looks like more photo manipulation from H & L Land

First topic message reminder :

THis is supposed to be a crop from Oswald's passport and used for comparison to the alleged Oswald figure snapped in The Carousel.




Here is the passport image



As can be seen, there is a watermark on the passport wwhich is far less visible in the H & L crop as if something has been overlaid to try and hide it. In gacr you can see he line of the overlay edge going under the eyes and across the bridge of the nose.

The overall effect of the overlay has been to foreshorten the face from the tip of the nose down to the chin. By sheer coincidence, this seems to match better wiith the (non) Oswald (non) lookalike.

That is all as I see it, anyway.

If I am right, just let me say in advance... is there a fucking photo of Oswald that these cunts haven't Mangeled? Looks like they even darkened his hair and eyebrows, as well.

That black marker pen certainly came in handy.

Some of the crazier theories I've read about regarding the Z film:

Chris Davidson - 67% of the frames were removed. This is the basis of his zany Swan Song thread on EF. Why he thinks this? Because the original diorama the FBI made showed the Lincoln down further than it was for the shot sequence. Then they corrected it and moved it up to Z313. A simple correction as more info became available, right? Nope, not for old Chris. So the theory goes they removed frames to cover something up. When I argued with him about what exactly they're covering up, crickets chirp.

Millicent Cranor - that brain spray you see in 313 is actually the bullet ripping through the air and from the opposite side of the wounds, so therefore, the kill shot came from over there. She writes a lot for DiEugenio and wrote a reasonable article so I reached out to her. She then goes on to say she saw a mysterious version of the Z film in a movie theater around '66 or so. When she revealed her true self, I ran for the hills.

...and so on and so forth...

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Im still waiting for proof the Zfilm is unaltered...

Surely the default assumption is that any film or photo or other document is genuine. The burden of proof is on those who claim it's a fake. Until someone comes up with strong evidence that it's a fake, we are obliged to believe that the film is authentic.

There is a certain amount of scientific consensus about the authenticity of the film, from the work of Roland Zavada and Prof Raymond Fielding, which you can find here:

- http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm
- http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

According to these experts, the film in the National Archives is not a copy, and must therefore be the physical film that was in Zapruder's camera. This means that any alteration cannot have involved the making of a copy, which rules out pretty much every claim of forgery that has been made so far.

All that remains is the possibility of spotting, i.e. dabbing or painting over areas of the film with dye or ink, a technique that was (and maybe still is) used to disguise dust spots and scratches. Some people have claimed that this was done to cover up a hole in the back of JFK's head. Maybe that happened, maybe it didn't. If it did, neither Zavada nor Fielding seems to have noticed it.

But until another expert comes along and gives a different opinion to that of Zavada and Fielding, we have to accept that the film was not copied, and that any alteration that involved copying the film did not happen.

But hey it only takes one unanswerable anomaly to cast doubt on a film

Indeed it does! But, as I pointed out, people have been searching for around 30 years, and most of the anomalies that have been put forward so far have been debunked easily.

Even if there is an anomaly that doesn't have an explanation, all we can deduce is that an anomaly exists that doesn't yet have an explanation. That isn't the same as proving that the anomaly was the result of alteration.

BYPs Notes Walker Letters Selective Service Card and so much are fake

Maybe they are. But almost all of the claims of alteration involve far more work than would have been involved with any of those items, work that would have had to be done in a very limited amount of time.

Added to that, of course, is the problem of all the other films and photos that corroborate the Zapruder film. The need to alter those images hugely increases the workload. Every claim that a film or photo has been altered needs to be proved, not merely asserted.

Even if the "BYPs Notes Walker Letters Selective Service Card and so" were faked, that doesn't mean we should just assume that the Zapruder film was faked too. Again, the burden of proof is on those who claim it's a fake, and over the last three decades no-one has managed that.

its 100 percent authentic even the frames with fore and background in focus and unblurred by motion even while Zs panning.

Is that basically the argument Professor Larsen made over at the Education Forum? Even he was unable to explain why this feature "defies the laws of physics". Nor was he able to explain how it proves that the original film has been altered.

Does 'selective blurring' in a copy require that the same 'selective blurring' exists in the original? I don't know. That's something that needs to be demonstrated, so that we can rule out the possibility that it's an artefact of the copying process, as with so many other anomalies.

Even if 'selective blurring' does exist in the original film in the Archives, it still needs to be demonstrated that this can't be due to the workings of Zapruder's camera, or the properties of his lens, or the chemical structure of Kodachrome film, or some other innocent factor.

Having said all of that, it's good to argue this stuff with someone like Ed, who does proper research and has made useful contributions to the subject, unlike most of the 'everything is a fake' buffoons elsewhere.

JFK_Case wrote:the original diorama the FBI made showed the Lincoln down further than it was for the shot sequence. Then they corrected it and moved it up to Z313. A simple correction as more info became available

Why go for a straightforward, obvious explanation when a far-fetched one is available? Isn't it more exciting to think about a group of all-powerful masterminds carefully altering all those home movies and photos?

I would never default to claiming Zapruders film is in unaltered state. What am I supposed to compare it too.
Only a few frames were in Life.

I'm looking for witnesses whom saw the head snap...live in Dealey Plaza, and made a statement or provable claim of such.
I have dozens of "slump"-ers.
I dont have a single "flung back violently"
Can I get a Back And To The Left witness?
Thanks

Maybe someone can list them

Nobody as near as I can tell commenting here has been viewing the original in camera film projected on a screen. What we all have been viewing are various online unknown generation video copies of the possible original film. We do not know the source for any of these copies we are watching at least to my knowledge anyway but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. So as Jeremy has written we have to assume the film is unaltered until proven otherwise at least to my mind. As Ed has written eye witnesses maybe useful in trying to determine whether what we see in the film jibes with what people remember seeing live. But can this be an accurate way to establish whether the film is fake or not? I'm not so sure. We may not have eyewitnesses who have claimed to see the movements we see in the film of JFK being pushed backward and to the left but does this equate to it being faked? When I watch the Z film I do perceive that JFK is pushed backward and to the left. Seeing is believing they say, but having a film and Television background I'm always wary of that line because yes, these days anything is possible.
An 8mm reversal film, some 1963 state of the art masterful artistry work, and a timeline to achieve a massive deception was possible but with extreme limitations IMO. Forget traveling mattes, and other complex art work - there are signs of authenticity.
IMO there are clues that tell me the film (the version online at least)  is ostensibly authentic, bar of course the couple of frames which may have been damaged and some other minor artefacts and mild degradation which possibly have occurred from the transfers.

For me the Presidential vehicle's rear fender left hand side aerial is the proof for NO alteration. The cars front fender flag is another. Both the aerial and the flag remain in tact and behave as they should in real life and can been seen at all times except of course when the car moves behind the Road sign. Other than that this is, at least for me the dead give away that no major alterations have taken place. Any significant complex work would have obliterated the aerial from the frames which are alleged to have been altered same goes for the flag. The only caveat here would be - can we be sure the copy we see online is a direct transfer from the original Zapruder film. 

I've written a piece on the provenance of the film which I'll try and find and post here.

And sorry for being off topic in this thread.

its 100 percent authentic even the frames with fore and background in focus and unblurred by motion even while Zs panning.

Is that basically the argument Professor Larsen made over at the Education Forum? Even he was unable to explain why this feature "defies the laws of physics". Nor was he able to explain how it proves that the original film has been altered.

Does 'selective blurring' in a copy require that the same 'selective blurring' exists in the original? I don't know. That's something that needs to be demonstrated, so that we can rule out the possibility that it's an artefact of the copying process, as with so many other anomalies.

Even if 'selective blurring' does exist in the original film in the Archives, it still needs to be demonstrated that this can't be due to the workings of Zapruder's camera, or the properties of his lens, or the chemical structure of Kodachrome film, or some other innocent factor.

Having said all of that, it's good to argue this stuff with someone like Ed, who does proper research and has made useful contributions to the subject, unlike most of the 'everything is a fake' buffoons elsewhere.


This talk of background blur  being visible in frames and then not in others is most likely due to a phenomenon which can occur while filming a hand held shot with a small light weight camera held to the eye with both hands while panning (following action from left to right). This phenomenon is especially common among amateur home movie enthusiasts - like Zapruder was at the time of taking the film of the parade.  


The tendency with inexperienced home movie makers when executing this type of shot is to "chase" the action, a sort of getting ahead of the action and then having to wait for the subject to catch up type motion or vice versa  - that is to say they produce "jerky" pans which result in a stop start effect in the panning motion. This then creates in some frames a perceived sharpness with some of the backgrounds in various frames. Simply put the end result would be that in some frames we will see motion blur in the backgrounds and in some frames we would have backgrounds which look or are perceived to be shaper than the others. 


Even in the professional news film taken by Jimmy Darnell of the front steps of the TSBD The chase effect is evident.

Except panning either leads, follows or pans with an object.
Only one wont share the blur.
That is the physics in a nutshell.
The film either conforms to this or not.

I offer 302 303 304

If physics can explain its way out of the parameters it operates on then fire away.



No limo stop here yet fore and backgrounds are un-blurred
This is bracketed by blurred background of 302 and 304

Cheers

I'm not so sure the images above and the  explanation for the variation in blur and what we are seeing in these frames can be used to say either way. 

My point has always been that we are looking at an unknown sourced copy of what is purported to be the Z Film. This looks like the Costella version which has been altered.  It has had distortion removed digitally - that means this is a no go zone for any sort of analysis in my opinion. 

Now I'm not going to jump down this rabbit hole, but I also believe I am as qualified as anyone here or indeed on any of the other JFK forums to form a professional opinion. The variables in the "physics" on this are just too many to discuss here. Suffice it to say that nobody, nor me or anyone else can use this unknown generational video copy of the film to analyse the motion blur in the backgrounds with any accuracy. It is a video transfer which will have resulted in artefacts. We have no clue what software Costella used to remove the pincushion, we have no idea what Costella did with this version.

And even if this is a reasonably accurate representation of the action from the original, I would still maintain that the film looks in every way to my eye perfectly normal. 
The behaviour of the blur in all the frames shown above are indicative of a jerky pan - a pan that slows down and speeds up and at times even pushes back to reframe the action to the center of frame - it is typical of 8mm films shot at 16 or so frames a second. The original film would have been put on a telecine chain and transferred to tape - that in itself would create artefacts. Lastly the provenance of the original is not that difficult to trace. Researchers can try and put a spin on McMahon's interview - and Bruno's later recollections but in reality Zapruder had that original film until Tuesday.....Bootleg copies would have been made - no question to my mind - and if the alteration believers want to keep believing then they're going to have to explain why there's not several different version of what happened on Elm.

"physics" playing it's part in the images above - Yeah, Nah.

It still is not explained.

And this is but one example.

G'day Ed, I know what you do for a living and you know what I do for a buck as well so I won't bore you with this - or at least I'll try not to.
I probably should move this to a new thread anyway as this is off topic but for the sake of a quick reply I'll address your concern with what I've written and how you believe it doesn't explain the blur in the frames above.

I could replicate the blur phenomenon we see in the frames above easily if I had a standard 8mm hand held camera filming at 16 frames a second with a shutter speed of about a 40th (I believe this is what that camera pretty much was locked to)

But you've raised a point here now about there being other anomalies for possible alteration. What are those? And do you subscribe to the notion that we can make an accurate assessment of the blur  considering this particular copy has been digitally altered by Costella from a purported unknown generational copy of the original.....

I'm happy to be shown that I'm wrong here but until I'm eyeballing something that can prove there's something amiss I'll go with it being authentic. As Jeremy said the onus must be on the people who are claiming alteration to make the case for it having been manipulated.

You say Physics - I say it doesn't or can't apply here- how can it, when we don't even know the origin of this copy and we know nothing about what generation this copy might be - We also know nothing of the condition of the transfer optics, we know nothing about the condition of the equipment used to transfer the film to tape. We cannot use the above examples IMO for analysis to determine if the film has been manipulated.

Ed, put some other examples of anomalies here and we can discuss them, probably best on a new thread though.

So to answer your question - yes I believe it's explained. Any anomalies in the copy your using here are explained at least until the original in camera film is available to be viewed - preferably in a projector on a screen at 16 frames a second.

I have a degree in and experience in TV and film too - going on 36 years now. Not bragging or anything but it's important to mention because when you work in media, you get used to what you're seeing and hearing day in and day out. Years ago, I had to produce several short films in 8mm, the same size as Z's film. I tried doing some effects with it - for example, I made two Play Dough worms - one was rolled up normally and I proceeded to try to animate it one frame at a time to make it look like it was crawling. Then a foot comes down and smashes it, splattering fake blood. Just as the foot was above the worm, I stopped camera, switched it with one filled with fake blood and then the foot stomps it. I had a little film editor provided by the school and the edits were basically cutting and splicing together the film to get the effect. Don't ask me why I came up with this as it was crazy-ass shit and I was young and stupid but trying to do something different. I got an A for the result.

Anyway, we're talking 8mm here - the frame is the size as a pinky nail. Yes, say the conspirators, you can scan and pan the footage, alter it, then drop it onto a blank roll of 8mm [I've argued with people like Davidson over this shit ad nauseum].  But we're talking the early 60s. Go back a few years and even Hollywood was just barely being able to part the seas in the The 10 Commandments. Have you ever seen that effect in the film? It was filmed on VisaVision, 35mm film and using the hottest and latest "technology" back then. including mattes and so forth. But it doesn't look all that great.

The point being, there's just no way they could have faked the Z film. There are too many artifacts in it - the frame shape, the flash of light as the shutter overexposes the film in the first few frames, agent Hill being seen running through the frame holes, and so on. Further, there's a film on YTV produced by the SS or FBI. It was made in early '64 and if memory serves, is more or less a summary of the murder. The Z film, though shown in B/W, is the exact same film you see today, only in color of course.

So think about that. If this film had been shown to the public back then, this would have been the exact same film we've seen today except in color, which tells me, it's the film that we've known all of this time that early in the game.

As for witnesses, they're very unreliable. You can put pressure on them to get them to say what you want. If you don't, most of them never get it completely right. Keep in mind too these people were not standing around saying, "OK here it comes! Now watch his head now as the bullets hit." They were there simply to see the president and it happened so quickly that there was simply no way these people were going to describe in great detail what you actually see in the film.

We should be grateful the Z film exists because it shows that the SBT is impossible. And people can call it whatever they want, but in my eyes, Kennedy is thrown violently backward and to the left on Z313. So yes, seeing is believing. But what I'd really like to know is what in the hell happened to the person filming across the street, the so-called Babushka Lady's film? It's interesting how Z's film was not seized from him but that film was. And why?

Again what are we to compare an Original to.
I would not ask blur be replicated.
But lack of.
That is the Physics.
Shoot a moving image so it is not blurred.
How will background appear?

Theres a job in cinematography for someone able to change depth of field at random.
I think everyone has waited 45 years for a duplication. Plenty of blokes have stood on the plinth with 8mm camera since Zapruder.
Film they shot may surprise some not I.

I wrote this a while back, 

Just my informed opinion. 

https://gregrparker.com/how-likely-was-zapruder-film-alteration/

I just wrote this ...
A lot of informed analysis:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2523-peculiarity-of-frame-303#38383

Please make further excusare there.
Carry on with the H n L alterations proofs.
Cheers

Ed, thanks for shifting this across to a new thread.

A lot of informed analysis:

Ed, I've shown the Zap film  (Costella's version) to more than 20 extremely experienced cinematographers and editors and every single one of them identify the film as looking normal. Now they could all be wrong - that's a possibility, but I think at some point we have to listen to what is being said about the film by people who are really experienced in this sort of thing.


I won't go on here - I'll head over to the new thread when time permits.

My attempt at faking and of their manipulation... note they darkened the photo to disguise the marks on clothes, tie and jacket.
I actually hide more of the marking with less darkening.
again just a quick removal of mark and not making an exact dupe.
Cheers

Oh I also tilted and gave 3* of correction to see if that matched their photo

Quite a bunch of charlatans they are. The snake oil salesmen of the JFK community.

This points in that general direction Vinny.
Cheers

Removed mark and added a shadow like theirs.

Their pic reminds me of video.
Dark and smoothed

I took the eyes from their image and overlayed onto the passport photo I massaged.

Every time I do the eye overlay the nose seems bent or offset

overlay doesn't fit head when pupils are matched

nose lines up but head is ...wrong size(?)