New problem with Zapruder

[Jack White]

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.

Your last paragraph is absolutely accurate. The rest must be considered pathetic drivel

BECAUSE YOU OFFER NO ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF THE FILM WHICH YOU CONSIDER

BETTER THAN THE COSTELLA VERSION. YOU OFFER LOTS OF SPECULATION BUT NO

PROOF OF ANY OF YOUR ASSERTIONS OF ALTERATION. To claim alteration, you must

show us what you think is the "correct" version of each frame and show "how Costella

altered it to the detriment of our understanding",

Jack

[John Dolva]

Sure, no worries. Take 207 for example. The splice is clearly visible in the frames preceding Costellas alterations. Even in the grayscale WC published frames.

The Costella alteration lower left shows the splice as a washed out blur (look at grass for example)

[Jack White]

Sure, no worries. Take 207 for example. The splice is clearly visible in the frames preceding Costellas alterations. Even in the grayscale WC published frames.

The Costella alteration lower left shows the splice as a washed out blur (look at grass for example)

Your example is incomprehensible. I do not recognize any Costella frames, which are characterized

by either a black background or blue backgound. And certainly NONE OF THE COSTELLA FRAMES

ARE WASHED OUT.

Are you sure you are looking at Costella frames?

Jack

[John Dolva]

Absolutely sure, Jack. The lower left image is from Costellas first generation alteration. The background is obviously cropped out. Anyone can check the washed out aspect for themselves using their own copies. There's no need to take my word for it. A cursory examination of his altered farmes could lead one to miss the fact that there is a splice there. This splice is most important. IMO it can relate to the first shot. It also DOES point to alteration. Why remove it?

One can also compare similarly the headshot frames and see a large amount of blood mist and other detail lost in the saturation alterations and from the compression/stretching/interpolation data alteration as a result of the 'distortion correction'.

Edited January 31, 2007 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Absolutely sure, Jack. The lower left image is from Costellas first generation alteration. The background is obviously cropped out. Anyone can check the washed out aspect for themselves using their own copies. There's no need to take my word for it. A cursory examination of his altered farmes could lead one to miss the fact that there is a splice there. This splice is most important. IMO it can relate to the first shot. It also DOES point to alteration. Why remove it?

One can also compare similarly the headshot frames and see a large amount of blood mist and other detail lost in the saturation alterations and from the compression/stretching/interpolation data alteration as a result of the 'distortion correction'.

IMO it can relate to the first shot. It also DOES point to alteration. Why remove it?

Not unlike many items, it would be most unlikely that you would believe it, were someone actually to answer that question.

Especially since it has absolutely ZERO to do with multiple assassins!

[John Dolva]

Maybe, maybe not, Tom. I call it as I see it. And that seeing is shaped by both knowledge and ignorance on my part. By pointing out what I see I always hope that those who know better can help me to become less ignorant. So try me, please. I have no idea whether there were one or more assassins shooting on that day and you're right, I don't accept things just because someone say them.

Slowly over time that may change to a knowing (not belief based). I do find that certain important things are not answered that I think should be answered, such as fragment directions and wound anomalies. Hence that uncertainty colors other aspects. I do think your very thorough and detailed analysis (as far as I understand it, and ignoring some peripheral objections) is the right way to go to find the answers. That I don't accept all of it doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I see things as being wrong, or with alternative explanations that (IMO) need hashing through. And, just because I see something as being wrong doesn't make it wrong. It may be a sign of ignorance on my part.

edit:: BTW, I think the splice is there because the original was stressed by a back and forth over the sprockets in that location of the film weakening it and breaking it and to repair it frames were partially destroyed. Why back and forth there:: because that is where the original viewrers clearly saw the first shot and repeatedly forwarded and backwarded at different speeds to study it... This is now lost to us.

Why Costella should see fit to 'wash this out' I don't understand.

Edited January 31, 2007 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

Absolutely sure, Jack. The lower left image is from Costellas first generation alteration. The background is obviously cropped out. Anyone can check the washed out aspect for themselves using their own copies. There's no need to take my word for it. A cursory examination of his altered farmes could lead one to miss the fact that there is a splice there. This splice is most important. IMO it can relate to the first shot. It also DOES point to alteration. Why remove it?

One can also compare similarly the headshot frames and see a large amount of blood mist and other detail lost in the saturation alterations and from the compression/stretching/interpolation data alteration as a result of the 'distortion correction'.

That CANNOT be a Costella frame. His are far from being WASHED OUT. They are COLOR SATURATED

TO MATCH WHAT IS EXPECTED OF KODACHROME EXPOSURES.

You must have inferior copies. Mine look terrific...nothing like what you posted.

Jack

[Jack White]

Absolutely sure, Jack. The lower left image is from Costellas first generation alteration. The background is obviously cropped out. Anyone can check the washed out aspect for themselves using their own copies. There's no need to take my word for it. A cursory examination of his altered farmes could lead one to miss the fact that there is a splice there. This splice is most important. IMO it can relate to the first shot. It also DOES point to alteration. Why remove it?

One can also compare similarly the headshot frames and see a large amount of blood mist and other detail lost in the saturation alterations and from the compression/stretching/interpolation data alteration as a result of the 'distortion correction'.

That CANNOT be a Costella frame. His are far from being WASHED OUT. They are COLOR SATURATED

TO MATCH WHAT IS EXPECTED OF KODACHROME EXPOSURES.

You must have inferior copies. Mine look terrific...nothing like what you posted.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

That CANNOT be a Costella frame. His are far from being WASHED OUT. They are COLOR SATURATED

TO MATCH WHAT IS EXPECTED OF KODACHROME EXPOSURES.

You must have inferior copies. Mine look terrific...nothing like what you posted.

Jack

John is correct about it being Costella's frame.

Besides, Jack ... I thought you were the one who gets more information out of an image by degrading it all to hell. Below is one of your - let's say - er - uh ... enhancements. By eating the heads off the SS Agents ... you were able to see a tripod in the shelter doorway.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Absolutely sure, Jack. The lower left image is from Costellas first generation alteration. The background is obviously cropped out. Anyone can check the washed out aspect for themselves using their own copies. There's no need to take my word for it. A cursory examination of his altered farmes could lead one to miss the fact that there is a splice there. This splice is most important. IMO it can relate to the first shot. It also DOES point to alteration. Why remove it?

One can also compare similarly the headshot frames and see a large amount of blood mist and other detail lost in the saturation alterations and from the compression/stretching/interpolation data alteration as a result of the 'distortion correction'.

John, you took a guess at how the splice originally came about in a follow-up post, so I'll take a semi-guess at why Costella removed it;

to try & show us what the film originally looked like before it was damaged, that's all.

As for your other example regarding the missing "large amount of blood mist and other detail" can you show us exactly what you mean with example frames please?

Alan