Jack White Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 The forgers of the Z film had trouble getting the spectators right. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 The forgers of the Z film had trouble getting the spectators right.Jack Jack You are getting pretty good at this. thanks for this Dallas interpretation shanet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 (edited) In the past two days 130 visits have been made to this thread. To date only one other person has responded publicly . Where are all the naysayers and the anti-alterationist aficianados who are so very quick to go for the jugular whenever they can, and particularly when Jack White is being targeted ? I suspect that if they ever get around to going on the attack on this one , they will be insisting that the Dorman evidence has to be 'out of whack' time-wise or WHATEVER. For some of the more vociferous of the anti-alterationist devotees it must be really hard to accept that Jack has brought to light what at this time has to be regarded as self-evident/ conclusive/ prima facie proof that the Zapruder footage has been 'doctored' . Speaking for myself, I regard this as an outstanding contribution to the CT research community, and one that leaves no doubt at all when it comes down to the basis of visual interpretation. Immediatelly following viewing of the pictures, I was going to post a congratulatory e-maill in support of Jack's discovery, but I decided to hold back until now. I knew the anti-alterationists were going to find it hard to take, but that would be nothing out of the ordinary. What interested me was to wait and see just how many of the alterationists would weigh-in to lend their support and encouragement to such a fine piece of work and to its discoverer-author. Sad to say, they sat on their hands and publicly applauded silently. Surely to heavens once in a while we can give credit where credit is due. In this particular instance , and until someone proves to me that it should be otherwise, I unequivocally salute Jack White's unique contribution. Well done, Jack ! Sure, we can say that anyone could have done it ....and the same can be said of Pythagoras and Archimedes and the guy who first decided to put the hole in a doughnut. Once you are shown how to do it, it's no problem at all in understanding it and then replicating it. But there always has to be a first , and this one happens to be just that. Or in Jack's case maybe we should say it is his second,since some years back he posted a similar type of discrepancy by comparing the Towner and Zapruder depictions of the spectators lined across the top of Elm St. This is just too important of a discovery to let pass. Too often trivialities have been treated to far more recognition and enthusiasm by way of response than this one has up to the present. Accordingly, I trust that I have 'needled' at least a few of my readers to the degree that at the very least they will decide either to 'go after' me for what I have written or, and perhaps more appropriately, give Jack a pat on the back for a fine piece of work. Either way it would be really interesting to see this thread get the attention it so deservely merits. Anti-alterationists will indubitably now wish to come aboard...Or will they? Edited April 17, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 In the past two days 130 visits have been made to this thread. To date only one other person has responded publicly . Where are all the naysayers and the anti-alterationist aficianados who are so very quick to go for the jugular whenever they can, and particularly when Jack White is being targeted ? I suspect that if they ever get around to going on the attack on this one , they will be insisting that the Dorman evidence has to be 'out of whack' time-wise or WHATEVER. For some of the more vociferous of the anti-alterationist devotees it must be really hard to accept that Jack has brought to light what at this time has to be regarded as self-evident/ conclusive/ prima facie proof that the Zapruder footage has been 'doctored' . Speaking for myself, I regard this as an outstanding contribution to the CT research community, and one that leaves no doubt at all when it comes down to the basis of visual interpretation.Immediatelly following viewing of the pictures, I was going to post a congratulatory e-maill in support of Jack's discovery, but I decided to hold back until now. I knew the anti-alterationists were going to find it hard to take, but that would be nothing out of the ordinary. What interested me was to wait and see just how many of the alterationists would weigh-in to lend their support and encouragement to such a fine piece of work and to its discoverer-author. Sad to say, they sat on their hands and publicly applauded silently. Surely to heavens once in a while we can give credit where credit is due. In this particular instance , and until someone proves to me that it should be otherwise, I unequivocally salute Jack White's unique contribution. Well done, Jack ! Sure, we can say that anyone could have done it ....and the same can be said of Pythagoras and Archimedes and the guy who first decided to put the hole in a doughnut. Once you are shown how to do it, it's no problem at all in understanding it and then replicating it. But there always has to be a first , and this one happens to be just that. Or in Jack's case maybe we should say it is his second,since some years back he posted a similar type of discrepancy by comparing the Towner and Zapruder depictions of the spectators lined across the top of Elm St. This is just too important of a discovery to let pass. Too often trivialities have been treated to far more recognition and enthusiasm by way of response than this one has up to the present. Accordingly, I trust that I have 'needled' at least a few of my readers to the degree that at the very least they will decide either to 'go after' me for what I have written or, and perhaps more appropriately, give Jack a pat on the back for a fine piece of work. Either way it would be really interesting to see this thread get the attention it so deservely merits. Anti-alterationists will indubitably now wish to come aboard...Or will they? Thanks greatly, Ed. I appreciate your agreement with the facts. Note I said FACTS, not my opinion. The provocateurs have a hard time disagreeing with FACTS. For instance, about a month ago I posted my studies on the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman. There was TOTAL SILENCE from the provocateurs. They did not dare confront the FACTS. For instance, attached is a study of the MOORMAN PHOTO USING ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE PEDESTAL (these are factual things). Applying the pedestal measurements to the Moorman photo, we see that Mr. Zapruder is FOUR FEET TEN INCHES TALL. This is not my opinion...it is a fact. Zapruder's daughter says he was FIVE FEET ELEVEN. Conduct your OWN calculations. If you come up with a 5'11" Zapruder, let me know. Even if I am off an inch or two, does it matter? Whom do you believe...the provocateurs or your own eyes? Let's see how many of the provocateurs reply to this message. Thanks, Ed...for speaking up. Jack (ps...there are four other studies like this...willis, betzner, bronson, and nix, all similar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Adams Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Ed mentioned the exact thing that I was thinking after seeing this post of Jack's. I am no expert in photo or film analysis, and do not have the capability to analyze the films the way many on this site can, but I felt that if what Jack has brought forward was legit (no offense intended at all), it is VERY meaningful. Actually, I can not put into words how meaningful it is/would be. That being said, and coupled with my novice stature in this area of analysis/research, I was indeed "waiting" for the post count to explode on this thread due to some sort of critique. All I have "heard" is crickets. The silence on this issue up to this point is deafening. I'm still not sure about the Moorman-Zapruder issue, but this one seems pretty explosive, if some error hasn't occurred. I will give kudos to Jack for bringing this forward and await the responses from others. I am just surprised that this hadn't been noticed before now. Nice one Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 (edited) Thanks greatly, Ed. I appreciate your agreement with the facts. Note I said FACTS, not my opinion. The provocateurs have a hard time disagreeing with FACTS. For instance, about a month ago I posted my studies on the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman. There was TOTAL SILENCE from the provocateurs. They did not dare confront the FACTS. For instance, attached is a study of the MOORMAN PHOTO USING ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE PEDESTAL (these are factual things). Applying the pedestal measurements to the Moorman photo, we see that Mr. Zapruder is FOUR FEET TEN INCHES TALL. This is not my opinion...it is a fact. Zapruder's daughter says he was FIVE FEET ELEVEN. Conduct your OWN calculations. If you come up with a 5'11" Zapruder, let me know. Even if I am off an inch or two, does it matter? Whom do you believe...the provocateurs or your own eyes? Let's see how many of the provocateurs reply to this message. Thanks, Ed...for speaking up. Jack Jack - Don't get too excited that you won over Ed for he is the guy who posted the tree foliage shadows on the fence from Moorman's #5 Polaroid and claimed it to be cops with cameras filming the assassination ... I will be happy to post that fiasco once again if you need to be reminded of it. Your non-moving people claim is ridiculous and it seems I have posted overlaid Zframes on this forum in the past showing that you are simply wrong. Once again you call the people along the north side of Elm street "virtually motionless for several seconds" ... let me point out that the time frame on your example goes from Z130 to Z138 which is just under 1/2 of a second. By overlaying those two points in time on top of one another and putting them in motion ... let us see how "virtually motionless" they really are! Virtually motionless you say .... HOGWASH! I'll even explain why those people were not milling around like those on the south side of Elm Street ... it is because they were already in position and looking for the President to come down the street towards them. The people on the other side of the street were watching the President come down Houston Street and several followed his car by walking the sidewalk area as the limo rounded onto Elm. others who were looking up Houston Street had merely turned around between those two points in time as their attention was on seeing the President. By the way, why is it that you atuomatically refer to people who disagree with your poor evaluations - "provocateurs"? You refered to others who will not accept your conclusion about the "virtually motionless" people as provocatuers and yet it is you who was dead wrong once again, so now maybe you can come up with a name we can give you - you think? I am also pretty sure that your Zapruder pedestal study has been addressed in the past and should be somewhere in the forums archives ... someone can correct me if I am wrong. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited April 18, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 (edited) Ed mentioned the exact thing that I was thinking after seeing this post of Jack's. I am no expert in photo or film analysis, and do not have the capability to analyze the films the way many on this site can, but I felt that if what Jack has brought forward was legit (no offense intended at all), it is VERY meaningful. Actually, I can not put into words how meaningful it is/would be.That being said, and coupled with my novice stature in this area of analysis/research, I was indeed "waiting" for the post count to explode on this thread due to some sort of critique. All I have "heard" is crickets. The silence on this issue up to this point is deafening. I'm still not sure about the Moorman-Zapruder issue, but this one seems pretty explosive, if some error hasn't occurred. I will give kudos to Jack for bringing this forward and await the responses from others. I am just surprised that this hadn't been noticed before now. Nice one Jack. Provocative approaches to provoke a response from provocateurs? I don't like the idea of identifying myself as a anti alterationist or provocateur. As such individuals are invited to comment, perhaps one can see a reluctance. I'm pro truth. Should that be 'the zfilm is a fake' then so be it. I have seen no evidence that it is. Jack raises interesting issues. I've dealt with to my satisfaction with the issue of zheight, and see no reason to change/rehash. ______________________ Short hand address to this one would be: (IMO) the girl in white hood top appears about three frames after towner is last seen in the dorman in this sequence. The first frame of the zfilm showing the limo has her already past the pool. IOW there is a gap of no cross referencing there. There are frames where people step out in road and back again in just a few frames. There are major shifts in where people are over such gap periods. The last of the towner frames is not so easy to fix, but I think it may be just before the first of the z. Therefore a gap again. This one would convince me something may be wrong, however, until then its just an idea. The edge of the kerb of houston is easy to locate by looking at the feet of the people in the early zfilm frames pre limo. This shows people standing on the road and carrying through the kerb location to later frames where there is too many people there to be sure, again shows people on the road. (I will return or continue comment at a slow rate due to family commitments for a few more weeks) Edited April 18, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 (edited) In the past two days 130 visits have been made to this thread. To date only one other person has responded publicly . Where are all the naysayers and the anti-alterationist aficianados who are so very quick to go for the jugular whenever they can, and particularly when Jack White is being targeted ? I suspect that if they ever get around to going on the attack on this one , they will be insisting that the Dorman evidence has to be 'out of whack' time-wise or WHATEVER. For some of the more vociferous of the anti-alterationist devotees it must be really hard to accept that Jack has brought to light what at this time has to be regarded as self-evident/ conclusive/ prima facie proof that the Zapruder footage has been 'doctored' . Speaking for myself, I regard this as an outstanding contribution to the CT research community, and one that leaves no doubt at all when it comes down to the basis of visual interpretation.Immediatelly following viewing of the pictures, I was going to post a congratulatory e-maill in support of Jack's discovery, but I decided to hold back until now. I knew the anti-alterationists were going to find it hard to take, but that would be nothing out of the ordinary. What interested me was to wait and see just how many of the alterationists would weigh-in to lend their support and encouragement to such a fine piece of work and to its discoverer-author. Sad to say, they sat on their hands and publicly applauded silently. Surely to heavens once in a while we can give credit where credit is due. In this particular instance , and until someone proves to me that it should be otherwise, I unequivocally salute Jack White's unique contribution. Well done, Jack ! Sure, we can say that anyone could have done it ....and the same can be said of Pythagoras and Archimedes and the guy who first decided to put the hole in a doughnut. Once you are shown how to do it, it's no problem at all in understanding it and then replicating it. But there always has to be a first , and this one happens to be just that. Or in Jack's case maybe we should say it is his second,since some years back he posted a similar type of discrepancy by comparing the Towner and Zapruder depictions of the spectators lined across the top of Elm St. This is just too important of a discovery to let pass. Too often trivialities have been treated to far more recognition and enthusiasm by way of response than this one has up to the present. Accordingly, I trust that I have 'needled' at least a few of my readers to the degree that at the very least they will decide either to 'go after' me for what I have written or, and perhaps more appropriately, give Jack a pat on the back for a fine piece of work. Either way it would be really interesting to see this thread get the attention it so deservely merits. Anti-alterationists will indubitably now wish to come aboard...Or will they? Ed, when Jack finally posts something that has merit I will be the first to post congratulations, this however is simply Jack doing what Jack does, failing to understand even the basics of LOS and perspective. In other words he has once again produced a study thats borders on ignorance...and we have all the sheep lined up to pat him on the back. Its become a fools errand to respond to Jacks stupid claims. He will not deal with his mistakeS and the sheep have no desire to learn lest it destroy the fantasy world they live in. There is ample evidence of this scattered all over this forum. So whats the point? Most of the people here who profess to be seeking the truth want nothing of it...only more drivel that supports their fantasy. Edited April 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 The first frame of the zfilm showing the limo has her already past the pool. IOW there is a gap of no cross referencing there. There are frames where people step out in road and back again in just a few frames. There are major shifts in where people are over such gap periods. The last of the towner frames is not so easy to fix, but I think it may be just before the first of the z. Therefore a gap again. This one would convince me something may be wrong, however, until then its just an idea. The edge of the kerb of houston is easy to locate by looking at the feet of the people in the early zfilm frames pre limo. This shows people standing on the road and carrying through the kerb location to later frames where there is too many people there to be sure, again shows people on the road. at a slow rate due to family commitments for a few more weeks) Another example at how people appear stacked against one another when seen at an angle is to look at the Willis and Betzner photos showing the people along near the Stemmons sign and then look at them again in the Bronson slide .... same folks - they just look spaced differently from different angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Adams Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Ed mentioned the exact thing that I was thinking after seeing this post of Jack's. I am no expert in photo or film analysis, and do not have the capability to analyze the films the way many on this site can, but I felt that if what Jack has brought forward was legit (no offense intended at all), it is VERY meaningful. Actually, I can not put into words how meaningful it is/would be. That being said, and coupled with my novice stature in this area of analysis/research, I was indeed "waiting" for the post count to explode on this thread due to some sort of critique. All I have "heard" is crickets. The silence on this issue up to this point is deafening. I'm still not sure about the Moorman-Zapruder issue, but this one seems pretty explosive, if some error hasn't occurred. I will give kudos to Jack for bringing this forward and await the responses from others. I am just surprised that this hadn't been noticed before now. Nice one Jack. Provocative approaches to provoke a response from provocateurs? I don't like the idea of identifying myself as a anti alterationist or provocateur. As such individuals are invited to comment, perhaps one can see a reluctance. I'm pro truth. Should that be 'the zfilm is a fake' then so be it. I have seen no evidence that it is. Jack raises interesting issues. I've dealt with to my satisfaction with the issue of zheight, and see no reason to change/rehash. Nice way to put that and yes, I have tried to say it 10 times fast...lol. Actually, instead of looking at it as provocation, I believe it was quite a tame post I laid out. I think that many things are of value and worth investigating, and this is something else to check out and either validate, reject, or leave in the "perhaps" column. While I do give kudos to Jack for raising this interesting issue, I also say I will wait to see the responses of others. This wasn't provocation in the sense of labeling anybody. It was an open invitation to analyze and critique this, and then I CAN LEARN where it may be of value or not, based on the posts in the discussion. As I clearly pointed out, I not only do not have the skill to analyze the film footage like others do, I might not see what is right or wrong with what Jack is presenting here. In certain areas, I must rely on the supposed expertise of others to help me sift through the crap. xxxx or Shinola? Sometimes I really can't tell the difference. Having said all that, yes, I was still surprised not to see many posts on this topic, based on the back and forth banter of other threads. I was waiting for it, pro or con, because on the off chance that this is something worthwhile, I would like to know. Heck its something new at least. BTW, I am not a sheep around these parts. Actually, what I see a lot more of these days is researchers working hard to prove each other wrong (which is good, if the debate is reasonable and respectful). I even see people disproving the earliest core theories of conspiracy, multiple gunmen, connections, etc. Heck, if I didn't really sift through all the "stuff" like I do, I would think that this forum was more about disproving CT's than anything else. This is fine, because if we really want the truth, then let the chips fall where they may. It's just funny to read that some things appear to be coming full circle, if we are to believe some of these posts: 1) There was a second gunman, but this shooter completely missed or wasn't located on the grassy knoll, behind the fence, or the pergola. WTF? 2) The Zapruder film was a large part of the basis of the belief that a second gunman had fired at the President, at least in the beginning (of course there were witnesses saying that shots were fired from behind the fence). If the Zapruder film suddenly starts to prove that the President WAS shot from behind and that even if there was a shooter from another location, but missed, then what the heck are we doing here? 3) We have people that have been "named" by researchers/investigators as part of the conspiracy, or having knowledge of it, and they post here. They deny things written about them, and can offer nothing regarding the assassination......well, nothing more than they are willing to add. I guess what I am saying is that ANYTHING 'new' that might be found would be great to evaluate, analyze and debate. Without something new, there are no more steps to be taken, and we end up rehashing the same stuff, criticizing each other, and helping validate the LN'ers opinions of us. I can see a new headline: "JFK Assassination Researchers Prove all previous CT's wrong, but come up with new ones!" I think some people here do great work to try to figure "stuff" out, while others do things here to build their personal status in the JFK Assassination Community. Sometimes I wish we could get back to the basics. Baaaah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Bill, Thanks for that overlay of the people along the north side of Elm. I think it's disgraceful how that woman in the middle leans forward and spits tobacco juice into the street, after they had it all spic and span for the president. How disrespectful can one get? And nasty too! Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Laziness on my part for appearing to single your post out Trent. What you say is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Adams Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Your non-moving people claim is ridiculous and it seems I have posted overlaid Zframes on this forum in the past showing that you are simply wrong. Once again you call the people along the north side of Elm street "virtually motionless for several seconds" ... let me point out that the time frame on your example goes from Z130 to Z138 which is just under 1/2 of a second. By overlaying those two points in time on top of one another and putting them in motion ... let us see how "virtually motionless" they really are! Virtually motionless you say .... HOGWASH! I'll even explain why those people were not milling around like those on the south side of Elm Street ... it is because they were already in position and looking for the President to come down the street towards them. The people on the other side of the street were watching the President come down Houston Street and several followed his car by walking the sidewalk area as the limo rounded onto Elm. others who were looking up Houston Street had merely turned around between those two points in time as their attention was on seeing the President. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator OK, I understand the points you make here about the people on the North side of Elm (including your overlay, and thanks for putting that up). I even understand your second post. Here are the questions I have, based on what you said: 1) If the 8 or 9 frames of the Zapruder film span a time of about 1/2 of a second (which I would agree with provided it was continuous filming), then how did those folks on the South side of Elm: a) follow his car by walking the sidewalk area as the limo rounded Elm in that same 1/2 second? some obviously turned around, but others transported into the picture within 1/2 second? 2) Actually, how did the limo get around that corner in 1/2 second? 3) Can you make one of those overlays showing what people are doing on both sides of the street? Maybe I am stupid about this, but I believe a more likely version of this episode is that there is a break in the filming by Zapruder, or there is a section missing, because I don't see anyway for those folks on the South side to get into position within half a second, and certainly not for the limo to get around that corner that fast. Something doesn't add up for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 (edited) Maybe I am stupid about this, but I believe a more likely version of this episode is that there is a break in the filming by Zapruder, or there is a section missing, because I don't see anyway for those folks on the South side to get into position within half a second, and certainly not for the limo to get around that corner that fast. Something doesn't add up for me. Trent ... you are not stupid. Jack posted a frame before Zapruder stopped filming and another frame after Zapruder had started filming again ... I simply overlooked that fact. If I remember correctly - Z133 starts with the limo now on Elm Street. The earlier frame was taken from the lead cycle footage. Jack has periodically laid claim that the people along the north side of Elm were motionless. A simple overlay of frames show that his claim is incorrect. I guess Jack thought that those people should have been doing jumping jacks as they waited for JFK to pass by them, but never-the-less they were moving. It was between Z130 and Z138, with a film stoppage in between that allowed people along Houston to pour into the upper end of Elm Street. Bill Edited April 20, 2006 by Bill Miller 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