Was the zap film altered?

First topic message reminder :

Mick Purdy runs his ruler over the various claims.

Short answer: Technically possible. Logistically: highly unlikely

additionally, though technically possible - 1963 technology would make it easily detectable.

A Waving Flag on this 4th of July is the final nail.

A much appreciated addition to efforts at clearing the crap,

https://gregrparker.com/essays/

#zapruder

Chris_Davidson wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:

 And further to that is the fact that no one would have projected the original film in a viewing device ahead of any copies. Period! That would have been the gold standard.

A film was projected before copies were made.
It was played on an inspector projector at a high frame rate.

Chris if I didn't know any better I'd say you were taking the piss. Of course the film was projected to see if it was processed correctly and contained footage of the assassination. 

I meant after ward and I suspect you know that. In my Essay posted in the link at the top of this thread I say as much. But I doubt very much you've bothered to read that.
Not once have you answered my questions.

CHRIS:


A film was projected before copies were made.
It was played on an inspector projector at a high frame rate.

Big deal. How does this possibly change things to a huge leap of nefarious alteration of the films? It doesn't.

JAKE:


Chris, I wonder if you might post an executive summary of your hypothesis. No need for the evidence and analysis and all the work that would entail. It would be great if it simply stated for example, 'the film(s) was(were) altered in the following way(s) and for the following reason(s), or whatever structure best suits the ideas you are putting forward.

Yes, this is exactly what I asked earlier.

Chris,

And further to that is the fact that no one would have projected the original film in a viewing device ahead of any copies. Period! That would have been the gold standard.


with regard to my quote above, I suspect you knew what I was alluding to. That the film once processed and viewed at the Lab would have been placed in it's canister and not viewed again for fear of any accidental damage. That's what would have been the gold standard. 

There is no way no how that original film was run through projectors once the copies of the film had been struck, especially since Time Life had purchased the rights. I can testify to these protocols and procedures after having worked in the film and Television industry my entire working life. 

That film in my opinion would have been bound in cotton wool and most likely placed in a secure environment in Dallas until Time life took possession of it some time around Tuesday. 

I agree with JFK Case and Jake, it's about time you posted something here that is clear and to the point. Something us lay people can clearly understand and comprehend. Up until now all I've seen from you in this thread is endless GIF's and clips of slow motion footage of the assassination along with a couple of very nice pictures of optical printers and 8mm cameras.

Whatever your theory about frames having been excised is we need to understand why, how, when and by whom this work was done. 
I think we can agree that technically in 1963 - frames from an 8mm film stock could have been excised. There is no argument from me on that score.

But you need to show and explain to all of us here how this might have occurred on all the various films of the assassination. You need to account for the original and the various copies of the Zapruder films which were in circulation among various people.

Yes, JFK Case, you did ask the same thing; I do acknowledge that and I too was curious to know what the underlying assertion is.

To also acknowledge Greg's reminder as to the topic of the thread; since Mick has convincingly argued that the alterations are indeed highly unlikely, I should also acknowledge that in light of Mick's real world professional experience and dissertation, conclusions stemming from such film alterations are most likely rendered moot. I am unconvinced by Chris's arguments for alteration having actually occurred. Accordingly, I'll not be pursuing it further on this thread as the premise of that particular question is that the alterations did indeed occur. However, I don't begrudge anyone else doing so and I see now that Mick has joined in asking the question.

It appears that responses from Chris will be less than satisfying and so I'll leave it to Mick, JFK Case, or anyone else to pursue. I'll be reading all with great interest though and may jump back in if I can't resist.

Just to clarify something... it's not my reminder about the topic of the OP. It was a new option available in admin that makes it jump to the OP with that reminder. I thought I would give it a trial, but most likely will untick it and go back to jumping to the last unread post (for those logged in).

greg_parker wrote:Just to clarify something... it's not my reminder about the topic of the OP. It was a new option available in admin that makes it jump to the OP with that reminder. I thought I would give it a trial, but most likely will untick it and go back to jumping to the last unread post (for those logged in).

Reverted back to how it was as it was a bit of a pain. Apologies to all. Should have flagged the trial of it - but like a kid in a toy store, can't resist testing the latest gadgets.

I'm usually careful to say that it may have been tampered with a bit but I would never say nor believe fully altered. Is that a fair call? 

There is also the entire NPIC event to consider as context? To my untrained eye, there are numerous "issues" I have always had with the film but I am not educated in how film worked then, framerates, etc. For example, i find it striking that I cannot see blood splatter but maybe upon closer examination or some other logical and technical explanation, there is reason for that. Will read this entire thread later and thanks for starting it Greg.

BC_II wrote:I'm usually careful to say that it may have been tampered with a bit but I would never say nor believe fully altered. Is that a fair call? 

There is also the entire NPIC event to consider as context? To my untrained eye, there are numerous "issues" I have always had with the film but I am not educated in how film worked then, framerates, etc. For example, i find it striking that I cannot see blood splatter but maybe upon closer examination or some other logical and technical explanation, there is reason for that. Will read this entire thread later and thanks for starting it Greg.

Hi BC_11,

I won't bore you with my background but I have worked in the film and Tv game for over 40 years originally as a cinematographer and now as a digital cinema cameraman. Worked on all sorts of stuff.

I can't see for the life of me any reason for anyone to have tampered with the film but for argument sake let's say they did.
What would they alter would be my first question and followed by why. The film as it is - at least the online versions - shows us the assassination in pretty much it's entirety or at least that's what my eye tells me.

I agree that the versions of the film we see today online don't show much detail. I'm almost certain that's why we don't observe  the fatal shot like others have back in '63.

The majority of the select few people who viewed that original Zapruder film or more precisely the print copies of the original that weekend and in the early weeks all were left with the perception of the sheer clarity of the film and how gruesome the event was to watch. They did speak of the gory detail and the amount of blood they saw.

This to me makes perfect sense. They were watching pretty much the first copies of the original film. There was one copy in particular that Zavada and others from the Jamieson Lab spoke of, about how clear it was and how sharp as well.
I think this is often forgotten now when we are watching poor online copies of copies which have been colorized, over saturated, contrast added and other various enhancement tools applied. Not to mention all the various frame rate versions too. 
I wonder what might be your issues with the film that you've watched.

I see no evidence whatsoever of any complex alteration. I've always maintained that the background in the film behaves absolutely normally. It remains fluid without any jumps or abrupt changes, it behaves exactly how the 18 FPS footage should.
The splices we do see in the film today online are in keeping with either frame damage and an insertion of a physical splice or as Zavada alluded to the possibility that Zapruder's finger slipped momentarily off the on and off button and that he possibly reapplied finger pressure to continue the filming.

Anyways BC_11 hope you get to have a read of the essay and the thread and hopefully it goes some way in helping you understand where I'm coming from.

For those who believe in the theory of wholesale alteration to the Zapruder film using complex matte work.



The aerial on the rear left hand side of the trunk of the vehicle is in plain sight. Any motion picture matte work would have obliterated it in the process. It was way too difficult to cut around it. And the flag waving in the breeze on the front left hand side of the bonnet is another clue. Traveling Matte work can be ruled out in my opinion.

Aww Mick. The truth is so mundane.
Can't we complicate it with math or something? I mean, everybody's going to know what you mean and become totally convinced you're right. Don't you want it to just go on forever instead of just killing the idea like this? Nobody will have anything to do. They'll find other things to do and we'll never hear from them again. On second thought.......

Chris_Davidson wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:Chris wrote:


Two camera's running at the same frame rate. Filming the same event.(I'm quite familiar with Muchmore/Bronson too.)
Step them through the optical printer, remove the same desired frames in a mostly uniform fashion(removing/smoothing out an instantaneous limo stop)



Chris is this really your contention? That somehow all of the films of the same event were altered to match the other. Is that really believable?

Only needed the optical sequencer on four of them to succeed with the required excisions.
Same frame rates(piece of cake) for three of them, the most difficult was Bronson.

I realize many don't care for math, but I would highly recommend it in this instance.

The red arrows sync the same events in both films.
The first red arrow (frame1) is Toni Foster (I believe) and her forward step to a sidestep.
The second red arrow is Jackie's hand position in relationship to JFK's head.
I recommend looking closely at where the LOS's from the Z/Bronson pedestals intersect crossing Elm St using the plat plotting. That's where frame 1 begins.
In the gif, 24 Z frames = 19 Bronson frames
The ratio should be 18.3/12 = 1.525/1
19 x 1.525 = 28.975 frames
28.975 frames - 24 frames = 4.975 frames missing
The data adjustment for removing frames around 1 of 2 headshots was made using (CE884) Z161-166 = a span of 5 frames and the limo traveling 2.24mph at that point.
The distance adjustment was 5.4 ft in terms of 18 whole frames or 5.49ft in terms of 18.3fps.
You can’t have two shots almost simultaneously and expect it to be one shooter while pinning the act on a lone gunman unless you’re going to argue a semiauto/auto rifle was used.
I can’t present it any easier than this.

CD: The distance adjustment was 5.4 ft in terms of 18 whole frames or 5.49ft in terms of 18.3fps.
You can’t have two shots almost simultaneously and expect it to be one shooter while pinning the act on a lone gunman unless you’re going to argue a semiauto/auto rifle was used.
I can’t present it any easier than this.

Here's the Nix film. A very clear version of it and stabilized. That woman with the puffy hair is also in it. So I guess frames were removed from this film as well, or what it only necessary to remove frames from Zapruder...or from Bronson?

According to Nix, to my eye it looks clear and no jumpy splice or whatnot from supposedly missing frames. I say supposedly because if Nix and Z can be matched up, all bets are off with frame alteration, or frame removal or whatever you want to call it.

Chris_Davidson wrote:

Chris_Davidson wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:Chris wrote:


Two camera's running at the same frame rate. Filming the same event.(I'm quite familiar with Muchmore/Bronson too.)
Step them through the optical printer, remove the same desired frames in a mostly uniform fashion(removing/smoothing out an instantaneous limo stop)



Chris is this really your contention? That somehow all of the films of the same event were altered to match the other. Is that really believable?

Only needed the optical sequencer on four of them to succeed with the required excisions.
Same frame rates(piece of cake) for three of them, the most difficult was Bronson.

I realize many don't care for math, but I would highly recommend it in this instance.

The red arrows sync the same events in both films.
The first red arrow (frame1) is Toni Foster (I believe) and her forward step to a sidestep.
The second red arrow is Jackie's hand position in relationship to JFK's head.
I recommend looking closely at where the LOS's from the Z/Bronson pedestals intersect crossing Elm St using the plat plotting. That's where frame 1 begins.
In the gif, 24 Z frames = 19 Bronson frames
The ratio should be 18.3/12 = 1.525/1
19 x 1.525 = 28.975 frames
28.975 frames - 24 frames = 4.975 frames missing
The data adjustment for removing frames around 1 of 2 headshots was made using (CE884) Z161-166 = a span of 5 frames and the limo traveling 2.24mph at that point.
The distance adjustment was 5.4 ft in terms of 18 whole frames or 5.49ft in terms of 18.3fps.
You can’t have two shots almost simultaneously and expect it to be one shooter while pinning the act on a lone gunman unless you’re going to argue a semiauto/auto rifle was used.
I can’t present it any easier than this.

Chris,


The red arrows sync the same events in both films.

I'm sorry if I'm misreading what you're saying but the two red arrows which I presume you have placed on the two different films -  they cannot be assumed to have synced anything. The films maybe closely aligned to your eye but there is no way you could claim those two films have been synced precisely. And that does matter when you're talking of frames having been excised or some such.

JFK_Case wrote:CD: The distance adjustment was 5.4 ft in terms of 18 whole frames or 5.49ft in terms of 18.3fps.
You can’t have two shots almost simultaneously and expect it to be one shooter while pinning the act on a lone gunman unless you’re going to argue a semiauto/auto rifle was used.
I can’t present it any easier than this.

Here's the Nix film. A very clear version of it and stabilized. That woman with the puffy hair is also in it. So I guess frames were removed from this film as well, or what it only necessary to remove frames from Zapruder...or from Bronson?

According to Nix, to my eye it looks clear and no jumpy splice or whatnot from supposedly missing frames. I say supposedly because if Nix and Z can be matched up, all bets are off with frame alteration, or frame removal or whatever you want to call it.

JFK_Case,

thanks for posting this - it's a very beautiful thing. 

The NIX film clearly shows a slow down of the vehicle, (read brake lights come on) possibly as they watch for Hill to get to the rear of the car and then the car accelerates from the scene. It shows us exactly what we see in the Zap film.

Jake_Sykes wrote:Aww Mick. The truth is so mundane.
Can't we complicate it with math or something? I mean, everybody's going to know what you mean and become totally convinced you're right. Don't you want it to just go on forever instead of just killing the idea like this? Nobody will have anything to do. They'll find other things to do and we'll never hear from them again. On second thought.......

Jake, 

I know I shouldn't have posted this. I should've let this thing go on and on as you say. I've spoiled the party I guess -  a party pooper and all. 

I can find comfort in the fact that there will always be a Z film hoaxer lurking nearby. 

From J. Costella on the alleged alteration of the Zapruder film.

When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn’t just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

http://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/fast.html

Your post was clarifying Chris, so thanks for that effort. You're saying the ratio between the documented frame rates for the two cameras is the factor for multiplying a given number of frames in Bronson to get the number of frames that must have been shot in the Zap film, given a fixed time period.

To reiterate, if 18.3 frames of Zap happen, then 12 frames of Bronson happen with both cameras shooting for 1 second and 1.525 time 12 equals 18.3. You've stated earlier that it was a piece of cake to excise all the films, including Bronson film. So from your statements, the 19 frame Bronson count represents an excised frame count. The camera original would have had some number greater than 19. Here is where I believe you have erred in your analysis: multiplying 19 by the 1.525 ratio is yielding the error in the number of Bronson frames not excised from Bronson resulting in the variance from 24, or the 4.975 "extra" Zap frames. The number of extra frames back in Bronson is equal to the number of extra frames in Zap, 4.975 divided by the 1.525 ratio. That yields 3.26 additional frames that needed to be removed from Bronson or rather, subtracted from 19. That is if we ascribe to your theory, which I don't. I think the 3.26 Bronson frames are simply the error in your two sync points.

How much time does 3.26 Bronson frames represent? 1/12 of a second times 3.26, or .27 seconds, about a quarter of a second. Your two sync points could split the difference, say 1.67 frames each, and appear virtually identical to the way they appear to sync now.

Just to take it a step deeper, there is nothing that says the two frames in each of your two sync points were shot at the same times, introducing an error that conservatively reduces the .27 second differential by the difference between 1/12 second and 1/18.3 second times two (for the two sync points), or .057 seconds. Then the differential goes to .213 seconds, or 2.51 Bronson frames that need to be split between the two sync points (1.255 frames each) to hit the ratio, which is also a piece of cake.

The Case For Zapruder Film Tampering - Roy L Schaeffer - Nov 20 1994

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

Thanks for posting Bart, 

when anyone starts to talk about impossible head turns regarding the Z film my eyes glaze over.
Zavada an expert with regards to the Kodachrome 2 film stock demolished the alteration argument years ago.

I've always been puzzled when people start talking about what they see in something. Sure, if the Z film had been filmed in 1,000 FPS then we'd obviously see a lot more detail and precise movements. But 18 FPS on a home movie camera with film frames the size of a pinky nail is not too bad.

The funniest thing of all is the film confirms that shots had to have come from elsewhere instead of what the WC conclusions state. My own personal observation of the film shows, at least for me, Kennedy reacting to throat wound and then his head bobs backward and forward from the shot to the back a split second afterward. Connolly has yet to react until it's way too late for either of these shots to have been a magic bullet going through both men. And to further bolster this, Connolly swore to the day he died he did not get hit with any of the shots that originally hit Kennedy.

Yet, all sane analysis is thrown out the window by the kooks and crazies with missing/removed frames, Exorcist-style head turns and so on.

Ray Marcus’ work.
Thanks to John Kelin.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rTG10RF44HtG13mZSkpJMm8YtqEFGtsa/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yz6mkmx42N-WBkBcOsbF9ygHdg3SJeIo/view?usp=drivesdk

DiEugenio should be ashamed of himself for allowing this to be published on his website recently by "Everything but the kitchen sink" Josephs and "math wiz" Davidson:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/warren-commission-document-wcd-298-fbi-letter-from-director-of-20-jan-1964-with-visual-aides-brochure

JFK_Case wrote:DiEugenio should be ashamed of himself for allowing this to be published on his website recently by "Everything but the kitchen sink" Josephs and "math wiz" Davidson:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/warren-commission-document-wcd-298-fbi-letter-from-director-of-20-jan-1964-with-visual-aides-brochure

Lately there has been plenty to be unimpressed about with any in that crowd. These are not the sharpest tools. Very much the blowhards to be frank in my opinion.

Jim Di's once stellar reputation has declined quite a bit in recent months.