The Z-Film Fakery Nonsense
David Von Pein
DAVID G. HEALY SAID TO ME:
>>> "Only problem with you lone nut morons is this: none of you have an ounce of Z-film alteration debate in you other than what Gary Mack & Company want you to profess." <<<
DVP REPLIED:
A six-year-old can easily debunk any of the silly Z-Film
alterationists. The only thing that that six-year-old has to do is ask
the conspiracy-loving retards like David Healy and Doug Horne the
following unanswerable question:
IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ORDER TO HIDE ALL SIGNS
OF A FRONTAL GUNSHOT (AND WHAT OTHER CONCEIVABLE REASON UNDER THE MOON
COULD THERE BE FOR ANYONE TO WANT TO FAKE THE Z-FILM, OTHER THAN TO
GET RID OF ALL OF THE VISUAL THINGS IN THE FILM THAT MIGHT LEAD PEOPLE
TO THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS A "CONSPIRACY" INVOLVED IN JFK'S
DEATH?)....THEN WHY DOES THE CURRENTLY-AVAILABLE ZAPRUDER FILM CONTAIN
FOOTAGE OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD MOVING VIOLENTLY BACKWARD AND TO
THE LEFT AFTER THE FATAL HEAD SHOT?
No loopy conspiracy theorist has ever once come up with even a halfway-
reasonable answer to the question I just asked. And they never will be
able to provide any kind of a reasonable or logical or rational answer
to that question I just now asked--and that's because there is no
reasonable answer to that inquiry from the point-of-view of the silly
alterationists like Douglas P. Horne and James H. Fetzer, et al.
Or do the alterationists like Horne and Fetzer REALLY want people to
believe that the technicians who supposedly altered the Z-Film didn't
think that the "back and to the left" motion of Kennedy's head in the
film was an important enough thing to get rid of completely (even
though, as we all know, that very same "back and to the left" motion
in the film is certainly the NUMBER-ONE thing that causes most people
to shout "He was shot from the front!")?
Or maybe people like Horne and Fetzer want to believe that the idiots
who undertook the evil project of altering Zapruder's home movie did
not have the same mindset concerning the famous "back and to the left"
motion of the President's head that almost all other conspiracy
theorists have when watching the film.
Maybe Horne and Fetzer (et al) think that the film-fakers really
thought that the rear head snap would be a GOOD thing to leave in the
altered version of the film.
Or, alternately, maybe Horne and Fetzer believe that the film-alterers
simply DIDN'T NOTICE the rear head snap at all, and that's why it
wasn't removed from Zapruder's film.
Or, as another alternative (based on Fetzer's theory of the Z-Film
being "wholly fabricated"), perhaps the people who were "wholly
fabricating" the film thought it would be a good idea to ADD IN the
rear head snap, thereby causing millions of Americans to think that
the FABRICATED-FROM-WHOLE-CLOTH film was really revealing the exact
thing that the film-fakers were (supposedly) attempting to cover up --
A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER JOHN F. KENNEDY.
Isn't it time for common sense to take center stage in the debate
concerning "Zapruder Film fakery"?
WhiskyJoe
> IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ORDER
> TO HIDE ALL SIGNS OF A FRONTAL GUNSHOT (AND
> WHAT OTHER CONCEIVABLE REASON UNDER THE MOON
> COULD THERE BE FOR ANYONE TO WANT TO FAKE THE
> Z-FILM, OTHER THAN TO GET RID OF ALL OF THE
> VISUAL THINGS IN THE FILM THAT MIGHT LEAD
> PEOPLE TO THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS A
> "CONSPIRACY" INVOLVED IN JFK'S DEATH?)....
> THEN WHY DOES THE CURRENTLY-AVAILABLE ZAPRUDER
> FILM CONTAIN FOOTAGE OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S
> HEAD MOVING VIOLENTLY BACKWARD AND TO THE
> LEFT AFTER THE FATAL HEAD SHOT?
Because it was more important to show Moorman and
Hill standing on the grass so people wouldn't
think that they were women of the street.
**************************************************
Actually, perhaps a better way for a CTer to
handle this question would be to say:
"The reasons why they left in the 'Back and to
the Left' motion of JFK's head and torso are
so obvious that they do not have to be
mentioned" and just leave it at that.
Thalia
1. There is either evidence that the Z-film is faked, or there isn't. Just
because it doesn't make sense to you that it was done, doesn't mean it
wasn't. Its a scientific matter and should be resolved by open- minded,
unbiased scientists.
2. It seems that one possible reason for the Z-film fakery was to take out
the limo stopping. A lot of people said it virtually stopped, and its
brake lights were on - well that doesn't show up in the film (although
there is other evidence in the film for the stopping of the limo ie the
motorcyclists suddenly catching up to the limo) This is why there are so
many anomolies in the movement of the bystanders and occupants of the car,
and why the lamp post moves with the background scenery (its been painted
on)
3. It appears that a patch has been placed over the missing rear of JFK's
head (necessary to cover up conspiracy) The backward snap might have been
impossible to reverse in a way that looked real (although Dan Rather
testified to Kennedy moving forward with considerable violence so one
version with it could have been made)
4. I am not a photographic expert, nor a scientist so I can only say whatt
makes sense to me, and what I can see. It really should be left to
scientists to prove it one or the other.
markusp
> Isn't it time for common sense to take center stage in the debate
> concerning "Zapruder Film fakery"?
I'm not convinced that the Z-film was photographically altered to
deliberately conceal evidence of other shooters. However, the Z-film
was indeed altered when several frames were damaged and excised. Since
these frames were removed near where a shot may have impacted the
occupants, skepticism should be expected.
Respectfully,
~Mark
David Von Pein
The camera-original Z-Film could not possibly have been faked at the
time when people like Fetzer and Horne think it was faked, because the
film was never out of the possession of Abraham Zapruder or his
partner Erwin Schwartz until sometime on Saturday, November 23.
Case closed.
Sandy McCroskey
And there isn't.
> Just
> because it doesn't make sense to you that it was done, doesn't mean it
> wasn't. Its a scientific matter and should be resolved by open- minded,
> unbiased scientists.
>
As it has been.
> 2. It seems that one possible reason for the Z-film fakery was to take out
> the limo stopping. A lot of people said it virtually stopped, and its
> brake lights were on - well that doesn't show up in the film (although
> there is other evidence in the film for the stopping of the limo ie the
> motorcyclists suddenly catching up to the limo) This is why there are so
> many anomolies in the movement of the bystanders and occupants of the car,
> and why the lamp post moves with the background scenery (its been painted
> on)
>
ROFLMAO
> 3. It appears that a patch has been placed over the missing rear of JFK's
> head (necessary to cover up conspiracy) The backward snap might have been
> impossible to reverse in a way that looked real (although Dan Rather
> testified to Kennedy moving forward with considerable violence so one
> version with it could have been made)
>
Rather (gasp) misspoke.
> 4. I am not a photographic expert, nor a scientist so I can only say whatt
> makes sense to me, and what I can see. It really should be left to
> scientists to prove it one or the other.
And for you to ignore what they say when they do.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
>
> DAVID G. HEALY SAID TO ME:
>
>>>> "Only problem with you lone nut morons is this: none of you have an
ounce of Z-film alteration debate in you other than what Gary Mack&
Company want you to profess."<<<
>
>
> DVP REPLIED:
>
> A six-year-old can easily debunk any of the silly Z-Film
> alterationists. The only thing that that six-year-old has to do is ask
> the conspiracy-loving retards like David Healy and Doug Horne the
> following unanswerable question:
>
> IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ORDER TO HIDE ALL SIGNS
> OF A FRONTAL GUNSHOT (AND WHAT OTHER CONCEIVABLE REASON UNDER THE MOON
> COULD THERE BE FOR ANYONE TO WANT TO FAKE THE Z-FILM, OTHER THAN TO
> GET RID OF ALL OF THE VISUAL THINGS IN THE FILM THAT MIGHT LEAD PEOPLE
> TO THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS A "CONSPIRACY" INVOLVED IN JFK'S
> DEATH?)....THEN WHY DOES THE CURRENTLY-AVAILABLE ZAPRUDER FILM CONTAIN
> FOOTAGE OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD MOVING VIOLENTLY BACKWARD AND TO
> THE LEFT AFTER THE FATAL HEAD SHOT?
>
Because they could count on propaganda assets like you to explain it away.
You guys specialize in explaining away the obvious. Like your ridiculous
SBT to explain away two shots from behind very close to each other.
> No loopy conspiracy theorist has ever once come up with even a halfway-
> reasonable answer to the question I just asked. And they never will be
Your question has several false premises. That's why it is a straw man
argument so easy for you to knock down. Maybe the conspirators don't care
about the head shot because as professional assassins they KNOW that the
head can move in any direction regardless of where the bullet came from.
Your argument also depends on believing that you are seeing an unaltered
film so what could be altered in what we have already. The extreme
alterationists would argue that what was changed is what was cut out that
we don't see now. Extra shots. Missing frames, etc. That's why my proof
was so important, because it proves that no frames were cut out except the
known mangling by LIFE.
Here is a counter argument. If the conspirators wanted to alter the
Zapruder film to hide evidence of conspiracy, why did they leave in the
last few frames which show their shooter on the grassy knoll? Why didn't
they also alter the Moorman photo which shows the same shooter on the
grassy knoll. Answer: there was no need to do that because they could hire
propaganda assets to explain it all away. Like people in newsgroups who
claim there was no person behind the fence.
> able to provide any kind of a reasonable or logical or rational answer
> to that question I just now asked--and that's because there is no
> reasonable answer to that inquiry from the point-of-view of the silly
> alterationists like Douglas P. Horne and James H. Fetzer, et al.
>
> Or do the alterationists like Horne and Fetzer REALLY want people to
> believe that the technicians who supposedly altered the Z-Film didn't
> think that the "back and to the left" motion of Kennedy's head in the
> film was an important enough thing to get rid of completely (even
> though, as we all know, that very same "back and to the left" motion
> in the film is certainly the NUMBER-ONE thing that causes most people
> to shout "He was shot from the front!")?
>
> Or maybe people like Horne and Fetzer want to believe that the idiots
> who undertook the evil project of altering Zapruder's home movie did
> not have the same mindset concerning the famous "back and to the left"
> motion of the President's head that almost all other conspiracy
> theorists have when watching the film.
>
> Maybe Horne and Fetzer (et al) think that the film-fakers really
> thought that the rear head snap would be a GOOD thing to leave in the
> altered version of the film.
>
How about this argument: there was no back and to the left movement
until the conspirators altered the Zapruder film. To SHOW OFF that it
was a conspiracy. To blame it on Castro.
David Von Pein
>>> "Here is a counter argument. If the conspirators wanted to alter the
Zapruder film to hide evidence of conspiracy, why did they leave in the
last few frames which show their shooter on the grassy knoll? Why didn't
they also alter the Moorman photo which shows the same shooter on the
grassy knoll. Answer: there was no need to do that because they could hire
propaganda assets to explain it all away. Like people in newsgroups who
claim there was no person behind the fence." <<<
LOL.
>>> "How about this argument: there was no back and to the left movement
until the conspirators altered the Zapruder film. To SHOW OFF that it was
a conspiracy. To blame it on Castro." <<<
LOL reprise. (A great-big one here.)
Gee, I knew that I'd hear from Tony Marsh in this thread (he can't pass up
ANY thread, of course; has there been even ONE aaj thread which is void of
any Marsh participation since approximately the year 2002? I'm doubting
it).
And, of course, I also knew I could count on Anthony arguing just for the
sake of arguing (as he always does). But I had no idea my weak urinary
bladder would get THIS kind of a workout from Tony's hilarious commentary
regarding Z-Film alteration.
Thank you, W. Anthony. Thank you very much.
yeuhd
> Here is a counter argument. If the conspirators wanted to alter the
> Zapruder film to hide evidence of conspiracy, why did they leave in the
> last few frames which show their shooter on the grassy knoll?
Your "shooter on the grassy knoll" was Emmett Hudson.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kindly post a link to this anaylsis (if if its a government study I am
not interested) BTW, posting silly internet abbreviations ie ROFLMAO
is not disproving anything
bigdog
Dan Rather testified? To whom? I wasn't aware that Rather had been called
by the WC. Rather wasn't even a witness. He was on the opposite side of
the underpass when the shots were fired. He knew only what he had been
told. Reporting something is not the same as testifying to it.
> 4. I am not a photographic expert, nor a scientist so I can only say what
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 6, 6:33 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 12:31 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> DAVID G. HEALY SAID TO ME:
>>
He's talking about Rather watching the Zapruder film.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. We can see him in the Moorman photo and he is not behind the fence.
John Blubaugh
You mean they can lie their asses off when reporting (like Rather did
about the Z-film) but they have to tell the truth when testifying. Oh,
that the world was so simple Grasshopper.....
JB
Sandy McCroskey
> not interested) BTW, posting silly internet abbreviations ie ROFLMAO
> is not disproving anything
I'm sure you've seen the same analyses already. You just refuse to
believe them.
I don't think any government agency has ever taken the Z-film
alterationists seriously enough to do a study.
But all I had to do was **read Jim Fetzer's own book**, The Great Z
Film Hoax, to realize that it's a downright screwy theory. I didn't
need anybody to explain that to me. It's just incredible to me that
anyone can believe such nonsense.
And when they start pointing at the things they think they see
there... I just roll on the floor laughing my ass off.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 6, 12:31 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> DAVID G. HEALY SAID TO ME:
>>
But on either side you may not be aware of the evidence. Most people were
not aware of the evidence right on the Zapruder film itself which proves
its authenticity, the ghost images in the sprocket hole area. Most people
assumed it was a camera defect which would be the same if the film was
real or not. Some kooks did thing it proved alteration because it could
only have happened accidentally in the Ultra Top Secret CIA photo lab. But
then I showed examples of ordinary home movies which they did not know
about which have the same type of ghost images in the sprocket hole area.
> 2. It seems that one possible reason for the Z-film fakery was to take out
> the limo stopping. A lot of people said it virtually stopped, and its
> brake lights were on - well that doesn't show up in the film (although
The brake lights were NOT on. That is an optical illusion caused by the
angle of the sun through the lens of the left brake light lens. The right
brake light lens in the shadow never lights up.
> there is other evidence in the film for the stopping of the limo ie the
> motorcyclists suddenly catching up to the limo) This is why there are so
That is only evidence of the limo slowing down. Alvarez had already
proven that.
> many anomolies in the movement of the bystanders and occupants of the car,
> and why the lamp post moves with the background scenery (its been painted
> on)
>
There are no anomalies.
> 3. It appears that a patch has been placed over the missing rear of JFK's
> head (necessary to cover up conspiracy) The backward snap might have been
> impossible to reverse in a way that looked real (although Dan Rather
> testified to Kennedy moving forward with considerable violence so one
> version with it could have been made)
>
> 4. I am not a photographic expert, nor a scientist so I can only say whatt
> makes sense to me, and what I can see. It really should be left to
> scientists to prove it one or the other.
>
No, never leave things up to the experts. They work for the government
and are known liars. Make them prove it to the average person.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
One anomalie I will mention is the lampost - watch it carefully - it
does not move AT ALL in relation to the background of the film. The
same bit of flower in the background is always next to it. This could
only occur if the lamp post had been painted on [instead of it being
the real lampost in the film) - and it does have that pasted on look
about it. Why do this? The background was retimed and the limo cut out
and retimed - to show the limo never stopped. I have never had one
person adequately explain this to me - it just gets ignored.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whatever.
Thalia
Douglas Horne responding to attack dogs:
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 7, 8:44 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 7:14 am, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 6, 6:33 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 6, 12:31 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> DAVID G. HEALY SAID TO ME:
>>
You mean like the National Archives which commissioned Roland Zavada to
do the study to prove that the Zapruder film is authentic?
yeuhd
> One anomalie I will mention is the lampost - watch it carefully - it
> does not move AT ALL in relation to the background of the film.
This has already been explained to you by several people here,
including me, but it hasn't sunk in apparently. Unless the
photographer is walking around, or zooming in or out, a lamppost or
any other foreground or middle ground object will not move in relation
to the background, EVEN IN A PANNING SHOT.
If you have a video camera, you can verify this yourself.
Not so long ago you asserted that no one moved in the foreground to
the left of the Stemmons Freeway, and that this was evidence that the
film was faked or altered. This was disproved to you — several people
are seen clapping or moving their heads. Then you claimed that JFK's
arms were frozen in place when he raised him. This was also disproved
to you — his elbows rise and then droop noticeably.
What will you think of next?
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Luckily what you think is of zero consequence to me. I have shown things
to people who have no interest in the JFK assassination and they all say
that the lamp post DOES NOT move in relation to the realtion, which it
should. Explain that Mr holier-than-though sarcastic one.
Herbert Blenner
Changes in the position of the camera will cause nearer objects to move
against background objects. This is the parallax effect.
Panning a movie camera is a rotation that changes the direction its line
of sight but does not change the position of the center of the camera with
respect to other stationary objects.
So a true Zapruder film would show unchanging alignments between the
lamppost and stationary objects.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
That's just plain silly. The filmstock was examined and there is nothing
painted on. The angle remains constant as Zapruder pans from left to
right. The background does not move.
> the real lampost in the film) - and it does have that pasted on look
> about it. Why do this? The background was retimed and the limo cut out
> and retimed - to show the limo never stopped. I have never had one
> person adequately explain this to me - it just gets ignored.
>
No other films or photos indicate that the limo stopped during the time
frame that the Zapruder film was shot, so you'd have to alter them to
match. Are you ready to claim that ALL the evidence is fake?
Sandy McCroskey
Oh, right. This was 1998, well before Jim Fetzer got into the act—and
yet it didn't stop him. I was thinking of the alterationist arguments
we hear from him and his ilk today.
/sm
drummist1965
"We"?? Speak for yourself, Tony. All I see is a blurry, dark
area. Hardly proof of a human being, let alone a gunman.
Anthony Marsh
I don't know what you are talking about. Hudson identified himself as
the man on the steps in the Moorman photo. I can see him. Everyone can
see him why can't you? I never said Hudson was a gunman. Apparently you
are the only one who has said that.
Anthony Marsh
> yet it didn't stop him. I was thinking of the alterationist arguments
> we hear from him and his ilk today.
> /sm
I don't want to name names, but there were active alterationists before
Fetzer.
Anthony Marsh
Are you forgetting that his camera was set on telephoto?
> Herbert
yeuhd
"The last few frames"?
Here's Z-478, one of the last few non-blurry frames of the Zapruder
film (0.4 second before Z-486, the last). The corner of the stockade
fence composes the right third of the frame, and the Triple Underpass
fills the left two-thirds of the frame. Hey, you can see that grassy
knoll shooter … nowhere.
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, why don't you tell everyone why you post the worst possible
quality you can find? BTW, don't expect to see a full profile. Only the
top of the head.
GV
Horne's "main contribution" with regards to the Z-alteration,
according to himself, is to have set the time line. That is, he
considers it proven that this highly classified laboratory actually
had access to the film over that entire weekend, following the
assassination.
What beats me, is this: How would the "alterationists" know what to
alter?
With Dealey Plaza crowded with bystanders, policemen and all the rest
of the motorcade journalists, this would seem a very risky proposal
indeed. That is, unless you think that more or less every photo and
film taken during the event, is also altered. Which to me is a
preposterous suggestion.
As at least part of this alteration would have to have taken place
simultanously with the Bethesda autopsy, it would also mean that the
alteration would have to be synchronized with the autopsy findings.
Oh, I'm aware that some CTers subscribe to the view that all of this
actually happened, but that is just a ludicrous proposition.
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 8, 6:40 am, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 8:44 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 7:14 am, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 6, 6:33 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 6, 12:31 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> DAVID G. HEALY SAID TO ME:
>>
No, it shouldn't. The lamppost is fixed to the sidewalk, so it should
not be walking around.
yeuhd
Your standard rejoinder when you have no better argument to make.
Peekaboo, we're onto you. That's actually the highest quality available on
the Internet. Don't believe me? Point to a higher quality scan of Z-478 or
Z-486.
yeuhd
> Yeah, why don't you tell everyone why you post the worst possible
> quality you can find?
"First, I notice that you use the worst possible quality frames you can
find."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/be36dbf6aa29f727
"Could you possibly produce even worse quality frames so that we can't see
anything at all?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1a2e44db1f2b15c2
"Very poor quality frames."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a0db7a0ff69c27eb?pli=1
Anthony Marsh
Maybe any evidence of extra shooters? If they are trying to blame it on
a lone shooter??
> With Dealey Plaza crowded with bystanders, policemen and all the rest
> of the motorcade journalists, this would seem a very risky proposal
> indeed. That is, unless you think that more or less every photo and
No, not all. They know that eyewitness are inherently unreliable and
that the photographic evidence trumps the eyewitnesses.
> film taken during the event, is also altered. Which to me is a
> preposterous suggestion.
>
Maybe no other film was taken from that same side?
Maybe no other film showed the entire time of the shooting?
> As at least part of this alteration would have to have taken place
> simultanously with the Bethesda autopsy, it would also mean that the
> alteration would have to be synchronized with the autopsy findings.
>
Or the autopsy findings could be altered, under military orders from the
conspirators. Tell everyone here that you weren't aware of Humes burning
the first autopsy report and rewriting it under military orders.
> Oh, I'm aware that some CTers subscribe to the view that all of this
> actually happened, but that is just a ludicrous proposition.
>
>
Maybe, but maybe some conspiracy believers also think that ALL the
evidence has been altered, every single film and photo.
I don't suppose that you realize that it was a conspiracy believer who
was the first person to prove that the Zapruder film is authentic.
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 9, 1:21 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/9/2010 10:21 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 6:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2010 8:41 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 6, 9:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Here is a counter argument. If the conspirators wanted to alter the
>>>>>> Zapruder film to hide evidence of conspiracy, why did they leave in the
>>>>>> last few frames which show their shooter on the grassy knoll?
>>
>>>>> Your "shooter on the grassy knoll" was Emmett Hudson.
>>
>>>>> http://www.jfklancer.com/miller/mysteryman.html
>>
>>>> Wrong. We can see him in the Moorman photo and he is not behind the fence.
>>
>>> "The last few frames"?
>>
>>> Here's Z-478, one of the last few non-blurry frames of the Zapruder
>>> film (0.4 second before Z-486, the last). The corner of the stockade
>>> fence composes the right third of the frame, and the Triple Underpass
>>> fills the left two-thirds of the frame. Hey, you can see that grassy
>>
>>> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z478.jpg
>>
>>> Z-486:
>>> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z486.jpg
>>
>> Yeah, why don't you tell everyone why you post the worst possible
>> quality you can find?
>
> Your standard rejoinder when you have no better argument to make.
> Peekaboo, we're onto you. That's actually the highest quality available on
> the Internet. Don't believe me? Point to a higher quality scan of Z-478 or
> Z-486.
>
I didn't say on the Internet and you don't know what I can find.
yeuhd
> On 4/9/2010 10:05 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 1:21 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/9/2010 10:21 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 7, 6:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2010 8:41 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 6, 9:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Here is a counter argument. If the conspirators wanted to alter the
> >>>>>> Zapruder film to hide evidence of conspiracy, why did they leave in the
> >>>>>> last few frames which show their shooter on the grassy knoll?
>
> >>>>> Your "shooter on the grassy knoll" was Emmett Hudson.
>
> >>>>>http://www.jfklancer.com/miller/mysteryman.html
>
> >>>> Wrong. We can see him in the Moorman photo and he is not behind the fence.
>
> >>> "The last few frames"?
>
> >>> Here's Z-478, one of the last few non-blurry frames of the Zapruder
> >>> film (0.4 second before Z-486, the last). The corner of the stockade
> >>> fence composes the right third of the frame, and the Triple Underpass
> >>> fills the left two-thirds of the frame. Hey, you can see that grassy
>
> >>>http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z478.jpg
>
> >>> Z-486:
> >>>http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z486.jpg
>
> >> Yeah, why don't you tell everyone why you post the worst possible
> >> quality you can find?
>
> > Your standard rejoinder when you have no better argument to make.
> > Peekaboo, we're onto you. That's actually the highest quality available on
> > the Internet. Don't believe me? Point to a higher quality scan of Z-478 or
> > Z-486.
>
> I didn't say on the Internet and you don't know what I can find.
Then point to a higher quality scan of Z-478 or Z-486.
GV
>
> > Horne's "main contribution" with regards to the Z-alteration,
> > according to himself, is to have set the time line. That is, he
> > considers it proven that this highly classified laboratory actually
> > had access to the film over that entire weekend, following the
> > assassination.
>
> > What beats me, is this: How would the "alterationists" know what to
> > alter?
>
> Maybe any evidence of extra shooters? If they are trying to blame it on
> a lone shooter??
That's what they wanted to achieve, obviously. The question was - how
did they know how to go about it?
>
> > With Dealey Plaza crowded with bystanders, policemen and all the rest
> > of the motorcade journalists, this would seem a very risky proposal
> > indeed. That is, unless you think that more or less every photo and
> No, not all. They know that eyewitness are inherently unreliable and
> that the photographic evidence trumps the eyewitnesses.I
Of course witnesses are unreliable i comparison. I'm not talking about
what they could be expected to say, but primarily about the inherent
risks in their photos and films. No one could how that entire picture
unfolded at the Plaza, expecially immediately following the deed.
> > film taken during the event, is also altered. Which to me is a
> > preposterous suggestion.
>
> Maybe no other film was taken from that same side?
> Maybe no other film showed the entire time of the shooting?
The risks could potentially be equally high no matter from where the
photos/films were taken.
> > As at least part of this alteration would have to have taken place
> > simultanously with the Bethesda autopsy, it would also mean that the
> > alteration would have to be synchronized with the autopsy findings.
>
> Or the autopsy findings could be altered, under military orders from the
> conspirators. Tell everyone here that you weren't aware of Humes burning
> the first autopsy report and rewriting it under military orders.
Of course I know this. But you tell everyone exactly what that proves?
>
> > Oh, I'm aware that some CTers subscribe to the view that all of this
> > actually happened, but that is just a ludicrous proposition.
>
> Maybe, but maybe some conspiracy believers also think that ALL the
> evidence has been altered, every single film and photo
Yes, thats the nut version of CTers.
> I don't suppose that you realize that it was a conspiracy believer who
> was the first person to prove that the Zapruder film is authentic.
So what? Makes no difference.
cdddra...@live.com
>
> He's talking about Rather watching the Zapruder film.
>
>
Who would "Rather" be "watching the Zapruder film" ?
tl
bigdog
Your points are well taken. There is no way the conspirators could have
known in advance how many films and photos would be taken or from which
angles, so how could they possibly have a plan in place to alter any
specific film? How would they know which film to alter? How would they
have even known someone named Abraham Zapruder would be filming the
assassination and from what vantage point? How could they know that the
alterations they made to the Z-film would be compatable with other films
and photos? The whole idea of altering the Z-film to hide evidence of
multiple shooters is preposterous. If your intent is to frame a lone
gunman, you use a lone gunman. Using multiple gunman to frame a lone
assassin runs the risk of introducing photographic, ballistic, and medical
evidence of multiple gunmen. Multiple gunmen means conspiracy.
cdddra...@live.com
> On Apr 7, 12:47 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 6:33 pm, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 12:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > DAVID G. HEALY SAID TO ME:
>
> > > because it doesn't make sense to you that it was done, doesn't mean it
> > > wasn't. Its a scientific matter and should be resolved by open- minded,
> > > unbiased scientists.
>
> > > the limo stopping. A lot of people said it virtually stopped, and its
> > > brake lights were on - well that doesn't show up in the film (although
> > > there is other evidence in the film for the stopping of the limo ie the
> > > motorcyclists suddenly catching up to the limo) This is why there are so
> > > many anomolies in the movement of the bystanders and occupants of the car,
> > > and why the lamp post moves with the background scenery (its been painted
> > > on)
>
> > > head (necessary to cover up conspiracy) The backward snap might have been
> > > impossible to reverse in a way that looked real (although Dan Rather
> > > testified to Kennedy moving forward with considerable violence so one
> > > version with it could have been made)
>
> > by the WC. Rather wasn't even a witness. He was on the opposite side of
> > the underpass when the shots were fired. He knew only what he had been
> > told. Reporting something is not the same as testifying to it.
>
> > > 4. I am not a photographic expert, nor a scientist so I can only say what
> > > scientists to prove it one or the other.
>
> about the Z-film) but they have to tell the truth when testifying. Oh,
> that the world was so simple Grasshopper.....
>
> JB
>
>
Actually Rather than lie , Dan made a astute observation :
He stated JFK's head went forward with extreme speed or violence ....
Didn't he ?
tl
cdddra...@live.com
> On Apr 7, 8:44 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Just
> > > > because it doesn't make sense to you that it was done, doesn't mean it
> > > > wasn't. Its a scientific matter and should be resolved by open- minded,
> > > > unbiased scientists.
>
>
> > > > 2. It seems that one possible reason for the Z-film fakery was to take out
> > > > the limo stopping. A lot of people said it virtually stopped, and its
> > > > brake lights were on - well that doesn't show up in the film (although
> > > > there is other evidence in the film for the stopping of the limo ie the
> > > > motorcyclists suddenly catching up to the limo) This is why there are so
> > > > many anomolies in the movement of the bystanders and occupants of the car,
> > > > and why the lamp post moves with the background scenery (its been painted
> > > > on)
>
>
> > > > 3. It appears that a patch has been placed over the missing rear of JFK's
> > > > head (necessary to cover up conspiracy) The backward snap might have been
> > > > impossible to reverse in a way that looked real (although Dan Rather
> > > > testified to Kennedy moving forward with considerable violence so one
> > > > version with it could have been made)
>
>
> > > > 4. I am not a photographic expert, nor a scientist so I can only say whatt
> > > > makes sense to me, and what I can see. It really should be left to
> > > > scientists to prove it one or the other.
>
>
> > > /sm- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Kindly post a link to this anaylsis (if if its a government study I am
> > not interested) BTW, posting silly internet abbreviations ie ROFLMAO
> > is not disproving anything
>
> I'm sure you've seen the same analyses already. You just refuse to
> believe them.
> I don't think any government agency has ever taken the Z-film
> alterationists seriously enough to do a study.
> Film Hoax, to realize that it's a downright screwy theory. I didn't
> need anybody to explain that to me. It's just incredible to me that
> anyone can believe such nonsense.
> And when they start pointing at the things they think they see
> there... I just roll on the floor laughing my ass off.
> /sandy
>
>
Google 'Zavada Report' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film
Authenticity
Zapruder testified before the Warren Commission[12] that the frames
published in Commission Exhibit 885 were from the film that he took.
Three other films of part of the assassination (the Orville Nix, Marie
Muchmore and Charles Bronson films), together with numerous still
photographs, are consistent with the Zapruder film, suggesting that they
are all authentic.
In 1998, Roland Zavada, a product engineer from Kodak who led the team
that invented Kodachrome II, and the worlds leading authority on Kodak
emulsions , studied the film at the behest of the National Archives and
concluded that the film was an “in camera original” and that any
alleged alterations were not feasible.[13] Any attempt to create a false
"in camera original" by copying Zapruder's film would leave visible
artifacts of "image structure constraints of grain; [and] contrast and
modulation transfer function losses.…It has no evidence of optical
effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing,
[or] contrast buildup."[14]
[12] ^ Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, Vol. VII, pp. 569–576.
Online version at the History Matters Archive.
[13].^ Roland J. Zavada, Analysis of Selected Motion Picture
Photographic Evidence, 1998.
[14].^ Rollie Zavada, "Request for Response to Z-film Hoax extracts",
2003.
tl
cdddra...@live.com
>
> Kindly post a link to this anaylsis (if if its a government study I am
> not interested) BTW, posting silly internet abbreviations ie ROFLMAO
> is not disproving anything
>
>
Dumbing it down for :
In The Simpsons episode "Marge In Chains", in which Marge is on trial for
shoplifting, prosecutors show the Zapruder film and assert that she was
present on the grassy knoll when Kennedy was assassinated because Marge's
tall, blue, tower of hair can be seen protruding from behind the crowd.
cdddra...@live.com
>
> One anomalie I will mention is the lampost - watch it carefully - it
> does not move AT ALL
>
>
Thalia , in 63 , moving lamposts hadn't been invented yet ....
Good try though ....
tl
cdddra...@live.com
>
> Luckily what you think is of zero consequence to me. I have shown things
> to people who have no interest in the JFK assassination and they all say
> that the lamp post DOES NOT move in relation to the realtion, which it
> should. Explain that Mr holier-than-though sarcastic one.
>
>
Did you make sure 'They' also didn't have any interest in the JFK
Assassination and science also ?
tl
cdddra...@live.com
>
> Horne's "main contribution" with regards to the Z-alteration,
> according to himself, is to have set the time line. That is, he
> considers it proven that this highly classified laboratory actually
> had access to the film over that entire weekend, following the
> assassination.
>
> What beats me, is this: How would the "alterationists" know what to
> alter?
>
> With Dealey Plaza crowded with bystanders, policemen and all the rest
> of the motorcade journalists, this would seem a very risky proposal
> indeed. That is, unless you think that more or less every photo and
> film taken during the event, is also altered. Which to me is a
> preposterous suggestion.
>
> As at least part of this alteration would have to have taken place
> simultanously with the Bethesda autopsy, it would also mean that the
> alteration would have to be synchronized with the autopsy findings.
>
> Oh, I'm aware that some CTers subscribe to the view that all of this
> actually happened, but that is just a ludicrous proposition.
>
>
Words ? :
Malicious gullibility :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u_4B6JDcgE&feature=related
tl
GV
> Your points are well taken. There is no way the conspirators could have
> known in advance how many films and photos would be taken or from which
> angles, so how could they possibly have a plan in place to alter any
> specific film? How would they know which film to alter? How would they
> have even known someone named Abraham Zapruder would be filming the
> assassination and from what vantage point? How could they know that the
> alterations they made to the Z-film would be compatable with other films
> and photos? The whole idea of altering the Z-film to hide evidence of
> multiple shooters is preposterous. If your intent is to frame a lone
> gunman, you use a lone gunman. Using multiple gunman to frame a lone
> assassin runs the risk of introducing photographic, ballistic, and medical
> evidence of multiple gunmen. Multiple gunmen means conspiracy.
My view, too, exactly.
GV
I watched Mr Costella (U-tube) at that conference in Duluth, 2003. For
a layman, it is admittedly difficult to judge whether he is correct.
But the other day he posted his "Horne review", where he without
hesitation claims that "Zapruder himself did not take the Z-film", and
that "Zapruder was not on that concrete wall at the time of the
event".
That is just the kind of thing that make up one's mind about things,
more generally speaking, as far as Costella. Where in the world would
he get such an idea?
GV
Excellent stuff! :-)
John Blubaugh
No, he didn't.
JB
Anthony Marsh
You overlook the fact that they spend billions of dollars to hire useful
idiots to explain away anything, even claiming that they can't see a man
standing behind a fence.
bigdog
I think sometimes these kooks make up outrageous things because it sounds
so much more interesting than the truth.
GV
True or not, that's beyond my point. I'm questioning what this
laboratory could possibly know, and do, - THAT FIRST WEEKEND -
following the assassination, not what in theory could be done over the
next few decades.
GV
>
> > > tl
>
> > I watched Mr Costella (U-tube) at that conference in Duluth, 2003. For
> > a layman, it is admittedly difficult to judge whether he is correct.
> > But the other day he posted his "Horne review", where he without
> > hesitation claims that "Zapruder himself did not take the Z-film", and
> > that "Zapruder was not on that concrete wall at the time of the
> > event".
>
> > That is just the kind of thing that make up one's mind about things,
> > more generally speaking, as far as Costella. Where in the world would
> > he get such an idea?
>
> I think sometimes these kooks make up outrageous things because it sounds
> so much more interesting than the truth.
Yes, simply weird.
Anthony Marsh
You are asking a silly question. And your intent seems to be to lure
people into answers which you will misuse to label them as alterationists.
I can tell you what I WOULD have altered if I were trying to frame a
lone shooter.
I would have juggled the frames to make it clear that Kennedy was hit by
Z-180 and then Connally by Z-240 giving plenty of time for one shooter
to fire both shots. I would remove the back and to the left sequence. I
would print frame Z-314 and Z-315 out of sequence. I would have removed
the last 30 frames and pretend that was the end of the film.
bigdog
GV, are you getting any of those billions of dollars to post here? I
haven't seen a dime of that money. I'm beginning to think I'm being
shortchanged. I might go on strike until I get my check.
curtjester1
> The camera-original Z-Film could not possibly have been faked at the
> time when people like Fetzer and Horne think it was faked, because the
> film was never out of the possession of Abraham Zapruder or his
> partner Erwin Schwartz until sometime on Saturday, November 23.
>
> Case closed.
Ha. Schwartz was quoted to have taken the film and had sent it to
Washington by a trip to the airport.
Homer McMahon said he saw the film over ten times and it was his job to
produce over 40 photos from the film.
What he and a few 'original viewers' said, in gist, that there were more
shots, two head shots, instead of one viewed, a limo stoppage, and a whole
sequence of film of the motorcade instead of it picking up at z133, also
which contained the lead car going through ahead of the motorcade.
Too many shots which, and the limo shots would be the most needed to have
edited if one needed to promote a one gunman scenario.
There are pics in the Nov. 29th Life edition that have been claimed were
altered.
Time-Life's owner, Luce was quite at odds with JFK, even storming out of a
luncheon at the White House, and was very pro-CIA of which the higher CIA
echelon was always doing ruses and stunts to provoke JFK.
Zapruder had connections with the Dallas Petroleum Club and CIA
affilitations.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Very weak. The guy's a moron, relying on straw man arguments because he
doesn't have any facts.
Anthony Marsh
It's funny to see a moron like Murphy bring up the Protocols of Zion as
the best example of loopy conspiracy theories. He doesn't even realize
that it was not conspiracy kooks who invented it, but that it was invented
by the Russian intelligence service, a government bred conspiracy theory.
Just like Bush invented the conspiracy theory that Saddam had a nuclear
bomb and was preparing to attack the United States. To justify his
stealing $120B of public money.
Jason Burke
But, but, maybe the industrial-military complex had secret, classified
moving lampposts that us commoners didn't know about yet. And still
don't know about. Sounds like something for the old FOIA.
Anthony Marsh
Shh, don't tell Lifton. He'll think they were used to hide the shooters
on the grassy knoll, just like the fake tree in WWI.
GV
Yup, good idea. Not a dime here either...:-)
GV
> > True or not, that's beyond my point. I'm questioning what this
> > laboratory could possibly know, and do, - THAT FIRST WEEKEND -
> > following the assassination, not what in theory could be done over the
> > next few decades.
>
> You are asking a silly question. And your intent seems to be to lure
> people into answers which you will misuse to label them as alterationists.
> I can tell you what I WOULD have altered if I were trying to frame a
> lone shooter.
> I would have juggled the frames to make it clear that Kennedy was hit by
> Z-180 and then Connally by Z-240 giving plenty of time for one shooter
> to fire both shots. I would remove the back and to the left sequence. I
> would print frame Z-314 and Z-315 out of sequence. I would have removed
> the last 30 frames and pretend that was the end of the film.
Silly question - then don't answer it. I'm not interested in your
opinions about me or the questions I have. Either answer them without
the standard CT paranoia BS, or stay away.Nor am I interested in what
you would have done. If you read the question properly next time, then
perhaps you'll be able to stick with the subject, instead of talking
about irrelevancies.
I can understand if you are pi**ed because the screw up with that
document in 08, as you now have left that thread with the tail between
your legs - but hey, do your home work next time, and you will not end
up in such an embarrassment. But don't take it out on me.
Simple!