Bernice Moore Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Bernice --Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. In refusing to address Mr. Peter's concerns regarding film alteration, of course all he can move on is JWhites work - discredit him [meaning Jack White], by default - possible alteration of the Zapruder film goes by the wayside ... yeadada, yadada, yadada... And the beat goes on... Nice to see you posting, lady! Hope all is well with you and your's. David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi There David: "Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration." Well isn't this always the plan? I don't see anything that has changed in this regard over many years. Been done before and shall again. As you say the yada will continue.. Did you hear anything about The Sixth Floor Museum losing it's lease because the owner's have raised the rent and they will not pay it...and possibly moving it into a large trailer type vehicle, and taking it to different schools around the country..?? Thanks and I hope all is well at your end.. : B... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Bernice --Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. In refusing to address Mr. Peter's concerns regarding film alteration, of course all he can move on is JWhites work - discredit him [meaning Jack White], by default - possible alteration of the Zapruder film goes by the wayside ... yeadada, yadada, yadada... And the beat goes on... Nice to see you posting, lady! Hope all is well with you and your's. David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi There David: "Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration." Well isn't this always the plan? I don't see anything that has changed in this regard over many years. Been done before and shall again. As you say the yada will continue.. Did you hear anything about The Sixth Floor Museum losing it's lease because the owner's have raised the rent and they will not pay it...and possibly moving it into a large trailer type vehicle, and taking it to different schools around the country..?? Thanks and I hope all is well at your end.. : B... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bernice...that is THE CONSPIRACY MUSEUM in the Katy Building which has lost its lease. They are month to month till they find a new location. Robert Cutler, the chief backer of the museum, is in very bad health. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Bernice --Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. In refusing to address Mr. Peter's concerns regarding film alteration, of course all he can move on is JWhites work - discredit him [meaning Jack White], by default - possible alteration of the Zapruder film goes by the wayside ... yeadada, yadada, yadada... And the beat goes on... Nice to see you posting, lady! Hope all is well with you and your's. David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi There David: "Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration." Well isn't this always the plan? I don't see anything that has changed in this regard over many years. Been done before and shall again. As you say the yada will continue.. Did you hear anything about The Sixth Floor Museum losing it's lease because the owner's have raised the rent and they will not pay it...and possibly moving it into a large trailer type vehicle, and taking it to different schools around the country..?? Thanks and I hope all is well at your end.. : B... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bernice...that is THE CONSPIRACY MUSEUM in the Katy Building which has lost its lease. They are month to month till they find a new location. Robert Cutler, the chief backer of the museum, is in very bad health. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Thanks Jack, I was just informed it was the Conspiracy Forum and not the 6th Floor.....and came back to post the correct information.....Sorry to hear that Mr.Cutler is doing poorly.... Regards...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) Does anyone have any JFK assassination photo and film related hoax things to talk about? We appear to be getting away from the topic of this thread and it won't be long I expect we'll be seeing postings going back and forth about how the family pets are doing, if little Josh is potty trained yet, that one of you just had a root canal, or some other non-related event that has nothing to do with this topic. It just seems like a separate topic maybe called "General JFK related News" might be in order. Edited July 19, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 22, 2004 Author Share Posted July 22, 2004 Does anyone have any JFK assassination photo and film related hoax things to talk about? We appear to be getting away from the topic of this thread and it won't be long I expect we'll be seeing postings going back and forth about how the family pets are doing, if little Josh is potty trained yet, that one of you just had a root canal, or some other non-related event that has nothing to do with this topic. It just seems like a separate topic maybe called "General JFK related News" might be in order. dgh01:Call Gary, he'll give you a hand -- A few of us are waiting for you to put forth something -- anything JFK related that has one iota of original research --till then Josh's potty trained experiences will do just fine. I suspect it will be a VERY long wait -- then again, you may surprise me, but I doubt it! ---------- <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 (edited) dgh01:Call Gary, he'll give you a hand -- A few of us are waiting for you to put forth something -- anything JFK related that has one iota of original research --till then Josh's potty trained experiences will do just fine. I suspect it will be a VERY long wait -- then again, you may surprise me, but I doubt it! I'm sure a few of you are still trying to figure out how in the heck you thought the pedestal was the same distance from the window in the White, Fetzer and Mantik replica photo as Moorman's, how Moorman (if in the street) got her camera above the cycles windscreens to take her photo without holding her camera over her head, or how the Altgens 6 photo could have been altered when it hit the news wire within 20 minutes after Altgens film was taken for developing at 12:39 p.m. CST ... so I imagine that a lot of things surprise you. What surprises me is that you took almost a week this time to come up with another non-direct response that dealt with any specific observation. I have presented several alteration claims and detailed why they were in error and the Bond/Skaggs claim was one I never heard before and caused me to create the examples myself. I have offered for you to make an alteration point and I'll be happy to address it, but what is the sense of me addressing anything if you don't understand the claim well enough to even be able to give a brief description as to why you believe it shows alteration. But seeing how you brought it back up again, I'll oblige you. Below is another alteration claim and an attachment that shows why it was erroneous. The claim was that a distant train car sitting back in the RR yard could be seen in the Willis photo, but not in Bond's photograph, thus someone alteration of the photos must have taken place. The author of this claim had the impression that both photographers had the same basis view point, thus both photos should show the train car sitting back in the RR yard. A simple check of an overhead view of the plaza and by plotting the field of view of each photographer shows us that these views were not similar at all. When lines matching the right side of each photographers line of sight is plotted on the overhead view it because quite obvious why the RR car is seen in one photo and not the other. This observation was made and the error pointed out to the photo and film alteration believers years before TGZFH was writtern, but yet it still went into print as promoting photo and film fakery. One would think that once this error had been pointed out - that this would have been the end of it, but it obviously wasn't. The only question that should be remaining for anyone looking at this issue now is whether the alteration believers didn't have the skills to ever understand the flaw in their claim or whether they did realize the flaw and still tried to use that claim to mislead unsuspecting readers. Any questions, Mr. Healy? Edited July 29, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 (edited) dgh01:Call Gary, he'll give you a hand -- A few of us are waiting for you to put forth something -- anything JFK related that has one iota of original research I don't know if this has been pointed out to you before, but it is rather interesting when viewing two places in the same book that when combined they actually show the lack of thought that went into some of these photo and film alteration claims. In TGZFH it was said that Moorman and Hill were standing in the street in the Bronson slide (Z225/26) and also in the Muchmore frame. Yet in TGZFH there is a reference to Altgens 6 that says that Altgens photo is genuine. Now if TGZFH says Altgens 6 is genuine, then how can Moorman and Hill be in the street less than 1.5 seconds earlier when Bronson took his photo and also throughout the Muchmore film as the alteration believers had claimed? These are two different claims (one supportive of fakery and the other of authenticity) that dispute one another. I find it amazing that not one photo and film alteration believer (whether they be a Ph.D or not) didn't catch this contradiction. Any questions, Mr. Healy? Edited July 30, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 (edited) But Lifton made a discovery that, for more than two decades, was so incredible that it was not given much credence: the head wound shown on the Zapruder film does not at all match the wound described by eyewitnesses and the doctors that treated JFK in Dallas!We can see the problem just by going one more frame forward, to Frame 314: The Zapruder film is telling us that the whole front-top of JFK’s head gets blasted away! There is a huge crater where his forehead used to be, through which we can again see his wife. Lifton or whoever posted the above quotes on the alteration site made a poor interpretation of the images. The skull flap came off the top of the head and unless someone uses a film version that shows the front part of JFK's head as washed it because of contrasting - the front top portion of the head will not be shown as missing. Below is a clip showing the area where the skull flap became dislodged from. The hair to the front side of the now missing scalp is still visible. From the 1970s, Lifton had argued that the bright reddish-white wound which seems to appear and snake up the side of the President’s head, which he called “the blob”, completely disagreed with the descriptions of the head wound given by the doctors and nurses at Dallas’s Parkland Hospital, where the President was taken: On the way to Parkland, Jackie Kennedy tried holding her husbands head together and in doing so, the skull flap was placed back into position and held there as the blood clotted. Many of the Parkland doctors said they didn't notice the large flap wound, but at the same time they claimed they were trying to save the President's life and just hadn't bothered to examine the head wound more closely. There were however a couple of doctors at Parkland who did examine the head wound more closely and the reason I believe most researchers missed their observation is because the doctors didn't refer nto the wound as the skull flap, but rather they called it the bone plate. Dr. Baxter said at his Commission deposition: Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood loss mixed with it and around it. Further proof that the Zapruder film doesn't show the front part of JFK's head missing is seen in the last two attachments below. I have seen where if frame Z335 is contrasted in a way that it washes out JFK's hair - the front part of the head will appear to be missing. The last example shows this illusion Edited July 22, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film:But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The photo and film alteration site refers to film experts and scientist, but I didn't see any references to their names. Hopefully they are not the same experts who took that Moorman recreation photo with the transit! The first thing they do wrong is refer to the matter coming from JFK's head as blood. It is a watery fluid that is inside the cranium that has a small amount of blood mixed with it. I am offering a link to a page that discusses blood spatter by someone who not only believes there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, but who also a blood spatter expert. Her name is Sherry Gutierrez and her opinions can be seen throughout the site by typing the words 'blood spatter' or 'blood spray' into the sites search engine. http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p..._topics&forum=8 As I said, the debris coming off the top of JFK's head was a watery substance that was thrown into the air as a type of mist for a better term. The assassination films show us that the wind was gusting at the time that the head shot occurred and this can be seen by observing Hill and Moorman's coats blowing eastward. A Marie Muchmore film frame is shown below to make this point. (see the first attachment) This mist was thrown up and forward into the air and the air flow going over the car caught this watery mist - held it for a spilt second and drove it backwards, thus causing it to dissipate rather quickly. The actual bone and debris moved much faster and was thrown throughout the car, as well as onto the trunk. A large piece of bone/debris is seen sitting on the upper back of Connally's jump seat before falling off into the floor and being found later and sent to Bethesda. (Click on attachment #2) The last attachment shows the mist being thrown into the air and driven backward by the air flow going over the car. The film is slowed and debris moving forward past Jackie's shoulder is partially visible. (See clip #3) All the images shown here have been pulled from Lancer's site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 (edited) This is the great evidence the Hoax site was supposed to offer? The second mistake occurs when Mrs. Connally snaps her head to the rear far too rapidly. Just before she does, she turns her head to the front in a more realistic motion: This has been addressed on Lancer on several occasions and while I am not surprised that these assertions on the 'Hoax' link are not specific in detail, I am surprised that people with credentials would consistently make such silly errors. To start with ... there is no reference that I could find to tell the reader how fast the clip is playing. All that is said is that Mrs. Connally turns her head too fast. There is nothing seen on the Zfilm with Mrs. Connally's head turn that cannot be duplicated while mimicking her actions. Another matter was the attempt to break down the peoples movements by judging the running speed of the Zapruder camera. The running speed of the camera frames have a variance of 5 -10%. Trying to compute movement in such minute detail against an average 18.3 fps approach is fruitless. Certainly no photo expert that I am aware of has ever said that Nellie Connally moved her head too fast. Personally, I wish the limo had been moving as fast as the clip shown below, then it may have been harder to have hit JFK. I also notice that Jackie seems to turn her head towards Connally in much the same way and speed at which Nellie moved her head. Nothing seems out of line when considering the running speed of the film that's being shown. In another area on the 'Hoax' page it was said that frames from the Zapruder film were simply removed - no reference to which ones, but just removed! The author doesn't take into consideration that the car is constantly rotating away from Zapruder's camera, thus if a frame was removed ... then the rotation of the limo would become sporadic and uneven. As one watches the Zapruder film, the rotation of the limo is smooth from frame to frame. Below is some general references that this link tells it's readers about the Zapruder film being hoaxed. To cover up the mistakes, the forgers, and those directing them, did three things: 1. They made it look like Abraham Zapruder jiggled his camera around a lot when he was filming. Whenever someone moves in a way that is too jerky, the whole (pretend) camera was made to jiggle. This makes it impossible to follow the detail if it is being projected at full speed. 2. They made sure that the moving film was not shown publicly. It was 12 years before it was shown on TV! 3. They made sure that the film frames published in November 1964 were black and white, and not great quality. Abraham Zapruder suffered from Vertigo and is why he had to have Sitzman stand on the pedestal with him so to help him keep his balance. If one correlates the frames of the Zapruder film to that of the Nix film, they will see that each movement of Zapruder as seen from the Nix film can be tracked on the Zapruder film. The claim that "they made it look like Abraham Zapruder jiggled his camera" is utter nonsense. A negative clip from the Nix film is attachment below and one can watch Zapruder's camera move around. Each up, down and sideways movement can be followed on the Zapruder film, but in reverse. Accompanying point two above was this statement made a short time later, "To avoid this danger, they made sure that any “stabilized” film was only ever shown in slow motion. This is how it was shown on TV, in 1975." It was the lead conspiracy guru of them all (Robert Groden) who had slowed the film down when presented on Goodnite America in 1975. Robert had done this to allow the viewers to better follow some specific reactions of those inside the limo. This assertion that "THEY" slowed the film down is erroneous for "THEY" had nothing to do with the film being shown by Groden. It was the November 29th 1963 issue that showed the Zapruder frames in B&W. The memorial issue of December 1963 had them in color. The reason for this is because there was not enough time to have the color images processed so to be ready for the 11/29/63 issue. If there is a November 64' issue showing B&W images of the Zapruder frames, then I have never seen it, nor did the 'Hoax' site offer it's readers to know what particular issue it was. And even if there was such an issue, the frames were already being printed in color by the first week December 1963. So once again the paranoid message being delivered was based on misinformation once again. A Nix film clip in negative form has been added below. The movement of the Zapruder camera on the Nix film can be correlated to the background shifts on the Zapruder film. Edited July 23, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 23, 2004 Author Share Posted July 23, 2004 Show us, YOUR best. Try as you might Mr. Peter's or whomever -- you might want to put a little evidence - as in, what your words profess? What Miller professes on Lancer ain't going to cut it, repeat -- SHOW us with clips, clips that have been certified by ONE with photgraphic analysis credentials, hopefully a Physicist specializing in optics - not by someone that wants a job with Photoshop's parent corporation Adobe -- I've already told you, I'll lay the groundwork for wild Bill's resume. Attention: the CEO of Adobe, Dr. John Warnock --done some business with him, way back when Illustrator was created... Perk up Mr. Peter's, we're still hopful that you'll get something, anything to together... btw - you've got poor net-ettiquete, why yell? Pauly want a cracker [geez] David Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 23, 2004 Author Share Posted July 23, 2004 (edited) [...] Any questions, Mr. Healy? [...] Not-a-One you can answer Mr. Peter's or whomever -- keep trying though, you may spark some interest from one of the still photo pro's. Guess nobody but me will talk with you. Most of the folks aren't interested in trading nonsense with those they can't depend on being who they say they are -- Why waste the bandwidth, is what I'm hearing... guess that translates into Nope, no questions, Bill! Best regard's David Healy Edited July 23, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 (edited) What Miller professes on Lancer ain't going to cut it, repeat -- SHOW us with clips, clips that have been certified by ONE with photgraphic analysis credentials, hopefully a Physicist specializing in optics - not by someone that wants a job with Photoshop's parent corporation Adobe -- I've already told you, I'll lay the groundwork for wild Bill's resume. David Healy Mr. Healy - John Simkin asked that I explain things in a way that the students can understand. As far as Bill Miller goes - I believe he won the Mary Ferrell award last year for his work and has been invited to speak in Dallas the past several years, I cannot say that about you. You and the alteration crowd don't have any experts to support your photo and film alteration claims, nor do you have one that has denounced Miller's crituque of the photo and film alteraion claims. The reason being in my opinion is that they'd probably feel embarrassed to have someone say they even considered the alteration claims seen so far. By the way - the film clip used on the Hoax site that I copied and pasted here is played too fast. If one is going to say that people within a film are moving to fast, then they should at least show the film at it's correct speed. Common sense should tell someone that if a film clip is going to be shown faster than what it was recorded at, then the images in motion within it will be speeded up as well. Guess nobody but me will talk with you. Most of the folks aren't interested in trading nonsense with those they can't depend on being who they say they are -- Why waste the bandwidth, is what I'm hearing... Could it be that everyone but you are able to follow the posting examples I have shared and that's why they have no questions! Edited July 23, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 (edited) btw - you've got poor net-ettiquete, why yell? Pauly want a cracker [geez] David Healy Mr. Healy - I explained my use of the medium sized print in an earlier post to Bernice Moore. I also think you meant the word "Polly" for that is the spelling and word phrasing attributed to parrots. Now back to business. As I stated in an earlier post, which you didn't seem to be able to follow, I mentioned the even rotation of the limo as it passed from left to right across Abraham Zapruder's field of view and how that applied to there being no sign of missing frames in the clip I posted. Below is another simple example of the point I was trying to make and I trust that you will be able to follow it OK. Each line is theoretically placed to match any side to side item inside the limo. For instance we can use the cross bar to replicate the angle of each line. Between frames when the car is traveling at a steady speed, the distance between each forward rotation of the line is basically equal. (See example "A") In the event that a frame is removed, the distance between lines will be greater - double what it was before. (See example "B") We don't see this sudden doubled up jump in time in the clip I referenced earlier. I don't know how to make this point any simpler, so I hope you got it this time around. Feel free to take this post back to your alleged scientist and see what they think. Edited July 24, 2004 by Larry Peters 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