Zapruder film alteration expertise examples

[Myra Bronstein]

I haven't read the Film Hoax book, but it's on order.

I did find this URL in an earlier ed thread on the subject, and it's the most compelling thing I've seen so far.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

It supplies a film of Zapruder in the "click here" link almost half way down the page, and explains the importance of watching a stabilized version at normal speed.

The examples I found most persuasive were here:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/fast.html

The impossibly fast head movements of Mrs. Connelly and the ever suspicious Greer.

This page is also noteworthy, showing the lack of blur of both car and stationary objects in the Life magazine stills.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

They address the critical "why" question, and I'm pretty satisfied with their answer. The altered film does not show that the limo stopped, which is incriminating to the driver and the SS. In fact it shows the limo speeding up at the same time four people are thrown forward from the force of a stop that is not shown. That's not to say that the stop is the only thing they're trying to hide, but it's a biggie.

On edit: Another significant reason for alteration is to show a burst of blood shooting forward from the President's head, supporting the bullet from behind theory, rather than shooting backward, which shows a shot from the front.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html

It's quite noticable that the blood explosion disappears after just one frame (the infamous 313). So all that brain and skull and blood are supposed to have dissipated in 1/16 of a second? I don't think that's possible.

This is aside from the question of available technology in the era in question, which you all are hashing out.

Another possible reason for alteration is to mask the reported movement of the umbrella up and down as if to signal something to someone. I keep hearing that it happened but I sure don't see it in Zapruder.

[Bill Miller]

Another possible reason for alteration is to mask the reported movement of the umbrella up and down as if to signal something to someone. I keep hearing that it happened but I sure don't see it in Zapruder.

One reason it is not seen on the Zfilm or any other assassination film is that it probably didn't happen that late in the shooting. Because Bronson's still photo isn't sharp - and while it isn't easy to say, there could be some blurring of the umbrella in Bronson's slide. That may mean that ithe umbrella was in motion at that point. Bronson's slide came around Z229/230 as I recall. If the latter is true, then it had already occurred before Zapruder panned past the Umbrella Man.

Bill Miller

Edited December 4, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

dgh: pssst; tell me what the matter with all those frames in my Z-film presentation, make a case worthy of my comment and you'll get a response -- till then, your nothing more than *white noise*. Perhaps Ray Fielding will give you a hand, he knows, film compositing and optical film printing...

Got no complaint with the plates you made for that dog of a book TGZFH, you know the ones you cribbed to show the workflow. Its your comps that sucked. Left out the intersprockets, that blood spray was third rate and the comp you posted here had that wonderfully bad soft edge matte problems, just like one of the frames of Poppins Miller posted. No, your COMPUTER`comps sucked, simple as that.

dgh: of course it's stupid, none of them have a clue as we've been saying for months and years and they're laying the above at the feet of Zavada, so have at it --

Glad to finally hear you call Jack White stupid....

dgh:well big guy, perhaps you can tell me where those Poppins frames came from, why the amateurs are so scared to post their origin, perhaps you can tell me and the lurkers what's the matter with the Poppins frames, if ANYTHING... you can't save these morons everytime they blow it, Craig. They can opine all day long, they've no credibility --

Bill already told you where they came from...a Mary Poppins dvd...but who really cares..the frames show simple errors. Perhaps you and your gang might want to check films before you claim then as good examples of special effects. BTW, you ever gonna deal with the questions railsed about the strawman argument you posted here to start this thread.

dgh: simple, my profession -- just for the record, I've probably handled more film (16mm/S16mm/35mm/65mm/70mm) in the past 2 years than you have in your entire life. Of course you handle no film these day's, nor do I suspect have you stood in a lab in the past 10 years, much let alone *pull* a matte...

also, I don't believe I've posted anything here... Have you posted composite imagery here, perhaps some of your film effects work?

Your "profession"...what tv newsie, cowboy photog, video editor? Exactly WHAT experience do YOU have creating FILM composites and HOW many frames HAVE YOU completed at the optical printer? More film that my entire life? Thats a really good one David LOL! And for the record I have posted composite FILM BASED images here. You have been asked for years to do the same and you continue to refuse...why?

Closed my lab 5 years ago, not that it matters.

dgh:

I've read plenty of them, wrote a chapter concerning the subject matter we're discussing, oops i should of said the Zapruder film, and your film compositing/expertise/track record? Oh that's right, you can light a trailer even a row of chairs.... you're beating an old story Craig, why not *think* repurposing your photo database, stock footage, big market in that these day's I hear

Talk about beating an old story....why that would be you David. Now do you want to deal with your strawman post that started this thread?

Edited December 4, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Charles Black]

Craig Lamson

is back and is still bottom feeding ! He doesn't care "what" he feeds on......he slightly raises himself....attacks....then back under the rock.

Yes Craig ! Regarding the "handling" of this JFK case, I am suffering some very deeply rooted paranoia. You are correct at least in your reference to me. I am afraid that neither counselling, nor massive doses of mind altering drugs, will ever relieve my absolute certifiability!

My Paranoia has reached the level that I now believe that this government can never be depended upon to do anything, other than cover its ass, regarding previous "dis-information". Present government information is not released unless it bolsters the administration's cause. Disinformation has evolved somewhat. It is now primarily being spread by "contrived leaks". I believe very litte of the governments position ranging from our invasion of Viet Nam to our ongoing invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "New World Order" is not a MYTH !

But Craig.....I suppose that I continue to "miss something" in all of your posts. They contain absolutely no substance. Pure Criticism !

I suppose I should conduct a more thorough study of Bottom Feeders. Your conduct may be the NORM for your species !

I have noticed that your "breed" is often isolated in a separate aquarium. Perhaps this is just an experiment !

Charlie Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Craig Lamson

is back and is still bottom feeding ! He doesn't care "what" he feeds on......he slightly raises himself....attacks....then back under the rock.

Yes Craig ! Regarding the "handling" of this JFK case, I am suffering some very deeply rooted paranoia. You are correct at least in your reference to me. I am afraid that neither counselling, nor massive doses of mind altering drugs, will ever relieve my absolute certifiability!

My Paranoia has reached the level that I now believe that this government can never be depended upon to do anything, other than cover its ass, regarding previous "dis-information". Present government information is not released unless it bolsters the administration's cause. Disinformation has evolved somewhat. It is now primarily being spread by "contrived leaks". I believe very litte of the governments position ranging from our invasion of Viet Nam to our ongoing invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "New World Order" is not a MYTH !

But Craig.....I suppose that I continue to "miss something" in all of your posts. They contain absolutely no substance. Pure Criticism !

I suppose I should conduct a more thorough study of Bottom Feeders. Your conduct may be the NORM for your species !

I have noticed that your "breed" is often isolated in a separate aquarium. Perhaps this is just an experiment !

Charlie Black

Question being, exactly why would anyone assume that the WC would not alter the film?

When one considers their history in the investigation of this event, their entire actions are questionable.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson

is back and is still bottom feeding ! He doesn't care "what" he feeds on......he slightly raises himself....attacks....then back under the rock.

Yes Craig ! Regarding the "handling" of this JFK case, I am suffering some very deeply rooted paranoia. You are correct at least in your reference to me. I am afraid that neither counselling, nor massive doses of mind altering drugs, will ever relieve my absolute certifiability!

My Paranoia has reached the level that I now believe that this government can never be depended upon to do anything, other than cover its ass, regarding previous "dis-information". Present government information is not released unless it bolsters the administration's cause. Disinformation has evolved somewhat. It is now primarily being spread by "contrived leaks". I believe very litte of the governments position ranging from our invasion of Viet Nam to our ongoing invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "New World Order" is not a MYTH !

But Craig.....I suppose that I continue to "miss something" in all of your posts. They contain absolutely no substance. Pure Criticism !

I suppose I should conduct a more thorough study of Bottom Feeders. Your conduct may be the NORM for your species !

I have noticed that your "breed" is often isolated in a separate aquarium. Perhaps this is just an experiment !

Charlie Black

Why charlie how nice to hear from you.

This is quite an instructive post of yours....it seems you have a very limited ability to construct a decent ad hom, much like your very limited ablity to understand the mechanics of film alteration.

enjoy your day.

nice picture, btw.....

Edited December 4, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

dgh:well big guy, perhaps you can tell me where those Poppins frames came from, why the amateurs are so scared to post their origin, perhaps you can tell me and the lurkers what's the matter with the Poppins frames if ANYTHING... you can't save these morons everytime they blow it, Craig. They can opine all day long, they've no credibility --

Dave you xxxxx (I was tempted to sink to your level but sewers make me nauseous) - Bill already said he got the frames from the DVD. If you think he's making it up you have a perfect opportunity to humiliate him, rent the movie and extract the same frames sans the defects seen in the clips he posted and post them here,

Craig wrote: Why should we give any "weight" to you David, you have NO film compositing experience and yet you spew ignorantly on the subject every time it gets mentioned

dgh: simple, my profession -- just for the record, I've probably handled more film (16mm/S16mm/35mm/65mm/70mm) in the past 2 years than you have in your entire life.

Just for the record how much have you handled and what exactly did you do with it? Are you duping film to DVDs as a sideline these days? Aren't you a VIDEOgrapher? If you have any optical printing/FILM compositing experience why do you refuse to tell us about it or post any examples of your work?

Craig wrote: Hell your posted examples of computer aided digital composites are "third grade" level.

dgh: also, I don't believe I've posted anything here... Have you posted composite imagery here, perhaps some of your film effects work?

I assume he was referring to the half assed "composites" you made for Hoax. (No I couldn't do any better but I don't claim to be an expert.) http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/healy.html

Len

Edited December 4, 2006 by Len Colby

[John Dolva]

What abot the Oliver film? Seeing as no-one has seen it, not even a frame, perhaps a challenge would be to see if anyone can create one.

Perhaps it's strange that it hasn't already been done. Given that the expertise supposedly exists, it would to the 'Z film is the real deal' be made to bolster that claim, and alternatively the alterationists could make one that proves the Z film is false. It's been 43 years, so where is it? Not with us because everyone concerned are too honest to do such a thing? or is it because it can't be done?

[Bill Miller]

Craig Lamson is back and is still bottom feeding ! He doesn't care "what" he feeds on......he slightly raises himself....attacks....then back under the rock.

Yes Craig ! Regarding the "handling" of this JFK case, I am suffering some very deeply rooted paranoia. You are correct at least in your reference to me. I am afraid that neither counselling, nor massive doses of mind altering drugs, will ever relieve my absolute certifiability!

..........

I have noticed that your "breed" is often isolated in a separate aquarium. Perhaps this is just an experiment !

Charlie Black

Charlie, the remarks you have made to Craig have reflected why it is that people like yourself have bought into the Zfilm alteration nonsense. If one wishes to separate what they should be paranoid about from what not to be paranoid about, then he or she should do it through educating themselves .... after all, is this not the EDUCATION FORUM? I made this next comment a long time ago and I will say it again because it applies to your remarks concerning your position over the possibilty of the Zapruder film being altered ...

"It's like saying it is a possibility to take a trip from the earth to the moon without oxygen by simply holding your breath which in theory it is correct, but realistically it is impossible!" 2006 Bill Miller

What has happened here is that you and others have accepted the Zfilm alteration possibility because it fits into the realm of your paranoia. Lifton for example started out with a theory about what happened in Dealey Plaza and to fit that theory he needed the Zapruder film to be altered. Another example, "Murder from Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams was witten in the mid-60's pertaining to possible film alteration to the Zfilm. The book wasn't actually published until the mid-70's. Jack White has done the same thing with Costella's support over Zapruder and Sitzman not being on the pedestal or Moorman being in the street. These guys start with a theory and then look for a way to show it. These two ignored the FACT that Moorman's photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination and it shows two people on the pedestal and it also shows the gap seen in all the Moorman prints .... both of which Jack still says to this day is nothing more than an alteration. In other words, if one cannot find proof to support his theory - then he merely has to say that the photographical record showing otherwise must be a hoax.

I have heard it said that maybe Zavada, Groden, and others may have been bought off .... again, this is nothing more than someone making irrational and unsupported accusations to fit what they wish to believe (possibly due to the same paranoia you claim to have). There are scientist and researchers around the world who have had an interest in the JFK assassination and many more who are interested in the technology advances concerning photography and to this day no one of such education and credentials has disputed what Zavada has said pertaining to KODACHROME II film and its charachteristics over this alteration business. Instead, you have relied on a select few who have not the credentials to be considered reliable. Instead, they make claims of someone being in the street, gaps that don't exist, people pasted into the photographical record, and so on because of bad information or a lack thereof. Jack still claims Moorman was in the street and that no one was ever on the pedestal despite the undisputable evidence to the contrary. Before "Hoax" was ever written, we were pointing out that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV within 30 minutes after the assassination and having never left Mary's control, yet the claims of alteration still went into Fetzer's book. And before "Hoax" was written - Jack had claimed that Josiah Thompson invented a gap in his drum scan, yet when Jack was then asked to put up a Moorman print showing no gap predating the drum scan - nothing has ever been produced by Jack or any alteration supporter to show otherwise. That gap was mentioned once again only recently and withgout the simple proof that has been asked for in support of it.

So while it is OK to question the evidence because you don't trust those who collected it and/or controlled it - it is not OK to keep misstating the evidence and to ignore the contradictory facts to fit one's theory or to try and promote unnecessary paranoia in others.

Bill Miller

[Charles Black]

Hello Craig

You can have not the slightest inkling of how happy I was to learn of your joy in hearing from me !

Your messasge brought a bright beginning to my holiday season.

Again I must admit that you were right about something when you mentioned my "... very unlimited ability to understand the mechanics of film alteration".

But I do not have an "unlimited ability" to detect pure and unadulterated BS when it is being spread by those supporting the government position, of an 8mm film that is impossible to undetectably alter.

No reasonable person can claim a mechanical alteration impossible without knowing the ability of the mechanics who are performing the alteration.

Particularly if you consider those "mechanics" unlimited support of money as well as physical resources. This defies logic!

So it looks as if my lack of understanding of film alteration, has at least in my mind, not altered my perception of the illogic of deeming an element of mechanical progress impossible.

I don't doubt that progress is, at this moment being made, in areas that would challenge our imagination.

One of the truly impossible things in life is believing in the veracity of the word "impossible"

when you are dealing in the field of mechanical processes and progress.

Hell, to show you the impracticality of the word "impossible".....I would almost have sworn a few months ago, that it would be "impossible" to further correspond with you. It was "possible" !

Kidding aside, Iam happy to hear that you are well and still "persisting". I feel certain that our "posts" will cross!

Charlie Black

[Bill Miller]

I assume he was referring to the half assed "composites" you made for Hoax. (No I couldn't do any better but I don't claim to be an expert.) http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/healy.html

Len

And let me remind everyone that Healy didn't make his composite examples the old fashion way in a dark room, making enlargements from 8MM film and shrinking them back down again, but rather by playing around on a computer with software that didn't exist back in the 60's. This is what one has to do when he has no valid argument to make, thus he relies on narrow minded followers who will hopefully not pay any attention to that one major flaw in his position.

Bill Miller

Edited December 4, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Hello Craig

You can have not the slightest inkling of how happy I was to learn of your joy in hearing from me !

Your messasge brought a bright beginning to my holiday season.

Again I must admit that you were right about something when you mentioned my "... very unlimited ability to understand the mechanics of film alteration".

But I do not have an "unlimited ability" to detect pure and unadulterated BS when it is being spread by those supporting the government position, of an 8mm film that is impossible to undetectably alter.

No reasonable person can claim a mechanical alteration impossible without knowing the ability of the mechanics who are performing the alteration.

Particularly if you consider those "mechanics" unlimited support of money as well as physical resources. This defies logic!

So it looks as if my lack of understanding of film alteration, has at least in my mind, not altered my perception of the illogic of deeming an element of mechanical progress impossible.

I don't doubt that progress is, at this moment being made, in areas that would challenge our imagination.

One of the truly impossible things in life is believing in the veracity of the word "impossible"

when you are dealing in the field of mechanical processes and progress.

Hell, to show you the impracticality of the word "impossible".....I would almost have sworn a few months ago, that it would be "impossible" to further correspond with you. It was "possible" !

Kidding aside, Iam happy to hear that you are well and still "persisting". I feel certain that our "posts" will cross!

Charlie Black

Gosh Charlie, it would seem we must add your "very limited" ability to read to your growing list of attributes..ie. "very unlimited"

In any case, the Zapruder film was shot in 1963, and lets assume for the sake of argument that they had some super duper process to alter film, kept in secret. Now regardless of the higly advanced nature of this super duper, double secret process, it must follow the laws of physics and the science of light and film. And lets also assume that over the past 40 years or so this suder duper, double top secret process has finally made it into the film industry ( which quite frankly is where it would have been most likely to have been developed in the first place). Can todays film tech produce conposites that are undectable? Of course not. But in charlies land of paranoia, the possibility existed in 63 for the same to be possible. Amazing!

Its a very nice fantasy though...if one finds comfort in fantasy.

I'm sure you find it comfortable since a world of fantasy is where you seem to reside.

Happy Holidays!

Edited December 4, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

But I do not have an "unlimited ability" to detect pure and unadulterated BS when it is being spread by those supporting the government position, of an 8mm film that is impossible to undetectably alter.

No reasonable person can claim a mechanical alteration impossible without knowing the ability of the mechanics who are performing the alteration.

Particularly if you consider those "mechanics" unlimited support of money as well as physical resources. This defies logic!

Charlie, in order to help your position - start having someone read your post before putting them on a public forum because the things you are saying rank in the BS department, as well. Robert Groden does not take the government's position and he says it was impossible to have done what you claim and explains why that is. Then someone like you comes along with no expertise and obviously no understanding of the english language because you admit that you know nothing about Kodachrome II film and you try to make anyone who doesn't agree with you as some sort of government supporter. Even more asinine is that you are being given valid reasons why the Zfilm isn't altered, while your only rebuttal is that you are paranoid about everything. Do you know the government believes that 2 + 2 = 4, so does that mean that because Groden, Zavada, Craig, Mack, myself, or anyone else who has learned how to add and agrees with the total the government comes up with when adding 2 + 2 - that this means we are all government supporters, too? What appears to have happened is that your arguement is so weak, that you've now resorted to known false propaganda to try and salvage your unfounded theory.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I assume he was referring to the half assed "composites" you made for Hoax. (No I couldn't do any better but I don't claim to be an expert.) http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/healy.html

Len

And let me remind everyone that Healy didn't make his composite examples the old fashion way in a dark room, making enlargements from 8MM film and shrinking them back down again, but rather by playing around on a computer with software that didn't exist back in the 60's. This is what one has to do when he has no valid argument to make, thus he relies on narrow minded followers who will hopefully not pay any attention to that one major flaw in his position.

Bill Miller

dgh: ahhh, the *bane* of the Lone Nutter's posing as CTer's -- computers! So why shouldn't I use them I, I know how composites are/were made, and any, ANY film lab tech worth his/her salt could of made them... then again the only, ONLY benchmark you can point to is Groden, which of course, is a joke.

Shrinking? That is the term you used to explain film format reduction....? You really have a grasp on this subject matter don't you.... ROFLMFAO

You and the rest of your tribe could remove me from this entire discussion and you'd still have to deal with RAY FIELDING'S: THE ART OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY-1965. Not to mention the 300 or so references to SMPE/SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Engineering-1915/Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineering-1955) discussing some of the very same techniques used in films dating from the 1920's.... (of which I've given you only a small fraction of [80] to comment on). So piss and moan all you want, your wish'in and a hop'in isn't gonna change that.

You've made pretty dumb statements regarding film printing lately, you want to take on the entire film post production industry?

The source for Mary Poppins frames are located? LMAO

Edited December 5, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh: ahhh, the *bane* of the Lone Nutter's posing as CTer's -- computers! So why shouldn't I use them I, I know how composites are/were made, and any, ANY film lab tech worth his/her salt could of made them... then again the only, ONLY benchmark you can point to is Groden, which of course, is a joke.

Only an idiot or someone who is trying to fool someone of lesser intelligence would think that using tools that were not available in 1963 in order to bolster their 'possible alteration' position would somehow be acceptable. The really ridiculous part of all this is that your modern day computer software generated composites were not any good either.

Groden discussed the problems with doing each alteration the old fashion way and I am certain that you are aware of the same problems that would have been faced duiring that era, which is why you were forced to use up-to-date computer software. Even Jack explained how such alterations would have needed to be done and this is nothing new to you for several of us has pointed this out to you in the past. I personally can only assume that you have no valid argument when you continue to try and fool people in order to give a false impression of undetectable alterations even by todays standards being possible in 1963.

Shrinking? That is the term you used to explain film format reduction....? You really have a grasp on this subject matter don't you.... ROFLMFAO

Going from 8 x 10 inch print images back to the very small 8MM frame size can also be called 'reducing the size' or 'compressing the size of the image' back to the original Zapruder film size .... your lack of understanding of the english language is not my fault. I can only assume that you have no feasible rebuttal on that point either when you can only play word games in an attempt to draw attention away from your failure to logically promote your position.

You and the rest of your tribe could remove me from this entire discussion and you'd still have to deal with RAY FIELDING'S: THE ART OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY-1965. Not to mention the 300 or so references to SMPE/SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Engineering-1915/Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineering-1955) discussing some of the very same techniques used in films dating from the 1920's.... (of which I've given you only a small fraction of [80] to comment on). So piss and moan all you want, your wish'in and a hop'in isn't gonna change that.

I have lost track at how many times it has been pointed out that no one has said that altering images didn't exist in 1963/64. The argument has been that they could not have occurred to Kodachrome II film and gone undetected to those people qualified to know what to look for. Now what would qualify someone to make such a call .... I'd start by finding someone who could understand the simple points that you continue to miss.

The source for Mary Poppins frames are located? LMAO [/color]

The source for the Mary Poppins frames can be found in the credit headings of every copy of that movie. Are you waiting for one of your fellow researchers to loan you the buck or two so to get a copy of Disney's movie so you can do your own captures? Your ignorance and desire to play games on this point only proves the things I and others have been saying about you.

Bill Miller

Edited December 5, 2006 by Bill Miller