Jump to content
The Education Forum

How about an internet cemetery for Z-film alteration claims?


Recommended Posts

Chris, the problems with that exhibit have long been noted. The exhibit is incorrect, and no one knows why. (Although Tom Purvis has a theory). If you believe that the exhibit--which is clearly incorrect, as it has the limousine slamming on the brakes and starting back up again for no reason at a point before anyone even heard a shot--is evidence the FILM was altered, then I think you're chasing ghosts.

As far as a website devoted to debunking claims of Z-film alteration...I've changed my mind. If it allows the likes of Tink and Barb to respond to alteration claims simply by posting a link, and frees them up to research other aspects of the case, it could be a very good thing.

How can you blithely state that a PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR has erred

without presenting evidence? Just scanning the figures, they seem progressive

and correct. Professional surveyors pride themselves on accuracy to within

a tiny fraction of an inch, yet you dismiss their numbers as a mistake! Could it

be YOU who is wrong?

Demonstrate to us WHY it is wrong, and HOW professionals erred.

Jack

Jack, as I recall, the obviously bogus numbers in the WC box were not put in there by Robert West, but were changed by the WC for some unknown reason. It may have been a simple typo. Purvis--who has West's original numbers--has his own theory about the change, although I don't remember exactly what it is. I think Chuck Marler discussed this in Assassination Science as well.

In any event, until now, people have always assumed the obviously incorrect numbers for frame 166 and at least one other frame were signs the WC was up to something, and not evidence that the film itself is a fake. I mean, just what are you saying here? That the strange measurements were made from the original film, and that another film was put in its place? Does that make sense?

If I recall, the measurements were supposedly taken from the May 24 survey. As posted by Gary Murr on another thread, the FBI had made notes on the film as we know it today as early as January. Are we to believe the FBI's Shaneyfelt knew what was to be changed as early as January? Perhaps even we are to assume his "notes on the film" were actually "notes on changes to be made to the film"? So now it's the FBI who changed the film? In 1964? I thought the operating thesis was that the film was changed/created in 63, by the NPIC?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Altered_Evidence.pdf

"Are we to believe the FBI's Shaneyfelt knew what was to be changed as early as January?"

Well! Since he fully knew the impact location of each of the three shots fired, as determined by the US Secret Service during December 2, 3, & 4th, That would not be an assumption which was out of reason.

"So now it's the FBI who changed the film?"

That encompasses a relatively large organization. Best to keep it simple! Specter, Shaneyfelt, and Company, INC.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Chris, the problems with that exhibit have long been noted. The exhibit is incorrect, and no one knows why. (Although Tom Purvis has a theory). If you believe that the exhibit--which is clearly incorrect, as it has the limousine slamming on the brakes and starting back up again for no reason at a point before anyone even heard a shot--is evidence the FILM was altered, then I think you're chasing ghosts.

As far as a website devoted to debunking claims of Z-film alteration...I've changed my mind. If it allows the likes of Tink and Barb to respond to alteration claims simply by posting a link, and frees them up to research other aspects of the case, it could be a very good thing.

Pat,

Remember the limo is going approx 10MPH.

Z film is 18 FPS.

What happens/difference between frames (157-160) and (160-169).

You really think this is a coincidence which has nothing to do with WC exhibit 884?

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although I agree with Josiah Thomson on most points, I must take exception to the idea that,

"At one point in time decades ago, research in the case had significant political importance. Now it doesn't."

More governments change hands by political assassination than by democratic means, and since being assassinated is President Obama's most serious threat today, political assassination is the most serious threat to the national security of the United States, and that is the case because the assassination of President Kennedy remains unresolved.

The murders of MLK and RFK only happened because the assassination of the president was not properly investigated, and such political assassinations in the United States will continue to be THE major threat to our national security until the major questions of the JFK assassination are resolved. Those questions must be answered, and will be answered.

And answering those questions are much more pressing than proving, once again, that Moorman and Hill were two dizzy broads witnessing a homicide and the Z film is accurate.

Rather than dwell on the discarded, once the so-called evidence is in the trash, the real evidence should be followed to those responsible for the assassination.

Bill Kelly

Well, I guess I have to say to begin with that I don't give a damn where you think my skills at debunking should be employed. After all, they are my skills and I guess I get to choose where I'd like to employ them.

The more important point is that that you... and others... seem to think that research in the Kennedy assassination is some sort of tribal warfare. It isn't.If someone believes it was possible for a single lone nut to have brought this off, then that is his/her prerogative. It bewilders me why I or anyone else should pay much attention to such an odd judgment. It seems to me that topics for research in this area should be chosen on the basis of what interests one. They certainly should not be chosen out of some misguided sense of what lyou propose "ought" to be investigated.

Fetzer is something else. First, he is such a pompous ass that taking him down has a certain enjoyment connected with it. Secondly, again because of his expanded ego, taking him down is not that difficult to do. Thirdly, because of the tactics he uses, he brings into disrepute not only research on the Kennedy assassination but also the integrity usually associated with being a professor of philosophy. Being a member of both groups, I find Fetzer and his "fetzering" not only an embarrassment but truly offensive. So that is why I continue to puncture his pomposity whenever I encounter it.

My other research interests are varied.

Josiah Thompson

"A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory."

Why? I don't see any connection between the two.

Josiah Thompson

There is widespread suspicion--you might even call it paranoia (I no longer do)--that any person choosing to focus on the errors of conspiracy theorists is someone with a pro-Warren Commission bias. At one point, I would have said I didn't get it. But after watching Inside the Target Car, where supposed conspiracy theorist Gary Mack helped push a whole lot of nonsense, all the while acting as though he was presenting a well-reasoned center, I've come to understand. (You can read my analysis of this con job here)

I just think your skills would be better spent debunking post Six Seconds single-assassin theorist nonsense (such as the Lattimer back wound location or Dale Myers' animation) than the findings of Fetzer and friends. There are points that can be proven to a reasonable certainty. The single-bullet theory trajectory does not line up. The back wound was at the same level or higher than the throat wound. The first shot did not miss. And yet single-assassin theorists and the mainstream media keep pretending these things aren't true. Let's change that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although I agree with Josiah Thomson on most points, I must take exception to the idea that,

"At one point in time decades ago, research in the case had significant political importance. Now it doesn't."

More governments change hands by political assassination than by democratic means, and since being assassinated is President Obama's most serious threat today, political assassination is the most serious threat to the national security of the United States, and that is the case because the assassination of President Kennedy remains unresolved.

The murders of MLK and RFK only happened because the assassination of the president was not properly investigated, and such political assassinations in the United States will continue to be THE major threat to our national security until the major questions of the JFK assassination are resolved. Those questions must be answered, and will be answered.

And answering those questions are much more pressing than proving, once again, that Moorman and Hill were two dizzy broads witnessing a homicide and the Z film is accurate.

Rather than dwell on the discarded, once the so-called evidence is in the trash, the real evidence should be followed to those responsible for the assassination.

Bill Kelly

Hey, DWD,

Thanks for the critical response to my contention that research into the JFK assassination is still significant and more than just historically relevant. While I was trying to pick a fight with TT, who made the statement regarding relevancey, welcome to the fray.

Sounds good too. I seriously doubt the argument can be defended that "[m]ore governments change hands by political assassination than by democratic means" (it's a large world and that's a lot of assassinating).

Okay, I won't defend it, except to qualify it by encompasing it within the context of history, and that more governments have changed hands by assassination than democracy over historical time, and its not even close, but an assassination landslide. But today, it shouldn't even be an issue, when it is, in fact, the most serious threat to the national security of the USA today.

I have some doubts that "being assassinated is President Obama's most serious threat today" (there's a bit of a global economic problem of some sort, and the country's doing its minimum best fielding troops in two foreign countries -- so it's conceivable there are threats the president faces that might be even more serious than him being murdered all by his lonesome).

The economy only became an official national security issue and threat within the past year. If you ever suggested the economy would even be a national security issue before this year, nobody would understand what you meant. When JFK was killed, and maybe even today, the Secret Service protects the President and the Treasury, and I'm sure if you ask anybody in the SS today which is more of a threat, assassination would rank, and the economy would be the living president's problem, and not a problem for a dead president.

And I have an extremely hard time believing the "murders of MLK [Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.] and RFK [uS Senator Robert F. Kennedy] only happened because the assassination of the president [John F. Kennedy] was not properly investigated........." That one seems dubious in the extreme.

Well, it might be hard for you to comprehend, but I would suggest that if JFK's murder was properly investigated and those responsible faced justice, then MLK and RFK would not have been murdered the way they were. I don't find that hard to believe at all. And political assassination would not be the number one threat to the President or the Constitution as it is today.

Yours is a matter of belief, not argument.

And I don't understand why you have to keep reminding youself about Cynthia McKinney, and what she has to do with anything.

Bill Kelly

But I'm aware there are people who know more than I do and are better than me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you guys think of these, then?

Zapruder Film Hoax

Zapruder Film Authentic

the best the Lone Nutters have challenged the Great Zapruder Film Hoax (all the names a familiar to those that post here regularly). And yeah old Craig is getting weary and tired, we've been running him in circles since his retirement.

Dr. John Costella address everyone of their concerns, they've been looking at undermining him ever since (all they need is a competent Physicist to respond to John, till then I doubt Costella will waste his time with Lone Nut trolls...

so see below:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you guys think of these, then?

Zapruder Film Hoax

Zapruder Film Authentic

the best the Lone Nutters have challenged the Great Zapruder Film Hoax (all the names a familiar to those that post here regularly). And yeah old Craig is getting weary and tired, we've been running him in circles since his retirement.

Dr. John Costella address everyone of their concerns, they've been looking at undermining him ever since (all they need is a competent Physicist to respond to John, till then I doubt Costella will waste his time with Lone Nut trolls...

so see below:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

Except now dr. john is hiding under a rock, afraid to show his face because the the very basis of his only two, 'scientific' arguments has been shown to be false with unimpeachable empirical proofs. He can't address this one can he dave? Nor can any of the rest of your motley crew. Hell you don't even UNDERSTAND the argument let alone have the skillset to disprove it. Besides, as this simple proof shows, dr. john is far from competent as a phyicscist. Its no wonder he is in hiding....

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

and costella failing to understand a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Bring it on davie...who's running away and hiding now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you guys think of these, then?

Zapruder Film Hoax

Zapruder Film Authentic

the best the Lone Nutters have challenged the Great Zapruder Film Hoax (all the names a familiar to those that post here regularly). And yeah old Craig is getting weary and tired, we've been running him in circles since his retirement.

Dr. John Costella address everyone of their concerns, they've been looking at undermining him ever since (all they need is a competent Physicist to respond to John, till then I doubt Costella will waste his time with Lone Nut trolls...

so see below:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

Except now dr. john is hiding under a rock, afraid to show his face because the the very basis of his only two, 'scientific' arguments has been shown to be false with unimpeachable empirical proofs. He can't address this one can he dave? Nor can any of the rest of your motley crew. Hell you don't even UNDERSTAND the argument let alone have the skillset to disprove it. Besides, as this simple proof shows, dr. john is far from competent as a phyicscist. Its no wonder he is in hiding....

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

and costella failing to understand a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Bring it on davie...who's running away and hiding now?

LMFAO, then you should have absolutely no problem finding a Physicist (somewhere, ANYWHERE) to endorse your findings, eh? Let me know when you find one. I'll pass that bit of info on.... After all this being the Ed Forum and and all, full of teachers of every stripe, maybe Dr. Costella would make one response concerning your *Physicist* findings, provided his credentials can be confirmed of course!

And btw, we got us the world's longest good-bye by DR. Thompson and Barb, what's up with that spectacle?

And again, see the below, the best the Lone Nutters had then and HAVE now, for that matter!

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you guys think of these, then?

Zapruder Film Hoax

Zapruder Film Authentic

the best the Lone Nutters have challenged the Great Zapruder Film Hoax (all the names a familiar to those that post here regularly). And yeah old Craig is getting weary and tired, we've been running him in circles since his retirement.

Dr. John Costella address everyone of their concerns, they've been looking at undermining him ever since (all they need is a competent Physicist to respond to John, till then I doubt Costella will waste his time with Lone Nut trolls...

so see below:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

Except now dr. john is hiding under a rock, afraid to show his face because the the very basis of his only two, 'scientific' arguments has been shown to be false with unimpeachable empirical proofs. He can't address this one can he dave? Nor can any of the rest of your motley crew. Hell you don't even UNDERSTAND the argument let alone have the skillset to disprove it. Besides, as this simple proof shows, dr. john is far from competent as a phyicscist. Its no wonder he is in hiding....

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

and costella failing to understand a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Bring it on davie...who's running away and hiding now?

LMFAO, then you should have absolutely no problem finding a Physicist (somewhere, ANYWHERE) to endorse your findings, eh? Let me know when you find one. I'll pass that bit of info on.... After all this being the Ed Forum and and all, full of teachers of every stripe, maybe Dr. Costella would make one response concerning your *Physicist* findings, provided his credentials can be confirmed of course!

And btw, we got us the world's longest good-bye by DR. Thompson and Barb, what's up with that spectacle?

And again, see the below, the best the Lone Nutters had then and HAVE now, for that matter!

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

So, only "physicists" can understrand something as simple as parallax? If thats the case your dunderhead from OZ is simply NOT up to the task! If I have it so wrong then how hard would it be for dunderhead to show me the door? Clearly a man of his "intellect" (now thats funny) should be able to do this in a heartbeat. That he's in hiding speaks volumes and that he has you tring to run interference shows his utter desperation.

Again, see below to find out how a "physicsist"blows at real workd physics. And the best part EVERYONE can do the simple experiment and prove it for themself. No advance degree required... BTW David I challenge YOU to do the experiment and report your findings, and give it your best shot to disprove me.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rain sensors? Ask around about rain sensors?

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...ainsensors.html

what do you guys think of these, then?

Zapruder Film Hoax

Zapruder Film Authentic

The author of the Zapruder film hoax stuff is ... well ... ask around about rain sensors, and on top of that this "physicist" needs to buy a clue when it comes to real world physics. see:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
...this "physicist" needs to buy a clue when it comes to real world physics

Interesting you should say that because despite having two BS degrees and a PhD and having done a 2 ½ year post doctoral research fellowship he never actually worked as a physicist and his doctorate and post doctoral work was in “theoretical physics”. His employment has been either as a high school science and math teacher or as a computer scientist.

Since Einstein couldn’t figure out how to balance his checkbook nobody should be surprised Costella has trouble understanding things like parallax. He couldn’t even figure out that a high velocity bullet would accelerate blood splatter faster than free fall speed. Nothing in his CV or published papers suggests any special expertise in optics or anything else especially relevant to his alteration theories.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/7/56a/7b9

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/physics

Link to post
Share on other sites
...this "physicist" needs to buy a clue when it comes to real world physics

Interesting you should say that because despite having two BS degrees and a PhD and having done a 2 ½ year post doctoral research fellowship he never actually worked as a physicist and his doctorate and post doctoral work was in “theoretical physics”. His employment has been either as a high school science and math teacher or as a computer scientist.

Since Einstein couldn’t figure out how to balance his checkbook nobody should be surprised Costella has trouble understanding things like parallax. He couldn’t even figure out that a high velocity bullet would accelerate blood splatter faster than free fall speed. Nothing in his CV or published papers suggests any special expertise in optics or anything else especially relevant to his alteration theories.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/7/56a/7b9

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/physics

I don't think the mans experience with a camera extends beyond a simple point and shoot, and yet he lectures the unwary about the finer details of flim compositing. He can't pass muster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
name='David G. Healy' post='164784' date='Mar 29 2009, 06:54 AM']Positive Actions? What the JFK research community needs is for the old-timers to move out of the way and let the young turks take over... PERIOD! 45+ years and what have we got today?

Update on the old timers list and ages ... David Mantik is 68, David Lifton is 70, Harrison Livingstone is 72, and Noel Twyman is 83.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since Einstein couldn’t figure out how to balance his checkbook nobody should be surprised Costella has trouble understanding things like parallax. He couldn’t even figure out that a high velocity bullet would accelerate blood splatter faster than free fall speed. Nothing in his CV or published papers suggests any special expertise in optics or anything else especially relevant to his alteration theories.

One may recall that before Costella found religion and realized that Moorman's photo showed her to be in the grass ... he created an image of Moorman barely coming up to his chest in a side by side comparison as if to say that Mary was too short in the Zapruder film. Costella didn't check his idea against Brehm who in reality was Costella height, nor did Costella use anything for scale when he merely pasted Moorman next to him on the south pasture. Now that was some mighty fine research!!! :ice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...