27-08-2013, 01:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 27-08-2013, 02:03 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Charles Drago:
Other than the fact that his head was blown apart, there is no visible evidence that JFK was assassinated in Dallas.
Alternate Response: Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you enjoy Dallas?
Jeff, 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.
David Healy:
Thank you for the warning, a few of us had no idea we were really getting under lone nut, WCR supporting, .john-ites skin as we evidently have. Must be the 50th approaching eh, Jeffrey... pressure and all that kinda stuff, eh? After all, why would you be bestowing your presence in front us mere mortals here at this time?
Phil Dragoo:
Hany Farid told us the backyard photos were authentic
No hard chin lines were noted by that FBI-approved hack
Wow, what a spectacle. Jeff Carter has done such excellent work on the 50 Reasons for 50 Years, so much so that Len Osanic could not have produced those excellent spots without him So far, no work that I have seen done for the anniversary can match those episodes. And this is what he gets when he tries to introduce some technical know how into this ongoing Z debate? He gets compared to Farid?
Incredible.
BTW, what is the Deep Political Analysis of the Zapruder film exactly? This should be a technical discussion of 1.) What effects are being claimed by the alterationists in the film. 2.) Just how much difference they are claiming from what actually happened. 3.) How fast the alterations were made. 4.) Could the extensive alterations have been done with the equipment available. 5.) Are there visible tell tale signs of alteration on the film.
So where is the Deep Politics there?
By the way, as per Jeff's technicians, well how about the Wilkinsons? They have very good credentials. And they don't buy the whole traveling matte, composite optical printer shebang. I know this for a fact since they told me so. They both work in the film industry and have done so for many, many years.
So there is a debate right there.
Jeff brings up some very good points here about the traveling matte insertion problem. I studied film for years and was in film production. So I know the problems he is talking about. And I have talked about this also with Groden. And he knows a lot about optical printing and what it entails, and the signs it would leave.
To get good optical printing, especiaily on a traveling matte, especially back then, was no mean feat. Its pretty obvious where matte lines are inserted in a film like Mary Poppins. The great leap forward in these kinds of shots did not come until 2001: A Space Odyssey. On that film, it is very difficult to detect the matte lines. But that film pioneered and perfected certain techniques e.g. front projection. Plus, it took five years to make the picture. Plus, they were working with large film frames.
The technical problems tis kind of vast alteration imposes are quite formidable. And Jeff only begins to outline them here, This is why the Wilkinsons--who understand this thoroughly--aren't on that train.
Their work, on the darkened back of the skull, was somewhat misrepresented by Horne. Since he grouped them with some of Lifton's claims, like the whole Full Flush Left thing, which is pretty much down the drain today. But after watching their presentation, I thought they made the most cogent argument I have seen yet on this subject. Even though they have some work to do also.
But here is a question for the radical alterationists: If such extensive work was done on the film to eliminate so much, is there any evidence that anyone who saw the film before the roll was bought by Stolley has said that what he saw that day has been butchered? If so, who is it and what have they said?
Other than the fact that his head was blown apart, there is no visible evidence that JFK was assassinated in Dallas.
Alternate Response: Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you enjoy Dallas?
Jeff, 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.
David Healy:
Thank you for the warning, a few of us had no idea we were really getting under lone nut, WCR supporting, .john-ites skin as we evidently have. Must be the 50th approaching eh, Jeffrey... pressure and all that kinda stuff, eh? After all, why would you be bestowing your presence in front us mere mortals here at this time?
Phil Dragoo:
Hany Farid told us the backyard photos were authentic
No hard chin lines were noted by that FBI-approved hack
Wow, what a spectacle. Jeff Carter has done such excellent work on the 50 Reasons for 50 Years, so much so that Len Osanic could not have produced those excellent spots without him So far, no work that I have seen done for the anniversary can match those episodes. And this is what he gets when he tries to introduce some technical know how into this ongoing Z debate? He gets compared to Farid?
Incredible.
BTW, what is the Deep Political Analysis of the Zapruder film exactly? This should be a technical discussion of 1.) What effects are being claimed by the alterationists in the film. 2.) Just how much difference they are claiming from what actually happened. 3.) How fast the alterations were made. 4.) Could the extensive alterations have been done with the equipment available. 5.) Are there visible tell tale signs of alteration on the film.
So where is the Deep Politics there?
By the way, as per Jeff's technicians, well how about the Wilkinsons? They have very good credentials. And they don't buy the whole traveling matte, composite optical printer shebang. I know this for a fact since they told me so. They both work in the film industry and have done so for many, many years.
So there is a debate right there.
Jeff brings up some very good points here about the traveling matte insertion problem. I studied film for years and was in film production. So I know the problems he is talking about. And I have talked about this also with Groden. And he knows a lot about optical printing and what it entails, and the signs it would leave.
To get good optical printing, especiaily on a traveling matte, especially back then, was no mean feat. Its pretty obvious where matte lines are inserted in a film like Mary Poppins. The great leap forward in these kinds of shots did not come until 2001: A Space Odyssey. On that film, it is very difficult to detect the matte lines. But that film pioneered and perfected certain techniques e.g. front projection. Plus, it took five years to make the picture. Plus, they were working with large film frames.
The technical problems tis kind of vast alteration imposes are quite formidable. And Jeff only begins to outline them here, This is why the Wilkinsons--who understand this thoroughly--aren't on that train.
Their work, on the darkened back of the skull, was somewhat misrepresented by Horne. Since he grouped them with some of Lifton's claims, like the whole Full Flush Left thing, which is pretty much down the drain today. But after watching their presentation, I thought they made the most cogent argument I have seen yet on this subject. Even though they have some work to do also.
But here is a question for the radical alterationists: If such extensive work was done on the film to eliminate so much, is there any evidence that anyone who saw the film before the roll was bought by Stolley has said that what he saw that day has been butchered? If so, who is it and what have they said?