David Josephs Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 David and Chris - how much of the Zapruder film do you think is not authentic? If you're not saying that the whole thing is a fabrication, exactly which frames are genuine and exactly which frames are fake? Were the faked frames completely faked, or do they contain elements from the original images? If the latter, exactly which elements of each frame are genuine and which elements are fake? For someone who claims to be following along it is quite obvious you've glossed over the many posts which address your questions... I wonder why someone of your perceptiveness needs to be spoon-fed this in any case... is this level of depth your "norm" when researching a topic? Ask and hope someone tells you... The entire argument is presented in this thread - you seem to say that going back over it from the beginning, carefully and with focused attention is simply too much of a task, or you're simply not interested enough to learn the argument before you debate against it... Why is it that posters like you two can be as condescending and ignorant as you are yet expect us to "spell it out" for you in bits and bites you can digest? The way you barged into the conversation should be rewarded with clarity? If we were talking about 8 year olds we'd send them back to do their homework. You present little to no argument to support the authenticity other than "read this" or " listen to him" and can't comprehend something as simple as the film was in the hands of the Secret Service and FBI Friday night, 20 hours prior to NPIC's Saturday work and 2 days before the public boards were created... 48 hours and you're argument is the CIA/SS/FBI didn't have the time? All we have is example after example of the FBI/SS creating or removing evidence based on its incrimination of Oswald. The Xrays were altered to create a rear to front looking set of wounds... we all agree there was a conspiracy and more than one shooter... yet it remains out of your grasp to see how the EVIDENCE explains the conspiracy, if you know what to look for... Regardless of what this evidence tries to say, it cannot outsmart physics and the limitations of reality - the main reason the Silly Bullet Theory is not possible is that the exit is above the entrance going back to front... physics doesn't work that way. So as requested numerous times... start a thread where you try and prove 0183 - the camera original whose unique number does not appear anywhere on the "original" in the Archives - is actually the camera original. Of the entire 30 foot side B only 6'3" shows an image... everything else has been stripped away and it sits in 9 parts... how is this not an altered film? 2 different films on 2 different days arrive for processing at NPIC... so when you claim there was no time or no need, it is obvious you are projecting a desire rather than offering authentication. Interesting how you can be so sure of the BYP yet be so tenuous with the Zfilm... your naivety regarding skills sets, machinery and capabilities of the early 60's comes mainly from opinion rather than experience, what you "think" rather than what you actually "know"... Our role here is not to convince but to make you think. As DH says, it's up to each of us to determine what makes sense and what doesn't... While I can appreciate your desire that this film be authentic, the great preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Our role here is not to convince but to make you think. Likewise, Dave, likewise. We're trying to get you to see the err of your ways. Not everything is a conspiracy and the Z film IS the evidence of conspiracy if you'd open up your mind and see it for what it is, instead of thinking it had to be altered to make it one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 10, 2016 Author Share Posted July 10, 2016 Chris - what in the world are you showing here?! I have all of the frames of the Z film on my computer. I don't need to look at this GIF because I can see the frames for myself. I've opened them up on my computer and have just cycled through them one at a time. I suggest you look at the two Z gifs again, and compare the total number of frames between them. Then, compare the total numbers to that same span from the extant Zfilm. In the gifs, once the frame counter starts, the limo moves forward in every frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 10, 2016 Author Share Posted July 10, 2016 ------- Getting back to this, I believe Mandel receives his measurements from Breneman and they are published in the Dec 6,1963 Life edition. Robert West then corrects the work of Breneman, and the correct flat line distance to the first shot = JFK's physical location extant Z frame 207/208. The distance between the first shot and head shot according to Mandel is 170-260ft or a difference of 90ft. In CE560 (dated Mar27,1964), the distances change to 175-265ft, but the difference between stays the same at 90ft. In other words, fix the incorrect surveying, and the above is describing the same location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schwartz Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Chris, in all honesty, I read your posts, but do not fully understand them. However, I intuitively believe you are on the right track and want to encourage you to keep on keeping on. If you get a chance, could you post , in a narrative form, what you believe to be true about how JFK was killed , I think that would be great. Maybe you could call it your hypothesis. But, I understand if you do not want to do this yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 11, 2016 Author Share Posted July 11, 2016 Chuck, For now, I'll state that early on in the government investigations, they realized there was more than one shooter. Hence the manipulation of data to put one person in the 6th floor snipers nest. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Our role here is not to convince but to make you think. Likewise, Dave, likewise. We're trying to get you to see the err of your ways. Not everything is a conspiracy and the Z film IS the evidence of conspiracy if you'd open up your mind and see it for what it is, instead of thinking it had to be altered to make it one. Err of my ways? Michael - we have no hard feelings despite your approach. That you believe the Zfilm is pristine given what we know went on, given how easy it is to show it to be anything but authentic - why isn't the one unique identifier, 0183, cut with circles into the film itself not on the "original" you defend so voraciously? Please follow along Mike... This is the film map of SS copy #1 - you notice they can't say 0185, 0186 or 0187 since that information is not in the film... what they do have on this film is a printing of 0183 on a section of the film which stands between 2 optically printed splice marks so in the REAL WORLD you can't conclude anything but this section of the film was spliced into the film this was copied from We then get 32' of home movies from side A (a side which only has 30' of exposable film) AND ANOTHER SPLICE, then 25' of black film AND ANOTHER SPLICE to the 10' of assassination footage AND ANOTHER SPLICE printed onto the film... and finally the backward printing on the emulsion side... 0186 is found on SS copy #2 with the splices and the 0183 photographically printed BETWEEN 2 SPLICES... How many splices does it take before a film original - which would NEVER be cut up into pieces - be no longer considered original? If you replace the head of a hammer 5 times and the handle 3, is it still the original hammer? Of course not Mike... and back in the world of reality - a spool of 8mm double side film is 25 feet long. Just looking at the map below we have well more than 60' spliced together to represent this "copy" of the original. The "original" has more than 45' of film and only shows the assassination. If you wish to show me the ERR of my ways you'll actually need to offer some evidence to support your contention - not just your opinions... Try some facts Mike, they are very empowering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Chuck, For now, I'll state that early on in the government investigations, they realized there was more than one shooter. Hence the manipulation of data to put one person in the 6th floor snipers nest. chris Chris - not really a matter of "realizing" as those on the inside where convinced an attack on Cuba was going to happen as a result of a conspiracy to kill JFK with up to 4 shooters and a coordinated team of Cubans. The "Castro" side of the story may have been there all along to keep people in check since anything related to him would fall under National security. The Lone Gunman was used in the face of the CIA's Mexico City revelations about Oswald taking cash at the Cuban consulate. Alvarado was a CIA asset run by Philips whose story was to place Oswald in Cuba receiving money on Sept 17-18. Nagell does his bank deed on Sept 20th after sending a letter to Hoover about the 17th/18th and a JFK assassination Oswald's activities are double sided in that he is infiltrating these Cuban groups as best he can for the FBI yet each activity incriminated Oswald as a Pro-Castro sympathizer and supporter. Anyone who did this work placed themselves into the position of being accused of the very thing they were fighting against should the chips fall the wrong way. The supporting conspiracy scenario of multiple shooters sent by Castro would be easily proven and was the topic of conversation until DC calls to tell them put a lid on it. From early Friday evening on, it was all Oswald all the time yet now all the "conspiracy evidence" must now be reworked for Lone Gunman, regardless or not if it was realistic - it would be the word of the FBI and the most "trustworthy" men in the country. That this concept remains so difficult to accept is hard to understand - the verbatim transcripts of the FBI's fingerprint expert Cadigan were reviewed and changed by Allen Dulles prior to publishing to remove mention of the 400+ items the FBI had at their lab in DC as early as Friday night... he changes it to "a latent fingerprint" issue. I bet our naysayers were not aware that the Commissioners could change anything they wanted prior to publication... and they did. The FBI only took 225 items from Dallas yet returned almost 500 items. Nice trick, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) Chris - Why are we talking hypotenuse at 170' when Eisenberg is talking flat-line at ground level of 175'? The 170.4' = 61' + 110' = 171' ?? Eisenberg's flat-line distance at 175' is a 423' elevation. Your graphic connects the Oblique side, side "c", with Mandel's 170' statement which is then connected to Eisenberg's 175' notation as the base of the triangle, or am I reading that wrong? The 168.34' on West's 207 analysis remains the same down to the pavement - so which is it? 168.34', 170', 171' or 175' ?? and we are talking about the JFK position, the JC position or the bumpers? A thought - shot 207 is meant to describe the Connelly shot, the difference at 207: 423.75 - 423.07 = .68 x 18.3 = 12.444 feet up Elm... yet "423.07" is Eisenberg's 175' flat-line measurement. 175' = 423.07 = station 3+81.34 - 12.44 = 162.56' at station 3+68.87. 3+58.66 Station 3+71.1 is 2.23 feet further down Elm than 3+68.87 or the distance between JFK and JC ??? Edited July 11, 2016 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) For Michael Walton, Michael are you familiar with Dino Brugioni and his background with NPIC? If not, here's a quick synopsis by Jefferson Morley: http://jfkfacts.org/cia-chief-told-rfk-about-two-shooters-in-dallas/#more-2415 If so, have you seen any of the video interviews with him? DB is ABSOLUTELY the DEFINITIVE source for the processing of the Z-film... Tom Edited July 11, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 DB is ABSOLUTELY the DEFINITIVE source for the processing of the Z-film... Sat night, yes.. not Sunday though. And you make a great point Tom... when Dino says the briefing boards aren't the ones he created that pretty much puts a nail in it. DB was completely unaware that Homer McMahon and team worked on a 16mm film Sunday night according to Horne's transcripts. Arthur Lundahl could have known of both events - but he never gave it away. "Lundahl was a high-ranking CIA employee described in White House papers as "perhaps the most distinguished authority in the United States on photographic intelligence...the top photographic intelligence officer in the United States government and, as such, he has been involved in the most important photographic problems affecting national security..." Lundahl, using Dino's boards, briefs McCone Sunday morning. http://jfkfacts.org/cia-chief-told-rfk-about-two-shooters-in-dallas/ "According to Brugioni, Lundahl went to the office of CIA Director John McCone, taking along briefing notes Brugioni had prepared for him. Lundal briefed McCone on the CIA’s analysis of the blown-up frames of the Zapruder film. He returned to NPIC later Sunday morning, November 24, and thanked everyone for their efforts the previous night, telling them that the briefing of McCone had gone well." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 11, 2016 Author Share Posted July 11, 2016 Chris - Why are we talking hypotenuse at 170' when Eisenberg is talking flat-line at ground level of 175'? The 170.4' = 61' + 110' = 171' ?? Eisenberg's flat-line distance at 175' is a 423' elevation. Your graphic connects the Oblique side, side "c", with Mandel's 170' statement which is then connected to Eisenberg's 175' notation as the base of the triangle, or am I reading that wrong? The 168.34' on West's 207 analysis remains the same down to the pavement - so which is it? 168.34', 170', 171' or 175' ?? and we are talking about the JFK position, the JC position or the bumpers? A thought - shot 207 is meant to describe the Connelly shot, the difference at 207: 423.75 - 423.07 = .68 x 18.3 = 12.444 feet up Elm... yet "423.07" is Eisenberg's 175' flat-line measurement. 175' = 423.07 = station 3+81.34 - 12.44 = 162.56' at station 3+68.87. Station 3+71.1 is 2.23 feet further down Elm than 3+68.87 or the distance between JFK and JC ??? David, Even though the notation is at the base of the triangle in CE560, the distance is referring to the hypotenuse. If in agreement, I'll go on. Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 11, 2016 Author Share Posted July 11, 2016 If it helps. Remember, shot#1 below does not refer to extant z207 location (JFK in limo), it would be more like extant z218(JFK in limo) if a frame number was assigned to it using CE884 data. The hypotenuse (or slant distance as Simmons refers to it as) for shot#1below is 184ft, not the175ft Simmon's was shooting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 DB is ABSOLUTELY the DEFINITIVE source for the processing of the Z-film... Sat night, yes.. not Sunday though. And you make a great point Tom... when Dino says the briefing boards aren't the ones he created that pretty much puts a nail in it. DB was completely unaware that Homer McMahon and team worked on a 16mm film Sunday night according to Horne's transcripts. Arthur Lundahl could have known of both events - but he never gave it away. "Lundahl was a high-ranking CIA employee described in White House papers as "perhaps the most distinguished authority in the United States on photographic intelligence...the top photographic intelligence officer in the United States government and, as such, he has been involved in the most important photographic problems affecting national security..." Lundahl, using Dino's boards, briefs McCone Sunday morning. http://jfkfacts.org/cia-chief-told-rfk-about-two-shooters-in-dallas/ "According to Brugioni, Lundahl went to the office of CIA Director John McCone, taking along briefing notes Brugioni had prepared for him. Lundal briefed McCone on the CIAs analysis of the blown-up frames of the Zapruder film. He returned to NPIC later Sunday morning, November 24, and thanked everyone for their efforts the previous night, telling them that the briefing of McCone had gone well." Hi David, That's an excellent point that you make re DB's knowledge of what happened on Saturday vs. what he did NOT know about what happened on Sunday AFTER the initial CIA briefing. Clearly it was decided that the film in its original form was unacceptable. I believe Art Lundahl knew EXACTLY what was done, and by whom. Possibly you can help me understand why some many otherwise knowledgeable use the following reasoning to dismiss any possibility of Z-film alteration: "If the Z-film was altered, then WHY is there STILL evidence of a frontal head shot in it? If it had been altered, they would have removed this!" My answer, which doesn't satisfy any of them, has always been: Using 1960's technology, they did their best to remove any evidence contrary to 'LHO acting alone shot JFK from the TSBD', so the film could be released. However, the results were unacceptable, SO THEY USED LIFE MAGAZINE TO PREVENT RELEASE OF THE FILM! It was not seen by the public until 12 years after the assassination, when Geraldo Rivera, despite threats of prosecution, showed an illegally acquired bootleg version on national television. IF the film had been released shortly after the assassination you would have a valid point. But it was NOT released - it was leaked. Following this event, all they could do was attempt damage control. I can NOT understand what is wrong with the logic in my explanation, but it never changes anyone's mind. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 For the record, the alleged Z-film is altered, frames were removed (film break LIFE, Chicago) and Z-frames were transposed (per JEH-FBI). It's no secret that the film was damaged and spliced, and that Commission Exhibit 885 is inaccurate: two frames were printed in the wrong order, one frame was omitted, and another frame was printed twice. The point at issue is whether the Bad Guys in some way altered the film to materially change its depiction of events in Dealey Plaza. [The Zapruder film is] the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT. In what way does the Zapruder film as we know it implicate Oswald and justify the single-bullet theory? There is the lapel flap in frame 224, which is supposed to have been caused by a shot hitting Kennedy and then Connally, but it's hardly conclusive. Governor Connally himself implied that he didn't believe this interpretation, by claiming that he wasn't hit until several frames later. Presumably the lapel flap was painted in by the Bad Guys, who forgot to send Connally the memo (as we will see, that wasn't the only thing they forgot to do). The Zapruder film as we know it actually provides plenty of evidence, some of it found nowhere else, that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis: It is the only item of evidence which restricts the official shooting time, or at least the only plausible version of the shooting time, to less than six seconds. Without this constraint, it would have been easy to claim that the hypothetical lone nut had more than enough time to aim carefully and fire three shots from his rickety old rifle, hitting the target twice. It is fundamentally due to the Zapruder film that we know that the timing alone makes the lone-nut hypothesis extremely improbable, since a majority of the expert marksmen who have attempted to duplicate Oswald's supposed feat have been unable to do so. The Zapruder film is the only item of photographic evidence which shows Connally's apparent reaction to being shot, several frames after Kennedy has already been hit. Again, Connally himself stated that this element of the Zapruder film matched his recollection of the shooting. If Connally was correct, the Zapruder film explicitly contradicts the single-bullet theory. And then there's the 'back and to the left' reaction to the head shot. Whether or not it actually implies a shot from the front, that's how it appears to most people. Those frames of the Zapruder film may have been the single most significant factor in rekindling public scepticism of the case against Oswald, firstly after the early bootleg screenings, and then after the film's television broadcast in 1975 and its inclusion in Oliver Stone's JFK. That's what makes the whole 'Zapruder film is faked' thing so bizarre and laughable. The Bad Guys went to all this trouble to fake the film, but they forgot to replace the parts that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis. Whoops! They only faked the parts they didn't need to fake. Silly Bad Guys! And having incompetently faked the film to fool the public, they didn't force it on the public at every opportunity. Instead, they kept it out of the public's view for as long as they could. The entire argument is presented in this thread The point Michael Walton made is that the way the argument is presented, as a long series of unexplained, cryptic equations, is a terrible way to communicate a sound argument. It is, however, a good way to disguise a weak argument. This method may work with the faithful, but if you want to convince open-minded non-believers, you need to set out the case for alteration in a way that makes it as easy as possible for people to follow. You could begin by telling us in plain English exactly which elements of the Zapruder film you consider not to be authentic. Did the Bad Guys fake the whole thing, including all those frames that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis? If not, precisely which frames have been tampered with? The less vague you can make it, the less like paranoid wishful thinking your case will seem to be. Once you have defined the extent of the forgery, perhaps you could justify your claim by pointing out exactly how the faked frames are inconsistent with other items of the photographic record. Unfortunately, no-one has yet managed to identify a single such anomaly that doesn't have a non-conspiratorial explanation, which leads us to only two possible conclusions: either the bulk of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film, has been tampered with, or the bulk of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film, is authentic. Personally, I'd go for the latter option. you barged into the conversation Pardon me for intruding into your private discussion! I thought it was open to any member of the Education Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now