Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Charles Drago]

My response will be lengthy and focused, in the main, on Jim's problems with my first post on this thread.

So as to avoid confusion, I'll begin by reproducing that post in its entirety:

5) other than a possible patch on back of JFK's head and perhaps something at Z313, there is no visible evidence or trace of any alteration work.

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.

Please define "extensive" as you use the word in the title of this thread.

I am not aware of any shot or sequence done anywhere at anytime, utilizing an optical printer, which approaches the technical accomplishment claimed for Z-film alteration scenarios beyond frame excision.

This, of course, is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority.

Person C claims to be an authority on subject Z. (Forgive me if you're not making such a claim. But if you are, would you be so kind as to share with us your relevant credentials?)

Person C makes claim L about subject Z.

Therefore, L is true.

Further, implicit in your statement above is the claim, "If I don't know about it, it can't exist."

Did stealth technology exist prior to being made public by the Air Force? For how long?

Might classified technologies other than optical printers have existed in 1963?

Now I'll respond to Jim's post above:

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.

Incredible.

In re your penultimate paragraph: Are you seriously making yet another Argument from Authority, Jim? Jeff's other JFK-related work is of no relevance whatsoever to his Z-film analysis. Unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that, say, Jim Fetzer's early JFK research requires us either to accept his LHO-in-the-doorway nonsense without objection or to decline to subject it to our most informed scrutiny.

As for Jeff's technical know-how: I've yet to receive a response from him to my request that he present his credentials as a forensic photo/film analyst.

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 here?

I'm so pleased that you've decided to ask questions about deep political analysis. The first step in any learning process is to recognize in oneself and publicly acknowledge the need to learn.

While you are correct in noting the appropriateness of including in "deep political analysis of the Zapruder film" the technical investigations you reference, your implication that such work alone would satisfactorily complete said analysis is sadly and gravely incorrect.

I'll help you along now by re-posting how I tried to help Jeff:

"[D]eep 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[.]"

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 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.

Ahh, Jim. Just when you had raised my hopes, you once again make unsupported and, in my opinion, deep politically naive statements.

Again, I give to you what I gave to Jeff:

"Further, implicit in [Jeff's] statement above is the claim, 'If I don't know about it, it can't exist.'

"Did stealth technology exist prior to being made public by the Air Force? For how long?

"Might classified technologies [including advanced] optical printers have existed in 1963?"

Are you arguing, Jim, that if you don't know about it, it can't exist?

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 end 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.

Where to begin?

If I'm following you, I must conclude that somehow in your mind Horne's work on the black skull patches is flawed because he "grouped" it with other claims with which you find fault.

The work of Horne and Sydney Wilkinson are not substantively dependent upon the validity of any other researchers' product.

What you seem to be objecting to here, Jim, is an editorial decision by Horne.

You're trying to diminish the value of his work based upon where he chose to include it in one of his volumes.

Not exactly the kind of reasoning that would make Peter Dale Scott stand up and take notice.

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?

Jim, surely you understand that charges of Z-film alteration, radical or otherwise, must be evaluated solely on their own merits. Please tell us that you're not serious here.