The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[Sandy Larsen]

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have shown that the motion blur has spontaneously disappeared and that it could not have occurred naturally because it would have required some thought.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You have certainly shown no such thing. In fact, the alterations you are alleging to have taken place are impossible given technology available in 1963.

 

Oh really? I'd like to know what makes you think the alteration I have alleged is impossible given that I HAVEN'T ALLEGED ANY PARTICULAR ALTERATION.

LOL     🤪

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh really? I'd like to know what makes you think the alteration I have alleged is impossible given that I HAVEN'T ALLEGED ANY PARTICULAR ALTERATION.

LOL     🤪

 

You are alleging that the blur in certain Zapruder frames could not occur naturally. So by your definition, the extant frames MUST have been altered in a way that introduced these telltale mistakes. What you have spent this entire thread refusing to do is explain HOW such a thing could possibly be done?

[Sandy Larsen]

35 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

What you have spent this entire thread refusing to do is explain HOW such a thing could possibly be done?

 

I don't need to explain how it was done to prove that it wasn't done naturally.

Just like the Mary Poppins film... I don't know how those penguins got in there, but I know they didn't get in there naturally.

Both these things required some thought, therefore they were done through human intervention.

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 3/11/2022 at 5:19 PM, Mark Knight said:

You just MAY have found the "Rosetta Stone" of film alteration. Some of the witnesses said that the limo slowed/stopped PRIOR to the fatal headshot. If the limo slowed/stopped at approximately Z-310, that would confirm what the witnesses claimed. But since the extant Z-film appears to show no slowing/stop of the limo, that would mean that frame removal may have occurred around this point if the witnesses are correct.

I'm not saying that is or isn't the case. I'm saying that would make sense IF it occurred. Would the SS allow the record to show the limo slowed or stopped 3 frames PRIOR to the fatal headshot? That would make Greer appear to be at fault, to some degree or another, in JFK's murder. [No that doesn't make him a knowledgeable accomplice.]

It's something worth considering. Chris Davidson, does this pass a plausibility test?

Mark,

I always look for similar comparisons.

For example, compare the white stars on the car flag when I slow down the film for 5 consecutive frames.

On the last slowed frame, now look at the policeman's "striped" vest and the white stars on the flag.

Once again, this gif is running at approx 17fps. I used the front tire for stabilization.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

If there is an explanation that doesn't require human intervention, my critics will have to show it to me. ...
I will give my house to anybody who can show how a simple, non-computerized camera can remove motion blur in a photograph or frame that consists of both stationary and moving objects.

It isn't up to anyone to disprove Sandy's claim. The burden of proof is on Sandy.

That, I'm afraid, is how that awkward burden of proof thing works. If you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't prove it, as is currently the case here, then you're left with an empty assertion, just like all the other far-fetched claims of alteration over the years.

Quote

the only plausible answer is that humans have monkeyed around with the film.

I'm sure John Butler and Ralph Cinque think the same thing. The only plausible answer to Phil Willis's extra-long leg is that humans monkeyed around with the film. The only plausible answer to Oswald not being visible in the Altgens 6 photo is that humans, or at a pinch the lizard people, monkeyed around with the photo.

For Sandy and his two compadres, the "only plausible answer" is a far-fetched assertion. If Sandy wants to be taken more seriously than Messrs Butler and Cinque, he needs to show why "humans have monkeyed around with the film" is the only plausible explanation for his pet anomaly. I'd be surprised if he can do this. In fact, I'd be surprised if he even tries, since he hasn't yet made an effort to do so.

If Sandy is feeling brave enough to try, he'll need to start by showing why "humans have monkeyed around with the film" is a plausible explanation at all. He'll need to answer Jonathan's question:

Quote

How was it done?

How were those humans able to monkey around with the film to produce Sandy's pet anomaly? Sandy's answer:

Quote

I don't need to explain how it was done to prove that it wasn't done naturally.

Unfortunately, he does. If Sandy wants to go further than simply asserting that his pet anomaly was done by humans, he will need to show, at the very least, that it was possible for it to have been done by humans.

Maybe he doesn't need to explain every step of the fabrication process (although it would be helpful if he could), but the more details he can provide, the more plausible his explanation will become.

At the moment, he has provided no details at all, no explanation at all. It's just an empty assertion. How did they do it? Sandy evidently doesn't know. Did they snap their fingers and say 'hey presto'? Sandy doesn't know. Did they have sufficient time to do it? Sandy doesn't know. Why did they do it? Sandy doesn't know. Who did it? Sandy doesn't know. Are you sure it was humans who did it and not creatures from the Planet Zog? Sandy doesn't know. Why should anyone care? I don't know.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/14/2022 at 9:13 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Mark,

I always look for similar comparisons.

For example, compare the white stars on the car flag when I slow down the film for 5 consecutive frames.

On the last slowed frame, now look at the policeman's "striped" vest and the white stars on the flag.

Once again, this gif is running at approx 17fps. I used the front tire for stabilization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris,

Can you be more explicit on what you are trying to demonstrate with the last slowed-down frame of this clip?

What I  see is that camera is closely following the car, and thus the flags, at first. And thus there is little motion blur on the stars and so we can make them out. In contrast we cannot make out the stripe on the stationary policeman. But on the very last frame, the camera must have stopped following the car given that the stars at that point have become blurry whereas the stripe on the policeman has become sharp. The motion blur in that frame is primarily on car.

This all makes sense to me. I don't know why you are demonstrating something that makes sense.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Following is an analogy to my and Jeremy's argument over the selective motion blur issue. In this analogy, motion blur anomalies are replaced with the flying penguins we see in the Mary Poppins film. I argue that the insertion of penguins required film alteration by humans.

 

Sandy said:

Cartoonish penguins do not occur naturally in the making of film movies. Some intelligent thought would have been necessary to make and insert cartoonish penguins in such a film. Therefore the above Mary Poppins film required some human intervention in order for those penguins to be inserted. Q.E.D.

Jeremy said:

In order for Sandy to prove that human intervention was required, he needs to prove how humans could have put those penguins in .

Sandy said:

No I don't. All I needed to do is show that intelligent thought was required to put cartoonish penguins in. And only human beings have sufficient intelligent thought to do this.

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sean Coleman]

Penguins notoriously difficult to work with too 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Cartoonish penguins do not occur naturally in the making of film movies. Some intelligent thought would have been necessary to make and insert cartoonish penguins in such a film. Therefore the above Mary Poppins film required some human intervention in order for those penguins to be inserted.

Sandy may not grasp the point, but if he is claiming that cartoon penguins could only have been inserted into the Mary Poppins film by humans, the burden of proof still applies (not that anyone would actually ask for proof, of course). The onus is still, theoretically, on him to justify his claim.

As with his pet anomaly, he would need to show two things: that it was possible, and that it actually happened.

In the case of the dancing penguins, there would presumably be film-makers' textbooks or manuals that he could cite. That would be more than enough to satisfy a reasonable person that humans were capable of inserting cartoon penguins into a film.

He could then complete his proof by also citing a first-hand source to do with the making of Mary Poppins, to show that the penguins actually were inserted into the film.

For example, he could cite a published account (a newspaper or TV interview, say, or a biography or autobiography) by one of the animators who created the penguins, or by the editor who inserted them into the film, or by the director or whoever supervised the process. Again, that would satisfy a reasonable person that the penguins were indeed inserted into the film by humans.

Are there any textbooks or manuals that tell us how Sandy's pet anomaly could have been inserted into the Zapruder film? Are there any first-hand accounts that tell us who altered the Zapruder film in that way? If there are, Sandy needs to produce them.

Until he does, there is no reason to believe that this happened. Why is Sandy so reluctant to justify his claim?

I can't believe Sandy really thought that the cartoon penguins in Mary Poppins were analogous to his pet anomaly in the Zapruder film!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I presume Sandy now accepts that his simplistic 'proof' really wasn't a proof at all.

If he's still having trouble grasping that irksome burden-of-proof concept, I'll try to explain it in a different way. Look again at Sandy's claim about Mary Poppins, as quoted above. The conclusion ("Therefore the above Mary Poppins film required some human intervention ...") depends fundamentally on the premise ("Cartoonish penguins do not occur naturally in the making of film movies").

Now let's swap things around, to match Sandy's claim about the Zapruder film:

Quote

Selective blurring does not occur naturally in the making of home movies. Some intelligent thought would have been necessary to make and insert selective blurring in such a film. Therefore the above Zapruder film required some human intervention in order for that selective blurring to be inserted or generated.

Again, the conclusion depends upon the premise. Unless the premise is justified, the conclusion is invalid. Until Sandy demonstrates that selective blurring could have been  caused, and actually was caused, by human intervention, there's no reason to believe his claim that human intervention was involved.

How, in principle, could human intervention have produced the sort of blurring that we see in the (copies of copies of copies of) Zapruder film frames Sandy is using? How, in principle, might humans have altered the film to achieve this effect?

Once he has answered those questions, Sandy needs to show that human intervention was actually done in this particular instance. To do that, he needs to answer some of the questions he has been avoiding up to now, such as:

• Who does Sandy think altered the film?
• Can Sandy show that they possessed the time and materials that would have allowed them to alter the film?
• How does Sandy think they altered the film to produce that particular effect?
• Does Sandy think they produced that particular effect deliberately or accidentally?
• If it was deliberate, what does Sandy think was their reason for doing it?
• Why does Sandy think any conspirators would have been even the slightest bit concerned about what the film showed?
• How does Sandy think they managed to get around the problem of their alterations being exposed by other films and photos that showed the same scenes?

Incidentally, there's a humorous discussion of Sandy's simplistic claim here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2527-un-altered-film-proves-sandy-is-simple

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/17/2022 at 3:39 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I presume Sandy now accepts that his simplistic 'proof' really wasn't a proof at all.

 

LOL !

Of course my proof is valid proof. Just like my proof for the Mary Poppins penguins is valid proof. You don't need to show how the penguins were inserted to conclude that human beings did it. And likewise you don't need to show how selective deblurring occurred to conclude that human beings did it. In both cases, all you need to do is show that it could not have occurred on its own without intelligent intervention.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/17/2022 at 3:39 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Incidentally, there's a humorous discussion of Sandy's simplistic claim here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2527-un-altered-film-proves-sandy-is-simple

 

I glanced through that thread. A number of guys laughing at me for prior claims I've made -- all of them true, BTW -- for which they have insufficient mental capacity to understand.

One guy laughs at me because I claimed to prove that federal law required postal money orders to be bank stamped throughout the 20th century. I posted the actual regulation in place for 1963 and showed where it instructs banks to stamp postal money orders before submitting them to a federal reserve bank. (All postal money orders were processed by a federal reserve bank.) Oswald's alleged postal money order for his alleged carcano wasn't bank stamped.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22439-yes-postal-money-orders-do-require-bank-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=352969

Another guy laughs at me because I once claimed that if you throw a baseball from the outfield and expect the catcher at home base to catch it, you have to aim the ball very high (like 150 to 200 ft high) because gravity will make the ball drop that far by the time it reaches the catcher. It doesn't feel like you're aiming that high, but you are. (Online trajectory calculators prove me right.)

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22979-why-humes-thought-the-back-missile-hit-at-a-sharp-angle-a-hypothesis/?do=findComment&comment=332348

And there's a guy laughing at me because of evidence I found supporting the apparent fact that LEE Oswald had a missing tooth. Never mind that none of my/our critics could explain all the evidence in support of the missing tooth... other than it can't be true because they don't believe it.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24630-indisputable-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-front-tooth-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not-new-evidence-found/

Likewise, Jeremy claims the methodology used in my selective deblurring proof is flawed simply because he doesn't believe what it proves.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sean Coleman]

On 3/18/2022 at 4:14 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I glanced through that thread. A number of guys laughing at me for prior claims I've made -- all of them true, BTW -- for which they have insufficient mental capacity to understand.

One guy laughs at me because I claimed to prove that federal law required postal money orders to be bank stamped throughout the 20th century. I posted the actual regulation in place for 1963 and showed where it instructs banks to stamp postal money orders before submitting them to a federal reserve bank. (All postal money orders were processed by a federal reserve bank.) Oswald's alleged postal money order for his alleged carcano wasn't bank stamped.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22439-yes-postal-money-orders-do-require-bank-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=352969

Another guy laughs at me because I once claimed that if you throw a baseball from the outfield and expect the catcher at home base to catch it, you have to aim the ball very high (like 150 to 200 ft high) because gravity will make the ball drop that far by the time it reaches the catcher. It doesn't feel like you're aiming that high, but you are. (Online trajectory calculators prove me right.)

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22979-why-humes-thought-the-back-missile-hit-at-a-sharp-angle-a-hypothesis/?do=findComment&comment=332348

And there's a guy laughing at me because of evidence I found supporting the apparent fact that LEE Oswald had a missing tooth. Never mind that none of my/our critics could explain all the evidence in support of the missing tooth... other than it can't be true because they don't believe it.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24630-indisputable-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-front-tooth-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not-new-evidence-found/

Likewise, Jeremy claims the methodology used in my selective deblurring proof is flawed simply because he doesn't believe what it proves.

 

Checked out that thread too- wow man, a lot of theatrical vitriol but not much content….,

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Checked out that thread too- wow man, a lot of theatrical vitriol but not much content….,

 

Thanks for noting that Sean. It seems like my most vocal critics all end up on that forum!  😋   It's a little ironic given that I'm a big proponent of their main claim... that Oswald was out on the steps with Shelley during the shooting. And that Prayer Man is probably him.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

You don't need to show how the penguins were inserted to conclude that human beings did it. And likewise you don't need to show how selective deblurring occurred to conclude that human beings did it.

To conclude that human beings did something, you need to show two things:

• that it is possible for human beings to have done that thing;
• and that humans actually did that thing.

I demonstrated this using Sandy's very own example!

Sandy needs to show, first of all, that it was possible in theory for humans to have caused his pet anomaly. He then needs to provide a plausible account of how humans might have caused the anomaly. 

But he doesn't want to do this. I think we can work out why he doesn't want to justify his claim. It's for the same reason that John Butler doesn't want to explain how the Moorman photo could have been altered before it was broadcast on TV two and a half hours after the assassination, or how all the Altgens photos could have been altered, or ... well, there is an endless list of far-fetched claims that won't ever be justified.

The nearest we've got to an explanation so far from Sandy is: "it's possible that the alterationists made composite frames from other frames ... and then inserted these frames where they needed them." Well, how exactly might those hypothetical "alterationists" have made those hypothetical composite frames? Which frames would they have used to construct the composite frames? What was their reason for using composite frames? Why did they insert those frames where they did? And so on. I'm sure we can all think of several other questions Sandy needs to answer before his claim about composite frames rises above the level of speculation.

Quote

In both cases, all you need to do is show that it could not have occurred on its own without intelligent intervention.

And that is what Sandy has not done. He has not shown how his blurring phenomenon "defies the laws of physics", as he put it, because he has not eliminated all the possible physical causes of that phenomenon.

A couple of pages back, I explained why Sandy was mistaken in trying to eliminate all of the non-human causes by simply defining them out of existence. Sandy appeared at the time to have learned that lesson, but apparently he had not.

We've had 30 years of claims of alteration based on nothing but visual anomalies in the various home movies and photographs taken in Dealey Plaza. Most of these visual anomalies have turned out to have mundane explanations (see Exhibit A: the collected works of John Butler). None of them have been proved to be the result of deliberate alteration.

Given this history of failure, and given Sandy's own history of making dogmatic, far-fetched, evidence-free pronouncements, he really needs to do more than just claim: "I declare that it can only be due to this cause, therefore it was due to this cause".