Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Jim Hackett II]

[Some Speculation follows and some not at all Speculative]

I accept as fact that another film exists. Similar in perspective but not exactly Zappy's position. Why?

Long before I knew of Greg Burnham or Rich Dellarosa or any other public talk of another films' existence, the film was described to me by another person I know to be honest and of integrity.
A few minor differences are present in the descriptions but in truth I feel that the common features of all viewers known to me render the liklihood that all saw the same film.

1.) Somebody's other film does or did exist.
2.) Because the other film conforms to witness statements and the Ztoon does not, both cannot be reality.

Just who and how the Ztoon was "screwed, blewed and tatooed", is way above my pay-grade.
I have to rely on those that know the methodology of film.

Other than the issue of two films being in existence, I am left to conclude: The bastards spared no effort to lie to me.
When a few frames were released as the grail of the case in '64, I took the presentation at face value. I was only eleven and the Unthinkable was still Unthinkable.
When more data escaped from CD Jackson's memory hole, I was a little older and suspicious.
I revoked my prerogative to accept the US Govt.'s word about anything, the mistrust was well earned.

Alteration is not the issue to me, although important. Equally important is the fact of another film (in my view).
Something is rotten in Zappy-land.
Exactly what is research better done by more experienced people than I.
Any progress made in the spectrum of the Nov. '63 Coup has been the work of the independent researchers,
as opposed to the deceptions of US Govt. over the last half-century.
Researchers punching holes in the lies is crucial, the combined efforts will give truth even to my limited view.

Those traitors did stop SS-100X and wait for the coup d' etat to be accomplished. IMHO.
I prefer a film to depict events as they really did happen, not manufactured history as a time-clock of events to serve the Empire of Traitors.
That is my story and I am sticking to it.

[Charles Drago]

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?

I heartily concur, Albert.

I'm certain that the history of science is dotted with examples of meaningful discoveries made by individuals who in the academy would be labeled "uncredentialed." So too has great art been created by autodidacts.

I meant no offense when I politely asked Jeff for a review of his credentials. Rather, I was attempting to establish a base line for weighing the pros and cons of his Z-film assessments. Surely such a request is understandable and far from being out of order.

His position is now this: "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."

I speak only for myself when I describe such a response as antithetical to the spirit of collegial research and fact-based argument. Why is Jeff willing to share his qualifications only with moderators? What possible downside would there be to publicly posting a brief but detailed c.v.? Surely if Jeff asks us to accept his science, he must be willing to present his scientific credentials.

You will note that I have not offered my opinion on the value of his scientific work. I have no credentials whatsoever in the fields of study he would apply to Z-film analysis.

I am credentialed, however, in the field of deep politics. Thus I challenged -- again, respectfully if at times sardonically -- Jeff and Jim DiEugenio to understand that deep political analyses of science-based arguments demand that we look beyond the science itself and pose questions commonly posed by the most accomplished researchers who probe the JFK assassination.

Perhaps I have no right to speak.

You have EVERY right to speak on DPF. You have broadened and deepened our forum's intellectual bandwidth, and I've learned much from you.

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.

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.

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.

[Jim Hackett II]

If the films were not changed the camera originals would have been seen by the public in 1963, not 1975.
Zapruder and Nix films as golden apples when released.

[Tracy Riddle]

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?

Charles, if the plotters really had such stunning technical capabilities, why didn't they also change the direction of JFK's head to make it lurch violently forward (consistent with a TSBD shot) and spread JFK and Connally's wounds far enough apart to be caused by two shots from a Carcano? Then they could have shown it to the American people and been done with it.

[Jim Hackett II]

Is that this topic devolved into dueling views.

I wish this was not the case.

The topic is important.

I like and promote Len Osanic's work. Particularly "50 Reasons..." work.
Too few have even tried to do anything like this.
Thanks Len and Jeff.
I do not have to agree with anyone to consider them a friend or ally.

[Phil Dragoo]

Jim

Your observation

If the films were not changed the camera originals would have been seen by the public in 1963, not 1975.

resonates with Bertrand Russell's observations

In the name of national security, the Commission's hearings were held in secret, thereby continuing the policy which has marked the entire course of the case. This prompts my second question: If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security? Indeed, precisely the same question must be put here as was posed in France during the Dreyfus case: If the Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted all its inquiries in the strictest secrecy?

The elimination of the turn, the removal of the dramatic slowing described by fifty-nine (59), head turns too rapid for humans, et cetera

Two films

Two events at NPIC

And what of Dan Rather's emotional assurance he saw the president's head move forward from a shot from the rear

Award-winning--redundantly credentialed--Dan Rather--would he or our government lie to us?


Garrison's jury waited years; Geraldo and Groden and Gregory were twelve years after the event.

In LIFE the conjunction of CD Jackson and JFK's major publishing enemy (Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency).

In Zapruder a member of the Dallas right-wing and a (former) partner of George DeMohrenschildt's wife.

And DeMohrenschildt vouched for the bogus backyard photos.

A film in the hands of a wing-nut and the constellation of spooks long before it was shown to the little people under the balcony.

The government which took 200 pieces of Oswald evidence to DC and returned a 400-piece assemblage,

which, with Cotton Mather's zealotry, expunged the witness testimony of heresy and planted shells and weapons

and put Spector's star chamber in authority should be swallowed whole

ee cummings' Olaf comes to mind

[Gordon Gray]

The accounts of the "other film" and the separate events at the NPIC, have been compelling evidence to me, of some degree of alteration of the Z film. The questions for me are: within what time frame, and to what degree? If we are talking about a time frame between when it was processed in Dallas, and when it was seen on Sunday at the NPIC, what amount of alteration was feasibly possible? Could the limo stop have been removed in that time frame?

[Peter Lemkin]

I'm offended by this thread and several posting on it. It does seem like either the 'babes in the woods meet the Z-film monster' or a psyop. Alteration of the Z-film is to me a proven fact....and endlessly dragging it up again from that grave to me is offensive, to be honest. How many times must a vampire have a wooden stake hammered through its heart? The well-documented literature on the Z-film being faked is SO VERY extensive and IMO authoritative.....and I'm not going to waste my time pointing to it all.

I think as we near the 50th all kinds of strange goblins are about to REappear at an ever more rapid pace....

Also, some on this forum who I somewhat felt inclined to trust have lost my trust on this thread...or stand exposed. The new 'wave' of newbees has also had more than its share of lone-hard-tree-fruits.

Why not debate if the earth is really going around the sun and not the other way around?!

[Phil Dragoo]

Gordon

Your question goes to the tactical proficiency of career regime-changers

If we are talking about a time frame between when it was processed in Dallas, and when it was seen on Sunday at the NPIC, what amount of alteration was feasibly possible? Could the limo stop have been removed in that time frame?

David Josephs has elsewhere suggest 48 fps created a body of film which could be edited to smooth the pace, largely eliminate the stop(ping), and drop the turn in its entirety.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/pri...0795&pp=40

The people who would know about Hawkeye Works have said it had the capability to do "anything."

Perhaps David Josephs--or David Healy--will respond to your question.

I found John Costella to be of interest

[URL="http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/"]http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

[/URL]

[Jim Hackett II]

My doubt began long ago.

Mr. Zapruder's sworn testimony does NOT fit what the Ztoon shows.
He testified he filmed from before the turn onto Elm and throughout the Murder and the exit from the scene of the crime.

The Ztoon cannot be what he filmed as the supposed camera original.
My suspicion arose from Mr. Thompson's "6 Seconds in Dallas" book that I read about 1970 or so.

When told there was another film by my friend it all snapped into place.
In that the film I haven't seen was described as being the complete Elm street sequence including the "very slow almost stopped very wide turn",
it fits the sworn testimony and the Ztoon does NOT.

Would it not be a real coup for the real film to be brought to the public for the 50th?

Dunkel and the Confuseum would be dealt a serious impediment to the BS.
Discovery and Disney would be discredited as they are to those here.
The UnHistory Channel would be exposed as the mouthpiece of the DOD, just like the "Military Channel" and it's BS.
Instead of rattling off the WC/HSCA junk, they would have to discredit the film and witness testimonies of the WC/HSCA.
Buttressed by the ARRB/Horne disclosures the truth is seen.
I doubt anyone would "storm" the Confuseum, but maybe see that it was closed and Dunkel once again unemployed.
McDingbat could hire him I suppose. CIA has plenty of money for BS like that.

It is a given as fact issue to me that the Ztoon is manufactured BS. Specifically manufactured for the gullible American public of 1964 in support of complete horseshit we were told was truth.
"See, look at the pictures" is not good enough and WAS NOT even in '79 when we should have gotten the truth in spite of the spook spoor left all over this evidence and the case.
How it was all done I do not know. It is also an important fact that the Ztoon is junk no matter how it was manufactured.
Obstruction of Justice to my thinking.
Not to mention a cover up and LIE to WeThePeople by our own government so long ago setting the trend of cover ups and Empire games.

Do I think that this broadcast of the other film for the 50th could happen? Yes.
Do I think it will? No.
In the words of the Beach Boys though: "Wouldn't it be nice...."