Zapruder film?

[Questionin]

Where did Costella get his copy (copies) of Zapruder from. Why don't frames
207-212 contain the sprocket area images like the rest of the film? Did he
use the camera original from Life or the Secret Service copies or one of
those copies of the copy the SS handed out like candy?

[Raymond]

Proof that the Zapruder film is authentic
One of the central arguments in the book Assassination Science is
that the Zapruder film is not authentic. Various researchers argue that
frames had been cut out for some conspiratorial motive. On pages 310 to
315 Dr. Mantik discusses the strange ghostlike images in the sprocket hole
area. He does not know what caused them and suspects that they indicate
tampering. Balderdash. To date, no one has correctly explained what those
images are and how they were created. For many years I have puzzled over
them and discussed them with other researchers, but never reached a firm
conclusion due to the very poor quality of the Zapruder film versions we
have had. Now MPI has released the original Zapruder film with the
sprocket hole areas intact. Within 5 seconds of viewing this new videotape
release of the Zapruder, I knew instantly what the sprocket hole images
are and exactly what caused them. You, gentle reader, will be among the
first people to learn the truth. Since the publication of this article
this summer I have received positive feedback from Internet readers which
has allowed me to figure out what more of the ghost images are. I have
revised and updated this article from this point to reflect the new
information.

The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no
possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every
time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto
the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The
ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real
objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner
workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there
is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current
frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras
leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows
information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
Some 8 mm cameras have a notch in the top of the aperture plate where the
claw finishes its stroke when pulling down the next frame. Bell & Howell
designed the aperture plate to use a groove in the middle of the aperture
plate instead of a notch at the top. The illustration on the left is from
a standard reference on film making which shows what an aperture plate
looks like with a typical notch. The illustration on the right is what the
aperture plate would look like if the notch had been changed to a groove.
I also suspect that the corners are actually rounded instead of sharp.
After exposure of the current frame, the claw grabs the current frame's
sprocket hole and pulls the current frame down to bring in the next frame

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/zapruder.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzHKAzvO4tY
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/looking.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

He captured the frames from the MPI DVD which had digitized the original
film at the National Archives. Frames 207-212 came from the SS copy
which did not include the sprocket holes.

[Questionin]

That's all cool. You're very informed. But does answer the question. Where
did Costella GET the Zapruder film he worked on. Which of the four copies
was it he had? Even though he may have the Zapruder camera original all
the copies seem a bit different from the others?


"Raymond" <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:46d5400e-d65a-4f62...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

[wgroom]

Why don't you ask Costella himself? He's on Facebook. I think ghost
images are gone into in the 'Hoax' book. I haven't read Assassination
Science.

I don't know if this relates, but 40 frames were assigned to Homer
McMahon of NPIC on the Assassination Eve or the next night. These
were taken from the Z Film which he says is not the same as your
viewing today, in so many words. He has testimony by authors and the
HSCA.

wg

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/3/2012 10:49 AM, Questionin wrote:
> That's all cool. You're very informed. But does answer the question. Where
> did Costella GET the Zapruder film he worked on. Which of the four copies
> was it he had? Even though he may have the Zapruder camera original all
> the copies seem a bit different from the others?
>

He used the MPI video which digitized the original print in the National
Archives, you know the one damaged by LIFE and full of dirt and tears.

> workings of the Bell& Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there

> is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current
> frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras
> leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows
> information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
> Some 8 mm cameras have a notch in the top of the aperture plate where the

> claw finishes its stroke when pulling down the next frame. Bell& Howell

[Pamela Brown]

And of course this discrepancy doesn't bother you at all.

[Questionin]

"Pamela Brown" <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19c9acdb-186a-44ab...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

Anthony said he got the MPI film and copied it. But which copy is the MPI.
I think had the HSCA got all the copies and compared them to each othewr
they may have come up with some real evidence. But they were only
intrested in covering up for who ever. And not really intrested in what
happened. Had they gotten to the real truth we would know what happened.
Maybe Oswald was in the window. But the government did such a sorry job
most of us (public) don't believe.

I've been looking at Zapruder, and so far it does look like a single shot
from the rear. But what I can't get is how his arm was shot when he held
it up long after the sb struck. And so far no body knows if a large
fragement broke off and hit his wrist at exit the rib. Or if it could have
been a separate bullet. Its puzzling TO ME.

I'm no kind of expert. I'm just intrigued by what happened.

[Anthony Marsh]

We can't undo LIFE"s errors. All you can do is moan and cry. Or make up
conspiracy theories to explain it.

[Questionin]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4f2d8217$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

I'm not bitching or moaning. But just want to read what Life had to say.
What they claimed happened to the film. And which SS copy we are talking
about?

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, if you've already predetermined that LIFE is lying and part of the
conspiracy then why would you want to read what LIFE had to say? Most of
us read it already many years ago. You can find it easily with Google.

Copy may not be the right word. Think of it as the SS print.

[markusp]

On Feb 4, 6:44 pm, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> But which copy is the MPI.
> I think had the HSCA got all the copies and compared them to each othewr
> they may have come up with some real evidence.

MPI secured permission to access the out-of-camera original film. From
that film on 11-22-63, Zapruder made 3 copies, and kept the original. He
sold the original to Time Life, who subsequently damaged the film by
excising several frames and creating splices. Time Life sold the film back
to the Zapruder estate in the '70's for $1. Zapruder then asked NARA to
store it under environmentally-controlled conditions, and as far as we
know, it should still be there. I believe the 6th Floor Museum has
technical ownership of rights to it.

The MPI technicians used the original to photograph each frame of film as
a positive transparency at high resolutions, also capturing a digital
image as well. From those digital images, the film is essentially
re-constructed. They reversed a couple of frames, and a couple of
contrast/brightness issues between successive frames is present.

Evidently Costella secured permission to access the digital images from
MPI. So when you view the Costella version, you are essentially viewing it
as one "generation" from the actual original. NOTE: In '63, obviously they
did not have personal computers that digitally maintained the film's
specs. We don't worry now about generation loss once anything is properly
converted digitally. But back then, each generation away from the original
produced a noticeable loss in definition, clarity, etc. That's why
Geraldo's version of it was so grainy when he showed in the '70's.

~Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/7/2012 1:33 PM, markusp wrote:
> On Feb 4, 6:44 pm, "Questionin"<Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But which copy is the MPI.
>> I think had the HSCA got all the copies and compared them to each othewr
>> they may have come up with some real evidence.
>
> MPI secured permission to access the out-of-camera original film. From
> that film on 11-22-63, Zapruder made 3 copies, and kept the original. He
> sold the original to Time Life, who subsequently damaged the film by
> excising several frames and creating splices. Time Life sold the film back
> to the Zapruder estate in the '70's for $1. Zapruder then asked NARA to
> store it under environmentally-controlled conditions, and as far as we
> know, it should still be there. I believe the 6th Floor Museum has
> technical ownership of rights to it.
>

Legally? You seem to have missed the news that the National Archives
paid the Zapruder family $16M for the original film.

> The MPI technicians used the original to photograph each frame of film as
> a positive transparency at high resolutions, also capturing a digital
> image as well. From those digital images, the film is essentially
> re-constructed. They reversed a couple of frames, and a couple of
> contrast/brightness issues between successive frames is present.
>
> Evidently Costella secured permission to access the digital images from
> MPI. So when you view the Costella version, you are essentially viewing it
> as one "generation" from the actual original. NOTE: In '63, obviously they
> did not have personal computers that digitally maintained the film's
> specs. We don't worry now about generation loss once anything is properly
> converted digitally. But back then, each generation away from the original
> produced a noticeable loss in definition, clarity, etc. That's why
> Geraldo's version of it was so grainy when he showed in the '70's.
>
> ~Mark
>

Geraldo showed Robert Groden's bootleg copy.

[markusp]

On Feb 7, 5:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Legally? You seem to have missed the news that the National Archives
> paid the Zapruder family $16M for the original film.

That's a lot of money, and I recall when this was done. When Zapruder
had the film developed on 11-22-63, who paid for the processing? Just
curious.

> Geraldo showed Robert Groden's bootleg copy.

The quality of Geraldo's programs peaked there, and have been in
decline ever since.

~Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Now Geraldo plays footsie with the Nazis, for money.

> ~Mark
>