Michael Cross Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 On 1/28/2018 at 2:24 PM, Chris Davidson said: You do not allow yourself to compare the extant film against a normal film. The skips/jerkiness you refer to are there in the extant film. Look harder. For example: I'll use the extant frames 303-306 which are part of the 1/3 second analogy I previously supplied. Use the "convertible top glass side support frame" as a measuring point. Do you see the distance difference between how far the limo travels from z303-z304 and z304-z305. Good luck trying to distinguish that difference viewing a film at 18.3fps. https://drive.google.com/file/d/120IimRdqEKpNTiDtuLiccssoYUlDYVzm/view?usp=sharing. Chris has provided a simple understandable example here. If Walton can't see the anomaly, the disparity, then he either isn't trying (likely) or . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) Michal Cross, My apologies, that example is wrong. I will delete the link. I should have used a stationary object for limo movement. Something like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gy5kpaCREtkFoiQO7oRuyzlRblfbhimg/view?usp=sharing Better yet, in a little while, I'll show the same concept comparing one of the other films to Z. In other words, the backgrounds not syncing. Edited January 30, 2018 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Chris has provided a simple understandable example here. If Walton can't see the anomaly, the disparity, then he either isn't trying (likely) or . ==== Michal Cross, My apologies, that example is wrong. ===== Mike Cross... Now that takes the cake LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 12 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Chris has provided a simple understandable example here. If Walton can't see the anomaly, the disparity, then he either isn't trying (likely) or . ==== Michal Cross, My apologies, that example is wrong. ===== Mike Cross... Now that takes the cake LOL Well, yeah. Shows what I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 29 minutes ago, Michael Cross said: Well, yeah. Shows what I know. Mr Cross... definitely a mountain more than whiny child who can't wait to come on the forum to deliver a few of his "GOTCHA" moments... must help him make it thru the day. You wrote: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Just go here. Instead of creating something from a new technology, go to the above. Download all of the frames of the UNALTERED film there. which is simply a link to Costella's frames... where within this link is it mentioned they are UNALTERED? Have you ever spoken/written to John about these frames... ?? And how again would the finished product of the alteration, taken frame by frame, show it was UNALTERED ??? Answer: it doesn't. the frames, as John intended, shows conclusively that frames were removed, that movement is too fast for reality, that there was a splice rather than a start/start at 132/133, that there is a film break at z156/7 and again from 207 to 212. And then again at 340... and once more at 349/350 You see Mike, whenever there is BLACK in the sprocket area the film was replaced by film from one of the "copies" which didn't have the edge printing. there are from 4 to as many as 7 splices/breaks in the "UNALTERED" film you refer to... and that's before anything of significance was done... There is so much you simply do not know or care to know that it's become a chore trying to get you caught up. Isn't there a thread here for which you DO have something to offer and can spend time annoying people over there for a while ? My G~d you're a PITA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, Michael Walton said: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Just go here. Instead of creating something from a new technology, go to the above. Download all of the frames of the UNALTERED film there. Open up the very first frame - you don't even need special software to do this - if you're using Windows, it will open in picture viewer. Then use your right and left arrow key to shuttle through each frame...you can see it EXACTLY what Zapruder was seeing through his viewfinder. A single image was made 18 times each second that the limo went by. It's not hard to figure out. Really? That's what you're seeing? Then it's all on you and others like you who see something some "more" or "less" on that film. So you have the utmost respect for Jeff Carter. I wonder why that is? Because he was published on Kennedys and King? Did you know I produced the JFK at 100 trailer for Jim DiEugenio? Did you know I made all of the PDFs for that series for DiEugenio? https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-at-100 He wasn't even going to do anything about the 100th birthday but I kept prodding him to do it. The result is above. And I did the Vietnam thing for him too: https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/VietnamDeclassified2017.pdf The only reason why you have the "utmost respect" for Carter is he says his two cents and won't argue the goofier points. He just lets you ramble on about you seeing contrasty blurry fuzzy things. Thanks a ton Mike. As I looked and looked at the film I've just always felt there were weird anomalies with the film such as what I described above. My thinking was that everything in the background, considering Zap. was slightly higher and in front of the bystanders (across the street), everything in the BG moved together, as if they are all on the same plane with no "3D" depth distinction but again, this is all my brain rambling on and on until I get the facts via research. I will take what Dave said and hold it to scrutiny. Thanks again for the frames. Question for anyone reading, has ANYONE EVER reenacted Zaps. filming? I mean has anyone ever pretended to be him and filmed cars going by with bystanders? Edited January 30, 2018 by B. A. Copeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 10 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said: Question for anyone reading, has ANYONE EVER reenacted Zaps. filming? I mean has anyone ever pretended to be him and filmed cars going by with bystanders? The SS and FBI both reenacted the event down Elm Street. The SS one is on YTV everywhere but the FBI color version is very hard to find on YTV. Not even David Von Pein can find it. Ironically enough, when the FBI put together their top-secret (meaning the public never saw it until years later) presentation film about the assassination they included a BW version of the Z film. In that film, the Z film looks and "acts" exactly like it does today (except it's in BW). So if you think about it for a moment, you'd think that there'd be the super secret altered version that Dave here and many of his followers think exists. But it's the exact same one. You can look it up and watch this FBI film on YTV. Also ironically Dave and his cheerleaders here think the film was altered by the Bad Guys to take out some as yet unknown sinister piece of it or frames of it. None of them - NOT A SINGLE ONE - can tell you WHAT it was the the Bad Guys removed, nor WHY. Dave likes to go around saying that Oswald was not in MC. At least with this theory, he has an action (LHO not in MC) and reaction (the government was trying to make LHO look bad). But for the Z film? Nothing. Meanwhile, if there's anything in this case that shows that there WAS a conspiracy, it's the Zapruder film. The shot sequence could not have been pulled off like the WR says it was and all you have to do is watch the existing Z film to see that. Here's a remarkable still color image from the FBI film. Tell me and us how the bullet in the back (marked by the white patch) could have gone through Connally like they say. And the back wound did not even terminate out the front? But nope, Dave and his cheerleaders continue to just poke and prod in their "everything and the kitchen sink too" way of thinking that *everything* in this case is faked or altered somehow. Perhaps someday they'll publish their opus that's been verified by the more respectable wing of the research group showing that yes, the Z film - and all the other films and photos - were faked. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) On 1/31/2018 at 4:47 AM, Michael Walton said: Also ironically Dave and his cheerleaders here think the film was altered by the Bad Guys to take out some as yet unknown sinister piece of it or frames of it. None of them - NOT A SINGLE ONE - can tell you WHAT it was the the Bad Guys removed, nor WHY. {sigh} Let's see... maybe the limo coming to a stop or severely slowing as the shots are coming made the SS look extremely bad Maybe what appears to be multiple shots hitting JFK within an impossible time frame (where a MC rifle could not possibly re-fire) are reduced to 1. Maybe that wide turn onto Elm also made the SS look absurd... additionally, there was a shot or more at the top of Elm... removing that keeps Oswald in the window. Hill reaches the limo in 2.5 steps... they were both claimed to be going 11mph How fast must Hill run to catch the limo in the time allowed? If there were more frames and more time... or if the limo was actually moving at less than 3mph, Hill can make the run and reach the limo... Bottom line Mike... YOU not understanding why something was done is truly not the end of the conversation for the rest of us... YOUR conclusions and the manner in which you reach them is laughable... "Here, go here... read this..." he says.... as long as you don't ask Mike any questions about the work of others, he's fine... How about some common sense Mike? Everything within the JFK evidence is duplicitous... Every film and photo was confiscated asap... Except Zapruder. His film was kid gloves from the start... Could NIX sell his film to LIFE? Muchmore? not so much. Muchmore claims she did not film the shoots. Nix's film original is gone. Bronson is only so good. Towner and Zapruder conflict with each other Hughes cuts off Bell misses it Mr. LIEBELER - Now, Mr. Zapruder, after you had the film developed I understand Mr. Sorrels from the Secret Service came over and helped you get the films developed and you gave two copies of your films to Mr. Sorrels, is that correct?Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes. One we have sent to Washington the same night and one went over for the viewers of the FBI on Ervay Street. Mr. ZAPRUDER - The Secret Service--I brought one roll there and they told me to dispatch it by Army plane or I don't know what they had done with it but it was supposed to have gone to Washington and one of them, I believe, remained here with Mr. Sorrels. He came to my office quite a few times to show them to different people. Now Mike, if there is proof that Zapruder gave up his ORIGINAL film to the FBI/SS much earlier than thought (before LIFE), kinda puts a kink in the timeline, no? And here is your proof... "The BUREAU was furnished a copy by Zapruder" Show us any evidence the CIA was given a copy Friday night... and then tell us why these things are not important to the authenticity of the Zfilm... Edited August 22, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, David Josephs said: Mr Cross... definitely a mountain more than whiny child who can't wait to come on the forum to deliver a few of his "GOTCHA" moments... must help him make it thru the day. You wrote: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Just go here. Instead of creating something from a new technology, go to the above. Download all of the frames of the UNALTERED film there. which is simply a link to Costella's frames... where within this link is it mentioned they are UNALTERED? Have you ever spoken/written to John about these frames... ?? And how again would the finished product of the alteration, taken frame by frame, show it was UNALTERED ??? Answer: it doesn't. the frames, as John intended, shows conclusively that frames were removed, that movement is too fast for reality, that there was a splice rather than a start/start at 132/133, that there is a film break at z156/7 and again from 207 to 212. And then again at 340... and once more at 349/350 You see Mike, whenever there is BLACK in the sprocket area the film was replaced by film from one of the "copies" which didn't have the edge printing. there are from 4 to as many as 7 splices/breaks in the "UNALTERED" film you refer to... and that's before anything of significance was done... There is so much you simply do not know or care to know that it's become a chore trying to get you caught up. Isn't there a thread here for which you DO have something to offer and can spend time annoying people over there for a while ? My G~d you're a PITA Are you addressing me David? *edit, I think I see you are addressing Mr. Walton but started with my name . . . I think. Edited January 31, 2018 by Michael Cross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 27 minutes ago, Michael Cross said: Are you addressing me David? *edit, I think I see you are addressing Mr. Walton but started with my name . . . I think. No Mr. Cross... was addressing Mr. Walton and his inability to tell a crack in the sidewalk from his..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) On 1/30/2018 at 11:57 AM, Chris Davidson said: Michal Cross, My apologies, that example is wrong. I will delete the link. I should have used a stationary object for limo movement. Something like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gy5kpaCREtkFoiQO7oRuyzlRblfbhimg/view?usp=sharing Better yet, in a little while, I'll show the same concept comparing one of the other films to Z. In other words, the backgrounds not syncing. This is more like it: Recommend the study of the running man's steps and Jackie's hand movements in both films. I'll tie this into some upcoming math. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UmaS63O6fMSB5EQP5pa7fLRNY76A2Wwt/view?usp=sharing Added on Edit: I'm going to move the rest of these followup posts to the "Shooter Location" topic. Edited January 31, 2018 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Yes, that's the typical hot takes about the Z film being faked. The usual "she said she didn't see it that way" and "he saw it do something different" and all of a sudden the entire film has been faked. Witness statements are one of the worst and most unreliable means of gathering evidence - very unreliable. None of these people were standing around expecting nor waiting for this to happen, nor consciously paying attention to everything that was going on second by second. And we're expected to believe that because a woman or man says it didn't quite happen that way that we have to come to the conclusion that the entire film was faked? The ultimate proof is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxenlSZHZsX3pHa2s/view None of you will look at it but I'm posting it here again. How is it possible for a film to be faked and then the film shot across the street matches up perfectly with the faked film? Unless that film, too, has been faked? Which won't surprise me in the least if one of Dave's team or Dave himself will say that other film was faked. Then what? The Altgens photos were faked too? Muchmore? Bronson? The Zapata Report backs all of this up completely. They're the only ones who actually handled the film - physically touched it - and concluded it's just a regular old film strip that came out of his camera and was never altered. So keep plugging away, Dave and team - I'm sure you guys are on a major breakthrough in revealing the whole truth regarding the film. And when you ever discover that other Z film that you're 100% sure exists, let us all know on here. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) On 1/31/2018 at 3:16 PM, Michael Walton said: None of you will look at it but I'm posting it here again. How is it possible for a film to be faked and then the film shot across the street matches up perfectly with the faked film? Unless that film, too, has been faked? Which won't surprise me in the least if one of Dave's team or Dave himself will say that other film was faked. Mike... are you trying to say "because I, Mike Walton cannot figure out how something was done, it must NOT have been done" for that sure seems like what you repeat with every post.... I never said the Zfilm film was FAKED. (But you will have a tough time explaining how Muchmore filmed her scene while running back to her office.) We've said they were altered to remove things that needed removing. We've theorized that the film may have been taken at 48fps thereby allowing for this alteration. You honestly think the CIA/SS/NPIC/FBI could not sync up 3 films... which were then locked away for 13 years and not seen by anyone? Who had the films and when, Mike? Who saw the films and when, Mike? Can you give us the Chain of Custody for the films, Mike? Only 3 of them to be concerned with Mike: Nix, Muchmore, Zfilm Muchmore says this: IOW, she stopped filming... amazing how clear and perfect her images of the shot was in any case... And here is NIX at the moment the first 3 surveys claimed a shot was fired... at station 4+96... Does that look like a shot to you...yet the FBI/SS used this film to help determine the placement of the shots... Edited June 18, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 On 1/23/2018 at 2:05 PM, David Josephs said: Thanks Jeff... My confidence level of the "evidence" from that weekend related to Zfilm statements and affidavits is extremely low. The 48fps point is simply to illustrate a process that did not require matte work... just the removal and re-filming of the pieced together final film which allows for the edge printing between sprocket holes to work just fine. This is where I place the changeover to 48fps: Frame #1 shows the expected light bleed... Frame #133 should be similar or at least not look exactly like #135 2 frames later. I see that the wide turn onto Elm and the switchover to 48fps was accomplished for very specific reasons. I've posted this composite image a number of times... Position A is accepted as a location the limo drove thru on its way to z133... it took over 80 frames from the motorcycle cop - in the bottom image - to make that wide turn. We see him disappear to the left of Elm looking up the street and then emerges in the exact same position as the limo in Position A. How does the limo and motorcade get from the turn onto Elm, thru Position A and then to Z133 ? Dave - here is your reply way back to Jeff Carter. The text in red certainly does sound like *something* needed to be altered in some way according to you. If you would simply accept the following: The as is film was shot The as is film was viewed The as is film showed conspiracy Dan Rather lied to the world about what he saw in the as is film The as is film was suppressed from the public until years later ...if you could accept the above, then we wouldn't have to keep spinning our wheels over and over again like this. All the rest - the plats, the briefing boards - is just garbage and meaningless. Go by what you see in the as is film. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) I have found that most all of the fake film arguments are crap. Issues like Jack White's 5 foot Zapruder or the guy who opens his legs in a single frame (385) can be explained. One issue that is still open is John Costella's lack of pincushion distortion in the stemmons sign. The only explanation put forth was that Zapruder panning caused the leaning of the pole to make it appear to swing left as he panned. But a pole leaning away from the observer swings WITH their panning motion not against it as in Zapruder frames 193 to 228. This makes the leaning pole rebuttal impossible. Pincushion distortion should cause the pole in the right corner to lean inward(leftward) about 1 degree and in the left corner (228) it should lean inward(to the right) 1 degree. But in uncorrected frames the pole in 228 and 193 are parallel. No one has a good explanation for this yet. A new issue I cannot resolve. Update: I am moving this subject and posting the issue as a new topic Edited February 1, 2018 by Chris Bristow 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