David G. Healy

Danny Vasquez, who almost daily posts original matter on Facebook about the Kennedy Assassination, wrote on Facebook today:

I am in the Video Transfer business, for many years I have transferred thousands of regular 8mm home movies to DVD for my customers. In the many years I have NEVER come across footage similar to the Zapruder film, ****meaning film information between the sprocket holes. Examples show the Nix film with no information between the sprocket holes, and the Zapruder film with film information within the sprocket holes, I have looked for many years, but all footage from different sources over the years are ONLY similar to the Nix film with a dark image between sprocket holes, with NO film information.

thanks Chris....

perhaps the good folks here will read the complete Roland 'Zavada Report' (KODAK'S 8mm film guru) re the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film.

The Dallas film house owner (film processing lab) that ran off the 3 Zapruder film dupes went into some detail regarding the inter-sprocket imagery.

Here's what it looked like the night the Bad Guys got a hold of the film and were going through the 48 FPS portion of it. This photo was taken at the exact moment they knew they saw sparks were flying up from the street where the little girl is seen running.

"We've got a busy night ahead of us," said the guy on the left. "No ####!" said the guy on the right.

[...]

Bawwaaaaa! Hilarious!

Geez Dude, the least you could do to even make a joke with bite is use 16mm or 8mm film viewers. But 35mm? That's downright amateurish on your part. But, don't let us stop you having your day in the sun...

[...]

As Michael Walton mentioned some time ago, you need to sit down and compose a properly argued article rather than burping out a series of one-line mathematical equations and simple-minded debating points, which aren't going to convince anyone who isn't already a believer.

To convince an open-minded non-believer, you will need to provide a detailed account, with evidence, of which specific parts of the film you think have been altered. Appropriate evidence would consist of precisely documented inconsistencies with other pieces of the photographic record. Unfortunately, as Josiah Thompson pointed out here and here, no-one has yet been able to come up with a single apparent anomaly that doesn't have a perfectly innocent explanation. If you claim that a specific part of the Zapruder film is fake, and that part turns out to be consistent with another piece of the photographic record, you will need to explain how the photograph or home movie in question was altered to match the faked version of the Zapruder film.

[...]

Jeremy that's where you are wrong. Nobody has to sit down with anyone and argue about anything. If the DP film(s) are all fine in your estimation, terrific. Just simply tell us why, then move on. Others will make their determination as they see fit. If film alteration is not in your book, terrific.

Without verification and authentication of the alleged Zapruder film (the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT) the film alteration controversy continues.

For the record, the alleged Z-film is altered, frames were removed (film break LIFE, Chicago) and Z-frames were transposed (per JEH-FBI).

And the proverbial first frame flash continues to haunt the Z-film purists. What you seem to not understand is by doing the "math" what emerges is simple (to me), there had to be a second shooter in the plaza that day and possibly a third -- which proves not only a conspiracy but points to coups d'état.

You'll also be somewhat surprised that most 1964 WCR critics here have NOT eliminated the idea that LHO was involved.

Can someone tell me the whole provenance of this so called French version of the film?

How do we know where it came from and who is calling it that?

Jim,

Ya might want to take a quick peek at the following links. William Redmond was my first brush with this topic, then of course Rich DellaRosa, concluding with Greg Burnham :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRhcQI4tFTI (Rich DellaRosa - Black Op Radio interview)

http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/ (Greg Burnham owner of assassinationofjfk.net)

... all three have told me they have seen the **other** film. I have no reason to doubt them.

small GIF showing "interlaced frames"

thanks Robin -- and for the uninitiated, in video 2 fields = 1 frame, ie., 1 second of video = 30frames of video made up of 64 fields... ya wanna tell a few of these newbies what DF/NDF (drop frame/non drop frame) video is, Robin? Good luck!

Hello Anonymous User! LMAO!

Yes, David Healey, I meant Bob Fosse. But more disturbingly if you had read my post up further, you wouldn't have had to ask for my confirmation.

Back into the 1940s? It's obvious that you have no historical perspective of film technique.

I'll let you guys think what you want and it's equally obvious that none of you have any understanding of the nitty gritty of film making.

I really wish when the Craigster Lampoon Lamson sends lone nuts to do his bidding, he surely should give them some sort of education regarding the topic.... and it's HEALY not HEALEY, ya blind son?

start your education by acquiring and reading this:

The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography -- Raymond Fielding

xxxxx

deleted duplicate....

The result of this alteration was to artificially move the first two frames westward and downward, and the third slightly eastward and upward.

And you believe that the above could actually be done using 1960s technology, when I just described Fosse working with Hollywood film prints and the most they could do was cut and splice them...eight years *after* Zapruder's film was shot with a consumer camera?

And you actually think that by moving a mere three frames in a film that it would drastically change the running sequence of it? We're getting into "Jackie shot JFK with the help of the limo driver" territory here, Chris.

I mean, wow. We're getting into absolute and utter ridiculousness here.

Fosse? As in Bob Fosse? Now that's utter ridiculousness! LMAO! Actually, it could have been done utilizing 1940's film technology. Which was at least 13 years BEFORE the Z-film was shot! Take it to the bank!

Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

Thanks DH - and now with Chris' math we prove the 48fps and the bogus claim that 19 feet was "run off" before emptying the camera of film at Kodak... "0184" - this simple number explains a lot more than was originally offered IMHO.

"...Third print forwarded" - Max Philips to Chief Rowley...

Anyone ever trace what happens to the Rowley copy - 0184?

DJ

#0184 to Hawkeye Works?

When working with a master (film-video-print) the FIRST, the VERY FIRST thing you do in post-production, is make sure the original in-camera film is duplicated at the highest quality possible. Hence, a backup master, which I believe was assigned #0184.

Letting Zapruder out of a film lab walking around Dallas with the "film of the century" and NO backup is *utter ridiculousness,* fools folly!

The result of this alteration was to artificially move the first two frames westward and downward, and the third slightly eastward and upward.

And you believe that the above could actually be done using 1960s technology, when I just described Fosse working with Hollywood film prints and the most they could do was cut and splice them...eight years *after* Zapruder's film was shot with a consumer camera?

And you actually think that by moving a mere three frames in a film that it would drastically change the running sequence of it? We're getting into "Jackie shot JFK with the help of the limo driver" territory here, Chris.

I mean, wow. We're getting into absolute and utter ridiculousness here.

Fosse? As in Bob Fosse? Now that's utter ridiculousness! LMAO! Actually, it could have been done utilizing 1940's film technology. Which was at least 13 years BEFORE the Z-film was shot! Take it to the bank!

(Removed link-Admin)

That's a nice tacky and disgusting comment there. So was Steven Skeen's. The moderators should delete both of them. Totally tactless.

we agree for once...

I hate to ask this but, has anyone ever asked Marina if in fact Judyth or any other women was on LHO radar screen 2 years before his murder, or, even suspected there was another woman?

Chris -

As you know I've been working on WCD298 and all of your great work augments that study.

I have a question about one of your calcs...

Shaneyfelt does say there is a 10" diff in the height of the recreation vehicle.. you then take 10" divide by 12" and .8333

then you have .833 x 18.3 (horizontal feet in 1 vertical foot) to get 15.249 the distance from the front bumper to JFK.

How does 10"/12" relate to horizontal distance when Shaneyfelt is talking about vertical distance...

also -

The 10" + 3.54" suggests the muzzle is that much higher than the sill? which in turn moves the intercept point using the same downward angles farther down Elm...

You believe because the boxes created a resting perch the muzzle is really 13.54 inches above the sill? It doesn't even appear that the window is open that much...

And now let's get to a conclusion statement - The shots described by WCD298 are basically the mathematical creation of a shot prior and post to account for 3 shots when in reality there were many more.

The MATH is used to move the limo down the street to 1)remove the Elm wide turn, 2) remove a first shot around 155, 3) to place a shot to JFK as he is going behind the sign rather than at 190 which in the extent Zfilm includes 48 and 16 fps speeds. He is seen covering his face by 207 so they simply place the front of the limo at 207 for one set of discussions while JFK's position is where the front of the limo hits 190? 3) there is or is not a shot at z313 which equates to a spot further down Elm and effectively removes the limo stop/pause and finally 4) the shot at 4+96 is z313 or completely made up so the math works?

Describing the scenario - a flurry of shots enters the limo prior to Hill leaving the Queen Mary and getting to the limo. The limo must be moving very slowly for him to reach it in only a few steps - at 11.2 mph he'd have to be a world class sprinter to make up the moving difference - Doesn't the NIX film basically prove a shot did not happen farther down Elm?

If the headshot does actually occur where WCD298 places it, the alterations to the film were much more involved than simply 48fps conversion

excellent... for the naysayers out there Z-film alteration is slowly becoming fact. Quite possibly as extensive as Dr. John Costella put forth 13 years ago.

Well done Chris for confirming The Death Of "Prayer Man"

Here She Is

Duncan

Ever get the feeling that what you are doing has become so ridiculous, no one even takes the time to criticize it anymore?

was thinking the same thing... reeks like a Craig Lampoon, er, Lamson project!

re the .gif above: quickly, is this camera on a tripod mount? If not, it appears the camera is rotating a bit around the z^. Meaning the cameraman if facing towards the intersection, camera on right shoulder. As he pans left to right he's not twisting his body towards the right. The tendency for the cameraperson leaning a bit to the left to maintain balance as you pan right to left, while raising the right shoulder a bit thus starting a lens rotation around the z^ axis. (make a downhill shot look like its going uphill).

If its tripod based footage, then find out who the adobe after effects compositing software tech is who is associated with same footage. The effect would be much greater the further down Elm street the camera pan continued.

Ahhhh, Lapoon Lamie.

Mr. King simply hired the wrong people to assist him, James. He should have put YOU in control of production. Then he would have had a TV blockbuster.

Just sayin'

BM

not a bad idea, Brad. Not a bad idea at all!!!!

Is it any wonder why lone nuts have apoplexy when Mark Lane's name is brought up? Especially when it has to do with Rush to Judgement ...

I am not talking about guilt or innocence. And you know it.

I am talking about representation and rights.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable.

Well, that's nice, Jim, but I am talking about guilt or innocence.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable (of course).

But the "guilt or innocence" question is (naturally) the most important thing that needs to be decided when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy.

Or do you think the most important thing is to keep repeating the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra simply because Oswald's case never went to trial in an American courtroom?

In other words, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" crutch supersedes the massive amount of evidence that proves Lee Oswald's (double) guilt.

If you want to keep on using that crutch, Jim, that's your choice. But I think it's just a convenient and handy excuse that conspiracists use in order to avoid having to face the obvious truth --- which is: the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double murderer.

I think your response here DVP is typical loon nut fashion. Most serious 1964 WCR conclusion critics are well aware that LHO may have been involved somehow in the events of 11/22/63. Either willingly or unwillingly.

What most 1964 WCR critics would like to know is the why of the presidential murder. The very thing you flee from every time you're confronted with same.

And here's YOUR crutch, "let's keep it at LHO did it all by his lonesome," right? Anything to avoid the obvious truth, eh?

53 years of disembelling the WC conclusions and your still stuck in the 1964 press conference LBJ gave when the report was released.... LMAO! It's no wonder only a few are taking you seriously these days.

Shameful.

But what's even more shameful is the way Mark Lane tried to cast doubt on certain undeniable facts surrounding JFK's assassination, such as his ludicrous speculation in his 1967 film "Rush To Judgment" about Oswald possibly not being on Cecil McWatters' bus at all on 11/22/63, and the portion of the film where Lane seems to give some credence to the "Oswald In The Doorway" theory. Neither of those facts was in doubt in the slightest way by the time his film hit the theater screens in 1967, but to hear Lane tell it, maybe Oswald WAS in the doorway, and maybe Oswald never was on that bus.

Shameful behavior from Lane.

But those types of blatant distortions, coming as they did from an iconic conspiracy theorist and Warren Commission critic like Mr. Lane, just roll off the back of James DiEugenio, don't they Jim?

[...]

Man, are YOU dancing now! Party line, eh David? Like you stuck in 1964! Carry on.

My belated review of Spielberg/Hanks/Coen brothers take on the Cold War

http://www.ctka.net/2016/bridge-of-spies/bridge-of-spies-spielberg-and-the-coen-brothers-punch-up-history.html

The double standard here is breathtaking. One for Oliver Stone, and a separate one for Spielberg and Clint Eastwood.

excellent review, Jim.

Also, looking forward to Vasilos Vasakas: Who Really created the Oswald Legend.

The death of a pioneer, a trailblazer in the wilderness:

http://www.ctka.net/2016/marklane/the-death-of-mark-lane.html

thanks for all your efforts regarding this case too, Jim. And in all candidness, your star is also rising....

yeah, i just read it, too, from @Pauley Perrette, Abby on NCIS, who was good friends with him somehow - sorry to hear this, I still hold "Plausible Denial" as one of my favorites. Sad for his friends and family, but at least now he knows...

frankly Glen, I think he always knew!

Well that was a fab weekend in Canterbury. Larry's talk was most excellent and so were quite a few others.

I have posted a few photographs and some musings at the link below.

Looking forward to next year's seminar!

http://www.prayer-man.com/dealey-plaza-uk-seminar-in-canterbury/

thank you for sharing the photos, Bart. Was that by-the-way Ian Griggs in the audience?

Geez, why so antagonistic, Tom? The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt, so why should I sugar-coat it?

knowing you as someone who has failed miserably with internet book publishing PR (Reclaiming History by Vin da-Bugliosi), why do you insist you're correct here regarding Oswald's guilt? What are your cred's? Perhaps a little birdie told you so? My gosh guy, you sell fried chicken and day dream about playing American Legion baseball... coauthor 1 book, 11 websites, 6 blogs, 7 YouTube channels, 467,533 USENET/Internet forums-board postings. Yet never a public appearance. Anywhere! I mean, what's wrong with this picture, Dave-the-nowhere-man?