Question for Z-film experts

[Karl Kinaski]

Quote G.Lamson

And here the star "physicist" of the CT crowd can't understand basic physics nor the properties of light and shadow....

Close Quote

Nobody need to know basic physics to find out that the Zappy-Film, as we know it, is a poor(and stupid) forgery.

Here is just one stupid mistake, the forgers made:

(Thx to J. White.)

KK

Maybe your right. But I got another one. Something is rotten, either with the z-fame in question or the Cancellar-pic. I can smell the hand of the forger. Same two pics, another odd thing.

Karl,

I was hoping your post might be some kind of hip, post modern irony, but it seems as though you're serious.

Why would you think that photographs taken at different times would show exactly the same people in exactly the same positions? Altgens has had time to cross the street, walk up the incline toward the pergola, turn around and walk back down past the Newmans. Why isn't there time for someone to step behind the truck?

Jerry

In the Cancellare-pic, the man is sitting on the truck-bed. The Z-Frame shows a blanket on the very same truck bed.

The only explanation(in the case the Z-Frame is not forged)is: the man was under the blanket during the shooting, removed the blanket pronto after the shots were fired, and than came out of his cranny...strange behavior, if true. LOL

All I say is this: nobody needs special photographic knowledge, to figure out, that the crappy-zappy film is the most tortured piece of film in history! (And the most expensive film too! Do you think, the US-Government would pay 18 mio for a Z-film-Version everybody can watch at Y-tube? I am not that naiv. The Original is out there, but not in the reach of ordinary people. Note: Einsteins brain was "unlocatable" for 50 years...)

KK

Karl,

A better copy of Cancellare shows that the man is standing behind the pickup with his hands resting on the rail.

A better view of Zapruder shows that the "blanket" is actually the sidewalk behind the pickup truck.

That's why the "blanket" disappears behind the front of the large truck.

Best to you,

Jerry

Maybe your are right. But I got another one. Something is rotten either with the cancellar-pic, or the Z-frame in question.

KK

[Jerry Logan]

Ok Karl! You're right, there's something odd about the Cancellare photo but I don't think we have to go as far as forgery to explain it.

If you look closely at Cancellare you'll see that all the lamp posts and trees seem to be casting a long shadow except for the pole you've highlighted.

So, why do all the long, thin objects in Zapruder and Cancellare cast long shadows but this one?

Of course it's casting a long shadow too - it's in the sun and there has to be a shadow just as we see in Zapruder.

So why can we see it in Zapruder and not Cancellare? Because the road is crowned about 6 inches (six inches higher in the middle than at the gutters).

Zapruder is filming from a higher angle than Cancellare - therefore his camera sees both sides of Main.

Cancellare films from a lower angle and the crown prevents him from seeing the south side of Main.

The reason for the difference in the two photos is that Zapruder shows almost the entire width of Main while Cancellare shows only the north side - and the shadow falls on the south.

Jerry

Edited August 24, 2009 by Jerry Logan

[Karl Kinaski]

Ok Karl! You're right, there's something odd about the Cancellare photo but I don't think we have to go as far as forgery to explain it.

If you look closely at Cancellare you'll see that all the lamp posts and trees seem to be casting a long shadow except for the pole you've highlighted.

So, why do all the long, thin objects in Zapruder and Cancellare cast long shadows but this one?

Of course it's casting a long shadow too - it's in the sun and there has to be a shadow just as we see in Zapruder.

So why can we see it in Zapruder and not Cancellare? Because the road is crowned about 6 inches (six inches higher in the middle than at the gutters).

Zapruder is filming from a higher angle than Cancellare - therefore his camera sees both sides of Main.

Cancellare films from a lower angle and the crown prevents him from seeing the south side of Main.

The reason for the difference in the two photos is that Zapruder shows almost the entire width of Main while Cancellare shows only the north side - and the shadow falls on the south.

Jerry

That could be an explanation. Jerry: I am always surprised how guys like you, which such an clear intellect, can be victims of that stupid Lone Nut cover-story. In case of Gary Mack everybody smells his intellectual dishonesty, and I believe he is doing what he is doing for money...(he is the best paid LNter in the US , I believe) Whats your motive for promoting this fairy tale, fabricated by some psyop. specialists half a century ago, postmarked by the FBI within 14 days after the murder, and gentled by the WC? "Higher duty"?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/style_em...fault/ph34r.gif

KK

[Paul Baker]

That could be an explanation. Jerry: I am always surprised how guys like you, which such an clear intellect, can be victims of that stupid Lone Nut cover-story. In case of Gary Mack everybody smells his intellectual dishonesty, and I believe he is doing what he is doing for money...(he is the best paid LNter in the US , I believe) Whats your motive for promoting this fairy tale, fabricated by some psyop. specialists half a century ago, postmarked by the FBI within 14 days after the murder, and gentled by the WC? "Higher duty"?

Typical paranoid conspiracy theorist drivel.

It is clear to most people of any intellect that the Zapruder Film was not faked. Nobody has come remotely close to proving otherwise.

What I find laughable is that, at one time, people like you believed the film to be genuine, because it suggested a shot from the front. When those who understood physics and ballistics pointed out that it demonstrates shots from behind, it became a fake.

While I'm on the subject, proof of a second shooter on the grassy knoll is not proof of a conspiracy. There could have been two people operating independently. It's a remote possibilty, sure, but infinitely more likely than a fake Zapruder film!

It is a common strategy amongst desperate conspiracy theorists to continually dredge up already debunked "studies" from the bottom of the cess pit. I'm just surprised that people bother responding to this utter nonsense.

Paul.

[Chris Davidson]

At least according to the extant film presented, approx. to Altgen's photo, the action of Greer (steering wheel handling and body rising) would appear to indicate, someone who is hitting the brakes and bracing one's self.

In accordance, other's in the limo appear to move forward in response to Greer's action.

chris

[David G. Healy]

That could be an explanation. Jerry: I am always surprised how guys like you, which such an clear intellect, can be victims of that stupid Lone Nut cover-story. In case of Gary Mack everybody smells his intellectual dishonesty, and I believe he is doing what he is doing for money...(he is the best paid LNter in the US , I believe) Whats your motive for promoting this fairy tale, fabricated by some psyop. specialists half a century ago, postmarked by the FBI within 14 days after the murder, and gentled by the WC? "Higher duty"?

Typical paranoid conspiracy theorist drivel.

It is clear to most people of any intellect that the Zapruder Film was not faked. Nobody has come remotely close to proving otherwise.

What I find laughable is that, at one time, people like you believed the film to be genuine, because it suggested a shot from the front. When those who understood physics and ballistics pointed out that it demonstrates shots from behind, it became a fake.

While I'm on the subject, proof of a second shooter on the grassy knoll is not proof of a conspiracy. There could have been two people operating independently. It's a remote possibilty, sure, but infinitely more likely than a fake Zapruder film!

It is a common strategy amongst desperate conspiracy theorists to continually dredge up already debunked "studies" from the bottom of the cess pit. I'm just surprised that people bother responding to this utter nonsense.

Paul.

yes indeed while you're on the subject -- it's originality son.... nutter-trolls need originality, its the same old "whine", we've awaited the next generation nutter-xxxxx we haven't be disappointed ....

Thanks for your input....

[Paul Baker]

yes indeed while you're on the subject -- it's originality son.... nutter-trolls need originality, its the same old "whine", we've awaited the next generation nutter-xxxxx we haven't be disappointed ....

Reading your replies, David, is almost always cringeworthy. Why do you bother? Do everyone here a favour and stop, it's extremely tiresome.

[Paul Rigby]

yes indeed while you're on the subject -- it's originality son.... nutter-trolls need originality, its the same old "whine", we've awaited the next generation nutter-xxxxx we haven't be disappointed ....

Reading your replies, David, is almost always cringeworthy. Why do you bother? Do everyone here a favour and stop, it's extremely tiresome.

From the man responsible for this gem - "While I'm on the subject, proof of a second shooter on the grassy knoll is not proof of a conspiracy. There could have been two people operating independently. It's a remote possibilty, sure, but infinitely more likely than a fake Zapruder film!" - that's something else.

Do keep it up, "infinitely"!

[Denis Pointing]

Whats your motive for promoting this fairy tale, fabricated by some psyop. specialists half a century ago, postmarked by the FBI within 14 days after the murder, and gentled by the WC? "Higher duty"?

Karl, your really not doing yourself any favours here mate. Someone proves you wrong so you start questioning their "motive" and suggesting they have a "higher duty"!! That's getting far too common on this forum. Prove Jerry wrong or give it up... end of story.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Jerry Logan]

That could be an explanation. Jerry: I am always surprised how guys like you, which such an clear intellect, can be victims of that stupid Lone Nut cover-story. In case of Gary Mack everybody smells his intellectual dishonesty, and I believe he is doing what he is doing for money...(he is the best paid LNter in the US , I believe) Whats your motive for promoting this fairy tale, fabricated by some psyop. specialists half a century ago, postmarked by the FBI within 14 days after the murder, and gentled by the WC? "Higher duty"?

Karl,

I'm not sure why you'd ask this.

1) I'm not Gary Mack.

2) I've been a public critic of the Warren Commission and its conclusions since 1967 when Mr. Hartzell threw me out of American History for defending "the godless communist Oswald".

(I wasn't really defending Oswald but Mr. Hartzell wasn't the kind of man who appreciated intellectual niceties like "due process.")

I am pretty sure the Zapruder film is authentic; in my defense I wasn't aware that Zapruder Alteration is now a mandatory part of the True Faith.

There's still some hope for my soul - Chris Davidson may eventually turn me around.

Until then, I've given up on trying to discern motives and focused my thoughts on the evidence and reasoning - whoever presents them for whatever real or imagined motives.

Denis Pointing is spot-on right. Really and truly, I only care about what you can prove - all the rest is propaganda and Healy noise. Huffing and puffing designed to obscure the fact that you haven't delivered the goods you promised.

Jerry

Edited August 26, 2009 by Jerry Logan

[Pat Speer]

Although, as Craig and Jerry have pointed out, the FBI memo on Zapruder stating the film was recorded 24 frames per second was clearly in error, it nevertheless proves there was a cover-up, IMO.

It hit me when reading this memo that the date on this memo was 12-4, and the FBI Crime Lab report claiming the camera ran 18.3 frames per second was dated 12-20. This means that the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of 12-5 were performed under the belief the camera was running 24 frames per second. This is demonstrated in the reports of the FBI's Gauthier, as he repeatedly made reference to the limousine's traveling 15 mph. Now, I could never figure out why he thought this...and then it hit me. If the Zapruder film was filmed at 24 frames per second, the limo would have been moving 15 mph.

So why is this significant, you might ask? As demonstrated in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of early December, and the final versions of the shooting they presented to the Warren Commission, had the head shot (which they proposed was the third shot) 34 and 47 feet further down the road than the location determined by the Secret Service on 11-27, and 29 and 42 feet further down the road than eventually proposed by the Warren Commission. Now, previously I had thought that maybe they were simply incompetent. But now I realize that 15 mph meant the film was recording at 22 frames per second, and that this made the elapsed time between the first shot (which both the SS and FBI believed hit Kennedy) and third shot at frame 313 TOO SHORT for the shooter to have been lone little Oswald.

So...voila...In early December, as a response to agent Barrett's memo on Zapruder, and the assertion the camera recorded 24 frames per second, BOTH the Secret Service and FBI suddenly concluded the limo was much further down the street at the time of the third shot than previously believed, and later proven beyond any doubt.

Now why else would they have done this, other than to conceal the likelihood there was a second shooter? The incompetence argument falters when you consider that both agencies, working independently, came to the same completely unsupportable conclusion. The why-would-they-do-such-a-thing argument falters when you consider that at the time of these re-enactments, in early December, the assumption was that the Zapruder and Nix films would never be shown to the public and the Warren Commission was just gonna rubber stamp the conclusions of the Secret Service and FBI.

So, yes, Virginia, they lied. It then follows that they would not have done such a thing if they didn't believe the President would approve.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Pat Speer

[Paul Baker]

Do keep it up, "infinitely"!

Take a bow.

[Antti Hynonen]

Although, as Craig and Jerry have pointed out, the FBI memo on Zapruder stating the film was recorded 24 frames per second was clearly in error, it nevertheless proves there was a cover-up, IMO.

It hit me when reading this memo that the date on this memo was 12-4, and the FBI Crime Lab report claiming the camera ran 18.3 frames per second was dated 12-20. This means that the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of 12-5 were performed under the belief the camera was running 24 frames per second. This is demonstrated in the reports of the FBI's Gauthier, as he repeatedly made reference to the limousine's traveling 15 mph. Now, I could never figure out why he thought this...and then it hit me. If the Zapruder film was filmed at 24 frames per second, the limo would have been moving 15 mph.

So why is this significant, you might ask? As demonstrated in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of early December, and the final versions of the shooting they presented to the Warren Commission, had the head shot (which they proposed was the third shot) 34 and 47 feet further down the road than the location determined by the Secret Service on 11-27, and 29 and 42 feet further down the road than eventually proposed by the Warren Commission. Now, previously I had thought that maybe they were simply incompetent. But now I realize that 15 mph meant the film was recording at 22 frames per second, and that this made the elapsed time between the first shot (which both the SS and FBI believed hit Kennedy) and third shot at frame 313 TOO SHORT for the shooter to have been lone little Oswald.

So...voila...In early December, as a response to agent Barrett's memo on Zapruder, and the assertion the camera recorded 24 frames per second, BOTH the Secret Service and FBI suddenly concluded the limo was much further down the street at the time of the third shot than previously believed, and later proven beyond any doubt.

Now why else would they have done this, other than to conceal the likelihood there was a second shooter? The incompetence argument falters when you consider that both agencies, working independently, came to the same completely unsupportable conclusion. The why-would-they-do-such-a-thing argument falters when you consider that at the time of these re-enactments, in early December, the assumption was that the Zapruder and Nix films would never be shown to the public and the Warren Commission was just gonna rubber stamp the conclusions of the Secret Service and FBI.

So, yes, Virginia, they lied. It then follows that they would not have done such a thing if they didn't believe the President would approve.

Pat,

I think this is (potentially) an important discovery. However, many readers will not be up to date with the background of these re-enactments and film speed issues and will likely omit your important post due to this.

Perhaps you can elaborate and break down the events (re-enactments) and the "conclusions" from these SS and FBI reports? A timeline of events from 11/22 to 12/20 or something could also be helpful.

New thread?

Great work!

Antti

[Jerry Logan]

Although, as Craig and Jerry have pointed out, the FBI memo on Zapruder stating the film was recorded 24 frames per second was clearly in error, it nevertheless proves there was a cover-up, IMO.

It hit me when reading this memo that the date on this memo was 12-4, and the FBI Crime Lab report claiming the camera ran 18.3 frames per second was dated 12-20. This means that the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of 12-5 were performed under the belief the camera was running 24 frames per second. This is demonstrated in the reports of the FBI's Gauthier, as he repeatedly made reference to the limousine's traveling 15 mph. Now, I could never figure out why he thought this...and then it hit me. If the Zapruder film was filmed at 24 frames per second, the limo would have been moving 15 mph.

So why is this significant, you might ask? As demonstrated in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of early December, and the final versions of the shooting they presented to the Warren Commission, had the head shot (which they proposed was the third shot) 34 and 47 feet further down the road than the location determined by the Secret Service on 11-27, and 29 and 42 feet further down the road than eventually proposed by the Warren Commission. Now, previously I had thought that maybe they were simply incompetent. But now I realize that 15 mph meant the film was recording at 22 frames per second, and that this made the elapsed time between the first shot (which both the SS and FBI believed hit Kennedy) and third shot at frame 313 TOO SHORT for the shooter to have been lone little Oswald.

So...voila...In early December, as a response to agent Barrett's memo on Zapruder, and the assertion the camera recorded 24 frames per second, BOTH the Secret Service and FBI suddenly concluded the limo was much further down the street at the time of the third shot than previously believed, and later proven beyond any doubt.

Now why else would they have done this, other than to conceal the likelihood there was a second shooter? The incompetence argument falters when you consider that both agencies, working independently, came to the same completely unsupportable conclusion. The why-would-they-do-such-a-thing argument falters when you consider that at the time of these re-enactments, in early December, the assumption was that the Zapruder and Nix films would never be shown to the public and the Warren Commission was just gonna rubber stamp the conclusions of the Secret Service and FBI.

So, yes, Virginia, they lied. It then follows that they would not have done such a thing if they didn't believe the President would approve.

Pat,

I'm afraid your initial premise may be incorrect. Life Magazine reported on December 6 that Zapruder's camera ran at 18 fps. Additionally, the CIA NPIC analysis for the Secret Service seems to indicate that they thought the camera should run at 16 fps. Most importantly, the FBI was definitely not sharing its field reports with the Secret Service on a day to day basis, therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Secret Service would even know of Zapruder's statement to Barrett. It's most likely that the Secret Service just RTFM and assumed 16 fps since it obviously wasn't 48 fps or they called B&H. I don't know why they'd believe Zapruder's camera was running at a frame rate that was impossible for that camera.

Jerry

[Craig Lamson]

Although, as Craig and Jerry have pointed out, the FBI memo on Zapruder stating the film was recorded 24 frames per second was clearly in error, it nevertheless proves there was a cover-up, IMO.

It hit me when reading this memo that the date on this memo was 12-4, and the FBI Crime Lab report claiming the camera ran 18.3 frames per second was dated 12-20. This means that the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of 12-5 were performed under the belief the camera was running 24 frames per second. This is demonstrated in the reports of the FBI's Gauthier, as he repeatedly made reference to the limousine's traveling 15 mph. Now, I could never figure out why he thought this...and then it hit me. If the Zapruder film was filmed at 24 frames per second, the limo would have been moving 15 mph.

So why is this significant, you might ask? As demonstrated in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of early December, and the final versions of the shooting they presented to the Warren Commission, had the head shot (which they proposed was the third shot) 34 and 47 feet further down the road than the location determined by the Secret Service on 11-27, and 29 and 42 feet further down the road than eventually proposed by the Warren Commission. Now, previously I had thought that maybe they were simply incompetent. But now I realize that 15 mph meant the film was recording at 22 frames per second, and that this made the elapsed time between the first shot (which both the SS and FBI believed hit Kennedy) and third shot at frame 313 TOO SHORT for the shooter to have been lone little Oswald.

So...voila...In early December, as a response to agent Barrett's memo on Zapruder, and the assertion the camera recorded 24 frames per second, BOTH the Secret Service and FBI suddenly concluded the limo was much further down the street at the time of the third shot than previously believed, and later proven beyond any doubt.

Now why else would they have done this, other than to conceal the likelihood there was a second shooter? The incompetence argument falters when you consider that both agencies, working independently, came to the same completely unsupportable conclusion. The why-would-they-do-such-a-thing argument falters when you consider that at the time of these re-enactments, in early December, the assumption was that the Zapruder and Nix films would never be shown to the public and the Warren Commission was just gonna rubber stamp the conclusions of the Secret Service and FBI.

So, yes, Virginia, they lied. It then follows that they would not have done such a thing if they didn't believe the President would approve.

So Pat. speaking of 'truth", have you corrected your disinformation at patspeer.com about the bunch in JFK's jacket in Croft. It has been proven with unimpeachable evidence that your claim is simply BALONEY. All in the interest of intellectual honesty, you know. Pretty hard for you top beat on someone else when you do the same don't you think?

Edited August 26, 2009 by Craig Lamson