Jump to content
The Education Forum

History Lost: Test of Zapruder fakery doomed


Recommended Posts

As Doug Horne notes in Volume IV of Inside the ARRB, the fact that the ARRB failed to test the actual Bell & Howell camera alleged to have been used by Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963, is inexcusable. In 2006, Kodak announced that it will no longer process color Kodachrome film beyond December of 2010.

Kodak still owns exclusivity to that process and it is not "for sale" nor is it something that can be reverse engineered (even if legal). So, unless the actual camera can be used in Dealey Plaza this November (highly unlikely/impossible) and the film processed at literally the last remaining facility capable of doing it, there will never be another opportunity to definitively establish certain "camera specific" features that remain in question.

Although Ektachrome will still be available it will never be accepted by either side of the debate, as it's not the same, even if the camera was ever tested using it (highly unlikely).

A pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, who needs such as test ?

Only the fringe of the fringe of conspiracy theorists believe that the Zapruder film was altered.

100% of Warren-Commission defenders believe the film to be genuine.

Added to them, the great majority of conspiracy believers still say the Zapruder film is indeed genuine.

Only a small percentage of people on the "conspiracy side" claim that the Zapruder film was altered (you have Lifton, Fetzer, White, Livingstone, and that's pretty much all).

So it's fair to say that WE ALL AGREE THAT THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS GENUINE AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS.

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, who needs such as test ?

Only the fringe of the fringe of conspiracy theorists believe that the Zapruder film was altered.

100% of Warren-Commission defenders believe the film to be genuine.

Added to them, the great majority of conspiracy believers still say the Zapruder film is indeed genuine.

Only a small percentage of people on the "conspiracy side" claim that the Zapruder film was altered (you have Lifton, Fetzer, White, Livingstone, and that's pretty much all).

So it's fair to say that WE ALL AGREE THAT THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS GENUINE AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS.

/F.C./

We do not agree. The list is much longer than you propose. Add the following names for starters:

Rich DellaRosa

Greg Burnham

Scott Myers

Milicent Cranor

John Costella

Phil Guiliano

Rick Janowitz

Doug Horne

J Harrison

Noel Twyman

Robert Morningstar

Tom Wilson

David Healy

Rod Ryan

David Mantik

Richard Martin

William Reymond

Dean Hagerman

...to name but a few.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the fringe of the fringe of conspiracy theorists believe that the Zapruder film was altered.

Thats not true

I believe the Z-film was altered, at the same time I do not believe in 80% of the conspiracy theories that exsist among researchers

And trust me, it has been my main area of research since I read "Bloody Treason" in 1997, so im not just claiming alteration for the hell of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.

Consider this statement : "I believe that there was a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy, but I do not think that the Zapruder film was altered".

That statement could be uttered by whom (among well-known conspiracy advocates) ?

I think it would be interesting to see the list.

I can safely begin such a list :

1. Robert Groden

2. Josiah Thompson

3. Debra Conway

4. …

Who else ?

(Do correct me if I'm wrong.)

/F.C./

Edited by François Carlier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.

Consider this statement : "I believe that there was a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy, but I do not think that the Zapruder film was altered".

That statement could be uttered by whom (among well-known conspiracy advocates) ?

I think it would be interesting to see the list.

I can safely begin such a list :

1. Robert Groden

2. Josiah Thompson

3. Debra Conway

4. …

Who else ?

(Do correct me if I'm wrong.)

/F.C./

That's a non sequitur ("it does not follow" in Latin). Your argument's implied conclusion does not follow from its premises.

In your original post, you falsely (mistakenly) claimed that the list of Zapruder Film skeptics was extremely limited (Lifton, Fetzer, White, Livingstone). I have added the names of many well known researchers to that list.

You were wrong. You reported false information when you claimed that: "So it's fair to say that WE ALL AGREE THAT THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS GENUINE AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS."

That statement is false as evidenced by the additional names posted. It is of no consequence (other than self incrimination) for you to post a list of Zappy apologists since that does not change the fact that you originally posted disinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Doug Horne notes in Volume IV of Inside the ARRB, the fact that the ARRB failed to test the actual Bell & Howell camera alleged to have been used by Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963, is inexcusable. In 2006, Kodak announced that it will no longer process color Kodachrome film beyond December of 2010.

Kodak still owns exclusivity to that process and it is not "for sale" nor is it something that can be reverse engineered (even if legal). So, unless the actual camera can be used in Dealey Plaza this November (highly unlikely/impossible) and the film processed at literally the last remaining facility capable of doing it, there will never be another opportunity to definitively establish certain "camera specific" features that remain in question.

Although Ektachrome will still be available it will never be accepted by either side of the debate, as it's not the same, even if the camera was ever tested using it (highly unlikely).

A pity.

It is my understading there is processed kodachrome test film shot from the Zapruder camera positon with the Zapruder camera in the archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet Lamson posts next...

:lol:

LOL all you want, you STILL can't figure out how to make a simple shadow work, and burdump can't understand how parallax works.

You guys make quite the poster boys for inept CT photo studies.

I guess the last laugh is all mine...LOL!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the last laugh is all mine...LOL!

I just think that testing the actual camera alleged to have made the film is worthwhile--for BOTH sides. After December of this year NO SUCH TEST will be possible because the film will no longer be able to be processed anywhere. It just seems so negligent and/or short-sighted, at best, for the ARRB to have had the opportunity to perform such a test and yet choose not to pursue it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the last laugh is all mine...LOL!

I just think that testing the actual camera alleged to have made the film is worthwhile--for BOTH sides. After December of this year NO SUCH TEST will be possible because the film will no longer be able to be processed anywhere. It just seems so negligent and/or short-sighted, at best, for the ARRB to have had the opportunity to perform such a test and yet choose not to pursue it.

The test film you want already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The test film you want already exists.

Do you know for what purpose this alleged test was conducted? Can you give me the details of the test(s) performed, the date, time of day, conditions, etc.? Also, was this test done in the pursuit of authenticating the Zapruder film or for some other reason? Are the results of "whatever was being tested for" available?

Finally, is the actual test footage available online, or elsewhere?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...