Peculiarity Of Frame 303

Peculiarity Of Frame 303

Transfered from:
"Looks like more photo manipulation from H & L Land" thread.


This thread is dedicated to frame 303 and its bracketed frames 302 and 304.

SEE 1



I use the Combined Edit because its a better product for demonstration and  visual acuity.
If someone can show John's computer has adjusted frame 303 to show no blur, and that frame only vs 304 and 302, please do.
Take 302 and show us Toni Foster deblurred to match limo in foreground.
Take any source of your choice and make this visible transformation

I think we have waited 45 years for such a replication of Zapruder's!

I asked what would we compare the Zapruder Original to.
My answer is "another original" and witnesses statements/testimonies.
Those are best evidence to contrast each other along with the other films and photos taken in DP during the murdercade.

Those whom did attempt to recreate the film shot on a Bell and Howell from the plinth in DP and not one has offered their film as anything but supportive of an anomaly at 303.

It should be easy to post duplicated efforts, images manipulated from an computer, as John Costella might have or is claimed to have by some.
That would be circumstantial but evidentiary.
And...
It is not replicating blur.
Its replicating lack of both fore and background blur while panning at same rate as a moving object.

How is it going to be replicated on 8mm Kodachome film.
Limo is moving.
Zapruder is panning with limo.
Toni Foster is in motion.
Yet fore and background are not blurred, for 1 frame.

Did John somehow replace all copies in existence of the Zapruder film? Did he edit in a photograph with aperture and depth of field settings as seen in 303 so no blur occurs in the time the aperture is open. (BnH is 45vs55%)

Since appeal to authority or CV's are in play....It was not Costella whom first found the anomaly and did an analysis on the frames in question.

SEE 2



This carries over from HnL alterationist thread.
Its fine to point out their adjustments and anomaly introduced in their deceptions but not the Zapruder films, is that it.

So if not due to John or predates John then was that just a smear on him?

A scientific study and measures of these frames is of course necessary from the sequestered original.
Hell yes bring it on!
But till then its not a valid to argue against what is available with what isnt.

We dont play that game with Prayer Man do we.

There should be a standard applied to all images and films when using them as "evidence".
I say use the courts definitions of evidence.
Do they put more weight on a picture or a witness.
When no witness places Molina on the steps can we rely on the images to place him there...yes? And himself.

When there is polarized opposite witnesses and even those whom were not witnesses to the event but had the luxury of examination/s of the film.
Yet a similar impression.

What did THEY all watch?
What did THEY all smoke?

The standard is up for interptetation as is the images of course. The witness is not.
Your interpretation will differ from another expert and so on. The witness doesnt have that hoop to jump through.
Their recollection is up for examination and cross exam.
The photo or film cant say a word either way.

So where are the BACK AND TO THE LEFT witnesses.
SPARE ME EXCUSES!!!
Slump is the term used.
That is the evidence on 11/22
None that day described the motion seen in Zapruder film aka Garrisons copy.
Did Zapruder say anything remotely interpreted as VIOLENTLY BLOWN BACK AND TO THE LEFT?

Does Dan Rather's description support the film we see today.
Did none whom witnessed the film Friday-Monday ever question Rathers recollections on air broadcast world wide  vs what they had just watched???????
No one not even Abe himself nope not even his attorney nor Secret Service nor Stolley from Life or Abes partner... none disavowed?

What a remarkable conspiracy of silence.

So there is no way to support the extant film, not shown till 1975, having the same features as seen in '63. (Zapruders kid may say anything for 16million)

99% is likely genuine film.
But it only takes 1%.
1 faked frame.
1 altered frame.
Then the claim of alteration is justified.


So which is it.
Is the response:
I can make a replication of this 8mm anomaly on film in a Bell n Howell.
OR
This is due to Costella altering the frame on his computer.

Well?
Cake and or Eat it Too..

Is there a single frame aperture adjuster on Zaps camera.
Did the limo stop and Zapruder pan ceases too as the plaza shot backwards at 11mph.

I am of course being silly to show how silly the claim is it can be duplicated is.
It hasnt and wont.
No shoulda coulda woulda.
It aint right for a reason.
PHYSICS.

I have never looked at 302 303 304 and said oh that can be replicated.
Never!
I would not bet a dime that I could even with endless rolls of kodachrome, the Zap BnH camera and neverending November 22nds.
I would never raise my hand swear on a bible in a court of law and profess I could.
I value my freedom.

ANOMALY
There is a deacceleration effect on the occupants except JFK.
Yet film only showed change from 11 to 8 mph in 1/2 second of time.
Dont take my word for it watch the extant film.
Does this break the laws of physics.
Was this due to frame removal.

Is it even possible or does it comport to witnesses.
I dont believe it can

Did the "government" (and stolley) control all copies and original... yes.
What did Stolley say.

https://youtu.be/WVBL_32dGYQ


Dr. Roderick Ryan, the Kodak scientist I mentioned above, disputes claims no one in 1963 could have altered 8mm Zapruder film.  Experts argue that the technology to alter the Zapruder film was available in 1963 and that there is evidence that it has been altered.

Thats the case.

When where by who is to be discovered in a court of law as all else wont pass the bar.
Right?
What standard could possibly suffice other than a verdict;
Propaganda or faithful reproduction.

But first things first.
Lets resolve 303



YET TO BE DEBUNKED. IF.
CHEERS

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Dont take my word for it watch the extant film.

During my first year here someone mentioned a presentation by Josiah Thompson and recommended I watch it. It involved the number and location of shots that killed JFK. He used the Z-film to make his points. I paid a few bucks and downloaded the video. What struck me as I watched this video was the quality of the frames he used in his sequences. At least better than anything I could find on the Internet. Maybe certain researchers had access to cleaner versions of Zapruder, I thought. Anyway, my interest and focus was always on Prayer Man so I didn't think further about the Z-film.
 
The subject of Ed's thread got me thinking about what I remembered years ago. So I found the video, and I extracted the frames and images to look at them again. They sure look clean (I love the detail focusing on the Connallys) but they don't impress me the way I recall they did, circa 2014. Anyway, I put the extracted stuff on a YouTube, some of the best frames I've seen from the extant film, focusing at the end on the 302-304 sequence.
 
FWIW.

Update: I guess this has been Age Restricted due to having some of the same content one can freely find in a million other places. Yay.

Unless we are watching the purported original reversal 8mm film which Zapruder claims to have filmed on Elm then IMHO we can not determine with any certainty the films authenticity or otherwise. That is to say Nobody can claim with any certainty that the film has been faked.

We are watching online copies of copies of copies. The copies from the original film have been altered, that is a fact. Downloaded, transferred, run through telecine chains and distorted digitally via software.

To select 3 frames from a motion picture and claim forgery especially given the provenance of the copies is fraught with difficulties.

Just to be perfectly clear, I have no issue with Costella's version of the film. There is no smear campaign of John's work - none whatsoever. He should be commended for his fine effort in presenting a clear, reimagined copy of the purported extant film.

Yes it should be a community effort to find the errors ommissions and verify the evidence.
There are five Drs involved with this...that I can name off top of head. None are dupes or perfect.
They agree on the facts in evidence are incongruous.
As noted is that a problem with them.
They themselves started there.
And asked if was just their bias etc.
It was not they that was askew.

Just like PM when we fought for better clearer images the same type event unfolded when they saw 302 303 304 anamoly.
Our brothers have the same mothers.
NBC holds the Wiegman Darnell in their fist like Zap Original is at the Government holding facility.
We just would like a family reunion.

How much is a 4k scan of Zap Orig from Nara?
Do they have a down load link in Prores422?
Isnt it nice we the people get no respect

The film and shutter are driven mechanically, powered by springs. While the average frame rate of the camera was established over several seconds, can such a mechanical system driven by various sprockets and springs have enough random variation in timing from frame to frame to provide clear images of those subjects in the limo being tracked but not for those in the background that are in relative motion from panning?

Complex systems made up of numerous energy storage and dissipation components can exhibit quite complex behavior as a system even if their physical properties and initial condition are known with great precision.A small object in orbit around a large planet is simple. When more bodies are involved, it becomes more complicated.

Is there any pattern to frame numbers where these anomalies exist?

I can’t see how an actual limo stop could be hidden in a film. I think the limo did slow down but I also know that when confronted with danger, the mind seems to speed up which slows down the perception of time. I think the limo slow down was a result of the driver turning his head to see what was happening. I don’t believe a sane person would knowingly drive a car into an ambush while seated only a few feet away from the target. Even if he would do such a thing, sudden changes in speed would actually complicate the task of a sniper unless he was firing in line with the direction of travel of the target, in which case it would be unnecessary.

Lance the film advances downward.
The panning is horizontal.
These dont affect each other.
Cheers

Being shot at could cause a reflex action that Greer wasnt trained to avoid ... he brakes and did not accelerate out of the shooting.
While braking would increase shot difficulty it came too late in this instance... accelerating decreases time and also increases difficulty.

Perhaps the hit to chrome strip and windshield along with an "explosion" in the car was just too much to keep concentration.

Anyways the chart Above has some excellent details about the Zfilms.
Cheers

When Z was up there, each time the shutter opened and captured a frame, it depended in large part to if his panning was more or less matching up with the movement. He was obviously handholding the camera and trying to hold his shot as smoothly as possible. I'm sure there was a lot going on in his mind before and during the event - "Remember...hold it steady...stay with the action..." etc. etc.

So at one point, his panning and holding the camera - when the shutter opened - matched up with the timing of movement of the action on the street. So in that case, that particular frame is going to look less blurry and clearer. At other times, if his panning lagged with the street action and he was trying to catch up or whatever, that frame was going to be blurry. Keep in mind too that that one frame was exposed every 1/18 of a second. The unstablized version (can't really find a good copy of it on YTV) shows how he was steady for the most part but there were slight lags, jerks, etc. My hunch, too, is toward 313, he may have been so excited that he started to peek out of the viewfinder, which is why he actually almost didn't record the headshot. That's why that part is so close to the bottom of the frame.

But anyway, this explains the blur/no blur effect. It's the same thing as taking sports action photos. When a guy's running on the field, you try to pan as much as you can with him to stay with the action - if you do, great - the action is frozen and there's no blur.

And for what it's worth here's a nice video that shows that nothing nefarious was going on with the film. This is actually an example, too, of how you can see Z's handheld movements with the frame bobbing around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g7qhn7KFDs

Keep in mind too that that one frame was exposed every 1/18 of a second.



Um, I don't thinks so JFK case. His camera is reported in the camera specs as filming at 1/40th, which is slightly "off" 180 degrees or 1/50th. At 1/18th there would have been just a blur of the whole scene. Maybe you've confused the frame rate with the shutter speed here.

True that Mick.
I suppose I should post the debates main proponent; the bits are discussed here

https://youtu.be/3Y6RaDmG0hs

There are 22 videos to watch and absorb
the details of the films study.
Not that I agree with the whole presentation but this covers the anomaly well enough and parameters used by Costella.

The film is momentarily stationary when each frame is exposed. It doesn’t matter which way the film is advanced.

True Lanceman,
Frames are a flat plane in space.
As Costella explains.

Just thought there was some inflection of systems generating some forces ...which are of course not present though in this system. So no explanation for 303 capturing fore and background equally when one MUST be blurred Or the limo stopped as did Zaps panning...which picks back up in 304 and like like 302 shows background blur.

Note the BnH 8mm had metal gates. More robust and secure.
Held the film better than super 8 which went with plastics.

I feel 303 shows same level of detail throughout the frame.
Same of limo, visors, and faces (Greer), as Toni Foster and legs of others walking behind her.
I imagine the original is clear as a bell in this one frame! Itd have to be CRYSTAL CLEAR!!!
If its not .... then weve been lied to in an blatant fashion.

Here is more Stolley stories
https://youtu.be/MxuOtcmyPxQ
Cheers

Ed.Ledoux wrote:So where are the BACK AND TO THE LEFT witnesses.

I've just had a look at Pat Speer's website, which contains a pretty comprehensive list of witness statements, official and unofficial:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter7morepiecesofthepuzzle

A quick glance through that page shows that Sam Holland and William Newman described JFK going backward in response to the head shot. Pat also includes Beverly Oliver, for what that's worth.

Holland told Barry Ernest in 1968 that JFK's head "suddenly lurch[ed] backward."

Newman referred to the back-and-to-the-left movement several times. At about 1:10pm, just 40 minutes after the shooting, he said in a TV interview that JFK "was directly in front of us. And then he ... we seen him get shot in the side of the head. And he fell back in his seat."

We have a least two witnesses who were close enough to have a good view, and who described what we can see clearly in the Zapruder film and less clearly in the Nix and Muchmore films. There is no good reason to suppose that the back-and-to-the-left movement didn't happen.

Different witnesses at different times reported different aspects of what they saw. Reports of slumping and moving forward were accurate too. We can see in those home movies that JFK slumped forward after the back-and-to-the-left movement.

The notion that the back-and-to-the-left movement was either left in for some reason when the film was altered, or didn't happen at all and was a by-product of film alteration, has always struck me as bizarre. It's the most obvious evidence of a shot that didn't come from the book depository.

It's also the most obvious evidence that the film wasn't altered, especially when you consider that two other home movies show the same thing and would have had to be altered too. There can't have been anything more incriminating in the film than the back-and-to-the-left movement.

As Jeremy says above, this has been one of the more weirder conspiracies among folks who think everything is faked. If the bad guys went through all of this trouble of trying to fake the movie, why in the world did they even leave the backward movement of his head in the movie we see today?

The reason is simple. It's because they did not fake it. They did not remove 67% of the frames (again, why would they or what would those frames show?). Funnily enough, the Z film actually matches the autopsy photos. The first hit from right after the sign goes away shows Kennedy taking the frontal throat shot and then immediately lurching forward from the force of the back shot. The photos match - the hole in throat cut through by Perry, and then the back shot that did not terminate anywhere on the body.

Kennedy was hit in the back of the head, forcing his head downward, but the front shot was like a tangential shot, pushing him back and to the left.

Once Oswald was dead, though, it was quite easy to come up with a theory showing the magic bullet passing in and out of two people on a miraculous path. We couldn't possible expect them to say it any differently because that would have opened up the multiple shooters.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-T35ZbilXIwXMMUPfMfTjgQ

Ed.Ledoux wrote:True that Mick.
I suppose I should post the debates main proponent; the bits are discussed here

https://youtu.be/3Y6RaDmG0hs

There are 22 videos to watch and absorb
the details of the films study.
Not that I agree with the whole presentation but this covers the anomaly well enough and parameters used by Costella.

Ed,
I'd discussed this with John Costella a few times quite some years back. I've seen the video presentation, many times. I happen to agree with a few of his views on a couple of the anomalies. That said I cannot agree that the film was altered in any substantial way. 
Poor analogy but some of John's work  reminds me of the academic in the lecture room verses the professional in the field with hands on experience. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here, we share the same vocation. 

I don't know whether you remember the days when the Tech Directors would sit in a darkened room grading the film going to air on TV. I do. It was astonishing to watch the se guys work in a darkened room and tweak the toggle with their eyes locked on the wave form monitors. Not once looking at the actual live to air picture. Quite often what went to air because of this practice was under exposed or alternately washed out and over exposed images. I remember standing next to these guys and watching a piece of film I'd shot earlier be destroyed because they had buried their heads in the wave form monitor. 

In the end you'd just scream at them to look at the film on the TV screen instead of the wave form monitor. 
Look at at the actual film on screen. 

And that's what I do here, I don't slow the Zapruder film down, I don't look at the individual frames so much, I watch it as a whole as intended, as closely as possible at it's original running speed without pausing without rewinding or fast forwarding, and my head and my gut tell me this is a normal looking 8mm reversal home movie film shot in 1963.

 Zapruder himself at the Clay Shaw trial was shown a copy of his film and without any doubt he confirmed to the court under Oath that the copy the court had in its possession was the same as the film he’d watched and filmed in 1963.

Good stuff Mick.
Not sure Zapruder or Garrison knew to stop on 302 303 304 and check its veracity at speed its easy to overlook it. Even then what would Zapruder say... no here is 150k back or would he tacitly agree the film is what he recalled he watched.
I dont believe Life or Stolley could hold up in court and never litigated Geraldo ABC etc.
Its circumstantial, since it never did go to court.
Cheers

According to Luis Alvarez, the pan rate of Zapruder’s camera was constant (zero acceleration) from frames 300 to 310. See Figure 3 in link below.

[url=http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Alvarez Luis Dr/Item 02.pdf]http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Alvarez%20Luis%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf[/url]

That would explain why the images of the limo and its occupants are relatively clear. Any differences between the pan rate and the rate of speed of the limo would be relatively small relative to stationary figures in the background. If minute flaws in the mechanisms that advanced the film and operated the shutter result in random but slight variations in shutter speed from frame to frame, blurring effects would be more noticeable in stationary background (or foreground) objects. Remember that springs are not perfectly linear, sprockets don’t perfectly engage, gears do not perfectly engage. In most cases, it would not make a difference but in some it might be noticeable.

Alvarez based his analysis on frames published in 1966 in Life magazine so is independent of any processing in the John Costella frames. While my reasoning is plausible, if the frames used by Alvarez were already “altered”, the conclusion is in doubt.

I believe Josiah Thompson made a similar analysis of Zapruder film pan rate in his “Last Second in Dallas” but I have not read that book so I don’t know what his results were but I do know he is skeptical, to put it mildly, of Luis Alvarez.

Excellent Lanceman!!
I might expect the mechanisms to produce an extreme foreground blur and background.
Is there any frames that might be an example?
I know Tink had to rethink his forward head movement of JFK so there is likely room for skeptics on both sides back then.

There is some other details about the film and Zapruder I would introduce.

Two copies from Garrison.
https://nypost.com/2015/11/19/jfk-conspiracy-theorists-eye-auction-featuring-assasination-trial-items/

The film subpoenaed by Jim was no "original"

"Before the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw, a businessman from New Orleans, for conspiracy in connection with the assassination, a copy of the film made several generations from the original was subpoenaed from Time Inc. in 1967 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for use at Shaw's grand jury hearing. Garrison unsuccessfully subpoenaed the original film in 1968.
The courtroom showings of Garrison's copy in 1969 were the first time it had been shown in public as a film."

So no public dissenters could say otherwise about what was seen before this and Zapruder is likewise accepted at face value at this time.
Never a word about other descriptions by Rather and rumours floating about Life's film were introduced.




The closest we get to Zap Original are the HQ copies

I looked at Costella’s frames from roughly 295-310. I see other frames that show the background figures more clear than frames preceding or following (298, for example). Though admittedly, this is a subjective opinion. 

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

These frames were taken when the limo was closest to Zapruder so the highest pan rate was required to keep the limo centered and the background figures most blurred. If the shutter was slightly slower there would be more blurr; slightly faster shutter operation would result in less blurr.

First, there's nothing wrong with watching the waveform and vectorscope when grading footage or video. That's what it's there for. I find the story about screaming while grading film a little far-fetched. Maybe that's how it's done on your side of the world, but I've never experienced that, and I've worked with a bevy of engineers, producers, directors, editors and technicians. None of us had the ambition to ruin anything by blowing out the whites or set-ups.

Second, John Costella doesn't know anything more about this film than I do, which means we're getting into the subjective judgments of how our brains are interpreting what we're seeing. I've explained this over and over and over again that the film could not have been altered in any way to satisfy the fantasy that some nefarious scene was in there showing conspiracy and therefore needed to be somehow removed. 

Everything in that film looks like it should - there are clear images and blurry backgrounds in some frames, more blur in others, and so on. Alteration of this film makes absolutely no sense, but that's the trouble with a lot of people who "research" this case. Like the Mel Gibson character in Conspiracy Theory, they see conspiracy everywhere, and because they're hellbent on their paranoia, there's absolutely no way to convince them otherwise.

The "rollbar looks like this" and "the limo's shadow does that" is all just stupid, ridiculous bullshit. It's truly getting into John Butler territory.

If having multiple shooters means having to alter the body, destroy the windshield, alter the films and have a cleanup squad kill inconvenient witnesses, perhaps it would have been easier to have a single shooter with a better rifle do the deed.

If altering the film, why not blur the limo occupants?