+- 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 - Jan Klimkowski - 28-08-2013
Magda Hassan Wrote: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.I'm with you Tracy 100% It is offensive. And ridiculous. We don't sign up lone nutters or keep known provocateurs. Different views are completely acceptable and I say welcomed. This is not some sort of cult where non believers from the one true faith will be persecuted to the ends of the earth. There are real enemies in this world and they are not here. By all means discuss the issues, explore them, test them, try them out from different angles, keep them or throw them away but keep it to the subject matter and not the person. None of us are ever going to be in full agreement on any thing let alone everything. If you have a problem with a particular person either ignore them, live with it or take it to the moderators with some substantial evidence not just an opinion but keep it off the forum. Use your minds and not your egos. As for the deep political knowledge of some people here it will vary from practically none to very deep indeed. However if people cannot stand to be in the same room with you then you have reduced your ability and opportunity to educate an otherwise willing person to zero. As for 'acceptable' qualifications I think this is complete red herring. One does not need any qualification in any thing to be a member here. I hope the DPF is a place of learning for us all. There are people here with excellent qualifications in all sorts of areas and we welcome their expertise and take on things. There are also people with out any qualification who also bring valuable insights to the forum. In fact in the areas of JFK in particular I would say the best evidence has been found, documented and put together and dots connected by complete amateurs in the best sense of the word. We know that the so called qualified experts did their best not to advance the case. And those with no qualifications or experience in areas sitting in judgement of those that do... well, what can I say? I could say a lot but I will let it be. Anyway, it's not rocket science guys. I am very pissed off to say the least that we have lost a fine member because of the poor attitude and social skills of some members here. This is getting very tiresome and the future of the DPF is at stake.
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.
An unspeakable crime is about to be unleashed on the people of Syria and that region. While here some are trying to shine some light on things others are arguing if the torch is even the right brand. Lets work together and allow other to get on with their thing for the greater good.
Thus spake Magda Hassan.
I've been away.
I've returned briefly and read this thread.
Some noble and principled posts.
Some behaviour worthy of a pigsty.
The following is not an argument from authority. It is an argument from some direct technical knowledge.
But so what, eh?
Having made network broadcast documentaries on both film (briefly), various tape formats and digital drives, I do not believe that the travelling matte Z film is technically possible, even with non-public domain "covert" technology in 1963.
I do believe it is possible that the Z film has been altered, with frames being removed. I am particularly suspicious of the red blob frame, and suspect it may have been altered.
In short, I believe in a limited, relatively easily deliverable, alteration of Zapruder to obscure the true nature of the head shot or shots.
I also believe it is possible that there is another longer version of the Z-film, as described by Rich DellaRosa and Greg Burnham - amongst others.
Finally, and fundamentally, I believe that the level of vitriol hurled at Jeff Carter in this thread is completely and utterly unacceptable.
Charles Drago Wrote:Albert Rossi Wrote:I, unlike others in this community, have not been subjected to decades of harassment by the professional contortion artists of history
You're on to something very important here. Those of us who have toiled in the fields of JFK assassination research -- in some cases for decades -- are all too familiar with the cover-up Facilitators' tactic of re-introducing long-settled arguments for the purposes of spreading disinformation, prolonging the faux debate, and stirring up old, research community-fracturing disagreements.
In the past I have been, shall we say, other than avuncular in my reactions to those who, in my opinion, service the cover-up in such a manner. I will neither speak for nor attempt to condone the behavior of those who reacted violently to Jeff -- researchers whose Z-film work (and indeed their very characters) have been savaged by the Facilitators who troll the Internet. Rather, I simply point out that decades of conflict can harden a person and stifle the better angels of his or her nature.
Albert Rossi Wrote:But perhaps the time for me to part company has also arrived.
To those of you with whom I have exchanged what I believe have been friendly and fruitful words, my gratitude.
Charles Drago Wrote:Please reconsider this course of action, Albert. I submit that we are at war with the killers of JFK and the monstrous perpetrators of other deep political acts considered on DPF. If need be, withdraw from the field to a rear area for a brief time. But your services, sir, are required on the front lines.
Your comrades await.
To which I reply, Jeff Carter did not kill JFK and the attacks on him are not proportionate.
And Albert Rossi has contributed much in his short time here at DPF. I share his disgust at the manner in which the arguments in this thread have been made.
Researchers need thick skins.
Hypotheses need testing against the known and potential evidence.
Researchers don't need abuse from the research community.
And that is what I see here.
:monkeypiss: :thumbsdown:
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Lauren Johnson - 28-08-2013
Quote:Researchers need thick skins.
Hypotheses need testing against the known and potential evidence.
Researchers don't need abuse from the research community.
Albert Rossi would like DPF to be more like an academic conversation, as I understand him. Of course, the model for such a discussion is Peter Dale Scott. Would that we were able to live up to his model.
A word of reminder. Internet forums are composed of people who for the most part will never meet each other. There is something about meeting the other in the fullness of their life. But even more, the academy is composed of people who who may need jobs, need to keep jobs, and/or may need to get a job from someone they are disagreeing with. All of these serve to temper the conversaton. Academia is far from perfect. There battles there as well.
I wish Albert would come back knowing the world of forums such as DPF is just going to be more rough and tumble, and that things have a way of working themselves out -- as they are in this thread. Albert, if you are stil reading this, come on back. Minds sometimes are changed; the road is just a little rougher. Your voice has been an important one and, to my mind, you belong here.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Phil Dragoo - 28-08-2013
Jan above
Having made network broadcast documentaries on both film (briefly), various tape formats and digital drives, I do not believe that the travelling matte Z film is technically possible, even with non-public domain "covert" technology in 1963.
I do believe it is possible that the Z film has been altered, with frames being removed. I am particularly suspicious of the red blob frame, and suspect it may have been altered.
In short, I believe in a limited, relatively easily deliverable, alteration of Zapruder to obscure the true nature of the head shot or shots.
David Josephs has suggested Zapruder filmed at 48 fps, making the removal of frames a relatively simple and quick way of obscuring the Unseeable.
In my view, alteration is indicated in a broken chain of custody, two compartmentalized NPIC events, that bubble gum frame purporting to be a head wound,
and the widely-observed dramatic slowing dissolved in a glutinous cruise control--
--not to mention a graffiti-like black defacement of the (for example) back of the head at 317, and, elsewhere, to obscure that telltale wound.
The spectrum here appears to be neither that extreme 2001-like production nor a fundamental insistence on Zapruder as inviolate tablets.
Our individual opinions and qualifications still allow us to view the greater mandala upon which we depict them with colored sand
and that is the manipulation of events for the interest of a cabal to the enormous suffering of the many.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Jan Klimkowski - 28-08-2013
Phil Dragoo Wrote:The spectrum here appears to be neither that extreme 2001-like production nor a fundamental insistence on Zapruder as inviolate tablets.
Our individual opinions and qualifications still allow us to view the greater mandala upon which we depict them with colored sand
and that is the manipulation of events for the interest of a cabal to the enormous suffering of the many.
Print it.
At 16fps.
At 25fps.
At 48fps.
Blow it up.
Cut it up.
Fuck it up.
And still the deeper truth shines through.
Thus spake Phil Dragoo.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Phil Dragoo - 28-08-2013
Lauren above, for clarity, without amplification
Albert Rossi would like DPF to be more like an academic conversation, as I understand him. Of course, the model for such a discussion is Peter Dale Scott*. Would that we were able to live up to his model.
A word of reminder. Internet forums are composed of people who for the most part will never meet each other. There is something about meeting the other in the fullness of their life. But even more, the academy is composed of people who who may need jobs, need to keep jobs, and/or may need to get a job from someone they are disagreeing with. All of these serve to temper the conversaton. Academia is far from perfect. There battles there as well.
I wish Albert would come back knowing the world of forums such as DPF is just going to be more rough and tumble, and that things have a way of working themselves out -- as they are in this thread. Albert, if you are stil reading this, come on back. Minds sometimes are changed; the road is just a little rougher. Your voice has been an important one and, to my mind, you belong here.
~ ~ ~
*Member Alan Dale has a separate section Professor Peter Dale Scott, publications and interviews here
[URL="http://www.jfkessentials.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=14670e960f604f66a0e92472613fd492&board=6.0"]http://www.jfkessentials.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=14670e960f604f66a0e92472613fd492&board=6.0
[/URL]Here on DPF the models and political-philosophic meteors of Professor Scott are illumination absent elsewhere, case in point
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12010-Peter-Dale-Scott-US-Government-Protection-of-Al-Qaeda-Terrorists-and-the-US-Saudi-Black-Hole
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Tracy Riddle - 28-08-2013
I've never had trouble believing that the back of JFK's head was blackened in a couple of frames to hide a hole, or that they even removed a couple of frames. Anything more than that becomes problematic, IMO. And that's the last I'm going to say about that.
As for other films viewed by witnesses, I think that old Bill Hicks joke about new Presidents being shown a film shot from behind the picket fence (or the concrete path in front of it) may have more truth than he realized.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Josephs - 28-08-2013
The time has come to stop defending the opinionated newbie and stand by your brothers in arms. This is NOT a "good post" by any stretch. None of the errors from the thread he hijacked are corrected or even acknowledged (see my next post). The members here gave him the rope and theman hung himself… and there are those here attacking the gatekeepers!
I am going to do this post in two parts…. First to address the first post in this thread andit's inaccuracies, and then to reference back to Jeff's posts from the other thread…
Jeff has made some very interesting claims with little if anything to support them beyond his"expertise".
This unpopular opinion should, I suppose, be its own thread. Here is what I have tosay on this topic:
Zapruder film alteration scenarios seem to have originated with a need to account for a) a slow down and/or complete haltof the limousine, described by many witnesses, but which is not readily apparent in the existing Z-film b) inconsistencies within the frames, includingwhat appear to be body movements which are too quick.
a) there is not a person who has ever seen theZfilm who does not see the limo slowing down and then speeding away. If you have the stable version in .mov formatyou can even watch it backward… please notice the limo, when moving backward from 486 to 313, slow down to a virtualstop.
b) nothing "appearance" based at all. Twyman performed the tests and published the results in Bloody Treason (correct reference?) they showed that Greer's headturn is over 50% too fast for the time allowed… the fps for those three frames would have had to drop to under 9fps foru s to have missed that much movement is no frames were removed…
I claim that a slow down of the limousineis actually visible in the Zapruder film. The ability to see it for what it ishas been difficult because an illusion of constant pace is created by the combination of the moving vehicle and the panning movement of the camera. Aclue to seeing the slow down resides in attention to the pace of Zapruder'span.
OK… now we ALL see the slowdown, even the film expert.
I also have claimed that the quick body movements can be explained by the mechanics of the spring-wind motor ofZapruder's camera in conjunction with the frame rate.
Yes, we know this, regardless of how many times it's been explained to you and you offer nothing to support this "claim" and nothing to refute the argument against such foolishness. Yet according to a few members, we should not expect that level of detail or attention to accuracy.
If the above points adequately explain perceived problems with the Z-film, the logic of alteration is challenged.There are a number of technical difficulties inherent to alteration scenarioswhich suggest that extensive alteration to the Z-film is an unrealisticproposal.
These difficulties include but are notlimited to:
1) creation of internegatives and printsresults in generation loss with corresponding image degradation. Thisdegradation intensifies with each successive generation. Alteration scenarioswhich rely on the creation of numerous internegatives introduced in variousphases of the work, are not realistic as the image degradation visible on thefinal print would be too obvious.
Compared to what… The original that no one wasgoing to see, ever? Does this processsound correct to any of the actual film experts? KII is a positive film (reversal), not anegative one… the edited frames are one by one re-photographed onto the neworiginal KII film, and then processed…. Aninternegative is not created… a color image is projected onto the NEW film, in color…and is then developed just as the Camera original was…
An internegative is a motion picture film duplicate. It is the colorcounterpart to an interpositive, in which a low-contrast color image is used asthe positive between an original camera negative and a duplicate negative.
2) film stocks have unique characteristicsrelated to color, exposure, and grain. Since an altered Z-film would need to befinally re-photgraphed back onto 8mm Kodachrome, maintaining Kodachrome'scharacteristics on the other film stocks would be a major, possiblyunassailable challenge.
Again, not "finally" re-photographed… butphotographed onto the film, from a KII original to a KII copy and thendeveloped…
3) Excision of frames is relatively simple,but care would have to be taken to ensure that resulting playback is smooth.Excision of numerous successive frames is unrealistic as the resulting jump ordisruption in the Z-film's panning would be visible.
The resulting zfilm playback is anything butsmooth as we illustrated in a number of places. They ARE visible with the Greer head turn, twice and the related jumpsin the other elements from those frames. These jumps would even be more pronounced at 16fps playback… since more than 1 in 3 frames were left overresulting in the 18.3fps "agreed upon" rate. The piece of the puzzle missing is the survey legends that illustrateHUGE variations in speed of the limo as it passes thru the frames… yet the limo"appears" to be moving along smoothly…
The speed difference as detailed in thesesurvey docs show a swing from 3mph to 28mph with transitions as short as 1-3frames. Does Jeff no include thisanalysis in his thinking?
4) claims that figures or objects in theframe have been removed or moved to another position within the frame isextremely unrealistic. The optical printer is not Photoshop and itscapabilities have been severely overstated in some alteration scenarios.
Then, as asked repeatedly… give us some idea ofthe work done on optical printers that allows you to make that claim. Healy describes machinery and abilities thatwere available and utilized in 1963. When asked to provide anything from which to test this statement..silence.
5) other than a possible patch on back ofJFK's head and perhaps something at Z313, there is no visible evidence or traceof any alteration work.
So again says the expert… this statement is so patently absurd on itsface that anyone reading it should have heard alarm bells going off. Some of us did. Here is a person, like the rest of us, whohas not held this film in their hands, has not had the chance to examine it atthe level necessary to determine such things but says so without a hint ofreason or explanation… "THERE IS NO…." That's pretty definitive a statement to makewithout the least bit of supporting evidence, to a group of people who havespent decades on it.
6) even if the technical limitationsinvolving mattes or object removal had been overcome, a realistic time scenariofor this work would conservatively run to hundreds of hours. Alterationscenarios would need to account for swapping prints of the Z-film many weekslater (and somehow confirm no further copies had been struck).
Sounds again to me like a DEFINITIVEstatement. And yet once again he refersto "technical limitations" without providing an accurate word to their meaning. And then he moves from technical expert toconspiracy expert… and the problemsrelated to swapping the 3 copies for the altered copies… not giving a singlethought to WHO had these copies and WHAT needed to be done… which others havewritten extensively about… including Horne.
7) I am not aware of any shot or sequencedone anywhere at anytime, utilizing an optical printer, which approaches thetechnical accomplishment claimed for Z-film alteration scenarios beyond frameexcision.
Addressed and dealt with by Healy. Another ABSOLUTE statement.
As we all here know, there circulates a COINTELPRO paper on disinformation techniques forforums. Some points to consider indefense of the guard dogs and watchmen/women whose ears perk up when thetechniques are employed… what has becomeso wonderful about this forum is the protection one feels from the likes of theLamson's and DVPs of the world. Wherethe question, "How do you come to that conclusion" is not met with ad homs andmisdirection.
I am quoting a few of the techniques in that paper decide for yourself whether the posts and discussion are true and honest expressions of one's desire to add to aconversation, expose new ideas and theories for further examination… or not.
I never wanted to go here with Jeff… I simplywanted to know why he concluded what he did… and what his purpose of jumpinginto the discussion was….
He's a bigboy… who's conclusions have been calledon… other than attacking the work ofothers… what has he brought to the table?
Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding itis also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated andnon-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings thatdistract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectivelystopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradualdilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching andsimply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easilymisdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The lessinformed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entiregroup in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must bestressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levelsof education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may triggercensorship by a forum moderator.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associateyourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't sowithout discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argumentis offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have anycredibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, havelogic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of theissues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic whichforbears any actual material fact.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one ofthe other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion withabrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, moremanageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue'with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoiddiscussing more key issues.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-onor provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references orcredentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtuallyeverything about their presentation implies their authority and expertknowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial'emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persisteven in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stemsfrom intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning theevidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Phil Dragoo - 28-08-2013
Tracy above refers to
that old Bill Hicks joke about new Presidents being shown a film
which is our Jungian certainty
I have this feeling man, 'cause you know, it's just a handful of people who run everything, you know … that's true, it's provable. It's not … I'm not a fucking conspiracy nut, it's provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail blah, blah, blah when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Baghdad." "You got it …"
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Healy - 28-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski wrote:
Quote:
...
Some behaviour worthy of a pigsty.
The following is not an argument from authority. It is an argument from some direct technical knowledge.
But so what, eh?
dgh: what praytell does direct technical knowledge have to do with a Hollywood type matte artist dealing with 130 or so 35mm frames projected at 36"x24" (or larger) to do whatever that particular artist is comfortable doing while working-plying his craft? ...
Having made network broadcast documentaries on both film (briefly), various tape formats and digital drives, I do not believe that the travelling matte Z film is technically possible, even with non-public domain "covert" technology in 1963.
dgh: so what! What you believe or what "Jeffrey" believes, or anyone else for that matter, has no absolutely no bearing regarding what film-video post-production type artists need to do in order to advance (even save), production camera (whether mechanical of human error) defects, PERIOD!
...
Jeff Carter did not kill JFK and the attacks on him are not proportionate.
dgh: If Jeffrey expects respect for his input, aka throwing his hat in the Z-film alteration ring, he's got to do better than simply making grand pronouncements (or as old Rich DellaRosa use to say "don't shit over my transom and expect kudo's") about what he, Jeffrey thinks, or for that matter his mysterious Canadian film technician thinks can or can not be done within a very specific, artistic medium. Jeffrey also has to present his film-video-compositing post-production credentials to even get little old me to give him more than a hello nod.
Frankly, Len's Black Op Radio's 50/50 series production cred's doesn't cut it.
And Albert Rossi has contributed much in his short time here at DPF. I share his disgust at the manner in which the arguments in this thread have been made.
dgh: and who might Albert be? And who is arguing, btw? Hell man, I'm not even debating -- there is [B]NO debate, there's two opposing opinions mine published nearly 15 years ago.[/B]
Researchers need thick skins.
dgh: as does Albert, evidently -- have I ruffled his feathers too? ...
Hypotheses need testing against the known and potential evidence.
dgh: great concept, I like it. Perhaps Jeffrey and his secret technician can set us up with a 6 projector aerial image optical printer and he can get to work, under my post-production direction, of course
Researchers don't need abuse from the research community.
dgh: where have you been the past 20 years? Until the Jeffrey's of the world come up with something other than mere opinion, it will continue as a street fight.
And that is what I see here.
dgh: well, what I see, is a few newcomers (of unknown persuasion) claiming very specific expertise with no, zero public credentials -- desperate to hide behind a few, possibly, original creators of this forum. Simple as that
:monkeypiss: :thumbsdown:
dgh: wow, after 20 years of USENET's alt.conspiracy.jfk, not to mention my many years as photo-film moderator at Rich DellaRosa's JFK Assassination Reseach forum, Zapruder film forum presentation and participation, and horrors upon all horrors a published author. Living the large life under lone nut intimidation, slander, physicaL threats on myself and family members, what-a-way-to-go Dude.. It certainly gives me pause, and I'm the one on record, in print and digital video form saying, "I can't prove the Zapruder film is altered," lmfao. However, after all that, I do have to say, I've never seen a JFK assassination related Zapruder film related post referred to as "monkey piss" Thank you, Jan you've now brought new meaning to the JFK USENET-forum wars.
You want to give Jeffrey a pass, fine with me, Jan.... just don't expect me to buy any of Len's and Jeffrey's 50/50 series DVD's. Nor his disinfo. The company production values still STINKS.
Oliver Stone breathed new life into the Fletcher Prouty character-persona, it's time to move on.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Josephs - 28-08-2013
RED=Jeff
While the film was atKodak, Zapruder popped over to the WFAA studios and appeared on television. (wrong simple timeline,basic knowledge easily researched.)
David, if Zapruderswitched his camera to 48fps before picking up the motorcade again at Z133,then the frame rate would have had to stay at 48fps right through to the finalframe. (wrong - again easily researched)[/FONT]
If Zapruder tried to switch from 48fps to16fps mid-shot (i.e. film passing through the gate) then one or more of at least three things wouldhappen -
1) most likely, the pins moving the sprocketholes past the gate would shudder due to the sudden change in speed, the filmloop leading to the gate would be lost, and the film would either jam or snap,or it would lose its registration point in the gate
2) if by lucky chance the film did continue to move, there would be obviousexposure issues for a fair number of frames as the camera's iris adjusted
3) even before the above occurred, the mere act of engaging the switch wouldcreate a visible disruption to the panning camera movement as it followed thelimo.
(wrong none of these things would or didhappen, a simple search or reading the manual page I posted answers theseconcerns directly. They were ignored)
NEXT POST
my reservations about Z-film alteration arebased on technical issues related to optical printing. I also tentatively think that answers to someZ-film anomalies lies in the mechanics of Zapruder's spring-wound camera. (wrong with nothing offered tosubstantiate this claim, and when presented with rebuttal questions they wereignored) Related to that, I believe that the notionof expecting the Z-film to serve as any kind of accurate "clock" toevents is misplaced faith, alteration or no alteration. (wrong we'vealready shown how the spring-wound camera would have little ot no effect in thefirst 30 seconds of filming since the rate is FASTER, meaning more frames onwhich to catch the same action in the same amount of time… his argument is counter intuitive to howphysics & the test results work it too was ignored )
Might the CIA'sreluctance to admit interest in the Z-film have anything to do with the reportthe NPIC presented on Nov 25 which stated there were at least two shooters?
(wrong there is nosuch report… what there WAS:
On December 9, 1963, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., advisor to President Kennedy, met withRFK and asked him what he thought about his brother's assassination. AsSchlesinger wrote in his diary, published in 2007:
"I asked him, perhaps tactlessly aboutOswald. He said there could be no serious doubt that he was guilty, but therestill was argument whether he did it by himself or as a part of a larger plot,whether organized by Castro or by gangsters. He said the FBI people thought hehad done it by himself, but that McCone thought there weretwo people involved in the shooting." [Emphasis added](Journals 1952-2000, p. 184).
Stating the NPIC created a two-shooterreport on the 25[SUP]th[/SUP] is so very easy to check… Google "NPIC Horne" andyou can read about the NPIC events first hand…
Better yet, link to the report….)
NEXT POST
Here's where I am coming from:
Months ago as a 50 Reasons episode featuring Robert Groden was being assembled,I pointed out to Len that Groden stated directly that the Z-film was authenticand claims of alteration were wrong, and that by featuring that statement we weremaking an editorial statement. Len was more equivocal, feeling that this wassimply Groden's opinion that was being offered. But I thought that, in theabsence of dealing with alteration arguments later in the series, there wassomething of a party line being effected here and I wanted to feel comfortablein my own mind that I could stand by what Groden said - and I mostly do.
I realize that I've kindof jumped into this forum with some broad claims which go against along-running current - but my observations are based on many years involved infilm-making, which I can detail as this goes on (if it goes on). (and here we are an offer to support thepost with qualifications of the poster…) I'm going to makeone point in this reply, then I'll follow with another reply with point 2.
16fps - 48fps I don'tknow of any film camera which can make a sudden radical switch in frame speedwithout the high probability of film jam or snapping. The only method is ramping the speed more gradually. If the Z-camera claimsthat it can switch frame rates during filming, then it has a ramping feature builtinto the mechanics of the spring wind. Bottom line: you cannot switch frame rates instantly mid-shot. (wrong tested and retested, the camera switches to and from 48fps withease. IS this point 1 of his "detail"from years involved in film-making?)
The effect of ramping thespeed would create visible artifacts. The iris must adjust, as at a higherframe rate each individual frame is exposed in the gate for a briefer fractionof a second, and so more light must be let in. If the camera switched speedsmid-shot, the iris change would be visible over a number of frames, eitherunder or overexposed. (wrong, again. All one need do isread the manual, or offer real life experience of a developed film switchingfrom 16fps to 48fps and back again… exibiting the artifacts and problemsoffered. None of that was done)
Zapruder appears to be steadying his camera with both hands. The act of movingone hand to the speed switch and engaging it would create a visible disruptionin the camera's panning movement.
So my issue here is a practical / mechanical one. Let's see if any camerapeople out there can back me up. (wrong anyone come in to back him up?)
It is not an accurateclock and so any counting of frames expecting to correspond to seconds ortenths of seconds of real time - not possible. Fascinating to see that theSecret Service was told this right away, and yet they just blundered on.Following orders. (when asked to illustrate this phenomenon,to consider that if there were fluctuations in the speed we would see SLOWMOTION frames as often as we see FAST MOTION frames. We don't. What does a .4 change in the fps (18.3 to 17.9) do to the "timing" ofany 100 frame sequences? 5.4645 secondsof film at 18.3, 5.5866 seconds at 17.9 over the ENTIRE 100 frames. Yet we are not talking about a fluctuationover 100 frames we have not been told what the fluctuations might be… if the ENTIRE 100 frames was instead shot at17.9 we have a different of 6/1,000[SUP]th[/SUP] of a second per frame to18.3fps.
CLAIMS continue to be made without addressingany of the previous inaccuracies… or the repeated attempts to steer him to thesource materials that address his inaccuracies - why?)
[FONT=Times New Roman]The anomalies I believecan then be understood as resulting with the camera are the quickframe-to-frame movements, such as Greer's head turn. (wrong as illustrated and neveraddressed nor any attempt to ever explain.)
NEW POST
In the space betweenthese two shots, he may well have switched the frame rate, and so Z133 couldhave started a sequence at 48fps. (but, I would argue that this rate would thenhave had to remain constant through to last frame at Z486). (wrong AGAIN and stillrefusing even to LOOK at the sources for the correct info??)
and also any resultingdisruption I believe would reveal itself, even after removal of frames, becausethe disruption would occur over multiple successive frames (particularly at48fps) and their removal would have produced a visible jump as Zapruder pannedfollowing the limo. That is, the extant film could have been created by a"dropping 2 frames keeping 1, dropping 2 frames keeping 1" formula -but there is no allowable place to remove a run of successive frames withoutthat calling attention to itself. Having done step-printing, I foundthat even a single frame too little or too much can disrupt a rhythm
(the first RIGHT thing offered and this byaccident as he is trying to support his argument by proving the opposite. There ARE JUMPS, the frames DO CALL ATTENTIONTO THEMSELVES. The concept that usingevery 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] frame in a 48fps film CREATES THE SAME FILM as a 16fpsfilm when projected at 16fps continues to elude and there appears to be noeffort whatsoever to examine his errors or correct them, let alone acknowledgethem.
No indeed Jan… researchers do NOT needabuse from the community. But they AREexpected to play by some set of accepted rules…
Rules such as:
Support your argument with data/evidence/something that can be "tested"
If claims of expertise are made back them up with credential, work examples,something
If you are shown to be making misleading or inaccurate statements, defend themwith something or re-evaluate your statements
Jeff came on presenting himself as a filmexpert and behaves according to a few of the COINTELPRO rules…
Asking, "from where are you coming buddy?"is not only appropriate but necessary.