Michael Walton

Wrong Einstein. The original motorcycle clip was shot at 48fps slow motion. Then, only progressive frames were extracted and used. Then 2/3 of those progressive frames were removed. I am now recreating this same conversion with a modern day video of a car moving at the pertinent speed. Uhh, big deal! None of this has ANYTHING to do with the Z film. The Z film is the evidence and it's amazing you can't seem to get this. You can't make evidence out of whole cloth, Chris. Jeez!

Jus' wond'rin - an 8mm film? Just how big/small is the negative that a blob would have been painted onto a small section of that portion of the negative? Ian, thank you so very much for your reply about the "blob." I was actually going to type something similar to your reply to Tom Neal and others, who think that you can magically just paint things onto an 8mm frame of film, which is the size of a pinky nail and doing so 53 years ago. As Jeremy clearly explained elsewhere, people who think of these crazy alterations of the Z film were not omnipotent. They couldn't just snap their fingers and say, "Hey, John. Paint out the head. Hey, Rick, take out 67% of the frames." It's ridiculous. Tom, you know it's very bad form for you to get on this forum, express your "facts" about the Z film, and then just delete them all. To be honest, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

You really believe I didn't know what I was posting with that strip of film? Ignorance is bliss. Oh, boy, Chris. It' clear to me either your reading comprehension skills or your knack for nuance are sorely lacking...or both. If you don't "get" what I mean by the previous post - and from all indications you don't based on your reply - then you really should stick to Math. But not the garbage you've been posting on Swan Song. Primarily an end game of 67% removal, approx. So by your "calculations," the 26-second film, shooting at 48 FPS and then totaling that to 1,248 frames of film and then the Bad Guys removed about 67% of those frames which comes to about 411 frames, right? And why 67% Why not 65% or 33.3%? Bawwwaaaaaa! Oh my ####-ing g##, Chris!

Tom, I can see your zeal to express your beliefs about the "facts" regarding the Z film. According to you, it appears that you and others think that the Z film alteration theory is based on facts, while others like me, Jeremy, the guy who did the Zavada Report and many others are based on opinion. But for this thread, which specifically discusses the film's sprocket holes and how a guy named Danny said that in 30 years of film transfer, he's never seen images and "information" between the sprocket holes of any films he's worked on, can we stick to the topic at hand? Now, you're probably going to say that I'm avoiding your questions and comments here. I'm not. The topic of this thread has already been answered and debunked. And I have good news for you. Your partner in "facts" - Chris Davidson - is actually the man that beautifully debunked this crazy thread's theory. If you scroll up to post #13, CD shows a film strip that I believe he shot in Dealey with his own Bell and Howell Zapruder camera. Notice how the film has images over in the sprocket holes. So this completely debunks Danny's" claim that he's never seen anything like this. It's obvious Danny doesn't know what the #### he's talking about. Of course when I posted about this in #3, people wanted to argue with me, which is perfectly fine. People seem to think I'm David Von Pein II here but they can't be more wrong. But if you go back to CD's post, take note of something. It's so funny. Because even though he debunks "Danny's" hilarious "I've never seen this before in 30 years," crazy theory, CD never says anything...not a one word...about his film strip debunking old Danny. And I think I know why. You see, it's because over on his wacky Swan Song thread, he's constantly trying to prop up his ridiculous claims over there. But here, he doesn't say a word because he knows - absolutely KNOWS - that he doesn't want to show too much enthusiasm with debunking a Z film post that's even crazier than his own. Meanwhile, I'll be happy to provide you with more fascinating opinions over at Swan Song to counter your facts. Stay tuned.

Primarily an end game of 67% removal, approx. Well, Chris, I do have to give you credit for at least being consistent with your "moon landing" theories about the film. You're unbelieveably consistent

Tom Neal, Sarcasm? Go to post #19 and you'll see my first one was more than civilized. Then look at his reply and from there it got worst. Then David Josephs jumped in calling Jeremy and me dumb, ignorant, 3rd graders and so on. Then, to top it off, look at the other thread about the Z film's sprocket holes. CD actually BELIEVES what I said in that post - that there's no such alteration between the sprocket holes because it's the way the Z camera filmed. Minority? Maybe on this board Jeremy and me are in the minority about the Z film but I hardly think there are "few" people out there who think the film was not altered and from both sides of the aisle (LN vs CT). Being deaf and in a minority group, believe me when I say I can take #### with the best of them. But there was no reason for CD and DJ to start the name calling just because Jeremy and me disagreed with them. And that's the whole point of this board. If someone posts something here they better be damned ready to back up their claims. CD and DJ failed miserably because of all of the reasons Jeremy and I posted here. The whole idea of faking the film is ridiculous but amazingly, CD and DJ, supposedly CT-ers, can't see the forest from the trees because there was NO NEED to fake it because 1) the technology was not available; 2) the Bad Guys simply swept it under the rug. And to answer your question, there are NO FRAMES missing. None. One frame would NOT help the Bad Guys' cause anyway.

If you mean do an environmental 3D laser scan of the entire area similar to how they do it on that TV show called Crime 360, then yes that would be fantastic and I'm willing to donate $5 to the cause.

SANDY - Hasn't what exactly been debunked over and over again, Michael? Sandy, why are you asking me the above question when the premise of this thread is "Danny says there's info between the sprocket holes of the Z film; he's never seen this before in 30 years of film transfer and therefore it's been altered?" I'm giving you the answer, that this whole crazy moon-landing wing of the research community STILL thinks the film has been altered, but in actuality, the Z film has been poked, prodded and tested and there is NO evidence it has ever been altered by the Bad Guys. I then posted a link that clearly and obviously explains WHY there's "info" between the sprocket holes of the film. Did you even bother to read the link or did you see that I'm a "Z film is not altered" researcher and just start typing your replies? Many of your replies to me don't make any sense at all. The Bad Guys altered the film but it took them 13 years to show it? That's ridiculous because the film most probably was NEVER going to be shown in 1975 to the public. We have Robert Groden to thank for sneaking a copy of it onto a late-night broadcast TV show for it to be revealed. So that totally demolishes your claim of "yes, they altered the film but weren't quite ready to show it to anyone until 1975; they still needed to cook it to get it ready for its big reveal." And why do you think - after it was finally revealed to the public on broadcast TV - there was such an outcry, so much that the Church committee was started to investigate the assassinations? The reason is simple - it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the whole film SHOWS conspiracy. So the Bad Guys have now squirreled away the film since '63, furiously working on it to eliminate any evidence of conspiracy, and yet the public demands action after they have seen it on broadcast TV? The Bad Guys did a pretty lousy job of alteration if you ask me. As I and another researcher on EF have said elsewhere, the Bad Guys were NOT omnipotent - they couldn't just snap their fingers and make something happen. The technology back then - as much as you want to believe otherwise - did NOT exist then to create alterations or painting little green men into the film. As for adding or removing frames, there is a website (I'm not posting it here as it's easy to find) where you can download all of the frames of the film. I strongly suggest you go there, download them, and then on your computer open one up and then use your right and left arrow keys to cycle through them. If you hit the keys fast enough, it almost gives the illusion of movement. But the key here is to watch the movements of everything - there are no pops, clicks, or hisses, nor jumpy frames. Nothing has been altered or removed. It's that simple. BRAD - knock off the screen the SS follow-up car practically riding the bumper of JFK's parade car that disappears Brad, you can't be serious? Knock off the SS car even if the film was bumped up to 35mm? There was NO technology back then to do this. None. And even if the Bad Guys meticulously waited for digital technology to come around (it still wasn't around in 1975 when the film was shown on broadcast TV) even by '75 the technology was still not there. Yes, the SS car was tail-gating the limo at the very start of the film. According to the ARRB tests of the film, Zapruder had the lens set to a slight zoom in when he shot the film. That, combined with the SS car slowing down as the limo slowed right after it appears from the freeway sign, is why there is a separation between the two cars by the time of Z 310 or so. It should be obvious to you, Brad, that when you zoom in with a lens, you have a less wide shot than when you don't zoom in, right? You're going to see less of the top, bottom, and left and right edges than when you're not zoomed in. DAVID HEALEY - 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. Wow, David. Un-freaking-believable. On another EF post on the Z film that I've been posting on, when further evidence that no alterations of the film took place, instead of showing the common sense you're now showing here, you swept in and just bashed what I was saying with absolutely nothing to back it up. And now here, when my first post here mentions the Zavada Report and the ghost images explains WHY those images are there, you concur? Jeez. *** I mean, what I can't understand about this forum and its members is, it just seems like all common sense on many of the theories here are thrown completely out the window. I explained above and elsewhere that there was NO NEED to even try to alter the Z film because it SHOWS conspiracy. It's simply the reason why the Bad Buys squirreled it away from all public viewings. The most we got about the film was when Dan Rather did his deceptive description of it on 11/25, and then still frames of it in Life magazine. In a common sense approach, you have to ask yourself, why is that? The answer is simple - they couldn't fix the problem, so they lied and buried the problem. And yet on this forum and elsewhere, all pretense of reason is thrown out with the bath water. For example, a group of researchers have done a really good job of not only showing the possibility of Oswald standing in the doorway during and after the shooting (Prayer Man) and they even back it up by meticulously researching and making a chart showing the whereabouts of everyone in the TSBD that day. But as soon as it's posted, the same people who think of the crazy beliefs that the Z film was altered tear into this well-researched PM post, saying "It's not LHO, it's a woman, wearing a dress, taking a photo, holding a bottle, wearing a shiny bracelet, she's 4 foot 11, or 6 foot 5..." and on and on and on. It's ridiculous. Then, this other guy, who actually recreated the scene in 3D animation software - and which I applaud for his efforts - and can pretty much prove that the size and character of the person there could be Oswald - is completely ignored. I honestly believe it's because the people who made PM are not from the U.S. and, therefore, the U.S. members are ###### off because THEY didn't think of it and start bashing it. But how does that serve the research community as a whole? It doesn't and makes us all look like a bunch of baying loons and crackpots. It's really sad if you ask me.

Hasn't this been debunked over and over and over again? Why does it seem so very, very hard for people to accept that the film, as is, PROVES conspiracy WITHOUT alteration? Why did they keep it away from the general public until 1975? If it was altered WHY didn't they show it to the public immediately, saying, "See, here's proof one crazy Commie did it." You don't alter something and then immediately hide it away from the general public. http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm Danny Vasquez - whew, I went to his site and he's one of those "Bush was involved" kind of guys along with believing Lifton's crazy body alteration theories. I like to go by what Josiah Thompson said years ago - "There are NO experts in this case."

Yes, Chris, she sits down in time. Wow, you take the cake for ridiculousness and paranoia in what you see in that film, and now you're even seeing things in Nix? Jeez! So Nix stopped recording at a convenient time, according to you? So now Nix, as he was filming way over on the other side, was waving furiously to Mr Zapruder to keep filming because he was going to stop. "Abe! Abe! I have to stop now because if I don't, it will reveal the conspiracy 53 years later on...what's it's called Madge? Oh, yes! It will be revealed on the Interwebs! But keep going, Abe!" You're seeing things, Chris. Seeing things...

As I've said numerous times in this thread, Dave, Chris and then you are presenting information here that's so far out there and beyond all reason and common sense that it needs, actually deserves, a vigorous rebuttal. You can't thank people who support your crazy claims here and then #### all over people who don't. This is a forum where there should be an open debate on claims. If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. There are many outstanding presentations I've read by other researchers. Pat Speer exposed Dale Myers for who he is - a fraud - when he made a terribly misleading and dishonest portrayal of the shooting with his goofy cartoon. Gil Jesus has done great work on the rifle and other items. The CTKA site is great because it reveals who Kennedy actually was and why he was eliminated. But these crazy claims you and Chris are doing here are ridiculous. I've worked in the multimedia business for 30 years now. I've worked in film, video and all manner of media. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the history of film - not the "my favorite movie" history, but the technique of film making. Every time you try to prop up this ridiculous theory with another animated GIF or a math formula or a snippet of highlighted testimony or some other nonsense, I keep thinking back to the 1980s when I made a 8mm movie for film class. This was back in the mid 80s when Hollywood still didn't have digital technology (it was slowly coming around though) and there I was, watching the 8mm strip I shot through an enlarged magnifying glass, cranking the film until I found what I needed, cutting it, and then splicing it together. And then here, we're expected to believe that they grabbed the film from Zapruder, went through it, and did all manner of editing, splicing, eliminating, and adding when they didn't even know that early in the game what they were looking for? It's just so silly...so ridiculous. You can once again go into defense mode and call me dumb, ignorant, a 3rd grader, a tr---l...whatever you wish. But it doesn't change the fact that this whole thread has moved into, as Jeremy so eloquently put it, the "moon landing wing" of JFK research.

...reports that he slid into the seat of the car, which he did not; that he fell over into my lap, which he did not. I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding him. So that I looked out, I mean as he was in my arms, I put my head down over his head so that his head and my head were right together, and all I could see, too, were the people flashing by. I didn't look back any more. The third... Here's where it can get dicey with witness statements, Bob. Her testimony is actually pretty good. But during a very short and traumatic time, people either leave things out, misremember, or say the incorrect thing. Look at this image from the Z film: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxNEIwYnZIeDNMQmc/view?pref=2&pli=1 She never once mentioned, "And, oh by the way, John, sort of laid sideways and took a peek back into the back seat to see what all the commotion was about." But there he is looking back there. And it sure doesn't look like she's "pulling him down" and "holding" him in the above photo. As a matter of fact, her statement, the one you mention, actually gives credence to the upright head you're wondering about being Connally's head when she said, "it would have been impossible to get us really both down." So there you go. And sometimes, you have to let common sense prevail here, reality vs. fantasy. I mean why in the world would Jackie be pushing and propping up her husband with his head busted open, bleeding and oozing brain matter? It flies against all reason for her to be doing that. Look at the photo above again, Bob. See Connally's head? Now correlate that head a few seconds more down toward the tunnel and that's the head you're seeing. Because of the compressed angle, it looks like he's right next to Jackie. But he's not, Bob. It's as simple as that.

...keep up the good work and don't let a few scoffers get you off topic... Richard - how in the world can you even offer encouragement to these guys when you yourself say that you haven't even taken the time to read their wacky, crazy "theories?" I mean, what are we here for? I'm assuming that none of us support the lone gunman BS that the Warren Report is, correct? If that's the case, then Jeremy, and me to a lesser degree, have stated over and over again - ad infinitum - (how's that for a 3rd grader?) that the film SHOWS conspiracy without any alteration/manipulation needed by the conspirators. Jeremy's many well-written critiques to Chris and Dave have pointed out that the timing of the shots as described by the WC were virtually impossible to do based on what's shown in the current film. The creaky bolt-action of the rifle alone, along with a misaligned scope, would not have allowed ANYONE to pull this off as seen in the film. I've worked with 8mm film and as I've said way back in this thread, these crazy guys think it's oh-so-easy to take a film with frames as big as your thumbnail and have a gaggle of editors manipulate it when no one even knew what to cover up in the first place, yet alone do something that was technically impossible to do back in the early 60s. Even Hollywood movies back then shot on 35mm film couldn't do elaborate special effects without them looking hilariously faked (or as Dave likes to use, altered). Meanwhile, Chris goes around throwing animated GIFs up claiming that the film was shot at 48 FPS, then 18 FPS, then god knows what else. As if Zapruder - a 55-year-old dressmaker who couldn't even hold the camera all that steady that day, was magically flipping switches to change the frame rate mid-shooting. And these are the people you're offering encouragement to? Jeez... ...let it fall on deaf ears... The only deaf ears around here are mine literally (I've been deaf since 4 years old), and Chris and Dave's figuratively because they're now so far out there, along with the little green men in Area 51 and the gremlins down in the sewer on Elm Street, that they've lost all reason with this thread, and a great deal of respect from serious researchers of the JFK case. It's pathetic.

Interesting. How would she be able to keep his head erect with her head? She's not. Look at her head, Bob. Her head is tilted downward as if facing her husband down on the seat. Yes, Connally's wife said she cradled her husband, but it doesn't mean she cradled him the second he got shot until the Parkland arrival. As a matter of fact, watch the Zapruder film - as soon as the head shots are over, Connally actually kind of rolls over and looks into the back of the car. No one ever said that happened in any testimony but we know it happened because of the film. There's no way Jackie would have ever pushed her husband out of the seat with blood and brain pouring out of the side and back of his head. The frames you're asking about are an anomaly because of the angle. It looks like him because of the very tight space that was in the back area. Look at the overhead photo again and you'll see how if you took that photo and made it 3D and looked at it from the back, and then looked at it through the Zapruder camera's cheap lens, it compresses the shot.

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... Oh, no wait - wait - wait - wait!! Oh I forgot to tell you. Based on more testimony I found from Zapruder, Bookout, and others, and a little snippet of a quote from the lady standing right next to the freeway sign, I've determined that this photo was taken AFTER the 8mm Z film was bumped up to 16mm, scaled back down to 1-inch videotape, then double-bumped back up to 35mm, which is what you see in the photo. And oh yeah - notice the middle reel - that's the one that has 96 FPS that Mr Zapruder shot for about 3 seconds as the car was coming down the street. I know that because I did some mathematical calculations and determined that if you take 18 FPS, multiply it by the cogent of 1.2546 latitude, and then nudge the film ever so slightly over to the right, and then take three frames of the film out, but then take four frames from the end of the reel and put them in the same place where you excised those other frames, you have a perfect measurement of 96 FPS. Oh, and by the way, if anyone - AT ALL - disagrees with this, then you just don't SEEEE that I'm totally, completely 100% right on this. You're simply just too incompetent. I know I'm right...I just know I am.

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!

Dave (and Chris) - you keep running around in circles, OK? I'm sure the hole is neck deep by now, but you keep going. And you're not all that far from China.

I don't think it's him. I think it's Connally. Look at this photo: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LFsWb1KFxvI/T9L1xQ-Z_xI/AAAAAAAABoc/eop5u5t3NDc/s1600/Dallas-Motorcade-11-22-63.jpg See how tight it was back there? If you note in those frames you posted, she's looking downward at him and I think when she climbed back in she's kind of hovering over him. Plus, I think he was such a mess with blood and gore everywhere, I really don't think she would have tried to prop him up like that. Also, as tiny as the Zapruder frames are, they did capture some pretty decent detail and I think we'd see a few blotches of blood on the head area. So I really think it was Connally. He was critically injured but I think he could still move around back there.

Because this timing evidence is not found anywhere else in the photographic record, dismissing the film would weaken the case against the lone-nut hypothesis. It's sad, but not surprising, that those on the moon-landings wing of the JFK debate don't seem to understand the implications of their irrational desire to see a conspiracy everywhere they look. Oh, Jeremy! That is a grand-slam home run wrapped around a 95 yard touchdown pass. That is a grand, grand statement, indeed. Well done!

You know, both of you guys are an embarrassment to the serious JFK community with this thread. I simply cannot believe you can't see with your own eyes how absolutely crazy your wacky claims are here. It's ridiculous. Dave - you're now using the "no one saw the film for 13 years" line - which I've used numerous times on this thread - but you're using it for all of the wrong reasons. The real reason is simple - the film we see today is the film that came out of the camera. That's all there is to it. And they didn't want to show it to the public. All of this craziness about quoting people over and over and over again really reveals how you're turning over every nook and cranny to think it's some kind of - gasp! - conspiracy. Watch the Simpsons episode about how Halloween was started back in the 1600's, how when someone sneezed, they'd yell, "Witch!" I'd laugh here but this thread is too depressing. All of this craziness with math and all the other BS is just that - crazy BS. If there are any new readers here, the only thing I'd tell them is start at the ### end back on this thread; if you start at the beginning it's a complete waste of time.

Oh, Chris, you're scrambling, reaching...you've proven nothing. The film is genuine. Accept it. Nothing left to be said, Chris. Nothing. Math? Formulas? Higher FPS? It's not there, Chris. It's not. "Extant after 313?" So now there are more FPS after the head shot? And before you were saying there were more frames earlier up on Elm Street? And even if according to your logic, what would it prove? Here are two films synched up: The movements are perfectly in sync. The above proves that two different films made by two different people captured the same thing and it also proves that no extra FPS were recorded by Zapruder. If he had, then the films wouldn't match. I'm not going back to previous posts. They prove nothing - they're all garbage and nonsense.

Chris, As I predicted way up above the most you and Dave can now say is "Chris/Dave are right" and "Mike/Jeremy/others are wrong" and "we're stupid/idiotic" and so on. Why should we start a new thread, Chris? YOU started this thread, Chris, and YOU have to present your theories with solid evidence, which you did not. This entire thread is an embarrassment to the Kennedy research community. Or as Jeremy said it best: You are reinforcing the public perception that everyone who criticises the lone-nut hypothesis is a tin-foil hat-wearing paranoid fantasist, and that the JFK assassination is not a subject worthy of serious discussion. Again, in whose interests is this?

Anybody with half a brain can press and hold the button down in the bottom position. He didn't do it, Chris. Watch the film. There is absolutely no evidence he threw those switches mid-shooting. Watch the frames one at a time - where are all of the additional frames? They don't exist because he didn't do it. An absolutely ridiculous, faulty, pie-in-the-sky, way-out-in-left-field, "Fetzerous" theory, Chris.

RAY - Just mid 50's dressmaker? Abraham Zapruder- White Russian affiliation, 32nd degree Mason, active MEMBER of 2 CIA Proprietary Organizations, Ray, please. He could be Lee Oswald wrapped in George deM's clothes and surrounded by Jack Ruby's sport coat and it doesn't change the fact that you cannot do what I'm describing above or what Chris Davidson thinks he did. Please stick to the point of the thread - that Chris Davidson has finally revealed that this entire thread's theory is based on the extremely faulty logic that Zapruder was up there confidently and magically changing the frame rate of his consumer camera, when the man could barely hold the camera still when Kennedy went by. I mean, watch the film. He almost did not record the head shots as he had the camera tilted up almost too much. This is the exact same thing that happened with that woman who filmed the motorcade from I think the 4th floor window - she was so excited, she stopped looking into the viewfinder to look at what was happening, ruining the entire sequence. Believe me when I say I've shot hundreds of special event videos throughout my career for paying customers where I had to get the shot right the first time (no retakes) and your mind is busy focusing on the subject in the viewfinder. And we're expected to believe that Zapruder had complete control of the situation changing the frame rate when he almost tilted up too much during the head shots?

Sandy, You might want to just type all of your post replies or threads in either a Word doc, a Google Drive doc, or Notepad. That way you can type, go away, come back and it's still there. Then when ready, just copy and paste into the EF post box. I'm not a fan of the multi-quote function in this forum, especially if there's a long-winded thread that you want to reply to. The reader then has to read this long-winded reply all over again until they get to the new reply. I try to just copy a snippet of what I'm replying to, make it bold, then type my reply under it. Some people put their replies into the multi quote which is also a nice way to do it. Of course everyone has their way of doing it, but the key here is it might save you a lot of grief if you just type locally and save there and then post.