David G. Healy Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Craig, You've done some some very nice photographic work. I enjoyed looking at both sites. /sarcasm on Well, since I'm not qualified to even have an opinion, I really can't say what I just said, can I? Now, on the other hand, if I thought that 25+ years of photographic and imaging experience actually sufficed to allow me to have an opinion, I'd say something like, "You've done some very nice photographic work." /sarcasm off I'd like to say thanks but it seems I've no standing... But thanks anyways. Film compositing work? as opposed to Photoshop? Well, by all means, share....
Craig Lamson Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) Craig, You've done some some very nice photographic work. I enjoyed looking at both sites. /sarcasm on Well, since I'm not qualified to even have an opinion, I really can't say what I just said, can I? Now, on the other hand, if I thought that 25+ years of photographic and imaging experience actually sufficed to allow me to have an opinion, I'd say something like, "You've done some very nice photographic work." /sarcasm off I'd like to say thanks but it seems I've no standing... But thanks anyways. Film compositing work? as opposed to Photoshop? Well, by all means, share.... You need to learn to read...its in my post or do you need the link for the FOURTH time...? Edited February 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson
Bill Miller Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 "You need to learn to read...its in my post or do you need the link for thr FOURTH time...?" Maybe David's inability yo read is why he has never learned the facts of the JFK assassination so he could offer some intelligent rebuttals. At least that would be one logical explanation for his constant behavior pattern. Bill
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) David G. Healy Feb 21 2006, 11:52 PM 'Len Colby' wrote: Craig (with all due respect) and David this whole "whose dick is bigger that whose I'm a better photographer than you" stick got old a long time ago. But Healy it's time for you to put up or shut up post some links to or examples of your work if you are going to claim expertise Seeing you're in the email loop -- I'll respond! First, G R O W U P ! This from a 60 year-old who acts like a 6 year old Second, Expertise in WHAT? Film post production and compositing obviously. You really couldn't figure that out all by yourself? Despite your "with all due respect" clap-trap The "due respect" was directed at Craig only and was sincere. He doesn't claim to be an authority on film compositing but posted samples of his work. You on the other hand claim such expertise but make excuses when asked to show your work. .... What you fail to realize Len, I'm a Technical Director/Senior Editor for 40 years and Camerman/Line Producer for 30+ years -- so if you want to rate whose **** is bigger than whose, best find someone Lamson can handle Yeah read you bio and read your chapter in Hoax. As I said elsewhere if the issue was video editing I wouldn't doubt you expertise. Your bio hints at some film experience but is vague in that respect. Show us some reason to believe you know anything about compositing FILM other than what you're read or from doing similar work with video or computers. Craig's credentials aren't the issue (except for the 2 of you). I don't care which one of you is more talented or make more money and I doubt anyone else does either. That was my whole point -- As for compositing; more ways to skin a cat when compositing and Dean Fielding is well aware of that I'm sure you're right but the issue is what was possible in 1963, we have yet to see any evidence that you can speak authoritatively on that. The only evidence you cited in Hoax and on this forum was claiming that Ray Fielding's book and unspecified copies of SMPE/SMPTE journals backed you up without quoting a single word or citing a specific page, chapter or article. But Fielding and Rollie Zavada, the guy who invented the film Zapruder used, say you are wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they both longtime members and former board members of SMPTE? If those journal articles back your theory shouldn't they know about it? My career work is not the subject As long as you claim to be an authority it is. you guy's need someones work to bash When have I EVER bashed your work? I haven't even seen it. your demands are recoginized and discarded as distraction and nuisance -- I'm not involved in a judgment contest....[…] if the need arises and Roland Zavada or Dean Fielding request my credit sheet it will be provided to THEM and THEM alone. I don't know if you have any FILM compositing experience but you are an ace dissembler and excuse maker. The relevance of these requests has been explained to you over and over again. I can't believe that you really don't get it. The question now is why some much secrecy? If you have any experience why the reluctance to tell us about it? You aren't shy to brag about your video work. As for your need to read/view something, you might get caught up on Zapruder film topics, optical film printing and a few SMPTE '63-'64periodicals – Funny how you keep mentioning those mags but never get around to citing a specific article. See above. No one is saying that optical printing didn't exist back then and you know that, so stop throwing around that straw man. The other one you like to use and know is false is to try to frame the alteration debate as a LN v. conspiracist issue. Try being intellectually honest. Speaking of which did or didn't Zavada examine the original Z-film? And now that we're on the subject I waiting for you to retract calling me a xxxx since you said, I wouldn't worry about acquiring/finding photo experts. None on this board would be consulted, for either side...IMHO http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6096&view=findpost&p=54805 Try'in to get me all riled up, Len? Lurker's are smarter than that! Obviously I did so without even trying. I just wanted to get Craig and you to stop acting like kids and for you to show evidence of your CLAIMED expertise. Edited February 22, 2006 by Len Colby
Jim Hackett II Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) "I love it when one member of Tink's little gang (Lamson) compliments another (Colby)." (Dr. Fetzer above) I am Not the only one to --- See How They Run? !!! The old saying is bullsh*t walks and research stands where other junk falls by the wayside. Just which screwed, blewed and tattoooed Z film version do you imagine is endorsed by those that never edited or wrote anything to peer review? Simply BLOVIATION AS I EXPECTED --- no matter who is enlisted in a smear and slander efforts. After you learn the players with the scorecard it is easier to detect such junk. Keep up the good works Messers. Fetzer and Costella (and White). Some of us refuse to "preserve" a 1967 state of knowledge in the JFK "case that never was". Only a matter of a little CRITICAL thinking skills or the lack of exercise of same. Jim Edited February 22, 2006 by Jim Hackett II
Tim Gratz Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Mr. Hackett wrote: Only a matter of a little CRITICAL thinking skills or the lack of exercise of same. Unbelievable, considering the source. For instance, this sentence is almost unfathomable: Some of us refuse to "preserve" a 1967 state of knowledge in the JFK "case that never was".
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) "I love it when one member of Tink's little gang (Lamson) compliments another (Colby)." (Dr. Fetzer above) I am Not the only one to --- See How They Run? !!! The old saying is bullsh*t walks and research stands where other junk falls by the wayside. Just which screwed, blewed and tattoooed Z film version do you imagine is endorsed by those that never edited or wrote anything to peer review? Simply BLOVIATION AS I EXPECTED --- no matter who is enlisted in a smear and slander efforts. After you learn the players with the scorecard it is easier to detect such junk. Keep up the good works Messers. Fetzer and Costella (and White). Some of us refuse to "preserve" a 1967 state of knowledge in the JFK "case that never was". Only a matter of a little CRITICAL thinking skills or the lack of exercise of same. Jim Anyone of course can toss out the expression “critical thinking” but being able to think critically is another matter. I see that you were a Vietnam era (partially) USMC veteran, so I imagine guns and bullets is something you should understand. Don’t you agree that obviously blood splatter will be accelerated by high velocity bullets? Didn’t it reveal a stupefying lack of critical thinking for Dr. Costella who has a PhD in physics and claims to be an “expert on how objects move” to fail to take that into account? Didn’t it take another surprising lack of critical thinking for the book’s editor who spent a few years as a Marine officer and has a PhD in “the philosophy of science” not only to miss it but fail to understand it after it had been pointed out? How about Mr. Healy’s critical thinking? He inadvertently bolstered the other side’s case by pointing out that the copies of the Z-film probably don’t have good enough resolution to come to a definite conclusions about blood splatter. You think the Z-film could have altered as alleged in 1963? So does Healy but he has been contradicted by the author of the book he cited as showing it was possible. Rollie Zavada the inventor of the Kodachrome II film Zapruder used, Oliver Stone who presumably knows more about the assassination and Z-film than any other major filmmaker and Robert Groden all agree that the Z-film is authentic and forgery would not have been possible and that any compositing would have been detected. But you choose to believe a videographer who refuses to talk about his film compositing experience and can’t cite any evidence?! Yeah you get an A+ in critical thinking but only if Fetzer is giving out the grades! I agree there is lots of blovation regarding this issue but it is all coming from the alterationist camp? EDITED to add: You are obviously a smart guy, Fetzer and Costella and probably even Healy are intelligent as well. Intelligence how ever is not enough one has to use his or her brains rationally. You think that alteration is obvious to anyone who thinks critically about the subject, then make your case in the appropriate threads. Just saying something is true or obvious doesn’t make it so. Edited February 22, 2006 by Len Colby
Bill Miller Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) I have been going back through old threads and logging certain things that have been said that may be worth pointing out from time to time. Below is one such example where the realm of alteration possibility is offered by David, but only if he can stray away from the facts laid before him. The discussuion was about a photo taken on 11/22/63 - the place was Dealey Plaza - and Moorman has not yet given up her photo to anyone before being filmed for television, so when it comes to discussing an invented gap as claimed by Jack White, David Healy said the following: "And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any!" Bill Miller Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller
David G. Healy Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 Bumped for Dr. Costella. you're a busy beaver today... I doubt the Chaney WFAA interview is going away anytimesoon -- propping up Miller isn't going to get any CT to bite....
Len Colby Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake Why I am qualified to respond: I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. Presently, I am retired yet still do limited consultation for attorneys and law enforcement officials. When I retired I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on IAIs subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and have taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels. I published my findings concerning the Kennedy Assassination on the web originally in 1995 and have yet for one expert in my field to review my work and find my methods in error. Based upon my training and experience I feel I am more than qualified as an expert to address the claims made by the web page. Hoax Claim: More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film. But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! My Response: Unfortunately, we are not discussing lead weights. The blood is being forcefully expelled from the wound and is traveling at a higher rate of speed than that of falling velocity. Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Therefore, it satisfies one of the main criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts - that the evidence has as its basis in sound scientific methodology. Data collection for the analysis was accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers. Videotape is used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. The videotape used records 30 frames per second. The video utilized approximately 4-5 frames to capture the forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacted a large volume of blood. This means that partiular pattern was created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second. Faster projectiles resulted in patterns that were created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 2-3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6 of a second or less. A time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile. Another criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts is that the analysis used have the ability to be duplicated. This test for the speed of a spatter pattern being created and disipating can be duplicated by placing a video camera at a 90 degree to a bloody target. Fake blood in a sponge secured in a small zip lock bag will work, since all liquids respond in the same manner to forceful impact. You can attach the bag to a pole or other upright item. Hanging a dark surface behind the target will provide better viewing contrast. Use a high velocity projectile to shoot the target. Count the number of frames it takes for the spatter to be created and dissipate. Hoax Claim: The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up? It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all: My Response: It is amazing that the writer of this article would not consider there were other methods than viewing a single frame of the Zapruder film to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Especially when there are numerous statements documenting blood being deposited both within and outside the limo. A google search for limo images will result in several photographs of the limo containing blood. One such photograph can be seen here: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/ce353.jpg Here's one of the limo exterior being cleaned at Parkland Hospital http://jfk.iefactory.com/hechos/limohosp.jpg Additionally, there are many statements of witnesses that indicate blood was found outside the 2 frames in the Zapruder film: [...] Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not enter the investigation with a pre-disposed idea and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all possible information and then form conclusions based upon your findings. The information contained at this page of JFK assassination film hoax is incorrect in its scientific basis. They are guilty of not doing sufficent research on their subject of blood spatter. There are numerous books available at public libraries, and for purchase on the web, that address this subject and support my statements here. Additionally, good research should have indicated a need to determine if witnesses had made statements concerning deposited blood. I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to help them in determining the validity of the Zapruder film. And I encourage the writers of JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake to reconsider the contents of their page because it's their mistake. Review of work posted at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html Costella, Fetzer, Tink, Craig and I are members of a Yahoo group where I normally just lurk (and even then skim most posts) but since Costella started posting there I brought up this error. Though he replied his reposes didn’t answer Sherry's debunking of his erroneous claim. Though he gave me permission to repost his reply here it’s easier just to provide a link. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6055
David G. Healy Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake Why I am qualified to respond: I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. Presently, I am retired yet still do limited consultation for attorneys and law enforcement officials. When I retired I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on IAIs subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and have taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels. I published my findings concerning the Kennedy Assassination on the web originally in 1995 and have yet for one expert in my field to review my work and find my methods in error. Based upon my training and experience I feel I am more than qualified as an expert to address the claims made by the web page. Hoax Claim: More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film. But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! My Response: Unfortunately, we are not discussing lead weights. The blood is being forcefully expelled from the wound and is traveling at a higher rate of speed than that of falling velocity. Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Therefore, it satisfies one of the main criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts - that the evidence has as its basis in sound scientific methodology. Data collection for the analysis was accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers. Videotape is used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. The videotape used records 30 frames per second. The video utilized approximately 4-5 frames to capture the forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacted a large volume of blood. This means that partiular pattern was created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second. Faster projectiles resulted in patterns that were created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 2-3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6 of a second or less. A time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile. Another criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts is that the analysis used have the ability to be duplicated. This test for the speed of a spatter pattern being created and disipating can be duplicated by placing a video camera at a 90 degree to a bloody target. Fake blood in a sponge secured in a small zip lock bag will work, since all liquids respond in the same manner to forceful impact. You can attach the bag to a pole or other upright item. Hanging a dark surface behind the target will provide better viewing contrast. Use a high velocity projectile to shoot the target. Count the number of frames it takes for the spatter to be created and dissipate. Hoax Claim: The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up? It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all: My Response: It is amazing that the writer of this article would not consider there were other methods than viewing a single frame of the Zapruder film to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Especially when there are numerous statements documenting blood being deposited both within and outside the limo. A google search for limo images will result in several photographs of the limo containing blood. One such photograph can be seen here: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/ce353.jpg Here's one of the limo exterior being cleaned at Parkland Hospital http://jfk.iefactory.com/hechos/limohosp.jpg Additionally, there are many statements of witnesses that indicate blood was found outside the 2 frames in the Zapruder film: [...] Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not enter the investigation with a pre-disposed idea and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all possible information and then form conclusions based upon your findings. The information contained at this page of JFK assassination film hoax is incorrect in its scientific basis. They are guilty of not doing sufficent research on their subject of blood spatter. There are numerous books available at public libraries, and for purchase on the web, that address this subject and support my statements here. Additionally, good research should have indicated a need to determine if witnesses had made statements concerning deposited blood. I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to help them in determining the validity of the Zapruder film. And I encourage the writers of JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake to reconsider the contents of their page because it's their mistake. Review of work posted at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html Costella, Fetzer, Tink, Craig and I are members of a Yahoo group where I normally just lurk (and even then skim most posts) but since Costella started posting there I brought up this error. Though he replied his reposes didn’t answer Sherry's debunking of his erroneous claim. Though he gave me permission to repost his reply here it’s easier just to provide a link. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6055 Ms. Sherry Gutierrez has a long way to go extracting 3D blood evidence from 2D source namely, Zapruder Film/Nix Films. What with the "rolling crime scene" (the Presidential limo) leaving the Elm Street crime scene (DP). BEST GUESS looms, not BEST EVIDENCE -- nice try, but no cigar! Even Dale *LIGHTWAVE* Myers can't help here.... Edited December 16, 2008 by David G. Healy
Len Colby Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 Ms. Sherry Gutierrez has a long way to go extracting 3D blood evidence from 2D source namely, Zapruder Film/Nix Films. What with the "rolling crime scene" (the Presidential limo) leaving the Elm Street crime scene (DP). BEST GUESS looms, not BEST EVIDENCE -- nice try, but no cigar! Even Dale *LIGHTWAVE* Myers can't help here.... Look at what she wrote again she cited a study done on video which is also a 2D medium. The video presumablly was shot under circumstances much more favorable than the Z-film. Your buddy fail to consider that a 1800+ ft/sec bullet might accerate blood to 72 (or more) ft/sec. It seems like you and Costella "a long way to go" to show that she or I are wrong.
Mark Knight Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 Yawnnn....yet another menage-a-trois thread, with principals Miller, Healy, and Colby...and Lamson jumping in occasionally making it a foursome. While you guys seem to enjoy this stuff WAAAAAAY too much, it really adds little to the understanding of the JFK assassination. But it adds lots to the understanding of sadomasochism. Let the rest of us know when you guys get this love/hate relationship worked out...OK? We really don't care about the outcome; we only want it to end.
David Andrews Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 (edited) I believe there are some descriptions of alteration to the Z-film that are misguided, but also some discrepancies, apparent edits, and other evidence that cannot be ignored, and which seriously devalue the Z-film for some scientific examinations conducted through simple viewing. If anybody demands it, I'll extend my neck and post the latter. What I want to question here is possible use of a period film alteration technique - rotoscopy. With rotoscope technique and equipment, Alfred Hitchcock, for example, was able in "The Birds" (1963) to insert flaming buildings and gas pumps into an overhead shot of a small town, and then add a second set of mattes showing individual birds flying at foreground between the aerial camera and the composited town and fire scene below. Film experts, is it possible that the blood spray could have been have been taken from an unaltered Z-film showing spray from the unretouched (for want of a more exact description) right rear exit blowout, the image flopped, then the spray rotoscoped in around the right temporal entrance wound? The "blob" that accompanies the "front blowout" appears clumsily rotoscoped in, and much larger than the corresponding "front flap" shown in the autopsy photo showing a pristine right rear of head with a smallish side flap hanging loose below the doctor's gloved hand that allegedly holds JFK's torn front scalp together. Notice also how bloodless and bright white that flap looks in Z as it recedes from our view over several seconds. My belief is that the Z-film is altered to show a frontal wound corresponding to one surgically created to resemble an exit wound in the photos, but that the falsified autopsy photos were not available to the film techie when the film was altered. Either that, or the rumored "second autopsy" may have been performed after the embalming to create a wound similar to that which the film techie was able to create to imply a front exit. Note that I said "belief" above. I have let my research conclusions stick at that detente for a time, not yet wanting to advance into opinion or judgment. With your criticism, perhaps I can see my way to a next stage. Could the blood spray have been isolated, flopped, repositioned and rotoscoped to the front of the head? Could that be the Harper fragment we see flying upward? (We don't see it exit the rear....) Forgive me for not researching this in Murder in Dealey Plaza and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Though I devoted some hours to these books, it was in library copies that I don't have at hand today. Though I know film matte techniques are discussed therein, my memory is that rotoscopy of blood spray repositioned from back to front was not considered. Alternately, is it possible that frames after 313 were omitted to reduce the limo crawl duration, thereby reducing the duration of the blood nimbus? It would be great to have a small panel of 1960s cinematographers experienced in rotoscopy and other alteration technique examine the Z-film. Where's the guy that shot the Greeks fighting Ray Harryhausen's famous skeleton army in "Jason and the Argonauts" (also 1963) when you need him? Edited December 17, 2008 by David Andrews
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now