28-08-2013, 09:56 PM
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.
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.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter