Zapruder Film - lampost

[TJC76]

Why does the lamp post in the Z-film never move in relation to the
background flowers and wall? It is like the lampost has been cut out
and re-pasted back on as a single image.
My inquiries on this suggest the film is missing the THE PHENOMENON OF
PARALLAXE.
Do others see this?

[Robert Harris]

In article
<2ef83b4e-7c68-4926...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

Why ask? Find out for yourself.

Grab a digital camera and go to place where there is a relatively close
pole of some kind and objects much further away. Pan across the pole
like Zapruder did, then look at your video.

Do you see the pole move significantly, relative to the background?





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you want the lamppost to move? Do you think there was an
earthquake or a strong wind or something?

[Raymond]

Teresa Brewer - The Old Lamplighter (1963)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KGXAOWZ62c

[sebster]

On Jan 6, 11:29 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <2ef83b4e-7c68-4926-91d8-79d34b2ef...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Why does the lamp post in the Z-film never move in relation to the
> > background flowers and wall? It is like the lampost has been cut out
> > and re-pasted back on as a single image.
> > My inquiries on this suggest the film is missing the THE PHENOMENON OF
> > PARALLAXE.
> > Do others see this?
>
> Why ask? Find out for yourself.
>
> Grab a digital camera and go to place where there is a relatively close
> pole of some kind and objects much further away. Pan across the pole
> like Zapruder did, then look at your video.
>
> Do you see the pole move significantly, relative to the background?
>
> Robert Harris

Yes? The lampost in the Z-film is glued to the same section of
background like the foreground and background are moving as one. I
admit to not knowing much about film/photography but I do find this
strange. I showed to a friend who is a film editor and he agreed it
was odd - he spent ages trying to think why it was like that - says he
hs no idea.
If you watch the film, just concentrate on the lampost and the
background it is "attached" to - it looks like the lampost has been
glued on to the backround - very disconcerning.

[sebster]

The background (the wall and flowers) should move in relation to the
lampost as the lampost is in the foreground and Zapruder is filming
the limo as it moves (known as THE PHENOMENON of PARALLAXE) Instead
the same bit of background moves with the lampost - very easy to see.
I can't explain it any better than this. Watch the film and just focus
on the lampost in relation to the background. Everyone I have shown it
to agrees it is odd.

[Questionin]

"TJC76" <col...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:2ef83b4e-7c68-4926...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

Don't listen to Anthony. He is an aggregator. He tries to throw you off
track if you don't think the Zap is a Holy Grail. I think you are on to
something. The Stemmons Sign does the same thing. That is why the first
showing had a splice at the Stemmons Sign. I thing the whole thing is
nothing more than a cut and paste.
If you watch the occupants they do not move in every frame. But the frame
still moves. It is curious how the movements of the occupants lunge and are
not transcendent in movement. But they're many LNers and other who will say
you're crazy. So what?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/8/2012 12:57 PM, Questionin wrote:
> "TJC76"<col...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:2ef83b4e-7c68-4926...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>> Why does the lamp post in the Z-film never move in relation to the
>> background flowers and wall? It is like the lampost has been cut out
>> and re-pasted back on as a single image.
>> My inquiries on this suggest the film is missing the THE PHENOMENON OF
>> PARALLAXE.
>> Do others see this?
>>
>>
>>
> Don't listen to Anthony. He is an aggregator. He tries to throw you off

What the Hell does that mean?

> track if you don't think the Zap is a Holy Grail. I think you are on to

It is only one clue. It can't tell us everything we need to know.

> something. The Stemmons Sign does the same thing. That is why the first
> showing had a splice at the Stemmons Sign. I thing the whole thing is
> nothing more than a cut and paste.

Ridiculous. The splice is just by chance where the film broke. There is
no splice in other frames showing the sign. Why would they snip out just
one or two frames? And you intentionally overlook the fact that we have
those frames in the other two prints.

> If you watch the occupants they do not move in every frame. But the frame
> still moves. It is curious how the movements of the occupants lunge and are
> not transcendent in movement. But they're many LNers and other who will say
> you're crazy. So what?
>

You are not making any sense.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/8/2012 12:57 PM, sebster wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:29 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <2ef83b4e-7c68-4926-91d8-79d34b2ef...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>> Why does the lamp post in the Z-film never move in relation to the
>>> background flowers and wall? It is like the lampost has been cut out
>>> and re-pasted back on as a single image.
>>> My inquiries on this suggest the film is missing the THE PHENOMENON OF
>>> PARALLAXE.
>>> Do others see this?
>>
>> Why ask? Find out for yourself.
>>
>> Grab a digital camera and go to place where there is a relatively close
>> pole of some kind and objects much further away. Pan across the pole
>> like Zapruder did, then look at your video.
>>
>> Do you see the pole move significantly, relative to the background?
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> Yes? The lampost in the Z-film is glued to the same section of
> background like the foreground and background are moving as one. I
> admit to not knowing much about film/photography but I do find this
> strange. I showed to a friend who is a film editor and he agreed it
> was odd - he spent ages trying to think why it was like that - says he
> hs no idea.

You know so little that you find everything strange.

> If you watch the film, just concentrate on the lampost and the
> background it is "attached" to - it looks like the lampost has been
> glued on to the backround - very disconcerning.
>

Looks like? You call that scientific investigation?

[Brokedad]

On Jan 8, 11:57 am, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "TJC76" <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message

Finally!

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

***The parallax does change between the lamp post and the red flowers
during the course of the pan. As the lamp first appeared, a red splotch
can be seen next to the lamp. That splotch is not seen at the left side
of the lamp as the lamp goes into the sprocket. Zapruder's camera does
change position relative to the lamp and flowers.

***Ron Judge

[markusp]

On Jan 8, 11:57 am, "Questionin" <Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> That is why the first
> showing had a splice at the Stemmons Sign. I thing the whole thing is
> nothing more than a cut and paste.

The excised frames that Time-Life admitted to damaging indeed happened to
be right where JFK disappears behind the Stemmons sign, and some people
believe this may have been deliberate to conceal a possible shot or
reaction. However, 8mm film projectors of that time period normally had
variable speed control for playback. When the film is slowed down, each
frame is held within the gate for a longer period of time, exposing it to
the intense heat of the lamp for projection. Some could even project a
single frame, but a douser needs to reduce the intensity of the heat from
the lamp, or the frame melts very quickly. The edges of that splice in the
Z film look as though this was the case, although it doesn't rule out
nefarious intent. Those dousers almost never worked the way they were
intended.

~Mark

[Squinty Magoo]

But don't we have other, non-Life, versions of the film without the
missing frames?

Squinty

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, the SS copy and the other original print.