Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[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?

[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.

[David Healy]

Charles Drago:
...
Incredible.

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.
...

speaking of which, they do indeed have very good credentials. I won't go so far as to say what Sydney or her husband buys or doesn't buy today. They seem to have found what they were looking for and have absolutely no reason to delve in further. Which makes perfect sense. I too have viewed their 4-6K Z-film work, a few years back.

There is no debate Charles, the Zapruder film appears altered, period!

It's up to present day Z-film supporters to provide forensic evidence stating that the in-camera Zapruder Film original currently stored at NARA is indeed the camera original. We don't need optical film printers folks from Canadatelling us about an industry we're quite familiar with... Hell between the USofA and eastern Europe countries we wrote the books for optical film printing AND printers..... and damn sure set the standards for same.

Re: Listen I've stayed away from Jeffrey Carter-Len Osanic's 50 Reasons for 50 Years, but seeing that you brought it up, let me say, for the record: great concept, excellent topics... amateur hour production... poor production value... and that's what you get with a one man show such as these. Lousy interview skills.

Hell, mimicking NPR would get you better show formatting and production value.

Concerning internet streaming "radio" in general, seems as though every streaming show "owner-producer" (usually the guy who owns the equipment) is a producer, director, board engineer, production director, editor, marketing manager, sales manager, distributor AND DVD-CD production quality control expert.

I applaud Len and his efforts! But, when I worked for ABC TV/Radio (both sides) in San Francisco years back, if we put on-the-air work with production value like I hear regularly on these JFK Conspiracy streaming programs today, the entire production team would be fired, after the 1st show... right down to the janitor...

[Magda Hassan]

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.

Since you brought it up perhaps you can tell us what Jim Fetzer's credentials are as a forensic photo/film analyst? Not referring to his recent Cinquopation but earlier days before it became florid.

[Charles Drago]

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.

Since you brought it up perhaps you can tell us what Jim Fetzer's credentials are as a forensic photo/film analyst? Not referring to his recent Cinquopation but earlier days before it became florid.

I never stated that he had any.

Rather, he published the work of many who can boast such credentials.

By the way, kudos for "Cinquopation."

[Charles Drago]

Charles Drago:
...
Incredible.

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.
...

speaking of which, they do indeed have very good credentials. I won't go so far as to say what Sydney or her husband buys or doesn't buy today. They seem to have found what they were looking for and have absolutely no reason to delve in further. Which makes perfect sense. I too have viewed their 4-6K Z-film work, a few years back.

There is no debate Charles, the Zapruder film appears altered, period!

It's up to present day Z-film supporters to provide forensic evidence stating that the in-camera Zapruder Film original currently stored at NARA is indeed the camera original. We don't need optical film printers folks from Canadatelling us about an industry we're quite familiar with... Hell between the USofA and eastern Europe countries we wrote the books for optical film printing AND printers..... and damn sure set the standards for same.

Re: Listen I've stayed away from Jeffrey Carter-Len Osanic's 50 Reasons for 50 Years, but seeing that you brought it up, let me say, for the record: great concept, excellent topics... amateur hour production... poor production value... and that's what you get with a one man show such as these. Lousy interview skills.

Hell, mimicking NPR would get you better show formatting and production value.

Concerning internet streaming "radio" in general, seems as though every streaming show "owner-producer" (usually the guy who owns the equipment) is a producer, director, board engineer, production director, editor, marketing manager, sales manager, distributor AND DVD-CD production quality control expert.

I applaud Len and his efforts! But, when I worked for ABC TV/Radio (both sides) in San Francisco years back, if we put on-the-air work with production value like I hear regularly on these JFK Conspiracy streaming programs today, the entire production team would be fired, after the 1st show... right down to the janitor...

David,

It appears that you're attributing DiEugenio's words to me.

For example: I did NOT bring up the Osanic production. DiEugenio did.

To be clear -- and admittedly my post above could be confusing due to its internal structure -- NONE of the material you've quoted here originates with me.

To be even clearer: I'm in full agreement that the "historic" Z-film indeed has been altered.

[Jeff Carter]

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.

[Albert Rossi]

I have now been on DPF for a little over two months. I have learned much from both the public discussions and private conversations with members. But I must confess that what I have witnessed in the past couple of days has left a rather sour aftertaste and filled me with dismay.

As a former academic, I certainly am well versed in the clash of opposing schools of thought and how such positions are never entirely embraced or rejected solely on the basis of their merits, but are inextricably bound up with the conflict of personalities. It is an unfortunate, but all-too-human, collateral effect of what is, in the best of all possible worlds, meant to be a free, open and critical exchange of ideas. I have no illusions about the possibility of achieving such an idealized state of human conduct.

Yet the facility with which one arrives at classifying a newcomer as an infiltrator is, to say the least, disconcerting. Assuredly, I understand the etiology of this behavior. And, as I have said elsewhere, I fully support the exclusionary decisions made by the administrators of this site. I have even lamented the (unintentional) introduction by newcomers of sclerotic labels which I would deem detrimental to intelligent and productive discourse concerning the assassination. But is there not a certain absurdity in jumping to conclusions solely on the basis of how interlocutors choose to formulate their ideas? and, in jumping to them, peremptorily ignoring the way they introduce themselves? I would hazard the guess that one would wish for more prudence in evaluating motives when the motives in question are one's own. Or if one truly suspects a person's "portfolio", why not a more direct approach, like a background check? and refrain from innuendo until something verifiable is in hand?

When a person's response seems not to comply immediately with one's expectations of what is "mete and right" -- be it either in form or in substance -- does this really justify the precipitous waving of an accusatory finger? Are not the tactics of McCarthy abhorrent, whoever may adopt them? If this sermon of mine is a familiar one, please forgive my presumption in believing it may nonetheless bear repeating.

"Science is the belief in the error of the experts." ~Richard Feynman

I agree that argument from authority has no place in a domain which seeks to establish empirically falsifiable claims. It is thus more than appropriate to challenge someone for facts, to demand precision and to call for clear counterarguments and counterexamples: it is expected and necessary. By the same token it is gratuitous to base proof of an argument on credentials. Besides, what means of authentication would there be at one's disposal in this venue, one participant's word against another's? Shall ye not know them, instead, by their fruits?

Perhaps I have no right to speak. I, unlike others in this community, have not been subjected to decades of harassment by the professional contortion artists of history; to tell the truth, I really have no business communing with many of those who contribute to this forum, for to say that my command of the multifarious details comprising the JFK case pales in comparison to theirs is to say little indeed. I state that with no false modesty.

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.

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, there are some bad attitudes here. I have sent you both a PM. Any one else is free to contact me too.

[Phil Dragoo]

Straw Man: The Movie

Supposedly Abraham Zapruder went and got his camera, and had his assistant hold him so he could film, but the limo just jumps in there.

Then, where's the dramatic slowing described by 59 witnesses.

Inhumanly rapid head turns.

Many anomalies.

So, extensive, or not so much. It isn't the real thing.

Doug Horne devotes about 1100-1300 of volume IV and serves more than Zavada can return, even given the after publication back and forth.

I've seen David Healy's long and detailed article which I linked above. So no one is going to say it couldn't be done.

Something was done, because what exists has deep and damning flaws.

David Josephs has an interesting and simple solution to the odd configuration of the current film and the lack of a number 0183 I believe.

That it's been altered is not debatable.

Extensive is a needlessly subjective term.

The film was tightly held, with a miserly few frames released--and the significant ones reversed--Hoover's clerical error.

That it was in the hands of C.D. Jackson's operation is perfect. It seems Donald Gibson named the Life/Time/Fortune axis as a main Kennedy enemy--and Jackson was Ike's WWII psy ops as well as his two-term POTUS psyop chief.

The two events described by Brugioni and McMahon present evidence of revision of an other than innocent nature.

The inconsistent appearance of intersprocket images is beyond reasonable explanation.

And yes, I mentioned the backyard photos. They, with the film, are part of the cover up, and creation of a false story, a legend.

And yes, Hany Farid has great credentials. And he found nothing wrong with Oswald having a big square jaw below a glaring seam line.

The deeper analysis shows "Oswald" holding a rifle he never ordered and wearing a revolver he never ordered--it's all there in the John Armstrong article in this JFK section, in the work of Gil Jesus and George Michael Evica.

Yet the photo(s) is/are certified authentic by a credentialed professor.

The Zapruder film chain of custody is such that it would be excluded at trial.

And we have a number of people, Rich De La Rosa I believe, Greg Burnham, others, who saw a different version.

So to believe that what is presented today as "The Zapruder Film" is just as it was etched by lightning bolts on the stone tablets, seems imprudent.