Jeff Carter

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Carter

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. A Jack W. Martin was identified as a possible suspect in JFK assassination before Oswald was apprehended.
  2. hi Paul Michael Paine’s claim, beginning in 1993, that Oswald showed him a backyard photo in April 1963 is best considered with healthy scepticism. For one thing, it calls into question key parts of his WC testimony, particularly his painstaking descriptions of handling the “rifle blanket” thinking it held camping equipment, and how he never suspected Oswald might own firearms. His description to the WC of meeting Oswald that April is very detailed as well - no BYP. Also, at least three BYP third poses were unearthed in the mid-70s, all from former Dallas PD. And there is no record of a BYP seen before the evening of the assassination, although the DeMohrenschildt copy may have been placed in the record album before then.
  3. I wonder when exactly the 1967 recreation was made. I am referring to the bush behind the figure - it looks like winter (or it is dead). There’s an obvious difference between the growth of the bush behind the Oswald figure in the original BYP, and that same bush in the DPD recreation dated to late November 1963. I don’t know anything about plants in the Dallas region, but a comparison between the growth of the two might help locate when the original BYP were taken (i.e. in the spring or in the summer). That HSCA panel applied photogrammetry science big time examining shadows and sun angles etc, but at the end of the day everyone had to admit that a skilled forger with good equipment could swap an Oswald face onto another’s body. That’s why the BYP had to be approached in terms of their provenance, and that’s where the HSCA came up short.
  4. The HSCA put a fair amount of resources into a photographic “authentication” panel which examined the backyard photos extensively (see HSCA Appendix VI), and yet they were unable to explain the third pose which appeared at the time of their deliberations. R.L. Studebaker, of the Dallas Police, was interviewed to supposedly clear this issue up. The Studebaker executive testimony, regarding handling of photographic evidence by the Dallas police, is now available online: Studebaker’s testimony leaves most of the important questions unanswered, and the HSCA left it at that. If the photos are authentic, as the HSCA’s panel suggests, then this third pose is confounding as there is no accounting for it in the developed story of how these photos came to be, and no accounting for how it ended up with the DPD shortly after the assassination. If the photos were faked, then the twelve year silence regarding the existence of this third version strongly suggests the provenance of the faked photos was known by, at least, the Dallas PD - and possibly Secret Service and FBI as well. The HSCA really dropped the ball on this one.
  5. hi David J It’s my understanding that the private Zapruder footage in the Z-film was returned to the family, while the motorcade sequence was sent to the Sixth Floor Museum, after its official validation. The head and tail leaders tabulated in the handwritten note from 1997 are typical presentation for an archival film. IMO, Zapruder kept his film initially because he articulated his property rights and was also cooperative. If the Zapruder camera was shifted from RUN to SLOW MOTION during the assassination sequence, the transition from 16fps to 48fps would not have been immediate but ramped (gradual). Any calculations using the Zapruder film to determine time-based measurements such as mph of vehicles are at best “ballpark”. Regardless, we both arrive at the same conclusion: the apparent shooting sequence cannot be reconciled with the lone nut three shots bolt action rifle paradigm.
  6. We are looking at the same data but with different reference frames. You and Chris D are seeing the plats etc through the frame of Z-film alteration, while I (and others) see them as attempts to in effect pound a square peg (shot sequence evidence seen in Z-film) through a round hole (three shots/one bolt action rifle). The clue I think most important is that the Secret Service were intent, at NPIC Brugioni event, to determine timings between perceived shots. They insisted even after Pearse told them it was a useless effort if they were trying to be accurate. So now the investigators are counting frames. It gets determined that the bolt action rifle needs minimum 2.8 seconds to operate (Frazier FBI says 4.6 seconds to fire two shots, add one second if moving target) which is understood as about 50 Z-frames (at original determination of 18fps). So this is how I understand all these original measurements- they were trying to create a shooting scenario which fit the characteristics of the found rifle. Does anyone see Connally first hit at Z-264, or even Z-242? These are among the scenarios being measured. A late shot beyond Z-312? Being considered because one can plausibly count the frames and say Oswald did it. How many of these surveys went down? I count three or four, which change the parameters every time.
  7. If there is anything "new", or at least developed in more detail than previously done, in my Part 2 essay - it is about the properties of the Zapruder spring-wound camera, and the implications regarding the "average" camera speed (18.3 fps). The section is called The Zapruder Camera Is Not A Clock. I expected a few questions on that topic. FWIW, I doubt those Bell & Howells ever ran at (approx) 16fps, they were closer to (approx) 18fps. But that has to be understood in terms of its "constantly varying operating speed."
  8. hi David you say "quite a lot can be done in 20 hours" a little too casually. NPIC and Hawkeye were working primarily with U2 / satellite input, not motion picture. If something was so obvious to know to remove relatively immediately, then wouldn't have the film just been seized in the first place, no copies made. 48 fps, as you have established, would allow for fairly seamless frame removal after the fact. Here's what makes me pause: at 16fps projection, the sequence would play back at a full 3 times slowed down (i.e. the approx 7 second shooting sequence would be 21 seconds). A fair amount of people saw the film Friday, and a number have discussed that experience, but I don't recall anyone who even hinted it played before them in slow motion, even though it would be one of the most obvious things.
  9. hi Chris I have to admit I find many of your posts rather cryptic. Did you have a chance to see the article, particularly the section on the Z-film not being a clock (spring-wound camera)?
  10. hi David J - I'll have to respond piecemeal... re: Rowley print I concur with Chris Scally that it was the Rowley print which was used at NPIC for the Brugioni event. Brugioni said the work was led and directed by Secret Service agents who arrived with the film, and their response to Pearse suggests that they in turn were following predetermined instructions. The Brugioni briefing boards are a missing JFK Record, last seen in 1975. Secret Service also had a set of same, also missing. Maybe destroyed with other items in 1992? My line of inquiry suggests the first (Brugioni) NPIC analysis was covered up because its conclusions could not be reconciled with the developing lone nut paradigm (I suspect too many shots in area around the Stemmons sign). An alteration analysis holds that the Brugioni event was covered up because alteration on the film subsequently ensued. We can at least agree that an NPIC event was covered up, and there is a missing record to be found or at least try to establish when and maybe why it was destroyed.
  11. hi David How does one “prove”…? Zavada’s report combines characteristics of what would be expected if the film was a 1963 in-camera original - which all exist - with characteristics expected if the film had been reconstituted through an alteration process - which don’t exist. But I notice you have dismissed Zavada’s report. Your dismissal would have more substance if you could a) offer a substantive critique of a flaw in Zavada’s analysis or demonstrate a film practice which runs counter to established wisdom. i.e. what “proof” do you have the film has been altered? All I have ever seen is the waving of the Fielding book as constituting some kind of proof of the possibility - even as Fielding himself asserts that you do not know what you are talking about. But I see you dismiss Fielding now too (“professional scrutiny BS”). The alteration argument seems to consist of identifying anomalies within the film, and then positing that alteration or fakery must be the single answer to these assumed anomalies. The lack of a limousine slow-down is the most frequently cited anomaly, but clearly such slow-down is in fact visible.
  12. hi George I am sorry but I don’t know what to say at this point. Zapruder frames Z-208 through Z-212 can be viewed in the folder created by John Costella which was shared with you previously, and those frames appear, for instance, in the motion sequence created by NPI for the “Images of an Assassination” DVD. These frames, from first generation prints, do not have the inter sprocket information seen on the original. Zapruder handed over the original film to LIFE on Saturday Nov 23, 1963. So if an “altered original” was to be swapped on Monday Nov 25, that would have happened directly with LIFE. LIFE also had a print which would need to be swapped, and also a check of frame blowups done Saturday/Sunday would have to occur, to be sure no compromising information was appearing in those. LIFE employees who handled the original film would have to be screened. There is no evidence that any of the above occurred. Alteration to the Zapruder film is a suspicion, not a fact. No hard evidence has yet appeared to support that such a thing did happen. You said - “The touch up paint job on Kennedy´s head is obvious…” This is why I referred you Sherry Fiester’s book, as her detailed Chapter Three discusses this, and does not support the notion of alteration in this instance.
  13. hi George The Warren Commission and the FBI had all of the frames of the film as a 2nd generation print, and also 35mm transparencies as requested by the FBI. That is the full extent to what they asked for and apparently required for their inspection. The investigating authorities, specifically the Secret Service, allowed, wisely or not, Zapruder to control and ultimately sell his film. LIFE, the ultimate owners, cooperated fully with the Warren Commission - screening the original film in February and creating the transparencies from the original. As I said, Don Thomas’ questions are cited from Harold Weisberg - who asked these questions in 1976, a time when information regarding the Z-film vis-a-vis the Warren Commission was a lot sketchier. The questions have mostly since been answered.
  14. hi Karl Horne may have had more success making an effort to locate the materials generated from the speed tests of Zapruder’s camera in late 1963. Those reels of film would have the appropriate sprocket information to compare with the Z-film, with the benefit of having been created soon after events (rather than pulling the camera out of a closet after 34 years). I don’t believe the ARRB had 100s of thousands dollars at their disposal. One explanation for the scepticism shown Horne is that he was already convinced what he was looking for, rather than affecting a more objective stance.
  15. hi George No one is necessarily mistaken, information regarding the Z-film was incomplete for many years. According to the record, the Warren Commission had access to a fully extant 2nd generation print of the film. They also had a set of 35mm slides struck from the Zapruder original, representing Z-frames 173-434, missing four frames, Z-208 through Z-211 due to a technician’s error. It was the FBI who requested that this sequence of transparencies begin at frame 173. These slides were created after the film had already been damaged. The first generation prints were made before, and retained the original film’s damaged frames. The “missing frames” are today readily accessible. Weisberg’s information, cited by Thomas, was only partial in 1976. LIFE cooperated with the Warren Commission, providing a print in December 1963 and later creating transparencies.