20-08-2013, 10:18 PM
David Healy Wrote:Jeff Carter Wrote:...
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
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter