Dean Hagerman

I highly recommend her book Me and Lee (have not read it, but will!)

Huh?

How can you "highly recommend" a book that you have not read?

/L.F./

I wonder why you ( Sorry Dean i mean also you) take this fellow serious?

I dont take this guy serious at all Martin, he is a joke

I was expecting such a reaction on your part.

Indeed, as I learned a few years ago, people are rarely grateful for a demonstration of their credulity.

Well, I don't blame you. It must be really hard to try to defend ludicrous conspiracy theories against all evidence, and being held up to ridicule (and deservedly so) by reasonable people every time you turn your computer on...

/F.C./.

Weak

/D.H./.

And my dog's barking makes more sense than all you can say in this forum !

Hey Francois Coli, did you name your dog Nungesser or the Maginot Line?

Which failure did you choose for the name?

For instance, it is a fact that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, in June 1994, and everybody agrees.

Everybody except 12 jurors

They are here because;

a. They have no friends

b. They didn't get a train set for Christmas

c. The medication they're on doesn't allow them to go outside

d. They're fascists

Why do you think that?

Who knows. Its just baseless speuclation like your original claim. And just like yours its meanningless.

Craig is speculating?!

The sky must be falling!

Dean, I used the ABSURD the illustrate the ABSURD. Clearly, like most things, the point was LOST on you.

Thats ABSURD!

François Carlier, a simple Frenchman

Thanks for pointing out the obvious

Why do you think that?

Who knows. Its just baseless speuclation like your original claim. And just like yours its meanningless.

Craig is speculating?!

The sky must be falling!

I want Joan Crawford to clean my house, I have 100s of wire hangers

Therefore, reasonable people (i.e. people who know for a fact that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin, and that the Zapruder film was never altered) should have as much consideration for you as you have for flat Earth believers !

A traveling matte is when you can actually move that background to make it seem like its in motion. Say for example, when the first spaceships arrive at Devil's Tower in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Very difficult to do. Although they did do it well. But recall, this is 1976. With a budget of 18 million dollars. And Trumbull and several other talented people, are working in front projection. Which was rarely used at the time and is a difficult process.

My favorite Matte work in a film is by far from "Ghostbusters"

This Youtube clip kind of sucks to see the Matte work, but here it is

But they created a 360 degree Matte of New York City all around the stage, the skyline looks real, with blinking lights, amazing looking buildings, as well as the changing sky, and the top of the building that they are on

I am not using "Ghostbusters" as proof of alteration, just stating that I love the Matte work

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again?

So no frames were removed from that film?

You tell me...thats your claim.

Im asking you, do you think no frames were removed?

From the master of that film....no

Why do you think that?

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again?

So no frames were removed from that film?

You tell me...thats your claim.

Im asking you, do you think no frames were removed?

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

How do you know? Just making crap up from thin air again?

So no frames were removed from that film?

Hello Chris,

Using your definition of alteration it would appear that the film clip you posted is unaltered.

It seems to be a simple stop frame animation where the camera stopped, the physical content of the scene is changed and the film is started to record the new physical reality.

When the film is played back it appears as though a mysterious transformation has occurred in a moment but what the film doesn't show is the time interval where an assistant stepped into the scene and removed the the fake nose.

It's not the film that has been altered in this instance, it's the scene that's changed. The film maker plays on your assumption that filming was uninterrupted and in real time.

But no frame was altered, moved or added - that's exactly what the camera saw while it was recording.

Assuming that the motorcade wasn't stopped along Elm to add or remove elements from the scene it's hard to see how stop frame animation could have played a role in the Zapruder film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film

If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered

I can see that!

Is being a member of SCOTUS a techincal problem deano?

There would be a ton of techincal problems if I tried to become a Supreme Court Justice

That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard

If you have NEVER done anything even similar how can you know if what is being described...AND WHAT YOU CLAIM TO "BELIEVE", is really correct?

It's not ludicrous at all. It's a technical problem. If you don't have the proper techincal background, how can YOU properly judge what it is you are reading?

Unless of course your just "BELIEVE"

Really?

So in your world I would have to be a Supreme Court Justice to know how the Supreme Court works?

See how silly you sound

Great...explain them. Got any hands on experience?

No

So you really DON'T understand. I'm not suprised.

So you have to have "hands on" experience to understand anything?

That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard

Great...explain them. Got any hands on experience?

No

...

But, as a matter of fact, all experts and specialists who have tried to analyze the Zapruder film, WITH TOP-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, have found NOTHING, absolutely no trace of alteration.

...

/François Carlier/

oh Francois, you silly goose you, you haven't an iota of (circa. 1963) technical film lab knowledge. Posting the above utter nonsense is an embarrassment to decent lone nut discussion concerning the subject. So sit down and watch Lamson get his due....

p.s. the alleged in-camera Zapruder film is SUSPECT suck-it-up, son.

Yeah, sure ! And Elvis Presley is alive, too.

Keep dreaming.

/François Carlier/

Weak

You can't even add

My math skills far exceed that of what you could ever imagine

Sorry, you can't even add 1.25 plus 1.25 plus .5.

No need to imagine at all. We can see it firsthand.

Now about your understanding those processes.... Do you?

Yes

Robert,

If there is one frame altered, removed or added, that would constitute alteration.

chris

Boom!

Well said Chris