24-10-2015, 12:10 AM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2015, 01:01 AM by Tom Scully.)
David Josephs Wrote:
Quote:If you conclude, instead of embracing a strong suspicion that the Z-film has been altered, or the BYP, for that matter, I have to part ways with you if I am to maintain a standard of proof I do hold the government agencies I mentioned above, to.
Does any of your rambling connect Roberts being quoted in an affidavit on Dec 5th which conflicts with what she says months later... and the alteration of the Zfilm or BYPs?
An unaltered original 0183 film out of Zaps camera would be about 30 feet of CONNECTED FILM without splices, WITH the 0183 imprint, WITH the reverse side either connected (making 60 feet of film) or still attached as a 16mm film.
What we have in the archives cannot be considered an UNALTERED FILM.
Then, when we address the anomolies seen in 1/18th of a second from frame to frame we are futher convinced with a study in reality and physics that people do not move like that in the real world.
Using the Zfilm to come to any conclusions related to what happened in DP that day is the real joke....
What I'm saying is your posts and question have nothing to do with the issue being discussed other than for you to show off all the links you have and all the speculation you offer about how these connections IMPLY something is going on.... You still never PROVE anything.
That you don't like Horne or Dino's statement is again, your problem Tom... you offer nothing to refute the statements or the Film map or anything else posted which relates to the issue.
Quote: When it comes to film and photo "evidence," I already told you I try not to go there.
then by all means Tom, please DON'T GO THERE as it appears you have little if any feel of understanding of what is going on in these images and EVIDENCE...
As I've asked in the past with your posts - can you take a single post and actually say what you think - directly.
What you regard as this or that is not the point yet again.. we are not hear trying to mee the Scully standard for evidence...
YOU on the other hand never connect the dots - all you do is splatter a while bunch of these dots against the wall and say "See, it's all connected" without saying or proving a thing.
Where do you stand Tom?
Oswald - Lone Nut or set up Patsy?
The Evidence collected - pure and pristine or altered to implicate Oswald at any and all costs?
Your point related to Roberts - I never posted that I concluded foreknowledge due to Roberts' stating the DPD was at her door before Oswald was arrested... so what difference does it make whterh it was a 2pm or 3pm?
Can you please just get to a single identifyable POINT of all your references and links rather than play evidence cop and/or post nazi in order that WE meet some arbitrary standard of evidence that only exists in your mind?
Brian was replying to my post Tom, not yours. You stepped in trying to correct him by fostering your evidence expectations on him in areas that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Quote:Are you saying you think Det. Potts arrived at 1026 closer to 2:00 than 3:00 and hung around doing nothing until shortly after 3:00 when Oswald's image was first broadcast on television, or that Oswald's image was first broadcast sometime earlier? I'd enjoy seeing you post links to primary sources supporting an earlier broadcast timeline or an actual earlier than 3:00 arrival by Det. Potts or any other LE at 1026 N. Beckley.
This is a tactic Tom. We are talking about the zfilm yet since your understanding of the films and photos is not your thing you push the conversation into the areas you WANT to discuss.
Start anew thread and have at it Tom... bring up all the witness conflicts that you feel make a difference in the outcome of an analysis.
Brehm said the limo moved barely 10-12 feet between the 1st and last shots, numerous others say the limo slowed to a crawl or even stopped... those two concepts are corroborative not mutually exclusive.
Then we add in what the FBI and SS did to move the evidence of the shots around making it virtually impossible to reconstruct the scene using the evidence offered...
when the physical evidence is such crap, corroborated witness statements take a front seat.
In the end Tom, your posts are disjointed ramblings of someone with a vast knowledge of the connections but little practical application of your non-existent conclusions.
Say what you mean Tom and then support it with something that makes sense... the DPD, FBI, CIA, SS et al couldn't do it - their evidence invariably comes up inauthentic, or corroborated by other evidence which cannot be authenticated.
Is being direct and on topic even possible for you?
Again, I was replying to these comments .....
Brian Castle Wrote:...What this shows me is that the alteration of the Z-film was considerably more sophisticated than just the removal of frames. .....One of the earliest corroborative pieces would be Earlene Roberts and both landlords swearing up and down that the Dallas police were at their place just after 1:30. That would be before Oswald's actual arrest. However the official record has Bill Alexander showing up with the warrant a little after 4pm. These photographic alterations we're looking at, are not simple - they take time, they have to be possibly repeated once or twice before they're gotten right... and to do that on an 8-mm film would have taken a bit of expertise and quite a bit of specialized equipment, back in 1963. Brugione is quite clear about the chain of custody in his interview, his job was apparently to make presentation boards but there was another team with perhaps a different purpose from which he was excluded. He talks specifically about seeing a "big chunk" of Kennedy's skull about three to four feet in the air above Kennedy's head, on the reel he worked on - which is of course missing from the public version.
You made many demands. You expect you've "proven" many of your conclusions. You cannot seem to grasp there
are other approaches, informed strategies. Whether it is Bush lecturing while standing over Ford's coffin, or Janney serving up his "missing" CIA assassin, I am satisfied it is a responsible choice to respond with, "that is all well and good, but what about this, this, and this?" ....or words to that effect.
You posture as if I must define Oswald differently than Bush or Ford have. Could they have done any worse by the
young book warehouse order picker?
Quote:http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008...t_buf.html
......Steven Ford, the late president's son, said during a recent visit to Grand Rapids. "I've sat around the dinner table with Dad many times, and he'd be the first to tell you they couldn't rule out a conspiracy, but there was no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone."........"President Ford was very explicit to me that he believed Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone," said Thomas DeFrank, author of the new Ford biography "Tell it When I'm Gone." ......
I do not believe Oswald traveled to Mexico City in Sept., 1963, or that he purchased a $13 used rifle from Klein's mail order and
used it to assassinate JFk, firing from a sixth floor window at this workplace, the TSBD. Aside from Bush, Ford, and [URL="http://tomscully.com/node/13"]much other noise
to the contrary[/URL].
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
Tom Scully Wrote:I thought it worth my time to attempt to persuade Brian not to engage in a
double standard I cannot avoid regarding as hypocritical. I try to keep on myself a burden of proof I demand of the DPD, FBI, CIA, and the WC. I cannot fathom what burden of proof you constrain yourself to. You assume a lot, as far as what is or is not compelling evidence supporting your own conclusions, or am I mistaking "style" for conclusions. If you conclude, instead of embracing a strong suspicion that the Z-film has been altered, or the BYP, for that matter, I have to part ways with you if I am to maintain a standard of proof I do hold the government agencies I mentioned above, to.
Hi Tom, you're referring to a double standard, so can you articulate specifically what both parts are?
There's only two kinds of evidence, physical evidence and witness statements. The witness statements made under oath (in this case) are probably no more reliable than any other witnesses statements, whether they were made at the time or much later.
Tom Scully Wrote:I thought it worth my time to attempt to persuade Brian not to engage in a
double standard I cannot avoid regarding as hypocritical. I try to keep on myself a burden of proof I demand of the DPD, FBI, CIA, and the WC. I cannot fathom what burden of proof you constrain yourself to. You assume a lot, as far as what is or is not compelling evidence supporting your own conclusions, or am I mistaking "style" for conclusions. If you conclude, instead of embracing a strong suspicion that the Z-film has been altered, or the BYP, for that matter, I have to part ways with you if I am to maintain a standard of proof I do hold the government agencies I mentioned above, to.
Hi Tom, you're referring to a double standard, so can you articulate specifically what both parts are?
There's only two kinds of evidence, physical evidence and witness statements. The witness statements made under oath (in this case) are probably no more reliable than any other witnesses statements, whether they were made at the time or much later.
Brian Cutler, ‎Margaret Bull Kovera - 2009 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
For example, police reports and witness statements typically provide perpetrator descriptions and indicate the ... Information taken soon after the crime, such as that contained in police reports and in witness statements, should be a more valid ...
the events are still fresh in the mind of the witness;
the evidence is recorded before the witness is tempted/has opportunity to discuss their evidence with others.
This approach will give you the best evidence from the witness and make it more difficult for the defence to challenge the witness's evidence.
http://www.massbar.org/publications/sect...statements
..........
Statements of either the parties or witnesses, taken immediately after the accident and involving a material issue in an action arising out of that accident, constitute "unique catalysts in the search for truth" in the judicial process; and where the party seeking their discovery was disabled from making his own investigation at the time, there is sufficient showing under the amended Rule to warrant discovery.
[T]he lapse of many months and the dimming of memory provides much reason for [the plaintiff's] counsel to examine any substantially contemporaneous declarations or admissions. Aside from what assistance it may be in the preparation of a case for trial, the production of such a statement, after the lapse of time, permits a more realistic appraisal of cases and should stimulate the disposition of cases without trials.[SUP]22[/SUP]
The court also cited the advisory committee notes to the 1970 amendments of Rule 26, which noted that the circumstances when a witness statement would be discoverable included when the witness had "given a fresh and contemporaneous account in a written statement while he is available to the party seeking discovery only a substantial time thereafter."[SUP]23[/SUP]
Two significant district court cases are Hamilton v. Canal Barge Company, Inc. and Suggs v. Whitaker.[SUP]24[/SUP] Hamilton involved statements that had been taken on the day of the accident. The court held that "there is now substantial authority for the proposition that statements taken from witnesses close to the time of the occurrence are unique, in that they provide an immediate impression of the facts."[SUP]25[/SUP] The court cited a number of scholarly articles for the proposition that "the sharpest drop in a witness' ability to recall a scene or an event occurs shortly after he witnesses it certainly within a day or two."[SUP]26[/SUP] The court followed up by emphasizing the uniqueness of the contemporaneous statement: "What the psychological evidence suggests, then, is that these eyewitness statements, taken within hours of the accident at issue, are likely to contain information that no deposition could bring out."[SUP]27[/SUP] Hamilton concluded that statements that had not been taken immediately following an accident would be discoverable only upon proof of something more i.e., proof that the witness was unavailable or that the witness' memory was faulty.[SUP]28[/SUP]
The double standard is what standard of proof do you hold the Warren Commission to compared to the standard of proof you hold the following description to?
Quote:Douglas Horne November 11, 2014 at 8:45 am
Here is a Post-Script to my earlier response to R.M.
In your final comments, you alleged that Kodak had taken the Z film to NPIC, and said you did not understand why Kodak would do that PRIOR to the film being altered.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the basic story of the 2 NPIC events as recounted in my LewRockwell research paper, and in my book in chapter 14. And therefore, you do not understand the chain of custody of the film that weekend.
KODAK NEVER TOOK THE Z FILM TO ANYBODY. IT WAS THE SECRET SERVICE WHO BROUGHT THE Z FILM TO NPIC (AND DINO BRUGIONI) AT 10 PM ON SATURDAY NIGHT, 11/23/63.
As Dino told me during my interview of him in 2011, the two agents had just gotten off an airplane, and had just come from the airport (presumably National Airport in D.C.), and had not yet seen the film they were delivering to him.
This means, to me, that these two agents had intercepted the Z film in Chicago, and taken it straight to Washington D.C. It had been placed on an airplane (bound for Chicago) in Dallas by Richard Stolley on Saturday afternoon. This explains why the Z film delivered to Dino Brugioni arrived so late at nightit was surely intercepted in Chicago.
But it was certainly not brought to NPIC by Kodak, at any time. I don't know where you came up with that idea. Two Secret Service agents brought the film to NPIC for event # 1 Saturday night; and one Secret Service agent brought the film to NPIC for event # 2 Sunday night. In between those two NPIC events, two Secret Service agents took the film to Hawkeyeworks in Rochester; we know that because the agent that brought a Zapruder film (the altered one) to NPIC for event # 2 said the film he was carrying was developed in Rochester, at Hawkeyeworks, and that he had personally brought it from there to D.C.
The Secret Service contacted John McCone, the CIA Director, on Saturday and told him they wanted NPIC to study a film they would be delivering. McCone contacted Arthur Lundahl, NPIC's Director, and he then contacted Dino Brugioni, who was the duty officer that weekend (and who was also his Chief of Information and the briefing board CZAR). The Secret Service delivered the film to NPIC for event # 1 because they wanted a true depiction of what had really happened on Elm Street.
The purpose of NPIC event # 2 was clearly to produce a series of "sanitized" briefing boards from a "sanitized" Zapruder film. This is why a completely different work crew was utilized by NPIC for event # 2, and why the two work crews were kept in the dark until 2009 about the other event in their building that weekend. A compartmentalized operation was necessary because something was being hiddenand that "something" was the fact that the assassination film had been altered and "sanitized."
You need to re-examine the chain of custody that weekend; when you do you will see that Kodak delivered the film TO NO ONE. Kodak was simply doing what it was told by its government customer. END
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
Hamilton concluded that statements that had not been taken immediately following an accident would be discoverable only upon proof of something more i.e., proof that the witness was unavailable or that the witness' memory was faulty.[SUP]28[/SUP]
[/QUOTE]
Seems many of the JFK witnesses qualify under the bolded category. Whether for national security reasons, or because they were threatened with death or their families were threatened.
[quote]
The double standard is what standard of proof do you hold the Warren Commission to compared to the standard of proof you hold the following description to?
[/QUOTE]
It's mostly the same difference, in the case of the Horne video we're seeing Brugioni's words live and in color, and other than stuff that's been edited "out" it's hard to imagine anyone futzing with the video to alter the sequence of words or the basic description that's being given. In the case of the Warren Commission, the main difference is that there was a body in between the interview and the typewritten transcript, and that body was known to have altered witness transcripts (in other words, they engaged in witness tampering and evidence tampering).
But we should back up to the beginning. The Z-film is a piece of physical evidence. The only reason anyone cares about Brugioni is that it's obvious the physical evidence shows alteration. Even if you don't know what the original looked like at all, you can show clear physical evidence that the public version of the Z-film has been altered, played with, mangled, whatever term you'd like to apply. It's not simple "editing" like a spliced interview might be - although there's that too - but there's abundant evidence of inking and other things you can find "within single frames", you don't even have to look at the sequence, just individual frames.
I told you already Tom, I trust my own lyin' eyes. The purpose of the experts is only to corroborate or discredit my own lyin' eyes. In the case of Brugioni, the only reason I care about him is because it's so obvious the Z-film has been massaged, that the real interesting part becomes "how". And, that's what Brugioni is giving us, is a window into the "how" part.
Do I have any reason to disbelieve Brugioni? No. Why is he coming forward after all these years? Maybe he's not coming forward, maybe no one asked. That's the same thing Bob Barrett said too, about the Tippit wallet. He said "no one ever asked". So... now we're asking. I don't have any reason to disbelieve Bob Barrett either, do you?
Quote:The double standard is what standard of proof do you hold the Warren Commission to compared to the standard of proof you hold the following description to?
No one within the Warren Commission or the HSCA looked at the film under magnification. Yet, everyone listen to what several doctors had to say, it turn into a Watergate Hearing before Watergate happened. Everyone was nearly contradicting unless you include the doctors at Parkland who have all said the exit wound shows blowing out the back of the head. Than that would be in agreement with my findings.
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Evidence the fatal shot came from somewhere else other than the rear:
1. At zfilm 313 under 10x magnification the first signs of disturbance shows a the front lateral cranium, and not at the rear.
2. At zfilm 313 under 10x magnification there shows no signs of disturbance at the rear of the head.
3. Motion at impact shows Kennedy being violently thrust back and to the left.
4. Motion at impact shows Kennedy's [right arm] instantly "lift in an upwards motion" indicating the projectile hit Kennedy somewhere from the front in order for the reaction upon impact to sustain a follow thru motion.
5. At zfilm 317 under 10x magnification shows Kennedy's hair saturated in liquid matter and blood which has held a lock of hair above his scalp indicating a frontal shot not a rear shot.
Scott - I am doing a paper next on WCD298 for CTKA. One of the most misunderstood things is the relationship between the WEST SURVEYS and the FBI/SS repeated recreations.
The FBI and SS knew early on that a shot was fired and hit something in the limo at Z345, literally 15 feet in front of Altgens as he testifies. Thanks to the work of Tom Purvis and his interviews with and aquisition of WEST'S original notes and diagrams we see the progression that changes a 3 shot scenario as shown in WCD298 to a 2 shot scenario with the dropping of this last shot further down Elm.
This is the main reason the analysis of the Zfilm stops at Z332 or so.
There is simply no denying it, the Zfilm and it's frame references are a sham. There were many more shots than 3 fired from a number of directions. IMO the film that Rowley has Friday night, an 8mm, is the one that finally gets to Dino and has already been cleansed yet not nearly as cleansed as the Homer 16mm film the next night. Without 0183 on the origin al or 0184 in existence, to claim that the film in the archives is "original" is folly.
We agree that JFK had fallen to his left into Jackie's lap...
Can you help us understand how JFK is once again sitting up as the limo is reaching the overpass?
or the fact that the QM is directly on the limo's tail without Chaney in sight... By the time they leave the overpass the limo has caught the lead car...
The entire Chaney episode is gone as well as numerous frames between 224 and 375... As I said before, I believe that most of the Zfilm was done at 48fps and was cut down to 18.3 by removing almost 2/3rds of the frames
When the WCD298 piece comes out I think for the first time in one essay we will find the WEST SURVEY data combined with WCD298's model data from January 20th and the data from subsequent recreations.
The Eisenberg memos appear to me to suggest they looked very carefully and closely to the film they had:
April22, 1964
MEMORANDUMFOR THE RECORD
FROM: Melvin A. Eisenberg
SUBJECT: Conference of April 21, 1964, to determinewhich frames in the Zapruder movies show theimpact of the first and second bullets.
(e) The Governor stated that after being hit, he looked to his
right, looked to his left, and then turned to his right. He felt the
President might have been hit by frame 190. He heard only two shots
and felt sure that the shots he heard were the first and third shots.
He is positive that he was hit after he heard the first shot, i.e., by
the second shot, and by that shot only....
.....
In a discussion after the conference, Drs. Light and Dolce
expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that
Connally had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the
ground that the bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher could not
have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion.
April27, 1964
MEMORANDUM
TO: J. Lee Rankin
FROM: Norman Redlich
<snip>
Ishould add that the facts which we now have in our possession,submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and SecretService, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will presenta completely misleading picture.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
My understanding, there is to be a total of 152 frames at 18.3 frames per second of zfilm, is that number still correct or are these the missing frames you speak of?
And, how are you so sure the frames continue up to z345 unless you viewed the original, there could possibly be some confusion going on?
Scott Kaiser Wrote:My understanding, there is to be a total of 152 frames at 18.3 frames per second of zfilm, is that number still correct or are these the missing frames you speak of?
And, how are you so sure the frames continue up to z345 unless you viewed the original, there could possibly be some confusion going on?
486 frames Scott... at 18.3fps as determined by the FBI
I don't understand what "continue up to Z345" means....
The frame #'s are arbitrary Scott. They are only good in reference to the Zfilm and locations in DP and not good reference for any sequence of events.
By removing the offending frames and refilming the 486 frames we now have on the B&H camera we are left with a finished, uncut film. The "accidental" removal of frames between 207 and 212 as well as the film break at 157 are explained away... kind of.
What cannot be explained is why Z133 does not show the signs of restarting the camera
Why JFK's head spins so fast when there is supposedly no missing frames
Greer's two head spins at faster than possible speeds
and finally the entire Chaney/Final shot removal which the FBI & SS place 4 feet from 5+00 which is about 36 feet further down Elm than the Z313 location.
The article on WCD298 I am doing will spell this out all in one place. The WCR made a shot after Z313 disappear yet could not remove the wake it left or the evidence which indicates the awareness of this situation and the conscious attempt to remove it.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
At 486 frames @18.3 per frame that's nearly 27.5 seconds of film, and if the car was traveling at 11-12mph nearly 186ft every 8 frames that would be 11,300ft total, that means the car would have had to travel a total of 3,766.5 yards, and there's no way the zfilm captured that much film.
