Dean Hagerman
-
Posts
1,402 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Dean Hagerman
-
-
Test Films
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE
Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
Todd you say "And let's be clear, it was only in a separate, follow-up post that you noted “I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera”.
Well there is my first post, read it again real slow and tell me what you missed
You might miss it again so I will give you a hint, it ends with a question mark
You know what im going to post my question for you tro read again so you dont miss it
are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said?
Just like I said, I was asking others if these were the films we were looking for or something else that was filmed?
I await your apology
Well then, yes, I was wrong – you apparently HAD earlier asked if these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera.
So, for the assumption on my end that you only asked this afterwards, you have my sincere apology.
But good grief Dean, that makes it even worse!
Now it’s apparent that you made your grand claim “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, made in a follow up answer to your question “Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?” when you admittedly didn’t even know if these were the films made through Zapruders camera to begin with!
To illustrate this, here are your relevant posts all in one place in chronological order:
DEAN 1 - Here we Test Films www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
DEAN 2 - Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
DEAN 3 - Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera. They look to be the ones, but im not sure. Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work
So thanks for pointing out my mistake, Dean, because now everyone can see for themselves that your ignorance as to whether or not these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera sure didn’t stop you from claiming they proved the Zapruder film was altered.
Kind of like your ignorance of you making claims without reading posts?
I never said it proves the Z-film was altered
It has already been proven
You "never said it proves the Z-film was altered"?
You've got to be kidding me, Dean.
Anyone can see that your statement “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, was made in direct reference to the Youtube video that you posted the link for.
And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!
Now you're trying to say that you weren’t claiming that the FBI film proves the Zapruder film was altered?
Whatever, Dean, whatever.
Todd, this is what you make out of my statement
"And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!"
But thats not what I said
The FBI films do not prove alteration, the fact that Zappy never stopped filming and the limo turn was taken out does prove alteration
Where did I say the FBI films prove alteration? Your making up things that you want me to have said, for some odd reason
You can post as many quotes as you want, its not going to make the words change Todd
Dean,
You wrote:
QUOTE ON
Todd, this is what you make out of my statement
"And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!"
But that's not what I said
QUOTE OFF
Not what you said?
Hmmm.
Well let's see what you did say:
QUOTE ON
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
QUOTE OFF
Now, that sure appears to be exactly what you said, and exactly what I said that you said.
And now you deny it.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Todd please stop im going to break a rib from laughing so hard
Dean,
One more try.
Again, referencing your YouTube video link of the FBI reconstruction film, here is what you wrote:
QUOTE ON:
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
QUOTE OFF:
You referred to the FBI film with …
“…look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white…”
and then asked…
“… how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
…and then answered…
“Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”
And to this you now claim “I never said it (the FBI film) proves the Z-film was altered”
Do you really expect me (or anyone else for that matter) to believe for one minute that you were not trying to use the FBI film to prove that the Zapruder film was altered based on your stated observation that when the camera stops in the FBI film the picture fades into white but when the camera stops in the Zapruder film the picture does not?
Todd
Like I said no matter how many times you quote me or try to put my words together you cant change them
What are you trying to do anyways Todd? Discredit me?
Why would you want to do that when we have so much fun debating Z-film issues?
If it wasnt for me you would have nobody to debate with
So whats up
Do you think im a sloppy researcher?
Do you think im dishonest?
Do you think im trying to fool everybody?
Do you think im stupid?
Why dont you answer all of those questions so I can see what you are trying to prove?
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
Todd, Dean, et al:
I first saw the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore reenactment films, shot with each of the three individuals original camera's, in March of 1999 during a research trip to NARA II. The films are actually a part of the massive FBI Bulky file 62-109060, in this instance serial # 4199. This is a very large serial subsection of the 62-109060 file and the films in question are actually in box number 102A, Folder # 4. Also included with this material are notes made on strips of paper, approximately 9" long by 3" wide, notes written by Lyndal Shaneyfelt that are affixed to the various film boxes that contain the small 8mm plastic spools of exposed film. To answer one of your questions posed to Dean, Todd; the film used by the FBI in the May 24, 1964 Zapruder camera reenactment is Kodachrome Movie Film with a small label bearing the # 9 affixed to the back of the familiar and traditional yellow, black and red Kodak company box.
The surviving Shaneyfelt constructed notes that are a part of this folder are also interesting and do help to provide a few further details. On May 23, 1964, the day prior to the actual reconstruction event, a roll of Kodak Kodachrome 8mm film was exposed in both the Nix and Muchmore cameras "on site in Dallas 5/23/64 during preliminary tests before reenactment on 5/24/64." This film was, in turn, taken by Lyndal Shaneyfelt.(62-109060-4193, Box 102A, Folder 4; film box containing reel labeled "15") On the day of the reconstruction, May 24, 1964, the Nix camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site 5/24/64 by SA R. E. Triplett" with a further Shaneyfelt notation that there was "no 2nd run." On the same date the Muchmore camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site by SA C. Ray Hall 5/24/64" with the same further Shaneyfelt notation as that which accompanies the surviving Nix film reconstruction notes - "no 2nd run." These two films are labeled, in turn, "16A reenactment thru Nix" and "17A reenactment thru Muchmore". The Zapruder reenactment film, item # 9, is listed as "Exposed in Zapruder camera on site in Dallas 5/24/64 by SA L. H. Shaneyfelt, with stills and moving." And unlike the Nix and Muchmore exposures, Shaneyfelt actually did "2 runs" of the assassination reenactment through the Zapruder film, one it would appear with the "zoom" feature on the Zapruder camera activated; the other without, though I could be wrong about this. I made photocopies of all of these notes, as well as photocopies of the actual film reels and their accompanying Kodak boxes, during my 1999 visit to NARA II. I also acquired, that same year, a copy of the reenactment films and it is identical to the YouTube copy link provided by Dean. (Not being a film expert, I am at a loss to explain the "cool" blue tint that appears to be self-evident on the film when one watches it; one could assume that this jhad something to do with the original development, but that would only be an assumption on my part).
FWIW, and in closing, in actuality the WC staff controlled reconstruction was originally set to take place on the previous weekend, May 17, 1964, but was delayed one week. Part of this delay was caused by an assumption on the part of WC Chief Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, that the FBI still possessed the camera of Abraham Zapruder. This was not the case, the camera by this time (May of 1964) now in the hands of the Bell and Howell people, stored in their archives room at the head office of Bell and Howell in Chicago, Illinois. The FBI did pick the camera up on May 12, 1964, used it in Dallas over the weekend of May 23, 1964, and returned it to Bell and Howell, Chicago, via SA Dennis Shanahan, on June 23, 1964. And again, FWIW, during the week of November 28, 1966 (yes, 1966) the Bell and Howell company had the camera removed from the archives storage facility and taken to their engineering lab in Lincolnwood, Illinois, where the camera was tested by their staff at which time the average film speed - fps - was found to be 18.2 fps, or within 1/10th of a second of the FBI results of 1963-1964. Lawrence Howe, then Vice President and Secretary of Bell and Howell, did admit that this testing was conducted directly "because of many news stories published from time to time espousing various new theories concerning the Dallas tragedy..."
Gary Murr
Gary
Amazing reply!
Thank you so much for all the info!
Would you be abel to scan and post Shaneyfelt's notes?
I would love to see those
Now we know the clip from Youtube are the films we are looking for, if we could get them and make a transfer with the sprocket area it would be a HUGE step in research of Full Flush Left and other items
Dean
-
Test Films
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE
Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
Todd you say "And let's be clear, it was only in a separate, follow-up post that you noted “I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera”.
Well there is my first post, read it again real slow and tell me what you missed
You might miss it again so I will give you a hint, it ends with a question mark
You know what im going to post my question for you tro read again so you dont miss it
are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said?
Just like I said, I was asking others if these were the films we were looking for or something else that was filmed?
I await your apology
Well then, yes, I was wrong – you apparently HAD earlier asked if these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera.
So, for the assumption on my end that you only asked this afterwards, you have my sincere apology.
But good grief Dean, that makes it even worse!
Now it’s apparent that you made your grand claim “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, made in a follow up answer to your question “Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?” when you admittedly didn’t even know if these were the films made through Zapruders camera to begin with!
To illustrate this, here are your relevant posts all in one place in chronological order:
DEAN 1 - Here we Test Films www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
DEAN 2 - Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
DEAN 3 - Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera. They look to be the ones, but im not sure. Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work
So thanks for pointing out my mistake, Dean, because now everyone can see for themselves that your ignorance as to whether or not these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera sure didn’t stop you from claiming they proved the Zapruder film was altered.
Kind of like your ignorance of you making claims without reading posts?
I never said it proves the Z-film was altered
It has already been proven
You "never said it proves the Z-film was altered"?
You've got to be kidding me, Dean.
Anyone can see that your statement “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, was made in direct reference to the Youtube video that you posted the link for.
And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!
Now you're trying to say that you weren’t claiming that the FBI film proves the Zapruder film was altered?
Whatever, Dean, whatever.
Todd, this is what you make out of my statement
"And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!"
But thats not what I said
The FBI films do not prove alteration, the fact that Zappy never stopped filming and the limo turn was taken out does prove alteration
Where did I say the FBI films prove alteration? Your making up things that you want me to have said, for some odd reason
You can post as many quotes as you want, its not going to make the words change Todd
Dean,
You wrote:
QUOTE ON
Todd, this is what you make out of my statement
"And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!"
But that's not what I said
QUOTE OFF
Not what you said?
Hmmm.
Well let's see what you did say:
QUOTE ON
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
QUOTE OFF
Now, that sure appears to be exactly what you said, and exactly what I said that you said.
And now you deny it.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Todd please stop im going to break a rib from laughing so hard
-
Test Films
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE
Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
Todd you say "And let's be clear, it was only in a separate, follow-up post that you noted “I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera”.
Well there is my first post, read it again real slow and tell me what you missed
You might miss it again so I will give you a hint, it ends with a question mark
You know what im going to post my question for you tro read again so you dont miss it
are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said?
Just like I said, I was asking others if these were the films we were looking for or something else that was filmed?
I await your apology
Well then, yes, I was wrong – you apparently HAD earlier asked if these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera.
So, for the assumption on my end that you only asked this afterwards, you have my sincere apology.
But good grief Dean, that makes it even worse!
Now it’s apparent that you made your grand claim “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, made in a follow up answer to your question “Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?” when you admittedly didn’t even know if these were the films made through Zapruders camera to begin with!
To illustrate this, here are your relevant posts all in one place in chronological order:
DEAN 1 - Here we Test Films www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
DEAN 2 - Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
DEAN 3 - Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera. They look to be the ones, but im not sure. Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work
So thanks for pointing out my mistake, Dean, because now everyone can see for themselves that your ignorance as to whether or not these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera sure didn’t stop you from claiming they proved the Zapruder film was altered.
Kind of like your ignorance of you making claims without reading posts?
I never said it proves the Z-film was altered
It has already been proven
You "never said it proves the Z-film was altered"?
You've got to be kidding me, Dean.
Anyone can see that your statement “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, was made in direct reference to the Youtube video that you posted the link for.
And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!
Now you're trying to say that you weren’t claiming that the FBI film proves the Zapruder film was altered?
Whatever, Dean, whatever.
Todd, this is what you make out of my statement
"And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!"
But thats not what I said
The FBI films do not prove alteration, the fact that Zappy never stopped filming and the limo turn was taken out does prove alteration
Where did I say the FBI films prove alteration? Your making up things that you want me to have said, for some odd reason
You can post as many quotes as you want, its not going to make the words change Todd
-
Inside the Target Car
Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window
To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car
One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program.
I have never read your review
I liked it, good job
-
Test Films
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE
Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
Todd you say "And let's be clear, it was only in a separate, follow-up post that you noted “I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera”.
Well there is my first post, read it again real slow and tell me what you missed
You might miss it again so I will give you a hint, it ends with a question mark
You know what im going to post my question for you tro read again so you dont miss it
are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said?
Just like I said, I was asking others if these were the films we were looking for or something else that was filmed?
I await your apology
Well then, yes, I was wrong – you apparently HAD earlier asked if these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera.
So, for the assumption on my end that you only asked this afterwards, you have my sincere apology.
But good grief Dean, that makes it even worse!
Now it’s apparent that you made your grand claim “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, made in a follow up answer to your question “Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?” when you admittedly didn’t even know if these were the films made through Zapruders camera to begin with!
To illustrate this, here are your relevant posts all in one place in chronological order:
DEAN 1 - Here we Test Films www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
DEAN 2 - Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
DEAN 3 - Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera. They look to be the ones, but im not sure. Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work
So thanks for pointing out my mistake, Dean, because now everyone can see for themselves that your ignorance as to whether or not these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera sure didn’t stop you from claiming they proved the Zapruder film was altered.
Kind of like your ignorance of you making claims without reading posts?
I never said it proves the Z-film was altered
It has already been proven
-
Dean...try Last Hurrah Bookshop.
Jack
Thanks Jack I will
-
Test Films
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE
Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
Todd you say "And let's be clear, it was only in a separate, follow-up post that you noted “I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera”.
Well there is my first post, read it again real slow and tell me what you missed
You might miss it again so I will give you a hint, it ends with a question mark
You know what im going to post my question for you tro read again so you dont miss it
are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said?
Just like I said, I was asking others if these were the films we were looking for or something else that was filmed?
I await your apology
-
I got you Bill
I know you have alot of stuff going on, I just feel so strong about alteration as being the most important thing in the assassination case that some times I want other students/researchers to direct their studies to that area only
I know thats not fair as everyone has their thing(s) yours being the withheld/destroyed and such records
Carry on Bill
-
The key to unraveling this case is to focus on fraud in the evidence. That has been my position for many years--indeed, decades--and it has not changed one bit.
There was demonstrable fraud in Mexico City. In the past you have hinted that your next book would deal with that. Are you still planning to publish Final Charade?
Years ago, when I read that you were working on a new book about President Kennedy's murder, I began anticipating it keenly. I seem to remember that you were going to focus on Lee Oswald.
When I heard about David working on a new book about LHO I was very excited
If anyone could keep my attention on LHO and his life it would be David Lifton, as I have always said Best Evidence is not only my second favorite book because of what Lifton proves, but also because it is a very enjoyable read
I remember reading Pig On A Leash when I bought TGZFH first before anything else
That got me even more pumped up for Liftons new book
Like Michael I ask te same question, will you publish it?
I will buy a copy as soon as it is avalible
Lifton's inability to get his book out may be due to the fact that he does not have sufficient skills to weigh and evaluate Judyth Baker's statements. He has done everything possible to try to destroy her credibility, yet she is documented to have worked with LHO at Reily Coffee in the summer of 1963, and is very persistent and just will not go away. Rather than developing a process that would work, Lifton has apparently stuck his head in the sand.
Im positive that Judyth Bakers BS story is the last thing in the world that would hold Lifton back from anything
So not only did you view the Z-film back in 1964 but you also believe Juydth Bakers story?
Let me guess you also believe James Files?
-
Inside the Target Car
Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window
-
Unfortunately Dean, I accept Gary Mack's explanations for the anamolies in the content of the Z-film, and I am not debating any of that at all.
What I am interested in is who at Life Mag took the Z-film from Zapruder after they made their deal, and where they took it - to Chicago - as the record seems to indicate, or to Rochester, NY, the HQ of Kodak and the home of the super secret "Hawkeye Works" lab where they also processed the Corona satellite images, that were also analysized by the NPIC.
I'm not interested in the alterationists debate, except where it overlaps with the chronology of the original film.
BK
Taking Gary Macks word for it and not being interested in alteration unless it overlaps with the chronology of the Z-film is very disappointing to hear Bill
-
Kathy I have an important question
Do you have an extra copy of "Harvey and Lee"? that you would be willing to sell me since im stupid and didnt buy it when it came out?
Amazon.com has 3 used copies, starting at $100, hardcover, like new. I think the shipping is $3.99.
Kathy C
Yes I know that
Nevermind
-
Why would Dave say such things, Dean, when they are untrue?
And how does it feel to have been misled by Dave?
He mistook sandbags for pumpkins and your saying he is misleading me?
I trust Davids research and stand behind him on his theories and his conclusions in TGZFH
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera
They look to be the ones, but im not sure
Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work
So now you don't know if it was the film taken with Zapruders camera.
I see.
But that didn't stop you from claiming that it proved the Zapruder film was altered.
So your saying the film type would make a difference when the camera was stopped and started back up again?
You have my attention Todd, please keep going
No, I’m not saying that at all.
A real forensic test of the Zapruder camera would require not only using the original camera but also the EXACT same type of film, among other things.
Certainly you know that different kinds of film gives you different types of results, correct?
For you to not know what type of film the FBI used, and to then make some grand claim that the white flashes between stops and starts prove that the Zapruder film was altered has me wondering.
What does it have you wondering Todd?
The fact that Zappy never stopped filming has been talked about for years, I never made a grand claim, if you would go back and read what I wrote (read slowly as you always seem to not catch the more important parts of my post) I said that I dont know if these are the FBI films taken by Shaneyfelt with Zappys camera, I just posted the link to the video to see if anyone else had either an opinion or if they knew for sure if those were the videos we are looking for.
I know that the same film has to be used to get the exact results, but all I was saying was to look for the fading in and out that happens when the camera is turned on and off, that is claimed to have happened in the Z-film but yet we dont see that fading
Now you have me making a grand claim about Z-film alteration because of my opinion on the video in the link I posted?
Here is a grand claim, You are WRONG Todd, the Z-film is altered
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
still posting from Wendy's eh, Todd? I expected better from you old chap -- this rates up there with you and .joihn shooting at overstuffed, non-moving sandbags at 50 yards then declaring: yep, old Oswald got off 3 shots under 8 seconds....
the question we should ALL be asking is why did the 6th Floor Museum deny Rollie Zavada use of Zapruder's B&H 414PD film camera for his ARRB tests? let's get serious, huh?
Todd did you record this earth shattering test with sandbags for us to watch?
-
Some Zapruder frames, including the head shot, also show a little girl on the grass in the background. Who was this girl and was she ever questioned?
Thanks,
BK
Rosemary Willis.
She was questioned.
Jack
No Jack, Rosemary runs along, early on in the film, while this little girl is just standing there in all of the frames she is in - standing back behind Jean Hill and friend.
Here:
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12...provenance.html
That's not Rosemary, is it?
Thanks,
BK
The only person behind Moorman in the frame that you posted is Toni Foster, who is not a little girl at all but an adult who was running in every frame in the Z-film not standing still, she has been questioned and identified
Have you ever heard of the running woman?
Have you ever heard of Toni Foster?
I hope you are talking about someone else but the frame you posted a link to shows only Toni Foster in the background, because if you are talking about Toni Foster and think she was a little girl who was just standing still I have to ask Bill have you ever studied the Z-film or the background witnesses?
No, I have not studied the people in the Z-film, but I'd like to know who this person is.
If you go to that link above and look that that picture frame there is a little girl on the grass in the background about twenty feet behind and to the right of Jean Hill. I went back every frame she is in and she is not running, but just standing there.
Who is she?
Thanks,
BK
Bill
First of all Jean Hill is not in the frame you gave the link to, Mary Moorman is in the frame and to the right and in the background is like I said TONI FOSTER, I hope you are not getting Jean Hill (in bright red dress) confused with Mary Moorman (black dress taking picture)
She is not a child, she is an adult
She is not standing still, she was running/jogging across the infield from Houston just like Altgens did
She has been identifed
She has told her story
It is Toni Foster
I am almost speachless as to you mixing up Hill and Moorman and never having heard of Toni Foster, go back and watch the Z-film, the Nix film, the Bronson film and picture
Check out Jack Whites study of "Toni Foster The Giant Running Woman" in TGZFH
Okay,
And yes Dean, I know all about Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.
But you would be astonished at everything I don't know.
But I do know about the Willis girl running along side the motorcade and stopping.
And I didn't realize this women was running towards the camera, therefore it appears she is standing still when looked at in still frames as I have been doing.
It is Toni Foster then.
Thanks,
That's what I wanted to know.
And thanks for the link B.
BK
Sorry if I sounded harsh
I just thought a solid researcher like yourself would have the Z-film and the bystanders down pat
The first time I told you it was Toni Foster you came back at me like I was wrong so I got a little put off
Again no hard feelings, sorry if I sounded harsh
Dean
No hard feelings Dean. You ain't harsh. Joe Backes is harsh.
And I think it is indeed Toni Foster.
And like TT just taking an interest in the medical evidence after all these years, I have not bothered to study the Z-film as others have, and I'm not really studying the Z-film, but rather, just wanted to know who that person was and what she said she saw. That's all.
I learn something new every day.
BK
Thanks Bill
In the last 10+ years I have studied the Z-film and the bystanders in it like the world was coming to an end
I hope now that you are seeing the "alteration light" you will study the Z-film and bystanders with vigor
Dean
-
Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964?
According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life.
So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event.
Thanks.
DSL
If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.
I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.
Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.
Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.
I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?
By 'the poster' do you mean me? How dismissive.
The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was.
There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen.
Pamela
So you are claiming to have viewed the Z-film in 1964 before Groden had a copy from Moe Wietzman in the late 60s early 70s?
What copy could you have possibly seen? Not Lifes for sure, and no way a SS copy
Sorry but thats real hard to believe
I did. I don't know what copy it was. It certainly wasn't the original, but it was quite good. I've been sharing this event with the research community for a very long time.
Ok
I dont see how that was possible
What exactly is *not* possible?
Here's a link to another forum post that might help you and Lifton catch up...
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=581
Martin says:
"The idea that anyone had 12 years to "work on" the film is, of course, untenable. No one who saw in on November 22 or 23, 1963 has alleged alteration, and the film was readily viewable by researchers by late 1964, which would be a maximum of 12 months, not 12 years.
Many of us had seen the film before it was shown on television in March 1975. "
That thread does nothing for me, and what Martin says really does nothing for me
You keep saying "I've been sharing this event with the research community for a very long time."
What does that have to do with anything?
I could claim to have seen the Titanic docked in New York harbor and have been telling other researchers that for years
It does not mean it happened
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera
They look to be the ones, but im not sure
Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work
So now you don't know if it was the film taken with Zapruders camera.
I see.
But that didn't stop you from claiming that it proved the Zapruder film was altered.
So your saying the film type would make a difference when the camera was stopped and started back up again?
You have my attention Todd, please keep going
-
I thought Kathy was talking about Donald Norton for sure! I thought she meant the guy on the right and made a mistake! Now to find out she thinks James Files is LHO
Who cares who James Files is? The guy is full of it
I don't care about James Files. Like I said, I've heard it before. And, yes to James Richard, that is a younger, thinner, much more attactive man in "my" picture of James Files on the right than in those prison movies. But yes, that is apparently James Files. (I didn't try to separate the 2 pictures, which came as one, because I have a new computer system and I don't know all its quirks yet.)
This all grows out of my interest in Donald O Norton. The later pictures I've seen in relation to Lee Oswald (Harvey and Lee), Donald O Norton and James Files -- They all have mustaches. I guess I didn't know so many assassins sport mustaches!
Kathy C
Kathy I have an important question
Do you have an extra copy of "Harvey and Lee"? that you would be willing to sell me since im stupid and didnt buy it when it came out?
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera
They look to be the ones, but im not sure
Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE
Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions
-
Some Zapruder frames, including the head shot, also show a little girl on the grass in the background. Who was this girl and was she ever questioned?
Thanks,
BK
Rosemary Willis.
She was questioned.
Jack
No Jack, Rosemary runs along, early on in the film, while this little girl is just standing there in all of the frames she is in - standing back behind Jean Hill and friend.
Here:
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12...provenance.html
That's not Rosemary, is it?
Thanks,
BK
The only person behind Moorman in the frame that you posted is Toni Foster, who is not a little girl at all but an adult who was running in every frame in the Z-film not standing still, she has been questioned and identified
Have you ever heard of the running woman?
Have you ever heard of Toni Foster?
I hope you are talking about someone else but the frame you posted a link to shows only Toni Foster in the background, because if you are talking about Toni Foster and think she was a little girl who was just standing still I have to ask Bill have you ever studied the Z-film or the background witnesses?
No, I have not studied the people in the Z-film, but I'd like to know who this person is.
If you go to that link above and look that that picture frame there is a little girl on the grass in the background about twenty feet behind and to the right of Jean Hill. I went back every frame she is in and she is not running, but just standing there.
Who is she?
Thanks,
BK
Bill
First of all Jean Hill is not in the frame you gave the link to, Mary Moorman is in the frame and to the right and in the background is like I said TONI FOSTER, I hope you are not getting Jean Hill (in bright red dress) confused with Mary Moorman (black dress taking picture)
She is not a child, she is an adult
She is not standing still, she was running/jogging across the infield from Houston just like Altgens did
She has been identifed
She has told her story
It is Toni Foster
I am almost speachless as to you mixing up Hill and Moorman and never having heard of Toni Foster, go back and watch the Z-film, the Nix film, the Bronson film and picture
Check out Jack Whites study of "Toni Foster The Giant Running Woman" in TGZFH
Okay,
And yes Dean, I know all about Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.
But you would be astonished at everything I don't know.
But I do know about the Willis girl running along side the motorcade and stopping.
And I didn't realize this women was running towards the camera, therefore it appears she is standing still when looked at in still frames as I have been doing.
It is Toni Foster then.
Thanks,
That's what I wanted to know.
And thanks for the link B.
BK
Sorry if I sounded harsh
I just thought a solid researcher like yourself would have the Z-film and the bystanders down pat
The first time I told you it was Toni Foster you came back at me like I was wrong so I got a little put off
Again no hard feelings, sorry if I sounded harsh
Dean
We also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
This coming from the master of misqouting and twisting peoples words around to fit what Craig wants it to
I find it odd that you have stayed in the background during this time in which Doug Hornes book validates Fetzer (and gang) and Liftons theories
I thought you would be all over these posts spewing your Im the photographic king and everyone else is wrong BS
Why is that Craig? Are you starting to see the error in your ways?
Follow me Craig, I will take you to the promise land of Z-film alteration