minutes...

[Jack White]

Very good, John...you found more than half of them. Can you

explain what I altered and how?

Will you explain how you did the detection?

Jack

[John Dolva]

Very good, John...you found more than half of them. Can you

explain what I altered and how?

Will you explain how you did the detection?

Jack

Jack,

I have to have a break for a few hours. I'll return to this in detail then. For now, looks to me like various layered cutpaste feather flatten equalisations. I need to look in detail later. Possibly some parts just shifted in various ways.

How detect. Put a transparent negative over a positive and that which is the same goes uniformely gray. Even just a single pixel out of place will jump out at you.

Edited January 28, 2006 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

Colby demonstrates his ignorance by saying:

Jack, did you fake that frame on a computer or with an circa 1963 optical printer? If you you used the former your demonstration proves nothing, Healy and Duncan and you can fake Z frames till the US elects a transexual president and it won't and creedence to the notion that such fakery could have been done in 1963. A single frame is relatively easy, try faking the whole film, try doing alterations as extensive as you say were done to the z-film using 1963 technology without being obviously fake or eailly detectable.

Colby...there are hundreds of books available on SPECIAL EFFECTS IN CINEMATOGRAPHY. David

keeps challenging you to learn what you are talking about so you don't look so stupid. But you

ignore his advice.

In my own library, I have a twenty volume set of THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHOTOGRAPHY, 1964 EDITION.

It has a very long chapter on special effects as of 1964...close enough? I have attached a scan of

a page about glass painting and travelling matte processes. David has been trying to educate you

about these processes, which were likely used to do the Zfilm...but you refuse to listen. So read

this one page and maybe you will begin to get the idea that he knows what he is talking about.

Look at the sample illustration and you will see how a real scene is altered by inserting an image

painted on glass. (actually it does not have to be painted, but in this case it was) This has been

a very common practice for nearly a century...long before 1963. If you refuse to read the attached

we will know that you are nothing more than a provocateur.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is a 1963 photo of an Oxberry Optical Printer that David has been

trying to tell you about. IT WAS NOT NEWLY INVENTED IN 1963, BUT

WAS AT LEAST 30 YEARS OLD BY THAT TIME. This is the type of

equipment used to manufacture the Z film. Please quit demonstrating

your extreme ignorance. Engage your brain before operating your

keyboard, please.

This page is about a dozen pages back in the encyclopedia after the

previous page. Go to your public library and read up on this stuff,

which as David says is widely available.

Jack

[Jack White]

Very good, John...you found more than half of them. Can you

explain what I altered and how?

Will you explain how you did the detection?

Jack

Jack,

I have to have a break for a few hours. I'll return to this in detail then. For now, looks to me like various layered cutpaste feather flatten equalisations. I need to look in detail later. Possibly some parts just shifted in various ways.

How detect. Put a transparent negative over a positive and that which is the same goes uniformely gray. Even just a single pixel out of place will jump out at you.

Thanks, John...an ingenious method. Unfortunately, though I have PhotoShop, I never use it,

and the program I use cannot do LAYERS, or I might have figured how to do it as you did.

You detected most of the MAJOR alterations. At a larger size you might have detected the

rest of them. I did not think about the possiblity of detecting ALL the alterations at one time.

You are correct that I just copied and pasted. I was tempted to put Mary Moorman IN THE STREET,

but that would have been TOO obvious. I did not do "feather flatten equalizations" and would

not know how. It was ALL copy and paste, move and resize.

Thanks for your expertise.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

David;

If I may interject a few facts, perhaps they may open a door or two for others.

1. In Z349, one can see that the handrail post on the Nellie Connally side of the Presidential Limousine has just come into alignment with the leading edge of the yellow stripe in the background of the film, which was painted on the concrete curb of Elm St.

2. If one follows the film until such time as this same alignment comes into sequence for the next yellow stripe, they will find that this occurs at approximately Z379.

Therefore, accordingly, we have 30 frames of the film exposed through this distance.

This distance, down the center of Elm St. equates to a travelled distance of approximately 38 feet

Therefore, we can state that, according to the Z film, the vehicle traversed this distance at a rate of 1.266666 feet per exposed frame of the film, which ultimately comes to approximately 15.8 MPH.

Now, if we continue on with these calculations we find:

3. In Z379, we pick up with the handrail post on the leading edge of the yellow curb mark in the background of the film.

4. In Z390, we see that the handrail post has come into alignment with the leading edge of the concrete curb drain inlet cover in the background, for an exposure of 11 additional frames of the Z film.

However, the distance travelled by the Presidential Limousine down the center of Elm St for this 11 frame exposure is approximately 19 feet in the 11 exposed frames.

Which of course comes to 1.727272 feet of distance covered for every frame of the film.

Which ultimately equates to a speed of approximately 21.55 MPH through this less than 1 second period of time.

Therefore, one must again question the acceleration capabilities of the Presidential Limousine, and especially why acceleration of this intensity did not throw Jackie completely off the trunk of the vehicle.

Tom

We have discussed some of this previously.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0entry34951

By the way, to the best of my recollection, was't the curb inlet removed and completely covered over?

[Bill Miller]

Still talking crap i see Bill since i was kicked off Lancer for simply not agreeing with you.

I've never known anyone to crawl like a wriggling worm and suck ass the way you do at Lancer,it's sickening..jesus.....

Anyway...David is correct.You are completely out of your depth here as his expertise and knowledge in this particular field is superior to anything you can offer.The fact is non deniable..The technology to fake films beyond detected fakery existed in 1963 and earlier..live with it.I have uploaded a faked Zapruder frame.I wonder how many people who have never had access to this frame could spot the fakery.99.9%plus i suspect.

Duncan

Duncan, anyone who wishes to see why you were canned at Lancer can go there and read the thread that led to your getting booted. Debra Conway doesn't confer with me about what she does, but looking at the remark you made to her about having people sucking on her asshole or however ignorant the way you had addressed her is what got your big mouth booted. You now seem to be carrying on here in the same way ... keep it up and I suspect you'll be on another forum soon saying things about John Simkin that you are now saying about Debra Conway and Lancer. Sooner or later you should start taking responsibility for your own actions and quit blaming everyone else for your short comings.

Bill

Edited January 28, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, apart from the color adjusrtments, sooner or later someone would notice the duplication of the mc cop. The feathering isn't all that precise either. Also the perspective and the location of it in front of the SS guys and so on gives it a 'doesn't make sense' quality that's quite different from the frame by frame changes from just tilting the camera lens slightly.

Ask Duncan to take a film frame the size of a fingernail and show us how he can put an extra cycle rider in the parade without it being detectable .... that is a whole other story.

Bill