Peculiarity Of Frame 303

First topic message reminder :

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

This is from Costella site Assassination science text of A SCIENTISTS VERDICT:

Understanding the motion blurring in Zapruder frames (2 pages)
One of the smoking guns of Murder in Dealey Plaza was illustrated by the apparent lack of blur in Frame 303 of the Zapruder film, as argued by Dr. Roderick Ryan in Noel Twyman’s Bloody Treason. Unfortunately, when I first started investigating the Zapruder alteration claims, I discovered that this particular one was in error. I start this section of my chapter with a thorough yet (I hope) understandable explanation of how the correct blurring is calculated, and show explicitly why Frames 302 and 303 are both consistent with the depicted motion of the presidential limousine.
The Gang’s response:
No dispute. Again, The Gang do not highlight the fact that, in the course of putting Zapruder alteration research onto a thorough and rigorous physical and mathematical footing, I actually showed that several previously made claims of anomalous phenomena were actually wrong. The reason for their silence is obvious: they do not want to admit that we displayed this degree of scientific honesty in our own work; and, moreover, they would be implicitly endorsing our mastery of the physics involved.
The Zapruder frame they forgot to blur (2 pages)
I show that Frame 232 of the film, as published in detail in colour in the Memorial Edition of Life, is not correctly blurred. The entire frame is impossible, if the film had been taken through the Zapruder camera. I explain how this implies the complete fabrication of the film, not just minor alterations.
The Gang’s response:
Unbelievably, NO DISPUTE! One of The Gang, James R. Gordon, opined on the jfkresearch.com forum that The Gang had “not realised the significance” of this proof, because it “came after” my discussion of the Stemmons Freeway sign. What a remarkable statement! The importance of the lack of blur in Frame 232 is listed as the primary evidence for fabrication by Jim Fetzer in the Prologue: he shows the image, and spends half a page summarising it. The image then appears again at the end of the colour section, in the highest possible quality of reproduction available to us. Finally, two pages of my chapter are dedicated to the frame, which is shown another two times—preceded, of course, by a two-page explanation of how to analyse the blur in Zapruder frames. Finally, I emphasise that the lack of blur in the entire frame is the first proof presented that demonstrates that the film is not merely an altered film, but rather is a completely fabricated construction. That The Gang attack sections of my chapter that follow this section is an obvious indication that they did not, in fact, “overlook” it. Rather, this proof is so remarkably simple that, once pointed out, anyone at all can understand it.
Changing his tune, Gordon’s final whimper was that I “claimed objects to be point-like”, and that they had to take my word for that claim. But the image is right there, for all to see! Even my five-year-old son can tell me what is there. Moreover, I show that these objects are not photographic blemishes, but rather were real objects in Dealey Plaza. Gordon’s apparent slip of the tongue demonstrates that The Gang realised why I chose point-like objects as especially important markers in this proof: there is a way to “weasel out” of the conclusions, mathematically, that is impossible to employ if the objects are point-like. I anticipated this argument of The Gang’s before it was even made (actually, it had been used on a previous occasion some years previously, and I had to admit on that occasion that it was, indeed, a possible way to “weasel out” of a similar conclusion), and Gordon has revealed the fact that I “snookered” them this time around.


I included the next part "The Zapruder Frame They Forgot To Blur" only to give some frame of reference to the Z303 apologies page, where its not an apology, but merely saying it needs measured (more) scientifically... duh! The Gang jumps onto sinking ships like drunken rats from flotsam and jetsam. 
The blur is blur is blur! 
His calculations may be in error and or corrected, but 303 isn't affected by John's maths. 
Is he saying his explanation is wrong and thus he hasn't explained the anomaly? 
There isn't enough info here on his position and its details.
https://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/costella1.html

lanceman wrote:In this interview from around 2010, Dan Rather claims to have seen the Zapruder film just one time on the morning of November 23. Rather did not take notes of what he had seen at the time of viewing the film.  Later on November 23 he gave two televised accounts on CBS of the film’s events from memory. He was told to leave out Mrs. Kennedy’s climb onto the trunk in his second account of the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIBNuxzN15M

Rather also gave a third account of the film on November 25, again providing great detail from memory for having seen the film only once without notes. Yet he clearly states that “His head was seen to move violently forward”. Interestingly, Rather says the film shows Kennedy and Connally hit by separate bullets.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiSoxFHyjGY

I find it hard to reconcile recalling such great detail but getting the reaction to the head shot completely backwards.

From what I recall, Zapruder left Dealey Plaza within minutes of the assassination. I don’t see any evidence that Rather was in Dealey Plaza during the assassination so it’s unclear how he knew it was Zapruder who had the film.

And that's my point from my previous post about Rather. IMO it reeks of someone big noting themselves and using hearsay. No body from the media would have gotten a look at that film IMO It's possible but not likely....I think he has used a reporters vivid imagination, using info from some of the eye witnesses and possibly info from someone who had indeed watched the film and then mis remembered the details....I think that's entirely possible and because I've worked in this area I have a good understanding of how these guys operate. The Catch cry for the industry for years has been "never let the facts get in the way of a good story". Dan Rather had an agenda, some of these news guys saw and took their opportunity to further their careers with the story of the century we should never forget that. Embellishment, is a key part of the MO for these guys, I've seen it first hand.

Sherry Fiester on Enemy Of the Truth

Alternatives given for shooting film with a 8mm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8oDUTGvqOo
Also this shows the power zoom ... I would use it. 

An eyewitness account 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEavxZReo84

More film witnesses .. Zaps Wife and his Brother, what they didn't watch the news either...? @ 30:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6zOqiJUbhk
34:00 Says Zap stipulated Life defending copyright. Gee how'd that work out.
Then 40:00 Alexandra tells us data doesn't give us consensual truth and/or there are limits to visual proof and answers are satisfactorily provided by this evidence. 
Then 41:00 says Life under pressure by CBS to air film and by criticized by Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather 


OF NOTE a sequence of 298-303 shows Zap actually panning slightly faster than limo (capturing a bit more windshield and hood each frame) so if anything Toni should be more blurred from 302-303  

Mick - I think I misunderstood your original point. Of course we, the general public, do not have access to the actual Zapruder film, which indeed is a problem for those claiming alteration. 

But the actual Zapruder film does exist, at NARA. According to an expert who has examined it, the film is not a copy. That rules out any alteration that requires the original film to have been copied. Pretty much every claim of alteration fails for this reason.

Not only that, but every claim of alteration has relied on what people have seen in copies, and copies are necessarily imperfect. What people see in the copies may well not be what they would see in the actual, original film.

Very often we can be sure that what people see is nothing more than the result of the copying process. That, coupled with the paranoid desire to explain everything as part of a giant conspiracy and in some cases an almost Butlerian level of incompetence in evaluating images, is enough to explain probably every claim of alteration.

I mean, just look at the sort of claims that are made, and how feeble they are. A lot of this stuff is really amateurish. To illustrate that point, let's examine some of Doug Horne's claims that Ed seems to find convincing.

As I pointed out earlier, Horne is not reliable. He actually believes in Lifton's body-snatching nonsense, for Armstrong's sake! Nothing he says should be trusted until it has been independently verified.

Horne wrote:I am as certain as I can be, at this writing, that exit debris frames were removed

There's no good reason to assume that the film would have recorded any debris flying horizontally. A plausible explanation exists for why we don't see any debris. It's the same reason we don't see the bullet: it would have been travelling too fast.

The shutter on Zapruder's camera was open for one-fortieth of a second, 18 times a second. In other words, in each 1/18 second, the shutter was open for just under half the time and closed for just over half the time. The speed of any exit debris could easily have allowed it to travel out of sight in the time the shutter was closed between frames 312 and 313.

Maybe the extra detail that we could expect to find in the actual, existing film does show traces of debris travelling horizontally. Who knows?

Horne wrote:As Vince Palamara tells us, 80+ witnesses reported seeing the presidential limousine slow and/or stop in the 'kill zone' during the assassination ... the simple proof that about sixteen persons in Dealey Plaza indicated that the President’s limousine stopped

I thought it was 59 witnesses, not "80+", but the larger the number, the weaker Horne's case becomes.

He claims that 16 out of 80+ witnesses claimed that the car stopped, and that this is "simple proof" that the film was altered. But 16 out of 80+ implies that more than 64 witnesses claimed that the car only slowed down. If the numbers prove anything, it's that the car didn't stop.

On the one hand, we have 16 witnesses claiming that the car stopped. Against that, we have more than 64 witnesses claiming that the car didn't stop, and we also have three home movies which show that the car didn't stop. Either the majority of the witnesses were mistaken and all three home movies were faked, or a minority of witnesses were mistaken. It's obvious that the car didn't stop.

Horne's own numbers prove exactly the opposite of what Horne is claiming. What made him make such an illogical claim? It must be his blind, fixed belief that the film was altered. If the facts contradict his belief, well, the facts must be wrong.

Horne wrote:how do we know the actual, camera-original Zapruder film wasn’t shot at 48 frames per second, and then edited down to normal speed during the alteration process by removing two thirds of the frames when the new film was created in an optical printer?  The answer is, we don’t know that

We do know that. Roland Zavada explained it in the document I linked to earlier. The film in the Archives is not a copy, so "the new film" cannot have been "created in an optical printer". Frames can only have been removed where physical breaks exist in the film. Here's that document again:

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

It's Zavada's response to claims that Horne made in his book. I really would recommend that Ed reads it. Has Horne come up with credible rebuttals of Zavada's criticism? If not, that's the end of the road for Horne, and for claims of alteration in general.

And as for Dan Rather, why should anyone believe what he claimed to have seen? He claimed that JFK's head went sharply forward. So what? People get all sorts of things wrong, for all sorts of reasons. They make mistakes, or exaggerate (JFK's head did in fact move forward), or say things that aren't true for one reason or another.

David Wrone, on page 102 of his essential book, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003), argues that one of Rather's accounts was mistaken in more than its description of JFK's head movement: "Most of the factual elements in Rather's account are wrong" including his description of the film show in Zapruder's office on the Saturday morning, which Rather may not actually have attended.

Rather was just one witness who claimed something which contradicted what we see in three home movies. Why give it any significance? Why give significance to any fallible human recollection that happens to contradict the photographic evidence?

Zapruder’s camera had 3 frame speed settings, 16 fps, 48 fps (for slow motion) and single frame for stop motion. How likely is it that Zapruder would have filmed the motorcade in slow motion as this would consume film three times faster and he would not know how much time the motorcade would be visible?

If the original film rate was 48 fps, wouldn’t it have been noticed by the NPIC analysts of November 23 when they projected the film? According to Dino Brugioni, they had to call a Washington DC camera store to open at midnight so they could buy an off the shelf 8mm projector. These usually had a single projection speed plus stop and reverse. Projecting a a 48 fps film at 16 fps would look unnaturally slow.

The same applies to those who viewed the film in Dallas after it was first processed.

lanceman wrote:Zapruder’s camera had 3 frame speed settings, 16 fps, 48 fps (for slow motion) and single frame for stop motion. How likely is it that Zapruder would have filmed the motorcade in slow motion as this would consume film three times faster and he would not know how much time the motorcade would be visible?

If the original film rate was 48 fps, wouldn’t it have been noticed by the NPIC analysts of November 23 when they projected the film? According to Dino Brugioni, they had to call a Washington DC camera store to open at midnight so they could buy an off the shelf 8mm projector. These usually had a single projection speed plus stop and reverse. Projecting a a 48 fps film at 16 fps would look unnaturally slow.

The same applies to those who viewed the film in Dallas after it was first processed.

I recall seeing the Zapruder film years ago that included some frames taken before the assassination sequence of family or friends ostensibly to test out the camera. If so, I would imagine those frames would be at the normal camera speed, not slow motion. Why do that for just a little testing? In other words, the entire film would be at the same speed, not two speeds.

According to this interview, Rather claimed to be waiting for the motorcade by the side of the road on the other side of the triple underpass from Dealey Plaza. He says the presidential limo passed him far ahead the rest of the cars which he thought was strange. Though this is true, there is no sign of Rather in any photographs taken at that time and location. It is odd that rather doesn’t remark about hearing sirens which I understand were actuated within seconds of the head shot.

Rather then says he ran to Dealey Plaza, saw the commotion and ran straight to KLRD to find out what happened. Wouldn’t asking bystanders in Dealey Plaza what happened make more sense?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=bnJsGPVn9CY

Regarding general questions about film alteration, it does not appear that any of the early viewers of the original and first generation copies of the Z-film noted anything unusual in the film or any evidence of multiple shooters. The early interpretation of the film was shot 1 and 3 hit JFK and shot 2 hit JBC. This is what Rather relayed on the air in the following days. I recall the initial FBI evaluation concluded the same. It was only somewhat later that it was realized that the alleged rifle could not be fired rapidly enough to account for the short time span between shot 2 and 3. Therefore, if anything needed to be hidden, it was the effects of the head shot (s?).

Another question is raised as to whether it was anticipated ahead of time that any moving or still pictures taken of the assassination would have to be gained control of. I would question a plan that might rely on the logistics of doing this. Just as I would be skeptical of getting possession of the body long enough to do surgery/remove bullets.  How could you be sure to get every film? What if you had to alter several films in short order?  It does appear that even the suspected alterations were done on an ad hoc basis.

So during that first weekend, it appears that the only part of the film that contradicts the three shots from behind is JFK’s backwards motion following the head shot. There wasn’t any way with the constraints of time and technology at the time to do anything about that. Maybe the best that could be done was to instruct Rather to say “violently forward”. Did any of the other viewers correct him on this?

Its weird Lanceman.
As it was Dan doubled down on his VF description.

Here is Swartz's take on the head shot

Swartz

lanceman wrote:Another question is raised as to whether it was anticipated ahead of time that any moving or still pictures taken of the assassination would have to be gained control of. I would question a plan that might rely on the logistics of doing this. Just as I would be skeptical of getting possession of the body long enough to do surgery/remove bullets.  How could you be sure to get every film?

A plan that required identifying and tracking down every spectator who might have brought a camera to Dealey Plaza would have been utterly impractical.

It's clear that the authorities, and by extension any conspirators, had no plan to seize films and photos, and weren't too bothered about what any films and photos might show, at least until it became clear that the Zapruder film contradicted the lone-gunman idea.

Zapruder and Moorman came to the attention of the press and the authorities very soon after the shooting, and James Altgens of course had his photos distributed to news outlets within half an hour or so. But there was certainly no organised attempt to round up any films or photos. Here's a list of when some of the photographers came to the attention of the authorities, and whether they had their cameras and films seized. It's based on information in Richard Trask's excellent book, Pictures of the Pain:

1 - Oscar Bothun didn't have his camera or film seized: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Trask, p.157).

2 - Hugh Betzner went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police.

3 - Phil Willis: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera or film seized there either.

4 - Orville Nix walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and film. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized.

5 - Marie Muchmore retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination.

6 - Wilma Bond wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964.

7 & 8 - Jim and Tina Towner stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras and films.

9 - Robert Croft left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera and film.

10 - Mark Bell walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and film, and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination.

11 - Like Bell, Robert Hughes left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera or film seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed it to the FBI two days after the assassination.

12 - Charles Bronson left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras and films, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras or films seized.

13 - James Altgens waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed.

That's just a partial list. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

Incidentally, I compiled this list ages ago in reply to someone at the Ed Forum who claimed that there was an organised attempt to seize all the cameras and films immediately after the assassination. Then, after a while, someone else made the same claim, so I posted the list again. And then, after another while, the same claim popped up yet again, so I posted the list yet again. I'm sure that won't be the last time I'll need to do it. The film-alteration idea is like a zombie; you just can't kill it off!

The topics of film-alteration, body-alteration and impersonation aren't just trivial pieces of the assassination puzzle that may or may not have happened, like the question of whether Connally was shot at frame X or frame Y. They also determine the scale of the conspiracy and can indicate who might have been behind it and who might not. A lot of alteration-believers don't seem to appreciate this.

If there was widespread film alteration, and if JFK's body was snatched from Air Force One and surgically altered, and if there was intricate pre-assassination framing of Oswald (with widespread impersonations, including doppelgangers), the assassination can only have been planned and carried out by a large group of very powerful people. Obviously, that's an attractive idea to a lot of Ed Forum-type conspiracy theorists, who don't seem to grasp the implausibility of each of these claims.

If it was just a matter of shooting JFK and making sure the gunmen got away undetected, and if the pre-assassination framing of Oswald was restricted to linking him to the Cuban or Soviet regimes, not only does the group of potential suspects become larger, but it also suggests that the assassination wasn't instigated by a large group of very powerful people. That's much less attractive to (and probably a bit too subtle for) a lot of the Ed Forum-type conspiracy theorists.

In addition to Jeremy's list, there is also the unidentified person seen in Nix of the woman with the scarf who had a good shot of the knoll. That film/footage has never been seen. And it was not a 16-year-old Beverly Oliver because there's another photo showing the face of this scarf woman running up the knoll and it was not a 16-year-old female. Oliver is a faker who latched onto the case years after the fact a la Judyth Baker and others.

PS - I'm not saying this footage would have ever shown anything Earth-shattering but it would be interesting to just see the shot sequence from the opposite side and a little closer up.

Not earth shattering but lone gunman shattering.

Babushka's images would be a bracketed by the others in plaza, she stood her ground to get an image. She had a wide stance. Firm steady grip on camera and panned smoothly between shots.
Hers could be several clear images of TSBD, KNOLL and FENCELINE as shots rang out.

Zavada had a lot of time to get all the anomalies and quirks of this model worked out.
The report on the 414PD doesnt include anything that addressses 303.
It seems it still isnt addressed by Rollie in any meaningful fashion.
Does Rollie think its a joke or beyond explanation from his comments and lack of curiosity it must be the later.





Struck out did Rollie.
Cheers

Since 1990s the blur inconsistency has remained as an anomolous conclusion.

Was 303 anomoly from Zapruder jerking forward exactly the amount of motion by limo 10+" and the shutter opens as he then pans capturing both a still and a moving image... hell no!

Was it a printing error as in copy.
If the equipment used to film 302 - 304 the 414PD was not capable of 303s one frame depth of field change with no relative motion blur.
Was anomoly introduced downstream?
Was it due to Jamieson's equipment?
Is their contact printer making this a possibility?
Not if 303 is as clear on original which all sources point to it being so.
Was Kodak's processing the original a causation for frame 303?
I personally do not see how.



I havent mathed out the degrees and minutes the pan encompasses nor speeds of panning for each frame nor do I want to but I suspect such an effort will be gladly accepted.

More on legal claims against Zap n Family LMH inc



Many did not know Zap got half of all licensing fees once Time Life recoup the initial purchase price.
By 1976 the family had made nearly a million dollars from license fees.

This is negligence.



Throw out witnesses whom are behind limo ( and can see brake lights?)
VS 360 degrees of witnesses... why toss out any???

Asking if any difference can be perceived by anyone watching traffic to determine 11 and 5mph vehicles?
I'd say traffic cops are trained for such speed assessments and we aren't comparing two cars differentials but the limos own.
But say you did have a few cars...
If you had a line of traffic moving 11 mph and lead car slowed to 5 mph do you think you'd notice the pileup?
Of course the limo slowed.
It may have slowed and then braked (or slowing was increased momentarily, transmission down shifts etc) why would anyone argue against decrease in speed of the limo, "after" head shot seems reasonable by Greer.
Yet a slowing beforehand gradually from 11 to 5mph is quite unreasonable, perhaps to some as it infers conspiracy somehow? Again was Greer bad enough to slow for shots perceived to be from the rear?


Its not the impression I get, of some slowing or pause of the limo, when viewing Zap where panning is smooth and even.
A great job for a dress maker.
His magical 303 frame is expected with other magic items from that special day such as ce399 the magic bullet, 004459 the magic Bus Transfer, Chameleon Colored Coats, and the pistol and rifle orders prestitigitations.

Tada

I guess I am confused. Is the explanation for the figures in the background being clear in frame 302 because the limo has stopped so there is no panning?

303 is clear frame Lanceman.
Dr Ryan says the effect is of limo being stopped and Zapruder not panning.
Thus for all to be unblurred the camera cant be panning with a moving auto at 11mph.
Really simple.

Of course we didnt get any pushback with electric eye malfunctions and aperture aberrations from Rollie's study.
I would love a degree of pan (panning speed) for each frame noted on each frame.
Static blur measurements noted on each frame.
Then we have agreed basis to examine the motion vs blur.
Technical study.

Is there something simple staring us in the face.
Like Terry found in the BYPs and powerline shadows?

Is there anything odd about Toni's shadow 303 /315 and Bothun's.
Length?
Angle?
PS
I know, its grassy terrain and slopes, hillocks or divit can ruin any true comparison but generally what is observable.



Im not positive but looks like Toni is clocked at 9.
Bothun more like 7, 7:30
Anyways it could be accountable for the ground but just thought itd be funny if the answer was on cover of Fetzer's book the whole time.
Cheers!

The limo didn't stop. It did slow down. I'm pretty sure you can make out the red brake light coming on as it slowed down. All of this happened very quickly. The parade had been going smoothly up to this very short and quick time span of 5 1/2 seconds. Chaos started when the shots rang out, Connolly yelled out and so on. The limo driver looked back to see what was happening while also slowing down. By then it was too late and he sped on.

You can clearly see it here when both films are synched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWEXZyMJMtA

That's a slow down to me. If anyone else wants to say a stop, to each their own.

There's not a thing wrong with the bystander's shadow in the background. You're seeing the woman's shadow split up in milliseconds. Look at her leg how the frame before shows it in one position and then milliseconds later, when the camera takes the next frame, it's moved as she's walking toward the street.

Ed, I believe you claimed to have worked in video. To be honest, I'm shocked you can't seem to figure this out. You can see this, too, in modern day video footage. It's interesting how you can keep reverting back to "anomalies" of the film.

JFK_Case wrote:The limo didn't stop. It did slow down. I'm pretty sure you can make out the red brake light coming on as it slowed down. All of this happened very quickly. The parade had been going smoothly up to this very short and quick time span of 5 1/2 seconds. Chaos started when the shots rang out, Connolly yelled out and so on. The limo driver looked back to see what was happening while also slowing down. By then it was too late and he sped on.

You can also see in the film the effects of braking on the occupants as they lurch forward, which seems to begin right around the head shot. Interesting thing is the ITEK study in the mid 70s measured forward movement of Jackie between 312-313 as pretty much the exact same magnitude as JFK’s head. Watching the film it just looks like blur, and I don’t know how well they corrected for it but it’s an interesting thought if at least part of the forward head movement could have been due to Greer tapping the brakes. The excuse used by ITEK is that the force of the headshot launched Jackie forward through her hand that was touching JFK, which seems a bit ridiculous. Kellerman appears to shift forward a bit between the two frames too if I recall.

I don't see any lurching and the heads pretty much stay steady until the head shot. I made this years ago:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxWV9BWXk5M3hxbEk/view?resourcekey=0-e8x8i7jD4valh-Xedn7YxQ

To stop the limo from 8-11 (mph) in zero in one frame (0.055 s) would result in a deceleration of 7-10 (g). The occupants of the limo and any unsecured objects would be thrown rapidly forward. Several frames would have to be removed, perhaps a few seconds, to hide this and then there would be the problem of sudden changes in position of the limo, the occupants and the background objects when the film sequence is resumed. This would also have narrowed the time span over which the shots could have been fired making the single assassin narrative even harder to support. Nobody in the limo reported the limo stopping. Zapruder makes no mention of the limo stopping in his live, on-air interview on WFAA about 2:00 PM and he was viewing the event through his camera. Further, a sudden stoppage would have blurred the limo as there would be a significant tracking error in Zapruder’s panning rate.

It’s hard to see how such alteration could have been done given the constraints of time and technology. Based on the early analysis by NPIC and the FBI, there was no need to do any alterations - 3 shots, 3 hits.

JFK_Case wrote:I don't see any lurching and the heads pretty much stay steady until the head shot. I made this years ago:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxWV9BWXk5M3hxbEk/view?resourcekey=0-e8x8i7jD4valh-Xedn7YxQ

Oh you are totally right, it basically all occurs and is most visible well after the head shot, though Greer and Kellerman do shift forward some frames before, immediately after they are both looking back at JFK, then lean back in their seats prior to 313, which is interesting. 

Just saying there is some evidence suggesting Greer may have started to brake or tapped the brakes immediately before 313 - like the ITEK study on Jackie. I have no idea if it actually happened or not, like if they didn’t correct for blur enough or something. 

Interesting side note is Nick Nalli, the latest stooge on the jet effect, recently exposed as basically an academic fraud by Gary Aguilar, cited the ITEK study in his “review” of Last Second In Dallas as evidence that only JFK’s head moved forward. According to the exact same study, Jackie shot forward just as much as JFK’s head, by the shock wave propagated through her hand on his chest, or something like that. I haven’t read it in a while.

I found this apropos;

Motion blur in film
Practically all films incorporate motion blur to some degree. This blurring occurs naturally in footage shot at the standard 24FPS, as well as higher frame rates like 29.97 and 30FPS, and also occurs naturally in real life.

Audiences are conditioned to expect a blur in movement both in their daily life and on screen, so a film without it tends to look unnatural. This expectation can lead to the implementation of "aesthetic blur."



When mixing frame rates or compositing different elements, aesthetic blur can help blend the differences together to make the whole feel more cohesive.

Damn skippy, except if a frame is not blurred when it should be!

I find it funny anyone with eyes can see an anomoly.
But they need a special badge to say it is really there.
Its there something special about JFK_CASE's special pleadings?
Why compare Toni's legs to her legs from a different frame 303 vs 315 and say milliseconds later???
Of course she is moving towards the street as has been mentioned numerous times by myself in regards to blur.
Its not Toni's leg shadow that was important.
Her shadow vs Bothun's is.
Are they the same or not?
Dont get flummoxed show they are equal.
XCheers