How and Why the Z-film was altered

[Peter Lemkin]

The file IS a gif... when I upload it converts it to a jpg... ??

Any ideas? As this does show the background features in the grass as being the same thru these frames.

DJ

Here are the frames lined up over the similiar patterns in the grass...

(AGAIN - the png and gif files are being converted to a tiny jpg when uploading... This png is 500Kb

Help?? )

you can go here for the gif... I hope http://s1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff39...e-same.gif

DJ

contact Magda about how the .gif should be done

[David Josephs]

Magda is asking that I try to post a gif again...

Here is the original I wanted to do here:

That semi circular indentation in the grass is what I stabilized the frames upon..
DJ

[Phil Dragoo]

David

Your 312-321 nine-frame gif at official 18.3 fps translates to half second (9 frames/18.3 frames).

Plotting limo travel distance/speed using 156 inch wheelbase to guage photos:

A speed of 6.7 mph seems closer to the slowing described by the famous 59 of Palamara

[David Josephs]

David

Your 312-321 nine-frame gif at official 18.3 fps translates to half second (9 frames/18.3 frames).

Plotting limo travel distance/speed using 156 inch wheelbase to guage photos:

A speed of 6.7 mph seems closer to the slowing described by the famous 59 of Palamara

Couple things about this gif...

It's only the 3 frames with 5 frame tweening to illustrate the overlay...
312 thru 321 is actually 10 frames since we start counting at the start of 312 and stop at the end of 321
The limo was moving away from zapruder at the time yet when you measure the 3d image on 2d film it becomes a streaight line... it's not.
So the limo moved a GREATER distance as it would comprise the hypotenuse with your straight line as one of the triangle's sides.

Yet in the end, your calc of 6.7mph is close enough to state that's not possible...

Muchmore shows he makes the jump from the front of the QM to the limo in ONE STEP... one left footed step and I believe HERE is a very key finding...

the limo HAD to be moving much slower than even 6mph for Hill to extend his left foot, land on the ground and NOT have the limo move away from him...

Furthermore, in every film/gif or muchmore there is a jump whereby the men on the steps and everyone else jerks forward a few frames yet I don't think there were frames there to remove....

I made another one here... I'm not sure, but it just seems to me something is very wrong at this moment... when the limo SHOULD be stopped yet is not, when Hill makes this amazing leap, when the QM falls behind, Hargis and buddy ride up past the back wheel, when the men on the other side look to their right and STOP, then supposedly take off... (McIntyre)

This is either when the limo is finally starting up again... or ??? This is also the spot that is described as both 4+65 feet and 4+95 feet in the legends....

How was 30 feet of travel and position removed at this point?

Couple forgotten notes

1- notice how the coats of Jean and Mary FREEZE during this time
2- Muchmore moves her camera quite a bit during that jump, I stabilized the gif but there is a significant movement of the camera and no concurrent blurring in the images....

That should not be possible either
DJ

[David Josephs]

a clearer gif... very strange movements in these 5 frames

[Charles Drago]

Through all of these valuable exchanges, let us not forget that conspiracy in this case is proven absent the existence of the Z-film.

[Peter Lemkin]

Magda is asking that I try to post a gif again...

Here is the original I wanted to do here:

That semi circular indentation in the grass is what I stabilized the frames upon..
DJ

Ahhh...that's easy to explain....as the car moved forward, the grass moved forwards at the same speed. :rofl::wirlitzer: Good find! As I've always said, Dallas was a Magic Show...and the Z-Film was one of the KEY elements in 'defending' the 'magic' afterwards.

[David Josephs]

Magda is asking that I try to post a gif again...

Here is the original I wanted to do here:

That semi circular indentation in the grass is what I stabilized the frames upon..
DJ

Ahhh...that's easy to explain....as the car moved forward, the grass moved forwards at the same speed. :rofl::wirlitzer: Good find! As I've always said, Dallas was a Magic Show...and the Z-Film was one of the KEY elements in 'defending' the 'magic' afterwards.

I believe you are missing my point...

That an object in the grass moves across the screen... or the limo moves past it... if the background is composite, it would be one helluva job....
I think this just reinforce the 48fps master...

and yes Charles... absent most every item of official evidence there was a conspiracy.... it SCREAMS at you.

[Martin White]

One of the things that has bugged me about the film for a long time is how Zapruder supposedly managed to keep the car in the middle of the shot whilst moving towards him (albeit slowly) and did a pretty good job of panning as it accelerated away rapidly, yet for the duration of the shots, JFK's head is only just in the bottom of the frame. My suspicion is that the reflections off the side of the car would have exposed the problems with timing, and so had to be moved out of the frame. What you could call "normal framing" is resumed by frame 334, approximately a second after the head shot.

Is it me, or should Altgens appear in reflection on the trunk of the limo? Brehm, Hill & Moorman do, and there's also something of the guy to the left of Altgens (i.e. to Altgens right). I think I see Toni Foster reflected too?

The cluster of people in frame 368/369 don't appear either, but there *might* be an explanation for that.

[David Josephs]

One of the things that has bugged me about the film for a long time is how Zapruder supposedly managed to keep the car in the middle of the shot whilst moving towards him (albeit slowly) and did a pretty good job of panning as it accelerated away rapidly, yet for the duration of the shots, JFK's head is only just in the bottom of the frame. My suspicion is that the reflections off the side of the car would have exposed the problems with timing, and so had to be moved out of the frame. What you could call "normal framing" is resumed by frame 334, approximately a second after the head shot.

Is it me, or should Altgens appear in reflection on the trunk of the limo? Brehm, Hill & Moorman do, and there's also something of the guy to the left of Altgens (i.e. to Altgens right). I think I see Toni Foster reflected too?

The cluster of people in frame 368/369 don't appear either, but there *might* be an explanation for that.

Hi Martin... welcome.

Great observations... ALL that grass and no relflection of the north of elm. While the "sewer shot(s)" remains a bone of contention, there is more than just a little supporting evidence...

I did a gif and some detailed examination of the trunk and IMO, Altgens does appear... as does Foster...
the more I look the more I conclude the "master" had to have been shot at more than 16/18.3 fps.

in 368/369, I don't think the angle is right to have seen them...

Curious... are you aware of the importance 4+65 and 4+95 has? The 30 foot discrepancy is the difference between where z313 is in the film and where the final shot was located... either there was a shot after 313... or as we are proposing, the frame numbers are meaningless in relation to where things are in DP and what occurred when. Life magazine chose Z312 (actually) as the headshot and worked backward... even NPIC was confused as to HOW they identified the frame fop the "1st" shot..

This is as early as SAT NIGHT or SUNDAY NIGHT.... LIFE magazine has decided which frames are which... Life magazine accidently breaks the film at 156 and 207...

Does LIFE already have the altered film? they MUST. at 9am on 11/23 the film is shown at Zapruder's office. this CANNOT be a 48fps version unless the projector that shows it can be set to 48fps so it LOOKS normal speed... unlikely.

the film was shown at Kodak on 11/22
The film was previewed at the lab just after being developed. Zapruder was assured no bootlegs had been made. Sorrels later picked up two of the copies.(Trask)

Is it MORE LIKELY that the film could be shown at 48fps at Kodak?
What actual coroborration is there that the film was actually SEEN on 11/22 by anyone?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4129[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]4130[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4131[/ATTACH]