Are there statements from Kodak employees who saw the Zfilm friday?

[Albert Rossi]

David, from the thread we hijacked.

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...

I just wanted to clarify here that what I meant was actually the opposite of what I stated: that the film looked to me as if it were a time-lapse film (not a slow-motion film); it is an odd discontinuity-in-continuity (aside from the impossible head turns, etc.) that I seem to be reacting to. And it is that subjective impression that has led me to entertain frame removal as a possibility; which in turn is easiest to do if the film were filmed in slow motion.

I know this doesn't add anything of substance to the discussion, but I did want to offer a necessary self-correction.

The chain of possession discussion in Horne is fairly detailed. One may not entirely agree with his conclusions, but it is worth reading.

[David Josephs]

David, from the thread we hijacked.

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...

I just wanted to clarify here that what I meant was actually the opposite of what I stated: that the film looked to me as if it were a time-lapse film (not a slow-motion film); it is an odd discontinuity-in-continuity (aside from the impossible head turns, etc.) that I seem to be reacting to. And it is that subjective impression that has led me to entertain frame removal as a possibility; which in turn is easiest to do if the film were filmed in slow motion.

I know this doesn't add anything of substance to the discussion, but I did want to offer a necessary self-correction.

The chain of possession discussion in Horne is fairly detailed. One may not entirely agree with his conclusions, but it is worth reading.

Albert -

As far as I can tell each and every of your comments adds to the discussion - so no worries.

I have and read Horne's volume IV on Bethesda and the Zfilm... will revisit it again to refresh the memory....
unless you can post something now that occurs between 12:30 friday and 9am Saturday that caught your interest...

====

Building on what Magda posted...

and as LIFE stated not long after, the film was "unimpeachable evidence of the assassination".... like the autopsy report(s) and would be the standard by which all other theories would be held...
nevermind that the film itself contradicts the conclusions attributed to it.

To the WORLD, it was and will always remain - WHAT HAPPENED. And yet I come to find an entire generation has passed us by (1991 JFK) with little or no understanding of that film and its implications.

Where's the Hollywood Seven when we need them already?
I understood our community has "unimpeachable evidence of the alteration" via this group and their work....

From an operational standpoint a question worth asking is "Why bother with a Zfilm at all?" other than to insure that ONLY one single film will ever represent the entire assassination.

does the notion of, "We will need evidence that will convince everyone of what we say happened really happened" and Zap helped to accomplish this ???

Thinking out loud again....
DJ

[David Josephs]

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post75151


When a detailed reply is posted LAST on a page and then a new page starts, it FEELS as if it gets missed...
Here's a link to my reply to Jeff which sets the record a biut more straight.
DJ

[Jeff Carter]

David - my feelings about the camera and the ability to change speeds:

If Zapruder tried to switch from 48fps to 16fps mid-shot (i.e. film passing through the gate) then one or more of at least three things would happen -

1) most likely, the pins moving the sprocket holes past the gate would shudder due to the sudden change in speed, the film loop 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 obvious exposure 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 would create a visible disruption to the panning camera movement as it followed the limo.

my reservations about Z-film alteration are based on technical issues related to optical printing. I also tentatively think that answers to some Z-film anomalies lies in the mechanics of Zapruder's spring-wound camera. Related to that, I believe that the notion of expecting the Z-film to serve as any kind of accurate "clock" to events is misplaced faith, alteration or no alteration.

Might the CIA's reluctance to admit interest in the Z-film have anything to do with the report the NPIC presented on Nov 25 which stated there were at least two shooters?

[David Josephs]

David - my feelings about the camera and the ability to change speeds:

If Zapruder tried to switch from 48fps to 16fps mid-shot (i.e. film passing through the gate) then one or more of at least three things would happen -

1) most likely, the pins moving the sprocket holes past the gate would shudder due to the sudden change in speed, the film loop 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 obvious exposure 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 would create a visible disruption to the panning camera movement as it followed the limo.

my reservations about Z-film alteration are based on technical issues related to optical printing. I also tentatively think that answers to some Z-film anomalies lies in the mechanics of Zapruder's spring-wound camera. Related to that, I believe that the notion of expecting the Z-film to serve as any kind of accurate "clock" to events is misplaced faith, alteration or no alteration.

Might the CIA's reluctance to admit interest in the Z-film have anything to do with the report the NPIC presented on Nov 25 which stated there were at least two shooters?

So in essence Jeff you are saying the instructions from Kodak for their camera are wrong. Based on what, please do tell. You did see the instructions about the functions of the camera related to the speed change, right?

"You can switch from normal speed to slow motion and back again, without ever taking your finger off the Starting Button"

Have you actually used this camera and swtiched it back and forth to come to your conclusions... of are you just guessing? What WOULD or MIGHT have happened is not what DID happen.

Your reservations appear to be self perpetuating... that the Zfilm is a "clock" of the event is the entire purpose of this thread... only the SS/FBI/CIA/LIFE/WCR offered that conclusion... and for good reason.
In 1963 the "civilian" thought that a film or photo could be changed for evil purposes was not even in their universe.... If the Gov't said this film IS the event... who was to argue?

When all these groups get together to agree that a single peice of evidence is THE defining piece of EVIDENCE - like the Autopsy report - and we come to find there are MANY problems with authenticating that piece of evidence...

you might just want to look at the EVIDENCE itself, rather than guessing what might have been.

For example... how does a spring wound mechanism designed to run at 16fps at FULL WOUND SPEED average a HIGHER frame rate.... Even the boys at NPIC were stumped by that.



Jeff - if you'd like to present EVIDENCE that backs your theories, I'm all ears.

Yet all I've seen so far is :

"most likely the pin would shudder",
"there would be obvious exposure issues",
"would create a visible disruption"

Do you have ANY PROOF AT ALL imperical or implied that these thing would happen

"some anomalies... spring wound camera" - which anomalies are you referring to Jeff?

Would you please be specific in your discussion...
if you are saying the Zfilm is authentic... saying so and support it with something would be appreciated.

If you're just throwing thoughts against a wall which neither add to or refute what has been presented in this thread...
I'm afraid I simply have no common ground to discuss this topic with you.

Nothing you have posted so far has been accurate... in fact it has been completely the opposite.

What is your play here Jeff?

[Jeff Carter]

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 authentic and claims of alteration were wrong, and that by featuring that statement we were making an editorial statement. Len was more equivocal, feeling that this was simply Groden's opinion that was being offered. But I thought that, in the absence of dealing with alteration arguments later in the series, there was something of a party line being effected here and I wanted to feel comfortable in my own mind that I could stand by what Groden said - and I mostly do.

I realize that I've kind of jumped into this forum with some broad claims which go against a long-running current - but my observations are based on many years involved in film-making, which I can detail as this goes on (if it goes on). I'm going to make one point in this reply, then I'll follow with another reply with point 2.

16fps - 48fps I don't know of any film camera which can make a sudden radical switch in frame speed without the high probability of film jam or snapping. The only method is ramping the speed more gradually. If the Z-camera claims that it can switch frame rates during filming, then it has a ramping feature built into the mechanics of the spring wind. Bottom line: you cannot switch frame rates instantly mid-shot.

The effect of ramping the speed would create visible artifacts. The iris must adjust, as at a higher frame rate each individual frame is exposed in the gate for a briefer fraction of a second, and so more light must be let in. If the camera switched speeds mid-shot, the iris change would be visible over a number of frames, either under or overexposed.

Zapruder appears to be steadying his camera with both hands. The act of moving one hand to the speed switch and engaging it would create a visible disruption in the camera's panning movement.

So my issue here is a practical / mechanical one. Let's see if any camera people out there can back me up.

[Jim Hackett II]

First I want to state I do accept the statements public and private of people that I know or don't, that another film of a vastly different version of events exists.

That said, please continue to educate me.
Kudos to all contributors.
Teach me.

[David Josephs]

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 authentic and claims of alteration were wrong, and that by featuring that statement we were making an editorial statement. Len was more equivocal, feeling that this was simply Groden's opinion that was being offered. But I thought that, in the absence of dealing with alteration arguments later in the series, there was something of a party line being effected here and I wanted to feel comfortable in my own mind that I could stand by what Groden said - and I mostly do.

I realize that I've kind of jumped into this forum with some broad claims which go against a long-running current - but my observations are based on many years involved in film-making, which I can detail as this goes on (if it goes on). I'm going to make one point in this reply, then I'll follow with another reply with point 2.

16fps - 48fps I don't know of any film camera which can make a sudden radical switch in frame speed without the high probability of film jam or snapping. The only method is ramping the speed more gradually. If the Z-camera claims that it can switch frame rates during filming, then it has a ramping feature built into the mechanics of the spring wind. Bottom line: you cannot switch frame rates instantly mid-shot.

The effect of ramping the speed would create visible artifacts. The iris must adjust, as at a higher frame rate each individual frame is exposed in the gate for a briefer fraction of a second, and so more light must be let in. If the camera switched speeds mid-shot, the iris change would be visible over a number of frames, either under or overexposed.

Zapruder appears to be steadying his camera with both hands. The act of moving one hand to the speed switch and engaging it would create a visible disruption in the camera's panning movement.

So my issue here is a practical / mechanical one. Let's see if any camera people out there can back me up.

Fair enough Jeff and thank you for your answer...

There is an obvious break at 133, there are frames missing from 313 thru 400...

Based on your film knowledge, if these "transitions" were removed along with the rest... how would you know?

My THEORY here is that at least 928 frames at 48fps (19.3 seconds of film) were reduced to 354 frames (486-132) at 18.3 (19.3 seconds of film) by removing 574 frames of 48fps film. Please prove this is not possible...

WHEN this is done is another issue that I think I am addressing hour by hour...

Your experience and knowledge would be helpful if you would simply bring something concrete.
Groden never saw the original... few if any have seen the original film after Dino and NPIC finished Sunday morning.

DJ

[Jeff Carter]

I spent some time last night reviewing discussions of the actual Z-camera. Zavada did not have much to say in his report other than reiterating claims by the manufacturer. But I did find the following confirmation of my opinions, tucked in a series of quotes Bill Kelly presented taken from Doug Horne's ARRB volumes:

"…(Brugioni) also said that the Secret Service was vitally interested in timing how many seconds occurred between various frames, and that Ralph Pearse informed them, to their surprise and dismay, that this would be a useless procedure because the Bell and Howell movie camera (that they told him had taken the movie) was a spring-wound camera, with a constantly varying operating speed, and that while he could certainly time the number of seconds between various frames if they so desired, that in his view it was an unscientific and useless procedure which would provide bad data, and lead to false conclusions, or words to that effect. Nevertheless, at the request of the two Secret Service agents, Ralph Pearse dutifully used a stopwatch to time the number of seconds between various frames of interest to their Secret Service customers. Dino Brugioni said that he placed a strong caveat about the limited, or suspect, usefulness of this timing data in the briefing notes he prepared for Art Lundahl. " P 1233

My story: Some time ago, friend had shot footage using a spring-wound 16mm camera, which ran slow, featuring several interviews which were audio recorded on DAT. It had been impossible to sync the footage in film form.Later, with a digital editing system, I found the opportunity to try and sync the footage. While expecting that I could deduce a simple formula by which to alter the speed of each shot, what I discovered was that the footage was constantly variable - a little faster, a little slower - throughout each individual run. This was, I realized, an effect of the spring wound mechanism of the camera.


So I'll stand beside Ralph Pearse with the observation that, because of the properties of the spring-wind mechanism of the camera, the Zapruder film is simply not reliable for any timing deductions whatsoever. It is not an accurate clock and so any counting of frames expecting to correspond to seconds or tenths of seconds of real time - not possible. Fascinating to see that the Secret Service was told this right away, and yet they just blundered on. Following orders.

I am of the opinion that the Z-film is accurate from 1st frame to last in sequence, but some masking may have been added to cover a back of head blowout.

I don't think a limo stop was removed because I believe the limo slow down is actually visible in the Z-film.


The anomalies I believe can then be understood as resulting with the camera are the quick frame-to-frame movements, such as Greer's head turn. The overall effect is pronounced because of the slow frame rate (18fps). I noticed similar anomalies when working with the footage discussed taken by my friend, (and when I timed the average frame rate for that camera, it was just over 18fps too). 16 or 18 fps are not ideal rates for the smooth perception of movement, (one reason why 24fps became standard), but became a consumer camera (8mm - Super 8mm) rate because, in part, it allowed for the 50' cartridges to run longer.

[Jeff Carter]

David wrote:

"There is an obvious break at 133, there are frames missing from 313 thru 400...

Based on your film knowledge, if these "transitions" were removed along with the rest... how would you know?

My THEORY here is that at least 928 frames at 48fps (19.3 seconds of film) were reduced to 354 frames (486-132) at 18.3 (19.3 seconds of film) by removing 574 frames of 48fps film. Please prove this is not possible..."

Although I'm not aware of anyone specifically asking Zapruder what his thought processes were when he was filming, it certainly looks like he began filming and then noticed that the presidential vehicle was not directly behind the lead vehicles, so he stopped filming and then restarted as the limousine came into view (Z133). In the space between these two shots, he may well have switched the frame rate, and so Z133 could have started a sequence at 48fps. (but, I would argue that this rate would then have had to remain constant through to last frame at Z486). I cannot see anything within the frames that would suggest the frame rate was adjusted - and also any resulting disruption I believe would reveal itself, even after removal of frames, because the disruption would occur over multiple successive frames (particularly at 48fps) and their removal would have produced a visible jump as Zapruder panned following 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 without that calling attention to itself. Having done step-printing, I found that even a single frame too little or too much can disrupt a rhythm.

Past that, in terms of what could or could not be done with an optical printer at, say, Hawkeye works - that facility would have a guy just like Ralph Pearse at NPIC, who would lay out some basic information about what was and was not possible. Based on my own experiences with optical printers, I think I know some of the things he would point out. I'll share those if someone is interested.