+- 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 - Jeff Carter - 27-08-2013
This will be my final post on this issue.
I have now read through Rollie Zavada's Open Letter response to Doug Horne. Every one of the points I mentioned at the start of this thread is addressed by Zavada and in far greater detail. I concur with his analysis.
http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
This, I understand, will provoke howls of outrage. But advocates of extensive alteration have never addressed the fine points of Zavada's critique, and in fact are unable to demonstrate that they even understand the concepts underlying the critique.
Fevered imaginings based on the idea that the technicians at Hawkeye "could do anything" is not enough to take extensive alteration scenarios anywhere beyond pure speculation.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Tracy Riddle - 27-08-2013
I don't know why this has become such an uncompromising issue for some people. We disagree about many aspects of this case, too many to list, but we all still accept that the official story is wrong. Why does the question of Z-film alteration have to be "you're either for us or agin' us"? Suddenly this has become a religion, and if you don't accept the immaculate conception or the Holy Trinity, you will be burned at the stake. The equivalent here is to be accused of being a disinformation agent. I find that really offensive.
What if I insisted that there was a shooter on the roof of the County Records Building, and anyone who disagrees with me is working for the other side? What if I declared that the head shot came from the South Knoll because Sherry Fiester's book "proves" it, and it's a fact and everyone who disagrees is now THE ENEMY?
It's pretty ridiculous, right? Is that what we want to do here? Think about it, people.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Josephs - 27-08-2013
Quote:But advocates of extensive alteration have never addressed the fine points of Zavada's critique, and in fact are unable to demonstrate that they even understand the concepts underlying the critique
"NEVER ADDRESSED" - more absolutes... you've taken the time to search out, read and comprehend ALL that has been written about the Zfilm and Zavada... ok. :loco:
As you've finally gotten around to reading Zavada's response to Horne (written well over 3 years ago)... hopefully you also read the report itself... LOOKED AT THE FILM MAPS and attachments.... and understand what Mr Zavada's credentials really are...
----
Let's see... KODAK investigating whether KODAK took part in the alteration... Maybe we can get Humes & Boswell to give us a critique of the autopsy next....
CONTEXT Jeff... another concept that seems to elude you:
On April 27, 1964... after repeated viewings of the Zapruder Film, REDLICH writes RANKIN a memo basically stating they should let the SS and FBI correct the reports they submitted which are totally incorrect.
THEY should police their own report... sound familiar?
I should add that the facts which we now have in our
possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
present a completely misleading picture.
It may well be that t[B]his project should be undertaken by the
FBI and Secret Service with our assistance [/B]instead of being done as a
staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken
expeditiously.
(The entire Memo is reproduced below (my emphasis)... to ME this is much worse than the Katzenbach memo... this lays out BEFORE they even get going WHAT the report will say, (hmmmm, no SBT ??)
and questions whether the CONCLUSIONS THEY'VE ARRIVED AT are even physcially possible....
The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.
Oh the FBI and SS reports. Specifically the FBI's from December 9th:
Investigation has (1) developed detailed background information concerning
Oswald from his birth to his death; (2) strengthened the evidence that
Oswald was the assassin of the President although no clear-cut motive has
been established; and (3) despite numerous allegations which have been
investigated, developed no sound evidence indicating that he received any
financial assistance or that any other person, group, or foreign government
inspired or directed the assassination or was cognizant of his plan to
assassinate President Kennedy. On the contrary, the data developed strongly
indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little
advance planning. Also, investigation has disclosed no evidence that
Oswald, while residing in Russia, was recruited by the Soviet intelligence
services or received any assignment or training from the intelligence
services. Further, investigation has developed no proof of any prior
contact or association between Oswald and his murderer, Jack Leon Ruby.
From the Table of contents JEFF... Notice any EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS THE ASSASSIN chapters? 61 pages and NO EVIDENCE that Oswald was even on the 6th floor... and not one question or concern that someone other than Oswald was either involved or did it..
The one paragraph I posted below is the sum total of the FBI's evidence that shots fired from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD killed JFK AND were fired by Oswald.
Jeff... I appreciate you reading the entire post and NOT responding, as you promised. I post this in the hopes that new readers can get a sense of CONTEXT... and for experienced ones to chuckle and shake their heads..
DJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE ASSASSINATION
A. Assassin in Building
Eyewitnesses at the scene of the shooting saw an individual holding a rifle
in a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building
located on the corner of Houston and Elm Streets. One individual stated
that after he heard what he believed to be a second shot, he looked up, and
saw this man take deliberate aim with a rifle and fire in the direction of
the Presidential motorcade as it passed.
B. Patrolman Tippit Killed
II. THE EVIDENCE
A. Events Prior to the Assassination
B. Events Following the Assassination
April 27, 1964
MEMORANDUM
TO: J. Lee Rankin
FROM: Norman Redlich
The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why
certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain
on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate
points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the
Presidential limousine.
Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by
the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President
by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the
bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast
corner window of the TSBD building.
As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown
that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested
above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be
supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out
against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.
Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal
third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with
reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the
exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the
President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up
fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that
we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be
verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was
standing.
We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the
Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably
cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with
the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor
did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels
that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our
observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the
President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4
seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an
inexperienced marksman.
Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally
we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed
behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert
testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a
minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera
operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum
of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if
Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would
have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even
earlier.
We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine
whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to
frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which
corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish
by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the
President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the
point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole
assassin.
I had always assumed that our final report would be
accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the
approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare
such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an
occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will,
in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty
that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same
questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If
we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer
them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with
fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions
by the investigatory methods available to us.
I should add that the facts which we now have in our
possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
present a completely misleading picture.
It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the
FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a
staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken
expeditiously.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Phil Dragoo - 27-08-2013
"Fevered" and "extensive" are straw men
Horne's reply speaks for itself
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Healy - 27-08-2013
Jeff Carter Wrote:If any of the moderators want to PM me I will share with you my qualifications. I've briefly outlined them on another thread. Otherwise, frankly, I don't feel I should have to submit a resume or go into greater detail.
Everything I have said in this thread can and will be verified by any professional in the field who has worked in film-based optical effects.
I strongly note that the detractors on this thread have not offered a single technical critique of what I have shared. I also note that none of their surmises of what constitutes the possible in optical effects in film production consults any text, expert opinion, or even extant shot appearing in any film ever.
I have tried not to disparage any individuals personally even as I critique their understanding of the technical restraints in optical effect technology.
I'm the messenger here. I realized that flack would be sent my way, but someone had to say it.
Messenger? For whom and from where, Jeffrey?
Sad you feel that bad about your "qualifications" and ditto concerning your "technicians" qualification/experience. Ya picked the wrong subject matter if you and he want to jump start a career.
And how pray-tell, are the moderators going to evaluate your resume/qualifications, Jeffrey? Remember Jeffrey, in my business (film-video post-production) you're only as good as your last production. If folks or potential clients/producers want to evaluate your work qualifications, experience and ethic, they gotta see your stuff! If that's no good, there's no second step!
Where's your reel, Jeffrey? Where's your "technician's" reel? Mandatory from writers-producers-directors-editors-cameramen-soundmen applying for work with me. Then we can review your 'credit's' for same reel.
Regarding the "detractors on this thread". Listen champ, you only have to do one thing to get me into your camp, prove (at least get to second base) forensically, the alleged in-camera Zapruder film currently stored at NARA is in fact thee 11/22/1963 Zapruder camera original.... then I'll delve into your "understanding of the technical restraints in optical effect technology" then RZ's-Gang of 8 film gamma canard.
If Magda and the founders wants to shut this thread down, fine. But I'm not the least impressed, Jeffrey! Have a nice day.
btw, thanks for your opinion(s), informed or un-informed.
And, here's my last question asked during my phone q&a with Kodak's Roland Zavada, years back: did KODAK manufacture double 8mm KodachromeII ASA25 and KodachromeIIA-reversal withOUT edge markings? After 20 seconds came his answer: YES. Time to pow-wow with your "technician, Jeffrey!
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Healy - 27-08-2013
Jeff Carter Wrote:If any of the moderators want to PM me I will share with you my qualifications. I've briefly outlined them on another thread. Otherwise, frankly, I don't feel I should have to submit a resume or go into greater detail.
Everything I have said in this thread can and will be verified by any professional in the field who has worked in film-based optical effects.
I strongly note that the detractors on this thread have not offered a single technical critique of what I have shared. I also note that none of their surmises of what constitutes the possible in optical effects in film production consults any text, expert opinion, or even extant shot appearing in any film ever.
I have tried not to disparage any individuals personally even as I critique their understanding of the technical restraints in optical effect technology.
I'm the messenger here. I realized that flack would be sent my way, but someone had to say it.
Messenger? For whom and from where, Jeffrey?
Sad you feel that bad about your "qualifications" and ditto concerning your "technicians" qualification/experience. Ya picked the wrong subject matter if you and he want to jump start a career.
And how pray-tell, are the moderators going to evaluate your resume/qualifications, Jeffrey? Remember Jeffrey, in my business (film-video post-production) you're only as good as your last production. If folks or potential clients/producers want to evaluate your work qualifications, experience and ethic, they gotta see your stuff! If that's no good, there's no second step!
Where's your reel, Jeffrey? Where's your "technician's" reel? Mandatory from writers-producers-directors-editors-cameramen-soundmen applying for work with me. Then we can review your 'credit's' for same reel.
Regarding the "detractors on this thread". Listen champ, you only have to do one thing to get me into your camp, prove (at least get to second base) forensically, the alleged in-camera Zapruder film currently stored at NARA is in fact thee 11/22/1963 Zapruder camera original.... then I'll delve into your "understanding of the technical restraints in optical effect technology" then RZ's-Gang of 8 film gamma canard.
If Magda and the founders wants to shut this thread down, fine. But I'm not the least impressed, Jeffrey!
btw, thanks for your opinion(s), informed or un-informed.
And, here's my last question asked during my phone q&a with Kodak's Roland Zavada, years back: did KODAK manufacture double 8mm KodachromeII ASA25 and KodachromeIIA-reversal withOUT edge markings? After 20 seconds his answer: YES. Time to pow-wow with your "technician, Jeffrey! Have a nice day.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Josephs - 27-08-2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:I don't know why this has become such an uncompromising issue for some people. We disagree about many aspects of this case, too many to list, but we all still accept that the official story is wrong. Why does the question of Z-film alteration have to be "you're either for us or agin' us"? Suddenly this has become a religion, and if you don't accept the immaculate conception or the Holy Trinity, you will be burned at the stake. The equivalent here is to be accused of being a disinformation agent. I find that really offensive.
What if I insisted that there was a shooter on the roof of the County Records Building, and anyone who disagrees with me is working for the other side? What if I declared that the head shot came from the South Knoll because Sherry Fiester's book "proves" it, and it's a fact and everyone who disagrees is now THE ENEMY?
Is that what we want to do here? Think about it, people.
That's not what we're doing at all Tracy...
If YOU insisted on a CRB shooter... the overwhelming reply is SHOW US PLEASE....
It's not the exclamations that got Jeff in trouble... it's his refusal to offer anything that resembles sound logic or evidence to back his "expert" opinions.
Healy is right after all...
this isn't about ... "You're wrong"... but "Show us how you are right in your conclusions, opinions, guess, theories... whatever, so we can discuss it"
Rattling off a few posts with nothing accurate in them whatsoever is also NOT what we want to do here.... right?
(Looking back at the Doorman thread... 50+ pages of waiting for something from JF other than ad homs and speaking louder to aid comprehension... and all he kept screaming was, "It's obvious...!!"
WHY is the Pearse comment so important to the authenticity of the film? Let Jeff make a case, no?
I've said nothing about traveling mattes and still do not think it was necessary to produce what we see in the film today... DH feels it MAY have been necessary and could have been done in less than 2 weeks....
Except NPIC Sunday night makes the 2 week timeline hard to fathom.... we have the briefing boards... they're different from Dino's, per Dino, and MATCH the altered film.
Do the same deep black areas of JBK's hair overextend their boundaries within the photo simply becasue I pushed the contrast?
Which "technical hurdle" was not overcome to produce the black square covering the back of JFK's head?
turn out them lights...this party is over.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5180[/ATTACH]
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Jim Hackett II - 27-08-2013
Everyone here rejects the LN bunk.
I guess this won't serve as the point to be rallied around, but I think it should be.
Divide and Conquer is the AGE-OLD tactic of the enemy and a damn successful tactic at that.
I would rather agree on the FACT of conspiracy in the murder of the President.
All this ire and such is referenced in the CIA document of how to counter the WC critics.
I could go look it up, but many know of the document and I'd rather encourage all here to not cooperate with the Enemy.
Toleration of the Enemy is NOT what I am thinking about.
Charles is correct, ignoring the fools cannot help, toleration of the Enemy only serves the Enemy by accepting endless dispute the Enemy desires.
However I don't require agreement with my opinion to listen to sincere folks that hold differing views to consider a view.
I understand the anger at some issues being judged as impossible when I don't agree with the view.
Only an example:
As if someone says more people than LHO did the shooting but LHO also fired upon the President and used the WC weapons.
It irks me now that we know from Mr. Armstrong's great work on the weapons that LHO never ever possessed the weapons.
Nothing wrong with trying to inform the unknowing about the paper trails of the weapons. By the response of the unknowing we would know what was up.
A charade to promote division or someone actually not knowing about the paper trail evidence being manufactured by USPS and FBI.
If a charade player we out them in short order, if not game playing and not knowing then we explain the state of evidence to date.
As it should be.
Not all here have been curious about the case since in my case about '67 or '68, some longer than I.
Fletcher Prouty and Ms. Mae and the others that broke the ground never had to tell me I was ignorant, I knew it listening to them without being told.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Josephs - 27-08-2013
Nicely put.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Phil Dragoo - 28-08-2013
Roger that, Jim
In the large view, we all see a conspiracy to engineer a crossfire to remove a peaceloving president inconvenient to the business model.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5184[/ATTACH]