Zapruder, Four questions..

[David G. Healy]

quote]

[...]

Zavada visited Professor Fielding in 2003 to ensure his conclusions about the improbability of alteration were correct. Professor Fielding agreed with Zavada; "that it was not possible to alter the Zapruder film incorporating the scene changes attributed to that process and if attempted, the results would be easily detectable".

[...]

You'll no doubt provide us with formal documentation of same, yes? I doubt it!

ding-dong

[Bill Miller]

Where does it say in the forum rules that David Healy is excused of following forum rules? Is there a "loud mouth" exclusion somewhere?

I second Bill's question.

T.C.

Does Bill miller/larry Peters think this is LANCER? And Tom just sit tight, unless of course your another mouth piece for Miller --

Maybe it is only fair to present this matter to John Simkin and see if he feels that the forum rules should be enforced because if they are not enforced, then why have any rules at all.

Bill Miller

[Tim Carroll]

Where does it say in the forum rules that David Healy is excused of following forum rules? Is there a "loud mouth" exclusion somewhere?

I second Bill's question.

And Tom [rudeness for Tim] just sit tight, unless of course your another mouth piece for Miller --

Maybe it is only fair to present this matter to John Simkin and see if he feels that the forum rules should be enforced because if they are not enforced, then why have any rules at all.

When someone actually considers that I may be a mouthpiece for Bill, you know said someone's got a screw loose.

T.C.

[Len Colby]

[...]

Zavada visited Professor Fielding in 2003 to ensure his conclusions about the improbability of alteration were correct. Professor Fielding agreed with Zavada; "that it was not possible to alter the Zapruder film incorporating the scene changes attributed to that process and if attempted, the results would be easily detectable".

[...]

You'll no doubt provide us with formal documentation of same, yes? I doubt it!

ding-dong

As I said on the other thread I am reporting what Zavada told me, he "approved" my statement. I have no reason to doubt he was telling me the truth. You said you were going to e-mail Rollie, let us know when he get's back to you - are you honest enough that when he confirms to you what I reported, you tell the forum? I doubt it.

I couldn't get Zavada to post here he doesn't what to be part of it. Let's do it like this, unless you can quote Rollie saying I was lying we will take that as confirmation that it is his position that Fielding agreed with him that the alterations you talk about were not possible at the time. What will you position be then that Zavada is lying or that Fielding doesn't know what he's talking about.

Hey-ho, hey-ho, hey-ho

yeah right -- roflmfao I'll be making my formal claim, soon -- we'll see what kind of offense you can mount -- not that I suspect you can mount anything -- oh, your gonna need Roland Zavada -- I'll venture say you lone neuters MAY find a optical film printing expert within 30 day's, right.... ?

When exactly can we expect your "formal claim"?

Edited January 29, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

I've gone through the quotes referenced and rearranged them as summarized here and quoted in full below. I've kept their "witness number" with their names so anyone can review what is said here with the book (which you have one, if you're clearly a "real researcher!").

This is what they said:

Said the limousine stopped - 14, two of whom reported it as others' observations, not as their own (net: 12)

Said the limousine slowed - 18, two of whom reported it as others' observations, not as their own (net: 15)

Said the motorcade stopped or slowed - 13.

Said the limousine sped up after the shots - seven

Did not specify according to above - seven

That's a total of 59, less the four who merely reported on other people's observations, for a net total of 55. This, as we will see, is not "59 witnesses who say the limousine stopped" as Jack White posited, but rather 12 who did (plus two who said other people said that it did ... and those other people may already be quoted ...?), or less than 25% of the people who offered a direct opinion (12/55=21.81%).

(I am taking everyone in sum total, that is, not accounting for whether it was said "on the record" - i.e., under oath - or in an informal setting, or whether it was said contemporaneously or several years after the fact.)´

[...]

I don't think that anyone has disputed that the limousine slowed down and that the brake lights came on. The question is whether it stopped and, consequently, the Z-film has been faked. Well, we now know that 59 witnesses did not say the limo stopped, and out of them only 13 might actually have made this observation personally, or less than 25%. (Some of them really didn't say anything at all in this respect.)

[...]

So there ya have it. Does this prove the Z-film a "hoax" or "altered" with regard to the limousine stopping or not based upon 59 witnesses' statements "all" saying it stopped? I think not; what thinks ye?

The "alterationist" make much of the supposed limo stop. Fetzer said "more than 60" witnesses saw it stop but in his book the total list of witnesses comes to only 59. But of course not all of them said it stopped or almost stopped. Truth is only 12 of them said that others said only that it slowed or speed up, reported what others had seen or said something else entirely and others mentioned the motorcade but not the limo specifically.

To a large degree the witnesses who said the limo slowed down or speed up contradict the ones who said it stopped because one would expect them to said it stopped if that's what they had seen. This is normal and witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Usually physical evidence is used to confirm or contradict witnesses not the other way around. Also I imagine there were many witnesses not on the list who never said anything about the limo stopping, slowing down or speeding up.

I am as I have said no expert on the assassination but believe the limo probably did slow down. The alterationists claim that this is not shown in the Zapruder film and thus is evidence that the home movie was altered. However decades before they started spouting their nonsense a Nobel Prize winning physicist studied the Z film and determined the limo DID slow down suddenly at around the time of the head shot.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6039 PDF page 13

The alterationists will object that the physicist was also the father of the "jet splatter effect theory", which I believe most researchers reject. To this I respond

1- Has the 'jet splatter effect' theory ever been debunked? Pat Speer, Barbara Junkkarinen and other 'conspiracists' agree that all shots that hit Kennedy came from behind. I started a separate thread to discuss that question because it has nothing to do with the Z-Film.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6039

2- Even if he was wrong about 'jet splatter', it would be an amazing coincidence if he made a mistake in his analysis of the "altered" Z-film and this led him to imagine observing a slow down which didn't appear on the film at the exact moment when the limo had in fact slowed down.

3- According to a member of another Forum, Robert Groden also observed the limo slow down in the film*, and this seems to be the consensus among members of this Forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6028

* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/4064

Dave - Rule #1 of this forum is "All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature". Where's yours? I remember you hastling me before I added my photo. You are one of the very few members of the forum not in compliance.

Len

biography? rofl ---

buy the book and read it!

David,

Impressive bio*, I sure if any questions related to video production/post-production come up you would be more than qualified to speak authoritatively. What I didn't see on it was any evidence of experience with film post production or anything that would qualify you as an expert on that subject.

I read your chapter from TGZFH but didn't think it proved very much. All that you really showed was how compositing works, and thanks that was educational, but it didn't answer any of the questions you have answer on this and the other threads. I noticed that like on this forum you just mentioned Fielding's book and the SMPE/SMPTE journals without quoting them or referring to any specific chapters, articles, sections pages etc. nor did you cite any movies which had compositing AS EXTENSIVE AS WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN USED IN THE "ALTERED" Z –FILM. Well like they say "Now is a good a time as any", you want to take a crack at it or will you continue to avoid answering these questions?

Len

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6029 I'm glad I'm still pulling your strings and got you to submit it, but you are still not in compliance, you're supposed to provide a link to it at the bottom of your posts. You're supposed to follow the rules just like the rest us. Hope you liked the "taste of your own medicine".

PS From most accounts I've read Bill Graham was a complete asshole, if you had any contact with him what was your impression?

Edited February 3, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

David,

You cited Citizen Kane as a movie with no obvious defects in it's optical special effects. I'm about to pick it up from my local video store. What scenes in that movie havecompositing anywhere near as sophisticated as what was allegedly done to the Z-film? Let me know.

I'll have to give back Monday but will probably watch it tomorrow night (early evening your time)

Len

[Len Colby]

I'll be making my formal claim, soon -- we'll see what kind of offense you can mount -- not that I suspect you can mount anything -- oh, your gonna need Roland Zavada -- I'll venture say you lone neuters MAY find a optical film printing expert within 30 day's, right.... ?

ding-dong!

David it's been 42 days since you announced you'd "be making (your) formal claim, soon", how much longer are you going to keep us waiting? I guess your "formal claim" is "at the end of the tunnel", or maybe it’s “gone where the goblins go*” LOL Maybe we should just "ignore the videographer behind the curtain"

Len

* “below, below, below”

[Bill Miller]

In this frame, i see someone sitting in the "upright" position, i assume it is Connally.?

In a good enlargement - the man sitting up has gray hair, so yes it was Connally.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

David,

You cited Citizen Kane as a movie with no obvious defects in it's optical special effects. I'm about to pick it up from my local video store. What scenes in that movie havecompositing anywhere near as sophisticated as what was allegedly done to the Z-film? Let me know.

I'll have to give back Monday but will probably watch it tomorrow night (early evening your time)

Len

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

[David G. Healy]

David,

You cited Citizen Kane as a movie with no obvious defects in it's optical special effects. I'm about to pick it up from my local video store. What scenes in that movie havecompositing anywhere near as sophisticated as what was allegedly done to the Z-film? Let me know.

I'll have to give back Monday but will probably watch it tomorrow night (early evening your time)

Len

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

btw, those url's you post.....they NEVER work, what's up with THAT?

ROTFLMFAO! You can prove otherwise? That being the film is not altered? How do you do THAT? Curious minds would like to know....So, by all means, show us your proof!

All these years and STILL no DP seamless film comparison, waz-up, Dude?

Ya think ole Lenny got those Citizen Kane optical film effects scenes figured out? Returned it on time?

Edited August 27, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

ROTFLMFAO! You can prove otherwise? That being the film is not altered? How do you do THAT? Curious minds would like to know....So, by all means, show us your proof!

All these years and STILL no DP seamless film comparison, waz-up, Dude?

Ya think ole Lenny got those Citizen Kane optical film effects scenes figured out? Returned it on time?

Well, David ... I'd first see what those who have the most knowledge and experience on this matter had to say. Then I'd cite your remark where you said that YOU have not seen any proof of alteration. Would that not be enough evidence or should I shoot for the best out of seven???

Bill Miller

[Ed O'Hagan]

John Dolva wrote:

"I share doubt about this whole thing. Partly it's 'philosophical' : how can one use a film one considers a fake to prove the genuineness of features about a film one has chosen not to call fake and so on."

John...you are missing the point. Even IF ALL THE IMAGES ARE FAKE,

it is important to point out the discrepancies between them. That is NOT

using one to "prove genuineness" of another. To the contrary, such

differences make BOTH suspect. This is an important difference!

I have come to believe through years of such comparisons that most

of the images have been altered to some degree. For years I thought

Moorman was an untampered image, but I now believe the pedestal

area was retouched to add Zapruder and Sitzman. The DIFFERENCES

in the various Z&S images prove tampering...not that any one view

is genuine. See THE ZAPRUDER WALTZ.

Jack

I agree that the pedestal area was most certainly retouched, but not to add the images of Zapruder and Sitzman since they were already depicted, but rather to obscure images of policemen aiming cameras, and who had been located in and around, below on the ground, and to the rear on the pergola. The 'doctoring' was to say the least careless , inasmuch as the original images of Zapruder and Sitzman after being removed, were then 'inked ' back in again, but without due care and attention being paid to the accuracy of their overall depictions.

In regard to the Wiegman frames, and in particular to the one used to show that they were not on the pedestal, I have attached the relevant crop below.

[Bill Miller]

I agree that the pedestal area was most certainly retouched, but not to add the images of Zapruder and Sitzman since they were already depicted, but rather to obscure images of policemen aiming cameras, and who had been located in and around, below on the ground, and to the rear on the pergola. The 'doctoring' was to say the least careless , inasmuch as the original images of Zapruder and Sitzman after being removed, were then 'inked ' back in again, but without due care and attention being paid to the accuracy of their overall depictions.

In regard to the Wiegman frames, and in particular to the one used to show that they were not on the pedestal, I have attached the relevant crop below.

Spectacular images, Ed ... the clarity just leaves one in awe at what you can do with these assassination images.

Bill

[Len Colby]

I agree that the pedestal area was most certainly retouched, but not to add the images of Zapruder and Sitzman since they were already depicted, but rather to obscure images of policemen aiming cameras, and who had been located in and around, below on the ground, and to the rear on the pergola. The 'doctoring' was to say the least careless , inasmuch as the original images of Zapruder and Sitzman after being removed, were then 'inked ' back in again, but without due care and attention being paid to the accuracy of their overall depictions.

In regard to the Wiegman frames, and in particular to the one used to show that they were not on the pedestal, I have attached the relevant crop below.

Spectacular images, Ed ... the clarity just leaves one in awe at what you can do with these assassination images.

Bill

It looks like the blob Jack insisted was the Pentagon fire station until I proved him wrong. Another "Rorschach" image.

[Bill Miller]

People with a long track record on photo analysis in the case think it clear...but Len wants to:

1] declare it otherwise - a shapeless blob - from the wannabe expert on anything against the official line. It is an exceptionally clear image....but that would be beyond your ken.

2] make an backhanded attack on Jack (who isn't even involved in the post above). Further, denegration of others in the thread above. Not in the spirit of the Forum rules.

3] make an arrogant and false brag on having proved anyone wrong, here or elsewhere.

You convince no one but yourself; impress no one but yourself; make no point here but to disrupt/negate...your same old techniques. For someone self-proclaimed as believing in a conspiracy in Dallas I've never seen you put effort into a solution to it nor reward others for same. Perhaps just a faux position / facade as pretext for all the negativity.

Peter,

In all fairness to Len's sarcasm concerning the image and referencing Jack ... its probably not that far off the mark. While most of the time - Jack believes that the best images should be used, which I certainly agree, its his interpretations concerning what he cannot understand, thus they must be an alteration of some kind that eventually wears our patience thin. People like Jack who are looked up to have a responsibility to be thorough and have their conclusions peer reviewed. Now I mentioned how great and clear Ed's image was and I didn't mean a single word of it for that image he posted in the most ridiculous one I have seen to date. I am not sure how he even gets his images to look so blurred because even the worse copy prints I have ever viewed look far better than what he posted. I'd like to think that Ed means well even though I have caught him in the past posting something that he surely knew better of doing, but I supposed that we all can show more tolerance for such postings. However, after years of seeing this garbage - it does get very frustrating ... at least for me. I am sure that Len has experienced the same sort of frustrations.

Bill