An excellent point about the limo stop.... after the showings that weekend - who outside the government/TIME-LIFE sees this as a FILM until 1975.
All that was needed were the frames with some crushed contrast, or a little painting over... with this understood, even the film Dino sees may not have been "original"
I've been reading a bit about the "hollysood" type set-ups the CIA and related intelligence agencies had available to it at that time.
To believe that Rochester was the only place that could do this kind of work MAY be a bit of an over statement...
We didn't know about Hawkeye... is it not possible there were technical facilities within DC that could accomplish the same things and are still not known?
From a technical basis what was needed was one of those Oxberry machines, someone who knew how to use it, and a roll of KII film.
While the painting should have involved 35mm enlargements - was that absolutley necessary? and based on the results, as I've posted, the job really was not all that good so that it MIGHT have been done within the 8mm format
exactly as Healy describes.
AT SOME POINT though, the film is shown and does NOT show the stopping of the limo or the debris from his head, or the motorcycle zooming forward or the correct movements of a human between 300 and 320.
Since the IS area does indeed match "close enough" from frame to frame, I am at a loss as to how 40 of 50 frames could be removed from an 18fps film and not see huge skips in the IS area...
It could only appear conitguous if the frames are removed to give the illusion of slowing down...
Chris....
THANK YOU THANK YOU...
It is fairly obvious now that a decent looking, complete film can be created as I described, from a 48fps original... it is even MORE possible that these 48fps frames are VERY FEW IN NUMBER within the original Zfilm
If, just saying, that 48fps was only used from the Sign (z207-z212 - something happened to the film at that point, right?) until just past the headshot(s) it could be less than 100 resulting frames from about 250 48fps frames taken. It may have been fewer than that given the few specific spots that needed "alteration".
Conally's "hand/hat movement" may also be the result of missing frames
We KNOW Greer's headturns must be
There's the falling man who's left leg whips under him
ALL of these within that 100 frame sequence.
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
I have indeed provided supporting material. Roland Zavada's "Open Letter To Doug Horne , in great detail and clarity, discusses the most of the points I made at the start of this thread. I have also quoted from "Exposure Control of Optical Printers" by Mehrdad Azarmi. Both gentlemen are credentialed professionals, their observations and descriptions are not controversial, and are accepted throughout the industry. It is remarkable to witness tantrums from people who don't actually know what they are talking about. There has been no attempt to address the fine points of Zavada's critique because most persons sharing the extensive alteration viewpoint do not have the technical background to even understand what he is saying, let alone develop a response. But they are somehow very very certain he must be wrong.
Doug Horne does tremendous work in tracking the Z-film through the first weekend. But his flat declarative statement that the Z-film was in fact altered has no basis in fact. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that something was done, but nothing in his article can actually pinpoint where, when or how. He is therefore presumptive in his conclusion. He too misunderstands basic technical issues, as Zavada points out in his patient, though exasperated, letter.
Quite honestly, I have been baffled by the ferocity shown here, and will move on after stating one last time: if you persist in your claims without pausing for reflection on the clearly identified technical hurdles, you risk being embarrassed in a huge way down the road.
Jeff Carter Wrote:Again I must clarify misrepresentations.
...
Quite honestly, I have been baffled by the ferocity shown here, and will move on after stating one last time: if you persist in your claims without pausing for reflection on the clearly identified technical hurdles, you risk being embarrassed in a huge way down the road.
Good luck with your theories, guys.
sounds like Craig Lampoon Lamson (the current face of the Gang of Eight) is busy as a bevah, once again!
I think the nutter's are fishing and smelling around for info, with due cause I might add. Something is ON the wind regarding the Z-film.
The last resort open to the Nutter's concerning the Zapruder film is simple: get authentification-verification of the NARA lodged, alleged in-camera Zapruder film. Even that won't help the SBT cause. They know that also.
Have a good day Jeffrey, seeya at the lone nut altar in Dealey Plaza on the 22nd of Nov... tell Gary hello for me!
I have the "Twilight Zone" movie with Dan Ackroyd looping in my mind: "Wanna see something really scary?"
Over in the UFO community, there are people who have been shown films (whether real or fake) of alien landings on military bases, or have been shown through bases where they saw "alien bodies." Jacques Vallee argues in Revelations [http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archiv...vallee.pdf ] that these are psyops designed to mess with the minds of UFO researchers, divide and disrupt them, and influence their belief systems.
Bringing this to rest... quoting Zavada's response as "supporting material" is like citing Dale Myers' response to challenges about his z-toon fiasco.
Zavada did the work and he stands by his understanding of the timings and processes involved...
He does NOT look into the options we've been discussing..
He does NOT understand that the difference between the "original" and the "extant original" boils down to
1) missing frames
2) aerial painting techniques to cover detail
What he saw and worked on was a finished product... possbily even exposed within the Zap camera itself... 35 YEARS AFTER THE FACT
Try that again... 35 YEARS later Jeff.
0183 is gone
the film has multiple splices both physical and printed
the total of side B film exceeds 33 feet
Edge print and date codes are backward on the copies
==============
Jeff - YOU refer to Zavada's reply as a whole... there's a LOT discussed in that paper... are you simply letting him make your argument for you without explanation,
or do you have something within that document that you can point to that supports what you've tried to say?
Did you bother reading Horne's reply to Zavada and incorporate that into your "supporting material"?
insidethearrb May 29th, 2010 My long chapter on the history of the Zapruder film, and the evidence for its apparent alteration (in order to hide the fact that President Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters in a crossfire, as he was driven into an expertly arranged ambush on Elm Street, on November 22, 1963), is Chapter 14 of my five-volume book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," and appears in Volume IV of that work, which can be purchased at Amazon.com (keywords "Horne JFK").
In Chapter 14 I take to task many of the conclusions reached by retired Kodak employee Roland J. ("Rollie") Zavada, who was rehired as a consultant by Kodak to perform pro bono work for the ARRB during 1997 and 1998. That work included a limited authenticity study, of which I am quite critical in myChapter 14.
I just[B] received from Rollie himself a 33-page rebuttal to my Zapruder film chapter, in [/B]which he takes exception to many of my criticisms, arguments, and assertions. In his cover letter, dated May 26, 2010, Rollie states that he has mailed copies of his 33-page report to many of those mentioned in Chapter 14, which surely must include Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, and Gary Mack. With the sure knowledge that his rebuttal will soon appear on the internet in various venues, I hereby offer my own comments on his paper.
Rollie's need to defend himself is not an unexpected development, and came a sno surprise. What does surprise me is that it is so weakly argued, and incomplete.
Much of his paper consists of hairsplitting, in a feeble attempt to defend the flawed methodology he employed in the report he delivered at the eleventh hourto the ARRB in late September of 1998.
Most of it appears to be a grandfatherly scolding, in which Rollie says, essentially---I am paraphrasing here---"You must trust me, I know more than you, and the technology did not exist to successfully alter the Zapruderfilm without detection, and create an undetectable forgery or facsimile of it or any other 8 mm films in 1963; and even if the film was altered, it would have required a lot of equipment and a lot of personnel."
........ it continues at the link above....
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
