Jump to content
The Education Forum

Altering the Z film


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Explain Position A if the limo did not swing out wide.  Position A is not in the Zapruder film, where did they come up with it (and WHY?).

Very interesting.  What about witness testimony.  Visually not as good as film or photo.  Or, FBI shennigans.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 4/20/2022 at 3:39 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If you're referring to James Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, thanks, but I have a copy already. There are one or two useful essays in there, but the majority of it is laughably idiotic.

Rain sensors in Dealey Plaza are actually listening devices! They were placed there by Them to spy on fearless investigators who think Mary Moorman was standing in the street! The lampposts were tilted - by Them - to prevent the lampposts being measured accurately! One of the contributors was followed from the airport by Them! His shirt and electric shaver were damaged by Them when They broke into his hotel room!

It's exactly the sort of semi-paranoid stuff that allows the media to equate serious Warren Commission critics with flat-earthers and moon-landings deniers.

And speaking of moon-landings deniers ...

Quote

Jack White ... I believe he testified in a congressional hearing regarding Kennedy assassination film  imagery

Indeed he did! He got humiliated because he set himself up as an expert but didn't understand perspective and didn't know what photogrammetry was. Here's the transcript:

http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html

White's embarrassment at the HSCA hearings came about because he misinterpreted photographs of the sixth-floor rifle, something he did again years later in Fetzer's book.

If you turn to page 99, you'll see a montage containing three photos of the sixth-floor rifle. Each photo was taken side-on but from a slightly different angle, which caused the relative dimensions of the rifle to appear differently in each photo. Jack White claimed that this proved there were three different rifles. The man was an idiot.

With his belief in faked films, faked rifles, faked Oswalds, faked moon landings, and a faked attack on the World Trade Center, Jack White probably did more than anyone else to discredit JFK assassination research as a serious subject.

The Zapruder Waltz a la Jack White:

The-Zapruder-Waltz-a-la-Jack-White.gif

No moon landing here.  Just solid reasoning and evidence.  Jack White did that constantly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Jack White, does anyone know who this man is?

Oswald-lookalike-in-marines-at-basic-Pvt

This photo is from Jack White.  I believe John Pic thought it might be Robert Oswald.  I don't think so.  It is neither Harvey nor Robert Oswald in my opinion.

This young man is a Pvt./E2.  Lee Oswald made this rank but was busted down to private and then again to this rank just before he left the service in March. 1959.

Harvey made this rank and was also busted down also.  I am not sure, but I think he left service as a Pvt./E1 in Sept., 1959.  I'll have to check that.  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

Speaking of Jack White, does anyone know who this man is?

Oswald-lookalike-in-marines-at-basic-Pvt

This photo is from Jack White.  I believe John Pic thought it might be Robert Oswald.  I don't think so.  It is neither Harvey nor Robert Oswald in my opinion.

This young man is a Pvt./E2.  Lee Oswald made this rank but was busted down to private and then again to this rank just before he left the service in March. 1959.

Harvey made this rank and was also busted down also.  I am not sure, but I think he left service as a Pvt./E1 in Sept., 1959.  I'll have to check that.  

Roscoe White?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Price writes:

Quote

to me the significance is about where the limo turned. ... Explain Position A if the limo did not swing out wide.  Position A is not in the Zapruder film, where did they come up with it (and WHY?).

I presume you're referring to the Secret Service re-enactment. I'm not sure why it matters that the re-enactment had the car starting out in this lane rather than that lane, since the shooting didn't begin until the car was some way down the road.

What was so incriminating about which lane the car was in at that point? Why would this have required that section of the film to be destroyed?

I'm not sure where this idea came from in the first place. Is it just a matter of some witnesses claiming something that doesn't quite match what we see in the film? If so, there's a simple explanation: witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes. Take the number of shots. Witnesses claimed there were any number of shots from one to six or more. Some of those witnesses must have been mistaken. Some witnesses claimed that the car stopped, while others claimed that it didn't stop but merely slowed down. One group must have been mistaken. It's no big deal. Witnesses get stuff wrong from time to time.

If we are going to claim that a film has been altered, we'll need much stronger evidence than some anomalous witness statements. Until proper, strong evidence is produced, there's no reason to suppose that the Zapruder film was altered to remove the car's turn onto Elm Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

Jack was a colorful and sometimes helpful member of this forum. ... So I wouldn't put Jack at the top of the heap of those who've discredited the "community." Not by a long shot.

I'm sure he was a pleasant person, and I've heard stories from others about his helpfulness. And, of course, he was a fashion icon, with his trademark turtleneck and cardigan combo.

But he was wrong about almost everything. I think I began lurking here at the end of the Jack White era, and I would have dismissed him as a figure of fun, just one of those crazy types who get attracted to the JFK assassination when they should really be out looking for flying saucers and the lizard people.

One problem was his embarrassing appearance before the HSCA, when he was in effect representing critics of the Warren Commission, combined with his crazy claims about the moon landings being faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center. That nonsense can't have done the public image of JFK assassination research any good at all.

Within the 'community' too, his influence was negative. His everything-is-a-fake obsession would have not only attracted gullible and paranoid people but also repulsed rational people. Looking back through this forum's history, I've noticed plenty of decent researchers who made very useful contributions but who have abandoned the subject. I recall at least one such who gave up researching the assassination because of the influence of White and his intellectual successors.

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a spolling misteke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Richard Price writes:

Quote

...to me the significance is about where the limo turned. ... Explain Position A if the limo did not swing out wide.  Position A is not in the Zapruder film, where did they come up with it (and WHY?).

 

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I presume you're referring to the Secret Service re-enactment. I'm not sure why it matters that the re-enactment had the car starting out in this lane rather than that lane, since the shooting didn't begin until the car was some way down the road.

 

Oh come on... of course they're going to begin the reenactment where they thought the limo actually was. You're in denial.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Roscoe White?

Sean,

Dead on.  I don't know why I couldn't see that.  When you did, I said yep that is Roscoe.

Thanks for the ID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, John Butler said:

The Zapruder Waltz a la Jack White:

The-Zapruder-Waltz-a-la-Jack-White.gif

No moon landing here.  Just solid reasoning and evidence.  Jack White did that constantly.

 

Here's one for Jeremy.  If Jack White was correct, then who filmed the Zapruder film.  Since, Jeremy has now become a conspiracy theorist, I thought he might provide an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Sean,

Dead on.  I don't know why I couldn't see that.  When you did, I said yep that is Roscoe.

Thanks for the ID.

Or as I call him…. ‘the lumpy wristed Carousel wife stripping goldigging son BYP imposter.’

Or LWCWSGSBYPI to make it easier to remember.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Or as I call him…. ‘the lumpy wristed Carousel wife stripping goldigging son BYP imposter.’

Or LWCWSGSBYPI to make it easier to remember.

 

Don't forget Mandarin the assassin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

of course they're going to begin the reenactment where they thought the limo actually was.

I'm genuinely puzzled why anyone should think the car's turn on Elm Street was evidence of conspiracy. No-one has explained what was so incriminating that it necessitated altering a home movie.

John Butler writes:

Quote

If Jack White was correct, then who filmed the Zapruder film.

In real life, Abraham Zapruder filmed the Zapruder film.

In Jack White world, it was probably Stanley Kubrick, who, as we all know, went on to do something similar in the Arizona desert with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.

In John Butler world, I dread to think who filmed the Zapruder film. Betty Oliver, perhaps. Or the same team of Martian doppelganger lizard people who were responsible for faking all the other home movies and photos from Dealey Plaza.

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

I'm genuinely puzzled why anyone should think the car's turn on Elm Street was evidence of conspiracy. No-one has explained what was so incriminating that it necessitated altering a home movie.

John Butler writes:

In real life, Abraham Zapruder filmed the Zapruder film.

In Jack White world, it was probably Stanley Kubrick, who, as we all know, went on to do something similar in the Arizona desert with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.

In John Butler world, I dread to think who filmed the Zapruder film. Betty Oliver, perhaps. Or the same team of Martian doppelganger lizard people who were responsible for faking all the other home movies and photos from Dealey Plaza.

More cointelpro?

"Grasp at Straw Men

Select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way that appears to debunk all the charges, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Become Indignant

Focus on side issues which can be used to suggest your opponent is critical of some sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit. For example, if your opponent criticizes the Israeli government, call him or her an “antisemite.”

Hit and Run

Briefly attack your opponent — then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon to make new accusations — and never answer any subsequent response.

Goad Opponents

Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”

Question Motives

Twist or amplify any fact which could be used to imply your opponent operates out of a hidden agenda or bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Shoot the Messenger

Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label."

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Jeremy B. is in denial without proof or evidence to support his positions.  He has to resort to the the tactics listed above to make his point.  Furthermore, he is ......

OBTW, how do you get away saying such things?  I really would like to know so I can do it too.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In Jack White world, it was probably Stanley Kubrick, who, as we all know, went on to do something similar in the Arizona desert with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.

Jeremy, I quote a very old idiom from what I consider an excellent source.  "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."  Or, to put it in terms of the discussion here, he that doesn't study a subject, but assumes he knows the answer based only on what the majority thinks or what some expert says, is making himself the butt (pun intended) of another old axiom.  "When you assume something you make an A$$ of you and me."  As to your quote above, you might want to look at the work of Marcus Allen and Randy Walsh (among others) who have information posted on YouTube and other online venues.  If you believe the 9-11 story as presented by the MSM and our government, you might want to check that out too.  In order to make an unbiased and truth based answer on any question, you must basically erase the blackboard of your mind and THEN start with a clean slate.  Anything less than this is only reaffirming preexisting assumptions and biases.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...