+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely (/thread-11235.html)
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Josephs - 30-08-2013
With ALL due respect Jim... what are you doing?
JEFF dealt with the motions already, Jeff did?.... you gonna come to his aid and explain the SPRING MECHANISM and FPS bullsh!t he dumped on us.
A less than 5% variation in speed in the fps and you're ready to concede his "theory" as correct. The frames 302, 303 & 304 would have to be shot at less than 9fps for us to have missed the frames in which he turned at regualr speed. Are you ready to make that argument FOR Jeff?
"Film Alterationists" as you call them are working with the ENTIRETY of the evidence...
Hill can't make that distance unless the Limo slows to less than 3mph... or frames are removed
Greer can't do what he does with his head - unless frames are removed
Diving man as we pass Altgens moves at incredible speed - frames are gone
Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.
BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.
Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.
NPIC has two different films creating two different reports/presentations while the CIA tells us they had nothing to do with THAT film THAT weekend.
The images in LIFE and on Homer's breifing boards are the same, they show the same BLACK PATCHES on the back of JFK's head
The film in the archive has NO UNIQUE IDENTIFYING MARKS that connect it to the film developed at KODAK
-----
I think you get my drift Jim. You mean only 15 people - some closest to the Limo at the time - state it stopped.... another handful from other angles and distances say it slowed considerably. Are you suggesting they were wrong and what we see in Zap is what actually happened?
Jeff has yet to DEAL with anything other than to point to Zavada and say "see, he was right... THAT'S my supporting evidence."
Quote:Uh, will someone please explain to me how Bob Groden is an infiltrator? Gary Aguilar? Lisa Pease?
In other words, if you disagree with someone about a particular issue, then this translates into being a CIA agent?
You KNOW this not to be true Jim... if Bob Groden came on the forum and said the differences in fps accounts for the anomolies seen in the film...
you telling me we wouldn't ask him to present his case with something related to the real world.
Same with Gary, or you or anyone...
MAKE YOUR CASE so those here with a little knowledge base and background can support it, defend it or expose the weaknesses.
The "research Community" owes it to itself and its members to QUESTION whatever is brought to it.
If those requested refuse to answer, refuse to explain, refuse to even address those interested in their theories but feel MORE info is needed...
Yes Jim, we ought to be a little suspicious.... in the same vein, it needn't be a witch hunt...
but KUDOS and a free-pass to Jeff for bastardizing the work done by others with no explanation
is a bit too much for those close to the subject can take.
For the record, I NEVER believed he was anything but a poster refusing to address the weaknesses in his presentation and then getting indigent when, after posting everything BUT an explanation is simply asked to do so.
An emotionally charged issue - this alteration stuff. I am attempting to explain it both in Time and technique.
TECHINICALLY what I suggest has now been supported by actual EXPERTS and offered in the real world by Chris D.
48fps was doable and very possible and makes the few select scenes easily altered with only the speed anomolies seen... there ARE clues to the process left in this altered, spliced together extant film. Jeff's inability to deal with being questioned notwithstanding.
DJ
PS... I have found Albert Rossi to be a kind soul not wanting to deal with witch hunts. If indeed the "research community" has degraded to the point were anyone with an idea is expecting to be treated to a pat on the back and "good job" regardless of the work done and support provided... we have a lot more to be worried about.
I ain't nobody Jim.... I'm not published, I'm not on radio... I'm a private person who has done their best to learn as much as I can to explain as much as I can. In the process I've developed my own ideas on some of the aspects of the case. If I post these ideas, I expect challenges and I expect to do my best to answer the concerns of members when I do.
"Because I said so" simply will not cut it. Not for me, not for you, not for anyone...
CTKA seems to have been founded on such a concept of challenging/championing those that would EXPLAIN IT FOR US - and we greatly appreciate it.
What you did to Bugs was classic - Jeff and I and everyone else deserve the same consideration if we're going to EXPLAIN IT FOR US.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Phil, Jeff dealt with those herky jerky motions already.
And they have been dealt with elsewhere too.
Duke Lane did a very nice analysis of the 59 witnesses.
They are not 59. In reality, they are something like less than 20% of that sum: 12 or 13.
Everyone sees the jump cut in the film of course. And most people think its a start, stop. I mean, what could be hidden there? I have heard some of the things floated, but where is the witness corroboration?
And no, it was not a "courtesy visit" I paid to the Wilkinsons. You don't drive 50 miles one way with the price of gasoline being what it is out of "courtesy". They really strike me as being credible people, since they work in the industry every day. And they have done their homework. They have one significant technical problem to overcome. And I look forward to the end result of that endeavor. But during our talk, it became clear to me that they don't buy the wholesale alterationist concept. And that, in this regard, Horne misrepresented who they were and what they are about.
Too often in this so called research community, people recycle what other authors have written without doing any kind of proper check up on what is on the page. It then gets repeated and it then becomes acceptable. Even though it should not be. Remember, Garrison being in bed with the Mafia? Complete and utter balderdash. But it lasted for 25 years. That is how great our "research community" is on peer review.
I am in neither camp on this issue. I have alway said that I was agnostic on this point. And I await the end game for the Wilkinsons.
But I don't know what is achieved by the almost fascist zealotry of the radical alterationist school here. So far you have driven out Rossi, who is going to Greg Parker's site. And I consider that a big loss to DPF. Jeff Carter is not posting. And his contributions to 50 Reasons are indelible. I mean on a five dollar budget with almost no time allowed, to come up with what they did on that is really something.
And when these things happen, what is the creed the radical alterationist follower recites? Most of the time its something like, well there are infiltrators in our midst.
Uh, will someone please explain to me how Bob Groden is an infiltrator? Gary Aguilar? Lisa Pease?
In other words, if you disagree with someone about a particular issue, then this translates into being a CIA agent?
Well, I hate to tell everyone, but the highest rating the critics ever got with the public was after Oliver Stone's movie came out. Remember, "back and to the left"? Yep, he said it five times. Maybe Stone was a CIA agent? Or maybe it was Zach Sklar?
Or was it Albert Rossi?
No one has done more work on this concept of jackals in our midst than I have. I did it in the Second Edition of Destiny Betrayed at length. And I did it in my essay, "How Gary Mack became Dan Rather". But there is one big difference. I did it with strong evidence. And in some cases, this rose to the threshold of proof. Disagreements about whether or not the Z film is genuine does not constitute proof. Just like disagreements about George H. W. Bush being in on the Kennedy caper does not constitute proof of being a spook.
Unless you are John Hankey of course. Hankey actually called me a CIA agent because CTKA printed Seamus Coogan's critique of Hankey's crappy movie. Now if you are in his camp, why don't you guys go to Santa Barbara in November instead of Dallas. And you can listen to the likes of Fetzer, Cinque, and Janney. I mean Janney accused Lisa and myself of being the Real Deal, yep, Nazis, because we did not like his book on Mary Meyer.
Yep, that is what this "research community" has come to. In the immortal words of Kevin Costner in The Untouchables, "I have become what I beheld and I am convinced I have done right."
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - John Mooney - 30-08-2013
Dawn Meredith Wrote:John Mooney Wrote:Indeed it IS their job. Make critics of the official story look as insane as possible...We saw the same thing with the Boston bombings with all the sites claiming the blood was fake, that no one lost limbs.Tracy Riddle Wrote:Over on the 9/11 side, they seem to think that every bit of photographic footage from that day is faked. Seriously? These kinds of extreme, absolutist positions only serve to discredit the whole critical community and drive ordinary people towards the official story.
I think it's their job.
Seriously.
I have plenty of good questions about 9/11 (we probably all do) but I got sick of debating with no-planers and people pushing "September Clues".
They drowned the 9/11 truth movement with crap.
Same as the Apollo Moon hoax.. designed to make us all look stupid by association.. because "all conspiracy theorists are crazy".
Mission accomplished.
Utter garbage.
Dawn
Absolutely. There are plenty of questions about the Boston bombing but that too got drowned in lots of nonsense.
They don't like rational critical thinkers. People with sensible questions and who like a bit of science, logic and knowledge in the debate.
I swear it's intended.
Didn't Nixon use the term "ratf*cking"?
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Jim DiEugenio - 30-08-2013
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Umm, David, as I said, there is no Hollywood Group.
What there is is the Wilkinsons.
You just won't come to your senses, will you?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/group
group noun, often attributive \ˈgrüp\
1: two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition
2: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship
and
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/group
group n.
1. An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the roa
2. Two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Well, I hate to tell everyone, but the highest rating the critics ever got with the public was after Oliver Stone's movie came out. Remember, "back and to the left"? Yep, he said it five times. Maybe Stone was a CIA agent? Or maybe it was Zach Sklar?
Or was it Albert Rossi?
Another cheap shot.
No one -- repeat, NO ONE -- at DPF has made any such suggestion regarding Messrs. Rossi, Stone, and Sklar.
And for the record, no one has done more than I've done to try to convince Albert Rossi to stay on DPF.
You, on the other hand, seem pleased and better served by his exit and the opportunities for I-told-you-so's that it provides.
But perhaps I'm mistaken. Please share with us how you attempted to keep Albert within the DPF fold.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:[The Wilkinsons] have one significant technical problem to overcome [in re their back-of-head blackout work]. And I look forward to the end result of that endeavor. But during our talk, it became clear to me that they don't buy the wholesale alterationist concept. And that, in this regard, Horne misrepresented who they were and what they are about.
At last, Jim, a prime example of deep political analysis in progress. Of course it originates with the Wilkinsons.
As I tried to explain to you on two previous occasions:
"Deep political analysis of Z-film alteration arguments suggests that some of the most easily refuted were made to diminish all of the most easily demonstrated."
http://thesaurus.com/browse/group
Please show me where it says "pair" in the list of synonyms for the word group above.
What got Albert so disgusted with this discussion was the rather all too quick tendency to devolve the debate into smears and innuendoes about certain person's bona fides and credentials. This was also a tendency at EF. Now, I used people who obviously are not spooky to show the rather confused logic of this tendency.
And the Wilkinson work is not any kind of Deep Political Analysis on my part. It was simply a matter of driving to their nice home in the valley. And spending a couple of hours with them and listening to their technical analysis. Not one thing political about it. I understand something about film since I went to college out here for a degree in film. And they explained to me how the digital reformatting worked and what it showed. And that is a rather original approach. Since most of the other presentations I have seen worked exclusively from a film format. And since I understand some of the technical problems involved in the film process I really have not seen anything convincing that would explain to me how it could be done in a brief period of time.
See Brugioni saying, they could do anything at Hawkeye, to me that is not evidence. What is "anything"? But yet Horne hangs his hat on this in reply to all the technical arguments Zavada makes in his 30 page letter.
Then there is the first day quandary: About five people saw the film in Dallas. Would they not have said something if the film had been radically altered in some way?
Having said this, again, I am still an agnostic on the issue. I have changed my mind on issues in this case and related ones. For example, I did not think at one time that all the assassinations were conspiracies or were related. I then wrote a book saying they were.
So once it reaches the tipping point, I will then reevaluate. To me, it has not yet.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Tracy Riddle - 30-08-2013
So, we either have: a) an authentic film that shows evidence of a conspiracy, or b) a faked film that shows evidence of a conspiracy.
Same thing with the autopsy: a) either the wounds were altered and some witnesses were pressured to lie or b) the photos and x-rays were altered and some witnesses were pressured to lie.
And we're fighting about this? No wonder some people think we're kooks.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Healy - 30-08-2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:So, we either have: a) an authentic film that shows evidence of a conspiracy, or b) a faked film that shows evidence of a conspiracy.
Same thing with the autopsy: a) either the wounds were altered and some witnesses were pressured to lie or b) the photos and x-rays were altered and some witnesses were pressured to lie.
And we're fighting about this? No wonder some people think we're kooks.
well, its kinda like that when lone nuts (posing as researchers landing on the conspiracy side of the equation) whom get on serious forums. Especially forums with researchers and wherewithal....
Yep, nutters, as predictable as .john smelly socks... I'm not surprised at all, are you, Tracy Riddle?
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Tracy Riddle - 30-08-2013
David Healy Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:So, we either have: a) an authentic film that shows evidence of a conspiracy, or b) a faked film that shows evidence of a conspiracy.
Same thing with the autopsy: a) either the wounds were altered and some witnesses were pressured to lie or b) the photos and x-rays were altered and some witnesses were pressured to lie.
And we're fighting about this? No wonder some people think we're kooks.
well, its kinda like that when lone nuts (posing as researchers landing on the conspiracy side of the equation) whom get on serious forums. Especially forums with researchers and wherewithal....
Yep, nutters, as predictable as .john smelly socks... I'm not surprised at all, are you?
You keep insinuating that we have LNers posing on the conspiracy side. Maybe you'd like to name names. Maybe you include me in this category. If you can read everything I've posted on this forum and still conclude that I'm a lone-nutter, then you have a case of galloping paranoia.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Charles Drago - 30-08-2013
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:http://thesaurus.com/browse/group
Please show me where it says "pair" in the list of synonyms for the word group above.
Please show me where it says "three or more"!
This is not merely a matter of semantics. It's quite clear, Jim, that there's little love lost between us. But even I take no joy from witnessing your difficulties here.
One more time:
group noun, often attributive \ˈgrüp\
1:[B] two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition
2: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship
and
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/group
group n.
1. An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the roa
2. Two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture.[/B]
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Dawn Meredith - 30-08-2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:So, we either have: a) an authentic film that shows evidence of a conspiracy, or b) a faked film that shows evidence of a conspiracy.
Same thing with the autopsy: a) either the wounds were altered and some witnesses were pressured to lie or b) the photos and x-rays were altered and some witnesses were pressured to lie.
And we're fighting about this? No wonder some people think we're kooks.
Amen. Some people need to argue for argument's sake it would seem.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Josephs - 30-08-2013
Quote:See Brugioni saying, they could do anything at Hawkeye, to me that is not evidence. What is "anything"? But yet Horne hangs his hat on this in reply to all the technical arguments Zavada makes in his 30 page letter.
Then there is the first day quandary: About five people saw the film in Dallas. Would they not have said something if the film had been radically altered in some way?
Jim... your comments on Healy's Technical Aspects would be appreciated. Not so much the traveling matte concepts, but the "from movie A to Movie B" process... frame by frame.
Do you subscribe to the notion that DH is correct or not?
ANYTHING was not necessary... taking segments of a movie at 48fps and creating that same segment at 18.3 fps
THAT is not "anything"... that is a simple process of photographing the desired frames onto the new "original" movie.
In THAT process the frames can be enlarged to 35mm
In THAT process a plate or matte can be introduced to MATERIALLY CHANGE the appearance of the image on the frames - ie cover up a hole in JFK's head or add an injury not seen by anyone.
At the end we have 486 18.3fps frames with obvious signs of alteration...
---
Now Jim... who are these 5 people (the number is actually closer to 25) - any "citizens" who have something to gain by telling a different story?
The main players were: Zapruder, Schwartz, McCormick, Chamberlain, Blair, and 10 or so more KODAK employees (some of which are named, some not - no chance of a KODAK employee in Dallas that day being connected to anything sinister, right?)
who see a 4x speed 16mm "master" shown once.
We also have Sorrels and the FBI (Sorrles to Kelly to Bookout to Barnett to Shanklin) who see "A" film (0186)
I'll ask again - who of this group would or could say anything in 1975 when the film is finally shown to the world?
Seems to me only the KODAK employees....
But not so... enter Erwin Schwartz's interview by Twyman... Horne p.1295
Erwin tells us that the film HE SAW ON 11/22 at KODAK in 16mm format at (2 to) 4x speed showed debris being ejected "back and to the left" of JFK.
p1296 we have Livingstone's interview with Breneman who supposedly sees the same thing in the frames given to him by LIFE with debris flying to the rear of the limo....
Would LIFE provide anyone with ACTUAL FRAMES from the orignal film on 11/25? IDK.
What does Chamberlain say?
http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-11.pdf He recalls (in the late 70's) the top of JFK's head blown off... working the 16mm machine with the FBI Saturday morning... and never seening the Zfilm again.
Elmer Todd pressured Perry to recant his professional observations...
You feel confident that any one of these non-players would say anything in 1975? Where any of them called to the HSCA?, ARRB? (I don't think so, but I need to go look)
The filom was not "radically" altered if you had seen and remembered the shot that killed JFK - the most VIVID memory from the film - and seeing again 12+ years later we see a shot hitting JFK in the head...
It's very possible, if not probably that 0186 was sliced up for viewing that morning... that a limo stop or severe slowing, pause and take-off would simply not be noticed as you wait for that explosion to JFK's head...
No one has EVER asked the question, "did you see the limo stop" to these viewers... did Twyman? (not that Horne mentions - and one would think he would)
The names of those that DID say it stopped: p.1300-1 - DPD Courson(mid-motorcade), DPD Dale(mid-motorcade), Johnson(on overpass), DPD Brown(on overpass)
DPD Hargis, DPD Chaney, DPD Foster(overpass), Willis, Woodward, Smith(pergola), Truly(top of Elm), Lovelady(TSBD steps), Newman)on Elm feet from limo), Brehm(feet from limo)
This is no where near a complete list... yet these represent a variety of angles from which to see the limo... they're all dreaming?
No one asks whether they saw Chaney motor up immediately.
No one asks how far did they see Hill running...
We LIVE with this film burned into our brains... these people did not.... I'm doing my best to find reasons NOT to think this film was altered...
You have any other than what you posted?
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - John Mooney - 30-08-2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:No wonder some people think we're kooks.
The name of the game.
Welcome to the 1984 Floor Show.