Altering the Z film

[John Butler]

David,

Thanks for reminding me about cointelpro tactics.  If other folks are like me, I have let those things slip from my mind.  To make up, I have posted a few.  I couldn't find yours (I will search again), but these that I have posted should be adequate.

[Pat Speer]

On 4/22/2022 at 6:01 PM, John Butler said:

The Zapruder Waltz a la Jack White:

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

 

This is typical of the kind of stuff Jack used to present that would quickly get shot down. The outline of Sitzman's skirt has been added to suggest she was in front of Zapruder. But that's just in his head. The image is too blurry. Zapruder could very well be in front and to the side of her. 

Here they are in Willis. 

[John Butler]

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

This is typical of the kind of stuff Jack used to present that would quickly get shot down.

The waltz expression concerns their movement on the area they were standing on.  Also, in Jack's example it is not the skirt that is important, but the legs are in front of Zapruder.  Unless one suggests Zapruder had women's legs.  The second example shows basically the same thing seen from a different, perspective angle.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

The waltz expression concerns their movement on the area they were standing on.  Also, in Jack's example it is not the skirt that is important, but the legs are in front of Zapruder.  Unless one suggests Zapruder had women's legs.  The second example shows basically the same thing seen from a different, perspective angle.

His legs are in front of hers. This is the problem with using blurry images. It becomes a Rorschach test where people see what they want to see, or see what others tell them they should see. I see Zapruder's legs in front of Sitzman's. 

[Michael Crane]

Really Pat? 

To me if you look down lower it appears as though Sitzman would fall off the front first.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Really Pat? 

To me if you look down lower it appears as though Sitzman would fall off the front first.

Let's be clear. The Willis photo shows Zapruder and Sitzman from the east. He is further south than she is, that is, he is closer to the street as it passes by closest to them. But she appears to be closer to the eastern edge of the pedestal. 

The Bronson film, on the other hand, was taken from hundreds of feet to the south of Willis. From this angle Zapruder appears to be slightly in front of Sitzman, that is, he remains closer to the street as it passes by closest to them. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Richard Price writes:

Quote

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.

I presume you mean this Marcus Allen and Randy Walsh:

https://authorrandywalsh.com/

Here is a passage from the web page in question:

Quote

Marcus Allen is the U.K. distritutor for NEXUS magazine and has been researching the Apollo Moon mission hoax for over 25 years.

Here we discuss ongoing and new information with the Apollo Moon mission hoax. Part II coming soon...

The Apollo Moon Missions Hoax Part I and II: Hiding A Hoax In Plain Sight are available on Amazon.com.

I presume that Richard agrees with these people that the moon landings were a hoax. That's OK - everyone is entitled to their opinion. But in the interests of balance, here are a just a few sources arguing that the moon landings did indeed happen:

• https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/48774080
• https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/
• http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html
• https://www.history.com/news/moon-landing-fake-conspiracy-theories

NASA has announced plans for "astronauts landing on the lunar South Pole by 2024" (https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/back.html). I don't know whether it will happen as soon as that, but they certainly appear to have solid plans to go (back, maybe) to the moon. This raises a couple of questions:

• What is the moon-hoax community's opinion of this? If this plan goes ahead, will these moon landings be hoaxes too?
• Since Stanley Kubrick is no longer with us, does NASA have any other directors in mind?

To guide this thread back to JFK-related matters, I'm also curious about what a moon-hoax enthusiast would think of John Butler's theory that all the home movies and photographs from Dealey Plaza were faked. How would Richard rate John's theory on the wacky-o-meter, using a scale of 1 (perfectly sensible!) to 10 (fruitcake alert!)?

In other words, is John's theory more or less credible than the moon-hoax theory?

[Richard Price]

Jeremy, your response unfortunately tells me that you do not research/study/seek truth in earnest.  You simply look for confirmation of your preconceived convictions.  You then cite these confirmations which are acceptable to you because they are within the mainstream of thought.  If the majority believes it, it must be true, right?  More often than not your responses contain none of the proof you ask of those who question you. 

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

How would Richard rate John's theory on the wacky-o-meter, using a scale of 1 (perfectly sensible!) to 10 (fruitcake alert!)?

In other words, is John's theory more or less credible than the moon-hoax theory?

On this question, I will not take your bait and try to create derision in place of discussion.  I read and process most all postings on this forum seeking information.  My simple rule is:  1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”  I presume that you will be familiar with where this comes from and it will allow you to further categorize me into one of your "bins".  In order to separate/divide people, you must do this.  My best to you.  I will continue to read and study posts on the forum to accumulate new information, opinions and ideas.  I hope you will as well.  Just stop grading everyone else by your scale and then denigrating them when they don't measure up (we all have opinions & scales).  Trying to make someone else's ideas small does not make yours LARGE (or correct).  Now, lets get back on topic and quit commenting on each other.

[John Butler]

40 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

Jeremy, your response unfortunately tells me that you do not research/study/seek truth in earnest.  You simply look for confirmation of your preconceived convictions.  You then cite these confirmations which are acceptable to you because they are within the mainstream of thought.  If the majority believes it, it must be true, right?  More often than not your responses contain none of the proof you ask of those who question you. 

On this question, I will not take your bait and try to create derision in place of discussion.  I read and process most all postings on this forum seeking information.  My simple rule is:  1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”  I presume that you will be familiar with where this comes from and it will allow you to further categorize me into one of your "bins".  In order to separate/divide people, you must do this.  My best to you.  I will continue to read and study posts on the forum to accumulate new information, opinions and ideas.  I hope you will as well.  Just stop grading everyone else by your scale and then denigrating them when they don't measure up (we all have opinions & scales).  Trying to make someone else's ideas small does not make yours LARGE (or correct).  Now, lets get back on topic and quit commenting on each other.

ditto.

[John Butler]

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is typical of the kind of stuff Jack used to present that would quickly get shot down. The outline of Sitzman's skirt has been added to suggest she was in front of Zapruder. But that's just in his head. The image is too blurry. Zapruder could very well be in front and to the side of her. 

Here they are in Willis. 

This is real blurry after several mags.  But, it does show Sitzman first on the pedestal just as it does in Speer's example.

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/24/2022 at 7:01 AM, John Butler said:

Sandy Larsen [DID NOT] 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,

I did not write that, Jeremy did. Please remove my name from it.

 

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

John,

I did not write that, Jeremy did. Please remove my name from it.

 

Sorry,

It is the editor that does that when quoting.  I will take care of that right away.

[Sandy Larsen]

•  

 

We can see in the top photo that Sitzman's clothing is light colored. But we see no light colored clothing at all (which would be a light gray in a B&W picture) in Jack White's demo. Therefore we know that she is NOT in front of Zapruder. The top photo shows that Zapruder is wearing dark clothing, which is what we see in White's demo. Which again is consistent with Zapruder standing in front of Sitzman.

In fact, both photos show Zapruder standing closer to the road (and in front of Sitzman) where Kennedy was shot in the head. They appear side-by-side in the Jack White demo only because we are viewing them from the side instead of the front.

I'm not sure what is making what looks like two women's legs in White's demo. But certainly they are not women's legs.

 

[John Butler]

On 4/24/2022 at 4:18 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

Sandy,

This should help with that editor problem.  It is Jeremy's unanswerable question tactic.

[John Butler]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

•  

 

We can see in the top photo that Sitzman's clothing is light colored. But we see no light colored clothing at all (which would be a light gray in a B&W picture) in Jack White's demo. Therefore we know that she is NOT in front of Zapruder. The top photo shows that Zapruder is wearing dark clothing, which is what we see in White's demo. Which again is consistent with Zapruder standing in front of Sitzman.

In fact, both photos show Zapruder standing closer to the road (and in front of Sitzman) where Kennedy was shot in the head. They appear side-by-side in the Jack White demo only because we are viewing them from the side instead of the front.

I'm not sure what is making what looks like two women's legs in White's demo. But certainly they are not women's legs.

 

If you look closely at the shape of the pedestal, Sitzman's feet are closer to the front of the pedestal than Zapruder's feet.  That can be seen in any of the examples posted.  

Edited April 25, 2022 by John Butler