Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Magda Hassan]

I don't know why this has become such an uncompromising issue for some people. We disagree about many aspects of this case, too many to list, but we all still accept that the official story is wrong. Why does the question of Z-film alteration have to be "you're either for us or agin' us"? Suddenly this has become a religion, and if you don't accept the immaculate conception or the Holy Trinity, you will be burned at the stake. The equivalent here is to be accused of being a disinformation agent. I find that really offensive.

What if I insisted that there was a shooter on the roof of the County Records Building, and anyone who disagrees with me is working for the other side? What if I declared that the head shot came from the South Knoll because Sherry Fiester's book "proves" it, and it's a fact and everyone who disagrees is now THE ENEMY? It's pretty ridiculous, right?

Is that what we want to do here? Think about it, people.

I'm with you Tracy 100% It is offensive. And ridiculous. We don't sign up lone nutters or keep known provocateurs. Different views are completely acceptable and I say welcomed. This is not some sort of cult where non believers from the one true faith will be persecuted to the ends of the earth. There are real enemies in this world and they are not here. By all means discuss the issues, explore them, test them, try them out from different angles, keep them or throw them away but keep it to the subject matter and not the person. None of us are ever going to be in full agreement on any thing let alone everything. If you have a problem with a particular person either ignore them, live with it or take it to the moderators with some substantial evidence not just an opinion but keep it off the forum. Use your minds and not your egos. As for the deep political knowledge of some people here it will vary from practically none to very deep indeed. However if people cannot stand to be in the same room with you then you have reduced your ability and opportunity to educate an otherwise willing person to zero. As for 'acceptable' qualifications I think this is complete red herring. One does not need any qualification in any thing to be a member here. I hope the DPF is a place of learning for us all. There are people here with excellent qualifications in all sorts of areas and we welcome their expertise and take on things. There are also people with out any qualification who also bring valuable insights to the forum. In fact in the areas of JFK in particular I would say the best evidence has been found, documented and put together and dots connected by complete amateurs in the best sense of the word. We know that the so called qualified experts did their best not to advance the case. And those with no qualifications or experience in areas sitting in judgement of those that do... well, what can I say? I could say a lot but I will let it be. Anyway, it's not rocket science guys. I am very pissed off to say the least that we have lost a fine member because of the poor attitude and social skills of some members here. This is getting very tiresome and the future of the DPF is at stake.

An unspeakable crime is about to be unleashed on the people of Syria and that region. While here some are trying to shine some light on things others are arguing if the torch is even the right brand. Lets work together and allow other to get on with their thing for the greater good.

[Jim DiEugenio]

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:




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.




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.

I would be able to take this a bit more seriously if I thought you had ever talked to the Wilkinsons.

Its obvious you have not.

With you, that kind of one on one discussion does not count. What counts is your "deep political analysis" which essentially amounts to, just because Stanley Kubrick didn't know about it, that doesn't mean it did not exist.

Charles, if I thought you knew anything about the rather passe film process that others have talked about in depth in other places, I would spend more time on this post. Its pretty clear you don't. Instead, your "deep political analysis" simply amounts to, "See, I am Charles Drago". In the real world, as Jeff noted, this kind of argument gets us nowhere. It would be ripped to shreds by any authority the other side got.

And yes Doug Horne did misrepresent his so called representation of the "Hollywood Group". There was no "Hollywood Group". There was Sydney and her husband who were doing all the heavy lifting on this. The last time I looked, two people did not make a group.

But of course, Horne misrepresented more than just them. He also talked about the Boyijean Report, or whatever it was, which "proved" Lifton's theory. Well it did not.

Then there was the KGB report which said Johnson did it. Well guess what. There was no such thing in that regard either.

I, like several others-the late Roger Feinman, the glorious Carol Hewett, and John Armstrong for starters-- did not think Horne being on the ARRB was such a good idea. Why? Because he ended up being an advocate not so much for full disclosure--please show me where he mentions that in any serious way in his book?. But an advocate for proving Best Evidence. And Lifton's other theories. In fact, if you read his book, which i did, he pretty much says that up front.

Since he had that agenda going in, then of course, his book would be about that coming out. In my opinion, this is one of the problems with the book. And I stated this in my review. Which went on for four parts. And evidently you have not read.

Did Horne ever push for the Paines to be deposed?

Did he push for the Lopez Notes to the Mexico City report to be discovered?

Did he push for the appendix to the Lopez Report, "Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA?" to be declassified?

The answer to all these, as far as I can see, is no, no and no. Therefore, he spends all of 14 pages in his analysis of the ARRB operations. Even though he was in the midst of it. He then spends well over 1,200 pages on trying to prove Lifton's theories. But not just that, while he was there he also tried to disprove the theories of people Lifton did not like e.g. Armstrong. So in my review, I mentioned these things. SInce they are a part of the critical process. Since they clearly left an imprint on his book. I mean, not everyone had an appendage on the ARRB, like Lifton did.

The point is, that Horne ended up being so much infatuated with Lifton's book, that when it came time to do something outside of it--his last chapter--it was kind of shocking to see how puerile his actual "Deep Political Analysis" really was. Its pretty clear he actually did not have any real knowledge about this. Or at least any type of knowledge that was really intelligent or helpful. (BTW, this is also how I feel about Lifton's take on the Big Picture.) So when he tried to do his Jim Douglass thing, well, let us just say, Douglass had nothing to worry about.

He actually also tried to float the FFL argument also. It turned out, he and Lifton had not really done their homework on this, at best. Because, as Costella predicted, that did not play out either.

So Charles, please excuse me if I am not taken by your argument on this. Just like I was not taken by Horne's book. Doug had some good things in there, no doubt, like Stringer's deposition. But if ever a guy needed an editor, it was Doug. Why he didn't get one escapes me.

[Jim DiEugenio]

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.

Well thanks to some people who shall remain nameless, we have lost a good man who was recently advised to join DPF, by of all people, me.

Sorry to see you go Albert. We need more people like you--a gentleman and a scholar-- in this affair.

Maybe you're leaving explains why we do not.

[Magda Hassan]

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.

Well thanks to some people who shall remain nameless, we have lost a good man who was recently advised to join DPF, by of all people, me.

Sorry to see you go Albert. We need more people like you--a gentleman and a scholar-- in this affair.

Maybe you're leaving explains why we do not.

I agree. I'm so sorry Jim and Albert. A totally preventable loss and I hope those responsible feel ashamed of their behaviour.

[Charles Drago]

Well thanks to some people who shall remain nameless, we have lost a good man who was recently advised to join DPF, by of all people, me.

Sorry to see you go Albert. We need more people like you--a gentleman and a scholar-- in this affair.

Maybe you're leaving explains why we do not.

C'mon, Jim.

Name them.

[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]

I too have in the recent past gotten to the point to drop out of public research for reasons cited.
Dispute and the like. Robot lies and BS produce nothing but sh^t. And it always stinks worse than a bad spook's soul.
Chickencrap is like that.

So, I did it all private. I am too much in love with history to just quit.

I started with Pearl Harbor and ONI, then back into "Colonels" Stimson and House. And Woodrow Wilson.
Allen Dulles building his secret empire before WW1 almost drew me back to the post WW2 time frame. Kudos to Charles and George M. Evica...

China Hands and the OSS playing Magsaysay brought me back to Lansdale and gold thefts of incredible amounts used to finance black ops.
MacArthur and "Charles Willoughby" the prussian fascist aide to the one and only Dugout Doug brought me back to my own lifetime's black ops.

We all have the power of choice. Choices to be made by the person with a few exceptions of ousted disruptors and the mods have no choice.
Somebody has to be the cop 'cos Anarchy won't work, proven at the madhouse.
Incidentally that place put me off participation for a year or more circa '98. Too much ad homs and insult and too much LN Crap.
I figured all BBs and forums were like that junk.

Passion about any aspect of this case as one chooses to research is inevitable - Because we all care about the future deeply.
It is to be expected that the passion becomes heated and that too is fine within limits.
Not a thing wrong in my view of confronting with facts a position that is full of beans, er gas, er doo doo.
One that knows less can learn more from those knowing more.
I know this to be true for myself.
But one must be willing to learn and modify opinions,
to reboot the wetware and assimilate the new dataset.
This ability is required for me in this case.
I have concluded this over the last 45 years I have decided to care about the Coup of Nov.
In '78 I would have said the conspiracy was tiny and the US Govt was blackmailed into coverup by Dulles/Angleton/Helms. Obviously not a view of reality.

Because we all care and it would appear "the b*stards got away with it, dammit"!
I expect the passion, I just wish some others understood the passion's roots and excuse a little "fire-in-the-belly",
but as I said I have quit before so I know the position and feeling of **** it, I quit.
Pearls before the swine and all that..I remember the angst.
I do understand how it can become a pile of BS not worthy of one's time when ridicule and ad homs engage.
A rare thing here though.
Thanks to the mods and a bunch of self discipline by members.

[Charles Drago]

I would be able to take this a bit more seriously if I thought you had ever talked to the Wilkinsons.

Which is the equivalent of saying that I'd take you more seriously if I though you had ever talked to Oswald.

With you, that kind of one on one discussion does not count. What counts is your "deep political analysis" which essentially amounts to, just because Stanley Kubrick didn't know about it, that doesn't mean it did not exist.

No offense, but this is utterly non-responsive and wholly nonsensical.

Charles, if I thought you knew anything about the rather passe film process that others have talked about in depth in other places, I would spend more time on this post.

I have stipulated on at least two occasions that I possess no technical knowledge whatsoever regarding film processes. I am, however, expert in deep political analysis, and that is what I apply here.

Instead, your "deep political analysis" simply amounts to, "See, I am Charles Drago".

My, what a classic case of transference -- given your ceaseless appeals to authority and all. Physician, heal thyself.

In the real world, as Jeff noted, this kind of argument gets us nowhere. It would be ripped to shreds by any authority the other side got.

Then rip away, old sport.

And yes Doug Horne did misrepresent his so called representation of the "Hollywood Group". There was no "Hollywood Group". There was Sydney and her husband who were doing all the heavy lifting on this. The last time I looked, two people did not make a group.

Look again, Jim:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/group

group noun, often attributive \ˈgrüp\

1: two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition
2: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship

and

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/group

group n.

1. An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the roa
2. Two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture.


Your language skills appear to be the equivalent of my technical film skills. This is bordering on the pathetic.

But of course, Horne misrepresented more than just them.

By indicating that two individuals comprise a group?! We've just crossed the border.

As I tried to teach you, Jim, he most certainly did not misrepresent anything in this regard.

Transference once again rears its ugly heads.


Anyway, let's move on to your fevered attack on Horne, which begins with,

"He also talked about the Boyijean Report, or whatever it was, which "proved" Lifton's theory. Well it did not."

and ends eight irrelevant paragraphs later with,

"He actually also tried to float the FFL argument also. It turned out, he and Lifton had not really done their homework on this, at best. Because, as Costella predicted, that did not play out either."

None of this barely controlled rant bears the slightest relevance to my arguments that so disturb you. Repeat: NONE of it.

But if ever a guy needed an editor, it was Doug. Why he didn't get one escapes me.

Transference, for the third time. You're the gift that keeps on giving, Jim.


Let me simplify things for you. Please try to focus and comment cogently upon the following points I made in the post that got your goat:

1. "[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[.]"

2. "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?

[Jan Klimkowski]

I don't know why this has become such an uncompromising issue for some people. We disagree about many aspects of this case, too many to list, but we all still accept that the official story is wrong. Why does the question of Z-film alteration have to be "you're either for us or agin' us"? Suddenly this has become a religion, and if you don't accept the immaculate conception or the Holy Trinity, you will be burned at the stake. The equivalent here is to be accused of being a disinformation agent. I find that really offensive.

What if I insisted that there was a shooter on the roof of the County Records Building, and anyone who disagrees with me is working for the other side? What if I declared that the head shot came from the South Knoll because Sherry Fiester's book "proves" it, and it's a fact and everyone who disagrees is now THE ENEMY? It's pretty ridiculous, right?

Is that what we want to do here? Think about it, people.

I'm with you Tracy 100% It is offensive. And ridiculous. We don't sign up lone nutters or keep known provocateurs. Different views are completely acceptable and I say welcomed. This is not some sort of cult where non believers from the one true faith will be persecuted to the ends of the earth. There are real enemies in this world and they are not here. By all means discuss the issues, explore them, test them, try them out from different angles, keep them or throw them away but keep it to the subject matter and not the person. None of us are ever going to be in full agreement on any thing let alone everything. If you have a problem with a particular person either ignore them, live with it or take it to the moderators with some substantial evidence not just an opinion but keep it off the forum. Use your minds and not your egos. As for the deep political knowledge of some people here it will vary from practically none to very deep indeed. However if people cannot stand to be in the same room with you then you have reduced your ability and opportunity to educate an otherwise willing person to zero. As for 'acceptable' qualifications I think this is complete red herring. One does not need any qualification in any thing to be a member here. I hope the DPF is a place of learning for us all. There are people here with excellent qualifications in all sorts of areas and we welcome their expertise and take on things. There are also people with out any qualification who also bring valuable insights to the forum. In fact in the areas of JFK in particular I would say the best evidence has been found, documented and put together and dots connected by complete amateurs in the best sense of the word. We know that the so called qualified experts did their best not to advance the case. And those with no qualifications or experience in areas sitting in judgement of those that do... well, what can I say? I could say a lot but I will let it be. Anyway, it's not rocket science guys. I am very pissed off to say the least that we have lost a fine member because of the poor attitude and social skills of some members here. This is getting very tiresome and the future of the DPF is at stake.

An unspeakable crime is about to be unleashed on the people of Syria and that region. While here some are trying to shine some light on things others are arguing if the torch is even the right brand. Lets work together and allow other to get on with their thing for the greater good.

Thus spake Magda Hassan.

I've been away.

I've returned briefly and read this thread.

Some noble and principled posts.

Some behaviour worthy of a pigsty.

The following is not an argument from authority. It is an argument from some direct technical knowledge.

But so what, eh?

Having made network broadcast documentaries on both film (briefly), various tape formats and digital drives, I do not believe that the travelling matte Z film is technically possible, even with non-public domain "covert" technology in 1963.

I do believe it is possible that the Z film has been altered, with frames being removed. I am particularly suspicious of the red blob frame, and suspect it may have been altered.

In short, I believe in a limited, relatively easily deliverable, alteration of Zapruder to obscure the true nature of the head shot or shots.

I also believe it is possible that there is another longer version of the Z-film, as described by Rich DellaRosa and Greg Burnham - amongst others.

Finally, and fundamentally, I believe that the level of vitriol hurled at Jeff Carter in this thread is completely and utterly unacceptable.

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.

To which I reply, Jeff Carter did not kill JFK and the attacks on him are not proportionate.

And Albert Rossi has contributed much in his short time here at DPF. I share his disgust at the manner in which the arguments in this thread have been made.

Researchers need thick skins.

Hypotheses need testing against the known and potential evidence.

Researchers don't need abuse from the research community.

And that is what I see here.

:monkeypiss: :thumbsdown:

[Lauren Johnson]

Researchers need thick skins.

Hypotheses need testing against the known and potential evidence.

Researchers don't need abuse from the research community.

Albert Rossi would like DPF to be more like an academic conversation, as I understand him. Of course, the model for such a discussion is Peter Dale Scott. Would that we were able to live up to his model.

A word of reminder. Internet forums are composed of people who for the most part will never meet each other. There is something about meeting the other in the fullness of their life. But even more, the academy is composed of people who who may need jobs, need to keep jobs, and/or may need to get a job from someone they are disagreeing with. All of these serve to temper the conversaton. Academia is far from perfect. There battles there as well.

I wish Albert would come back knowing the world of forums such as DPF is just going to be more rough and tumble, and that things have a way of working themselves out -- as they are in this thread. Albert, if you are stil reading this, come on back. Minds sometimes are changed; the road is just a little rougher. Your voice has been an important one and, to my mind, you belong here.