Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?


Recommended Posts

The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)...

Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip...

Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY:

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 269
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What a stupid thing to say (which, coming from Burnham, doesn't surprise me a bit) !

What he fails to understand is this :

Apart from the fact that his would-be conspirators NEVER HAD THE TIME NOR THE OPPORTUNITY to alter the Zapruder film, which is still the same as it was on November 22, 1963, when seen by several people about two hours (or a bit more ?) after the shots had been fired in Dealey Plaza, his example fails to take a crucial aspect into account.

Any expert or "image specialist" watching an altered movie, or "trick" movie would immediately and EASILY spot, see, detect, notice the changes and alterations and would therefore be able to analyze and prove them.

In the case of this 1928 movie, with the little doll in the matchbox, it takes a two-year-old child to realize it cannot be real.

But, as a matter of fact, all experts and specialists who have tried to analyze the Zapruder film, WITH TOP-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, have found NOTHING, absolutely no trace of alteration.

That settles the case.

But not for people such as Burnham or Fetzer or White, I'm afraid, since THEY WANT the film to be altered, because they think they are more clever than all of us. Well, sorry, guys, you are not.

/François Carlier/

Edited by François Carlier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for you !

By the way, I do NOT care what you believe. I know that Elvis Presley is still alive and preparing his come-back. Period. I have the luxury of KNOWING for sure, so I cannot fault anyone for doubting me because they have no reason to believe I am telling the truth since they didn't see for themselves. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to elaborate. This is more difficult for me than it is for you--by a long shot...

/François Carlier/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for you !

By the way, I do NOT care what you believe. I know that Elvis Presley is still alive and preparing his come-back. Period. I have the luxury of KNOWING for sure, so I cannot fault anyone for doubting me because they have no reason to believe I am telling the truth since they didn't see for themselves. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to elaborate. This is more difficult for me than it is for you--by a long shot...

/François Carlier/

Figures. Why am I NOT surprised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredible !

I copied/pasted YOUR OWN MESSAGE, to make you see it was bad.

You realized that indeed it was bad, and you decided to erase it, so that people won't see it.

Your erasing your own message proves you are now ashamed of having written it.

But I'm sorry for you, I won't erase my copy of your message so everybody can still see it. All they have to do is trade "I know that Elvis Presley is still alive and preparing his come-back" for "I know that the Zapruder film is a fabrication", and they'll know what you had dare to write !

Indeed, Greg Burnham had written : "I do NOT care what you believe. I know that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. Period. I have the luxury of KNOWING for sure, so I cannot fault anyone for doubting me because they have no reason to believe I am telling the truth since they didn't see for themselves. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to elaborate. This is more difficult for me than it is for you--by a long shot..."

Then I answered, copying his message, word for word, just replacing the Zapruder film bit by "Elvis Presly is alive", just to show him how poor his message was.

He then erased his original message and wrote "You might have Mad Cow, Denny?" instead.

Mister Burnham, I should have quoted you in the first place : you would have been unable to hide you own message, in the hope that nobody had seen it. I shall do that in the future. But your acting cowardly will be known, all the same.

/François Carlier/

Edited by François Carlier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredible !

I copied/pasted YOUR OWN MESSAGE, to make you see it was bad.

You realized that indeed it was bad, and you decided to erase it, so that people won't see it.

Your erasing your own message proves you are now ashamed of having written it.

But I'm sorry for you, I won't erase my copy of your message so everybody can still see it. All they have to do is trade "I know that Elvis Presley is still alive and preparing his come-back" for "I know that the Zapruder film is a fabrication", and they'll know what you had dare to write !

Indeed, Greg Burnham had written : "I do NOT care what you believe. I know that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. Period. I have the luxury of KNOWING for sure, so I cannot fault anyone for doubting me because they have no reason to believe I am telling the truth since they didn't see for themselves. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to elaborate. This is more difficult for me than it is for you--by a long shot..."

I should have quoted you in the first place : you would have been unable to hide you own message, in the hope that nobody had seen it. I shall do that in the future. But your acting cowardly will be known, all the same.

/François Carlier/

Huh? So delusional...so misguided. Wow. A pity. You set up a (very weak) "strawman" argument and expected me to CAVE??? Are you, perhaps, truly a Paul Nolan idiot clone. Please don't try to speak or you will convince us of the obvious.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mister Burnham,

I am accusing you of being a xxxx.

I am calling on the Forum moderators to find your original message and prove that I am telling the truth and you are trying to hide and lie.

/François Carlier/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a stupid thing to say (which, coming from Burnham, doesn't surprise me a bit)!

What he fails to understand is this :

Apart from the fact that his would-be conspirators NEVER HAD THE TIME NOR THE OPPORTUNITY to alter the Zapruder film, which is still the same as it was on November 22, 1963, when seen by several people about two hours (or a bit more ?) after the shots had been fired in Dealey Plaza, his example fails to take a crucial aspect into account.

But that was not the point!(even though you're still WRONG about all of that, too). The point, as stated in the topic / subject line, is this: In 1963, THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK -- period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mister Burnham,

I am accusing you of being a xxxx.

I am calling on the Forum moderators to find your original message and prove that I am telling the truth and you are trying to hide and lie.

/François Carlier/

You are not lying. I edited my post BEFORE (or perhaps simultaneously) you posted your reply. It was a coincidence. But, your reply was a non sequitar--AGAIN. You come out of the wood work to launch personal attacks. You have nothing to offer here. Please insult me further...as it is the ONLY thing you know how to do.

You made a fool of yourself with your lame claim about Elvis! You are more delusional than you claim Jim Fetzer, Jack White, and even I am-- COMBINED -- with that one! Oh, and now you will claim that you were "just kidding about Elvis" or that you substituted my words with Elvis--or something??? Have you lost your mind?

You got caught disrupting MY THREAD you dweeb! Don't claim to be the virgin you are NOT--else everyone will believe it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that was not the point!(even though you're still WRONG about all of that, too). The point, as stated in the topic / subject line, is this: In 1963, THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK -- period.

Are you really that immunte to clear thinking ?

The point is : whether the technology existed or not, IT WAS NOT USED ON THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence.

/François Carlier/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that was not the point!(even though you're still WRONG about all of that, too). The point, as stated in the topic / subject line, is this: In 1963, THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK -- period.

Are you really that immunte to clear thinking ?

The point is : whether the technology existed or not, IT WAS NOT USED ON THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence.

/François Carlier/

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT THE POINT OF MY OWN THREAD IS!!!!

The point of MY THREAD is this: The technology existed to alter the Zapruder Film long BEFORE 1963, which contradicts many "anti-alterationists'" claims.

THAT's what this thread is about!

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that was not the point!(even though you're still WRONG about all of that, too). The point, as stated in the topic / subject line, is this: In 1963, THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK -- period.

Are you really that immunte to clear thinking ?

The point is : whether the technology existed or not, IT WAS NOT USED ON THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence.

/François Carlier/

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT THE POINT OF MY OWN THREAD IS!!!!

The point of MY THREAD is this: The technology existed to alter the Zapruder Film long BEFORE 1963, which contradicts many "anti-alterationists'" claims.

THAT's what this thread is about!

On the basis of this film from 1928, you are suggesting that the same "technology" could have been used - or better, was in fact used - to alter the Zapruder film of 1963, is that correctly understood?

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence.

Francis Coli

Do you know what evidence is?

I dont think you do

Send me 9 more emails and I will tell you what evidence is

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...