Jump to content
The Education Forum

Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

It appears to me that from frames 420-430, Clint Hill is turning to his left, or at least looking over his left shoulder back at the follow-up car.

It could be that the thumbs-down occurs during this sequence but we don't see it because of the sprocket holes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 298
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Good for Jim for focusing on the blacked out area at the back of the head, which is contradicted by Frame 374. What could be a simpler proof than that the blow-out can be seen in Frame 374, but cannot in earlier frames, even though it should be visible in both? The film is not even internally consistent. It was altered.

Frame+374.jpg

And what could be more powerful than that the key player in the extant film has consistently maintained for nearly 50 years now that he undertook a far more extensive series of actions at the time that the minimal acts that can be found in the extant film? Surely no one can reasonably challenge this man's recollections.

John Costella, Ph.D., the leading expert on the film in the world today, who earned his doctorate in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and images of moving objects, responded almost immediately. “Forget about the book”, he wrote. “That YouTube video [of Blaine and Hill at a book signing, which can be found here:

]

is worth its weight in gold!” A few years ago, after he did a compilation of eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza [ http://assassination...5n1costella.pdf ] and created a stabilized version of the Zapruder film, in which the limousine does not move vertically within frames (below), John recognized that what Clint has described from the days after the assassination, to his testimony to the Warren Commission and right up to his last public interviews in the 1970s or 1980s, was consistent but contradicts the film. At the book signing,

24:30: "As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misdirection again.... do you never stop? LOL

This is not about the depth of black in one certain area... this is a simple questioni that you simply cannot answer.

Using any entire frame version of z323 you like. and show us how the blacks and dark areas - ANYPLACE BUT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD can be manipulated to give the appearance that it extends beyond its source....

Don't want to use the attached below? Fine... use any source file you want... just get the effect to work ELSEWHERE in the frame..

Or go away defeated once again.

post-1587-0-73073600-1362159101_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a word of caution. Using Costellas candy pop version is not a good fundament for this enquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Just a word of caution. Using Costellas candy pop version is not a good fundament for this enquiry.

What ridiculous crap! The Costella "combined cut" is the best available

version. What would you recommend in its stead? The MPI version,

which (1) has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; (2) does not

include (what ought to be) frames 341, 350, and 486; (3) does not include

frames 155 and 156; and also (4) does not include frames 208, 209, 210

and 211? Costella removes aspect ratio and pincushion distortion. So why

is John Dovla recommending the use of inferior versions of the film? Does

he know no better, in which case his incompetence is showing; or does he

know better but is asserting this falsehood in a deliberate effort to mislead?

http://assassination...ruderstable.mov

Why do people like John Dolva believe they can get away with such rubbish?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2013 at 9:41 AM, John Dolva said:

Just a word of caution. Using Costellas candy pop version is not a good fundament for this enquiry.

Fair enough John... post a better source file if you have.

My point is that it is a "pop version" for the entire frame, not just JFK's head. Anything done to the entire frame should produce the same kinds of effects as we see over JFK's head.

I even posted Lammy's png-ginourmous version that shows quite plainly a SQUARE over JFK's head, not just some black on full contrast. Below.

Can you explain why the Square is so "square" in this one section of the frame and why he avoids posting any other section of that frame for comparison?

All I did was push the brightness and contrast... nothing else. Doesn't HIS black square give you any cause to be skeptical about that frame's original state?

If this effect occurs with every instance of that depth of color, SHOW IT... or am I being unfair in my request?

DJ

post-1587-0-26846500-1362166653_thumb.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet on the other side of the FAKE coin is Fetzer's declaration about Chaney....

I submit we have definitive proof that Chaney did not do what he said he did until much later... well after McIntyre.

Here is the limo/lead car and all others emerging from the underpass... the lilmo, as we see from Alt7, is a ways back from the lead car yet has already passed it coming out the other end.

We have to agree that no more than a few seconds pass from Alt 7 and the frame of the Daniel film I post here on the left.

I have always agred that the Z-film we see has been changed from its original state (try to remember that Zavada tells us the original does NOPT have the 0183 marking on it... the 0183 was determined to be the original since the SS copies have the 0183 on them.

quote from top of 1a. page 6 : "No processing labratory edge print was seen on the motorcade section of the film we examined. The processing edge print: "PROCESSED BY KODAK (dot) D NOV 63 (month and year)" did appear on the family scenes half of the original roll as evidenced by being printed through onto the Secret Service copies"

Later in 1b page 18 we get to the authenticity of 0183:

".... the perforated identification of (0183) was not seen, but should have been present at the end of the remining blank - unexposed balance of side two if standard handling practice had been followed. We do confirm the Zapruder "Out of the Camera" original was identified "0183" by noting the identification present as "printed through" onto both first generation SS copies made by Jamison film company and located adjeacent to the family scenes"

IOW... since the SS copy has 0183, the original motorcade sequence that does NOT have 0183 must be from the same film as the Zappy family side....

Again, the ONLY PORTION that does not have the 0183 is the assassiantion sequence yet we are supposed to accept that since there are copies with 0183 printed thru the family side... and SHOULD be on the motorcade side... it is STILL the original out of the camera film... :secret

I'm not going to get into a discussion with Lammy over his silly misdirection tactics... he can continue and just play with himself....

I am,on the other hand, going to hope that Jim looks carefully at these images and has a bit of a reversal on his Chaney conclusion as being indiciative of Z-film fakery, when there are more than enough bits to conclude the Zfilm we now have is not the film that came out of ZAP'S camera.

post-1587-0-02010900-1362171771_thumb.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altgen's 7

Newspaper 22/11/63

pres5.jpg

pres4.jpg

Quote:

Hi Robin,

I’ve attached a scan of the original AP wire photo, which is the first one they sent out after Altgens’ roll of film was processed. Note that it is labeled DN1. That means it came from the Dallas Morning News office of the AP. cel stood for caption writer Carl E. Linde, the 6 signified the sixth day of the week (Friday) and 12:55 was the time the image went out to ALL AP subscribers around the world. Next, stf-jwa stands for AP staff photographer James W. Altgens and 1963 is the year it was sent. The day’s date appears at the beginning of the caption.

DN2, as explained by Trask on p. 318 of POTP, was Altgens 6 showing the TSBD doorway. It was sent at 1:03. As best I recall, DN3 was the picture Altgens took as the limo turned onto Houston Street and it soon followed, and DN4 was the cropped version of DN2 to show Kennedy better. Those were the first four photographs the AP sent to subscribers after the Kennedy assassination.

Trask probably has all of four in his collection and the AP certainly has the paperwork behind them. It would be nice to see a high res scan from the original negative, which the AP still has.

Gary Mack

Click on image to view FULLSIZE:

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Yet on the other side of the FAKE coin is Fetzer's declaration about Chaney....

I submit we have definitive proof that Chaney did not do what he said he did until much later... well after McIntyre.

Yes, I agree David.

I don't believe Chaney caught up with the lead car until it reached the top of the Stemmons on ramp.

limo overtakes lead car BEFORE leaving overpass - no Chaney.jpg

McIntire Colorized Crop

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

q

Just a word of caution. Using Costellas candy pop version is not a good fundament for this enquiry.

Fair enough John... post a better source file if you have.

My point is that it is a "pop version" for the entire frame, not just JFK's head. Anything done to the entire frame should produce the same kinds of effects as we see over JFK's head.

I even posted Lammy's png-ginourmous version that shows quite plainly a SQUARE over JFK's head, not just some black on full contrast. Below.

Can you explain why the Square is so "square" in this one section of the frame and why he avoids posting any other section of that frame for comparison?

All I did was push the brightness and contrast... nothing else. Doesn't HIS black square give you any cause to be skeptical about that frame's original state?

If this effect occurs with every instance of that depth of color, SHOW IT... or am I being unfair in my request?

DJ

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the way you misdirect... the ENTIRE frame is of the same origin. The ENTIRE FRAME should react the same way to changes in contrast....

So you dont address why it does not happen with all the other "shaded heads" and blacks in that frame.... and try to misdirect with "image quality" BS.

Why are none of the other areas of that frame reacting to the changes in contrast/brightness the same way as the square hovering over JFK's head...

Show the ENTIRE FRAME Lammy... make any other similar black area do the same thing.... with any image you want to use... I will post yet another full frame -

take a look.... wut up wit dat...? all the other black areas stay in their respective places.... hmmmmm

Finally... here's the png you posted... the GOOD one... with a little contrast and brightness...

My goodness... does that look like a square over the back of his head that doesn't match the pixel structure of the info around it?

LOL! Misdirect? You made a claim the head was blacked in. I just showed you one reason you are wrong, using measurements and film science.

Your inability to understand the subject matter is showing.

Now on to the crap you reposted.

First the png file I posted and then you alliterated came DIRECTLY from your original post. It is EXACTLY as you posted it. I did a copy, and then paste into photoshop, zoomed in with the magnify tool and did a screen capture. The image show just how BADLY your file was processed. It has been DESTROYED and no longer even resembles the frame from the Zapruder film.

Then you apply a worthless set of adjustments to a garbage image and then proceed to declare it shows a black square painted into the Zpruder film.

This is so far beyond silly it not even funny any more.

But hey, why don't you tell us what your ENHANCEMENT actually did to the crappy morass of ipxels you posted and what EXACTLY it tell us, aside from the sad fact you have a copy of photoshop and you don't know how to use it.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lammy:

You should learn to read.

What you so dismissingly refer to as "technical aspect" is the heart of the matter as Zavada places it in his report; and also in his reply to Horne. (I would not be surprised if you did not read either, as you did not know the Eisendrath report existed, or about the witness the ARRB used to impeach the autopsy photos. Par for the course with you.)

Do you have some deep seated need to make yourself look foolish every time you post jimmy? You need to buy a clue, maybe they are on sale at Walmart this week.

Lets look at the statements that are beyond your reading ability...

The technical processes involved in altering a single frame of film be it for still photo are a frame from a motion picture are exactly the same. Is the EQUIPMENT used to do itdifferent? Sometimes. The equipment designed for motion is nothing special or magic, it was designed to MAKE MONEY by doing things FASTER AND CHEAPER.

But the fact remains, regardless of the final medium, the technical process of exposing film remains the same. Quite frankly doing special effects on a still frame is far more demanding since the final image is seen continuously and viewed in much greater detail than a single frame of film that flashes on the screen for 1/24 of a second. Movie special effects of often done "just good enough". Facts of life.

NOW you want to talk about mechanics...sheesh. Try to stay on topic. That's gonna be really tough for you. But don't worry your little head one bit. I'm quite sure theyere will be a long and detailed discussion about the mechanics of trying tot alter the Z film as the hollyweirds claim.

Bt this is what is so laughable in your postings and your manner. You actually seem to think that you are more knowledgeable about this than Zavada! Look at his credentials on film and compare them with yours. Look at his investigation, then look at yours. He used more than his wife.

LOL!

You can't even keep up with the discussion and here you go making up crap from thin air again. I'll make sure to pass this all along to Zavada next time we chat.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a word of caution. Using Costellas candy pop version is not a good fundament for this enquiry.

What ridiculous crap! The Costella "combined cut" is the best available

version. What would you recommend in its stead? The MPI version,

which (1) has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; (2) does not

include (what ought to be) frames 341, 350, and 486; (3) does not include

frames 155 and 156; and also (4) does not include frames 208, 209, 210

and 211? Costella removes aspect ratio and pincushion distortion.

Actually Dolva is correct. The Costella edit is pretty much useless for the type of work asked about here. It is interpolated and has been poorly graded. It is in fact pretty much a mess for detailed study.

The MPI frames, even with their problems wold be a much better choice for this work.

But you won't even begin to understand why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the trouble of individually color adjusting the complete 486 Costella frames because the Candy color was hurting my eyes.

i always prefered his blue border version of the frames, to me they appeared clearer and sharper than his new candy color version.

Zapruder Frames Z001 - Z486 ( Costella frames color adjusted )

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh baloney Lammy.

Again, I don't think you read the Zavada Report.

And again, who took you off moderation?

Was it Simkin?

You are not as smart and all knowing as you think jimmy, and you just made yourself look foolish once again.

I like this one...of many...

ScreenShot2013-03-01at84331PM.jpg

I have no clue who took me off moderation. Why ask me?

Edited by Craig Lamson
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

×
×
  • Create New...