Zapruder alteration - possible?

[Bill Miller]

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, now I'm confused ... was your remark about "shuck and jive" pertaining to John's reply or to the one you were writing back to him that I copied and pasted above? I mean, maybe someone can read your remarks above and tell me what part of your reply wasn't just "shuck and jive" as you call it.

Bill

[Frank Agbat]

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

Photoshop has the built-in capability to create a resulting image that is the difference between two layers.

Anyway -- I'm always interested in topics such as this, so I came up with a list of stuff that I found (an animated GIF also comes in handy. I'd post it but I'm nearly out of space...)

1) Mary Moorman has been made taller in the fake

2) Mary Moorman has moved slightly to her left (our right)

3) Jean Hill has been made shorter

4) JBC has been moved more toward the rear of the limo

5) JBC's wife has also been moved more towards the rear of the limo

6) Driver's orientation/position changed

7) Kellerman's position changed

(shadows etc. for 4,5,6,7 corrected to match new orientation)

8) Female witness in tan coat has been moved to our right (shadow corrected to match)

9) Three following witnesses (torso-less) have been moved to our right (shadow corrected)

10) One additional following witnesses feet appear in the fake, as does his shadow

11) Two additional witness shadows added near the top of the frame, angles correct, etc.

12) As a result of these operations, several black-spots / blemishes have been cleaned up.

EDIT: here is a link to photobucket with the animated GIF comparing the two: http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fra...at/970a9e5d.gif

Edited January 28, 2006 by Frank Agbat

[David G. Healy]

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

Heaven forbid, Jack -- that they should read, what's in it for them?

[David G. Healy]

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, now I'm confused ... was your remark about "shuck and jive" pertaining to John's reply or to the one you were writing back to him that I copied and pasted above? I mean, maybe someone can read your remarks above and tell me what part of your reply wasn't just "shuck and jive" as you call it.

Bill

to my dear friend Len Colby, as I said clearly in the post (you know the guy that has newly found experience in optical film printing --) as I said earlier; I suspect he, amongst others, are QUITE new to the term "optical film printing") ..... feel free to post your bonifides too! You won't find me objecting...

Somebody, somewhere has got to know whether or not non-alterationist have any professional film-video credits.... you guys do freelance work, color correcting, post production 8bit, 10bit color - compositing, editing, AVID, FCP - HD, SD, DV, hell anything?

If you've done Adobe After Effects -- you'll go right to the head of the line, we can talk turkey! We can compare Adobe After Effects with the Oxberry Printer Jack so graciously posted, how many heads on that Oxberry 6? - 8? that would equate to 6 or 8 layers in After Effects - we could of started out with something a little simpler, but what the hell.

[Ed O'Hagan]

If one accepts the Warren Commision Report, then surely it follows that to conclude the Zapruder film was altered would be completely nonsensical. In other words an LNer is being absolutely consistent when he/she supports the non-alterationist perspective. However, when a CTer, who rejects the Report as being nothing but a cover-up, but agrees with a non-alterationist LNer that the footage is unquestionably the genuine article, is he /she not then obliged to choose between one or other of the following statements?....

The Zapruder footage is unaltered , and from what I see being depicted I am able to deduce and conclude that JFK was targeted by more than one assassin. The Warren Commission Report would be unacceptable to me even on those grounds alone.

or

Based on my interpretation of the entire evidence, I completely reject the Warren Commission Report. In regard to the Zapruder film, however, nobody has shown me anything to convince me that the footage has been altered in any way, shape or form. So while I agree with the LNers' position in regard to non-alteration, I cannot accept their conclusion that non-alteration of the Zapruder footage validates the claims of the Commission.

Is it not reasonable to assume, that if one is convinced that the Warren Commission engaged in covering -up a conspiracy, then everything that followed thereafter, would ever have seen the light of day if they had thought it would have contradicted their conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald was the LN assassin of JFK?

This case is not closed. We are not even close to understanding it, never mind solving it. Spitting in the eye of a fellow detective who is working on a cold case file , is hardly the recommened approach to encouraging team-work and earning the respect of colleagues... Surely not?

For those who see little point in trying to convince the unwilling, and also, hopefully, to put an end to this seemingly interminable exercise in futility, here are a couple of pictures, one of which has been deliberately altered. Which one?... is the question? Is it the one depicting the two leaping dolphins, or is the one showing the quarter horse snapped at Los Alamitos racetrack ?

Edited January 28, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan

[David G. Healy]

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?

Yes we have, Tom.... not only limo acceleration, but shot location, in particular the 2nd shot and most important the local of the 3rd shot -- thanks for tthe imput, jump in anytime!

David

**********************************************

Ed O'Hagan wrote:

If one accepts the Warren Commision Report, then surely it follows that to conclude the Zapruder film was altered would be completely nonsensical. In other words an LNer is being absolutely consistent when he/she supports the non-alterationist perspective. However, when a CTer, who rejects the Report as being nothing but a cover-up, but agrees with a non-alterationist LNer that the footage is unquestionably the genuine article, is he /she not then obliged to choose between one or other of the following statements?....

The Zapruder footage is unaltered , and from what I see being depicted I am able to deduce and conclude that JFK was targetted by more than one assassin. The Warren Commission Report would be unacceptable to me even on those grounds alone.

or

Based on my interpretation of the entire evidence, I completely reject the Warren Commission Report. In regard to the Zapruder film, however, nobody has shown me anything to convince me that the footage has been altered in any way, shape or form. So while I agree with the LNers' position in regard to non-alteration, I cannot accept their conclusion that non-alteration of the Zapruder footage validates the claims of the Commission.

Is it not reasonable to assume, that if one is convinced that the Warren Commission engaged in covering -up a conspiracy, then everything that followed thereafter, would ever have seen the light of day if they had thought it would have contradicted their conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald was the LN assassin of JFK?

This case is not closed. We are not even close to understanding it, never mind solving it. Spitting in the eye of a fellow detective who is working on a cold case file , is hardly the recommened approach to encouraging team-work and earning the respect of colleagues... Surely not?

For those who see little point in trying to convince the unwilling, and also, hopefully, to put an end to this seemingly interminable exercise in futility, here are a couple of pictures, one of which has been deliberately altered. Which one?... is the question? Is it the one depicting the two leaping dolphins, or is the one showing the quarter horse snapped at Los Alamitos racetrack ?

____________________________

Nice to see you posting Ed ---- I'll take the short saddle, Ed -- I see a little noise around the edges of the cow... the question of the hour is: Do cow's swim?

Take care my friend....

David

Edited January 28, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

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.

Jack, I think you are confusing 2006 with 1963/64. If you wish to make a point worthy of consideration, then show what you can do with 1963/64 technology.

Bill

[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

Photoshop has the built-in capability to create a resulting image that is the difference between two layers.

Anyway -- I'm always interested in topics such as this, so I came up with a list of stuff that I found (an animated GIF also comes in handy. I'd post it but I'm nearly out of space...)

1) Mary Moorman has been made taller in the fake

2) Mary Moorman has moved slightly to her left (our right)

3) Jean Hill has been made shorter

4) JBC has been moved more toward the rear of the limo

5) JBC's wife has also been moved more towards the rear of the limo

6) Driver's orientation/position changed

7) Kellerman's position changed

(shadows etc. for 4,5,6,7 corrected to match new orientation)

8) Female witness in tan coat has been moved to our right (shadow corrected to match)

9) Three following witnesses (torso-less) have been moved to our right (shadow corrected)

10) One additional following witnesses feet appear in the fake, as does his shadow

11) Two additional witness shadows added near the top of the frame, angles correct, etc.

12) As a result of these operations, several black-spots / blemishes have been cleaned up.

EDIT: here is a link to photobucket with the animated GIF comparing the two: http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fra...at/970a9e5d.gif

John...you got most of them! (but not completely). Congratulations!

1 thru 5 are correct; Hill shorter, Moorman taller and moved to her left, Connallys moved back

6 and 7 are correct, but you missed that they are actually from a DIFFERENT frame six frames later

8 (Toni Foster) seems close, but you say she was moved to her left, when actually I moved

her to her right (our left), and the man behind her was not moved. You also missed that I SHORTENED her considerably...and THEN I moved the entire group to the right, including Toni AND the men. This gives an

illusion that what you say is accurate...but is not what I did...though you are very close, except the

shorter Toni.

9 is not what I did (see above)...the three guys stayed put and Toni Foster was moved in front of them, then

the entire group moved again. Her head was moved in front of the man's foot

10 is almost right...I repeated all three of them and reduced their size and cropped their legs

11 is essentially correct but I shortened the shadows (see above)

12 is essentially correct. I removed most grass blemishes...but NOT as a result of other things; I

did it deliberately to clean up the grass before I made the other changes.

You are extremely close. Using a bigger image instead of the one I posted, you probably would

have scored an A+ instead of an A- in all liklihood. At a larger size, the Greer/Kellerman frame

substitution might have been more apparent (in the frame I used, Kellerman was not visible,

but WAS visible 6 frames later). To determine the frame switch, you would have to compare

the image with other frames. I shortened the very tall Toni quite a bit. Actually I cleaned up

most of the blemishes FIRST before moving things around, but you had no way to know that.

Everything I did was done merely by copying and pasting in about ten minutes...but was not

very detectible except by the method you used.

Thanks for playing along, and for telling how you detected the switches. With lots more study

at a larger size you likely would have gotten all except number 11. You could not know that the

blemishes were cleaned up first.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

John...you got most of them! (but not completely). Congratulations!

So let me see if I got this straight ... The possible alteration believers say that the Zapruder film could have been altered in a way that could not be detected by using 1963/64 tools. They attempt to show this by use of 2006 computer software. John, who admits that he is no expert, is able to find almost every change in Jack's example with little effort and somehow this is supposed to validate how easy the Zfilm could have been altered in 1963/64? Am I the only one who see's something wrong here!

Bill

[John Dolva]

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?

Tom, I've checked your calculations and come up with something different. (Obviously mine needs checking as well.)

One must take into account the foreshortening or whatever its called when judging where the limo actually is. Estimating where it is perpendicularly opposite the land marks paints a different picture.

350 to 381

31 frames in 38 feet

38 feet in 1.66 seconds

x feet in 3600 seconds

15.54 mph

381 to 394/395

0.75 seconds to travel 19 feet

3600 seconds to travel x feet

17.2 mph

John...you got most of them! (but not completely). Congratulations!

So let me see if I got this straight ... The possible alteration believers say that the Zapruder film could have been altered in a way that could not be detected by using 1963/64 tools. They attempt to show this by use of 2006 computer software. John, who admits that he is no expert, is able to find almost every change in Jack's example with little effort and somehow this is supposed to validate how easy the Zfilm could have been altered in 1963/64? Am I the only one who see's something wrong here!

Bill

The following gives a bit of a microcosm to consider as per alteration and their detectability.

"1 frame with just a dozen or so changes takes 10 minutes or 500 frames 3.47 hours at roughly one change per minute.

1 frame detected in 5 minutes, proven or demonstrated clearly 3.5 hours."

"compared to one film altered in x? hours, hypothesised as faked entirely in x years, not yet proven or demonstrated as possible in 42 years with thousands of people looking at it."

! Duncan showed an image "Yesterday, 10:11 PM" that was very easily shown how it was faked, at 10:36 PM

____________________________

Yesterday, 11:53 PM Post #19

"Personally I don't subscribe to the alteration hoax, partly beacause I have seen no convincing example of an undetectable alteration"

________________________

Today, 01:10 AM Post #24

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

minutes. (see image post #24) 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.

________________________

Today, 01:27 AM Post #26

5 minutes... (see image post #26)

________________________

Today, 01:38 AM Post #27

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

________________________

Today, 01:45 AM Post #28

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.

________________________

Today, 02:47 AM Post #31

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

________________________

Today, 05:00 AM Post #36

(Frank:)

Photoshop has the built-in capability to create a resulting image that is the difference between two layers.

Anyway -- I'm always interested in topics such as this, so I came up with a list of stuff that I found (an animated GIF also comes in handy. I'd post it but I'm nearly out of space...)

1) Mary Moorman has been made taller in the fake

2) Mary Moorman has moved slightly to her left (our right)

3) Jean Hill has been made shorter

4) JBC has been moved more toward the rear of the limo

5) JBC's wife has also been moved more towards the rear of the limo

6) Driver's orientation/position changed

7) Kellerman's position changed

(shadows etc. for 4,5,6,7 corrected to match new orientation)

8) Female witness in tan coat has been moved to our right (shadow corrected to match)

9) Three following witnesses (torso-less) have been moved to our right (shadow corrected)

10) One additional following witnesses feet appear in the fake, as does his shadow

11) Two additional witness shadows added near the top of the frame, angles correct, etc.

12) As a result of these operations, several black-spots / blemishes have been cleaned up.

EDIT: here is a link to photobucket with the animated GIF comparing the two: http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fra...at/970a9e5d.gif

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

So::

I don't have any expertise, it probably would be a disservice to real experts to claim so. I just have practice in doing a limited range of things. Plus I invented for my own use that 'difference analysis', so I have a lot of practise using it as it's an excellent way of comparing supposedly similar images quickly. When it comes to producing animated GIF's for example, I don't know where to start.

I don't use photoshop either, just a cheapie clone.

Anyway the point is : this does not demonstrate that the zfilm is faked.

I suppose it points a way towards how such a thinmg might have been done and a way towards how such a thing might be detected. Remember this is 500 odd frames that have supposedly fooled thousands of peoples close scrutiny for 40 odd years.

to reiterate: "Personally I don't subscribe to the alteration hoax, partly beacause I have seen no convincing example of an undetectable alteration"

[Frank Agbat]

...

Thanks for playing along, and for telling how you detected the switches. With lots more study

at a larger size you likely would have gotten all except number 11. You could not know that the

blemishes were cleaned up first.

Jack

Jack,

Good one with Toni Foster. Now that you mention it, and I look at the gif I did again, her size change is noticeable. I just didn't catch it the first time around.

I noticed something was going on with Greer/Kellerman, but wasn't quite sure what you had actually done to make the change.

One point we should all take away from this exercise, whether or not you believe alteration was possible and/or occurred, is that the evidence MUST be looked at with a critical and careful eye and that there are multiple ways to end up with the same result. It is also important to understand how our brains process images, and this exercise brought forth several examples of that (I would NOT have noticed the height changes in Moorman and Hill without looking very closely. One was made shorter, the other taller, but due to their orientation and proximity to one another, the brain might dismiss the changes as a "net zero" and overlook this form of alteration).

I had a lot of fun with the exercise -- thank you for providing it.

Regards,

Frank

[Bill Miller]

In 1963/64, Disney Studios were leading the way in animation. They employed the best people in the field to utilize the latest tools available to create their animations. Below are some small examples taken from their 1964 movie release of "Mary Poppins". It appears that the best that Disney Studios had to offer could not do what David Healy has suggested as being possible at that time. Can you see the giveaways in their work ...

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited January 28, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

More examples concerning 1963/64 optical printing in film ... can you detect the flaws?

Edited January 28, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Frank Agbat]

More examples concerning 1963/64 optical printing in film ... can you detect the flaws?

...

Bill,

I'll give this one a go, too.

1 -- (A robin feathering) -- you've pointed this one out for us.

2 -- Penguins are ever so slightly transparent.

3 -- Mary and Bert's feet are not quite fully gounded on the floating turtles. The gap between shell and foot changes, with Bert's foot subtlely sinking into the shell at one point...

4 -- I'm not 100% sure on this one, but the bird's lower beak is shadowed or translucent in the first frame, open in the second.

5 -- Looks to me like the matte and cut around Mary shows some bedspread where there shouldn't be bedspread.

6 -- You've noted most of them on this picture. Why, oh why, did Mary have to punch that poor cow?? Oh -- and Bert's cane has been moved (probably by Gerald Ford) to support the Government's "Da Sheep Done It" theory (Single Baaaa Theory?). The presence of a shadowy hen in the foreground clearly shows a barnyard conspiracy.

[Craig Lamson]

More examples concerning 1963/64 optical printing in film ... can you detect the flaws?

Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork.