Daniel Meyer
-
Posts
114 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Daniel Meyer
-
-
Frames 456 through 459 of the Zapruder film look to me to show something astonishing.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Zapruderframesviewer.php Zapruder film viewer
Look at that lamp post towards the rear of the limo. It looks like the bottom part leaps from being anchored on the near side of the street in 457 to the far side in 458 and back again in 459.
Well, if that really happened, the Zapruder film would have captured something even more astonishing than the assassination of a President!
So... What's going on here?
Do all known prints show this?
If this is some type of optical illusion, what is the phenomenon, and can people give other examples of films where this can be seen?
(I request replies addressing what is seen in this particular segment of the film, rather than broader arguments on the authenticity/lack of authenticity of the film, thank you.)
Since Zapruder anomalies are being discussed on other topic threads, I'm going to try bringing this up one more time.
Non-alterationists: If this is unaltered footage, what is the innocent explanation? Can you point out any other examples of the same phenomenon seen in any other non-assassination related unedited films?
Alterationists: Do you think this is an artifact of the film being messed with? If not, what is it? If it is, why is this largely neglected, when it would seem to be an excellent example to point out to non experts? One doesn't have to be familiar with the minutia of witness testimony, or even know who Clint Hill or Mary Moorman are, to know that lamp posts are not in the habit of jumping from one side of the street to the other then back again!
-
Bernice Moore -- thanks for posting the info on Orville Nix. However I'm asking about a more narrow point: Nix saying the his film was not the same as the original and "some films maybe missing, some, uh, frames, the, some of the frames were ruined".
Since the possibility of Zapruder film alteration seems not to have been a topic of first generation investigation, I find it especially interesting that Lane was taking a poke at Nix film alteration in the mid '60s. The "Rush to Judgement" film clip suggests to me that Nix had more on his mind than he was willing to state on film. Is there record of Nix expanding on the point elsewhere? Has Lane ever detailed what prompted his questions?
-
James Norwood has asked that I post this here, since he has been unable to obtain membership due to the backlog, which I am please to do. His crucial point is that Abraham Zapruder himself was the first to detect the fact that his film was a fake.
*************************
Vital testimony included in the Warren Commission exhibits has been ignored by students of the assassination. A close reading of the words of Abraham Zapruder in Volume 7 reveals that he had serious doubts about the authenticity of his own home movie during the testimony given on July 22, 1964.
When Zapruder was asked by Wesley Liebeler to identify still images from his own film, the Dallas dress manufacturer was clearly unable to recognize the photos. The individual numbers refer to the various frames of the Zapruder film. Here is the pertinent testimony on p. 573 of Volume 7:
“Mr. Liebeler: Yes, specifically, I first call your attention to No. 185. This is No. 185 on the back of it and will you look at the whole book and identify it if you can and tell us that those are the pictures that--that those appear to be the pictures or copies of the pictures that you took from your motion picture camera?
Mr. Zapruder: Well, I would say this, they look like--if they were taken from the film I had--these are the ones. I mean, I don't know how to express myself.
Mr. Liebeler: Well, they were.
Mr. Zapruder: Well, it looks like them--that's when they turned in from Elm Street. Is that it? I'm trying to visualize it. This is taking it from the opposite side of me, is it, where I would have been taking it, because I see this structure--I have been around there and--or these this couldn't be here--where did they get this in there--how did they get this in there, if I was taking the pictures where did they get this in there? That shouldn't be there.”
In this riveting testimony, it becomes apparent that Zapruder is completely confused by the images, especially in the early progression of the motorcade. The refrain of Zapruder's testimony is
“If I was taking the pictures where did they get this in there?”
"How did they get this in there?"
“That shouldn’t be there.”
In viewing frames 185 and 186, Zapruder is confused because he believed the first bullet to strike the President occurred prior to the limousine disappearing behind the Stemmons freeway sign. Long before the limousine is lost from view in the extant Z-film, Zapruder witnessed and recorded on film a shot to the President's back, and he heard the President speak, as he describes on p. 571: "For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, 'Oh, he got me,' when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw--I don't believe the preisdent is going to make jokes like this." When questioned about frames 185 and 186, Zapruder responded, as follows:
"Mr. Liebeler: And they are going down Elm Street now?
Mr. Zapruder: "Yes; this is before--this shouldn't be there--the shot wasn't fired, was it? you can't tell from here?...I believe it was closer down here where it happened."
Later in the testimony, on p. 575, Zapruder is shown a photo image of frame 249, and he does not recall the rowing motion of the President lifting his hands to his head. Zapruder: "No. 249--I just wonder if it was the motion that he went back with I don't remember seeing that. Of course the pictures would show." In reacting to the photograph of frame 230, Zapruder clearly did not recall the President's hands held so high in the throat area: "It looks to me like he went like this [holding both hands on the left side of his chest" (p. 574). This testimony reveals how the photographs fool Zapruder and instantly force him to formulate a new visual scenario of the assassination.
For Zapruder, the photos trump the reality of his memory of the event, instantly overriding his first viewing of the film on the weekend of the assassition. Those images have likewise confounded students of the assassination for nearly fifty years. For months after the tragic event of November 22, Zapruder informs us, he replayed the images of the assassination in his mind ("I have seen it so many times. In fact, I used to have nightmares. The thing would come to me every night." [p. 575]). But when shown the photos by Liebeler, Zapruder was being introduced to a completely new visual record of the assassination.
Even a casual reading of Warren Commission hearings reveals that Zapruder recognized at least subconsciously that the photos he was being shown by Wesley Liebeler were NOT replicas of those that Zapruder filmed and viewed in Dallas, prior to selling the film and relinquishing all copies on the weekend of the assassination. This testimony provides critical primary evidence suggesting alteration of the Zapruder film. It is unfortunate that during the hearings, the entire film was not projected in its true medium of a motion picture. In presenting only a set a still photos to Zapruder, he merely became flustered and confused. But it he had seen the film in its entirety with his memory still fresh from the previous November, he might have recognized the full extent of film alteration.
Still, the record of the Warren Commision provides an invaluable perspective into the topic of film fakery. In retrospect, the first person to recognize the alteration of the Zapuder film was Abraham Zapruder himself!
If I recall correctly, there was an account of Zapruder at the showing of the film during the Clay Shaw trial; Zapruder becoming emotional and covering his face looking at the film on the screen. (Sorry I can't recall where I read that -- anyone have anything on that?)
One interesting segment of the "Rush to Judgement" film is Mark Lane asks Orville Nix about his film after showing Lane his personal copy.
LANE: Is that copy the same as the original that you gave to the FBI on December First?
NIX: I would say, No. There is some films maybe missing, some, uh, frames, the, some of the frames were ruined.
LANE:Does the film which you have at the present time have the same number of frames as the film that you delivered to the FBI on December First ?
NIX: I would say no but its cause of losing, maybe a, a frame here and there.
Interesting both that Lane would ask these questions, and Nix's reply with a "no but" as if to apologetically admit the point but minimize it. (Subtext: my film was modified, but nothing sinister here, just some ruined frames or something, move along...) Did Nix expand on the point off camera?
-
This one and the following 55 docs (folder search : National Students Association and the Central Intelligence Agency (under N
) may be of interest in various mattersFor those not from the US or to young to remember, it should be noted that Art Buchwald was a prominent humorist of the era who specialized in political satire.
-
[...]
<snip>
THE NEW ORLEANS FILMS (by Martin Shackelford):
Oswald's activities in New Orleans attracted the attention of both tourists and a professional cameraman.
2a. The Jack Martin Film (8-9-63) In another of those aforementioned ironic twists, a tourist named Jack Martin was in Dallas in August 1963. His film records his view from the airplane. Next, he visits General Edwin Walker, under whom he had served, allegedly target of an assassination attempt by Lee Oswald in April of that year. The film documents the scene of that attempt: the window through which the shot was fired, the bullet hole, and the wall from behind which it was most likely fired, ending with shots of Walker's flag and mailbox, and a nearby building under construction (allegedly also photographed by Oswald prior to the attempt!) .
Then we see the entrance to a movie theater, cypress trees, a seal at the edge of a pool,and the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Park in New Orleans. Aroused by a commotion on Canal Street, Martin crossed to see what was happening, and began filming. We see Lee Oswald, leaflets in hand,standing on the sidewalk, being harangued by anti-Castro militants including Carlos Bringuier. Four police officers are seen arriving. The film ends with a view of the yellow leaflets scattered on the sidewalk after Bringuier knocked them out of Oswald's hands, and a brief aerial view of a subdivision. Parts of the film have only been used, to my knowledge, on the French television documentary, "Le Mystere Kennedy." The documentary is available on video, and frames from the film as well, from The Collector's Archives. A still from this film was finally published in Robert Groden's 1995 book, "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald," an essential photo archive on Oswald.
2b. The James Doyle Film (8-9-63) James Doyle was a 16 year old teenager, visiting New Orleans with his family in early August 1963. His film begins in Lafayette Park, New Orleans, and includes a view of the Andrew Jackson statue. He, too, then noticed a commotion along Canal Street, crossed over to investigate, and began filming. Lee Oswald, back to the camera, is talking with Carlos Bringuier, when a police officer arrives, pushes Bringuier aside, and talks with Oswald, who gestures. Oswald is then seen through the crowd, under arrest, obscured, moving to the left, and we see him and the officer at curb side. The film ends with harbor views. To my knowledge, this film has only appeared in one television program, the British "Dispatches: The Day the Dream Died," available (as are frames) from The Collector's Archives or from All That Video (405 Hopkins Court,North Wales PA 19434, phone (213) 361-1365.) A still from this film was also first published in the 1995 Groden book.
<snip>
So, obviously, I want to get hold of (2a) as described by Martin Shackelford above. I myself cannot easily conform myself to the idea that this is not the same Jack Martin that worked for Guy Banister (who, along with General Edwin Walker, was an officer of the Minutemen organization, as well as the JBS).
By showing the shot-up house of General Walker immediately before showing Lee Harvey Oswald posing as an FPCC officer -- that can hardly be a coincidence. It seems that this 'tourist' Jack Martin was attempting to make a direct, visual connection between Walker and Oswald.
Also, this corresponds with the account of Ron Lewis in his book, FLASHBACK: THE UNTOLD STORY OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD (1993), that the Walker shooting was precisely the crime that Banister held over Oswald's head all throughout the summer of 1963.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, MA
Interesting. Though either the name of the park or the statue is wrong. In New Orleans the equestrian statue of Andrew Jackson is in Jackson Square. Lafayette Square has standing statues of Henry Clay and Ben Franklin, and a bust monument of John McDonogh. Both squares are within walking distance of Canal Street, but in opposite directions.
-
I'd love to know about that as well. Also, was the Bringuier & Oswald altercation videotaped?
I'm trying to get in touch with Shackelford to follow up on this. I must admit that I'm surprised that I've never seen any other reference to such a film. "Our" Jack S. Martin Sr. does not seem to ever have referred to it in any of his numerous writings.
Videotape: While videotape existed from the mid-1950s, it was only in the form of expensive studio-only machines; portable videotape (ENG-electronic news gathering) was not widely available until the late 1960s at the earliest. Any footage of Oswald and Bringuier would have been on film, 8mm or possibly 16mm. As far as I know, the only moving footage of the encounter was the 8mm home movie by Doyle. Parts of this were shown (I think) in the 1993 PBS special on Oswald. A slightly longer version circulates among collectors. All these versions seem murky and washed-out, appearing to have been shot off a movie screen (instead of through a "telecine").
Yes, in the early 1960s New Orleans television stations were still generally using film for out-of-studio footage.
If I recall correctly, the footage of Oswald's in studio interview at WDSU-TV was on video tape. Supposedly the reel was in a box of tapes to be reused (recorded over) when word reached New Orleans that Oswald was now a figure of national interest.
-
I find it interesting to read as follows:
"Martin stated that has visited in the home of David Ferrie and he saw a group of photographs of various Civil Air Patrol cadet groups and in this group he is sure he saw several years ago a photograph of Lee Oswald as a member of one of the classes."
because, IIRC, Oswald is on the periphery of that photo - so, IMHO, for Martin to have noticed him means he was already familiar, that Oswald was notable for other reasons, a topic of conversation, a subject for Banister, who knows - but otherwise I don't think he would recall the presence of a young kid standing innocuously to the side.
as for Martin's lack of reliability, this is an old CIA/Mafia myth; since when did these people recruit from the Boy Scouts? They were both full of sociopaths and crooks and liars of assorted political colors. Another case for deniability.
I believe the now well known photo only surfaced long after Ferrie's death, and was not in Ferrie's possession. There seem to have been other photos that were destroyed.
The known existing photo was publicized in the PBS TV series "Frontline" in an episode profiling Oswald in 1993.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/glimpse/ferrie.html
-
I'm glad that this thread has settled into speculations about the ground-crew in Dallas who actually managed and accomlished the shooting. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979, after criticizing the Warren Commission and re-opening then re-closing the JFK assassination proceedings, concluded that Oswald probably had accomplices. This was hard to squeeze out of the US government, which still insisted on keeping hundreds of documents on this topic top secret.
[...edit...]
As to the actual crew at Dealey Plaza, let me redraw attention to Harry D. Holmes.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16815
IMO one of the people there most clearly with foreknowledge and active participation -- not as a shooter, but watching it go down then actively taking part in the coverup pretty much before the bystanders in the plaza had time to catch their breath. If he was watching from the rooftop on the South side of the plaza as he said, he seems to have gotten down to the street quite quickly, pocketing physical evidence including a piece of Kennedy's skull which was then lost (!) and checking out what could be seen on Moorman's Polaroids before the newsmen got to them.
Might have had some interesting cross examination of him if the HSCA had been allowed to be a real investigation.
-
As I mentioned a while back on the "Carlos Marcello" thread, the New Orleans Times-Picayune has been doing a series of local history articles. The articles are generally not particularly high quality (and too often poorly researched). The accompanying selection of photos they've pulled out of their archives, on the other hand, are often interesting.
Here's their one on Garrison and the Clay Shaw trial:
http://www.nola.com/175years/index.ssf/2011/12/1968_the_clay_shaw_trial_in_jf.html
-
I am so humble, to be able to talk to people who have been apart of Cuba's operations in the 60 and 70's, who have shared with me their stories and adventures.
Who have been in groups such as MIRR, JURE, Cubanos Unidos and many other's, people who have been in the Bay of Pigs and Operation 40, these people are still alive today, and some have shared their stories about my father, some good, some bad, but most of all to know they all respected my father meant a lot, hearing that coming from them really humbled me, I called everyone back this morning wishing them all Happy Holidays, and while talking to Nino Diaz, I asked if he could clear somethings up, today he explained a lot of what the Cuban Revolution was like, everything from the Bay of Pigs to the death of Kennedy and how the Cubans had to deal with the lost of their friends at the Bay of Pigs. I asked who was it that recruited you for the Bay of Pigs, he said, it was Howard Hunt who recruited me, but the person who talked me into it was Pedro Diaz Lanz," I asked what did you think of Howard Hunt? He said, in Spanish, "Hunt was a pentaho"
(...edit...)
My Spanish is rusty and I was never up on Cuban slang. Is "pentaho" similar to "pendejo"? What was your understanding of what he meant by this? Thanks.
-
The angle between the limo and camera appears to change drastically between 458 and 459 ,It maybe an effect of the camera, unless Greer veered to the right massively?.
I am seeing a drastic angle change in the limo between 458 and 459 can anybody else see it ?.Or is it a camera anomaly?.
Hey Ian,
There is a bit more motion blur to the car on 459, much more than the LP.
I'm examining the sign on the lamp post, it appears blurred as to look twice its size on 458, which is interesting as the post itself does the opposite when you follow it down to the car it gets so small it basically vanishes.
A curious optic effect?
458 = Car is sharp but Lamp blurred.
459 = Car blurred but Lamp sharp.
Ed
Thanks Ed.
I am positive that someone on the forum has found this before I will just have to look through the old threads.
Ian
I haven't come upon earlier discussion of it here yet. That's why I brought it up as a separate topic.
Jack White mentions it on a presentation on alteration of the Z film available on YouTube, but just briefly as if it was hardly worth mentioning, unlike other points he treats at length and in detail. To me, however, it seems at least as bizarre as anything in the film.
-
This Umbrella Man thing just became very interesting. Did you miss this part of his testimony, Jim D.? He may have been there, after all. None of what follows was written by me. It all came from Christopher Marlow, who appears to have noticed something that Jim D. seems to have missed.
228.
Christopher Marlow
San Diego, CA
November 22nd, 2011
6:08 pm
After watching this video, I looked up the interview of the "Umbrella Man" for the House Committee on Assassinations. It was very enlightening. The man's name was Louis Steven Witt, a former Dallas insurance salesman. He was questioned by counsel for the committee, Mr. Genzman....
Mr. WITT. Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots.
...
Mr. GENZMAN. What do you next recall happening?
Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, [!!!] motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things.
...
---> If you look at the Zapruder film, you will see that the car does not stop. But the Umbrella man and literally dozens of witnesses testified that the presidential limo came to a stop during the assassination.
The Zapruder film has been altered to conceal this and other facts. Any careful examination of the Z film will lead you to this conclusion.
"He may have been there, after all". In any case, it sound like he was familiar with what Dealey Plaza witnesses were saying when not filtered by Belin, Specter, et al.
Please forgive my ignorance: Has any confirmed Dealey Plaza witness either recalled Witt being there or identified Witt as the man with the umbrella?
Did Witt talk about being in Dealey Plaza with friends or family or anyone else soon after the event?
Earlier forum discussion of Witt:
* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14870 Louis Steven Witt : Umbrella Man
* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2725 Was it Louie Steven Witt after all?
-
The New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper, in marking their 175 anniversary, has been running a series of New Orleans area history articles.
Most of the articles are nothing special (and many regrettably sloppy), but lots of the old photos they've been digging out from their archives are of interest. Today's feature was on Carlos Marcello:
http://www.nola.com/175years/index.ssf/2011/11/1951_mafia_boss_carlos_marcell.html
Photo gallery:
http://photos.nola.com/4500/gallery/1950_carlos_marcello_and_organized_crime/index.html
I'm amused to see that Marcello's forged Guatemalan birth certificate seems to be written in a mix of Spanish and Italian.
Also note some reader comments defending Marcello. While far from general, such opinions are still heard.
Many who encountered him while they were working in service industries or as musicians remember him as a very generous tipper.
One musician friend has an amusing story of how he was in a band playing for the St. Joseph's Day Italian Parade. Different prominent families and organizations sponsored carriages they rode in and bands that followed them. The band my friend was in was a good hot New Orleans jazz brass band, getting an enthusiastic response -- so Carlos Marcello hired the band away from their original sponsors during the event with handfuls of banknotes and had them follow his carriage for the rest of the parade.
Related threads on this forum:
* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3174 Carlos Marcello Admits Involvement
* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4068 The Mafia Did It
* http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmarcello.htm Carlos Marcello bio on Spartacus Educational
One more Marcello related observation tied to earlier discussion on this thread: I find it remarkable how few who allege a major connection between Marcello and Garrison have observed that Marcello's family home, country house, casino, base restaurant, and office were all out of Garrison's district. Come to think of it, I can't recall any of them ever making that observation.
-
Hi Daniel,
Here's what it looks like if you stabilize the light post, somewhat.
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Z-3.gif
chris
Thanks. For clarity, here's 458 where the lamp post seems to be on the far rather than near side of the street.
-
(edit... I tried to post cropped images of the 4 frames in question, but get the notice "Sorry, but you have posted more images than you are allowed to" )
-
Frames 456 through 459 of the Zapruder film look to me to show something astonishing.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Zapruderframesviewer.php Zapruder film viewer
Look at that lamp post towards the rear of the limo. It looks like the bottom part leaps from being anchored on the near side of the street in 457 to the far side in 458 and back again in 459.
Well, if that really happened, the Zapruder film would have captured something even more astonishing than the assassination of a President!
So... What's going on here?
Do all known prints show this?
If this is some type of optical illusion, what is the phenomenon, and can people give other examples of films where this can be seen?
(I request replies addressing what is seen in this particular segment of the film, rather than broader arguments on the authenticity/lack of authenticity of the film, thank you.)
-
Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.
quote name='Daniel Meyer' date='24 November 2011 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1322188528' post='238831']
If anyone can translate the above
into plain english
I WILL GIVE YOU FIFTY BUCKS!
Mr. Carroll:
I apologize if my writing is confusing.
1)Dr Fetzer stated in his reply to me that he was an expert on rationality. For the purposes of my reply, I accepted his statement.
2) I noted that some people can be rational and contribute to human knowledge while still having beliefs which most other people would consider irrational. (For example: Pythagoras stating that the squares on the legs of a right triangle add up to the square on the hypotenuse, and eating beans is sinful.)
3) Dr. Fetzer stated he is not a psychologist.
4) An unstated assumption was that psychologists may deal in topics relating to human irrationality.
5) Since Dr. Fetzer considers himself expert in rationality but not psychology, I respectfully suggest he not jump to ascribing motives to people when they say something he does not consider rational.
I ask for no monetary compensation. I hope this is now clear enough for you to puzzle out.
Thanks for your attention. -- D.M.
Hey, that's not fair. I wanted a shot at that fifty bucks. Yo! JRC, Is that American or Euro? That's twenty five beers in my neckof the woods.
I had asked the derelict next to be at the bar what it means and before you explained it, after reading it and taking a shot of whiskey he said: "As a professor dude who hangs out at school and knows his xxxx on logic, he wants you to knows that there's a lot of assholes who are bigon logic and in certain areas while also being freaked out and off the walls nuts from your grandmothers oldest furniture to Charlie Chaplin. Not having been certified, be careful not to give spark to other nut cases when you see they lost it all compared to you."
Do I have to share the fifty bucks with him?
BK
Mr. Kelly: I was regretting sticking my toe into the discussion, but your reply made the ordeal worth while. A hearty thank you.
Mr. Carroll: Since I've already opted out of any share of the reward, you now owe Mr. Kelly $50.
-
Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.
quote name='Daniel Meyer' date='24 November 2011 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1322188528' post='238831']
If anyone can translate the above
into plain english
I WILL GIVE YOU FIFTY BUCKS!
Mr. Carroll:
I apologize if my writing is confusing.
1)Dr Fetzer stated in his reply to me that he was an expert on rationality. For the purposes of my reply, I accepted his statement.
2) I noted that some people can be rational and contribute to human knowledge while still having beliefs which most other people would consider irrational. (For example: Pythagoras stating that the squares on the legs of a right triangle add up to the square on the hypotenuse, and eating beans is sinful.)
3) Dr. Fetzer stated he is not a psychologist.
4) An unstated assumption was that psychologists may deal in topics relating to human irrationality.
5) Since Dr. Fetzer considers himself expert in rationality but not psychology, I respectfully suggest he not jump to ascribing motives to people when they say something he does not consider rational.
I ask for no monetary compensation. I hope this is now clear enough for you to puzzle out.
Thanks for your attention. -- D.M.
-
Daniel,
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Thank you for your detailed reply, and your pointers to articles and links which I shall check out.
(...edit...)
Plenty of people insist the film is authentic, when it cannot possibly be authentic. It is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 shows the wound that has been obfuscated in earlier frames--where, according to Hollywood film restoration experts, it was painted over in black. Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, for which he won the Academy Award in 2000, told Noel Twyman back around 1996 that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. They are both obviously right. I have no idea why you are willing to reject the witnesses who reported the limo stop, because they are abundant and compelling. The film was faked.
If the "you" is still addressing me, please do not assume I am "willing to reject" witnesses. I rather feel you are putting words into my mouth and assuming I hold opinions which I have not stated. This may not have been your intention, but I find it rather disconcerting.
I am not a psychologist, but I am an expert on rationality, which can be measured by objective standards.
Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.
(...edit...)
Cheers, -- D.M.
-
Dr Fetzer: I think there certainly was a conspiracy and there certainly was manipulation and destruction of evidence to cover it up. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on Zapruder film falsification. (I have no expertise in motion pictures, and agree with the assertion that "If the Zapruder film is authentic it is proof of conspiracy; if the Zapruder film is modified or fabricated, it is also proof of conspiracy".) That said, for the sake of this argument I shall for the moment assume you are correct and Dr. Thompson is mistaken on this point.
With your academic background I am somewhat surprised that you jump to the conclusion that Dr. Josiah Thompson's continued sticking to the authenticity of the film is evidence that he is an op of the conspiracy. It seems to me rather a very common phenomenon in topics of prolonged expanding research: excellent researchers of one generation can be among the most resistant to new developments from the next generation of researchers if it shows that large amounts of effort were expended by the earlier researchers based in whole or part on false assumptions.
In my undergrad days I recall a geologist explaining that the theory of Continental Drift did not become accepted by by the consensus of geologists through dramatic additional confirming discoveries. When the theory was first advanced, most older geologists categorically dismissed it as simply being too bizarre to be true. The tide turned only with time as the field was became dominated by the next generation who encountered the theory in their youth and had no inherent emotional objection to it.
Other examples that come to my mind: Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson, the preeminent expert on Maya hieroglyphic writing of the mid 20th century, who in his later years became one of the most vehement critics of the phonetic syllabic theory of decypherment (which is now accepted as the most important development in the topic which led to the majority of the inscriptions becoming readable). Musicologist William Russell was one of the first to treat jazz as worthy of serious academic study and wrote pioneering books and articles on the subject; he also "rediscovered" retired old jazz musician Bunk Johnson, got him out of retirement and into playing and making recordings. But when later researchers determined that Johnson fabricated or exaggerated much of his account of his early life and career, Russell was one of the most resistant to the very notion that some of what Bunk told him in his interviews might have been "bunk". See any pattern here?
Personally, I find discussions of differing interpretations to be more interesting and informative when they are weighted more towards data than ad hominems.
Best wishes to all. -- D.M.
-
See also earlier discussion on Clintons & JFK assassination http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12612
Anyone have any info/source on the story that after Bill became President he asked for the true info on the JFK assassination and was told he lacked adequate clearance?
Example http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-honolulu/did-allen-dulles-draft-kennedy-assassination-directive-a-covert-mj-12-coup Urban legend?
-
I don't want to get off track but there is another person, who deserves checking into, I believe anyone can understand my curiosity, when you take into account that this document is the only reference whatsoever, I have been able to find to this person, highly unusual when you consider the duplication of JFK assassination documents as well as the fact that I have been doing a lot of checking, and can find no corroboration of any Corp of Engineers meeting in Fort Worth on the day of the assassination.
It also is interesting that Blue Island, Illinois is in Cook County, a place that is not exactly unheard of in the JFK saga. I believe Mr. G. W. Becker was with the Rock Island Railroad, but I do not believe there was a meeting of the U.S. Corp of Engineers on November 22, 1963, and it is the US Army Corp of Engineers, is there a reticence to use the word Army?
[...edit...]
The US Army Corps of Engineers as villain became part of New Orleans culture since the disaster during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Prior to that they were generally highly regarded by local lay persons. Multiple studies have shown that the flooding disaster which inundated the majority of greater New Orleans in 2005 was not the result of the hurricane per se but rather 1)A very poorly designed canal (the Mississippi River Gulf-Outlet Canal or "MRGO") channeling huge storm surge from the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico directly into the heart of the city 2) A very poorly designed and constructed system of levees and floodwalls, which rather than buffering surge actually funneled in, and in many places was constructed so poorly that it collapsed catastrophically at water levels far below its supposed design limits. Both were specific responsibility of the Corps. As a Federal agency, the Corps is immune to lawsuit for negligence. Locals sometimes now refer to it as the "Corpse of Engineers" in reference to the deaths caused. Local resident comedian Harry Shearer has put together an excellent documentary film on the topic, "The Big Uneasy", although he is struggling with distribution. http://www.thebiguneasy.com/
The same Corps of course has been charged with fixing the problem. Scandals continue, including installation of a series of drainage pumps of unreliable design and short lifespan made by a company with political connections (instead of a reliable low maintenance type with a proven track record in this area for more than a century); a local blogger "Fix the Pumps" documents at http://fixthepumps.blogspot.com/
-
Was Rick Perry making a reference to the JFK assassination when he characterised the strategy of the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, as "treasonous". He then went onto say: "If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y'all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas."
When I heard that, I wondered if the "pretty ugly" meant Texas hospitality similar to that extended to Adlai Stevenson, or JFK, or James Byrd, Jr.
Bernanke of course was appointed to his post by W Bush, but has committed what I think many on the far right consider an unforgivable sin in not constantly and actively snubbing Obama.
One might note that the Federal Reserve doesn't actually print US money.
-
Headquarters of Lykes in the early 1960s was at 821 Gravier, an easy 4 block walk from Lafayette Square.
BELL vs ZAPRUDER
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Or perhaps how much MORE time was erased from Zapruder than Bell. (Also notice the man in Bell reacting in shock not at anything regarding the Presidential Limo, but rather at the Queen Mary passing.)