Zapruder film alteration poll.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

John, my comments were not, rest assured, aimed at you. It can become a little dispiriting to see yet ANOTHER thread on photo analysis when so many already exist. I recently put together a long post on Gen Lyman Lemnitzer, which I hoped others would respond to, and enlarge upon, unfortunately no one did. and yet Zapruder and allied subjects, like Dracula go on, and on, and on, with,as far as I can see, little chance of any resolution. Sorry for the off topic rant. ignore me, and please continue..Steve.

[John Dolva]

No problems, Steve. I did note the Lamnitzer thread and am trying to figure something out about him. So will post in time. Just replying quickly now while this topic is at top.

[David G. Healy]

John Dolva wrote:

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).

dgh01: "He did a brief test shot. He filmed from beginning to end"

ahh, during his test shot he filmed from beginning to end? I'll remind all lurkers a test shot-pan covering all of Elm St, requires expending a few feet of film (depending on the rate of camera pan)

Is there a cite for that "supposedly", John.

Maybe we can continue this conversation in another thread? Appears we're getting off of 'thread' track here, maybe I'll take a moment and remind the poll followers, the only poll that mattered regarding the Assassination of the President of the United States was taken when the Warren Commission cast their votes to approve or deny the WCR! It's been downhill ever since... Course if the Lone Nutter's amongst us has contrary evidence I'm sure a few hundred million folks or maybe a billion or so, would appreciate seeing it....

[...]

[John Dolva]

John Dolva wrote:

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).

dgh01: "He did a brief test shot. He filmed from beginning to end"

ahh, during his test shot he filmed from beginning to end? I'll remind all lurkers a test shot-pan covering all of Elm St, requires expending a few feet of film (depending on the rate of camera pan)

Is there a cite for that "supposedly", John.

Maybe we can continue this conversation in another thread? Appears we're getting off of 'thread' track here, maybe I'll take a moment and remind the poll followers, the only poll that mattered regarding the Assassination of the President of the United States was taken when the Warren Commission cast their votes to approve or deny the WCR! It's been downhill ever since... Course if the Lone Nutter's amongst us has contrary evidence I'm sure a few hundred million folks or maybe a billion or so, would appreciate seeing it....

[...]

Oops, sorry. I worded that very badly.

there should be a carriage return between the two sentences.

He did a brief test shot at the beginning.. and then he filmed, this time filming(suopposedly) from the beginning to the end without break.

My mistake.

What say we keep onhere till Len says nay and perhaps we'll have done before then. I wouldn't mind if Len would finish wording the poll and restarting it perhaps. I find it hard to choose from the available choices at the moment.

Edited February 16, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

John Dolva wrote:

Oops, sorry. I worded that very badly.

there should be a carriage return between the two sentences.

He did a brief test shot at the beginning.. and then he filmed, this time filming(suopposedly) from the beginning to the end without break.

My mistake.

Not a big deal in my book, thought I'd save you some time answering those pesky private messages from you know who!

What say we keep onhere till Len says nay and perhaps we'll have done before then. I wouldn't mind if Len would finish wording the poll and restarting it perhaps. I find it hard to choose from the available choices at the moment.

Colby is no longer on my screen, only time I see anything posted by him is if I'm reading a respondent to a thread where as a particpant he's quoted....

Have you seen JCostella DP Elm Street panorama created in 2002-03? Was used for/at the Univ. of Minn Zapruder film Symposium?

[John Dolva]

No. I haven't seen it. How does it relate to the points here? I'd be paticularly interested in any suggestion/conclusions regarding the film as a whole. (For the moment ignoring the details of frames, but the thing as it is as a short film.

(Believe me, I have considered ignoring the odd person, but I think I would do myself a disservice.)

_____

just to bring the end of the last page up...(with correction)

(a look at some macro features of the zfilm as derived from :

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/pan01.jpg )

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 then filmed the motorcade 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.

Edited February 16, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

'John Dolva' date='Feb 16 2006, 08:10 PM' post='55247'

No. I haven't seen it. How does it relate to the points here? I'd be paticularly interested in any suggestion/conclusions regarding the film as a whole. (For the moment ignoring the details of frames, but the thing as it is as a short film.

informative, shows how the Plaza has changedand other fine points as commented on by JCostella presentation at UofMinn and memorialized on DVD -- Finding the a-side of the camera original Zapruder film, would be a nice place to start and will fill in a few holes.

(Believe me, I have considered ignoring the odd person, but I think I would do myself a disservice.)

_____

just to bring the end of the last page up...(with correction)

(a look at some macro features of the zfilm as derived from :

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/pan01.jpg )

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.

"assuming he's a amateur" -- I assume he was on the pedestal - there are thjose that say, maybe it was he -- and still yet others that say -- prove that it was him, there's no visual record ID'ing him -OR- Sitzman as being on the pedestal... makes no difference to me who shot the film ... Yes, the perfect location for a camera -- too bad we've never seen the quality of imagery the camera was capable of producing... Pre-planning a shot? hey, the limo had one direction to go; down the street ... I would suspect any nervousness on his part about shooting this simple scene extended no further than making sure the camera had film and wound... His vertigo? Where and by whom is Zapruder's 'vertigo' verified, other than what we've been told on various JFK boards? Was his test shot taken from the pedestal? You know, you DON'T have to roll film to take a test shot. I'm sure Zapruder was aware he had only one chance of capturing this, why waste precious film?

He then filmed the motorcade 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.

pose or attack of his head, interesting phrase.... based on film/photos taken from across the street from the pedestal, I can't make out what he or sitzman are actually looking at, or even IF he has the camera viewfinder to his eye -- all supposition when it comes to imagery of the Zapruder pedestal....

Overall, his 'turn' was a result of, turning his head, turning his upper trunk, turning his lower trunk/legs and 'shuffling' his feet.

again see above...

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.

inducing vertical tilt camera moves is a simple process in optical film printing, adjusting the height of a 'process camera' over a specific amount of frames -- same -o- same reaction to gunfire

And perhaps all this more so in an older amateur.

the magic happens or doesn't happen in post production... a example; who created the little ditty Hitler performed when he stepped from that Paris railcar while celebrating? How was that done and who did it? Wasn't on the German version.

____________________________

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.

look aged? The verte style is running rampant these day's, it's EVERYWHERE films for TV, films for theater, news, docu's even studio -- I'd use the term, auNatural

And, having worked in Silicon Valley for years I'm well aware of the term Macro, how do you define: the Macro nature of the film?

Edited February 16, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Christopher T. George]

the magic happens or doesn't happen in post production... a example; who created the little ditty Hitler performed when he stepped from that Paris railcar while celebrating? How was that done and who did it? Wasn't on the German version.

Hi David

My understanding is that the little dance that you see Hitler do on the fall of Paris was created by the Allies, as this blogger notes--

"I'm reminded of a bit of footage I saw in a media class in college of Adolf Hitler, dancing a jig after accepting the surrender of France in June of 1940. This footage was played all over the Allied countries, showing Hitler stepping back and stepping forward as if he were childishly dancing at his victory. This enraged people in the Allied countries and showed Hitler to be a monstrous tyrant, but in actuality it was doctored footage of Hitler simply stepping backwards and forwards, looped over and over again and sped up to appear as if he were dancing. It was a masterful stroke of propaganda for the Allies, ridiculing and demonizing Hitler, but it was a fake."

And as Gregory J. E. Rawlins wrote about the use of propaganda --

"'Seeing is believing,' we used to say; but that's never really been true. During the Second World War, newsreels showed Hitler dancing a jig after the fall of France in 1940. Hitler was many things, but a jig fancier he wasn't. He never did dance that jig---he just lifted his leg. It was Allied newsmakers who optically looped that leg movement into a jig."

I see a few places on the net, for example on Wikipedia, where it states American journalists were responsible. That might be so although of course the U.S. was not yet in the war. It's also said that they used still photographs to create the loop but that doesn't sound quite right either. ("American journalists, being neutrals at the time, . . . took a famous sequence of photographs of Hitler dancing a jig for his officers the day of the surrender ceremony.) My inclination, though I might be wrong, would be to think that the British created the film from actual newsreel footage.

Chris

Edited February 16, 2006 by Christopher T. George

[David G. Healy]

the magic happens or doesn't happen in post production... a example; who created the little ditty Hitler performed when he stepped from that Paris railcar while celebrating? How was that done and who did it? Wasn't on the German version.

Hi David

My understanding is that the little dance that you see Hitler do on the fall of Paris was created by the Allies, as this blogger notes--

"I'm reminded of a bit of footage I saw in a media class in college of Adolf Hitler, dancing a jig after accepting the surrender of France in June of 1940. This footage was played all over the Allied countries, showing Hitler stepping back and stepping forward as if he were childishly dancing at his victory. This enraged people in the Allied countries and showed Hitler to be a monstrous tyrant, but in actuality it was doctored footage of Hitler simply stepping backwards and forwards, looped over and over again and sped up to appear as if he were dancing. It was a masterful stroke of propaganda for the Allies, ridiculing and demonizing Hitler, but it was a fake."

And as Gregory J. E. Rawlins said about the use of propaganda wrote--

"'Seeing is believing,' we used to say; but that's never really been true. During the Second World War, newsreels showed Hitler dancing a jig after the fall of France in 1940. Hitler was many things, but a jig fancier he wasn't. He never did dance that jig---he just lifted his leg. It was Allied newsmakers who optically looped that leg movement into a jig."

Chris

hello Chris -- your correct of course.... and shh -- no such thing as optical film printing

David

[John Dolva]

I suspect that for an amateur this is more of a big deal then for an experienced person. (I know: assuming amateur) I'm not suggesting nervousness, why would he be nervous? And a test shot need not be more than a press on the trigger to see everything is running. I was referring to the first sequence of motorcycles which appears by the perspective to be from below the pedestal. I remember looking at this a year ago. I'd have to recheck to be sure. Maybe tomorrow.

My film experience is with super8 camera, and as an amateur I'd invariably after loading run off a few seconds. Usually I'd shoot something, even though it was just for checking.

I think you might be a bit too particular with some of these points. For example, while tecnically true, I think it's very reasonable to assume someone taking a film does so looking through the view finder.

__________________

Style

True, it's rampant, but not entirely convincing. Not in the way the zfilm is. Probably why it works so seamlessly into a range different other movies that attempt to do it. When the zfilm comes into the picture there (to me anyway) is an instant sense of realism that I haven't seen the best of hollywood capture. The zfilm is TOO imperfect, in a way that makes sense.

OK, I'm a nonpro totally and when I can't find or don't know a term I invent one. I appreciate correction. I mean the opposite of looking at the deatil of individual frames but instead at the whole lot.

________

I think it may be possible to make a case that various of these features could be planned for but not all of them and not so coherently. If so it would be an amazing landmark in film history. Particularly with time constraints, people involved, possible leaks, and not least : Why bother in this way? The film doesn't seem to support the governments position.

[David G. Healy]

John Dolva wrote:

[...]

I think it may be possible to make a case that various of these features could be planned for but not all of them and not so coherently. If so it would be an amazing landmark in film history. Particularly with time constraints,

a simple software company in Silicon Valley literally put the American optical film printing business out of business - another Silicon Valley computer company is rewriting television and film post production history, TODAY. That same computer company just became the biggest stock holder in the Disney Corporation... So you see, we're all about amazing landmarks in film history!!!

So, what time constraints are you referring to, John?

people involved,

whose involved?

possible leaks,

leak what?

and not least : Why bother in this way? The film doesn't seem to support the governments position.

it doesn't? 3 shots/two hits = the SBT - I believe that's the WC conclusion, thus the US governments and every Lone Neuter this side of the moon. And quite frankly, we've all seen how far the Grassy Knoll shooter theory has progressed over the years...

All lot of speculation and nonsense will be eliminated by having the currently national archives housed camera original Z-film forensically tested....

Edited February 17, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Owen Parsons]

For what its worth, I've looked at both sides of the debate and I'm convinced that Zapruder film alteration (or the "Zapruder hoax") is on par with moon hoax stuff (and I don't mean that as a compliment). It just diverts attention away from more fruitful areas of research.

[David G. Healy]

For what its worth, I've looked at both sides of the debate and I'm convinced that Zapruder film alteration (or the "Zapruder hoax") is on par with moon hoax stuff (and I don't mean that as a compliment). It just diverts attention away from more fruitful areas of research.

if your so sure of your position re the Zapruder film, why bring in Moon Hoax comments? -- personally I could give a xxxx less whether you or anyone else is handing out compliments, whose looking for them anyway? Mr. Colby? roflmao!

Perhaps you might spend some time dealing with "fruitful" areas of research instead of "diverting' your time and mine with the above

[Len Colby]

I wouldn't worry about acquiring/finding photo experts. None on this board would be consulted, for either side...IMHO

I agree with you David there are NO REAL PHOTO OR FILM EXPERTS on this board and by extension in TGZFH. The question is why Fetzer didn't get one for his book, probably he couldn't find one to back his theory. All the experts who studied the question said alteration would have been IMPOSSIBLE.

Speaking of which, I just got an e-mail from Fielding LOL More on that tommorow ROTFLMHO.

Give it up!!!!

Edited February 17, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

For what its worth, I've looked at both sides of the debate and I'm convinced that Zapruder film alteration (or the "Zapruder hoax") is on par with moon hoax stuff (and I don't mean that as a compliment). It just diverts attention away from more fruitful areas of research.

if your so sure of your position re the Zapruder film, why bring in Moon Hoax comments? -- personally I could give a xxxx less whether you or anyone else is handing out compliments, whose looking for them anyway? Mr. Colby? roflmao!

Perhaps you might spend some time dealing with "fruitful" areas of research instead of "diverting' your time and mine with the above

Dave you are probably the least charming member of this forum. You don't care for his opinion? Why is his worth any less than yours since you don't have any FILM post production experience?