a CHALLENGE for the provocateurs...

[Jack White]

The provocateurs make much of the "harmony" of all the other

movies with Zapruder.

Maybe they forgot to look at Z380 and N90, which are "officially"

at the same instant.

Please explain the "harmony" of these two frames.

Only facts, please. No personal attacks, please.

If these frames do not match, please post the Z frame which

matches N90.

Failure to meet this challenge proves the provocateurs DO NOT

HAVE A CLUE and are only here to PROVOKE.

Have fun.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

In Z380, Hill is directly between the camera and the people seen on the grass. In N90, the limo has moved further along, relative to the people on the grass. A later Z frame therefore matches N90. I think Z388 may be it.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z388.jpg

Note that while Jackie may appear to be taking hold of Hill's arm in the blurred Nix image, it is clear in the Z film that it is Hill who takes hold of Jackie's arm.

[Jack White]

In Z380, Hill is directly between the camera and the people seen on the grass. In N90, the limo has moved further along, relative to the people on the grass. A later Z frame therefore matches N90. I think Z388 may be it.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z388.jpg

Note that while Jackie may appear to be taking hold of Hill's arm in the blurred Nix image, it is clear in the Z film that it is Hill who takes hold of Jackie's arm.

Ron...thanks for agreeing with me. In Z388, Hill's right hand touches Jackie's right elbow.

This is not seen in Nix.

In Nix90, we see Jackie's right hand touch Hill's left elbow. This is not seen in Zapruder.

Officially, the two frames I posted are equivalent to each other.

Jack

[Jason Vermeer]

I hesitate to reply to this post because based upon Jack's stipulations above, I am already a provocateur because I don't agree with his premise.

Both the Nix frame and the Zapruder frame Jack posted show the same thing. I believe what is occuring is that the frames are capturing the same information but from different angles and distances which will lead to the images appearing differently. Thus, comparing the information between the frames and indicating they should be synonymous or they are altered is a flawed premise in this instance.

To me, it still appears Hill clearly has his hand on the bar as in both frames. He appears to be closer to Jackie in Nix 90 because of the angle that shot was taken. I am not aware of Jackie grabbing his wrist. It does not appear to me that it is happening in Nix 90.

Jackie Kennedy does not indicate in testimony, memory of crawling on the trunk but this is a snippet of what Hill said to the WC...

"She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there..."

I have not found in testimony that Jackie grabbed his wrist.

Jason Vermeer

Edited April 18, 2006 by Jason Vermeer

[Guest John Gillespie]

The provocateurs make much of the "harmony" of all the other

movies with Zapruder.

Maybe they forgot to look at Z380 and N90, which are "officially"

at the same instant.

Please explain the "harmony" of these two frames.

Only facts, please. No personal attacks, please.

If these frames do not match, please post the Z frame which

matches N90.

Failure to meet this challenge proves the provocateurs DO NOT

HAVE A CLUE and are only here to PROVOKE.

Have fun.

Jack

_____________________________________

Jack,

A gentle nudging here and bow to tradecraft: Confusion Agents (maybe, in these cases, a distinction without difference).

I was looking at something on Acorn, an email from Cecil N. Jones of 12/10/96 that summarized the

the JFK Lancer "November in Dallas" meeting of November 22-24 of that year. I want to present an excerpt from Jones' dispatch:

"There was an "invitation only" 10 hour session on Thursday to examine the

evidence that there may have been "tampering" with the Zapruder film.

Attending this session were David Mantik, Jim Fetzer, Jack White, David

Lifton, Chuck Marler, Noel Twyman, Martin Shackelford, Ray Shafer, and two

others I just got the last names - Morningstar and Hepler. Dr. Mantik had

requested the workshop, since he has discovered what he deems to be

tampering.

The results of this workshop were presented Friday afternoon, from 2:00 -

7:00 PM.

*Jim Fetzer*

First up was Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor. He talked about the

notion of "inference to the best explanation", which is kinda like

Lifton's notion of "best evidence". Look at the explanations and then pick

the best one. (BTW, Fetzer noted that Josiah Thompsen, author of SIX

SECONDS IN DALLAS, is now a private investigator.) Fetzer stated that

the panel would show that there was Secret Service complicity in the

assassination, using more than just the Z film. For instance:

1. Greer washed the interior of the limo at Parkland

2. Altgens photo shows "hole" in the windshield, but SS photo shows no hole

3. SS had possession of the xrays (Mantik has "discovered" xray fakery,

such as the "patch" over the hole in the back of JFK's head)

4. Robertson says photos and drawings of brain do not show damage to

cerebellum (doctors said they saw cerebellum), therefore photos and

drawings are fake.

5. If the Z film was actually filmed at 24 fps instead of 18 fps, then

there could be more than 100 frames missing.

*Jack White*

Jack White was next. He shared many of his slides of the Z film. Here are

some of his points:

1. Connally's "turn to the left" is not in the Z-film

2. There is no blood on JBC's cuff, even though his wrist has been shot

3. Zapruder's field of view decreases just before the headshot

4. In some frames the limo is in perfeect focus, while Moorman and Hill

are blurred.

5. Quite a few spectators on the north curb of Elm, just before the

Stemmons sign, do not appear to move a muscle for 13.5 seconds (Jack

says this indicates repeated frames).

6. Z-film doesn't show the limo stopping as noted by several witnesses

7. Brenemen, an assistant surveyor says he saw an early version of the Z

film (according to Marrs), and that he saw "blobs" [brain matter?] going

backwards."

Regarding Jones' seven summaries (apologies to Akira Kurasawa) of your presentation - and Fetzer's, for that matter - was he on the money? Are there any of these you would like to correct or update?

At your leisure, of course,

Regards,

John Gillespie

[Jack White]

"*Jack White*

Jack White was next. He shared many of his slides of the Z film. Here are

some of his points:

1. Connally's "turn to the left" is not in the Z-film

2. There is no blood on JBC's cuff, even though his wrist has been shot

3. Zapruder's field of view decreases just before the headshot

4. In some frames the limo is in perfeect focus, while Moorman and Hill

are blurred.

5. Quite a few spectators on the north curb of Elm, just before the

Stemmons sign, do not appear to move a muscle for 13.5 seconds (Jack

says this indicates repeated frames).

6. Z-film doesn't show the limo stopping as noted by several witnesses

7. Brenemen, an assistant surveyor says he saw an early version of the Z

film (according to Marrs), and that he saw "blobs" [brain matter?] going

backwards."

Regarding Jones' seven summaries (apologies to Akira Kurasawa) of your presentation - and Fetzer's, for that matter - was he on the money? Are there any of these you would like to correct or update?

At your leisure, of course,

Regards,

John Gillespie

1. OK

2. OK

3. apparently mistaken, as shown by Costella

4. OK (more learned with newer studies)

5. OK, except a few do barely move (better zframes now available)

6. OK

7. OK, but Breneman saw FRAMES furnished by LIFE, not a movie

OK?

Jack

[Len Colby]

Only facts, please. No personal attacks, please.

LOL

That's very rich coming from YOU Jack, should I compile a list of all the personal attacks you've levied against Evan, Bill, me and others who disagree with you instead of making substantive replies to the points we raised?

I agree with Jason, the apperant disrepancies between the two frames could be explained by the different angles of view. it could also be that they were shot a second or two appart. who said 'officially' that these frames were taken at the same moment.? Try replying with a citation rather than a personal attack..

Len

Edited April 18, 2006 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

I don't understand how people are assuming the frames match, or how it was officially assumed so. What am I missing regarding the position of the people on the grass?

[Craig Lamson]

I don't understand how people are assuming the frames match, or how it was officially assumed so. What am I missing regarding the position of the people on the grass?

An understanding of LOS (line of sight)

[Bill Miller]

I agree with Jason, there are no apperant disrepancies between the two frames.

Len

There is one problem with Jack's claim that is worth noting before doing anything else .... Jack used the MPI Z380 and didn't account for MPI's misnumbering of the frames. Below is the MPI frame Jack used against the correct frame created by Costella. It was Gary Mack who pointed out MPI's numbering mistake long ago and I assume that Jack was aware of it, but simply had forgotten about it. I would however, recommend to Jack that before making any more alteration claims that he at least makes sure that his information is correct before starting!

To be even more precise, Gary Mack offered me some information in the past and once again today that calculates the timing of these two films (the Zapruder and Nix films). Gary has permitted me to share it with other researchers.

Gary said -

"To analyze the two films properly, one needs to know the common head shot

frame numbers and the exact speed of the cameras. In this case, the head

shot frames are N23 and Z313. The Zapruder camera ran at 18.3fps, whereas

Nix' camera ran at 18.5fps.

Therefore, N90 @ 18.5fps = (90-23/18.5) or 67/18.5 = 3.62 seconds after the

head shot.

3.62 seconds x 18.3 = 66.3 Zapruder frames, which means the Zapruder frame

equivalent to Nix90 must be 313 + 66.3 = 379/380"

Gary went on to say, "Note that Hill's left hand moves forward in those two Zapruder frames and,

considering the angle from which Nix was filming, Hill's hand would appear

to Nix to be touching Jackie's arm." I certainly agree with what Gary had said and I understand it perfectly.

Jason also hit the nail on the head in part. Jason recognized the differences caused by "perspective". The Zapruder frame in question shows plenty of space between Jackie's head and Hill's, yet the Nix film shows the two heads right up to one another. The angle at which these two films are shot is the key to the differences in time and space (provided one doesn't use a source like Jack did that has the frames numbered improperly).

Main Entry: perspective

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, probably modification of Old Italian prospettiva, from prospetto view, prospect, from Latin prospectus -- more at PROSPECT

1 a : the technique or process of representing on a plane or curved surface the spatial relation of objects as they might appear to the eye; specifically : representation in a drawing or painting of parallel lines as converging in order to give the illusion of depth and distance b : a picture in perspective

Jackie's left hand looks to be only inches away from the passenger side hand hold on the back of the trunk when in reality it is much further away - its all related to perspective which to some people like Jack ... it gives a false impression of distances and depth if they do not consider its importance.

One last thing ... if people who disagree with Jack are "The provocateurs", then what would one call those people like Jack who continually make the same mistakes over and over again ... "The incompetenteurs"?

Bill

Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

I don't understand how people are assuming the frames match, or how it was officially assumed so. What am I missing regarding the position of the people on the grass?

An understanding of LOS (line of sight)

Okay, I'll admit I have no understanding of it.

[David G. Healy]

BS....!

have I been giving Bill and associates too much credit?

Clue: forget about Z-313, there a much better sync point re NIX and Zapruder.

Is it surprising we've never seen a merging of ALL Dealey Plaza motion films into one coherent presentation? Proving each film supports the others? Been nearly four years in the making...

You'd do better Bill if you'd followed your own instincts...

An exercise in futility, unless of course you can provide us with evidence AND proof the Z-camera ran at 18.3 frames a second, surely the FBI has the data AND DP re-enactment films used to determine that very special figure, yes? THEN you can give us the NIX technical data.

18.5fps --- how was that frame rate determined and by who?

[Bill Miller]

BS....!

have I been giving Bill and associates too much credit?

Clue: forget about Z-313, there a much better sync point re NIX and Zapruder.

Is it surprising we've never seen a merging of ALL Dealey Plaza motion films into one coherent presentation? Proving each film supports the others? Been nearly four years in the making...

You'd do better Bill if you'd followed your own instincts...

An exercise in futility, unless of course you can provide us with evidence AND proof the Z-camera ran at 18.3 frames a second, surely the FBI has the data AND DP re-enactment films used to determine that very special figure, yes? THEN you can give us the NIX technical data.

18.5fps --- how was that frame rate determined and by who?

David, I would just as soon that you don't give me anything ... credit or otherwise for having one's name associated with yours can only ruin one's reputation. However, now that you have jumped into another thread as if you know something and as usual I am sure that you'll not add anything of value to show that you do .... each film frame captures a moment in time with degree's of time in between that are not captured. Whether one says the Nix film ran at 18.3 fps or 18.5 fps ... is it your intention to try and create something out of nothing by arguing over .2 fps, thus who really cares where the 18.5 fps came from. By the way, where were you when Jack posted a known misnumbered MPI Zframe ... I would think that was a bigger deal than worrying about .2 fps of a film speed.

Let me add this as well ... even if every camera ever made ran at 18.3 fps - that would not mean that the assassination films of the shooting are capturing the exact moments in time. The only way one could hope for a perfect match between films would be if they all started at the precise moment. Imagine a drummer hitting his drum on the up beat and another on the down beat. The same could happen with movie cameras as to when their user actually pushed the start button. The film from what I gather can also vary its speed through the camera, especially with cameras that were spring loaded.

While you don't know crap about the evidence of the case - you can still read, can't you? The figures were cited as coming from Gary Mack, so email Gary and inquire about the numbers from him. That email address is GMack@JFK.ORG

Bill

Edited April 19, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

While David Healy is off looking for Gary Mack to cite the source for the average running speed for the Nix camera - the rest of you can find the source and information on page 190 of Richard Trask book called "Pictures of the Pain". Trask says it was the "FBI" who gave the 18.5 fps average running speed for the Nix film.

Bill

Edited April 19, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

BS....!

have I been giving Bill and associates too much credit?

Clue: forget about Z-313, there a much better sync point re NIX and Zapruder.

Is it surprising we've never seen a merging of ALL Dealey Plaza motion films into one coherent presentation? Proving each film supports the others? Been nearly four years in the making...

You'd do better Bill if you'd followed your own instincts...

An exercise in futility, unless of course you can provide us with evidence AND proof the Z-camera ran at 18.3 frames a second, surely the FBI has the data AND DP re-enactment films used to determine that very special figure, yes? THEN you can give us the NIX technical data.

18.5fps --- how was that frame rate determined and by who?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. We obtained from Mr. Zapruder, Mr. Nix, Mrs. Muchmore; their cameras for examination, and in the FBI laboratory exposed film in all three cameras, aiming, focusing the camera on a clock with a large sweep-second hand. We then ran the camera at the speed and conditions as described by the people who used the cameras. We ran through several tests of film, and then after the film was developed it was studied under magnification, and frames were counted for a period of 2 to 3 seconds or for the full running time, and averages were taken.

The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second.

The Nix and Muchmore cameras were both found around 18.5 frames per second