Chris Davidson Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 36 minutes ago, David Josephs said: John, that you post this with the innocence of a lamb is comical at best... downright nefarious at worst. The is nothing you've said or done on this forum that we haven't already been thru.... try a search of this forum John... LEARN something already... That you don't comprehend the HOW's or WHAT's of this case is obvious... and John Costella would surely back me on this.... you want me to ask him myself or are you going to do it? That you are unaware of the provenance of the film described as "The Zapruder film" is also no real surprise. That you need wikipedia to learn about COINTELPRO is just sad No John, you'll be back on Ignore for me... your lack of any substance and lack of any ability to learn how poor your "analysis" remains is monumental. Any time you see a frame within Costella that has no SPROCKET IMAGE - a frame from a 1st gen copy was supposedly inserted... the "Original" Zfilm has numerous splices and over 45 feet of film when there is only 30 feet to a side.... Again, maybe go read volume 4 of Horne's great work and LEARN something before it's too late.... Thanks David. Nice Recap. Willis stabilized. How is JB ever going to prove Willis's leg is extra long/wide when a gif like this appears and someone says he's stepping backwards up on the curb. Think differently about proving the extant Zfilm is alteration filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 This happens much too often on these Z film threads. Chris Bristow is an honest guy who has done some research on the subject. He posts what I think is a legitimate criticism of Costella. But instead of discussing that issue, we have about 20 straight posts about Butler. And I tune out what somebody consistently spells people's names wrong. I mean what is that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 6 hours ago, David Josephs said: Do you understand that when a frame is torn the images within the frame MAY BE AFFECTED ???? You can see the tear splice as it moves thru the frames... Thanks for this David. It explains, for me anyway, one of the issues I was seeing in this frame. It is the result of a splice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 (edited) I should add that it does appear that frames are gone... while I could be seeing this incorrectly... it appears that JFK swings his head from his left to right in the span of a single frame... which is not possible.... As Chris D. above knows... this is also near the spot which CE884 is changed to frame 161 from 168... I do think a shot hits the street near this point and is why there is a break here - much like 207-212 where there definitely was a shot.... Edited May 29, 2019 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 (edited) This is from Mr. David Healy: Here's a link too Dr. John Costella's presentation at the University of Minnesota in 2003 regarding his Z-film analysis with his 'proofs', the entire presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1B3_sICTAc I would far rather place my confidence in what John Costella said and proved rather than Bristow, Josephs, and the Mitcham Gang. This also goes for Healey and White who were also at this conference. Report post Posted 3 hours ago 5 hours ago, David Josephs said: John, that you post this with the innocence of a lamb is comical at best... downright nefarious at worst. The is nothing you've said or done on this forum that we haven't already been thru.... try a search of this forum John... LEARN something already... That you don't comprehend the HOW's or WHAT's of this case is obvious... and John Costella would surely back me on this.... you want me to ask him myself or are you going to do it? That you are unaware of the provenance of the film described as "The Zapruder film" is also no real surprise. That you need wikipedia to learn about COINTELPRO is just sad No John, you'll be back on Ignore for me... your lack of any substance and lack of any ability to learn how poor your "analysis" remains is monumental. Any time you see a frame within Costella that has no SPROCKET IMAGE - a frame from a 1st gen copy was supposedly inserted... the "Original" Zfilm has numerous splices and over 45 feet of film when there is only 30 feet to a side.... Again, maybe go read volume 4 of Horne's great work and LEARN something before it's too late.... Thanks David. Nice Recap. Willis stabilized. How is JB ever going to prove Willis's leg is extra long/wide when a gif like this appears and someone says he's stepping backwards up on the curb. Think differently about proving the extant Zfilm is alteration filled. This is the kind of stuff people are supposed to believe because it comes from self proclaimed experts in film analysis. Here is Davidson phony, deceptive .gif that each image flashes by at .08 seconds and gives a false impression of what is being seen. Frames 156 to 159 flash by to quickly to be seen adequately. So, we are left with the first and last images to try to understand. There are 8 frames in the .gif and most do not show the following adequately. There is plenty of time to look at frames 156 to 159 and see what they show. "Super leg Phil Willis is a photo editing image in these 4 frames. Everyone but Davidson has dodged this. And, you can see Davidson attempt to validate the Zapruder film above. Davidson says "Think differently about proving the extant Zfilm is alteration filled" Why should I think differently when rubbish such as his is posted. It doesn't look to me that he is stepping backwards as portrayed in Davidson's deceptive work. This was just one of three content problems listed in Zapruder frame 157. Josephs says there is no original research here. That may apply to him and in my opinion it does. His work is not that good and he does make mistakes. 1. The difference in the people in the crosswalk on east Houston and Elm is a Jack White piece that goes back years and it is not original to my work. It is just one of the content problems in Z 157. 2. Try to find something about Phil Willis' extra long leg on the forum before I brought it up. 3. The same goes with the Johnson Security Vehicle being a photo edited image (two rear ends). Try to find that before I brought it up. 4. I haven't gotten to the group of 19 people between the lamppost and the Stemmons sign yet. Parts of them are seen in the four frames just posted. They are a fictitious group. I have posted on this several times and feel no need at this point to offer any more proof. This is original also. 5. The next may not be original as I believe others have posted about it. This is Linda and Rosemary's appearance on the SW corner of Elm and Houston. In the four frames above they have just arrived and Rosemary is making her run. She is far ahead of Linda. Notice the presidential limo is well on its way down Elm Street, but hasn't passed the Stemmons sign. In Elsie Dorman they arrive at the SW corner well before the presidential limousine turns into the intersection. Their order of running into the SW corner is reverse with Linda first and Rosemary second. Don't that big a deal, but it shows one of the films is wrong. We can't have two different realities. 6. There is a problem with the two women standing next to Phil Willis. This is original to me. 7. There is a problem with Pierce Allman and Terry Ford. This is original to me. 8. There is a problem with the number of people on the SW corner in the Zapruder film and Elsie Dorman. Elsie Dorman shows far more people there than Zapruder. This is also original to me. Try to find something about that on the forum before I brought it up. These are the 8 content problems in just Z frame 157. There are more throughout the film. Why worry about Chris Bristow's analysis of John Costella's theory. Between the two I will choose Costella every time. I forgot to mention that Z frames 156 to 159 must be torn frames also. I went on the internet to research torn film frames in the Zapruder film and couldn't find anything. Since Josephs didn't provide a source for his claim does anyone else know anything about torn Zapruder frames that had to be patched? Edited May 30, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: This happens much too often on these Z film threads. Chris Bristow is an honest guy who has done some research on the subject. He posts what I think is a legitimate criticism of Costella. But instead of discussing that issue, we have about 20 straight posts about Butler. And I tune out what somebody consistently spells people's names wrong. I mean what is that about? It's to piss off Ray Mitcham. I inadvertently misspelled his name on one occasion and he made a big deal out of it. Ray consistently harasses and abuses me in his posts. It's just a small way of paying him back. Edited May 30, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 5 hours ago, John Butler said: This is the kind of stuff people are supposed to believe because it comes from self proclaimed experts in film analysis. Here is Davidson phony, deceptive .gif that each image flashes by at .08 seconds and gives a false impression of what is being seen. Frames 156 to 159 flash by to quickly to be seen adequately. So, we are left with the first and last images to try to understand. Proclaimed expert!!! Well no, I just try to make it easier for any laymen with some reasoning abilities to make up their own mind. Last I recall, .08 is slower than 1/18. It's too bad some of the frames appear to you to flash by so quickly. Maybe this is part of your problem. That's why I included the nice red numbers. Did you miss those too? "Super leg Phil Willis is a photo editing image in these 4 frames. Everyone but Davidson has dodged this. And, you can see Davidson attempt to validate the Zapruder film above. You caught me. I've done everything I can to legitimize the extant Zfilm. I've been outed. Davidson says "Think differently about proving the extant Zfilm is alteration filled" Why should I think differently when rubbish such as his is posted. It doesn't look to me that he is stepping backwards as portrayed in Davidson's deceptive work. That's your problem. You choose to see what you want to see. What do you see below since you mentioned something about legs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, John Butler said: It's to piss off Ray Mitcham. I inadvertently misspelled his name on one occasion and he made a big deal out of it. Ray consistently harasses and abuses me in his posts. It's just a small way of paying him back. And you expect people to take you seriously? It really is time to grow up, John. Edited May 30, 2019 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 (edited) Yo, blathering Mitcham Gang. Let’s move on to another content problem found in Zapruder frame 157. This one involves Pierce Allman and Terry Ford. Pierce Allman was a reporter for WFAA Radio in 1963. He, and a companion, Terry Ford stationed themselves on the SW corner of Elm and Houston. They were on the west end of the pavement near the grass when the assassination occurred. You can watch Pierce Allman in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNUSFxdrKtE The problem with the two is that Allman and Ford appear in the Elsie Dorman film and may not appear in the Abraham Zapruder film. There is a difference in time, a slight difference of no more than 14 seconds, between Z frame 157 and this frame from Elsie Dorman. Compare the following, or any Zapruder frame showing the SW corner with the Elsie Dorman frame: You might notice that there are more people there in the Dorman film. Except for the two women in the center the rest are never seen in Zapruder. That is another content problem that will be discussed later. Some people will use any tactic to save the Zapruder Film as one that is true and valid. Just this one frame, Z frame 157, destroys it's validity far better than arguing the technical aspects of a leaning lamppost. The Zapruder film is a malicious fake piece of trash from the U. S. Government during the Johnson administration that has fooled the American public for years. Mainly, because there are people who will fight bitterly to keep the notion alive that the Zapruder Film is a true record of the assassination of President Kennedy while in reality is a fake and a bad fake at that. I will withdrawn this statement as being contentional "You can search all of the frames in the Zapruder film and you will not find the two men, Allman and Ford." Edited May 31, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 1 hour ago, John Butler said: Yo, blathering Mitcham Gang. Let’s move on to another content problem found in Zapruder frame 157. This one involves Pierce Allman and Terry Ford. The only content problem is you basing your conclusions on cr---ppy material. Pierce Allman was a reporter for WFAA Radio in 1963. He, and a companion, Terry Ford stationed themselves on the SW corner of Elm and Houston. They were on the west end of the pavement near the grass when the assassination occurred. You can watch Pierce Allman in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNUSFxdrKtE The problem with the two is that Allman and Ford appear in the Elsie Dorman film and not at all in the Abraham Zapruder film. There is a difference in time, a slight difference of no more than 14 seconds, between Z frame 157 and this frame from Elsie Dorman. You can search all of the frames in the Zapruder film and you will not find the two men, Allman and Ford. Compare the following, or any Zapruder frame showing the SW corner with the Elsie Dorman frame: Perspective is not your strong point. imo If they walk and talk like a duck, that's probably them. SEE ATTACHMENT You might notice that there are more people there in the Dorman film. Except for the two women in the center the rest are never seen in Zapruder. That is another content problem that will be discussed later. Look closer. Some people will use any tactic to save the Zapruder Film as one that is true and valid. Discounted the film many years ago, do some research. Just this one frame, Z frame 157, destroys it's validity far better than arguing the technical aspects of a leaning lamppost. Maybe, you just don't present the right arguments for it. imo I trust Dr. Costella far more with his argument than you with yours. The Zapruder film is a malicious fake piece of trash from the U. S. Government during the Johnson administration that has fooled the American public for years. Is this re-enforcing the notion that we the gang are all lone-nutters and you're the conspiracy theorist? Mainly, because there are people who will fight bitterly to keep the notion alive that the Zapruder Film is a true record of the assassination of President Kennedy while in reality is a fake and a bad fake at that.. We try to create logical arguments based on the best source material we can find, not illogical ones based on the unsightly material you subscribe to. Instead of hijacking the thread with your z157 introduction, why don't you get back on topic and add further technical support for Dr. Costella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 (edited) Davidson, Let the reader decide if this material is unsightly. You are certainly not a judge with the value of your material as recently posted. Anybody can pick out two men in suits and claim they are Allman and Ford. A lady once told me doing family research that it is all about location, location, location. Allman tells you in the video where he was by standing in the spot. He stands there in the video in front of the steps near the end of the pavement going west. It is not across from the TSBD entrance or the upper part of the SW corner. He is near the grass on the west end of the pavement of the SW corner. Both Allman and Ford had cameras and a good question might be what happened to their film? If you notice there is not a crowd of people around him and Ford. And what about the other 8 people there, less the two women shown in Zapruder. They are not shown in Zapruder near the grass. Did they all just wander away? Or, maybe in your delusions they were never there. OBTW, if you watched the video Allman says that when Kennedy rounded the corner onto Elm, Boom! More than 50 other witnesses said shooting occurred there. I guess you will have to rant and rave about how wrong Allman was. Some do. He said the shooting occurred in the intersection. Edited May 31, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 4 hours ago, John Butler said: Y You might notice that there are more people there in the Dorman film. Except for the two women in the center the rest are never seen in Zapruder. That is another content problem that will be discussed later. You supply us with a photo and an arrow pointing to one of two men in close proximity to a woman who appears in both films. You are then shown two men in Z, in close proximity to the same woman. Yes, let others decide. Then you want to move to the SW corner where it is even more densely populated and complain you can't find two reporters. Where's Waldo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 Costella Zapruder Frames Z155 - Z161 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 "Mitcham, Bulman, Davidson, Andrews and Cross". Thanks for the compliment. I respect their opinions and posts. I don't pretend to have the knowledge of the subject they do. All of them have answered questions I've asked or pointed things out to me reasonably and intelligently. I thank them for this and hope they will continue to do so. I can't say the same for you. The frequency and length of your posts in addition to, what can one say but disinformation is informative. Obvious knowledge of the subject, enough to throw out junk. Shots on Main street. A car with two rear ends. A flopping arm over the side, before the head shot. Those are all so ridiculous they sound like pure intentional distractions. I know you claim to not be alone nutter but in a strange way you remind me of John McAdams and a couple of others a few years back on JFKFACTS. The long quick somewhat knowledgeable disinformation retorts. Thanks again for your ad hominem attack associating me with these conspiracy realists, reprobates though they may be. Chris Bristow, sorry for another post distracting from your original post. You went way over my head with the detail in a hurry. Appreciate the opportunity to try to learn more. keep up the good work sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: Thanks again for your ad hominem attack associating me with these conspiracy realists, reprobates though they may be. 👍 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