The Z film is genuine and so are the photographs

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Here's why I think so:

Beyond some photographic manipulation from the Soviet Union where they would "purge" certain people from public photographs, I can't recall a single instance - before or after 11-22-63 - where a home movie, a publicly printed picture or network news footage was altered.

Can anybody point to any example of this being done? If so, it makes Z film manipulation seem more plausible.

If not, I believe it runs counter to common sense and precious reality to believe that a horde of movies, photographs and X-rays could be altered over the course of a few hours or even a few days.

Think about what this would mean - highly trained intelligence personnel would have to know - ahead of time - what people would believe about the JFK shooting so that they could "manipulate" the pictures and films to prove something else.

It's beyond mind-boggling to believe this could happen, it just doesn't ring true.

I understand why people go there intellectually but really, is it even remotely possible that this kind of clandestine activity could be carried out? For the only time in history?

It's how things are done in spy novels but is this really how things happen in the real world?

[Jack White]

What relation are you to Jack Valenti?

Jack

[Jack White]

When GHWBush was director of the CIA, he directed technicians to

create an assemblage of Prescott Bush and his progeny into a "family

portrait". At first glance it looks pretty good, until you look at the

sunlight coming from different directions. That's George 43 at far

left beside George 41.

[David G. Healy]

Here's why I think so:

Beyond some photographic manipulation from the Soviet Union where they would "purge" certain people from public photographs, I can't recall a single instance - before or after 11-22-63 - where a home movie, a publicly printed picture or network news footage was altered.

Can anybody point to any example of this being done? If so, it makes Z film manipulation seem more plausible.

If not, I believe it runs counter to common sense and precious reality to believe that a horde of movies, photographs and X-rays could be altered over the course of a few hours or even a few days.

Think about what this would mean - highly trained intelligence personnel would have to know - ahead of time - what people would believe about the JFK shooting so that they could "manipulate" the pictures and films to prove something else.

It's beyond mind-boggling to believe this could happen, it just doesn't ring true.

I understand why people go there intellectually but really, is it even remotely possible that this kind of clandestine activity could be carried out? For the only time in history?

It's how things are done in spy novels but is this really how things happen in the real world?

Mr Valenti,

"doesn't ring true..."? Start with reading the Warren Commission Report, then drop me a note! Makes not one bit difference how many scripts you've wrote, "common sense" is NOT a required condition of reality...

"horde of movies"? Care to fill us in on what makes up a horde, and said hordes timeline?

So, Mr. Valenti... even the staunchest of Dealey Plaza film/photo, non Z-film alteration advocates know some photos in the record were altered, including admissions by '63 era periodicals of doing same (for clarification purposes only, tsk-tsk).

"only time in history..."? roflmao! You do have a lot to learn.... read a few more threads....

Little bit of research goes a long way, but your a screenwriter, we'll forgive the oversight.

[Jack White]

The CIA routinely fakes photos. Here is one of recent vintage.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

'Mark Valenti' wrote

>>>"doesn't ring true..."? Start with reading the Warren Commission Report, then drop me a note! Makes not one bit difference how many scripts you've wrote, "common sense" is NOT a required condition of reality...>>>

I think you've just identified a key difference in our philosophies. To me, reality requires a heavy dose of common sense. Unless you've never been a parent.

I'm a granfather Mr. Valenti, 4 times over

>>>"horde of movies"? Care to fill us in on what makes up a horde, and said hordes timeline?>>

"Horde of movies, photographs and X-rays" is what I said. Not "horde of movies." Horde means a large group. People are talking about multiple photos and x-rays, along with the Zapruder and Muchmore films being altered. If you don't like the word "horde" how about "snazzy collection of"?

Mr Valenti, do you read what you post, is the above relevant to anything other than self importance?

>>>So, Mr. Valenti... even the staunchest of Dealey Plaza film/photo, non Z-film alteration advocates know some photos in the record were altered, including admissions by '63 era periodicals of doing same (for clarification purposes only, tsk-tsk).>>>

If you're going to bandy about such claims, you'd better be willing to back them up. Give me a list of staunch Dealy Plaza film/photo, non Z-film alteration advocates who know that some photos in the record were altered. You can start by naming five. Ready, set, go.

buy a book Mr. Valenti, buy a book -- T E A C H yourself! Making demands around here, get you nowhere young man

>>>"only time in history..."? roflmao! You do have a lot to learn.... read a few more threads....>>>

Can you teach me, Dave? Please?

whydoes this younger generation want everything handed to them... no free lunch here, Mr. Valenti

>>>Little bit of research goes a long way, but your a screenwriter, we'll forgive the oversight>>>

It's interesting that you assign a low status to my opinions due to a supposed lack of diligence on my part - this is something you couldn't possibly know -- and yet you believe it. Kind of like some half-formed opinions about photo alteration.

low status? How can I assign low status to one that has no knowledge of the subject matter? You're not informed, stick around...

Appears its you who own "uninformed opinions about JFK related alteration issues" follow your intuition Mr. Valenti! Forget the evidence... yet, YOU post seeking information about subject matter you have preconceived opinions of -- not very objective Mr. Valenti

PS: It's "you're" not "your." I believe accuracy counts.

the last vestiage of the uninformed, it's "you're" not "your." roflmao -- please orginality should suit a screenwriter -- btw, I prefer the period outside the quote...

Settle in for a long education Mr. Valenti

-- seeya around the hood

Edited July 6, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Chuck Robbins]

I guess we have another person who has little to add and much to learn.

Wasting time arguing about spelling and punctuation is really about as silly as it gets.

Mr. Valenti, if you have proof to back up your arguments, please, by all means....share it with us.

An opinion, no matter how well thought out, is still just an opinion and does not count as evidence.

Demanding that evidence be produced that will disprove your opinion is unrealistic.

[Bill Miller]

Why are you afraid of people who ask questions?

Because you are dealing with people who many of them do not know the facts of the case or have knowledge of the subject matter they are having put forth to them. Instead they will make claims and ask that you prove them wrong instead of they proving their claims right. Consider the sources.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Here's why I think so:

Beyond some photographic manipulation from the Soviet Union where they would "purge" certain people from public photographs, I can't recall a single instance - before or after 11-22-63 - where a home movie, a publicly printed picture or network news footage was altered.

Can anybody point to any example of this being done? If so, it makes Z film manipulation seem more plausible.

If not, I believe it runs counter to common sense and precious reality to believe that a horde of movies, photographs and X-rays could be altered over the course of a few hours or even a few days.

Think about what this would mean - highly trained intelligence personnel would have to know - ahead of time - what people would believe about the JFK shooting so that they could "manipulate" the pictures and films to prove something else.

It's beyond mind-boggling to believe this could happen, it just doesn't ring true.

I understand why people go there intellectually but really, is it even remotely possible that this kind of clandestine activity could be carried out? For the only time in history?

It's how things are done in spy novels but is this really how things happen in the real world?

Valenti obviously is not familiar with motion picture history.

In 1939 Jack Cosgrove was nominated for an academy award

for the dozens of matte insertion paintings used in Gone With

The Wind. Virtually every scene except closeups relied on

painted insertions instead of sets...because of speed and costs.

The film was way over budget and two years behind schedule.

So scenes were shot in many cases with bare bones sets and

were filled in by artists under Cosgrove, who used matte insertion

to fill in the blanks. For instance, all scenes of Tara were paintings.

A scene at the gate to Tara was shot outside the studio gates,

and the background behind the gates was a matte painting.

In a ballroom scene, there was no ceiling on the set, and

only studio lights were above; Cosgrove painted a beautiful

ceiling and combined it with the set by matte insertion. The

entire movie was filmed by the 3-film Technicolor process. By

1939, Hollywood was at a TECHNICAL PEAK of inventiveness...

far from the incompetence imagined by folks too young

to know the facts.

Investigate before saying things that are not true.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Here's why I think so:

Beyond some photographic manipulation from the Soviet Union where they would "purge" certain people from public photographs, I can't recall a single instance - before or after 11-22-63 - where a home movie, a publicly printed picture or network news footage was altered.

Can anybody point to any example of this being done? If so, it makes Z film manipulation seem more plausible.

If not, I believe it runs counter to common sense and precious reality to believe that a horde of movies, photographs and X-rays could be altered over the course of a few hours or even a few days.

Think about what this would mean - highly trained intelligence personnel would have to know - ahead of time - what people would believe about the JFK shooting so that they could "manipulate" the pictures and films to prove something else.

It's beyond mind-boggling to believe this could happen, it just doesn't ring true.

I understand why people go there intellectually but really, is it even remotely possible that this kind of clandestine activity could be carried out? For the only time in history?

It's how things are done in spy novels but is this really how things happen in the real world?

Valenti obviously is not familiar with motion picture history.

In 1939 Jack Cosgrove was nominated for an academy award

for the dozens of matte insertion paintings used in Gone With

The Wind. Virtually every scene except closeups relied on

painted insertions instead of sets...because of speed and costs.

The film was way over budget and two years behind schedule.

So scenes were shot in many cases with bare bones sets and

were filled in by artists under Cosgrove, who used matte insertion

to fill in the blanks. For instance, all scenes of Tara were paintings.

A scene at the gate to Tara was shot outside the studio gates,

and the background behind the gates was a matte painting.

In a ballroom scene, there was no ceiling on the set, and

only studio lights were above; Cosgrove painted a beautiful

ceiling and combined it with the set by matte insertion. The

entire movie was filmed by the 3-film Technicolor process. By

1939, Hollywood was at a TECHNICAL PEAK of inventiveness...

far from the incompetence imagined by folks too young

to know the facts.

Investigate before saying things that are not true.

Jack

Of course looking CLOSELY at all of these wonderful matte paintings inserted in Gone With the Wind shows them TO BE PAINTINGS....Deal with REALITY Jack....

Edited July 6, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Investigate before saying things that are not true.

Jack

Jack, I'm curious to know if you have any reason to suspect (or conclude) fakery

in any of the following:

1) Willis #5

2) Betzner #3

3) The Towner film

4) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

5) The Altgens photo from the west side of Houston St.

Thanks in advance.

[Chuck Robbins]

Why are you afraid of people who ask questions?

Because you are dealing with people who many of them do not know the facts of the case or have knowledge of the subject matter they are having put forth to them. Instead they will make claims and ask that you prove them wrong instead of they proving their claims right. Consider the sources.

Bill Miller

Dealing with arrogant know-it-alls, who base their "expert opinions" on purely personal observation, and who then bash others for giving their "personal observations", is a waste of time.

Whether something is a hand or a foot shows that Valenti is very aware of manipulation of the photos and is exactly one of the answers he had asked for.

This BS has gone on for since I can remember.

You, Mr. Miller, are an annoying, self-absorbed elitist.

I will admit that much of your work is enlightening and valuable, but, when you begin to demean others for giving their viewpoints....your value is lost as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Valenti asks that we prove his opinion wrong. I ask you simply...how is that possible?

Opinions are valid for the holder of the opinion.

When dealing with your conceited observations...considering the source is good advice.

Trash talk you give...trash talk you get.

By the way.....have you seen the hand yet, or, will you cling to your obviously wrong interpretation of that photo and insist that it is Clint Hills' foot?

The manipulation is clear to see. It is obviously an alteration of the original photo. The purpose of the manipulation was not the question...it was simply...have there been alterations made of the photos?

Answering his own question tells me that Mr. Valenti is here for reasons other than making a contribution.

You and I have butted heads more than once over the years.

Not once, that I can remember, has it been in regards to your work....it has always been in regards to your attitude and demeanor.

Suffice it to say that i will not hesitate to respond to your rhetoric when it, not your work, becomes the focal point.

[Jack White]

Investigate before saying things that are not true.

Jack

Jack, I'm curious to know if you have any reason to suspect (or conclude) fakery

in any of the following:

1) Willis #5

2) Betzner #3

3) The Towner film

4) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

5) The Altgens photo from the west side of Houston St.

Thanks in advance.

Cliff...I will be glad to respond to a reasonable question (a rarity here).

1. Willis 5 is altered in the area of the Z pedestal to show "Zapruder and Sitzman"

2. Betzner ditto above

3. I have never detected alteration to Tina's film, unless it is something removed;

her film seems to be "short" on each end, but there is no way to prove that. IMO

she started filming earlier and filmed longer than the extant film. Her film stops

JUST SHORT OF SHOWING THE Z PEDESTAL.

4. I have never detected alteration on the Nix HOUSTON segment...but lots

of alteration on the FIRST NIX ELM segment.

5. That is one of the photos which Altgens SAID HE DID NOT TAKE. I see no

fakery in the image, but is it an Altgens picture?

Jack

[Jack White]

Valenti obviously is not familiar with motion picture history.

In 1939 Jack Cosgrove was nominated for an academy award

for the dozens of matte insertion paintings used in Gone With

The Wind. Virtually every scene except closeups relied on

painted insertions instead of sets...because of speed and costs.

The film was way over budget and two years behind schedule.

So scenes were shot in many cases with bare bones sets and

were filled in by artists under Cosgrove, who used matte insertion

to fill in the blanks. For instance, all scenes of Tara were paintings.

A scene at the gate to Tara was shot outside the studio gates,

and the background behind the gates was a matte painting.

In a ballroom scene, there was no ceiling on the set, and

only studio lights were above; Cosgrove painted a beautiful

ceiling and combined it with the set by matte insertion. The

entire movie was filmed by the 3-film Technicolor process. By

1939, Hollywood was at a TECHNICAL PEAK of inventiveness...

far from the incompetence imagined by folks too young

to know the facts.

Investigate before saying things that are not true.

Jack

Jack,

I'm very familiar with movie history and Cosgrove's work. I was also friends with Gene Warren Sr. who won an Oscar for his special effects work on The Time Machine. He once created a volcano out of oatmeal.

These matte paintings took weeks to create and then superimposing them onto existing footage took days. There were considerations of lighting, depth of field, motion, shadows and the overall look of realism.

In other words, it ain't easy and it ain't something you can do in a weekend.

I'm still looking for proof that there were other films, photos and x-rays which were altered by clandestine agents to lead the public in one direction or another.

The Z film is fewer than 500 frames and 20 seconds and likely involved no

paintings...just a few matte images made from other films. A competent studio

could manipulate such a film in a few hours. The Z film is NOT GWTW. Do you

understand optical printing, matte insertion, soft edge mattes, travelling mattes

liquid gates, etc? Do you understand the Oxberry animation camera? Do you

understand the Rotoscope and Rotoscoping? You overestimate the degree of

difficulty involved.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

5. That is one of the photos which Altgens SAID HE DID NOT TAKE. I see no

fakery in the image, but is it an Altgens picture?

Jack

This one:

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/altgens2.jpg

I've seen it listed as Altgens #2 and Altgens #4.

The films/photos I cited show that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza;

the information contained therein stands un-disputed by questions of authenticity.