Greg Burnham

Dr. Fetzer,

Recall Rollie Zavada talked about Rod Ryan in his response to Doug Horne:

[snip]

...He acknowledged it would be very

difficult to alter the film at that time.

[snip]

Fail.

Jim,

Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both.

Greg,

I've never personally taken a movie at 18.3fps, hand wound, similiar camera and examined each frame.

Are you saying this has been done and in not a single frame does this occur?

LOGICALLY that makes sense of course... but my gut tells me that of all the frames in a panning sequence like that, there are bound to be some frames where everything is in focus... I'm just not exactly sure why.... I'm more than willing to be wrong here.

Much more telling to me are the survey measurements that are offered to try and account for distances over Zframes...which translate to huge swings in speed...

which are impossible... 206/207 is a very key area and may be where a piece of film COULD have been inserted..

yet agan the HOW boggles mind... to a point. and then I rememebr which assassination we're talking about...

Thanks for the wonderful info everyone...

DJ

removal of info I can see... compositing the film? possible at some point along the way...

David, I am not an expert on film. But, I do know that when a camera is panning the stationary objects MUST be blurred on the film. It is inescapable. I also know that when a subject is in motion it will remain crisp so long as the rate of the panning coincides with the rate of travel. That is the reason for panning: to keep the subject in crisp focus for a s long as possible. However, if the objects in motion are crisp on the film then the stationary objects in the foreground and the background MUST be blurred. This is indisputable. So, if we have ANY FRAME that simultaneously has foreground, background, and mid-ground objects in crisp focus, then none of the objects are in motion.

Straight line logic. It is inescapable.

Jim,

Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both.

Thanks, Ed. I dare say that Mr. Lamson and I go way back. His arguments were no more reasonable when I first encountered him than they are today.

Having said that, it is sufficient to show a SINGLE frame -- ANY FRAME -- in which the foreground, the middle-ground, and the background are all CRISP. Why? Because IF the limo never stopped how can we account for the lack of motion blur within the frame? The only answer adequate to that evidence is that the limo DID stop. The fact that the extant film does not show a stop at all results in self-impeachment. I do not need more than one frame to demonstrate this. His claim that I need to make sure that the source of the frames is consistent is a lame distraction technique. This can be demonstrated using a SINGLE frame.

Z-216, for example, shows the foreground, mid-ground, and background to be equally crisp. How can this be possible in the real world where the mid-ground (the limousine) is in motion? Where objects are stationary a panning camera will cause blur. Where objects are in motion, a camera panning in a synchronous manner will capture crisp images for those items in synchronous motion, but capture blur for all objects that are stationary.

So, how is it that in Z-216 there is virtually NO BLUR AT ALL?

Go ahead Craig, state your BS for the record.

I knew Craig Lamb's son would post next! I just knew it. So predictable. So "on call" for this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txIismezLAo

David,

You are committing multiple logical blunders. However, even though your reasoning is flawed that does not mean that you are necessarily incorrect. It does mean that the proofs you are offering to support your assertions are inadequate to the task, though.

Greg,

Being wrong only means I'm trying...

please show me the logical blunders... sincerely.

I'm trying to show that what we see in the film's frames is corroborated by the witnesses...

that there are no events in the film that are contradicted... only missing or blocked.

where am I falling down here...? as I prefer to express this both logically, and directly.

thx

DJ

Well said, David. I know you're trying--and mostly succeeding, I might add. In my opinion, Jim is pretty much covering the flaws in your logic. Granted, one must strive to be thick skinned in order to bear it though.

Moreover, Jim wil be the first to admit that he lacks tact in some settings. Although he tends to be demanding, he doesn't intend to be. He has a tendency to "pile it on" with a multitude of examples that are sometimes redundant, and thus tedious for the recipient. His tone can come across as condescending. David, in Fetzer's defense, it is a personality quirk, not a character flaw.

Back to the point. Let me just grab a random illustration: None of the witnesses--including those closest to the president, such as, Jackie--reported JFK's head violently "snapping back" at the moment of the kill shot. Yet, that is what we see in the extant film. I reckon one could argue that such "wasn't added to the film" but is rather the result of frames being excised from the film, which may in fact be the case. However, when something is removed from film it can "generate a false impression" due to the human mind's tendency to seek continuity. That tendency toward continuity can result in false impressions which can lead to false conclusions. So, even though the cause of the phenomenon (in this case) might be the removal of frames, the net effect (of the removal) is additive to the film. And, this "additive effect" is cumulative.

But, I digress. That is an involved subject all by itself. More to the point is the fact that the Zapruder film cannot be relied upon as a "yardstick" by which to measure any collateral evidence. It is self-impeaching in that there are elements within it that do not occur "in the real world" because they are impossible. As an example, the film displays severe inconsistencies with regard to the blurring/sharpness of foreground and background images. While there are numerous indications that the film might be altered, there are several that actually prove it...and all it takes is one.

.

Greg...

Maybe yours is just a hypothetical statement? My distinction on the Zfilm... as opposed to what you saw, is simply that what we have access to today shows ALOT of what you described and is based in REALITY... the film was not shot on a soundstage, nor does it try to convince anyone that what they are seeing DIDN'T happen....

You can't tell from watching the film that during any 3 frame stretch the limo APPEARS to travel at twice the speed it should be due to the distances and survey info... that suggests something is missing....

and I DO believe that an original is out there with the MISSING STUFF back in...

Let me ask you... seeing the Zfilm a zillion times as we all have, is there anything in there that did not happen? One of the only things I initially thought of is in the z450's where JFK is seen sitting up again... yet we have witness testimony to this.... so if you have anything to point to that is shown yet did not occur I'd appreciate it

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that could have been possible when Mrs. Kennedy pulled him over, do you think he could have got hit in the neck after he had been hit in the head?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes sir; I do

Mr. LIEBELER - He was still sitting far enough up in the car he could have been hit?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Cheers

DJ

ps... Can we all refrain from stating what someone else THINKS or KNOWS? If you want to know where I stand on an issue, just ask.

As I said, the unaltered version will fill in the blanks MISSING from the film... hopefully as you've described them - yet Zappy will not all of a sudden be somewhere else, there will still be three men on the steps, moorman and jean will still be in their places.. etc....

Will it also show the first headshot 30 feet down the road? Altgens doesn't say the film is showing something that didn't happen... just what he says DID HAPPEN...

I will easily stand corrected if he ever said what he saw on the zfilm did not occur that way.... or anyone else for that matter.... I jsut cannot recall anything said along those lines.

thanks

DJ

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

As a point of, perhaps, human nature: where Jim believes that the Zapruder film is a fake and Lee and David believe the opposite, it is interesting to note the separate emphasis. Where Jim anticipates the appearance of an unaltered original film and appreciates what that would mean ... -- and where such a surfacing of an "unaltered" film is the last thing David and Lee anticipate -- they could care less--but not because they are detached, but because they are just not persuaded by the evidence as far as they know it.

David,

You are committing multiple logical blunders. However, even though your reasoning is flawed that does not mean that you are necessarily incorrect. It does mean that the proofs you are offering to support your assertions are inadequate to the task, though.

Monk,

I know you have a firm grounding in logic and reasoning. Is there something I am explaining that David Josephs or Lee Farley should be unable to understand?

No. Both are quite capable of comprehending complex issues and being unbiased.

...that when there is a conflict between two films, you need to have good reasons to decide which is [authentic and] which [is artificial]? [my edits]

Yes, where Item "A" (alleged to be authentic) is demonstrably of sufficient deviation from Item "B" (also alleged to be authentic) as to be impossible for both to exist in the universe as we know it, then discovery of the truth of the matter would necessarily be predicated on carefully discerning the evidence of authenticity versus the evidence of fakery in both films.

"...that these conflicting films could not both be authentic but could both be faked?"

Yes, I'm certain that they can comprehend that. If both are faked then there is no set point. However, if we can determine that one is authentic then we have a set point and all other evidence can be "measured" against it to determine the likelihood of the authenticity of other films. If other films are inconsistent with the established set point then they are faked. However, if we have no established set point, then films that are inconsistent with each other could both (or all) be faked. Herein lies the rub: for many the Zapruder Film has been the "real deal" upon which they have rested their collective cases. It has become their "set point" --if you will. As they measure other evidence against it and find consistency, they conclude: It is consistent with the Z-film and therefore is authentic. That is fallacious on multiple counts. Let me re-phrase, such could be authentic and be consistent with the Z-film--even if the Z-film is not itself authentic! So too, if the Z-film's authenticity is a subject of debate, any who rely upon it to bolster their argument as if it had already been established as a set point have fallen victim to the commission of begging the question. In any event, your points are well taken, Jim.

...that if the original authentic film were to appear in the public domain, that it would also be inconsistent with the extant film, but that that would not mean that the original authentic film was the fake?

As a point of, perhaps, human nature: where Jim believes that the Zapruder film is a fake and Lee and David believe the opposite, it is interesting to note the separate emphasis. Where Jim anticipates the appearance of an unaltered original film and appreciates what that would mean ... -- and where such a surfacing of an "unaltered" film is the last thing David and Lee anticipate -- they could care less--but not because they are detached, but because they are just not persuaded by the evidence as far as they know it.

...Is it too much to ask that they should grasp points as elementary as these--because it seems to me neither of them has any appreciation for inconsistencies and what they do or do not mean--which, of course, is why we need witness reports, medical evidence, and ballistics as forms of evidence to decide between them.

I don't know "how much is too much" Jim. Maybe I'm the wrong guy to ask. Or perhaps it's a bad question, my friend. However, on a less personal note: Inconsistencies are just that, inconsistencies. They have limited meaning. In many situations they can rule things out. In only rather narrow circumstances can they conclusively rule things in.

So far as I can tell, they don't even understand that the extant film is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 is inconsistent with earlier frames--which means that the extant film cannot possibly be authentic! Is it too much to ask that they should understand this elementary point?

Many thanks!

Jim

Somethings aren't worth getting near, Jim. This is one of them.

As I ponder the past 15+ years of "Research in the Age of the Internet" I am often reminded how valuable this medium is to all of us. The ability to instantly access and/or exchange massive amounts of information is truly something for which we can all be grateful. The amount of photographic, film, audio, and documentary (written) evidence that can be reviewed by some of the best-qualified researchers on the planet is enormous. And yet, out of this wealth of information, we still find time to bicker.

A pity.

But, there's probably a good reason for it. Or not.

While it is true that much division exists among those who do not accept the official story, it is also true that there exists overwhelming agreement on a sufficient number of key items to enable these "mostly like-minded" researchers to form a coalition of sorts in order to pursue a common goal. But, unfortunately, that is not what we witness. We witness bickering about, what some observers believe are, tedious details. These details are very important if we could categorically demonstrate their cogency in a manner easily comprehended and/or duplicated in an experimental setting. As it is, what is "proof" to one is not necessarily "proof" to another. And so it goes.

Perhaps the issue isn't so much that the key researchers, who are at each other’s throats, might disagree on the most important issue: conspiracy itself. The most disturbing issue could well be uncovering the magnitude of the cover-up; the blatant obstruction of justice committed not only by members of the government but also by agencies of the government acting in an official capacity. It is in the last area that I believe the heart of the conflict lies.

FBI Special Agent James Hosty once commented [paraphrased]: "If there was a cover-up, it was a benign cover-up".

The thrust of his argument was founded in the notion that thermo-nuclear war was narrowly averted because the Warren Commission served its purpose, which was (in his view) the rightful exoneration of the Soviet Union in the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. Sorry, that is unacceptable. Where I come from it is called obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct and--especially when tied to a capital crime such as murder--it is not subject to any Statute of Limitations.

Gerald Ford manipulated the wording in the Warren Report to reflect an inaccurate location of JFK's back wound. Did he do this for the same approximate reason that Hosty attempted to justify obstruction of justice? Perhaps. But, it is of no consequence, in any event. We are left with lies and obfuscation in the place of clarity and truth.

A pity.

So, where do we go from here? Indeed.

In my view it is essential for all interested parties to "grab their butts" with both hands and get ready for the ride. Prepare yourselves for a most disturbing truth: We may never know, to any degree of agreed upon certainty--beyond the most basic conclusions--exactly what occurred on November 22, 1963.

But, do not be fooled. There was a massive cover up AFTER the fact that had its genesis prior to the event, details be damned.

Jim Garrison: "There is nothing that they will not do...nothing. They murdered your president and there is nothing that they will not do".

Jim,

As you no doubt know, Jack replied and said "buyer beware" regarding this film auction. He said he thinks it might be the DCA film. Nothing new here.

Adios, old friend...

...

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooxxxxxxxxooooooooooooooooooooooo

overview http://www.federaljack.com/?p=146557

Steve,

That link doesn't work.

Joe,

That is probably the single best account of what likely happened that I have read. Simple, yet adequate to the evidence.

Tom,

Are we to understand you thusly: Your only concern, which led to making Martin's thread invisible, was protecting Clay? I was under an entirely different impression. From your initial moderation action you seemed to be questioning Martin's honesty, albeit in a not-so-cleverly disguised manner. You seemed to suggest that Martin may have been making the whole thing up! Now, if he wasn't fabricating the story, you still seemed concerned that perhaps there was no "Clay the archivist" to begin with. But, if that was true, then there was no Clay for you to protect either. Your arguments are becoming ever so circular.

I'm afraid I don't have enough crumbs left to find my way back home.

Monk and Dr. Fetzer,

David and Judyth are both members of this forum. At the time David Lifton posted quotes or other details he attributed to Judyth's, as far as I know, she had posting privileges on this forum, and there was moderation in place.

Was Judyth's decision not to post on this forum, her decision? If she could not post because of problems with her vision, but learned of details in David Lifton's posts, despite her handicap, did she not have the option to get assistance in posting even a brief response to Lifton under her name in the thread where he had posted about her?

Could she not have obtained assistance to draft and send an objection in a PM to a moderator?

Compared to the rapid response options any member here has control of, what are the options of this Clay what's-his-name, who Martin posted quotes of, or any other non-member of this forum, to respond to a posted representation of a quote attributed to them, when the situation is that the quote cannot be verified except through the cooperation of the member here who has posted it?

I am sorry, but I think comparing the options Judyth had in reaction to anything about her posted in these threads, and the options that a non-member has, are different enough to compel you both to pick an example other than Judtyh. Any member who post on this forum is presumed vetted....that it is indeed them posting, or someone they have authorized to post in their name.

How does this standard compare to a member posting something like, "hey, I got an email from someone who claims he is the "Clay What's-his name" who Martin post quotes of. He requested that I post a clarification of the remarks attributed to him, and he wants all to know he never expected what he actually said to Martin to end up search engine accessible, under his name, on a forum...." vs. Judyth simply posting in the same thread Lifton had posted in, something like, "Well David, that is not how I remember our conversation, you've taken what I've said out of context, you've misunderstood what I said to you,....etc." We know immediately that the post originates from Judyth's account, she or any member has the potential to reply to whatever has been posted about them, nearly immediately.

Please do not compare what Lifton posted attributed to another member here, to what Martin posted, quoting a third party who is not a member and who would have hurdles Judyth did not have to jump; only the first of which is verifying who they are and that they are indeed the party Martin was quoting.

Martin has apparently provided proof that his statements reflecting the email he received from a Hood archivist were indeed well founded.

He was REQUIRED to do so in order to make his thread visible again.

However, David Lifton was NOT required to produce the telephonically recorded conversation that he claims to have had with Judyth from which he posted the alleged contents thereof.

That is a double standard.

Of course, Jim made a good point: Judyth did not threaten a lawsuit.

Yet.

.

Martin was asked by me to post a screen capture image of an email he described as authored by his source; containing quotes that became the foundation for his thread in question. I made the request to Martin early on a Sunday morning during a holiday weekend.

I had no idea at that time how long it might take for other moderators to review the temporary invisibility of his thread and reach a decision on what next to do.

I thought asking Martin to post a screen capture would potentially be the fastest and least complicated way to justify restoring visibility of the thread.

No one aside from me, requested anything from Martin. I restored the visibility of the thread after considering ONLY Martin's explanation and the input I've received from other moderators.

It is still a double standard.

Martin has apparently provided proof that his statements reflecting the email he received from a Hood archivist were indeed well founded.

He was REQUIRED to do so in order to make his thread visible again.

However, David Lifton was NOT required to produce the telephonically recorded conversation that he claims to have had with Judyth from which he posted the alleged contents thereof.

That is a double standard.

Of course, Jim made a good point: Judyth did not threaten a lawsuit.

Yet.

.

Pamela:

Did Baker threaten a lawsuit?

Better yet, my original question in this thread: Did Lifton threaten Simkin with one? I assume the answer must be no, as that would seem too petty even for David. But, then again, maybe he did given the knee jerk reaction from at least one or two moderators.

Tom Scully opined:

Topic by Martin Hay titled, "The Lifton file at the Weisberg archive is empty can you guess why?" was made temporarily invisible by me because it is supported solely by Martin's so far unsupported quote of someone named by Martin and described as an archivist of the Harold Weisberg papers at http://jfk.hood.edu .

I've taken this action because the forum moderation team should review this quote of the archivist Martin has posted, to determine what, if anything, we (those responsible for what is displayed on this forum) are getting ourselves into, it the quote is permitted to stay up for public view and search engine results.)

Is it appropriate to ask for an affidavit from the person Martin has quoted, verfiying what was said to Martin, and that it was true and accurate to the best of that person's firsthand knowledge?

Is it necessary for the person quoted by Martin to own up to the details and sign a release for the public display of his comments, here in the posted topic? Would this archivist need permission from his superiors at hood.edu ?

Has Martin already anticipated any of the questions I am raising, and has something he can provide to relieve some of the concerns I am raising?

Can the solution be as simple as Martin inviting the person he is quoting to become a member of this forum, and if he will and can cooperate, post the statement Martin has quoted, under this archivist's own name, photo, and bio?

Has this forum also been threatened by David Lifton? Do those responsible for this forum fear that David Lifton will sue you for, for, for...for what exactly?

Or are you suggesting that Martin Hay is such a dishonorable man that he invented this exchange and indeed perhaps even invented a fictitious archivist?

This is not my forum. It is not my job to engage in specious paranoia. I pity those whose job it is.

Let me repeat:

That the CIA can be named in even ONE failure, let alone the actual number that can be traced back to them, speaks volumes as to their ineptitude in operational matters. As a supposed clandestine service NONE of their activity should be publicly known, by definition--NONE. If they had been our chief intelligence service over the years we would all be speaking Russian and eating a Bowl of Borscht. As it is, various branches of Military Intelligence are responsible for the "real deal" as far as that goes. The Agency is good at a lot of things. But, the events in Dallas are not among them. Even my late friend, Fletcher Prouty, made it quite clear that the Agency was not responsible for the deed. They were deeply entrenched in the cover up, though. Well, better yet, they were deeply involved in executing facets of the "cover story" at the direction of their masters above the Secret Team.

Hey Tommy, maybe we should have that beer sooner than later? Maybe we can meet at the Hotel Del Charro. or anywhere you like. Shoot me an email.

Hi Greg,

Unfortunately the Del Charro is a vacant lot now with a for sale sign on the fence. I hope to put a phoito of it on the forum...

Talk to you later,

--Tommy

P.S. Let's go somewhere where they take food stamps. I'll buy.

Tommy meet kettle. Kettle meet Tommy.

ps using food stamps for the purchase of beer is an abomination and accounts for 15.87% of the deficit.

Thanks for the sympathy Greg.

Tommy,

You know you have it.

And if I could, I'd buy you a beer myself.

oops.

Look familiar?

Hey Tommy, maybe we should have that beer sooner than later? Maybe we can meet at the Hotel Del Charro. or anywhere you like. Shoot me an email.

Thanks for the Holiday Wishes, Kathleen.

Now, down to business.

If anyone remembers what a tough cookie you are, it's me, no? You betcha. Keep on keepin' on, my friend.

That is definitely Sturgis.