David Josephs Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 Thanks David... now a question for you... Is what I'm proposing possible and more probable... than traveling mattes and replacing backgrounds? The plate touch ups make sense as only a handful of frames, after the alteration, would be necessary to retouch. 48fps as the limo finishes its WIDE turn onto Elm and on thru till at least z385 in the extant film. Removal of 3/4 of the frames in key areas... no need for mattes as the backgrounds will still match just fine Refilming the altered "master" at 16fps yet with enough frames to run smoothly at 18.3fps Sproket areas are correct the 132 to 133 "splice" works just fine... Some of the frames that did not get removed are "damaged" 157, 208-212, 341, etc... on the new original I will continue to contend that the "viewings" of the zfilm on Friday was not as forthright as we would be led to believe... but that's another discussion I'd like to have with you Cheers David... and thanks for helping on these threads... I value your opinions very much and hope you can help me finalize my evolving theory on how/when it was done. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Thanks David... now a question for you... Is what I'm proposing possible and more probable... than traveling mattes and replacing backgrounds? The plate touch ups make sense as only a handful of frames, after the alteration, would be necessary to retouch. 48fps as the limo finishes its WIDE turn onto Elm and on thru till at least z385 in the extant film. Removal of 3/4 of the frames in key areas... no need for mattes as the backgrounds will still match just fine Refilming the altered "master" at 16fps yet with enough frames to run smoothly at 18.3fps Sproket areas are correct the 132 to 133 "splice" works just fine... Some of the frames that did not get removed are "damaged" 157, 208-212, 341, etc... on the new original I will continue to contend that the "viewings" of the zfilm on Friday was not as forthright as we would be led to believe... but that's another discussion I'd like to have with you Cheers David... and thanks for helping on these threads... I value your opinions very much and hope you can help me finalize my evolving theory on how/when it was done. DJ My oh my, aren't you a technical wiz. Can't WAIT to see Healy reply, if he has the chops. Lets pop some popcorn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) added background via Doug Horne's excellent: The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration by Douglas P. Horne Horne's Zavada.... http://www.jfk-info....Z-DH-032010.pdf Edited April 17, 2013 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) CL... you continue to blow smoke for as long as you like.... ==== I'd ask the moderators to simply abide by the rules of the forum... and keep this person from infecting each and every thread he visits with do nothing, go nowhere posts without even the HINT of validity or, if you prefer, allow him to do his thing and drive those actually INTERESTED IN JFK, away. He's been doing it for years now. THIS is the man you let run rampant, like a mad dog, all over your forum. "Its entertainment, pure and simple" http://educationforu...ndpost&p=271725Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence. Why JFK? Why not. I started into the JFK photo material because I was arguing faked Apollo photo nonsense with Jack White on Dellarosa 's forum and was told I had to do JFK if I wanted to continue to post. Its entertainment, pure and simple. Edited April 17, 2013 by Kathy Beckett removed vulgar phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) CL... you continue to blow smoke for as long as you like.... ==== I'd ask the moderators to simply abide by the rules of the forum... and keep this person from infecting each and every thread he visits with do nothing, go nowhere posts without even the HINT of validity or, if you prefer, allow him to do his thing and drive those actually INTERESTED IN JFK, away. He's been doing it for years now. THIS is the man you let run rampant, like a mad dog, all over your forum. "Its entertainment, pure and simple" http://educationforu...st&p=271725Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence. Why JFK? Why not. I started into the JFK photo material because I was arguing faked Apollo photo nonsense with Jack White on Dellarosa 's forum and was told I had to do JFK if I wanted to continue to post. Its entertainment, pure and simple. Poor davie Jo, lost in his fantasy world with no escape hatch. Your problem is you don't have the first clue about what is valid or not...why just look at your last post to Healy. Is there anything valid in that post? Nope, not even close.... Your theory is laughable, from a technical aspect. You don't even understand 18.3.... And what's wrong with entertainment? Why you offer loads of it with every post. Are you done crying now? Edited April 17, 2013 by Kathy Beckett removed same phrase from quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 yes there is indeed a lot going on.... but I'm going to have to agree with CL here... SEARCH. Include "Chris Davidson", "Tom Purvis", "Survey" "Drommer plat" and "Math" in your searches. Once the alteration is no longer a question (like conspiracy/cover-up) in your mind, as it has in mine... HOW becomes the next task. I can't give you the Reader's Digest version of years of work on this. A hint though... distance and time are related to frames per second. If the limo is moving 1 foot per frame, this equates to the limo's speed IF we accept 18.3fps. If the distances covered do not reveal a steady rate of speed - which they dont - and speed up/slow down is included as they are in real world events - the information offered us by the WCR proves what we see is not what occurred. IE the transition to 207-208 jumping from 12 to over 28mph and then back down again or the jump in 171 from 3.74 to over 17mph... Lamson will stomp and scream and misdirect and whine alot, but will never refute. He does not understand the math or the analysis and his only purpose is to xxxxx.... If he had soemthing to offer... believe me he would, he never shuts up about his 3 little inches... but a simple search will prove time and again he has little to say on this subject other than adhoms. You recap of what the math shows in question form is interesting... the MATH helps explain how what we see and what has been offered as evidence, was created and/or supported. David - could you further unpack the following for me please, there is a lot going on here! If we accept that z313 is the last shot... using the math that took me quite a while to grasp shows why z133 is when we see the limo appear, what is so special about 161-166, why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot, why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313), why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him, and why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder. You say that using the math shows why z133 is when we see the limo appear, what is so special about 161-166, why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot, why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313), why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him, why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder. Am I breaking down that paragraph of your post correctly? Is the math something that I (with a bit of work) can do and will the results of the math show all of the above? Are you able expand on each of the above points or are they just self evident once I run the math, Also He never stopped filming Lindsay... and the attached shows that the restart frame z133 does not have the telltale start-up signatures... it just STARTS I hadn't ever considered whether the Zapruder images I'm familiar with included any stop starts, I just always thought it was one continuous shot. Why do you say z133 is a restart frame and what are the 'telltale start-up signatures' that should be there and are missing? I posted an image that clearly shows the difference between a start-up frame - Z001 - and one that is not - z133. I also include testimony that substantiates Z filming the motorcade without stopping. I'm at a loss for how that is not clear in my post.... Please take some time and do some diligence. If you grasp the math first time thru... wonderful, let me know. But it will be up to you to connect the dots... Curious... are you a long time student of the case... just dabbling right now... are you aware of the Altgens/Hudson references made and just addressing the MATH here... I'm a bit perplexed ?? Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. Always a good omen when other "doubters" recognize that, provided the evidence is factual, understanding the REASON is critical to gaining an understanding as to the WHY? Tom P.S. All that one has to do is take a good look at CE884 (within any set of the Warren Commission evidence) in order to recognize the alterations. It of course helps to have in hand a true copy of the West/WC survey plat as well as the survey notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 yes there is indeed a lot going on.... but I'm going to have to agree with CL here... SEARCH. Include "Chris Davidson", "Tom Purvis", "Survey" "Drommer plat" and "Math" in your searches. Once the alteration is no longer a question (like conspiracy/cover-up) in your mind, as it has in mine... HOW becomes the next task. I can't give you the Reader's Digest version of years of work on this. A hint though... distance and time are related to frames per second. If the limo is moving 1 foot per frame, this equates to the limo's speed IF we accept 18.3fps. If the distances covered do not reveal a steady rate of speed - which they dont - and speed up/slow down is included as they are in real world events - the information offered us by the WCR proves what we see is not what occurred. IE the transition to 207-208 jumping from 12 to over 28mph and then back down again or the jump in 171 from 3.74 to over 17mph... Lamson will stomp and scream and misdirect and whine alot, but will never refute. He does not understand the math or the analysis and his only purpose is to xxxxx.... If he had soemthing to offer... believe me he would, he never shuts up about his 3 little inches... but a simple search will prove time and again he has little to say on this subject other than adhoms. You recap of what the math shows in question form is interesting... the MATH helps explain how what we see and what has been offered as evidence, was created and/or supported. David - could you further unpack the following for me please, there is a lot going on here! If we accept that z313 is the last shot... using the math that took me quite a while to grasp shows why z133 is when we see the limo appear, what is so special about 161-166, why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot, why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313), why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him, and why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder. You say that using the math shows why z133 is when we see the limo appear, what is so special about 161-166, why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot, why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313), why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him, why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder. Am I breaking down that paragraph of your post correctly? Is the math something that I (with a bit of work) can do and will the results of the math show all of the above? Are you able expand on each of the above points or are they just self evident once I run the math, Also He never stopped filming Lindsay... and the attached shows that the restart frame z133 does not have the telltale start-up signatures... it just STARTS I hadn't ever considered whether the Zapruder images I'm familiar with included any stop starts, I just always thought it was one continuous shot. Why do you say z133 is a restart frame and what are the 'telltale start-up signatures' that should be there and are missing? I posted an image that clearly shows the difference between a start-up frame - Z001 - and one that is not - z133. I also include testimony that substantiates Z filming the motorcade without stopping. I'm at a loss for how that is not clear in my post.... Please take some time and do some diligence. If you grasp the math first time thru... wonderful, let me know. But it will be up to you to connect the dots... Curious... are you a long time student of the case... just dabbling right now... are you aware of the Altgens/Hudson references made and just addressing the MATH here... I'm a bit perplexed ?? Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. Always a good omen when other "doubters" recognize that, provided the evidence is factual, understanding the REASON is critical to gaining an understanding as to the WHY? Tom P.S. All that one has to do is take a good look at CE884 (within any set of the Warren Commission evidence) in order to recognize the alterations. It of course helps to have in hand a true copy of the West/WC survey plat as well as the survey notes. Why do you assume either recreation has it correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindsay Anderson Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) Still following the thread, though I got somewhat distracted by the JFK & the KKK thread. This isn't an easy topic to drop in and out of, at times it seems you are talking in code! I am being somewhat misquoted in the repetitions of my earlier post though, as although I questioned the evidence for there being a splice I quickly edited that post and added a subsequent one to say, yes - I do see what David was saying about there being a splice and that it seems so obvious a conclusion that is difficult to imagine how anyone, especially Zavada, could argue against this. David kindly responded with this 'Zavada claims there is a small % of lightness difference... Problem being the stop/starts on the family side of the film all have this telltale LIGHTENING of the first few frames'., Edited April 25, 2013 by Lindsay Anderson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 26, 2013 Author Share Posted April 26, 2013 (edited) Hey there Lindsay, These are the side by sides I did to show that nothing like we see at 001/2/3 is evident when the camera supposedly stopped and restarted at 131/2/3. When added to the testimony of both Zap and Sitz it is really not hard to see this is a splice and not a stop/start. Since his camera was not made to stop and start with such single frame precision as we see from 131 to 132...we can conclude this is an alteration Page 4 of Part 4a of the Zavada study states that First FrameOverExposure occurs AT LEAST twice on the family side and at z frame 001 on the B/Motorcade side http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zavada/zstudy4a.pdf and on page 37 part 4c http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zavada/zstudy4c.pdf On page 39 Zavada once again admits that the Z camera was prone to the First Frame Overexposure and that while he mentions the z131 stop/start he includes: (I did not detect any significant exposure change at this transition) So while each and every other STOP/START has this tell tale sign of such activity... and are included in the report images... There is no such anomolie at 131/132. He also states that 1 of the 5 cameras he DID TEST (just not the Z camera) REPEATEDLY produced First Frame Overexposure... ==== Mr. TRULY. That is right. And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left. If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. Now watch Towner.... when did this occur? Edited May 3, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Hey there Lindsay, These are the side by sides I did to show that nothing like we see at 001/2/3 is evident when the camera supposedly stopped and restarted at 131/2/3. When added to the testimony of both Zap and Sitz it is really not hard to see this is a splice and not a stop/start. Since his camera was not made to stop and start with such single frame precision as we see from 131 to 132...we can conclude this is an alteration Page 4 of Part 4a of the Zavada study states that First FrameOverExposure occurs AT LEAST twice on the family side and at z frame 001 on the B/Motorcade side http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zavada/zstudy4a.pdf and on page 37 part 4c http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zavada/zstudy4c.pdf On page 39 Zavada once again admits that the Z camera was prone to the First Frame Overexposure and that while he mentions the z131 stop/start he includes: (I did not detect any significant exposure change at this transition) So while each and every other STOP/START has this tell tale sign of such activity... and are included in the report images... There is no such anomolie at 131/132. He also states that 1 of the 5 cameras he DID TEST (just not the Z camera) REPEATEDLY produced First Frame Overexposure... ==== Mr. TRULY. That is right. And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left. If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. Now watch Towner.... when did this occur? The davie Jo fantasy continues..."we can conclude". Roflmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 ... The davie Jo fantasy continues..."we can conclude". Roflmao and you thought Z-film alteration was dead..... you're getting old and tired, Craigster... tough to keep up, eh? LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 (edited) ... The davie Jo fantasy continues..."we can conclude". Roflmao and you thought Z-film alteration was dead..... you're getting old and tired, Craigster... tough to keep up, eh? LMAO! It IS dead davie. Just look, here you are trying in vain to keep it alive. You are so predictable and hollow. zfilm alteration...son of Oswald in the doorway...and even more whacky. Edited April 26, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 (edited) Hey daive jo, did you somehow miss the startup frame overexposure in 131/132 in YOUR OWN GRAPHIC? What can we CONCLUDE about you? You got no eyes? Channeling Ralph Cinque? Edited April 26, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 26, 2013 Author Share Posted April 26, 2013 Hey daive jo, did you somehow miss the startup frame overexposure in 131/132 in YOUR OWN GRAPHIC? What can we CONCLUDE about you? You got no eyes? Channeling Ralph Cinque? Not me old man... I have never looked at the original film's frames directly... your hero Zavada tells us that when looking at the original as presented to him, HE could not detect any significant change... I even posted the link for you since I know how computer & mentally challenged you are.. . When have YOU looked at the original frames old man so you can actually make an educated comment about it? Zavada is pretty direct in his statement... your old eyes must be too tired to read things correctly any more I guess. Let me help... "I did not detect" means that he could not find the same anomolie occuring at a place IT SHOULD BE "any significant exposure change" means that while the other stop/start transitions had SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE CHANGES (as I illustrated) there was none ... where? "at this transition" the 131/132 claimed stop/start... So your argument is with ZAVADA old man, not me. I'm simply here to report what your EXPERT told us and put into some context. An EXPERT, mind you, that never got to test the original camera... You remember CONTEXT, that which you refuse to incorporate into your "posting" behavior... it's what separates people like you... from people who know better. On page 39 Zavada once again admits that the Z camera was prone to the First Frame Overexposure and that while he mentions the z131 stop/start he includes: (I did not detect any significant exposure change at this transition) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Hey daive jo, did you somehow miss the startup frame overexposure in 131/132 in YOUR OWN GRAPHIC? What can we CONCLUDE about you? You got no eyes? Channeling Ralph Cinque? Not me old man... I have never looked at the original film's frames directly... your hero Zavada tells us that when looking at the original as presented to him, HE could not detect any significant change... Opps, you look like a fool again...YOUR WORDS... davie jo sez: "These are the side by sides I did to show that nothing like we see at 001/2/3 is evident when the camera supposedly stopped and restarted at 131/2/3". You do that with original frames silly boy? even posted the link for you since I know how computer & mentally challenged you are.. . When have YOU looked at the original frames old man so you can actually make an educated comment about it? And yet you, who posted multi generational images are free to make comments? Hypocrite. And really. really silly. Always fun to catch you with your fingers in the cooking jar. Zavada is pretty direct in his statement... your old eyes must be too tired to read things correctly any more I guess. Let me help... "I did not detect" means that he could not find the same anomolie occuring at a place IT SHOULD BE "any significant exposure change" means that while the other stop/start transitions had SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE CHANGES (as I illustrated) there was none ... where? "at this transition" the 131/132 claimed stop/start... So your argument is with ZAVADA old man, not me. I'm simply here to report what your EXPERT told us and put into some context. An EXPERT, mind you, that never got to test the original camera... You remember CONTEXT, that which you refuse to incorporate into your "posting" behavior... it's what separates people like you... from people who know better. Whoop, Whoop. Whoop, back your silly bus up little boy. YOU got no context little boy, you read once again with your CT goggles on , which filter out reaiity. Thats why you look so silly every time you post. You post nonsense. SO lets Look at the real ..reality based context. Zavada tells us the was no SIGNIFICANT OVEREXPOSURE...NOT THAT THERE WAS NONE. Little boy davie jo looks silly..part one. Zavada tell us later that found some overexposure when he looked at the film with a densitometer. I'm going from memory here since I simply NOT chasing this down for you...and that overexposure was 10 or 15 %. Overexposure but not SIGNIFICANT overexposure. Littleboy daive joe looks silly , part two Then we can look at the side by side YOU prepared ( not original files I might add, and gee you COMMENTED...) and we can clearly seehtis overexposure. The easy place, the side of the lihgt blue Lincoln. Educated guess...1/3 of a stop over exposure. Significant...(whatever that means)...Nope. First frame oversexposure...YEP Little boy davie jo looks silly part three. On page 39 Zavada once again admits that the Z camera was prone to the First Frame Overexposure and that while he mentions the z131 stop/start he includes: (I did not detect any significant exposure change at this transition) He also tells us the condition is hit or miss, and that it is not a GIVEN on every cameras or at every time. These are low tech, low tolerence mechical devices. Welcome to reality...oh wait your CT goggle prevent reality from entering your brain. Too bad, condenmed forever to bising silly... And guess what there is first frame OVEREXPOSURE. YOU proved it. ROFLMAO! Silly little boy. Time for you to slink back into your hole. 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