Adam Wilkinson Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 The Zapruder debate again...I would have to go with # 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Martell Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I think the whole arguing back and forth about the Z-film or any other photographs/films is a waste of time. I believe that in a court of law the BEST that can be hoped for is a draw over these issues. CT photo/film experts vs. LN photo/film experts=draw in a court case. Factor in that we cant even figure out who our photo/film experts are and you are really talking about a sad state of affairs. Do we really think that a U.S. judge or a jury is going to accept a bunch of fuzzy blobs as evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Ron - I think you were joking but some people didn't get it. Len I call it my Florsheim theory of Zapruder film reenactment and alteration. And if you think there was no such reenactment, consider these anagrams of FLORSHEIM: HE FILMS OR FRESH LIMO FOR HIS ELM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Len wrote: Ron - I think you were joking but some people didn't get it. Make a joke? Not Ron! Never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Well, among other items, I find it most curious that the US Secret Service, utilizing their "First Generation" copy of the Z-film, could apparently see and utilize the rear bumper of the Presidential Limousine, in conjunction with background items in the film, to place the rear bumper of their re-enactment vehicle in the designated location for the Z313 headshot. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm Personally, I have some difficulty in seeing the rear bumper of the Presidential Limousine in Z313 in order to determine exactly where and how the US Secret Service could utilize this method of alignment for their re-enactment. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg Here, we have Z-313 with, if memory serves correctly, Mary Moorman in the background. However, what is of some importance here is the position of the motorcycle policeman who has not passed the direct line-of-sight from the Z-position to Mary Moorman. This is the lead/inside MP on the side of the street which is closest to Moorman/Jean Hill. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0049b.htm Here, we have Muchmore#42 which comes very close to Z313 Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there are. There are six photographs selected at random from the Nix film, including frame 24, which is a frame depicting the shot to the head of the President, and there are three photographs picked at random from the Muchmore film, including frame 42, which is the frame depicting the head shot. Mr. Hudson is of course seen standing mid-way down the steps leading to Elm St. in the background. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050a.htm Here, we have the Muchmore#55 which is well after the Z-313 headshot. This is easily determined due to the fact that the trailing/outside motorcycle policeman on the Moorman/Jean Hill side of the street is now well past the line of site from Muchmore to Mary Moorman, which also places him well past the line of sight from Zapruder to Muchmore. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shaneyfelt: The Nix and Muchmore cameras were both found around 18.5 frames per second. Based on the speed of the Muchmore film, as compared with the 18.3 fps speed of the Z-film, a calculation as to what frame of the Z-film Muchmore 55 equates to can be determined. Muchmore 55 minus M-42 = 13 frames divided by 18.5fps = .7027027 elapsed seconds X 18.3fps = 12.859 elapsed frames of the Z-film = Z313 + 12.859 = Z325/326. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I think the whole arguing back and forth about the Z-film or any other photographs/films is a waste of time. I believe that in a court of law the BEST that can be hoped for is a draw over these issues. CT photo/film experts vs. LN photo/film experts=draw in a court case. Factor in that we cant even figure out who our photo/film experts are and you are really talking about a sad state of affairs. Do we really think that a U.S. judge or a jury is going to accept a bunch of fuzzy blobs as evidence? Waste of time? Perhaps, for some. With or without the Z-film, fuzzy imagery or NOT, had Oswald lived, he'd of been found guilty in 1964! Of that, I have no doubt. I wouldn't worry about acquiring/finding photo experts. None on this board would be consulted, for either side...IMHO The question lingers: why was it necessary to eliminate Oswald before he was tried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Ron - I think you were joking but some people didn't get it. Len I call it my Florsheim theory of Zapruder film reenactment and alteration. And if you think there was no such reenactment, consider these anagrams of FLORSHEIM: HE FILMS OR FRESH LIMO FOR HIS ELM I'm just using this post to reply as it's the funniest one. ________ Some thoughts and suggestions... Some macrofeatures of the zfilm that to me indicates that the zfilm as we have it today is genuine. I'm not talking of those short and long versions where individual frames are dropped, nor about the basis for this panorama which is one of the main versions which is known to be altered by so called 'distorion correction' and 'cleaning', nor about color etc 'enhancement', but about the overall structure of the film. It was taken with a movie camera where the viewer and the film had separate lenses. So when the camera was filming something far off the viewer and the film were looking at the same thing. As the object filmed was closer to the camera the viewer focused on the Limo but beacause of a compensating feature the film was filming an area above this. The camera was being operated by an amateur who didn't consider the dip would mean a continual drift in the verttical that was there fore not planned for and compensated for smoothly. The camera was being operated by a middle aged/elderly person. A smooth diagonal pan is less easy to achieve by an older person. The pan as the camera must be lowered in order to keep on the limo is across down across down. ...as the limo draws near and goes down the street the camera must be raised as the limo goes towards the underpass. The pan becomes across up across up, to the end where the limo is once again centered. After the shot the regularity of the pans is broken. An obvious reaction of the camera person. scroll left to right...: http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/pan01.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 (edited) I think the whole arguing back and forth about the Z-film or any other photographs/films is a waste of time. I believe that in a court of law the BEST that can be hoped for is a draw over these issues. CT photo/film experts vs. LN photo/film experts=draw in a court case. Factor in that we cant even figure out who our photo/film experts are and you are really talking about a sad state of affairs. Justine, having actually won a few court cases myself, I have not a clue as to what you think you are talking about. The photo and film alteration debate IS NOT ... and I repeat - IS NOT ... a LN Vs. CTs debate. 99% of the debate has nothing to do with being an expert for all one needs is a high school art class under their belt to answer most of the claims. For instance, one alteration claim said that Moorman had a 54.5" standing height for her camera lens and that Mary was in the street when she took her #5 photo. The motorcycles were in the street and had a 58" tall standing height from the ground to the top of their windshields. Moorman's photo shows her looking over the tops of the taller motorcycle windshields for the same reference spots (the top of each windshield) on each cycle stack upward across her photograph. This is simple perspective that we learned in art class. A simple demonstration can resolve that matter and no expert would be needed. Altgens #6 shows Moorman and Hill's shadows barely making it over the curb, thus they are not in the street, so again ... no expert is needed to see these points. Jean Hill was also said to be in the street with Moorman and all one has to do is listen to Jean Hill doing a Black-Op radio interview where she was asked point blank if she was in the street when the President passed her position and she said, 'I stepped off the curb and into the street when the President rounded the corner, but had gotten back out of it "BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED". So what I am saying is that there is no need for a photo expert in order to conduct a thorough investigation of the evidence, unless one wants to hear from an expert in the use of common sense. Bill Edited February 16, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 (edited) 'John Dolva' wrote: [...] Some thoughts and suggestions... Some macrofeatures of the zfilm that to me indicates that the zfilm as we have it today is genuine. I'm not talking of those short and long versions where individual frames are dropped, nor about the basis for this panorama which is one of the main versions which is known to be altered by so called 'distorion correction' and 'cleaning', nor about color etc 'enhancement', but about the overall structure of the film. It was taken with a movie camera where the viewer and the film had separate lenses. So when the camera was filming something far off the viewer and the film were looking at the same thing. As the object filmed was closer to the camera the viewer focused on the Limo but beacause of a compensating feature the film was filming an area above this. dgh01: Basically AZapruders pan/framing down Elm Street was good. You raise a valid point regarding the framing being off when the limo was approaching directly in front of him. This also can be achieved in optical film printing The camera was being operated by an amateur who didn't consider the dip would mean a continual drift in the verttical that was there fore not planned for and compensated for smoothly. dgh01: again, this would make defect in the panning would make film alteration much easier The camera was being operated by a middle aged/elderly person. A smooth diagonal pan is less easy to achieve by an older person. dgh01: what? Older person? The camera weighed less than 4 pounds, loaded, he also had somebody providing support... The pan as the camera must be lowered in order to keep on the limo is across down across down. dgh01: yes ...as the limo draws near and goes down the street the camera must be raised as the limo goes towards the underpass. The pan becomes across up across up, to the end where the limo is once again centered. dgh01: a pan is across left-to-right or right-to-left and vertical movement of the camera is called a "tilt, either up or down -- so what your explaining here is panning and tilting at the same time After the shot the regularity of the pans is broken. An obvious reaction of the camera person. dgh01: every movement of the camera is a reaction of the camera person. This effect can also be induced by optical film printing techniques One final thing; Zapruder was a amateur cameraperson, possibly this was the first thing he ever filmed -- we don't have any proof of other film he's shot, we have nothing to compare his DP filming techniques too. Had a pro shot the Zap[ruder pedestal film, I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation -- altering a film with clean pans/tilts would be neigh on impossible. Makes the "splices" in the Z-film much more interesting -- as a added item, LIFE never commented on how the film of the century was mishandled (broken), twice! Nor were responsible LIFE Magazine employee identified... [...] Edited February 16, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 David, I should have elaborated a bit. The older person is more likely (just likely not necessarily, so I think this is posssibly the weakest suggestion) to have various vertebraes 'frozen' and/or the lubricated 'pad' in between the vertebres degraded/damaged with lubrication supply degraded. It's just a fact of life. So a turn of the head in the horizontal plane could be easier than a combined turn and dip/rise. For everyone though, I think if one tries one can see, it's two separate movements coinciding, with the dip/rise more 'jerky'. I think I understand your correction re tilting. Thank you. Could you elaborate on why a natural looking movie would be easier to artificially create, please. Yes, they did damage the film. No excuses for leaving that out. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 John wrote: David, I should have elaborated a bit. The older person is more likely (just likely not necessarily, so I think this is posssibly the weakest suggestion) to have various vertebraes 'frozen' and/or the lubricated 'pad' in between the vertebres degraded/damaged with lubrication supply degraded. It's just a fact of life. So a turn of the head in the horizontal plane could be easier than a combined turn and dip/rise. For everyone though, I think if one tries one can see, it's two separate movements coinciding, with the dip/rise more 'jerky'. while your eye is in the viewfinder: turn your body from waist up [pan] lift your arms [tilt] -- simple as pie I think I understand your correction re tilting. Thank you. Could you elaborate on why a natural looking movie would be easier to artificially create, please. a film produced using a handheld camera translates to camera motion [cinema verte] quote on [Wikepedia] Cinéma vérité aims for an extreme naturalism, using non-professional actors, nonintrusive filming techniques, hand-held camera, genuine locations rather than sound stages, and naturalistic sound without post-production or voiceovers. The movement was fueled as much by technological as artistic developments. During World War II, cameras had become small enough to be portable and unobtrusive. Even more important, cameras were now quiet so that natural sound could be recorded at the same time as filming. As Bill Nichols points out, the reality effect of a new mode of documentary representation tends to fade away when "the conventional nature of this mode of representation becomes increasingly apparent". In other words, new modes initially appear to be true, unvarnished "reality" on the screen, but as time goes by that mode's conventions become more and more obvious. Such is certainly the case with cinéma vérité whose conventions can now appear quite mannered and open for critique. quote off edits/optical printing can be covered or understood as amateur camera work Just a little something to think about Yes, they did damage the film. No excuses for leaving that out. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 OK, I think I see your point here. My 'counter' answer would be. Assuming an amateur. is someone with little thought based on extensive experience. He choose his spot carefully, which bespeaks thought. But I wonder how much he planned the shot. He knew of his 'vertigo' so planned for that. He did a brief test shoot. He filmed from beginning to end (supposedly). However without actually having performed the full shot previously, studied the result carefully in detail, and adjusted his plan to suit... ...he had the limo in the viewfinder. ::: His relationship with the filmed object was through the viewfinder. Not through preempting, or knowing where the object was. So he followed the limo until he noticed it drifting out of his view and he then adjusted by tilting, certainly by raising and lowering the camera. BUT, only insofar as he was able to continue viewing through the viewfinder. Therefore the pose or attack of his head is the critical point. Overall, his 'turn' was a result of, turning his head, turning his upper trunk, turning his lower trunk/legs and 'shuffling' his feet. I'd say the turning of the head with eye on viewfinder and limo in viewfinder accounts for the stepped panning... ...in combination with... ...following the Limo in the vertical. This would be more jerky. And perhaps all this more so in an older amateur. ____________________________ Cinema verite' I would then assume that the technique, if applied, would look aged. I suggest it doesn't. I suggest the Macro nature of the film is valid today also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Hey Len, where's the poll? Seems to me this has become just another thread for back, and forth alterationist / non-alterationist one up manship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 (edited) Steve, I wanted to post something on the zfilm but there was/is such a proliferation of posts on graphics now that it crowds out other subjects. So I looked for a recent but dormant, related post that I also wanted to comment on, so my first post is basically a statement on my position at this time. It has developed into a decent exchange. No upmanship as far as I can see. The good thing is that the post is revived and Len can do as he wishes. Naturally if he objects I won't continue this particular train of thought here.... ...which is basically a look at some macro features of the zfilm as derived from : http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/pan01.jpg Edited February 16, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now