Thoughts on Zapruder film alteration: I lean towards the authenticity of the Zapruder film. I have worked with aerial optical printers, the equipment necessary for alteration, including with 8mm film, and in my opinion the claims of complete alteration - whereby people, signs, etc have been added and subtracted within the frame - are impossible. The 8mm frame is too small to do that work, and the generational loss would be too obvious. A simple rectangle matte within an 8mm frame is a challenge. However, alteration involving the removal of frames is possible - although it would result in a generational loss and, because of the size of the 8mm frame, generational loss would become visibly noticeable by the second pass.
...
Hold it there Jeff, all theories rendered in the past concerning Zapruder Film alteration possible use of mattes/glass artistry optical-aerial film printing of the "alleged 8mm in-camera Zapruder film, the 8mm film needs to be bumped to 35mm 'before' the optical-aerial film printing phase. Moe Weitzman did this very 8mm-35mm bump himself LIFE magazine wanted a 35mm blowup of the Z-film (Weitzman-where Groden got his Z-film dupes/material) . That's the way its been presented and discussed (by myself and Dr. John Costella) since the 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium at the Univ. of Minn. Any talk of optical film printing at the 8mm level is pure nonsense... As I have reminded andcorrected Roland Zavada. And the beat continues.
Here's a quick question for you Jeff, can you or anyone else reading this thread, can you prove that the alleged in-camera Zaprduer currently stored at the National Archives is in fact the Zapruder in-camera original (first generation) film? If so, the indicators, please. Glad you're here, and nice job on the Black Op series, btw....
--David Healy
Teed that one up nicely....
No David... that cannot be proven by anyone, anywhere, at any time. The one unique identifier - 0183 - is not there and there are simply too many splices.
If the SS copies came from the original 0183, then we would see 0183 in a certain place on the copied film... not so much.
In fact, the 0183 was supposed to appear after the 19 foot run-off... which I believe gives my 48fps theory some legs...
Zavada tells us that the only proof for 0183 is the statement Phil signed... whether 0183 was on the form when he signed it is anybody's guess.
Also, there is no processing labratory edge print while it doesw appear on the Side A footage - although the evidence for this is also the SS copies, not the "original" film.
Finally, Zavada concedes that the total length of film exceeds what would have been available - and removes himself from responsibility citing ARRB and NARA for the measurements....
Zavada study1b.pdf
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
I cannot vouch for authenticity of Zapruder film, but I do lean towards that view. Maybe I should say it as: I think what is represented within the frame is more "actual" to the real events than not. I am completely open to frame removal, and even some sort of mask over the back of Kennedy's head. But I cannot go with the more complete alteration concepts, even at 35mm or even at 65mm.
2001: A Space Odyssey was state of the art work in 1965/66 and those are really just sophisticated travelling mattes (with a black background). Serious alteration of the Zapruder film (moving people and objects around) is, in my opinion, not possible - based on working with an optical printer and meeting with and seeing work by people who were actual wizards with that equipment. Another point is - this is highly labor intensive work and requires a lot of trial and error but, as I understand it, the chain of possession needs to see this work done by the end of the weekend. So even if there was some super-wizard at the CIA's lab, I'm not sure there was enough time to do anything approaching that scale. And, if there was a super-wizard, I'm not sure what he was doing at that lab when he could have been poolside somewhere in Hollywood feted as the greatest special effects genius ever. But just my opinion.
However, I can see the limo slowing in the Zapruder film and I'm curious if anyone else can. To my eyes it is noticeable after moving past Hill and Moorman. And it really does seem like it almost completely stops, albeit very briefly, just as Greer's head is fully swung around. The sudden acceleration after that point is really pronounced in the Nix film. The force by which Kennedy is slammed back into the seat is also very pronounced in the Nix film.
David Josephs Wrote:the Assassination film in the Archive does NOT have 0183 on it. PERIOD. There is simply no way to connect the in camera original to the first day copies since the "original" in the Archives does not match the supposed first day copies...
(this again ihas to be THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE supporting alteration. Without 0183 on the extant original film... that it matches what we see on the COPIES is once again not evidence that what we see was what was developed IN TOTAL from that camera.)
So I imagine you've read Horne. He hammers on this point too.
Quote:2 theories:
1 - the IS area was added in - either when altered or at some later date,
2 - MY THEORY is that a section of the film, from about 133-385, was filmed at 48fps. That the splice after the 6'3" and 2'7" sections of the assassiantion footage is followed by 19 feet of BLACK film which is PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to the original film via a splice. Why splice after the assassination only to add back 19 feet of Black film other than to support the story that "the rest of the film was run off".... The math is pretty straight forward as well:
The slow-motion/excision explanation to me has always seemed capable of explaining a good deal of the oddities in the film. I know intuitive impressions are worth less than a dime a dozen, but when I watch the film it just seems like it was filmed in slow motion even when it is shown at 18fps. There have been a number of attempts to refute the idea that Zapruder was filming at 48fps. I am not qualified to judge. But I agree that if there was frame removal, this is the path of least resistance to not revealing the removals, since the disjunctions in the main frame, but especially in the interlocking IS images caused by the non-sequential adjacency would be much less noticeable. Adding back all the IS after the fact seems like a Herculean effort to me, non-initiate that I am.
Quote:Finally, I believe it was Muchmore who tells us she did not film the limo as she moved from her original position toward the GK.. so who knows whether that sequence is from her or not....
Aren't there chain of possession issues on all the films from Dealey that day?
Thanks, David, for your usual trenchant and detailed analysis.
Jeff Carter Wrote:2001: A Space Odyssey was state of the art work in 1965/66 and those are really just sophisticated travelling mattes (with a black background). Serious alteration of the Zapruder film (moving people and objects around) is, in my opinion, not possible - based on working with an optical printer and meeting with and seeing work by people who were actual wizards with that equipment. Another point is - this is highly labor intensive work and requires a lot of trial and error but, as I understand it, the chain of possession needs to see this work done by the end of the weekend. So even if there was some super-wizard at the CIA's lab, I'm not sure there was enough time to do anything approaching that scale. And, if there was a super-wizard, I'm not sure what he was doing at that lab when he could have been poolside somewhere in Hollywood feted as the greatest special effects genius ever. But just my opinion.
Not that I agree with his theory, but I'm sure you are aware of John Costella's work? He sees the film undergoing revision over a longer period than just that weekend. Again, I don't necessarily propose he is correct, but if you haven't read it, perhaps you should take a look (it's in Fetzer's Great Zapruder Film Hoax).
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:All I asked was about this Muchmore stuff with the brake lights.
What does anyone thinks this proves? If anything?
Sorry, Jim, I may be (partly) responsible for pulling the thread out of whack.
I personally am not sure what it proves. What are we looking for? Confirmation that he had his foot on the brake? Anything about the speed of the car, or Greer's state of mind, seems somewhat beyond the pale of our ability to deduce simply from the brake lights going on for several frames.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:All I asked was about this Muchmore stuff with the brake lights.
What does anyone thinks this proves? If anything?
Sorry for the hijack Jim.... but, uh... doesn't it just mean that Greer tapped the brakes at that moment?
... or the light is hitting it in a strange way to make it appear as if the brake light light is on
is this the image you are referring to Jim? With that taillight in the "shade" I am not sure how we can tell this from when the light is not on (if indeed it is)
As we look at the Zfilm... I find it interesting that the tail lights of the limo are lined up with the sprocket holes in each frame... if the limo stopped, those lights would have to remain lite for some time...
z333/334 shows the light... and again at 343. At 333 Hill is chasing the limo - any argument that the brakes were hit to allow him to catch up is rendered moot by the fact the brake lights are not on at 333...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5127[/ATTACH]
Albert... this is the FBI report regarding Muchmore.... according to it, she tucked the camera away and never took assassination footage.... any ideas who else might have gotten that angle on film??
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5129[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
I am at a loss for how anyone can maintain the POV that the Zfilm in the archives is in any way the original film that was shot... just as most of us here are when confronted with arguments FOR the WCR conclusions.
That the discussions we have related to timing and the zfilm are severely flawed based on not knowing the extent of the alterations
That the only thing we can know for sure is the one person who worked with the original, Dino, can tell us the briefing boards available are not what he created Saturday night...
He cannot tell us definitively what the differences are... understandable after all these years... anyone with an inkling of the extent of the conspiracy would smartly shut up and go away.
Zavada himself could not state in any of his analysis that the "in-camera original" he examined is without a doubt the film developed into 0183 on 11/22.
The only arguments you'll ever hear are based on the process, the timing, the "why's" and "what-if's" but not the content or the physical realities of what is seen.
As in the reason for this forum... once we agree to get past the argument over zfilm authenticity we can concentrate on WHEN and HOW.
given the images published by LIFE, a series of FRAMES, at the very least, were altered and prepared for publication prior to them being identified, chosen and inserted.
February 25, 1964 Life showed the original film several times to Warren Commission, FBI and Secret Service personnel, and then offered to make 35mm color slides of frames 171-334, which covered what was thought to be all of the assassination.
I suggest a very careful look into the reasoning behind identifying this range of frames... Hickey looking at a shot hitting the street pre z176 is gone, and the FBI's model showing a shot at z375 is not to be included.
A discussion of 132/133 is removed as is the discussion about the wide turn onto Elm.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5130[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5131[/ATTACH]
So what appears AFTER 334? A view of the exiting headwound in the right rear z359 - this is a poor frame yet what I have and you can still see the skull in the right rear, under a flap of scalp and hair.
Finally, let's also remember that the copies of the film, by Saturday morning, had been cut and spliced to only show a section of the assassination.
What was actually shown - literally the frames and scens projected - does not seem to be proveable.... but since the original might not be shown repeatedly for fear of "damage"
we really have no way of knowing if 171-334 was looped in 0186 and shown, or a rearranged 0187 or 0185 was shown with chunks taken out... if one looks at the film maps created... seems most anything is possible at the pont prior to splicing pieces and parts together.
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5132[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
