The Dave Wiegman Film

[Marcel Dehaeseleer]

Hi,

I’m back for a while to introduce to you a very modest essay related to the very jerky Dave Wiegman film.

The whole refers to the version(s) provided by Robert J. Groden (VHS and DVD.)

Here is the link: Dave Wiegman Film

[Marcel Dehaeseleer]

I forgot to announce in the preceding post than my website was updated recently and that the Bell & Howell 414PD user's manual is now available.

Here is the link: Zapruder movie camera - Bell & Howell 414PD - User's Manual + photos gallery

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Marcel, stella work, as usual.. Regards, Steve.

[Marcel Dehaeseleer]

Stephen,

Thanks a lot!

I'm still waiting Gary Mack answer regarding the SPLICE which is more important than the "cross dissolve" video effect.

The GREAT question is: Does this SPLICE exist only on the Groden copy or also on the original Wiegman film?

Don't lose sight of the fact that the splice appears when Wiegman is aiming for the first time towards Zapruder position.

[Len Colby]

Stephen,

Thanks a lot!

I'm still waiting Gary Mack answer regarding the SPLICE which is more important than the "cross dissolve" video effect.

The GREAT question is: Does this SPLICE exist only on the Groden copy or also on the original Wiegman film?

Don't lose sight of the fact that the splice appears when Wiegman is aiming for the first time towards Zapruder position.

Have you tried asking Groden, Richard Trask or Martin Shakleford?

[Chuck Robbins]

Hi,

I’m back for a while to introduce to you a very modest essay related to the very jerky Dave Wiegman film.

The whole refers to the version(s) provided by Robert J. Groden (VHS and DVD.)

Here is the link: Dave Wiegman Film

Hi Marcel,

This question is for anyone at all if they have an answer.

Has anyone outside of the govt. sponsored commision, comittee, etc., seen one of the several copies, or the original Z film, played on a projector?

When developing and producing the completed product, which included transferring both sides of the film onto one finished piece of film, did the techs leave the blank portions (unused film), if any existed, in the final film?

I have often wondered about missing or damaged frames. With the number of copies made that day, surely, there has to be one with undamaged frames?

Chuck

[Marcel Dehaeseleer]

Dear Members,

Gary Mack has answered to my questions and debunk some of my assertions.

So, I was wrong regarding the "cross dissolve" effect.

Gary confirms that the Groden version is not complete.

Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing.

Regards...

P.S. Last update on my website...

Phil Willis Camera - Argus Autronic I - 35mm: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/Phil%20Willis%20Camera.htm

Zapruder camera, Bell & Howell 414PD: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/Zapruder%20Camera.htm

Coming soon

Robert Earl Croft camera - Argus C3 - 35mm

Charles Bronson camera - Keystone Olympic K9 Turret.

Gary Mack answers

Hello Marcel,

Very busy week the past seven days, so I'm just now getting to some old messages.

The original, unedited Dave Wiegman film runs 36.5 seconds according to video tapes of the film's first broadcast at about 3pm local time that day.

If Groden's version is short, it's not his fault. That film has been shown many, many times since 1963 and I always see it edited differently. You have to known news film editors and news film editing techniques. The practice in those days was to edit film so blurry or confusing sequences aren't confusing to the audience.

Groden's version is missing a second or two at the very beginning of the film and some more is missing of the Newmans on the ground. There is one splice and maybe two, so more frames are probably missing at those places, too.

Groden owns at least two 16mm prints of the Wiegman film and the one he has on his video is the better image of the two.

As for the "problems" you found, none are significant:

1) The white line splice is, indeed, a splice. Whether the film was edited to remove blurry frames or was simply repaired from having been damaged, is unknown.

2) There is what appears to be another splice a little later. It is a black horizontal line near the bottom of the frame. (Black and white splice lines are quite normal, indicating editing on two different edit blocks that are not properly aligned.)

3) There are three segments to the Wiegman film, for once he filmed the Hesters, he stopped filming and walked toward the street. Then he started again and filmed the Newmans. Then he stopped again and, stepping onto the sidewalk, filmed the oncoming motorcade before panning to his left and catching Cheryl McKinnon dropping to the ground. Wiegman exposed 36.5 seconds of film in Dealey Plaza before jumping into his camera car and riding to Parkland.

4) Your "cross dissolve" is nothing more than ordinary blur artifacts from the film-to-tape transfer process. Different telecine machines create different artifacts, for they must match the 24 frames-per- second rate of 16mm film to the 29.97fps rate of US television. Converting US television to Europe's PAL standard or to France's SECAM standard induces additional anomalies.

5) In short, the blurs in the Wiegman film were present on the original broadcast of the unedited film. The composite "overlay" images you see are not present on the actual film. I have a 16mm 3rd or 4th generation print of the camera original Wiegman film and have examined it many times. The "overlay" is merely an artifact that appears only in some video versions of the film, not on the film itself.

6) You have to realize that a US video frame is actually two images, not one, and they overlap. Sometimes, depending on the video and how it was derived, one of the two fields (images) may not match the adjacent or following field, thus creating a composite. That is what you call an overlay.

Gary Mack

[John Dolva]

"Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing."

What do you mean by this Marcel?

One would only have to identify a single event between splices to step back or forward to create a time line to another event and crossreferencing do research timing. Similarly multiple crossreferencing across splices can fill in missing times and thus create a comprehensive reference.

[Marcel Dehaeseleer]

.../...

What do you mean by this Marcel?

.../...

John,

I often saw comparisons between the last segment of the Bell film and the Wiegman film;

mainly regarding the displacements and places occupied by Zapruder, Sitzman and the Hesters.

Now that we are sure that the Groden-Wiegman film is 6.5 seconds shorter than the original, one must be more careful when examining and especially when comparing the Bell and Wiegman films.

That's all!

[David G. Healy]

Dear Members,

Gary Mack has answered to my questions and debunk some of my assertions.

So, I was wrong regarding the "cross dissolve" effect.

Gary confirms that the Groden version is not complete.

Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing.

Regards...

P.S. Last update on my website...

Phil Willis Camera - Argus Autronic I - 35mm: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/Phil%20Willis%20Camera.htm

Zapruder camera, Bell & Howell 414PD: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/Zapruder%20Camera.htm

Coming soon

Robert Earl Croft camera - Argus C3 - 35mm

Charles Bronson camera - Keystone Olympic K9 Turret.

Gary Mack answers

Hello Marcel,

Very busy week the past seven days, so I'm just now getting to some old messages.

The original, unedited Dave Wiegman film runs 36.5 seconds according to video tapes of the film's first broadcast at about 3pm local time that day.

If Groden's version is short, it's not his fault. That film has been shown many, many times since 1963 and I always see it edited differently. You have to known news film editors and news film editing techniques. The practice in those days was to edit film so blurry or confusing sequences aren't confusing to the audience.

Groden's version is missing a second or two at the very beginning of the film and some more is missing of the Newmans on the ground. There is one splice and maybe two, so more frames are probably missing at those places, too.

Groden owns at least two 16mm prints of the Wiegman film and the one he has on his video is the better image of the two.

As for the "problems" you found, none are significant:

1) The white line splice is, indeed, a splice. Whether the film was edited to remove blurry frames or was simply repaired from having been damaged, is unknown.

2) There is what appears to be another splice a little later. It is a black horizontal line near the bottom of the frame. (Black and white splice lines are quite normal, indicating editing on two different edit blocks that are not properly aligned.)

3) There are three segments to the Wiegman film, for once he filmed the Hesters, he stopped filming and walked toward the street. Then he started again and filmed the Newmans. Then he stopped again and, stepping onto the sidewalk, filmed the oncoming motorcade before panning to his left and catching Cheryl McKinnon dropping to the ground. Wiegman exposed 36.5 seconds of film in Dealey Plaza before jumping into his camera car and riding to Parkland.

4) Your "cross dissolve" is nothing more than ordinary blur artifacts from the film-to-tape transfer process. Different telecine machines create different artifacts, for they must match the 24 frames-per- second rate of 16mm film to the 29.97fps rate of US television. Converting US television to Europe's PAL standard or to France's SECAM standard induces additional anomalies.

5) In short, the blurs in the Wiegman film were present on the original broadcast of the unedited film. The composite "overlay" images you see are not present on the actual film. I have a 16mm 3rd or 4th generation print of the camera original Wiegman film and have examined it many times. The "overlay" is merely an artifact that appears only in some video versions of the film, not on the film itself.

6) You have to realize that a US video frame is actually two images, not one, and they overlap. Sometimes, depending on the video and how it was derived, one of the two fields (images) may not match the adjacent or following field, thus creating a composite. That is what you call an overlay.

Gary Mack

Thats an overlay? It's called a NTSC composite video frame, made up of two fields, one representing the odd scan lines the other representing even scanlines -- when individual fields are viewed one is seeing 50% resolution of the frame, quite frankly the entire MPI Zapruder film DVD appears at half resoulution, its horrible -- Stick to the otherside of the camera, Gary. Or give Roland Zavada a call A tape op or studio technical director, your NOT

TV lingo - 2 fields = 1 frame - the MPI video/DVD may have upwards of video3 frames representing 1 film frame (with drop frame it becomes more confusing), hence anything you see these days on videotape or DVD, Z-film, etal, appears on same at 30fps regardless of its offical film speed rating; in the case of the Z-film 18.3 fps....

So there more than enough issues regarding the Dealey Plaza films (including the Zapruder Film, more so than ALL other films). Timing problems arise whenever any of these films are reviewed and researchers peg frame numbers with realtime Nov22nd '63 DP events, or comparing the seamless film of Dealey Plaza with each other

Until competent film researchers are granted FULL access to the alledged camera original Zapruder film or, one of the three original optical film prints, the circle**** will continue. Hell, the individual Zapruder film frame 4x5 trannies shot during the NARA Z-film photo shot would be fine at this stage of the game... [of course I know a few people who'd question anything that came from someone other than themselves shooting the frames]

BTW, who owns those trannies used to create the new and improved Zapruder film, Gary? They at the 6th Floor too?

Keep on plugging, Marcel -- your work is viewed by more than a few....

David

Edited February 9, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

"Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing."

What do you mean by this Marcel?

One would only have to identify a single event between splices to step back or forward to create a time line to another event and crossreferencing do research timing. Similarly multiple crossreferencing across splices can fill in missing times and thus create a comprehensive reference.

Perhaps it would be nice to identify exactly what constitutes a altered film in the minds of those posting regarding the issue.

Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)?

Edited February 9, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)?

David, once again you are playing with words as if citing a fact. You, yourself have said that you have not seen any signs of film or photo alteration. We know you are aware of splices in some of the film prints and that you were aware of such splices before making the statement I have referenced. So with that in mind, how can you justify the above question as if there is some sort of proof that alterations were done as 'part of a conspiracy for whatever reason?' I think a more accurate and responsible wording would have been that 'any planned alterations that can be proven' would have been done to cover-up a conspiracy in the murder of the President .... would you not agree?'

Bill

[John Dolva]

"Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing."

What do you mean by this Marcel?

One would only have to identify a single event between splices to step back or forward to create a time line to another event and crossreferencing do research timing. Similarly multiple crossreferencing across splices can fill in missing times and thus create a comprehensive reference.

Perhaps it would be nice to identify exactly what constitutes a altered film in the minds of those posting regarding the issue.

Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)?

Yes David, I do. At this stage in my learning about it I can say with some certainty that there have been presentations that distort reality by frame rate, frame drops, cropping, 'enhancing', so called 'cleaning' and 'distorion corrections' etc of that nature that has a lot to do with presentation in order to support a preconception or to divert attention from the items that cast doubt on a theory.

You're right that a definition of alteration helps.

It seems to me that given the risk of having outright alterations in the sense of changing an image comnpletely or partially or recreating it is an endeavour frought with danger in the sense that how can one know one has all the unaltered images out of the way or that technology doesn't / will not exist to detect the frauds? I think that is something a conspiracywould tend to balk at and would rather go for croppings and complete removal of images.

Probably as you say the research would leap ahead with full public release of autopsy photos and films . I think the fact that those who are in a position to do so and yet don't do so is significant.

Edited February 9, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

"Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing."

What do you mean by this Marcel?

One would only have to identify a single event between splices to step back or forward to create a time line to another event and crossreferencing do research timing. Similarly multiple crossreferencing across splices can fill in missing times and thus create a comprehensive reference.

Perhaps it would be nice to identify exactly what constitutes a altered film in the minds of those posting regarding the issue.

Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)?

Yes David, I do. At this stage in my learning about it I can say with some certainty that there have been presentations that distort reality by frame rate, frame drops, cropping, 'enhancing', so called 'cleaning' and 'distorion corrections' etc of that nature that has a lot to do with presentation in order to support a preconception or to divert attention from the items that cast doubt on a theory.

You're right that a definition of alteration helps.

It seems to me that given the risk of having outright alterations in the sense of changing an image comnpletely or partially or recreating it is an endeavour frought with danger in the sense that how can one know one has all the unaltered images out of the way or that technology doesn't / will not exist to detect the frauds? I think that is something a conspiracywould tend to balk at and would rather go for croppings and complete removal of images.

Probably as you say the research would leap ahead with full public release of autopsy photos and films . I think the fact that those who are in a position to do so and yet don't do so is significant.

thanks, John -- appreciate your response.... I concur

David