The Zapruder film and film information between the sprocket holes

[Tom Neal]

Tom writes:

You rebuttal of Dino Brugioni was especially noteworthy!

Thank you. You must be referring to the point I made in my reply to Sandy, that human memory is fallible. Remind me, since I've forgotten, but exactly how many decades after the assassination was Brugioni interviewed? Three? Four?

No. I was referring to the lack of an answer to MY post. An answer to someone else at another time is not considered to be an answer to MY question, so you can drop the "smug" attitude. Especially true when your answer consists of your FALSE assumption that ALL people's memories are unreliable after some unstated time period.

You of course are qualified to judge the accuracy of DB's memory. Have you even watched his interviews? So ALL memory fails after X number of years, no matter HOW big an event happened to be? Do you dispute there are people with photographic memories, and also those that have total recall. His memories are quite clear and he recalls facts effortlessly. Nothing in his interviews that was witnessed by others has been disputed. Where is your proof that DB's memory is faulty regarding this specific event?

I recall quite clearly where I was, who I was with, my reaction and theirs when I learned of the assassination. I have no doubt that in DB's place I would have remembered ENOUGH detail to compare that to the extant film, and I'm convinced his memory is better than mine.

If you can't recall monumental events in your life that occurred 30 or 40 years ago with a fair amount of detail then you are the last one qualified to judge DB's memory.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

Tom,

I can see your zeal to express your beliefs about the "facts" regarding the Z film. According to you, it appears that you and others think that the Z film alteration theory is based on facts, while others like me, Jeremy, the guy who did the Zavada Report and many others are based on opinion.

But for this thread, which specifically discusses the film's sprocket holes and how a guy named Danny said that in 30 years of film transfer, he's never seen images and "information" between the sprocket holes of any films he's worked on, can we stick to the topic at hand? Now, you're probably going to say that I'm avoiding your questions and comments here. I'm not. The topic of this thread has already been answered and debunked.

And I have good news for you. Your partner in "facts" - Chris Davidson - is actually the man that beautifully debunked this crazy thread's theory. If you scroll up to post #13, CD shows a film strip that I believe he shot in Dealey with his own Bell and Howell Zapruder camera. Notice how the film has images over in the sprocket holes. So this completely debunks Danny's" claim that he's never seen anything like this. It's obvious Danny doesn't know what the #### he's talking about.

Of course when I posted about this in #3, people wanted to argue with me, which is perfectly fine. People seem to think I'm David Von Pein II here but they can't be more wrong. But if you go back to CD's post, take note of something. It's so funny. Because even though he debunks "Danny's" hilarious "I've never seen this before in 30 years," crazy theory, CD never says anything...not a one word...about his film strip debunking old Danny. And I think I know why. You see, it's because over on his wacky Swan Song thread, he's constantly trying to prop up his ridiculous claims over there. But here, he doesn't say a word because he knows - absolutely KNOWS - that he doesn't want to show too much enthusiasm with debunking a Z film post that's even crazier than his own.

Meanwhile, I'll be happy to provide you with more fascinating opinions over at Swan Song to counter your facts. Stay tuned.

[Tom Neal]

Jeremy,

What do you think happened that day in DP, and how sure are you that you are right? I'm referring to number/location of shooters, LHO's part, type of weapons and ammo used, number/sequence of shots fired and the location of JFK and JBC's wounds.

[Chris Davidson]

And I have good news for you. Your partner in "facts" - Chris Davidson - is actually the man that beautifully debunked this crazy thread's theory. If you scroll up to post #13, CD shows a film strip that I believe he shot in Dealey with his own Bell and Howell Zapruder camera. Notice how the film has images over in the sprocket holes. So this completely debunks Danny's" claim that he's never seen anything like this. It's obvious Danny doesn't know what the #### he's talking about.

Of course when I posted about this in #3, people wanted to argue with me, which is perfectly fine. People seem to think I'm David Von Pein II here but they can't be more wrong. But if you go back to CD's post, take note of something. It's so funny. Because even though he debunks "Danny's" hilarious "I've never seen this before in 30 years," crazy theory, CD never says anything...not a one word...about his film strip debunking old Danny. And I think I know why. You see, it's because over on his wacky Swan Song thread, he's constantly trying to prop up his ridiculous claims over there. But here, he doesn't say a word because he knows - absolutely KNOWS - that he doesn't want to show too much enthusiasm with debunking a Z film post that's even crazier than his own.

You really believe I didn't know what I was posting with that strip of film? Ignorance is bliss.

In the other topic, I stated:

"If you did answer truthfully, you might then understand why my posting of the series of frames, with full sprocket hole imaging, doesn't dictate the validity of the extant film.

Alteration could mean removal of frames which have never been viewed before.

Primarily an end game of 67% removal, approx."

Still don't grasp the concept and how it relates to the extant zfilm do you.

[Tom Neal]

I can see your zeal to express your beliefs about the "facts" regarding the Z film. According to you, it appears that you and others think that the Z film alteration theory is based on facts

My zeal?

This from the guy who is 100% certain that the Z-film was not touched at all, "There was not a single frame removed." and ignores actual facts.

Show me the Z-film frames that depict the large hole in the back of JFK's head...or don't you believe the wound exists?

You still continue to ignore half a dozen questions I posed on the "Swan Song" thread.

Until you respond to those and the question above it, I cannot be bothered to respond to your nonsense.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

You really believe I didn't know what I was posting with that strip of film? Ignorance is bliss.

Oh, boy, Chris. It' clear to me either your reading comprehension skills or your knack for nuance are sorely lacking...or both. If you don't "get" what I mean by the previous post - and from all indications you don't based on your reply - then you really should stick to Math. But not the garbage you've been posting on Swan Song.

Primarily an end game of 67% removal, approx.

So by your "calculations," the 26-second film, shooting at 48 FPS and then totaling that to 1,248 frames of film and then the Bad Guys removed about 67% of those frames which comes to about 411 frames, right? And why 67% Why not 65% or 33.3%?

Bawwwaaaaaa!

Oh my ####-ing g##, Chris!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Tom writes:

No. I was referring to the lack of an answer to MY post. An answer to someone else at another time is not considered to be an answer to MY question, so you can drop the "smug" attitude. Especially true when your answer consists of your FALSE assumption that ALL people's memories are unreliable after some unstated time period.

You of course are qualified to judge the accuracy of DB's memory. Have you even watched his interviews? So ALL memory fails after X number of years, no matter HOW big an event happened to be? Do you dispute there are people with photographic memories, and also those that have total recall. His memories are quite clear and he recalls facts effortlessly. Nothing in his interviews that was witnessed by others has been disputed. Where is your proof that DB's memory is faulty regarding this specific event?

I recall quite clearly where I was, who I was with, my reaction and theirs when I learned of the assassination. I have no doubt that in DB's place I would have remembered ENOUGH detail to compare that to the extant film, and I'm convinced his memory is better than mine.

If you can't recall monumental events in your life that occurred 30 or 40 years ago with a fair amount of detail then you are the last one qualified to judge DB's memory.

Sorry to hear that your sense of humour has gone missing, Tom. The fact remains that people's memories are fallible. Brugioni was interviewed several decades after the events he claimed to recall. If you find him reliable, that's fine by me, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he may have been mistaken about one or two things.

your answer consists of your FALSE assumption that ALL people's memories are unreliable after some unstated time period

How did you come to that conclusion? Of course it isn't true that "ALL people's memories are unreliable after some unstated time period", nor did I ever suggest such a thing. I notice that after I challenged a couple of equally exaggerated claims that you made on the crazy mathematics thread, you went back and deleted your posts. I hope you don't mind my quoting the whole of the post you made here, just in case.

Tom also writes:

What do you think happened that day in DP, and how sure are you that you are right? I'm referring to number/location of shooters, LHO's part, type of weapons and ammo used, number/sequence of shots fired and the location of JFK and JBC's wounds.

I don't have a strong opinion about most of the details of the shooting, largely because I don't think the evidence permits us to come up with many definitive answers, and partly because some of those details aren't important. Number of shooters? Almost certainly more than one. Whether there were two, three, or thirty-seven shooters, it doesn't affect our understanding of the important question: why the assassination happened. If you're interested in my interpretation of the assassination, you can find out more here.

[Ian Lloyd]

Jus' wond'rin - an 8mm film? Just how big/small is the negative that a blob would have been painted onto a small section of that portion of the negative?

Edited July 28, 2016 by Ian Lloyd

[Michael Walton]

Jus' wond'rin - an 8mm film? Just how big/small is the negative that a blob would have been painted onto a small section of that portion of the negative?

Ian, thank you so very much for your reply about the "blob." I was actually going to type something similar to your reply to Tom Neal and others, who think that you can magically just paint things onto an 8mm frame of film, which is the size of a pinky nail and doing so 53 years ago. As Jeremy clearly explained elsewhere, people who think of these crazy alterations of the Z film were not omnipotent. They couldn't just snap their fingers and say, "Hey, John. Paint out the head. Hey, Rick, take out 67% of the frames." It's ridiculous.

Tom, you know it's very bad form for you to get on this forum, express your "facts" about the Z film, and then just delete them all. To be honest, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

[Tom Neal]

Sorry to hear that your sense of humour has gone missing, Tom.

My sense of humor is alive and well. Instead of using this as an excuse for your statement, say something funny, and I'll laugh...

The fact remains that people's memories are fallible. Brugioni was interviewed several decades after the events he claimed to recall. If you find him reliable, that's fine by me, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he may have been mistaken about one or two things.

Except that I NEVER stated his memory was perfect. I said that monumental events remained in people's minds. I also stated that minor details are not necessary to state that the film is different. You should be interested, but I doubt you are, that Homer McMahon, a top-notch highly experienced photo analyst at NPIC cleared recalled (30 years after the fact) that his interpretation of the film he saw indicated 6-8 shots were fired, from at least 3 different directions. He is also a lifetime expert marksman, and does not see in the extant Z-film what he saw in the film he analyzed in November of 1963. I suppose you will dismiss him also... I have listened to DB quote facts, figures, dates times, etc. with impeccable precision regarding for example U-2 photography during the missile crisis. I made my judgement of his memory based on his performance while you have dismissed his statements with a vague generality and ignored the individual.

I notice that after I challenged a couple of equally exaggerated claims that you made ... you went back and deleted your posts.

Yes, that's right I MUST have deleted them because you thoroughly defeated me with your flawless logic, as you have with this post. As you STATE, I MUST have lied, saying that I removed them because they are OT.

I hope you don't mind my quoting the whole of the post you made here, just in case.

"Just in case" I LIE about what I said. That is quite a totally unwarranted insult to my integrity. BTW, your FALSE politeness fools only Michael Walton.

I have ALREADY stated that I DO MIND you quoting my posts, as you well know. I stated WHY I deleted my posts, something you obviously have read, yet you choose to insult my integrity and call me a l.i.a.r as to why I deleted my posts. Seems to me that's a timeout offense on this site...

QUESTION FOR THE MODERATORS: HAS JB GONE TOO FAR AND BROKEN YET ANOTHER RULE OR NOT???

Tom

Edited July 28, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Tom, you know it's very bad form for you to get on this forum, express your "facts" about the Z film, and then just delete them all. To be honest, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

Mr. Walton you know EXACTLY WHY I deleted those posts. You ego simply won't allow you to admit it.

At the very least you are implying that I lied about WHY I removed them. Why don't you just call me a xxxx? Then we can get together in person and discuss my dishonesty. I have free airline passes for life, and I would LOVE to meet you face to face. Bring Jeremy along with you...

Tom

Edited July 28, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

Jus' wond'rin - an 8mm film? Just how big/small is the negative that a blob would have been painted onto a small section of that portion of the negative?

Ian, thank you so very much for your reply about the "blob." I was actually going to type something similar to your reply to Tom Neal and others, who think that you can magically just paint things onto an 8mm frame of film, which is the size of a pinky nail and doing so 53 years ago. As Jeremy clearly explained elsewhere, people who think of these crazy alterations of the Z film were not omnipotent. They couldn't just snap their fingers and say, "Hey, John. Paint out the head. Hey, Rick, take out 67% of the frames." It's ridiculous.

Common sense -- which seems to have escaped Michael -- tells most people that if alterations were made, they would have been done on large prints. Which later would be photographed back onto 8 mm film. Or something along those lines.

Something else that escapes Michael is the fact the sophisticated special effects were being done even in the private sector around the time of the assassination. Like the animated penguins dancing with Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Does he think those those dancing penguins were painted directly onto the projector film?

Dancing Penguins

Edited July 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Davidson]

Agree Sandy,

There are other processes that would be incorporated while working with large prints also.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ONW1xV09XWjBGVjQ/view?usp=sharing

Added on edit: "Also, while the new Eastman color negative stock is almost grainless, there is a difference in grain between a print-up and a 70mm print made from a 65mm negative"

Edited July 28, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[Douglas Caddy]

Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook today:

On August 5, 1963, representatives of the United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space, underwater or in the atmosphere. The treaty, which President John F. Kennedy signed less than three months before his assassination, was hailed as an important first step toward the control of nuclear weapons. On November 20, 1983 the most terrifying movie I have ever seen was shown on ABC titled The Day After. Director Nicholas Meyer stated "The making of the film was to date the most worthwhile thing I ever got to do in my life," Meyer asserts. "Any movie that the President of the United States winds up saying changed his mind about the idea of a winnable nuclear war is not an insignificant achievement. The Reagan administration came in thinking about 'acceptable numbers' of nuclear casualties. (Reagan's memoirs reveal) what he had to say about the effects of what 'The Day After' had on his thinking.

"When he signed the Intermediate Range Weapons Agreement at Reykjavik (in 1986) with Gorbachev, I got a telegram from his administration that said, 'Don't think your movie didn't have any part of this, because it did.'"

"The Day After" went on to be nominated for 12 Emmy Awards and win two.

It was released theatrically to 40 countries where it did quite well financially. (This reporter actually saw a subtitled theatrical version in Athens, Greece, during the summer of 1984.)

"Whether this is a credit to Meyer or the production team, the film got shown all over the world," says actor Whitman. "It got shown in Russia at a time when you wouldn't expect such a film to be shown." In this upcoming election vote for a President who has the experience and steady temperament, so this will never happen in our lifetime, we not only owe this to JFK's memory, but to our children. Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1la-RwfFzQ

Edited July 28, 2016 by Douglas Caddy

[Tom Neal]

I was actually going to type something similar to your reply to Tom Neal and others, who think that you can magically just paint things onto an 8mm frame of film, which is the size of a pinky nail and doing so 53 years ago. As Jeremy clearly explained elsewhere, people who think of these crazy alterations of the Z film were not omnipotent. They couldn't just snap their fingers and say, "Hey, John. Paint out the head. Hey, Rick, take out 67% of the frames." It's ridiculous.

Common sense -- which seems to have escaped Michael -- tells most people that if alterations were made, they would have been done on large prints. Which later would be photographed back onto 8 mm film. Or something along those lines.

Something else that escapes Michael is the fact the sophisticated special effects were being done even in the private sector around the time of the assassination. Like the animated penguins dancing with Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Does he think those those dancing penguins were painted directly onto the projector film?

Dancing Penguins

Sandy,

On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964:

Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

This animated segment was done in 1943. But according to Mr. Walton and undoubtedly to Mr. Bojczuk who are the McCain and Graham of this forum, *I* am "ridiculous" to suggest that NPIC could have blacked out the back of JFK's head and put a blob on the screen 20 years later. The combination of ignorance and arrogance once again produces the wrong answer. Of course they have BOTH repeatedly ignored this question: Why is a large hole in the back of JFK's head that is bleeding profusely TOTALLY INVISIBLE in the Z-film?

Since MY name was mentioned specifically by Mr. Walton, I'll point out that with his usual inaccurate reports of other people's statements, which for same reason always make the statement appear foolish, at no time did I state that the blob was painted 'directly onto a frame of film.' Despite his stated experience with 8mm film and his 100% confidence that he KNOWS that not a single frame in the z-film was touched - yes that's what he says - the best he can come up with is they couldn't do this on a pinky-nail sized film frame.

Tom

Edited July 28, 2016 by Tom Neal