Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[Craig Lamson]

Just to see where it takes us.

Proof whack jobs live....thanks Paul for showing us your source material LOL!

http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets4.html

Edited August 12, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Bernie Laverick]

You are just another in a very long line of loony ct photo ignorants. This forum is filled to the brim with them....

Says Craig with his 3,982 posts...most of them dripping with this kind of sneering contempt!

I have been reading this debate for nearly two years and I started off as a rock solidly anit-alterationist. Like you I thought the claims were pure fantasy. Absolutely ridiculous. Actually I thought they were probably being sponsored by those who have a keen interest in deliberately leading researches astray. Yet Craig, you have played a major role in totally swaying me (and probably many others) the other way. You have disproved absolutely nothing of any of the claims being made. Nothing.

Is there not a better example of someone on here who doesn't believe in alteration? Can you suggest anyone Craig who could totally rebuff these nagging questions once and for all? I feel the debate is being short-changed.

There must be someone on here with more intellectual baggage that can easily demonstrate, by reconciling all the peculiarities, omissions, missing frames, inconsistencies with witness testimony etc..., demonstrate why the Zapruder film is perfectly normal and then those who think otherwise will be publicly humiliated for being so gullible.

Because you just ain't doing it Craig.

Move over and let someone else have a crack!

[Jack White]

Nobody here is qualified to discuss Z alteration UNLESS they have thoroughly studied:

1. THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX by Fetzer, et al

2. Dr. Costella's webpage on the Z film

3. Everything on Z alteration at the ASSASSINATION SCIENCE website.

4. Doug Horne's Chapter on the film.

Study these things and address specifics they raise. Generalities are meaningless.

What Zavada says is meaningless. What forum members say is meaningless. What

the WR says is meaningless. What the FBI says is meaningless.

Discuss specifics like...DID CHANEY RIDE FORWARD?...DID 56 WITNESSES SAY THE

MOTORCADE CAME TO A HALT?...DID ZAPRUDER SHOOT THE EXTANT FILM?...ETC.

Jack

[Bernie Laverick]

Bernie,

You said:

There must be someone on here with more intellectual baggage that can easily demonstrate, by reconciling all the peculiarities, omissions, missing frames, inconsistencies with witness testimony etc..., demonstrate why the Zapruder film is perfectly normal and then.

This forum has, currently, 526 pages of threads, and in them, several Z film studies, archived for your reading pleasure. Almost every Zfilm thing under the sun has been discussed. (Go to the main page that comes up when you click JFK Assassination debate, and in the top left, above the threads , you'll see a box where you can insert the page number that you would like to go to. {For me, it was best that I started at the last page, and worked forward.} And then read the Z film related threads.)

The information is not placed there so

those who think otherwise will be publicly humiliated for being so gullible

as this should be a learning experience. I realize that this is a subject that ruffles feathers,(more folks than just Craig) but it doesn't need to be. Nothing wrong or humiliating with changing your mind.

Actually I thought they were probably being sponsored by those who have a keen interest in deliberately leading researches astray. Yet Craig, you have played a major role in totally swaying me (and probably many others) the other way.

This is an interesting statement. If the actions of someone sways you, then further study may prove fruitless.

Kathy

Kathy thank you for your intervention but you really have totally misunderstood what I have written. Firstly let me confirm that I never said that the “actions” of anyone have swayed me - merely the words! And especially the ones written by Craig. Are you saying further study will be "fruitless" if I don't agree with Craig Lamson?

It is the basic dynamic of education that one reads all the facts, arguments, opposing views and debates and, flowing from that, come to your own conclusions. I have been "swayed" by Craig's pitiful defence to the charges being made. He has not refuted one single claim. And in my opinion he is no more an authority on this than lots of others on this forum.

Hence the reason I am asking a genuine question when I want to know who is No. 1 batsman for the defence of the Zapruder film's authenticity? Who is their star larker? Is there anyone who puts up a more vibrant argument?

A QUESTION FOR ANTI-ALTERATIONISTS - Who do you guys think puts up the most honest and well thought out defence to your claims and why? For example, Dale Myers is clearly the guy who hits all the sixes when it comes to the Tippit debate, whether you agree with him or not, he is clearly very well informed and thus a formidable opponent of CTs. Who is his photographic equivalent?

I wrote "those who think otherwise will be publicly humiliated for being so

gullible"

A bit of rhetoric on my part I fear. I agree it isn't about humiliation. The point I'm making, and this goes for the alterationists too, that at some point this issue is going to be resolved one way or another; and that will only come with irrefutable proof.

Craig has a point when he challenges folk to SHOW how it was altered. Of course an inability to do this in no way negates the fact that it was altered. For example, I cannot carry out a heart transplant but I know that surgeons are capable of doing it!!

The above film is a move in that direction, in as much as, it proves that 35 years previously some people clearly had the ability to manipulate film and show what was not!

[Paul Rigby]

A QUESTION FOR ANTI-ALTERATIONISTS - Who do you guys think puts up the most honest and well thought out defence to your claims and why? For example, Dale Myers is clearly the guy who hits all the sixes when it comes to the Tippit debate, whether you agree with him or not, he is clearly very well informed and thus a formidable opponent of CTs. Who is his photographic equivalent?

Can't say I admire or respect his conclusions, Bernie, but I would have to acknowledge the quality of information and presentation of it by Richard Trask. Mack's knowledge is formidable, but deployed with a contempt for truth that is itself contemptible.

[Bernie Laverick]

that at some point this issue is going to be resolved one way or another; and that will only come with irrefutable proof.

We have, like I said, threads loaded with information here as well as other places on the Net. I don't understand why you are looking at Craig as the "know-all be-all" rep for the authenticists, and further, I don't know what difference it makes who is saying what. It is what they are saying that is important.

Read all you can, from both sides. Don't look for a leader, because you need to find the answers yourself. In doing this, though, you have to give yourself as much information as you can. To lie to oneself is the worst thing one can do. And if someone shows you something that shatters what you thought, no big deal. It is a learning experience.

Jack said:

Discuss specifics like...DID CHANEY RIDE FORWARD?...DID 56 WITNESSES SAY THE

MOTORCADE CAME TO A HALT?...DID ZAPRUDER SHOOT THE EXTANT FILM?...ETC.

All of these discussions are available as threads. (Even the Mary Poppins argument is archived)

Jack gave you a list of several things to read. Now if you are looking for a group who has counter arguments there is this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/

There is so much out there. Don't cheat yourself by looking for a leader. More times than not, they disappoint.

Kathy

"and further, I don't know what difference it makes who is saying what”

Frankly Kathy that must be one of the most ludicrous things I have heard on here. Of course it matters if one side of the argument is being distorted by someone with a separate agenda and who would rather hurl childish insults than honestly accept an irrefutable counter argument. And please I would prefer that you didn’t patronize me: I am quite capable of using a search engine. Although I am a student of this subject I’m not a fourteen year old one!

I have read most, if not all of the above threads. The case for alteration is strong. I am simply pointing out that it is made all the stronger by Craig’s inability to successfully refute the claims being made. Can anyone else do so? THAT IS MY POINT!

I had moved from being a staunch anti-alterationist - precisely by reading the arguments and other literature – to a more agnostic position. I would like to know who is regarded as the anti-alterationist expert: to hear what he or she has to say “because you need to find the answers yourself. In doing this, though, you have to give yourself as much information as you can.” Exactly!

Now do you get it Kathy?

I have been impressed by two contributions that almost now seal the issue for me.

1 – The above video Greg posted. A question. Has THAT film been altered?

2 – Paul’s astute observation of the overall whole. These people who were prepared to shoot a President in a public place, have the patsy murdered on live TV, have dozens of inconvenient witnesses die in mysterious circumstances (ordinary citizens who just wanted to do the ‘right thing’), destroy important evidence, lie about the autopsy, risk a nuclear war with Russia (!!) but wouldn’t alter a film to prevent the truth coming out?

Please….

[David G. Healy]

...

Craig has a point when he challenges folk to SHOW how it was altered. Of course an inability to do this in no way negates the fact that it was altered.

...

Craigster has the answer, it's simple, read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Examples of possible 1963-64 film alteration scenarios is pretty clear. The possible techniques are decades, yes DECADES old...

You'd think the whining non film alteration crowd think that possible film alteration was meant to FOOL them? The current LHO di-it-all-by-his lonesome cyber crowd... LMFAO! Not even close... The Z-film is a linchpin, linchpin in proving LHO was the sole assassin in DP that day. Hence, no conspiracy.

The Z-film, if altered need only convince the Warren Commission of LHO complicity AND guilt in the murder, hence their 1964 (Warren Commission) conclusion/determination(s)....

IF done, brilliant.... BRILLIANT!

Edited August 12, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Bernie Laverick]

A QUESTION FOR ANTI-ALTERATIONISTS - Who do you guys think puts up the most honest and well thought out defence to your claims and why? For example, Dale Myers is clearly the guy who hits all the sixes when it comes to the Tippit debate, whether you agree with him or not, he is clearly very well informed and thus a formidable opponent of CTs. Who is his photographic equivalent?

Can't say I admire or respect his conclusions, Bernie, but I would have to acknowledge the quality of information and presentation of it by Richard Trask. Mack's knowledge is formidable, but deployed with a contempt for truth that is itself contemptible.

Thanks Paul, appreciate that...

I read Myers With Malice book a while back and I must say I was impressed. Not by the conclusion but its meticulous attention to detail. It raises the game and provokes conspiracy researchers to raise theirs. That can't be a bad thing.

[Bernie Laverick]

Nobody here is qualified to discuss Z alteration UNLESS they have thoroughly studied:

1. THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX by Fetzer, et al

2. Dr. Costella's webpage on the Z film

3. Everything on Z alteration at the ASSASSINATION SCIENCE website.

4. Doug Horne's Chapter on the film.

Study these things and address specifics they raise. Generalities are meaningless.

What Zavada says is meaningless. What forum members say is meaningless. What

the WR says is meaningless. What the FBI says is meaningless.

Discuss specifics like...DID CHANEY RIDE FORWARD?...DID 56 WITNESSES SAY THE

MOTORCADE CAME TO A HALT?...DID ZAPRUDER SHOOT THE EXTANT FILM?...ETC.

Jack

Thanks jack, I've spent a good while on the assassination science site and I find it compelling. I'll trawl through the others. I know you are a busy guy but if I get bogged down (this is not an easy subject to absorb) would you be able to try and answer any questions I may have. It goes without saying, they will be posed in a totally non confontational manner: I only want to learn.

Thanks again Jack.

[Jack White]

Nobody here is qualified to discuss Z alteration UNLESS they have thoroughly studied:

1. THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX by Fetzer, et al

2. Dr. Costella's webpage on the Z film

3. Everything on Z alteration at the ASSASSINATION SCIENCE website.

4. Doug Horne's Chapter on the film.

Study these things and address specifics they raise. Generalities are meaningless.

What Zavada says is meaningless. What forum members say is meaningless. What

the WR says is meaningless. What the FBI says is meaningless.

Discuss specifics like...DID CHANEY RIDE FORWARD?...DID 56 WITNESSES SAY THE

MOTORCADE CAME TO A HALT?...DID ZAPRUDER SHOOT THE EXTANT FILM?...ETC.

Jack

Thanks jack, I've spent a good while on the assassination science site and I find it compelling. I'll trawl through the others. I know you are a busy guy but if I get bogged down (this is not an easy subject to absorb) would you be able to try and answer any questions I may have. It goes without saying, they will be posed in a totally non confontational manner: I only want to learn.

Thanks again Jack.

I will attempt to answer any questions.

[Craig Lamson]

...

Craig has a point when he challenges folk to SHOW how it was altered. Of course an inability to do this in no way negates the fact that it was altered.

...

Craigster has the answer, it's simple, read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Examples of possible 1963-64 film alteration scenarios is pretty clear. The possible techniques are decades, yes DECADES old...

You'd think the whining non film alteration crowd think that possible film alteration was meant to FOOL them? The current LHO di-it-all-by-his lonesome cyber crowd... LMFAO! Not even close... The Z-film is a linchpin, linchpin in proving LHO was the sole assassin in DP that day. Hence, no conspiracy.

The Z-film, if altered need only convince the Warren Commission of LHO complicity AND guilt in the murder, hence their 1964 (Warren Commission) conclusion/determination(s)....

IF done, brilliant.... BRILLIANT!

Thats not an answer davie, its meaningless. YOU can't put it into action. You are simply waving your hands...and no matter how hard you flap, it's never gonna fly.

And your statement about the WC is simply amazing!

So instead of flapping your hands and your gums, just create your own little Z film with 63 tech. Show us how its done instead of pinching someones elses work and publishing it in a piece of pulp fiction....

Hell, why not show us YOUR FILM based compositiong reel. You have some don't you?

[Bernie Laverick]

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:

Simple question for Craig Lamson: has this film been altered?

[Craig Lamson]

You are just another in a very long line of loony ct photo ignorants. This forum is filled to the brim with them....

Says Craig with his 3,982 posts...most of them dripping with this kind of sneering contempt!

I have been reading this debate for nearly two years and I started off as a rock solidly anit-alterationist. Like you I thought the claims were pure fantasy. Absolutely ridiculous. Actually I thought they were probably being sponsored by those who have a keen interest in deliberately leading researches astray. Yet Craig, you have played a major role in totally swaying me (and probably many others) the other way. You have disproved absolutely nothing of any of the claims being made. Nothing.

Is there not a better example of someone on here who doesn't believe in alteration? Can you suggest anyone Craig who could totally rebuff these nagging questions once and for all? I feel the debate is being short-changed.

There must be someone on here with more intellectual baggage that can easily demonstrate, by reconciling all the peculiarities, omissions, missing frames, inconsistencies with witness testimony etc..., demonstrate why the Zapruder film is perfectly normal and then those who think otherwise will be publicly humiliated for being so gullible.

Because you just ain't doing it Craig.

Move over and let someone else have a crack!

Well there bernie, you just can't wave your hand and make a proclaimation. You need to PROVE it. The vast majority stuff is black and white, yes or no. No speculation required. If you can't PROVE your point, you HAVE no point. Just show us were I have failed to prove my points and WHY.

Or are you yet just another in a very long line of loony ct photo ignorants?

Inquiring minds really want to know.

Show us your stuff bernie...

Edited August 12, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Robert Harris]

(see below)

Edited August 12, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Paul Rigby]

If you can't PROVE your point, you HAVE no t'point.

He can't be from Yorkshire, surely? Well, he unquestionably gets straight t'point. And spells like a Tyke:

http://www.yorkshire-dialect.org/authors/sandra_mills.htm#a_consultation_fer_nowt

Extraordinary. Case closed. After three: "On Lamson Moor Baht 'at..."