28-08-2013, 10:05 PM
RED=Jeff
While the film was atKodak, Zapruder popped over to the WFAA studios and appeared on television. (wrong simple timeline,basic knowledge easily researched.)
David, if Zapruderswitched his camera to 48fps before picking up the motorcade again at Z133,then the frame rate would have had to stay at 48fps right through to the finalframe. (wrong - again easily researched)[/FONT]
If Zapruder tried to switch from 48fps to16fps mid-shot (i.e. film passing through the gate) then one or more of at least three things wouldhappen -
1) most likely, the pins moving the sprocketholes past the gate would shudder due to the sudden change in speed, the filmloop leading to the gate would be lost, and the film would either jam or snap,or it would lose its registration point in the gate
2) if by lucky chance the film did continue to move, there would be obviousexposure issues for a fair number of frames as the camera's iris adjusted
3) even before the above occurred, the mere act of engaging the switch wouldcreate a visible disruption to the panning camera movement as it followed thelimo.
(wrong none of these things would or didhappen, a simple search or reading the manual page I posted answers theseconcerns directly. They were ignored)
NEXT POST
my reservations about Z-film alteration arebased on technical issues related to optical printing. I also tentatively think that answers to someZ-film anomalies lies in the mechanics of Zapruder's spring-wound camera. (wrong with nothing offered tosubstantiate this claim, and when presented with rebuttal questions they wereignored) Related to that, I believe that the notionof expecting the Z-film to serve as any kind of accurate "clock" toevents is misplaced faith, alteration or no alteration. (wrong we'vealready shown how the spring-wound camera would have little ot no effect in thefirst 30 seconds of filming since the rate is FASTER, meaning more frames onwhich to catch the same action in the same amount of time… his argument is counter intuitive to howphysics & the test results work it too was ignored )
Might the CIA'sreluctance to admit interest in the Z-film have anything to do with the reportthe NPIC presented on Nov 25 which stated there were at least two shooters?
(wrong there is nosuch report… what there WAS:
On December 9, 1963, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., advisor to President Kennedy, met withRFK and asked him what he thought about his brother's assassination. AsSchlesinger wrote in his diary, published in 2007:
"I asked him, perhaps tactlessly aboutOswald. He said there could be no serious doubt that he was guilty, but therestill was argument whether he did it by himself or as a part of a larger plot,whether organized by Castro or by gangsters. He said the FBI people thought hehad done it by himself, but that McCone thought there weretwo people involved in the shooting." [Emphasis added](Journals 1952-2000, p. 184).
Stating the NPIC created a two-shooterreport on the 25[SUP]th[/SUP] is so very easy to check… Google "NPIC Horne" andyou can read about the NPIC events first hand…
Better yet, link to the report….)
NEXT POST
Here's where I am coming from:
Months ago as a 50 Reasons episode featuring Robert Groden was being assembled,I pointed out to Len that Groden stated directly that the Z-film was authenticand claims of alteration were wrong, and that by featuring that statement we weremaking an editorial statement. Len was more equivocal, feeling that this wassimply Groden's opinion that was being offered. But I thought that, in theabsence of dealing with alteration arguments later in the series, there wassomething of a party line being effected here and I wanted to feel comfortablein my own mind that I could stand by what Groden said - and I mostly do.
I realize that I've kindof jumped into this forum with some broad claims which go against along-running current - but my observations are based on many years involved infilm-making, which I can detail as this goes on (if it goes on). (and here we are an offer to support thepost with qualifications of the poster…) I'm going to makeone point in this reply, then I'll follow with another reply with point 2.
16fps - 48fps I don'tknow of any film camera which can make a sudden radical switch in frame speedwithout the high probability of film jam or snapping. The only method is ramping the speed more gradually. If the Z-camera claimsthat it can switch frame rates during filming, then it has a ramping feature builtinto the mechanics of the spring wind. Bottom line: you cannot switch frame rates instantly mid-shot. (wrong tested and retested, the camera switches to and from 48fps withease. IS this point 1 of his "detail"from years involved in film-making?)
The effect of ramping thespeed would create visible artifacts. The iris must adjust, as at a higherframe rate each individual frame is exposed in the gate for a briefer fractionof a second, and so more light must be let in. If the camera switched speedsmid-shot, the iris change would be visible over a number of frames, eitherunder or overexposed. (wrong, again. All one need do isread the manual, or offer real life experience of a developed film switchingfrom 16fps to 48fps and back again… exibiting the artifacts and problemsoffered. None of that was done)
Zapruder appears to be steadying his camera with both hands. The act of movingone hand to the speed switch and engaging it would create a visible disruptionin the camera's panning movement.
So my issue here is a practical / mechanical one. Let's see if any camerapeople out there can back me up. (wrong anyone come in to back him up?)
It is not an accurateclock and so any counting of frames expecting to correspond to seconds ortenths of seconds of real time - not possible. Fascinating to see that theSecret Service was told this right away, and yet they just blundered on.Following orders. (when asked to illustrate this phenomenon,to consider that if there were fluctuations in the speed we would see SLOWMOTION frames as often as we see FAST MOTION frames. We don't. What does a .4 change in the fps (18.3 to 17.9) do to the "timing" ofany 100 frame sequences? 5.4645 secondsof film at 18.3, 5.5866 seconds at 17.9 over the ENTIRE 100 frames. Yet we are not talking about a fluctuationover 100 frames we have not been told what the fluctuations might be… if the ENTIRE 100 frames was instead shot at17.9 we have a different of 6/1,000[SUP]th[/SUP] of a second per frame to18.3fps.
CLAIMS continue to be made without addressingany of the previous inaccuracies… or the repeated attempts to steer him to thesource materials that address his inaccuracies - why?)
[FONT=Times New Roman]The anomalies I believecan then be understood as resulting with the camera are the quickframe-to-frame movements, such as Greer's head turn. (wrong as illustrated and neveraddressed nor any attempt to ever explain.)
NEW POST
In the space betweenthese two shots, he may well have switched the frame rate, and so Z133 couldhave started a sequence at 48fps. (but, I would argue that this rate would thenhave had to remain constant through to last frame at Z486). (wrong AGAIN and stillrefusing even to LOOK at the sources for the correct info??)
and also any resultingdisruption I believe would reveal itself, even after removal of frames, becausethe disruption would occur over multiple successive frames (particularly at48fps) and their removal would have produced a visible jump as Zapruder pannedfollowing the limo. That is, the extant film could have been created by a"dropping 2 frames keeping 1, dropping 2 frames keeping 1" formula -but there is no allowable place to remove a run of successive frames withoutthat calling attention to itself. Having done step-printing, I foundthat even a single frame too little or too much can disrupt a rhythm
(the first RIGHT thing offered and this byaccident as he is trying to support his argument by proving the opposite. There ARE JUMPS, the frames DO CALL ATTENTIONTO THEMSELVES. The concept that usingevery 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] frame in a 48fps film CREATES THE SAME FILM as a 16fpsfilm when projected at 16fps continues to elude and there appears to be noeffort whatsoever to examine his errors or correct them, let alone acknowledgethem.
No indeed Jan… researchers do NOT needabuse from the community. But they AREexpected to play by some set of accepted rules…
Rules such as:
Support your argument with data/evidence/something that can be "tested"
If claims of expertise are made back them up with credential, work examples,something
If you are shown to be making misleading or inaccurate statements, defend themwith something or re-evaluate your statements
Jeff came on presenting himself as a filmexpert and behaves according to a few of the COINTELPRO rules…
Asking, "from where are you coming buddy?"is not only appropriate but necessary.
While the film was atKodak, Zapruder popped over to the WFAA studios and appeared on television. (wrong simple timeline,basic knowledge easily researched.)
David, if Zapruderswitched his camera to 48fps before picking up the motorcade again at Z133,then the frame rate would have had to stay at 48fps right through to the finalframe. (wrong - again easily researched)[/FONT]
If Zapruder tried to switch from 48fps to16fps mid-shot (i.e. film passing through the gate) then one or more of at least three things wouldhappen -
1) most likely, the pins moving the sprocketholes past the gate would shudder due to the sudden change in speed, the filmloop leading to the gate would be lost, and the film would either jam or snap,or it would lose its registration point in the gate
2) if by lucky chance the film did continue to move, there would be obviousexposure issues for a fair number of frames as the camera's iris adjusted
3) even before the above occurred, the mere act of engaging the switch wouldcreate a visible disruption to the panning camera movement as it followed thelimo.
(wrong none of these things would or didhappen, a simple search or reading the manual page I posted answers theseconcerns directly. They were ignored)
NEXT POST
my reservations about Z-film alteration arebased on technical issues related to optical printing. I also tentatively think that answers to someZ-film anomalies lies in the mechanics of Zapruder's spring-wound camera. (wrong with nothing offered tosubstantiate this claim, and when presented with rebuttal questions they wereignored) Related to that, I believe that the notionof expecting the Z-film to serve as any kind of accurate "clock" toevents is misplaced faith, alteration or no alteration. (wrong we'vealready shown how the spring-wound camera would have little ot no effect in thefirst 30 seconds of filming since the rate is FASTER, meaning more frames onwhich to catch the same action in the same amount of time… his argument is counter intuitive to howphysics & the test results work it too was ignored )
Might the CIA'sreluctance to admit interest in the Z-film have anything to do with the reportthe NPIC presented on Nov 25 which stated there were at least two shooters?
(wrong there is nosuch report… what there WAS:
On December 9, 1963, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., advisor to President Kennedy, met withRFK and asked him what he thought about his brother's assassination. AsSchlesinger wrote in his diary, published in 2007:
"I asked him, perhaps tactlessly aboutOswald. He said there could be no serious doubt that he was guilty, but therestill was argument whether he did it by himself or as a part of a larger plot,whether organized by Castro or by gangsters. He said the FBI people thought hehad done it by himself, but that McCone thought there weretwo people involved in the shooting." [Emphasis added](Journals 1952-2000, p. 184).
Stating the NPIC created a two-shooterreport on the 25[SUP]th[/SUP] is so very easy to check… Google "NPIC Horne" andyou can read about the NPIC events first hand…
Better yet, link to the report….)
NEXT POST
Here's where I am coming from:
Months ago as a 50 Reasons episode featuring Robert Groden was being assembled,I pointed out to Len that Groden stated directly that the Z-film was authenticand claims of alteration were wrong, and that by featuring that statement we weremaking an editorial statement. Len was more equivocal, feeling that this wassimply Groden's opinion that was being offered. But I thought that, in theabsence of dealing with alteration arguments later in the series, there wassomething of a party line being effected here and I wanted to feel comfortablein my own mind that I could stand by what Groden said - and I mostly do.
I realize that I've kindof jumped into this forum with some broad claims which go against along-running current - but my observations are based on many years involved infilm-making, which I can detail as this goes on (if it goes on). (and here we are an offer to support thepost with qualifications of the poster…) I'm going to makeone point in this reply, then I'll follow with another reply with point 2.
16fps - 48fps I don'tknow of any film camera which can make a sudden radical switch in frame speedwithout the high probability of film jam or snapping. The only method is ramping the speed more gradually. If the Z-camera claimsthat it can switch frame rates during filming, then it has a ramping feature builtinto the mechanics of the spring wind. Bottom line: you cannot switch frame rates instantly mid-shot. (wrong tested and retested, the camera switches to and from 48fps withease. IS this point 1 of his "detail"from years involved in film-making?)
The effect of ramping thespeed would create visible artifacts. The iris must adjust, as at a higherframe rate each individual frame is exposed in the gate for a briefer fractionof a second, and so more light must be let in. If the camera switched speedsmid-shot, the iris change would be visible over a number of frames, eitherunder or overexposed. (wrong, again. All one need do isread the manual, or offer real life experience of a developed film switchingfrom 16fps to 48fps and back again… exibiting the artifacts and problemsoffered. None of that was done)
Zapruder appears to be steadying his camera with both hands. The act of movingone hand to the speed switch and engaging it would create a visible disruptionin the camera's panning movement.
So my issue here is a practical / mechanical one. Let's see if any camerapeople out there can back me up. (wrong anyone come in to back him up?)
It is not an accurateclock and so any counting of frames expecting to correspond to seconds ortenths of seconds of real time - not possible. Fascinating to see that theSecret Service was told this right away, and yet they just blundered on.Following orders. (when asked to illustrate this phenomenon,to consider that if there were fluctuations in the speed we would see SLOWMOTION frames as often as we see FAST MOTION frames. We don't. What does a .4 change in the fps (18.3 to 17.9) do to the "timing" ofany 100 frame sequences? 5.4645 secondsof film at 18.3, 5.5866 seconds at 17.9 over the ENTIRE 100 frames. Yet we are not talking about a fluctuationover 100 frames we have not been told what the fluctuations might be… if the ENTIRE 100 frames was instead shot at17.9 we have a different of 6/1,000[SUP]th[/SUP] of a second per frame to18.3fps.
CLAIMS continue to be made without addressingany of the previous inaccuracies… or the repeated attempts to steer him to thesource materials that address his inaccuracies - why?)
[FONT=Times New Roman]The anomalies I believecan then be understood as resulting with the camera are the quickframe-to-frame movements, such as Greer's head turn. (wrong as illustrated and neveraddressed nor any attempt to ever explain.)
NEW POST
In the space betweenthese two shots, he may well have switched the frame rate, and so Z133 couldhave started a sequence at 48fps. (but, I would argue that this rate would thenhave had to remain constant through to last frame at Z486). (wrong AGAIN and stillrefusing even to LOOK at the sources for the correct info??)
and also any resultingdisruption I believe would reveal itself, even after removal of frames, becausethe disruption would occur over multiple successive frames (particularly at48fps) and their removal would have produced a visible jump as Zapruder pannedfollowing the limo. That is, the extant film could have been created by a"dropping 2 frames keeping 1, dropping 2 frames keeping 1" formula -but there is no allowable place to remove a run of successive frames withoutthat calling attention to itself. Having done step-printing, I foundthat even a single frame too little or too much can disrupt a rhythm
(the first RIGHT thing offered and this byaccident as he is trying to support his argument by proving the opposite. There ARE JUMPS, the frames DO CALL ATTENTIONTO THEMSELVES. The concept that usingevery 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] frame in a 48fps film CREATES THE SAME FILM as a 16fpsfilm when projected at 16fps continues to elude and there appears to be noeffort whatsoever to examine his errors or correct them, let alone acknowledgethem.
No indeed Jan… researchers do NOT needabuse from the community. But they AREexpected to play by some set of accepted rules…
Rules such as:
Support your argument with data/evidence/something that can be "tested"
If claims of expertise are made back them up with credential, work examples,something
If you are shown to be making misleading or inaccurate statements, defend themwith something or re-evaluate your statements
Jeff came on presenting himself as a filmexpert and behaves according to a few of the COINTELPRO rules…
Asking, "from where are you coming buddy?"is not only appropriate but necessary.
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