Bill Cheslock Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Zapruder Zoomed Frames GIF Stabilized. ( 19-frames ) 2.75MB As well as the skull flap on the side of the head, there also appears to be a large "fleshy mass" hanging down in the front of kennedy's face ? Click on thumbnail to view full size: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) ... You know it really is not that hard for me to accept alteration. It only takes on thing for that to happen. An expert in the field to tell me it is so. So far, not one credible expert has done so. ... Mike LMAO! Dude there are NO credible film post production experts on the lone nut side of the fence, that's YOUR problem.... hell, even Roland Zavada knows ziltch concerning film composition, and he'll admit - best he can do is tell us, "yep, its KODAK film alright". That's it my-man! Wild Bill Miller, Duncan, even you Private not to mention all the rest of the wannabe Dealey Plaza film-photo preservers of the historical record can't find a legitimate source to counter simple facts on the table. Facts that continue to stick in their (your) craws: long held SMPE (Society of Motion Picture Engineers -created 1916- documentation of layers and matte techniques i.e., post-production film producer-directors, artists, matte craftsmen, the equipment, the technology, know-how and most important: **T-I-M-E**.... yes that too, TIME! Face it, you need the Zapruder film, to support WCR nonsense.... I care not one wit if Oswald was involved in the assassination, I have no doggie in that fight! However, IF Oswald WAS, then Oswald got what he deserved. IF he WASN'T, and there's nothing in the evidence that I've read or heard after all these years that leads me to believe a court of law (based on what we NOW know of Oswald), would convict him. Basing Oswalds guilt on the Zapruder film as we know it today, is fools folley. The Zapruder film (as evidence in a court of law), its film authentication and legitimacy would certainly be challenged. The 6th Floor Museum (a temple to political assassination and supporting voyers), its City Fathers arrogance aside, I doubt would see a drop in their monthly gate--whether the Z-film is altered, or not! Go figure! Edited February 24, 2011 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Zapruder Zoomed Frames GIF Stabilized. ( 19-frames ) 2.75MB As well as the skull flap on the side of the head, there also appears to be a large "fleshy mass" hanging down in the front of kennedy's face ? Click on thumbnail to view full size: As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet. Herb, Great to see a post of yours... Enjoyed your contributions during the early days at Rich Dellarosa's, JFKResearch. Hope all is well with you and yours.... David 'aeffects' Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 ... You know it really is not that hard for me to accept alteration. It only takes on thing for that to happen. An expert in the field to tell me it is so. So far, not one credible expert has done so. ... Mike LMAO! Dude there are NO credible film post production experts on the lone nut side of the fence, that's YOUR problem.... hell, even Roland Zavada knows ziltch concerning film composition, and he'll admit - best he can do is tell us, "yep, its KODAK film alright". That's it my-man! Wild Bill Miller, Duncan, even you Private not to mention all the rest of the wannabe Dealey Plaza film-photo preservers of the historical record can't find a legitimate source to counter simple facts on the table. Facts that continue to stick in their (your) craws: long held SMPE (Society of Motion Picture Engineers -created 1916- documentation of layers and matte techniques i.e., post-production film producer-directors, artists, matte craftsmen, the equipment, the technology, know-how and most important: **T-I-M-E**.... yes that too, TIME! Face it, you need the Zapruder film, to support WCR nonsense.... I care not one wit if Oswald was involved in the assassination, I have no doggie in that fight! However, IF Oswald WAS, then Oswald got what he deserved. IF he WASN'T, and there's nothing in the evidence that I've read or heard after all these years that leads me to believe a court of law (based on what we NOW know of Oswald), would convict him. Basing Oswalds guilt on the Zapruder film as we know it today, is fools folley. The Zapruder film (as evidence in a court of law), its film authentication and legitimacy would certainly be challenged. The 6th Floor Museum (a temple to political assassination and supporting voyers), its City Fathers arrogance aside, I doubt would see a drop in their monthly gate--whether the Z-film is altered, or not! Go figure! When one accepts that any proclaimed alterations would have been accomplished by experts within the field, then one must thereafter assume that it will take the same quality of expertise and extreme diligence to ultimately find those minute signs of alteration that a perpretrator would have overlooked.. Kind of like searching for the "Holy Grail", except that the alteration most certainly exists. Tom P.S. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was most certainly an "Expert". There can be little doubt of film alteration, just as there is little doubt that CE399 DID NOT do what Specter & Company claimed. Finding and proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) may be capable of being achieved for a 12-man/woman jury. Proving it to the entire world is most unlikely, and those who participated in the alteration of WC evidence were masters of their trade. Be it alteration, or obfuscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 ... You know it really is not that hard for me to accept alteration. It only takes on thing for that to happen. An expert in the field to tell me it is so. So far, not one credible expert has done so. ... Mike LMAO! Dude there are NO credible film post production experts on the lone nut side of the fence, that's YOUR problem.... hell, even Roland Zavada knows ziltch concerning film composition, and he'll admit - best he can do is tell us, "yep, its KODAK film alright". That's it my-man! Wild Bill Miller, Duncan, even you Private not to mention all the rest of the wannabe Dealey Plaza film-photo preservers of the historical record can't find a legitimate source to counter simple facts on the table. Facts that continue to stick in their (your) craws: long held SMPE (Society of Motion Picture Engineers -created 1916- documentation of layers and matte techniques i.e., post-production film producer-directors, artists, matte craftsmen, the equipment, the technology, know-how and most important: **T-I-M-E**.... yes that too, TIME! Face it, you need the Zapruder film, to support WCR nonsense.... I care not one wit if Oswald was involved in the assassination, I have no doggie in that fight! However, IF Oswald WAS, then Oswald got what he deserved. IF he WASN'T, and there's nothing in the evidence that I've read or heard after all these years that leads me to believe a court of law (based on what we NOW know of Oswald), would convict him. Basing Oswalds guilt on the Zapruder film as we know it today, is fools folley. The Zapruder film (as evidence in a court of law), its film authentication and legitimacy would certainly be challenged. The 6th Floor Museum (a temple to political assassination and supporting voyers), its City Fathers arrogance aside, I doubt would see a drop in their monthly gate--whether the Z-film is altered, or not! Go figure! When one accepts that any proclaimed alterations would have been accomplished by experts within the field, then one must thereafter assume that it will take the same quality of expertise and extreme diligence to ultimately find those minute signs of alteration that a perpretrator would have overlooked.. Kind of like searching for the "Holy Grail", except that the alteration most certainly exists. Tom P.S. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was most certainly an "Expert". There can be little doubt of film alteration, just as there is little doubt that CE399 DID NOT do what Specter & Company claimed. Finding and proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) may be capable of being achieved for a 12-man/woman jury. Proving it to the entire world is most unlikely, and those who participated in the alteration of WC evidence were masters of their trade. Be it alteration, or obfuscation. Amen, brother.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Edited; Edited February 25, 2011 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 Stabilized GIF using lightened frames 5.5MB Z-312 - Z345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Facts that continue to stick in their (your) craws: long held SMPE (Society of Motion Picture Engineers -created 1916- documentation of layers and matte techniques i.e., post-production film producer-directors, artists, matte craftsmen, the equipment, the technology, know-how and most important: **T-I-M-E**.... yes that too, TIME! How silly of you dave, to conclude that "method" is some sort of proof. So show us dave some PROOF that this "method" produced an altered film. Clearly you can do this? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 LMAO! Dude there are NO credible film post production experts on the lone nut side of the fence, that's YOUR problem.... Who are the credible film post production experts on YOUR side of the table and where is their work that proves the film is altered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Stabilized GIF using lightened frames 5.5MB Z-312 - Z345 Robin, Very nice. I didnt even have to ask and there it is, a lightened version of your gif. Thanks. I can see the first skull fragment clearly now, so amend this portion of my previous post .… One flies forward. In your gif it is seen in Z-314 just to the right of Jackies head. From other, lighter, versions of the Z-film Ive seen it can be seen to apparently hit the back of Mrs. Connallys jumpseat and drop into the backseat. This skull fragment was pointed out to me some years back by Steve Barber. …to read… One flies forward and downward. It is first seen clearly in Z-314 just to the right of Jackies head. Its next seen clearly in Z-321 or so, just forward of the forward- most rose in Jackies bouquet apparently in the midst of bouncing of off the upper inboard edge of the back of Mrs. Connallys jumpseat, where it then drops into the limousine. This skull fragment was pointed out to me some years back by Steve Barber. A sequence of stills showing this would be really nice. Todd Edited February 25, 2011 by Todd W. Vaughan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb White Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Zapruder Zoomed Frames GIF Stabilized. ( 19-frames ) 2.75MB As well as the skull flap on the side of the head, there also appears to be a large "fleshy mass" hanging down in the front of kennedy's face ? Click on thumbnail to view full size: As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet. Oy Never have so many been confused by so few..... Actually: Never have so many fallen for and believed so much BS without some form of factual evidence to support it. Especially when ALL of the factual evidence contradicts such an assinine claim. Yes, it woud be so much easier to believe you and Mike Williams self important bloviating, than my lieing eyes. Far better to "bloviate" than to assume that I was born with some mystical ability to look at even a good photograph and thereafter decipher anything factual from it. Us pore ole "bloviating" country boys are therefore destined to base our determinations on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and actual physical evidence. My God!---------Is not that how the true criminal investigators actually do it also????????? Except of course those on the TV programs who utilize all of those who are born with great mystical abilities. Tom P.S. It is not your eyes that are lieing to you. It is merely a severely misguided portion of your cerebral capacity that has you convined that you have "crystal ball" abilities. The list of things that have been determined by looking at good photographs is just about endless. No mystical ability required...just an open mind. No problem using forensics, ballistics etc., but when they are possibly tainted, or dozens of differing views on them are out there, from many differing sources, some good some dubious, I have my doubts yours have any more validity. Oh, I guess a whiz bang criminal investigator like yourself could show me his badge and impress me, but only if it didn't come out of a cereal box. And, unlike many others, I never said I was convinced about anything if you read my original statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb White Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Zapruder Zoomed Frames GIF Stabilized. ( 19-frames ) 2.75MB As well as the skull flap on the side of the head, there also appears to be a large "fleshy mass" hanging down in the front of kennedy's face ? Click on thumbnail to view full size: As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet. Oy Never have so many been confused by so few..... Actually: Never have so many fallen for and believed so much BS without some form of factual evidence to support it. Especially when ALL of the factual evidence contradicts such an assinine claim. Yes, it woud be so much easier to believe you and Mike Williams self important bloviating, than my lieing eyes. Far better to "bloviate" than to assume that I was born with some mystical ability to look at even a good photograph and thereafter decipher anything factual from it. Us pore ole "bloviating" country boys are therefore destined to base our determinations on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and actual physical evidence. My God!---------Is not that how the true criminal investigators actually do it also????????? Except of course those on the TV programs who utilize all of those who are born with great mystical abilities. Tom P.S. It is not your eyes that are lieing to you. It is merely a severely misguided portion of your cerebral capacity that has you convined that you have "crystal ball" abilities. And by the way, it's a bit strange to lecture on cerebral capacity, when a "pore" ol country boy can't spell poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) LMAO! Dude there are NO credible film post production experts on the lone nut side of the fence, that's YOUR problem.... Who are the credible film post production experts on YOUR side of the table and where is their work that proves the film is altered? who is talking about "proving" the Z-film IS altered? It's, could be altered son, that's C-O-U-L-D be altered and if so, HOW! If you choose staying on topic, and want to post further with this subject matter, you're going to have at least 300-500 published articles to refute, that's after your head-on-collision with the American Society of Cinematographers, Cinema Technology, Society of Motion Picture Engineers, i.e., Saving Scenes with Opticals-- American Cinematographer., February 1964, pg.92. (notice the date even). The Gang of 8 will be busy for years... I could go on for days... but here's what I suggest, purchase (on-line) Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography 1965 Library of Congress Catolog Card #64-8116, head for the bibliography page 376 -- get yourself and education in the subject matter. Then we'll talk! Edited February 25, 2011 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 LMAO! Dude there are NO credible film post production experts on the lone nut side of the fence, that's YOUR problem.... Who are the credible film post production experts on YOUR side of the table and where is their work that proves the film is altered? who is talking about "proving" the Z-film IS altered? It's, could be altered son, that's C-O-U-L-D be altered and if so, HOW! If you choose staying on topic, and want to post further with this subject matter, you're going to have at least 300-500 published articles to refute, that's after your head-on-collision with the American Society of Cinematographers, Cinema Technology, Society of Motion Picture Engineers, i.e., Saving Scenes with Opticals-- American Cinematographer., February 1964, pg.92. (notice the date even). The Gang of 8 will be busy for years... I could go on for days... but here's what I suggest, purchase (on-line) Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography 1965 Library of Congress Catolog Card #64-8116, head for the bibliography page 376 -- get yourself and education in the subject matter. Then we'll talk! Ah dave, how soon you forget..the availability of a METHOD is MEANINLESS. And COULD even moreso. But lets translate from davespeak. Sorry, I got no credible "experts" who can prove ANYTHING. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) As Jackie pushes kennedy's head forward, this appears to show a falling piece of flesh or bone fragment ? Click on thumbnail to view full size.( 4 - Frames ) Edited February 26, 2011 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now