Jump to content
The Education Forum

New problem with Zapruder


Shanet Clark
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the fine frame by frame version available online

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

it is clear that the driver, Mr. Greer, is completely turned

around facing the President in ZAP frames 312 / 313 / 314 / 315 and 316

then frames 317 and 318 are severely blurred,

and then in frame 319 the driver is facing fully forward.

This is a fast head snap, and indicates to me that something is wrong with this film sequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the fine frame by frame version available online

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

it is clear that the driver, Mr. Greer, is completely turned

around facing the President in ZAP frames 312 / 313 / 314 / 315 and 316

then frames 317 and 318 are severely blurred,

and then in frame 319 the driver is facing fully forward.

This is a fast head snap, and indicates to me that something is wrong with this film sequence.

Shanet - having you analyzing a film is like watching a baby to play with a loaded gun ... its just a matter of time b efore it goes off and someone gets hurt. Greer started turning his head forward before Z319. Also, are you aware that the limo passing across Zapruder's field of view in a left to right direction exaggerates any head turns because of the limo's rotation? Watch the two side glasses shift between two frames. Also, watch Connally's head turn in those two frames, as well. And while you are at it - explain to us how Z317 is severely blurred?

post-1084-1170016482_thumb.gif

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge amounts of data has been compressed/interpolated out of existence in those highly altered Costella frames derived from an already altered set of frames. Hardly, (except in the grossest sense), 'fine' for any proving of alteration. They should not be used, certainly not called 'fine'. They're just eye-candy. Using known altered frames to prove alteration is ridiculous. Particularly for the peripheral items as they are the most distorted/altered by Costellas defacing of the Zfilm. Facial expressions change, eyes disappear, blood mist disappears, fine detail disappears, the color values are compressed, changes in illumination are smoothed out, significant motion blurs disappears etc etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the fine frame by frame version available online

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

it is clear that the driver, Mr. Greer, is completely turned

around facing the President in ZAP frames 312 / 313 / 314 / 315 and 316

then frames 317 and 318 are severely blurred,

and then in frame 319 the driver is facing fully forward.

This is a fast head snap, and indicates to me that something is wrong with this film sequence.

Shanet - having you analyzing a film is like letting a baby play with a loaded gun ... its just a matter of time before it goes off and someone gets hurt. Greer started turning his head forward before Z319. Also, are you aware that the limo passing across Zapruder's field of view in a left to right direction exaggerates any head turns because of the limo's rotation? Watch the two side glasses shift between two frames. Also, watch Connally's head turn in those two frames, as well. And while you are at it - explain to us how Z317 is severely blurred?

Bill Miller

post-1084-1170027145_thumb.gif

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge amounts of data has been compressed/interpolated out of existence in those highly altered Costella frames derived from an already altered set of frames. Hardly, (except in the grossest sense), 'fine' for any proving of alteration. They should not be used, certainly not called 'fine'. They're just eye-candy. Using known altered frames to prove alteration is ridiculous. Particularly for the peripheral items as they are the most distorted/altered by Costellas defacing of the Zfilm. Facial expressions change, eyes disappear, blood mist disappears, fine detail disappears, the color values are compressed, changes in illumination are smoothed out, significant motion blurs disappears etc etc etc.

This is a grossly unfair and incorrect assessment! Dr. Costella is an expert in optics and computer images.

He writes computer programs. He has a doctorate in physics and mathematics. His images are "corrected"

only to remove computer artifacts and to correct pincushion distortion of the Zapruder lens. His copies are

the best available SINCE THE 4X5 TRANSPARENCIES USED TO MAKE THE VIDEO ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

If you want better images, sue to gain access to the "original" 8mm film or the 4x5 transparencies, but

do not blast Costella for making available to anyone the BEST POSSIBLE COPY OF THE FILM! What NONSENSE!!!!!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jack. Of course you are right. I am using the best images I can find........

I knew the one they call BILL MILLER would come roaring in with insults and personal abuse.

Z 317 actually is a relatively stable frame,

I meant to say 318 and 319 are severely blurred and then

in 320 Greer is facing forward.

So Z-316 to Z-320 shows a 90 degree head snap, in a quarter to a third of a second.........

So who is the baby with the loaded gun now?

Me, or "Bill Miller" with an internet connection???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically it's my comments that Jack objected to and therefore to Blame Bill for that is unfair. That said, I don't mean to insult anyone particularly. I feel strongly that Costellas frames which are highly altered by the various processes applied to the frames cannot be taken to represent the Z film and as they ARE altered, they're known to be so, they're documented as such, of course they will show alteration. Even cursory comparison with earlier generation prints show that. Flaws which are so important are washed out. Fine detail disappears. When you compress data to the degree that Costella has done much of it simply disappears and instead the remnants are bled into each others spaces and data is created. On top of that he has altered the color maps. Again data is created and disappears.

A rough analogy is taking a newspaper photo and scrunchng it together to create folds and then ironing it flat while some creases remain so the photo is now smaller. Then a photo is taken of that and the creases smoothed or blended or averaged out to MAKE IT LOOK good.

It looks good. It's not good.

As Jack points out, the solution is making the originals available. Until that happens what is available must be properly understood to be what it is. And in Costella frames there is what, if the Z film is considered public property, (USA citizens of course) we have that defaced and falsely represented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically it's my comments that Jack objected to and therefore to Blame Bill for that is unfair. That said, I don't mean to insult anyone particularly. I feel strongly that Costellas frames which are highly altered by the various processes applied to the frames cannot be taken to represent the Z film and as they ARE altered, they're known to be so, they're documented as such, of course they will show alteration. Even cursory comparison with earlier generation prints show that. Flaws which are so important are washed out. Fine detail disappears. When you compress data to the degree that Costella has done much of it simply disappears and instead the remnants are bled into each others spaces and data is created. On top of that he has altered the color maps. Again data is created and disappears.

A rough analogy is taking a newspaper photo and scrunchng it together to create folds and then ironing it flat while some creases remain so the photo is now smaller. Then a photo is taken of that and the creases smoothed or blended or averaged out to MAKE IT LOOK good.

It looks good. It's not good.

As Jack points out, the solution is making the originals available. Until that happens what is available must be properly understood to be what it is. And in Costella frames there is what, if the Z film is considered public property, (USA citizens of course) we have that defaced and falsely represented.

Thanks, John...your final paragraph is absolutely correct. I was not criticizing you personally,

just the inference that Costella deliberately has misrepresented the film. IT IS THE BEST

AVAILABLE THAT I KNOW OF, without the original film or the 4x5 copies. It certainly is superior

to the DVD he took it from, SINCE HE CORRECTED FOR THE SERIOUS ERROR IN ASPECT RATIO

on the DVD! Do you admit that correction of the aspect ratio of IOAA was proper? Do you disagree

that correction of the B&H lens pincushion distortion was proper? This was necessary to match

actual photos of the plaza.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a grossly unfair and incorrect assessment! Dr. Costella is an expert in optics and computer images.

He writes computer programs. He has a doctorate in physics and mathematics.

Costella is also someone who thought Moorman was in the street ... didn't see how you had failed in your recreation photo to match the gap that Moorman's photo had, and also suspected that the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza were listening devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone like to comment upon the substance of the thread?

That Greer's head goes from looking back at JFK to eyes forward on the road in a quarter of a second?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone like to comment upon the substance of the thread?

That Greer's head goes from looking back at JFK to eyes forward on the road in a quarter of a second?

Shanet, you misinterpreting what was seen on the frames between Z316 and Z317 was the first thing that I commented on. If you want more, then go look throughout other head turns prior to Z320 all the way back to Love Field and see how many frames it took for them to be accomplished. If one finds that there is a common ground among other head turns in the same amount of time it took Greer to make his, then your just saying it is too fast is just an opinion without the support of the other available evidence to the contrary.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanet, there are numerous examples of rapid movements, much faster ones than the one in question here.

Jack, most probably Costella did correctly adjust the aspect ratio. Possibly part of the problem is the very fact that he is an accomplished mathematician and would apply a simple mathematical solution. Whether he took care to do this frame by frame or en masse is a different question as the frames individually likely have a slight rotational component that would affect the result.

Then: the distortion correction (which is stepped mathematically and not smooth like a lens really is, cannot take into account various irregularities on the lens in density and perfect polish, there is no such thing. I doubt he derived the formula for the 'correction' from a laser analysis of the lens. It's an approximation.

That formula is then applied in batch to the whole frame set.

This ignores the spliced frames where parts of images are joined together offset. In fact the 'correction' in toto makes it look as if there was no splice, unlike the frames it is derived from that shows it clearly. Who benefits from this?

The final distortion correction and colormapping washes out huge amounts of data in order to achieve what it ses out to achieve. This limits the frames use.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically it's my comments that Jack objected to and therefore to Blame Bill for that is unfair. That said, I don't mean to insult anyone particularly. I feel strongly that Costellas frames which are highly altered by the various processes applied to the frames cannot be taken to represent the Z film and as they ARE altered, they're known to be so, they're documented as such, of course they will show alteration. Even cursory comparison with earlier generation prints show that. Flaws which are so important are washed out. Fine detail disappears. When you compress data to the degree that Costella has done much of it simply disappears and instead the remnants are bled into each others spaces and data is created. On top of that he has altered the color maps. Again data is created and disappears.

A rough analogy is taking a newspaper photo and scrunchng it together to create folds and then ironing it flat while some creases remain so the photo is now smaller. Then a photo is taken of that and the creases smoothed or blended or averaged out to MAKE IT LOOK good.

It looks good. It's not good.

As Jack points out, the solution is making the originals available. Until that happens what is available must be properly understood to be what it is. And in Costella frames there is what, if the Z film is considered public property, (USA citizens of course) we have that defaced and falsely represented.

Thanks, John...your final paragraph is absolutely correct. I was not criticizing you personally,

just the inference that Costella deliberately has misrepresented the film. IT IS THE BEST

AVAILABLE THAT I KNOW OF, without the original film or the 4x5 copies. It certainly is superior

to the DVD he took it from, SINCE HE CORRECTED FOR THE SERIOUS ERROR IN ASPECT RATIO

on the DVD! Do you admit that correction of the aspect ratio of IOAA was proper? Do you disagree

that correction of the B&H lens pincushion distortion was proper? This was necessary to match

actual photos of the plaza.

Jack

The Z-film is so suspect to me that it has lost the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume it's bogus unless it's proven otherwise. So I'm not gonna analyze it to death. I'm just not gonna rely on it in any way. It's a red herring as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, my god, it was in the Time/Life/CIA vault for years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanet, there are numerous examples of rapid movements, much faster ones than the one in question here.

Jack, most probably Costella did correctly adjust the aspect ratio. Possibly part of the problem is the very fact that he is an accomplished mathematician and would apply a simple mathematical solution. Whether he took care to do this frame by frame or en masse is a different question as the frames individually likely have a slight rotational component that would affect the result.

Then: the distortion correction (which is stepped mathematically and not smooth like a lens really is, cannot take into account various irregularities on the lens in density and perfect polish, there is no such thing. I doubt he derived the formula for the 'correction' from a laser analysis of the lens. It's an approximation.

That formula is then applied in batch to the whole frame set.

This ignores the spliced frames where parts of images are joined together offset. In fact the 'correction' in toto makes it look as if there was no splice, unlike the frames it is derived from that shows it clearly. Who benefits from this?

The final distortion correction and colormapping washes out huge amounts of data in order to achieve what it ses out to achieve. This limits the frames use.

John...no use guessing...Costella has said what he did to correct for lens distortion. I went to

the plaza and from the pedestal with my camera on a tripod, perfectly level and with a

fine E.Leitz lens shot photos in ten degree increments, from which John made a panorama.

He fit his Zfilm panorama to my panorama by aligning the white wall in the background,

WHICH IS PERFECTLY STRAIGHT AND LEVEL. When the walls were in level alignment,

he was able to determine the amount of pincushion distortion for the frames, and applied

that correction to each frame; it worked perfectly...the two panoramas match exactly.

There is no mystery to the aspect ratio correction. The precise aperture opening of

the B&H camera is known. All he did was keep the height the same and reduce

the width to the proper measurement.

Neither of these corrections SUBTRACTED from the frames' accuracy, but rather made

them match reality.

Is your argument that DISTORTED FRAMES have better information than frames

which MATCH REALITY?

I must say I cannot comprehend your objection to making the frames accurate.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photons that travelled from object in DP to the film surface ALL (within the specs of the emulsion) created data. The lens determined where that data ended up.

This was then copied which changed the amount of data. Alteration.

This was then 'aspect ratio changed' (stretched or compressed or both I don't know) which creates and removes data. Alteration.

This was then 'aspect ratio corrected', it seems in this instance compressed horizontally (there is no mention of whether a careful levelling of frames was also done) this creates and removes data. Alteration.

This was then partially 'pincushoion corrected' according to a stepped algorithm (unlike the naturally smooth lens). This again 'scrunched up' or compressed data, particularly peripherally which is where for many important frames the Limo is. Alteration.

Then the final 'scrunching' to produce these Costella frames. Again an even more reduction in detail, removal of data and creation of data. Alteration.

On top of this there is the 'color correction' which washes out significant information. Alteration.

The MOST altered frames available are being touted as the best and used to proove alteration.????? duh, really? come on, please.

I agree that as far as placing gross items in a panorama it is a useful exercise.

This if nothing else highlights the importance that what is supposed to be the property of US citizens is seen to be so by putting it in the publics hands. Possibly one of the most significant service to the research community that could be made.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...