David Josephs Wrote:Thanks Greg... I still keep your chilling description of what you saw in a word doc nearby.....

Not sure if you've followed any of the MATH threads Chris Davidson and I have had... I believe we found the 30-40 feet that makes up the descrepency in the "data" and it has to do with that turn onto Elm where the FBI decides that Towner is running at a speed much higher than the 16fps her camera SHOULD have taken images at... and with the "STOP".

Turns out if one simply moves the measuring point from Myer's FRONT of the LIMO to JFK IN THE LIMO we can gain or lose about 15-16 feet from a fixed measuring point (station C)
Then, by changing 16fps (1/3 of slo-mo) to 18.3 you pick up about 30 frames over the sequence... or another 1-2 seconds = 30 feet of movement, again based on where the fixed measuring point is.

2-3 mph is virtually a stop. That's regular walking speed... for a car it's crawling along.

The only way Hill reaches the limo in basically 4 steps is if the limo/QM are traveling at less than 5 mph.

Without the "0183" on the extant film at the archives - it cannot be proven to be the one developed as the Camera Original...
There is simply too much blank film

DJ

It could havehappened this way---consider this: the extant film (that is, the assassination
movie, not theZapruder family scenes present on the two Secret Service copies) in the
NationalArchives (not counting leader) consists of a strip of film 8 feet, 10 incheslong
(of which only 6 feet, 3 inches contains the imagery ofthe assassination film, and 2 feet,
7 inches is black, unexposed film with no image showing); then there isa physical splice;
then there is asegment of black film containing no imagery that is 19 feet, 3 inches long;
then there isanother physical splice; then there is another segment of black film
containing noimagery which is 5 feet, 8 inches long.

Summarizing,after the first splice
at the end ofthe assassination segment, there are a total of just over 24 feet of black film
with no imageshowing. If the camera-original film had actually been shot at
48 frames persecond---three times normal speed---
thenconceivably it would have required approximately three times the length of filmin the present assassination segment (i.e., 3 x 6 feet = 18 feet).
Currently,there is more than 18 feet of black film that is not contiguous
with theassassination movie---that is, there is actually 24 feet of black film that hasnot
been shot, butthe problem is, it is not physically connected to the assassination film.

The rhetoricalquestion becomes, how do we know the actual, camera-original Zapruder
film wasn'tshot at 48 frames per second, and then edited down to normal speed during
the alterationprocess by removing two thirds of the frames when the new film was
created in anoptical printer? The answer is, we don't know that---there is room for
subterfugehere---because the black, unexposed film on the reel of the extant Zapruder
film has beenattached with a splice.

• 75 inches
  

• 31 inches
  
• 231 inches
  
• 68 inches
  

• 330 inches
  

Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles, Phil, David...

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if the films that each of us saw were the same or different. They were certainly different from the extant version, but from each other's version, I do not know
for certain.

David is correct in that the possibility of the films being the same yet yielding disparate recollection from the various viewers might be explained by differences in individual experiences, predilection, focus,
etc. -- However, it is still worth noting that many elements that impeach the authenticity of the extant version are present or missing (as the case may be) from ALL of the reports of the "private" film(s).
For instance, the turn onto Elm is present in each report of the "private" film(s), but missing from the extant film. The COMPLETE STOP is present in each report of the private film(s) yet missing in the
extant, etc.

Charles, I did speak to Milicent at length upon discovering that she reported seeing another film. It's interesting to note that when I first recounted my experience (during a phone conversation with Jack White)
I was unaware that anyone else had ever reportedly seen a different film. When Jack suggested that I "go public" with it, I hesitated...but eventually posted it on our forum. When I became aware that a few
others had reported seeing a similar film, I decided to contact them. So, I did a typical, "separate the suspects/witnesses" from each other in order to check the story for consistency. In other words, since
I was not very familiar with Mili back then I did not offer my account so as to avoid influencing her recollection. Of course, Jack was aware of Mili's account when we had spoken, but he didn't let on as to what
she had reportedly seen. After speaking with her--and later with Scott Myers--the similarities led me to believe that we had "perhaps" seen the same film, but not necessarily. However, I found her to be
extremely credible. Like me, she was NOT glad that she had seen this film. The same holds true for Rich. These days I spend a lot of time avoiding its discussion. It seems to be divisive amongst good, honest
researchers.

A.J. Blocker Wrote:I have never seen this close up of President Kennedy's suit jacket before...only WC photos 393 which show no close up detail as this image does...

http://s1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/?action=view&current=Kleinsseielnumberandvclist-WH_Vol21_0362b.gif#!oZZ158QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs1233.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff394%2Fdhjosephs%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3DJFKJackettwoholesjacketjfk.png

Interested to hear any thoughts on this? Many Thanks

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles, Phil, David...

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if the films that each of us saw were the same or different. They were certainly different from the extant version, but from each other's version, I do not know
for certain.

David is correct in that the possibility of the films being the same yet yielding disparate recollection from the various viewers might be explained by differences in individual experiences, predilection, focus,
etc. -- However, it is still worth noting that many elements that impeach the authenticity of the extant version are present or missing (as the case may be) from ALL of the reports of the "private" film(s).
For instance, the turn onto Elm is present in each report of the "private" film(s), but missing from the extant film. The COMPLETE STOP is present in each report of the private film(s) yet missing in the
extant, etc.

Charles, I did speak to Milicent at length upon discovering that she reported seeing another film. It's interesting to note that when I first recounted my experience (during a phone conversation with Jack White)
I was unaware that anyone else had ever reportedly seen a different film. When Jack suggested that I "go public" with it, I hesitated...but eventually posted it on our forum. When I became aware that a few
others had reported seeing a similar film, I decided to contact them. So, I did a typical, "separate the suspects/witnesses" from each other in order to check the story for consistency. In other words, since
I was not very familiar with Mili back then I did not offer my account so as to avoid influencing her recollection. Of course, Jack was aware of Mili's account when we had spoken, but he didn't let on as to what
she had reportedly seen. After speaking with her--and later with Scott Myers--the similarities led me to believe that we had "perhaps" seen the same film, but not necessarily. However, I found her to be
extremely credible. Like me, she was NOT glad that she had seen this film. The same holds true for Rich. These days I spend a lot of time avoiding its discussion. It seems to be divisive amongst good, honest
researchers.

Greg - thank you for this, and your other related posts.

As someone with a television production background, taking account of all the information offered in this thread and especially Doug Horne's fine article, here is some informed speculation.

Even allowing for the fact that covert science is typically a decade and a paradigm shift ahead of public domain science, I consider it unilikely that an entirely fictional event, something which did not occur in real life, was inserted into the Zapruder footage. I don't believe we're dealing with actors on a set, who could perform multiple alternate actions in multiple takes. In addition, even with C21st Hollywood science, the insertion of artifice can usually be detected by skilled professional eyes.

To my eye, the one clear insertion of artifice in Time Life Zapruder is the "red blob", and this is a (deliberately?) crude effort to:

i) obscure the true nature of the head wound;
ii) complicate understanding of the direction from which the shots came;
iii) create trauma;
iv) ?

If this is correct, then at the fundamental level what we are likely dealing with is the filming of a real event, the assasination by gunfire of JFK, and several cut down versions of the camera original, the master rushes.

The camera original, as captured at the correct speed in Hawkeyeworks, quite possibly shows certain real life events, such as the turn onto Elm and the stopping of the limo, which could not be allowed to survive and come to public attention in the Time Life Zapruder.

The other films, as seen by Greg, Milicent, Rich DellaRosa, Reymond and others, are quite possibly simply different cut downs of the camera original. Ie with different parts of the master rushes cut out.

This speculative hypothesis permits for several versions of the film to exist. If even slightly different cut downs were shown to serious JFK researchers independently, then each researcher would report variations in this miraculous new "Zapruder".

One could call it the Sowing of Conflict.

Even a Strategy of Tension.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles, Phil, David...

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if the films that each of us saw were the same or different. They were certainly different from the extant version, but from each other's version, I do not know
for certain.

David is correct in that the possibility of the films being the same yet yielding disparate recollection from the various viewers might be explained by differences in individual experiences, predilection, focus,
etc. -- However, it is still worth noting that many elements that impeach the authenticity of the extant version are present or missing (as the case may be) from ALL of the reports of the "private" film(s).
For instance, the turn onto Elm is present in each report of the "private" film(s), but missing from the extant film. The COMPLETE STOP is present in each report of the private film(s) yet missing in the
extant, etc.

Charles, I did speak to Milicent at length upon discovering that she reported seeing another film. It's interesting to note that when I first recounted my experience (during a phone conversation with Jack White)
I was unaware that anyone else had ever reportedly seen a different film. When Jack suggested that I "go public" with it, I hesitated...but eventually posted it on our forum. When I became aware that a few
others had reported seeing a similar film, I decided to contact them. So, I did a typical, "separate the suspects/witnesses" from each other in order to check the story for consistency. In other words, since
I was not very familiar with Mili back then I did not offer my account so as to avoid influencing her recollection. Of course, Jack was aware of Mili's account when we had spoken, but he didn't let on as to what
she had reportedly seen. After speaking with her--and later with Scott Myers--the similarities led me to believe that we had "perhaps" seen the same film, but not necessarily. However, I found her to be
extremely credible. Like me, she was NOT glad that she had seen this film. The same holds true for Rich. These days I spend a lot of time avoiding its discussion. It seems to be divisive amongst good, honest
researchers.

Greg - thank you for this, and your other related posts.

As someone with a television production background, taking account of all the information offered in this thread and especially Doug Horne's fine article, here is some informed speculation.

Even allowing for the fact that covert science is typically a decade and a paradigm shift ahead of public domain science, I consider it unilikely that an entirely fictional event, something which did not occur in real life, was inserted into the Zapruder footage. I don't believe we're dealing with actors on a set, who could perform multiple alternate actions in multiple takes. In addition, even with C21st Hollywood science, the insertion of artifice can usually be detected by skilled professional eyes.

To my eye, the one clear insertion of artifice in Time Life Zapruder is the "red blob", and this is a (deliberately?) crude effort to:

i) obscure the true nature of the head wound;
ii) complicate understanding of the direction from which the shots came;
iii) create trauma;
iv) ?

If this is correct, then at the fundamental level what we are likely dealing with is the filming of a real event, the assasination by gunfire of JFK, and several cut down versions of the camera original, the master rushes.

The camera original, as captured at the correct speed in Hawkeyeworks, quite possibly shows certain real life events, such as the turn onto Elm and the stopping of the limo, which could not be allowed to survive and come to public attention in the Time Life Zapruder.

The other films, as seen by Greg, Milicent, Rich DellaRosa, Reymond and others, are quite possibly simply different cut downs of the camera original. Ie with different parts of the master rushes cut out.

This speculative hypothesis permits for several versions of the film to exist. If even slightly different cut downs were shown to serious JFK researchers independently, then each researcher would report variations in this miraculous new "Zapruder".

One could call it the Sowing of Conflict.

Even a Strategy of Tension.

Charles Drago Wrote:David,

My narrow focus of interest on this relates to what I've termed the "doppelganger gambit" in the JFK assassination -- among other deep political operations.

Whose interests are served by promoting the existence of two -- or more -- Z-films?

For starters.

Charlie