Aeffects... Question
Ben Holmes
I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
Any comments?
aeffects
I have his book here, back to you tomorrow....
Steve
Oh PLEASE!!!!!!!
Rather than email each other privately, over this dubious question
from Ben, Aeffects and Ben want lurkers to think that they are "on to"
something, and that this is "research".
Dear lurker, do not take what they discuss/say seriously. The
Zapruder film **is** authentic. It just *needs* to be "fake" by these
clowns because it shows that one assassin, Lee Oswald, killed JFK , and
wounded Gov. Connally.
Ben Holmes
says...
Take your time... I'm only about half-way through it... but on this one issue,
it seems to me that Livingstone is wrong.
Anthony Marsh
What is the controversy? You notice the first frame flash by comparing
it to the previous and subsequent frames. You also notice the different
ghost image on the previous frame.
aeffects
Steve wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
> > > I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
> > > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
> > >
> > > Any comments?
> >
> > I have his book here, back to you tomorrow....
>
>
> Oh PLEASE!!!!!!!
>
> Rather than email each other privately, over this dubious question
> from Ben, Aeffects and Ben want lurkers to think that they are "on to"
> something, and that this is "research".
stuff-it asshole what the hell do you know about film, other than what
Gary tells you? Just beat your drum over there and be a good little
guy....
> Dear lurker, do not take what they discuss/say seriously. The
> Zapruder film **is** authentic. It just *needs* to be "fake" by these
> clowns because it shows that one assassin, Lee Oswald, killed JFK , and
> wounded Gov. Connally.
love it when Lone Neuter's squirm
Steve
aeffects wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > aeffects wrote:
> > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
> > > > I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
> > > > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > I have his book here, back to you tomorrow....
> >
> >
> > Oh PLEASE!!!!!!!
> >
> > Rather than email each other privately, over this dubious question
> > from Ben, Aeffects and Ben want lurkers to think that they are "on to"
> > something, and that this is "research".
>
> stuff-it asshole what the hell do you know about film, other than what
> Gary tells you? Just beat your drum over there and be a good little
> guy....
>
"Gary"? "Gary" whom? "I don't need no stinkin" '"Gary" to tell me
what the Zapruder film is or isn't!
> > Dear lurker, do not take what they discuss/say seriously. The
> > Zapruder film **is** authentic. It just *needs* to be "fake" by these
> > clowns because it shows that one assassin, Lee Oswald, killed JFK , and
> > wounded Gov. Connally.
>
> love it when Lone Neuter's squirm
"squirm"? Um, that's more up your alley, David.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>aeffects wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
>>> I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first
>>frame
>> > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
>> >
>> > Any comments?
>>
>> I have his book here, back to you tomorrow....
>
>
> Oh PLEASE!!!!!!!
>
> Rather than email each other privately,
Don't have his email addy, wasn't interested in a long conversation. If you
really believe the Z-film authentic, then you should attempt to refute CT'ers
examples of Z-Film alteration.
>over this dubious question
>from Ben, Aeffects and Ben want lurkers to think that they are "on to"
>something, and that this is "research".
No, research has little to do with reading a book of someone else doing
research.
> Dear lurker, do not take what they discuss/say seriously. The
>Zapruder film **is** authentic. It just *needs* to be "fake" by these
>clowns because it shows that one assassin, Lee Oswald, killed JFK , and
>wounded Gov. Connally.
Actually, the extant Z-film shows a conspiracy quite well enough as it is.
There's no need to assert that it's been altered to show a conspiracy.
Ben Holmes
Defend your statement Tony. You claim that first frame flash needs to be
compared to the previous frame.
Does the first frame have to be lighter than the previous frame? Darker? Give
me your best argument.
Bud
Yas sah, Mr Benny, I`ll gets right on dat fo` you Mr Benny.
aeffects
Your emancipation is right around the corner, little guy - keep the
faith, Studley, Keep the faith!!
aeffects
Ben ....
below we can see portions of Zapruder's WC testimony, one striking
omission from his testimony, nothing mentioned regarding his false
start during filming, I think that's significant -- Zapruder during his
testimony talks about full zoom lens characteristics - evidently he was
briefed by the FBI regarding the Z-film frame rate, he commented on
full zoom blur caused by a shaky camera - a obscure comment that
appears unsolicited... Regarding his reference to Sitzman; they shared
a historical moment in time that none will forget, yet he does not
mention her name??? Anywhere, Was that common, the way he spoke of his
employees, GIRL?
And of course what he was paid for the film, why avoid THAT?.... Was
this testimony taken after his deal for ALL the film rights with LIFE?
Getting to your question about Harry's Z-frame 132-133 theory, I think
its as simple as this: If Zapruder had a false filming start (in my
estimation he did NOT), stopped his filming at what we now know as
frame 132, then after a short delay, began filing anew. He certainly
doesn't say in his testimony he had a stop down. If he did stop
filming, frame133 should be washed out (from gate light leakage) for a
frame or two, much more than it appears on the current Z-film extant
film. (a common characteristic of the B&H414 camera, so says the Zavada
report)
To quite a few, there appears to be a film splice at this point
[between frames132-133 ] Any dupes created from a film that has a
physical splice the printswill show NO sign of a splice -- going from
frame 132-133 (as it is now on the extant film) show little or no film
density changes.
So, 'no light leakage' during a scene change [using the B&H414 camera],
it's a splice, if it's a splice - then the Z-film we know as the extant
film, is a dupe. Question is, WHY?
What I've found interesting over the years: many say Zapruder had a
false film start, I can't find him saying same...
TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER (abstract)
***** http://www.jfk-info.com/wc-zapr.htm ***** Zapruder's full
testimony
Hearings Before the President's Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy (the Warren Commission)
Volume VII, pages 569-576.
Page 569
TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER
The testimony of Abraham Zapruder was taken at 1 p.m., on July 22,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Zapruder, would you stand and take the oath, please?
Do you solemnly swear this testimony you are about to give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. I do.
[...]
Mr. ZAPRUDER. What is your name?
Mr. LIEBELER. Wesley J. Liebeler [spelling] L-i-e-b-e-l-e-r. I am an
attorney on the staff of the President's Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your
testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the
Commission by Executive Order 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and the
joint resolution of Congress, No. 137.
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit
No. 1 and ask you if you can in fact see yourself in that picture?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Let me see--there it is here. That's me standing
there--there's a girl--that's where I was standing.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are pointing out a concrete abutment that comes up
immediately to the right of the sign that reads "Stemmons Freeway, Keep
Right"?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right. That's the girl behind me--that's my girl
that works in my office. She was up there, too.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, you and this girl are shown standing on top of this
concrete abutment there?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right---she was fight behind me and that's from
where I took the pictures.
Mr. LIEBELER. Then, you can actually see yourself in this picture,
can't you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I can't distinguish myself being--I know I was
there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that this picture was taken at the time
you were there?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; I was there and I would say this couldn't be anybody
else, unless---if this is an authentic photograph and it isn't composed
now or changed---I would say that's me. That's the first time I have
seen that. Were these pictures ever published in a magazine---there
were pictures like that I suppose--- actually?
[...]
Mr. LIEBELER. This picture here is in fact one of a series of pictures
that is being sold down here in Dallas by a fellow named Willis, I
believe his name is Phil Willis. He has a series of slides that are
available and it's picture No. 5 of those slides in which you can see
yourself back there.
570
Page 571
Mr. ZAPRUDER. That must be it because there's another couple back
there---I took some from there and I was shooting some of the pictures
to start my roll from the beginning. I didn't want to have a blank and
I shot some, in fact, they have it--the Federal Bureau of Investigation
have those pictures.
Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the
motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did
it not?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple
underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade
started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in
from Houston Street.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.
[...]
Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission is interested in one aspect of this and I
would like to ask you if you would mind telling us how much they paid
you for that film.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. For the film?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I just wonder whether I should answer it or not
because it involves a lot of things and it's not one price--it's a
question of how they are going to use it, are they going to use it or
are they not going to use it, so I will say I really don't know how to
answer that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I am not going to even urge you to answer the
question. We will ask it and if you would rather not answer it--the
Commission feels it would be helpful.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. I received $25,000, as you know, and I have given that to
the
575
Page 576
Firemen's and Policemen's Benevolence with a suggestion for Mrs.
Tippit. You know that?
Mr. LIEBELER. I don't know that--you received $25,000?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. $25,000 was paid and I have given it to the Firemen's and
Policemen's Fund.
Mr. LIEBELER. You gave the whole $25,000?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. This was all over the world. I got letters from all
over the world and newspapers---I mean letters from all over the world.
It was all over the world--I am surprised--that you don't know it--I
don't like to talk about it too much.
Mr. LIEBELER. We appreciate your answer very much.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. I haven't done anything, the way I have given it, at a
time like this.
Mr. LIEBELER. I want to tell you, you may not be aware of it yourself,
but I want to tell you that your film has been one of the most helpful
things to the work of the Commission that we could possibly have had
because it has enabled us to study the various positions of the people
in the car and to determine by comparing it with the reenactment--by
comparing it to the view from the window of the building, to develop
with a fair degree of accuracy the facts here.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. I understand--and I am willing to be helpful but I am
sorry it had to be on an occasion like this. I am willing to be helpful
but I wish this would never have happened.
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that's right.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. I know they have taken my camera to Washington.
Mr. LIEBELER. It was a Bell & Howell camera, isn't that right?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right
Mr. LIEBELER. And you turned it over to the FBI and they have made
tests on it?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; and then Bell & Howell wanted it for their archives
and I thought they were through with it and let them have it. In
return, they gave me, not for my personal use, but a sound projector
which was given to the Golden Age Group. It's a place where old folks
have a home. I asked them to donate something. I didn't want the
camera. I didn't want anything for myself. Then the FBI wanted the
camera again and I referred them to the Bell & Howell people.
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; the FBI asked for the camera back because the
Commission wanted to determine whether there was any difference in the
frame speed as the camera unwound itself, as it went along.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, they claimed they told me it was about 2 frames
fast--instead of 16 it was 18 frames and they told me it was about 2
frames fast in the speed and they told me that the time between the 2
rapid shots, as I understand, that was determined--the length of time
it took to the second one and that they were very fast and they claim
it has proven it could be done by 1 man. You know there was indication
there were two?
Mr. LIEBELER. Your films were extremely helpful to the work of the
Commission, Mr. Zapruder.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. I am only sorry I broke down--I didn't know I was going
to do it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Zapruder, I want to thank you very much, for the
Commission, for coming down. It has been very helpful.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I am ashamed of myself. I didn't know I was going
to break down and for a man to--but it was a tragic thing, and when you
started asking me that, and I saw the thing all over again, and it was
an awful thing--I know very few people who had seen it like that--it
was an awful thing and I loved the President, and to see that happen
before my eyes---his head just opened up and shot down like a dog--it
leaves a very, very deep sentimental impression with you; it's
terrible.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you don't have to feel ashamed about that at all,
and thank you very much. I enjoyed meeting you very much.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. All right, any time you want some more help you can call
on me and I will be glad to come in.
Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you a lot.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Goodbye.
576
-end of testimony-
tomnln
You can take the word of a rock n roll drummer (steve barber) or look at
Officiakl Records
to determine if the "Z" film was Altered or not.
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1154975861.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
How come you don't threaten him with your Ambulance Chaseing Lawyer like you
did to me?
ps;
I haven't heard from him yet.
Didn't he make Parole Yet?
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
Wanna discuss the Official Records on the "Z" film posted above?
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1154986050.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
It Figures that an Atheist is also a Racist.
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1154990961.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Atta boy Bud;
>
> It Figures that an Atheist is also a Racist.
What did I say that had anything to do with race? Oh, I get it, you
associate bad English with black people. How racist.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
> > I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
> > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> Ben ....
>
> below we can see portions of Zapruder's WC testimony, one striking
> omission from his testimony, nothing mentioned regarding his false
> start during filming, I think that's significant -- Zapruder during his
> testimony talks about full zoom lens characteristics - evidently he was
> briefed by the FBI regarding the Z-film frame rate, he commented on
> full zoom blur caused by a shaky camera - a obscure comment that
> appears unsolicited...
Yah, the FBI probably told him it was important to work the term
"full zoom blur" into his testimony. That must be it. Fucking kooks.
> Regarding his reference to Sitzman; they shared
> a historical moment in time that none will forget, yet he does not
> mention her name???
He knew she was a shooter, and didn`t want to rat her out.
> Anywhere, Was that common, the way he spoke of his
> employees, GIRL?
You prefer "skank"?
> And of course what he was paid for the film, why avoid THAT?.... Was
> this testimony taken after his deal for ALL the film rights with LIFE?
Well, if they hadn`t taken his testimony, we wouldn`t have the
important information about him not mentioning Sitzman`s name. Thank
god we got that on record, eh?
> Getting to your question about Harry's Z-frame 132-133 theory, I think
> its as simple as this: If Zapruder had a false filming start (in my
> estimation he did NOT), stopped his filming at what we now know as
> frame 132, then after a short delay, began filing anew. He certainly
> doesn't say in his testimony he had a stop down. If he did stop
> filming, frame133 should be washed out (from gate light leakage) for a
> frame or two, much more than it appears on the current Z-film extant
> film. (a common characteristic of the B&H414 camera, so says the Zavada
> report)
>
> To quite a few, there appears to be a film splice at this point
> [between frames132-133 ] Any dupes created from a film that has a
> physical splice the printswill show NO sign of a splice -- going from
> frame 132-133 (as it is now on the extant film) show little or no film
> density changes.
>
> So, 'no light leakage' during a scene change [using the B&H414 camera],
> it's a splice, if it's a splice - then the Z-film we know as the extant
> film, is a dupe. Question is, WHY?
Kooks head right to where they want to go with the greatest of
ease.
Walt
aeffects wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
> > I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
> > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> Ben ....
>
> below we can see portions of Zapruder's WC testimony, one striking
> omission from his testimony, nothing mentioned regarding his false
> start during filming, I think that's significant -- Zapruder during his
> testimony talks about full zoom lens characteristics - evidently he was
> briefed by the FBI regarding the Z-film frame rate, he commented on
> full zoom blur caused by a shaky camera - a obscure comment that
> appears unsolicited... Regarding his reference to Sitzman; they shared
> a historical moment in time that none will forget, yet he does not
> mention her name??? Anywhere, Was that common, the way he spoke of his
> employees, GIRL?
Good Point..... Z may not have known Sitzman's name when he asked her
to accompany hom to Dealey Plaza to see the President.....But at the
Time he talked to the W.C. He should have known her name like it was
his own.
I find the following reply from Z to be verrrrry interesting.....
Quote.... "Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, they claimed they told me it was about
2 frames
fast--instead of 16 it was 18 frames and they told me it was about 2
frames fast in the speed and they told me that the time between the 2
rapid shots, as I understand, that was determined--the length of time
it took to the second one and that they were very fast and they claim
it has proven it could be done by 1 man. You know there was indication
there were two?....unquote
.........the length of time it took to the second one and that they
were very fast and they claim it has proven it could be done by 1
man......
The FBI was aware that the shots were too close together to have been
fired from a bolt action Mannlicher Carcano.... It appears they were
trying to convince Z that his camera wa running faster than
designed..... Therefore the shots weren't really as close together as
it appears.
Walt
Ben Holmes
says...
I'm familiar with this... I might also note that the early viewers of the real
film *mention* the turn on to Elm being in the film.
But my question is about the requirement to use the previous frame when making a
determination of a first frame 'flash frame'. Z-133 clearly is *NOT* a flash
frame, meaning that probably half of the film has been simply snipped out. Much
like Davey-boy.
Can you comment on your opinion of Livingstone that the previous frame needs to
be involved in the determination of a flash frame? I simply don't see it.
Ben Holmes
You stopped one statement too soon. Let's imagine a Warren Commission that was
*REALLY* seeking the truth... what would be the very next question? How about:
Mr. LIEBELER - Can you tell us what indications you believe show that there were
two assassins?
But no... this natural and normal followup question wasn't asked, because the WC
went out of their way *NOT* to find any conspiracy. Instead, here's the real
followup:
Mr. LIEBELER - Your films were extremely helpful to the work of the Commission,
Mr. Zapruder.
Despite Mr. Liebeler's comments - the WC would have been *far* better off if
they didn't have the alleged Z-film. Much of their agony was expended *because*
of the constraints of the supposed Z-film.
Walt
Yes, I agree Ben,..... that Liebler quickly steered the questioning
away from anything that would not be benificial to the framing of
Oswald. The normal response to Z's statement should have been
something that would have revealed Liebler's interest in Z's question.
....Quote....."I understand, that was determined--the length of time it
took to the second one and that they were very fast and they claim it
has proven it could be done by 1 man. You know there was indication
there were two?".....unquote
Instead of following through and asking Z more questions about what the
FBI had told him about the timing of the shots..... Liebler immediately
jumped away from this line and changed the subject. This was not at
all unusual at the Warren Commission hearings, in fact it was a common
occurance.
Walt
aeffects
You don't, I don't, nobody sees it... yet light leakage/flash frame
should be obvious on Z-133, it's not...
Evidently, leakage is expected with this B&H camera, it's a
characteristic of the camera [I call it a flash frame] he camera maker
apparently was aware of, it occurs when you engage the start function.
So, if I understand what Livingstone is driving at: previous frame, in
this case, refers to Z-132, the last frame before a scene change -
there is NO light leakage in Z-132, leakage NOT be present, Z-132
appears normal [a lone DPD motorcyle officer on Elm Street] . If,
Zapruder stopped filming at this point [Z-132], then started filming
again we should see light leakage in the next frame Z-133. Light
leakage is NOT present in Z133. Suggesting, light leakage frame[s] (AT
LEAST) were removed from this portion of the Zapruder film.
Livingstone appears to be onto something...
Certainly is suspicious, coupled with the rest of the events
surrounding DP that day, the follow-on WCR and attendant volumes.
tomnln
Everyone knows what you are.
Redeem yourself HERE........ http://whokilledjfk.net/
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1155035708....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
I wouldn't call it "light leakage"... as that implies light "leaking" into the
camera. This is "first frame flash", which according to those who designed the
camera, is a problem of *overexposure* - because of inertia... it takes about
three frames for the spring to get the mechanism going at full speed.
This is why I've long had problems with the home side of the film not being
available - and indeed, it appears that the original is missing. But the copies
*do* show this "first frame flash" - so anytime the camera starts, your first 3
frames are going to be overexposed.
My question relates to Livingstone believing that the *last* frame from the
previous usage of the camera needs to be examined in relation to the first three
frames of a camera start... I simply don't see his argument at all. You would
suppose, using Livingstone's argument, that the last frame from a previous usage
would *always* be darker. But let's do a mind experiment. What happens if you
shoot outdoors in bright sunlight... stop the camera, go indoors to your dark
and gloomy basement lit only with a 40 watt bulb, and start filming again? Is
the last frame going to be darker than the first frame startup? I rather doubt
it. But the first 3 frames *WILL* be overexposed, and therefore lighter than
the following film.
Perhaps Livingstone is referring only to the 132/133 boundary - as the light
conditions couldn't have changed drastically in the 30 seconds or so of film
that has been cut out of it.
It's certainly interesting that Zavada admits that *all* startups show the
"first frame flash"... and deals with the 132/133 by simply claiming that Z-133
*does* show first frame flash, when it clearly *DOES NOT*.
I now have my own B&H Director series camera, so when I get around to it, I'll
pick up some film and play around with it.
>Livingstone appears to be onto something...
>
>Certainly is suspicious, coupled with the rest of the events
>surrounding DP that day, the follow-on WCR and attendant volumes.
I think Livingstone has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the film was cut.
He also notes that *none* of the other 7 films that would logically have shown
the turn from Houston on to Elm show that turn... that was something I was
vaguely aware of - but never put it together before.
Bud
Next on the History Channel; Ben Holmes will critique the
governmental structure of the Greek City-States.
Anthony Marsh
Could be. But I wonder if it could be a slow response time of the
built-in light meter. I don't think it takes as long as three frames,
only one frame to react. Zavada also speculated about light leakage
because the hue was bluish, indicating the light was reaching the film
from the emulsion side.
First Frame Over-Exposure:
The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure
condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with
M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman
Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to
be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem.
Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences
of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that
consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about
one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a
practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame
artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll.
> This is why I've long had problems with the home side of the film not being
> available - and indeed, it appears that the original is missing. But the copies
> *do* show this "first frame flash" - so anytime the camera starts, your first 3
> frames are going to be overexposed.
>
> My question relates to Livingstone believing that the *last* frame from the
> previous usage of the camera needs to be examined in relation to the first three
> frames of a camera start... I simply don't see his argument at all. You would
> suppose, using Livingstone's argument, that the last frame from a previous usage
> would *always* be darker. But let's do a mind experiment. What happens if you
> shoot outdoors in bright sunlight... stop the camera, go indoors to your dark
> and gloomy basement lit only with a 40 watt bulb, and start filming again? Is
> the last frame going to be darker than the first frame startup? I rather doubt
> it. But the first 3 frames *WILL* be overexposed, and therefore lighter than
> the following film.
>
It is almost impossible for the last frame of the sequence to be the
only one which is much darker. It should be similar to previous frames.
Likewise after a few frames of starting up all the frames should be
similarly exposed.
Anthony Marsh
Well, you can compare the scene from the previous frame and see that it
is indeed the first frame of a new sequence. You can compare the ghost
images in the sprocket hole areas. This is in addition to comparing the
first frame to later frames, not instead of.
Steve
Well, now... isn't it nice to see you boys working together? And,
how long will it be before we see Ben attacking Tony again, and vice
versa in spite of this civil talk between them, concerning the Zaprude
film
?
Hang on to your seats, lurkers. Either Tony will blow a gasket, or
Ben will. Who will it be first?
Stay tuned...
Walt
Hey Dud, yer revealing yer age when you use one of Rochester's lines
from the REALLY REALLY OLD Jack Benny show. Just recently I posted a
statement "that with age comes wisdom".... Obviously there are
exceptions to the rule as you often demonstrate.
Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
> > > I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
> > > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
> > >
> > > Any comments?
> >
> > Ben ....
> >
> > below we can see portions of Zapruder's WC testimony, one striking
> > omission from his testimony, nothing mentioned regarding his false
> > start during filming, I think that's significant -- Zapruder during his
> > testimony talks about full zoom lens characteristics - evidently he was
> > briefed by the FBI regarding the Z-film frame rate, he commented on
> > full zoom blur caused by a shaky camera - a obscure comment that
> > appears unsolicited... Regarding his reference to Sitzman; they shared
> > a historical moment in time that none will forget, yet he does not
> > mention her name??? Anywhere, Was that common, the way he spoke of his
> > employees, GIRL?
>
> Good Point..... Z may not have known Sitzman's name when he asked her
> to accompany hom to Dealey Plaza to see the President.....But at the
> Time he talked to the W.C. He should have known her name like it was
> his own.
Why do you say that Zapruder didn`t know here name? Because he
didn`t use it when referring to her? Stellar.
Ben Holmes
If it isn't, then you'll have to supply a cite to someone who can
authoritatively provide another answer.
"First Frame Flash" is a known problem, with a known cause.
>But I wonder if it could be a slow response time of the
>built-in light meter.
How silly! What's the speed of photons, Tony? What's the speed of electrons?
>I don't think it takes as long as three frames,
>only one frame to react.
Then you'll have to explain why the experts state that it's generally *three*
frames... and why you can see that for yourself.
Zavada wanted to limit it to one frame, but he can't legitimately do so.
>Zavada also speculated about light leakage
>because the hue was bluish, indicating the light was reaching the film
>from the emulsion side.
From *one* example, as I recall... the "woman in a blue dress".
Zavada can "speculate" all he wants to. What he *can't* do, is demonstrate why
Z-133 doesn't have what all other first frames have... a noticeable
overexposure.
This will be *your* problem too, of course... since you believe the film to be
authentic.
>First Frame Over-Exposure:
>The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure
>condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with
>M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman
>Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to
>be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
>
>Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem.
"Appears???"
>Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences
>of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that
>consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about
>one-third of a stop.
Bingo!
>We were not given the opportunity to run a
>practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame
>artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll.
And, as Livingstone points out, a silly excuse. Zavada merely needed to use
*any* B&H Director series camera. Does he suppose that the engineering of this
camera changed from day to day?
>> This is why I've long had problems with the home side of the film not being
>>available - and indeed, it appears that the original is missing. But the copies
>>*do* show this "first frame flash" - so anytime the camera starts, your first 3
>> frames are going to be overexposed.
>>
>> My question relates to Livingstone believing that the *last* frame from the
>>previous usage of the camera needs to be examined in relation to the first three
>>frames of a camera start... I simply don't see his argument at all. You would
>>suppose, using Livingstone's argument, that the last frame from a previous usage
>>would *always* be darker. But let's do a mind experiment. What happens if you
>> shoot outdoors in bright sunlight... stop the camera, go indoors to your dark
>>and gloomy basement lit only with a 40 watt bulb, and start filming again? Is
>>the last frame going to be darker than the first frame startup? I rather doubt
>> it. But the first 3 frames *WILL* be overexposed, and therefore lighter than
>> the following film.
>
>It is almost impossible for the last frame of the sequence to be the
>only one which is much darker.
You completely misunderstood what I said... which isn't a surprise. Your lack
of literacy has been noted many times before.
Care to quote me saying that the "last frame of a sequence being the only one
which is darker"?
Your sheer stupidity often jumps out at times like this...
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <_uGdnc5vEO2BE0rZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In article <1154973499....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
>>>> says...
>>>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
>>>>>>I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
>>>>>> flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>> I have his book here, back to you tomorrow....
>>>>Take your time... I'm only about half-way through it... but on this one issue,
>>>> it seems to me that Livingstone is wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the controversy? You notice the first frame flash by comparing
>>> it to the previous and subsequent frames. You also notice the different
>>> ghost image on the previous frame.
>>
>> Defend your statement Tony. You claim that first frame flash needs to be
>> compared to the previous frame.
>>
>>Does the first frame have to be lighter than the previous frame? Darker? Give
>> me your best argument.
>>
>
>Well, you can compare the scene from the previous frame and see that it
>is indeed the first frame of a new sequence.
Not responsive to the clear and precisely worded question. Literacy problems
again...
>You can compare the ghost
>images in the sprocket hole areas.
Again, not the topic under question. Literacy problems again. Tell us, Tony,
do you even *have* this book? You clearly haven't understood the question.
>This is in addition to comparing the
>first frame to later frames, not instead of.
Something that not even Livingstone has attempted to state...
Ben Holmes
says...
Well, another excellent example of your fine logic, knowledge, and memory
Stephanie. I've *NEVER* agreed with Tony regarding the Z-film. I've been
involved in long threads with him on the topic of Z-film alteration. Tony
doesn't believe the Z-film has been altered, but he has problems defending it.
You can look back at his claims of providing a full flush left frame... for
example... (Two of them, in fact... one a football field, the other a Zavada
example of a red truck - NEITHER of which show full flush left)
So what bit of ignorance or illiteracy has made you think that Tony and I have
*ever* seen eye to eye on this, or any other topic in the JFK case?
>Hang on to your seats, lurkers. Either Tony will blow a gasket, or
>Ben will. Who will it be first?
>
> Stay tuned...
Looks like Stephanie was the first. Can't even get the facts right... (Normal
for a LNT'er, I suppose)
aeffects
within the context of what was shot on the previous scene, yes. The
better term would be more contrast.
But let's do a mind experiment. What happens if you
> shoot outdoors in bright sunlight... stop the camera, go indoors to your dark
> and gloomy basement lit only with a 40 watt bulb, and start filming again? Is
> the last frame going to be darker than the first frame startup?
In that context yes.
I rather doubt
> it. But the first 3 frames *WILL* be overexposed, and therefore lighter than
> the following film.
>
> Perhaps Livingstone is referring only to the 132/133 boundary - as the light
> conditions couldn't have changed drastically in the 30 seconds or so of film
> that has been cut out of it.
Within the extant Zapruder film, over a short time period, 90 seconds
or less, Correct....
>
> It's certainly interesting that Zavada admits that *all* startups show the
> "first frame flash"... and deals with the 132/133 by simply claiming that Z-133
> *does* show first frame flash, when it clearly *DOES NOT*.
>
> I now have my own B&H Director series camera, so when I get around to it, I'll
> pick up some film and play around with it.
>
> >Livingstone appears to be onto something...
> >
> >Certainly is suspicious, coupled with the rest of the events
> >surrounding DP that day, the follow-on WCR and attendant volumes.
>
> I think Livingstone has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the film was cut.
> He also notes that *none* of the other 7 films that would logically have shown
> the turn from Houston on to Elm show that turn... that was something I was
> vaguely aware of - but never put it together before.
I have asked the *none* Z-film alteration camp (numerous occasions) to
do a side-by-side Dealey Plaza Houston/Elm Street film comparison [for
5 years], not a peep. Other than the required retort: the Z-film can't
be altered, impossible, not enough time, yadada, yadada, yadada!
aeffects
correction: probably not
Ben Holmes
says...
This is the point I'm trying to get at... Livingstone, as I understand him, is
saying that you must use the previous frame while doing your comparisons to
determine first frame flash. The only "comparison" that I would use is: "is
there a drastic scene difference between - so that I *think* that there might be
either a jump cut or a stop/start?"
I would *NOT* compare density, or exposure, or light levels, or anything of the
sort. Perhaps what Livingstone was leaving out is his assumption that we're
dealing with the same scene, just 20-30 seconds apart... in which case I can
vaguely see his point, even if I disagree with it. But as my 'mind experiment'
shows, you could end up with the first frame being EITHER lighter or darker...
so what good is a comparison? Or rather, what does a comparison of light levels
*prove*?
By the way, I just picked up Fuhrman's book too... and my anticipated series of
"Fuhrman Lies" isn't going to go very far... he doesn't cite *anything*. No
footnotes, no citations...
Posner would have been far better off to have emulated Fuhrman's "no-cite"
technique - he could have gotten away with much more of his misrepresentations
and lies...
Perhaps Bugliosi should take notes...
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > aeffects wrote:
> > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
> > > > I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
> > > > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > I have his book here, back to you tomorrow....
> >
> > Yas sah, Mr Benny, I`ll gets right on dat fo` you Mr Benny.
>
>
> Hey Dud, yer revealing yer age when you use one of Rochester's lines
> from the REALLY REALLY OLD Jack Benny show.
Actually, it was lifted from the old Warner Bros. cartoon, where Jack
Benny and Rochester are mice. I was surprised Nutsack didn`t get the
Benny reference, he was around when stories were told by painting bison
on the walls of the cave.
David VP
Mr. Bugliosi will have so many citations and footnotes in his
publication, he's creating an entire second volume filled with JUST
endnotes. 600 pages of cites and verifiable sources for you kooks to
track down and attempt to discredit.
That should be fun for Ben-Kook indeed. Futile, yes, but still fun
watching him attempt to debunk an expert like VB, who will have every
single base covered with 600 pages of source notes!
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
Via above-linked article.........
"Although Bugliosi's expertise and research could have yielded a much
longer manuscript, he said the book "will be condensed into a single
volume of 1,500 pages." .... And "there will also be a separate
600-page volume of endnotes." .... Bugliosi has been writing the book
since the 1986 mock trial. Both volumes are tentatively scheduled for
release in May 2007."
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Posner would have been far better off to have emulated Fuhrman's "no-cite" technique - he could have gotten away with much more of his misrepresentations and lies. Perhaps Bugliosi should take notes." <<<
>
> Mr. Bugliosi will have so many citations and footnotes in his
> publication, he's creating an entire second volume filled with JUST
> endnotes. 600 pages of cites and verifiable sources for you kooks to
> track down and attempt to discredit.
excatly what the neuters want -- overwhelm them with bullshit -- we
ain't buy the bullshit this time
truck on Von Pein...
Steve
aeffects wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > >>> "Posner would have been far better off to have emulated Fuhrman's "no-cite" technique - he could have gotten away with much more of his misrepresentations and lies. Perhaps Bugliosi should take notes." <<<
> >
> > Mr. Bugliosi will have so many citations and footnotes in his
> > publication, he's creating an entire second volume filled with JUST
> > endnotes. 600 pages of cites and verifiable sources for you kooks to
> > track down and attempt to discredit.
>
>
> excatly what the neuters want -- overwhelm them with bullshit -- we
> ain't buy the bullshit this time
> truck on Von Pein...
>
Thats *your* expertise in this David, not Mr. Bugliosi's. To come
into these silly, stupid worthless newsgroups, like alt.conspiracy.jfk
,make stupid, silly remarks like the above, and consider that as some
type of defense that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, is absolute
"bullshit". Yet you continue to do it.
Where is your book, David? Where is your research, David? If you
have it, how many people, besides the few in here have even heard about
it?
You aren't worthy of carrying Vince Bugliosi's shoes.
aeffects
Steve wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > David VP wrote:
> > > >>> "Posner would have been far better off to have emulated Fuhrman's "no-cite" technique - he could have gotten away with much more of his misrepresentations and lies. Perhaps Bugliosi should take notes." <<<
> > >
> > > Mr. Bugliosi will have so many citations and footnotes in his
> > > publication, he's creating an entire second volume filled with JUST
> > > endnotes. 600 pages of cites and verifiable sources for you kooks to
> > > track down and attempt to discredit.
> >
> >
> > excatly what the neuters want -- overwhelm them with bullshit -- we
> > ain't buy the bullshit this time
> > truck on Von Pein...
> >
>
> Thats *your* expertise in this David, not Mr. Bugliosi's. To come
> into these silly, stupid worthless newsgroups, like alt.conspiracy.jfk
> ,make stupid, silly remarks like the above, and consider that as some
> type of defense that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, is absolute
> "bullshit". Yet you continue to do it.
Silly? Looks to me and others, you spend a lot of time here on this
"silly" board why is that?
> Where is your book, David? Where is your research, David? If you
> have it, how many people, besides the few in here have even heard about
> it?
>
> You aren't worthy of carrying Vince Bugliosi's shoes.
How does a Lone Neuter who supports the WCR, write a 2000 page book
about the report evidence, comes to the surprising conclusion, Oswald
did it, ALONE -- and of course, the SBT stands as it did 40+ years ago?
Can't wait -- LMAO..... Vin Bugliosi, ask 'em, he'll tell ya....
So looky there Steve -- 2 sentences to say exactly what VinceB will
tell us in 2000 pages, if you don't believe me, ask Von Pain... Be
grateful, I saved you some money...
Steve
This book wil ltake on all of the major conspiracy theories to date.
It is because there are so many theories that the book has grwon to
enormous volume.
If you folks would cool it with these outlandish and stupid theories,
like Judyth Baker and her "lover Oswald" crap, and that the Z film is
fake, he could complete his task!
By referring to the works of Vince Bugliosi as " Bullshit", you have
done nothing but show how seriously stupid you truly are, David, and
that you are not at all interestd in this "truth" that you buffs keep
saying you "want". If you were, you wouldnt say such stupid things,
and hold bias opinions and judge a book before it is even released.
Every time you refer to this book as as "BS", you make yourself look
worse, David.
Tah- tah
David VP
Sure. But, you see, you're what is known to a "reasonable" person as a
K-word (i.e., a "kook"). Of course you knew that I'm sure...but I'm
paid by the Government (and others) to use that word as often as
possible to describe "rabid, unreasonable conspiracy promoters" prior
to "V.B. Day" in May 2007.
And when a "kook" utters the laughable words "we ain't buy{ing} the
bullshit this time" (when referring to a 2,100-page, two-volume
publication being penned by someone with the integrity and forthright
"get it right" style named Vincent T. Bugliosi), your "bullshit"
reference doesn't really carry too much weight...now, does it?
IOW -- Can an unreasonable kook, bent on "conspiracy" year after year
(but not finding the "glue" to hold any of their theories together),
really be reasoned with by utilizing solid facts and physical evidence
and verifiable sources (which VB has, of course)?
A borderline "CT-Kook" CAN be reasoned with, yes. But the hard-boiled
"Rabid Kooks", like what we find in the CT Asylum that doubles as a
"Google Group", are probably beyond even VB's aid. Maybe not...but
probably so.
Because the Rabid Kooks will continue to isolate the evidence and then
hold up each "isolated" piece and shout "Look! Here's proof of
conspiracy!", without placing that piece back into the TOTALITY of the
overall evidence in the case (in order to figure out if this isolated
hunk of data really DOES, in fact, point away from Oswald's lone
guilt).
Several recent "isolation" examples have been demonstrated by crazy
CT-Kooks. Such as (but certainly not limited to the following):
1.) The "Irving Sports Shop" controversy. Did LHO have some repair work
done on his rifle (C2766)? Or was it part of the grand "plot" to set
him up as the "Patsy"? .... Bud provided various reasonable examples of
why the CT-Kooks have totally misinterpreted the Sports Shop incident.
But the kooks fail to re-assess that incident. They, instead, will
INSIST it was an act of "conspiracy".
2.) The "automatic vs. revolver" debate re. Tippit's murder. .... To
believe the isolated theory that an automatic gun ejected cartridges
right next to Tippit's police car, CT-Kooks have to take the next step
into the CT quicksand and pretend that somebody MOVED those shells to
the Davis' front and side yard. There's no evidence of that ever having
happened, but CTers, by God, are gonna say it happened anyway.
Therefore, per the kooks who want desperately to believe Oswald was
innocent of the Tippit slaying, that very-understandable and
easily-explained MISTAKE made by DPD Sergeant Gerald Hill (of initially
thinking the gunman had an "automatic" weapon) will forever REMAIN
ISOLATED by the CT-Kooks who wish it to remain isolated and kept away
from the "best evidence" and the best explanation of why the weapon was
said to have been an "automatic" in the first place. That's what makes
the hard-boiled CT-Kook nearly impossible to reason with.
The kooks that still insist to this day that Lee Oswald was standing in
the TSBD doorway during the shooting of JFK also fall into the
"impossible to reason with" category of conspiracists. Jim Garrison
being one such nutjob.
3.) The "Mauser vs. Carcano" argument. .... More silly CT "isolation"
of an initial innocent mistake made by police officers, which has been
blown up to "conspiracy-proving" status by many CTers. By failing to
place the "Mauser" misidentification of Oswald's MC C2766 rifle back
into a reasonable, non-hinky context, the kooks make themselves look
all the sillier...in that they simply refuse to believe that it COULD
have been an innocent early misidentification of the one and only rifle
that was found on the Depository's 6th Floor (which was Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano, without a shred of a doubt).
4.) Howard Brennan's testimony, which has been dissected to
totally-ludicrous levels of craziness by some CT-Kooks. The kooks will
"isolate" things within Brennan's testimony, and will single these
things out as being that ever-desired "proof of conspiracy" in JFK's
murder. And such isolation re. Brennan's remarks is just plain screwy
-- esp. when it comes to the kooks who wish to tear down Brennan's
physical description of the sixth-floor assassin, which was a
description that comes remarkably close, indeed, to matching Lee Oswald
---
"A {white} man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but
neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10, 160 to 170 pounds." -- Howard
L. Brennan
That description, when taken as a "general" witness observation,
certainly does NOT exclude Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, it "fits" Lee
Harvey Oswald pretty darn nicely in most crucial respects -- e.g.,
Oswald was "slender"; Oswald was a "white man"; Oswald did have a "fair
complexion"; Oswald was 5'9" (Brennan was a mere one inch off there);
Oswald weighed an "estimated 150 pounds" (per his autopsy report,
CE1981, linked below). So Brennan was only ten pounds off on his weight
estimate of the assassin. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm
But the kooks will isolate the "early 30s" reference, or the "170
pounds" remark, and attempt to make it appear that Mr. Brennan could
not POSSIBLY have been looking at Lee Oswald for those few fleeting
moments on 11/22/63.
But I'm quite confident that Mr. Bugliosi knows how to deal with the
CT-Kooks who isolate portions of the evidence and never attempt to
place them back into the bigger assassination picture puzzle.
And, knowing VB's aggressive, no-nonsense style of dealing with kooks
(as in his book and video series on the O.J. Simpson fiasco), in my own
opinion, a CTer doesn't stand a chance when placed up against Vincent
Bugliosi's "Final Verdict".
Well, a "reasonable" CTer doesn't stand a chance, that is....as Vince
himself has stated previously:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of the
evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
crime." -- V. Bugliosi
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>>"Posner would have been far better off to have emulated Fuhrman's "no-cite"
>>>>technique - he could have gotten away with much more of his misrepresentations
>>>>and lies. Perhaps Bugliosi should take notes." <<<
>
>Mr. Bugliosi will have so many citations and footnotes in his
>publication, he's creating an entire second volume filled with JUST
>endnotes. 600 pages of cites and verifiable sources for you kooks to
>track down and attempt to discredit.
>
>That should be fun for Ben-Kook indeed. Futile,
Much like your devastating absence from the series on Provable Lies of the
Warren Commission - you'll be MIA from any critique of Bugliosi as well...
presuming, of course, that he actually publishes his book.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>aeffects wrote:
>> David VP wrote:
>>> >>> "Posner would have been far better off to have emulated Fuhrman's
>>"no-cite" technique - he could have gotten away with much more of his
>>misrepresentations and lies. Perhaps Bugliosi should take notes." <<<
>> >
>> > Mr. Bugliosi will have so many citations and footnotes in his
>> > publication, he's creating an entire second volume filled with JUST
>> > endnotes. 600 pages of cites and verifiable sources for you kooks to
>> > track down and attempt to discredit.
>>
>>
>> excatly what the neuters want -- overwhelm them with bullshit -- we
>> ain't buy the bullshit this time
>> truck on Von Pein...
>>
>
> Thats *your* expertise in this David, not Mr. Bugliosi's. To come
>into these silly, stupid worthless newsgroups, like alt.conspiracy.jfk
>,make stupid, silly remarks like the above, and consider that as some
>type of defense that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, is absolute
>"bullshit". Yet you continue to do it.
More substantive posts never get answered, Stephanie... such as my post on
Chaney's comments... or a post on FBI intimidation examples... or my recent
series of posts on Provable Lies of the Warren Commission.
Stay tuned for the one tomorrow... it's a doozy. But then again, you've not
refuted *any* of them... why not, Stephanie?
> Where is your book, David? Where is your research, David? If you
>have it, how many people, besides the few in here have even heard about
>it?
>
> You aren't worthy of carrying Vince Bugliosi's shoes.
And you, Stephanie, will be unable to defend Bugliosi's book from the inevitable
demolishing it will undergo... just as Posner's book did.
Ben Holmes
says...
Neither Bugliosi, nor you, Stephanie, can defend the authenticity of the Z-film.
> By referring to the works of Vince Bugliosi as " Bullshit", you have
>done nothing but show how seriously stupid you truly are, David, and
>that you are not at all interestd in this "truth" that you buffs keep
>saying you "want".
Point to *ANY* example of a previous apology for the Warren Commission that's
been able to stand on it's own two feet. Posner certainly didn't get the job
done. For that matter, neither did the WC, Clark Panel, or HSCA.
But Bugliosi is going to do what *NO-ONE* else has been able to do??? And you
think that *we* are "seriously stupid"???
We have history on our side, and my prediction is that just like Davey-boy, you
- Stephanie, will run and duck all refutation of Bugliosi's books, should they
ever be actually printed.
>If you were, you wouldnt say such stupid things,
>and hold bias opinions and judge a book before it is even released.
Don't need to see how well the flat Earth is argued to know that it's nutty.
> Every time you refer to this book as as "BS", you make yourself look
>worse, David.
You *won't* be able to defend it. I've predicted it here and now. (And, most
likely, years in advance)
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>>"Overwhelm them with bullshit -- we ain't buy{ing} the bullshit this time." <<<
I wonder... has the CIA developed a Turing "LNT'er" program that churns out such
garbage as below?
aeffects
How much of this enormous book is going to deal with Ford moving a
bullet wound?
> If you folks would cool it with these outlandish and stupid theories,
> like Judyth Baker and her "lover Oswald" crap, and that the Z film is
> fake, he could complete his task!
I see, he can't get his book out till the conspiracy theorists quiet
down, oh-wee and you think the buffs are kooks, ROTFLMFAO -- do you
actually read the nonsense you post?
> By referring to the works of Vince Bugliosi as " Bullshit", you have
> done nothing but show how seriously stupid you truly are, David, and
> that you are not at all interestd in this "truth" that you buffs keep
> saying you "want". If you were, you wouldnt say such stupid things,
> and hold bias opinions and judge a book before it is even released.
Appears to me and others, Bugliosi's writing effort will only prop up
the seriously damaged WCR, that's it!
> Every time you refer to this book as as "BS", you make yourself look
> worse, David.
5+ years late (being kind)? That's bullshit where I come from.... Hype
the release date of a CD you're producing for years on end, we call
that heading for diminishing returns - his publisher must be taking it
in the shorts...
David VP
That's what's so great about being a CT-Kook, isn't it?? Just SAY
something looks "fishy" or "not authentic" or "manipulated"....and,
poof, it becomes fact.
But back in reality -- There is not a SPECK of solid evidence to
support the idea that the Z-Film has been faked in ANY way whatsoever.
Only kookshit keeps that silly theory alive.
The chain of possession from Abe Zapruder's very own hands pretty much
proves the film is genuine. (Is Abe a plotter too...helping to fake his
own film?)
If the Z-Film is "fake", then so are the Bronson and Nix films (and
probably Muchmore's too).
Quite a job of fakery there. An all-encompassing film-fakery network,
eh?
Why did God invent kooks??
Why?
Just to make the rest of us look like geniuses?? (Maybe that's it.)
Walt
David VP wrote: (exerpt)
The kooks will isolate the "early 30s" reference, or the "170
pounds" remark, and attempt to make it appear that Mr. Brennan could
not POSSIBLY have been looking at Lee Oswald for those few fleeting
moments on 11/22/63.
Nice try Von Peon...... You attempt to focus the argument on physical
characteristics that are open to question, because Brennan might have
been inaccurate in judging the age, height, and weight of the gunman.
Most folks with commonsense know that those physical characteristics
may not be accurate to the inth degree.....Even Brennan gave only
approximations about the gunman's physical characteristics. He said
"early thirties", which means OLDER than thirty, but younger than
thirty five. He also said that the man weighed between 165 and 175
pounds. That means that the gunman weighed at LEAST 165 pounds and at
most 175 pounds.
But the real issue here is your attempt to divert the focus from a
physical characteristic that is NOT open to question......The LIGHT
COLOR of the gunman's clothing. Brennan said that the gunman was
wearing LIGHT COLORED clothing.....Oswald was dressed in DARK COLORED
clothing at the time of the shooting.
That's a FACT Von Peon..... A FACT.
Walt
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Neither Bugliosi, nor you, Stephanie, can defend the authenticity of the
>> Z-film.
>
>
>That's what's so great about being a CT-Kook, isn't it?? Just SAY
>something looks "fishy" or "not authentic" or "manipulated"....and,
>poof, it becomes fact.
And yet, you can't defend it. Why not?
>But back in reality -- There is not a SPECK of solid evidence to
>support the idea that the Z-Film has been faked in ANY way whatsoever.
And although I suspect sheer ignorance is speaking here, I'll just go ahead and
label you a liar.
>Only kookshit keeps that silly theory alive.
>
>The chain of possession from Abe Zapruder's very own hands pretty much
>proves the film is genuine. (Is Abe a plotter too...helping to fake his
>own film?)
There is *no* chain of possession, despite your faith.
>If the Z-Film is "fake", then so are the Bronson and Nix films (and
>probably Muchmore's too).
Yep... Nix definitely, the others... probable.
>Quite a job of fakery there. An all-encompassing film-fakery network,
>eh?
>
>Why did God invent kooks??
>
>Why?
>
>Just to make the rest of us look like geniuses?? (Maybe that's it.)
Do you want to try your hand?
Okay... explain why the "original" film doesn't have "0183" anywhere on it.
Next, you can try your hand at explaining how SS #2, for example, which is
*supposedly* one of the original copies made that day - shows a physical splice
in the film it's a copy of.
How can a physical splice be in the "original" film?
You could try your hand at the Z-132/133 problem, with the lack of first frame
flash.
You could try to offer an explanation for the "full flush left" problem.
For that matter, a number of books have been written on this topic, feel free to
begin refuting them.
But you won't. You'll snip and run, like the dishonest coward you are.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155105415.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:ebct5...@drn.newsguy.com...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1155087597....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Steve says...
> >
> >
> >aeffects wrote:
> >> David VP wrote:
> >>> >>> "Posner would have been far better off to have emulated Fuhrman's
> >>"no-cite" technique - he could have gotten away with much more of his
> >>misrepresentations and lies. Perhaps Bugliosi should take notes." <<<
> >> >
> >> > Mr. Bugliosi will have so many citations and footnotes in his
> >> > publication, he's creating an entire second volume filled with JUST
> >> > endnotes. 600 pages of cites and verifiable sources for you kooks to
> >> > track down and attempt to discredit.
> >>
> >>
> >> excatly what the neuters want -- overwhelm them with bullshit -- we
> >> ain't buy the bullshit this time
> >> truck on Von Pein...
> >>
> >
> > Thats *your* expertise in this David, not Mr. Bugliosi's. To come
> >into these silly, stupid worthless newsgroups, like alt.conspiracy.jfk
> >,make stupid, silly remarks like the above, and consider that as some
> >type of defense that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, is absolute
> >"bullshit". Yet you continue to do it.
>
>
> More substantive posts never get answered, Stephanie... such as my post on
> Chaney's comments...
I did.
> or a post on FBI intimidation examples...
Here also.
> or my recent
> series of posts on Provable Lies of the Warren Commission.
I addressed some, and explained how none of them establish any
"lies".
> Stay tuned for the one tomorrow... it's a doozy. But then again, you've not
> refuted *any* of them... why not, Stephanie?
You have established the lying in any of them, so there is nothing
to refute.
> > Where is your book, David? Where is your research, David? If you
> >have it, how many people, besides the few in here have even heard about
> >it?
> >
> > You aren't worthy of carrying Vince Bugliosi's shoes.
>
>
> And you, Stephanie, will be unable to defend Bugliosi's book from the inevitable
> demolishing it will undergo... just as Posner's book did.
And which crackpot conspiracy book could withstand the scrutiny of a
dozen critically thinking researchers spending a week looking into it`s
claims?
Bud
I wouldn`t expect Bugs to explain everything a kook feels looks
fishy.
> > By referring to the works of Vince Bugliosi as " Bullshit", you have
> >done nothing but show how seriously stupid you truly are, David, and
> >that you are not at all interestd in this "truth" that you buffs keep
> >saying you "want".
>
> Point to *ANY* example of a previous apology for the Warren Commission that's
> been able to stand on it's own two feet. Posner certainly didn't get the job
> done. For that matter, neither did the WC, Clark Panel, or HSCA.
Ben makes the mistake of thinking that if you can attack something,
it is debunked. The ability to create arguments doesn`t prove anything.
> But Bugliosi is going to do what *NO-ONE* else has been able to do??? And you
> think that *we* are "seriously stupid"???
You work hard projecting that image.
> We have history on our side, and my prediction is that just like Davey-boy, you
> - Stephanie, will run and duck all refutation of Bugliosi's books, should they
> ever be actually printed.
What conspiracy book will Ben stand behind 100%?
> >If you were, you wouldnt say such stupid things,
> >and hold bias opinions and judge a book before it is even released.
>
>
> Don't need to see how well the flat Earth is argued to know that it's nutty.
Well, it is a crazy concept that the person who`s rifle did the
killing, which was fired from that same person`s place of work, who has
no alibi, and was a political fanatic might somehow be involved in this
crime.
> > Every time you refer to this book as as "BS", you make yourself look
> >worse, David.
>
> You *won't* be able to defend it. I've predicted it here and now. (And, most
> likely, years in advance)
I assume he will only be able to try appealing to his readers
reasoning ability and thinking skills. You can`t expect to make much
headway using that approach on the kooks here. I figure the only
convert we are likely to get by way of Bugliosi`s powers of persuasion
is Nutsack, and we`ll throw him back over the fence anyway.
Bud
Not according to the person who saw Oz shooting. Brennan said Oz was
wearing a white shirt at the time.
> That's a FACT Von Peon..... A FACT.
The only fact you are displaying is your inability to tell your
opinions from fact.
>
> Walt
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1155105415.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> Neither Bugliosi, nor you, Stephanie, can defend the authenticity of the
> >> Z-film.
> >
> >
> >That's what's so great about being a CT-Kook, isn't it?? Just SAY
> >something looks "fishy" or "not authentic" or "manipulated"....and,
> >poof, it becomes fact.
>
>
> And yet, you can't defend it. Why not?
It`s easy to start fires. It takes effort to stamp them out. Why
doesn`t Ben identify the technicians that supposedly did this
alteration, at what lab was it done?
> >But back in reality -- There is not a SPECK of solid evidence to
> >support the idea that the Z-Film has been faked in ANY way whatsoever.
>
>
> And although I suspect sheer ignorance is speaking here, I'll just go ahead and
> label you a liar.
Ben plays the "explain these things to my satisfaction or I will
believe stupid shit" gambit.
> >Only kookshit keeps that silly theory alive.
> >
> >The chain of possession from Abe Zapruder's very own hands pretty much
> >proves the film is genuine. (Is Abe a plotter too...helping to fake his
> >own film?)
>
>
> There is *no* chain of possession, despite your faith.
>
>
> >If the Z-Film is "fake", then so are the Bronson and Nix films (and
> >probably Muchmore's too).
>
> Yep... Nix definitely, the others... probable.
And the x-rays. And the autopsy photos. Thousands of technicians in
on the framing of the kook`s beloved patsy, all quiet to this day.
> >Quite a job of fakery there. An all-encompassing film-fakery network,
> >eh?
> >
> >Why did God invent kooks??
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >Just to make the rest of us look like geniuses?? (Maybe that's it.)
>
> Do you want to try your hand?
>
> Okay... explain why the "original" film doesn't have "0183" anywhere on it.
>
> Next, you can try your hand at explaining how SS #2, for example, which is
> *supposedly* one of the original copies made that day - shows a physical splice
> in the film it's a copy of.
>
> How can a physical splice be in the "original" film?
Because film isn`t unbreakable?
> You could try your hand at the Z-132/133 problem, with the lack of first frame
> flash.
>
> You could try to offer an explanation for the "full flush left" problem.
>
> For that matter, a number of books have been written on this topic, feel free to
> begin refuting them.
Why? Would the idea that the z-film was faked be defeated. One
attempt was made to satisfy kooks on the z-film. I suspect the
conclusion is that kooks won`t be satisfied once they desire to believe
something.
> But you won't. You'll snip and run, like the dishonest coward you are.
Real cowards killfile.
Walt
Walt wrote:
> >
> > But the real issue here is your attempt to divert the focus from a
> > physical characteristic that is NOT open to question......The LIGHT
> > COLOR of the gunman's clothing. Brennan said that the gunman was
> > wearing LIGHT COLORED clothing.....Oswald was dressed in DARK COLORED
> > clothing at the time of the shooting.
Bud wrote:
> Not according to the person who saw Oz shooting. Brennan said Oz was
> wearing a white shirt at the time.
Tell me you're not really this stupid, Dud..... Brennan said THE
GUNMAN was wearing LIGHT COLORED clothing. Oswald was dressed in DARK
colored clothing....The are numerous photographs available of Oswald's
possessions.....There isn't any LIGHT COLORED trousers shown in any of
them, nor do any of the police or FBI inventory lists mention any light
colored clothing like Brennan saw the gunman wearing.
But I'll make ya a deal..... I'll accept that the 35 year old, 175
pound gunman, who was dressed in white clothing, really was Oswald,....
All you have to do is prove that he changed from the LIGHT colored
clothing into the dark colored clothing between the time Brennan saw
the gunman fire his last shot, and the time that Baker and Truly
encountered Oswald dressed in the brown shirt and gray trousers, in the
lunchroom.
Hint:....You might try to convince me that the cops found an abandonrd
white shirt and trousers near the rifle on the sixth floor.....
Walt
>
> > That's a FACT Von Peon..... A FACT.
>
> The only fact you are displaying is your inability to tell your
> opinions from fact.
Thank you, Dud.... There IS something being displayed here.... It's
your obtuseness, and I thank you for displaying it to the whole wide
world.
Walt
> >
> > Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > >
> > > But the real issue here is your attempt to divert the focus from a
> > > physical characteristic that is NOT open to question......The LIGHT
> > > COLOR of the gunman's clothing. Brennan said that the gunman was
> > > wearing LIGHT COLORED clothing.....Oswald was dressed in DARK COLORED
> > > clothing at the time of the shooting.
>
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Not according to the person who saw Oz shooting. Brennan said Oz was
> > wearing a white shirt at the time.
>
> Tell me you're not really this stupid, Dud..... Brennan said THE
> GUNMAN was wearing LIGHT COLORED clothing.
Yah, Brennan said he saw Oz in light colored clothing.
> Oswald was dressed in DARK
> colored clothing...
Not according to Brennan. Do you have another witness who said they
saw Oz during the shooting?
>.The are numerous photographs available of Oswald's
> possessions.....There isn't any LIGHT COLORED trousers shown in any of
> them, nor do any of the police or FBI inventory lists mention any light
> colored clothing like Brennan saw the gunman wearing.
Witnesses said they saw Oz wearing a white top that day.
> But I'll make ya a deal..... I'll accept that the 35 year old, 175
> pound gunman, who was dressed in white clothing,
Who gave this description?
> really was Oswald,....
> All you have to do is prove that he changed from the LIGHT colored
> clothing into the dark colored clothing between the time Brennan saw
> the gunman fire his last shot, and the time that Baker and Truly
> encountered Oswald dressed in the brown shirt and gray trousers, in the
> lunchroom.
What did Truly say Oz was wearing?
> Hint:....You might try to convince me that the cops found an abandonrd
> white shirt and trousers near the rifle on the sixth floor.....
He was wearing a white shirt in plain sight, according to Brennan,
Mrs Reid and Jarman.
Walt
Steve wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
> > > I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first frame
> > > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
> > >
> > > Any comments?
> >
> > I have his book here, back to you tomorrow....
>
>
>
> Rather than email each other privately, over this dubious question
> from Ben, Aeffects and Ben want lurkers to think that they are "on to"
> something, and that this is "research".
>
> Dear lurker, do not take what they discuss/say seriously. The
> Zapruder film **is** authentic. It just *needs* to be "fake" by these
> clowns because it shows that one assassin, Lee Oswald, killed JFK , and
> wounded Gov. Connally.
Dud wrote:....it ( the Zapruder film) shows that one assassin, Lee
Oswald, killed JFK , and wounded Gov. Connally.
Really Dud..... Do you really believe that Zapruder's home movie shows
that Lee Oswald killed JFK?? You must have a far different film than
anyone else has ever seen, because not even the Warren Commission, or
the FBI, found any evidence like that in the
Zapruder film.
Put the cork back in that Jug and go sleep it off.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Maybe I should start a new series... "Why the Z-film can't be Authenticated"
Unfortunately, the list would be a long one, and many items would be fairly
technical.
aeffects
Yes, it would be a long list. Might be a good thread....
Anthony Marsh
> In article <dd2dnRhxtdQZcUXZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <1155055139.7...@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
>>> says...
>>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> In article <1155011538.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the Z-film.
>>>>>>> I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that first
>>>>> frame
>>>>>>> flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> below we can see portions of Zapruder's WC testimony, one striking
>>>>>> omission from his testimony, nothing mentioned regarding his false
>>>>>> start during filming, I think that's significant -- Zapruder during his
>>>>>> testimony talks about full zoom lens characteristics - evidently he was
>>>>>> briefed by the FBI regarding the Z-film frame rate, he commented on
>>>>>> full zoom blur caused by a shaky camera - a obscure comment that
>>>>>> appears unsolicited... Regarding his reference to Sitzman; they shared
>>>>>> a historical moment in time that none will forget, yet he does not
>>>>>> mention her name??? Anywhere, Was that common, the way he spoke of his
>>>>>> employees, GIRL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course what he was paid for the film, why avoid THAT?.... Was
>>>>>> this testimony taken after his deal for ALL the film rights with LIFE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Getting to your question about Harry's Z-frame 132-133 theory, I think
>>>>>> its as simple as this: If Zapruder had a false filming start (in my
>>>>>> estimation he did NOT), stopped his filming at what we now know as
>>>>>> frame 132, then after a short delay, began filing anew. He certainly
>>>>>> doesn't say in his testimony he had a stop down. If he did stop
>>>>>> filming, frame133 should be washed out (from gate light leakage) for a
>>>>>> frame or two, much more than it appears on the current Z-film extant
>>>>>> film. (a common characteristic of the B&H414 camera, so says the Zavada
>>>>>> report)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To quite a few, there appears to be a film splice at this point
>>>>>> [between frames132-133 ] Any dupes created from a film that has a
>>>>>> physical splice the printswill show NO sign of a splice -- going from
>>>>>> frame 132-133 (as it is now on the extant film) show little or no film
>>>>>> density changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, 'no light leakage' during a scene change [using the B&H414 camera],
>>>>>> it's a splice, if it's a splice - then the Z-film we know as the extant
>>>>>> film, is a dupe. Question is, WHY?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I've found interesting over the years: many say Zapruder had a
>>>>>> false film start, I can't find him saying same...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER (abstract)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***** http://www.jfk-info.com/wc-zapr.htm ***** Zapruder's full
>>>>>> testimony
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hearings Before the President's Commission on the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assassination of President Kennedy (the Warren Commission)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Volume VII, pages 569-576.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Page 569
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The testimony of Abraham Zapruder was taken at 1 p.m., on July 22,
>>>>>> 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
>>>>>> Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
>>>>>> assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Zapruder, would you stand and take the oath, please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you solemnly swear this testimony you are about to give will be the
>>>>>> truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. What is your name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Wesley J. Liebeler [spelling] L-i-e-b-e-l-e-r. I am an
>>>>>> attorney on the staff of the President's Commission on the
>>>>>> Assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your
>>>>>> testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the
>>>>>> Commission by Executive Order 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and the
>>>>>> joint resolution of Congress, No. 137.
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit
>>>>>> No. 1 and ask you if you can in fact see yourself in that picture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Let me see--there it is here. That's me standing
>>>>>> there--there's a girl--that's where I was standing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. You are pointing out a concrete abutment that comes up
>>>>>> immediately to the right of the sign that reads "Stemmons Freeway, Keep
>>>>>> Right"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right. That's the girl behind me--that's my girl
>>>>>> that works in my office. She was up there, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. So, you and this girl are shown standing on top of this
>>>>>> concrete abutment there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right---she was fight behind me and that's from
>>>>>> where I took the pictures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Then, you can actually see yourself in this picture,
>>>>>> can't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I can't distinguish myself being--I know I was
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that this picture was taken at the time
>>>>>> you were there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; I was there and I would say this couldn't be anybody
>>>>>> else, unless---if this is an authentic photograph and it isn't composed
>>>>>> now or changed---I would say that's me. That's the first time I have
>>>>>> seen that. Were these pictures ever published in a magazine---there
>>>>>> were pictures like that I suppose--- actually?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. This picture here is in fact one of a series of pictures
>>>>>> that is being sold down here in Dallas by a fellow named Willis, I
>>>>>> believe his name is Phil Willis. He has a series of slides that are
>>>>>> available and it's picture No. 5 of those slides in which you can see
>>>>>> yourself back there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 570
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Page 571
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. That must be it because there's another couple back
>>>>>> there---I took some from there and I was shooting some of the pictures
>>>>>> to start my roll from the beginning. I didn't want to have a blank and
>>>>>> I shot some, in fact, they have it--the Federal Bureau of Investigation
>>>>>> have those pictures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the
>>>>>> motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did
>>>>>> it not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple
>>>>>> underpass; is that correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade
>>>>>> started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in
>>>>> >from Houston Street.
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission is interested in one aspect of this and I
>>>>>> would like to ask you if you would mind telling us how much they paid
>>>>>> you for that film.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. For the film?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I just wonder whether I should answer it or not
>>>>>> because it involves a lot of things and it's not one price--it's a
>>>>>> question of how they are going to use it, are they going to use it or
>>>>>> are they not going to use it, so I will say I really don't know how to
>>>>>> answer that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I am not going to even urge you to answer the
>>>>>> question. We will ask it and if you would rather not answer it--the
>>>>>> Commission feels it would be helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. I received $25,000, as you know, and I have given that to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 575
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Page 576
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Firemen's and Policemen's Benevolence with a suggestion for Mrs.
>>>>>> Tippit. You know that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. I don't know that--you received $25,000?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. $25,000 was paid and I have given it to the Firemen's and
>>>>>> Policemen's Fund.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. You gave the whole $25,000?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. This was all over the world. I got letters from all
>>>>>> over the world and newspapers---I mean letters from all over the world.
>>>>>> It was all over the world--I am surprised--that you don't know it--I
>>>>>> don't like to talk about it too much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. We appreciate your answer very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. I haven't done anything, the way I have given it, at a
>>>>>> time like this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. I want to tell you, you may not be aware of it yourself,
>>>>>> but I want to tell you that your film has been one of the most helpful
>>>>>> things to the work of the Commission that we could possibly have had
>>>>>> because it has enabled us to study the various positions of the people
>>>>>> in the car and to determine by comparing it with the reenactment--by
>>>>>> comparing it to the view from the window of the building, to develop
>>>>>> with a fair degree of accuracy the facts here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. I understand--and I am willing to be helpful but I am
>>>>>> sorry it had to be on an occasion like this. I am willing to be helpful
>>>>>> but I wish this would never have happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that's right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. I know they have taken my camera to Washington.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. It was a Bell & Howell camera, isn't that right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. And you turned it over to the FBI and they have made
>>>>>> tests on it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; and then Bell & Howell wanted it for their archives
>>>>>> and I thought they were through with it and let them have it. In
>>>>>> return, they gave me, not for my personal use, but a sound projector
>>>>>> which was given to the Golden Age Group. It's a place where old folks
>>>>>> have a home. I asked them to donate something. I didn't want the
>>>>>> camera. I didn't want anything for myself. Then the FBI wanted the
>>>>>> camera again and I referred them to the Bell & Howell people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; the FBI asked for the camera back because the
>>>>>> Commission wanted to determine whether there was any difference in the
>>>>>> frame speed as the camera unwound itself, as it went along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, they claimed they told me it was about 2 frames
>>>>>> fast--instead of 16 it was 18 frames and they told me it was about 2
>>>>>> frames fast in the speed and they told me that the time between the 2
>>>>>> rapid shots, as I understand, that was determined--the length of time
>>>>>> it took to the second one and that they were very fast and they claim
>>>>>> it has proven it could be done by 1 man. You know there was indication
>>>>>> there were two?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Your films were extremely helpful to the work of the
>>>>>> Commission, Mr. Zapruder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. I am only sorry I broke down--I didn't know I was going
>>>>>> to do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Zapruder, I want to thank you very much, for the
>>>>>> Commission, for coming down. It has been very helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I am ashamed of myself. I didn't know I was going
>>>>>> to break down and for a man to--but it was a tragic thing, and when you
>>>>>> started asking me that, and I saw the thing all over again, and it was
>>>>>> an awful thing--I know very few people who had seen it like that--it
>>>>>> was an awful thing and I loved the President, and to see that happen
>>>>>> before my eyes---his head just opened up and shot down like a dog--it
>>>>>> leaves a very, very deep sentimental impression with you; it's
>>>>>> terrible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you don't have to feel ashamed about that at all,
>>>>>> and thank you very much. I enjoyed meeting you very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. All right, any time you want some more help you can call
>>>>>> on me and I will be glad to come in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Goodbye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 576
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -end of testimony-
>>>>> I'm familiar with this... I might also note that the early viewers of the real
>>>>> film *mention* the turn on to Elm being in the film.
>>>>>
>>>>> But my question is about the requirement to use the previous frame when making a
>>>>> determination of a first frame 'flash frame'. Z-133 clearly is *NOT* a flash
>>>>> frame, meaning that probably half of the film has been simply snipped out. Much
>>>>> like Davey-boy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you comment on your opinion of Livingstone that the previous frame needs to
>>>>> be involved in the determination of a flash frame? I simply don't see it.
>>>> You don't, I don't, nobody sees it... yet light leakage/flash frame
>>>> should be obvious on Z-133, it's not...
>>>>
>>>> Evidently, leakage is expected with this B&H camera, it's a
>>>> characteristic of the camera [I call it a flash frame] he camera maker
>>>> apparently was aware of, it occurs when you engage the start function.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, if I understand what Livingstone is driving at: previous frame, in
>>>> this case, refers to Z-132, the last frame before a scene change -
>>>> there is NO light leakage in Z-132, leakage NOT be present, Z-132
>>>> appears normal [a lone DPD motorcyle officer on Elm Street] . If,
>>>> Zapruder stopped filming at this point [Z-132], then started filming
>>>> again we should see light leakage in the next frame Z-133. Light
>>>> leakage is NOT present in Z133. Suggesting, light leakage frame[s] (AT
>>>> LEAST) were removed from this portion of the Zapruder film.
>>> I wouldn't call it "light leakage"... as that implies light "leaking" into the
>>> camera. This is "first frame flash", which according to those who designed the
>>> camera, is a problem of *overexposure* - because of inertia... it takes about
>>> three frames for the spring to get the mechanism going at full speed.
>>
>> Could be.
>
> If it isn't, then you'll have to supply a cite to someone who can
> authoritatively provide another answer.
>
> "First Frame Flash" is a known problem, with a known cause.
>
>
>> But I wonder if it could be a slow response time of the
>> built-in light meter.
>
>
> How silly! What's the speed of photons, Tony? What's the speed of electrons?
>
Irrelevant. I am talking about the electronic response rate.
>
>> I don't think it takes as long as three frames,
>> only one frame to react.
>
> Then you'll have to explain why the experts state that it's generally *three*
> frames... and why you can see that for yourself.
>
Where do I see that it is three frames?
> Zavada wanted to limit it to one frame, but he can't legitimately do so.
>
>
>> Zavada also speculated about light leakage
>> because the hue was bluish, indicating the light was reaching the film
>>from the emulsion side.
>
> From *one* example, as I recall... the "woman in a blue dress".
>
> Zavada can "speculate" all he wants to. What he *can't* do, is demonstrate why
> Z-133 doesn't have what all other first frames have... a noticeable
> overexposure.
>
He does not an overexposure of frame Z-133.
> This will be *your* problem too, of course... since you believe the film to be
> authentic.
>
>
>> First Frame Over-Exposure:
>> The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure
>> condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with
>> M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman
>> Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to
>> be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
>>
>> Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem.
>
>
> "Appears???"
>
>
>> Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences
>> of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that
>> consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about
>> one-third of a stop.
>
> Bingo!
>
>> We were not given the opportunity to run a
>> practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame
>> artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll.
>
> And, as Livingstone points out, a silly excuse. Zavada merely needed to use
> *any* B&H Director series camera. Does he suppose that the engineering of this
> camera changed from day to day?
>
Zavada used 5 similar cameras and tried to find one closest to the
production line and date as Zapruder's.
>
>>> This is why I've long had problems with the home side of the film not being
>>> available - and indeed, it appears that the original is missing. But the copies
>>> *do* show this "first frame flash" - so anytime the camera starts, your first 3
>>> frames are going to be overexposed.
>>>
>>> My question relates to Livingstone believing that the *last* frame from the
>>> previous usage of the camera needs to be examined in relation to the first three
>>> frames of a camera start... I simply don't see his argument at all. You would
>>> suppose, using Livingstone's argument, that the last frame from a previous usage
>>> would *always* be darker. But let's do a mind experiment. What happens if you
>>> shoot outdoors in bright sunlight... stop the camera, go indoors to your dark
>>> and gloomy basement lit only with a 40 watt bulb, and start filming again? Is
>>> the last frame going to be darker than the first frame startup? I rather doubt
>>> it. But the first 3 frames *WILL* be overexposed, and therefore lighter than
>>> the following film.
>> It is almost impossible for the last frame of the sequence to be the
>> only one which is much darker.
>
> You completely misunderstood what I said... which isn't a surprise. Your lack
> of literacy has been noted many times before.
>
> Care to quote me saying that the "last frame of a sequence being the only one
> which is darker"?
>
That's not what I said.
> Your sheer stupidity often jumps out at times like this...
>
>
>> It should be similar to previous frames.
>> Likewise after a few frames of starting up all the frames should be
>> similarly exposed.
>>
>>> Perhaps Livingstone is referring only to the 132/133 boundary - as the light
>>> conditions couldn't have changed drastically in the 30 seconds or so of film
>>> that has been cut out of it.
>>>
>>> It's certainly interesting that Zavada admits that *all* startups show the
>>> "first frame flash"... and deals with the 132/133 by simply claiming that Z-133
>>> *does* show first frame flash, when it clearly *DOES NOT*.
>>>
>>> I now have my own B&H Director series camera, so when I get around to it, I'll
>>> pick up some film and play around with it.
>>>
>>>> Livingstone appears to be onto something...
>>>>
>>>> Certainly is suspicious, coupled with the rest of the events
>>>> surrounding DP that day, the follow-on WCR and attendant volumes.
>>> I think Livingstone has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the film was cut.
>>> He also notes that *none* of the other 7 films that would logically have shown
>>> the turn from Houston on to Elm show that turn... that was something I was
>>> vaguely aware of - but never put it together before.
>>>
>
Ben Holmes
And what, exactly, slows it down below the speed of photons or electrons?
>>> I don't think it takes as long as three frames,
>>> only one frame to react.
>>
>> Then you'll have to explain why the experts state that it's generally *three*
>> frames... and why you can see that for yourself.
>>
>
>Where do I see that it is three frames?
You can start with the Zavada report, where Zavada does histograms of the first
three frames starting at Z-133. (Fig A2-3H)
Then you can simply look in the book that you refuse to admit that you don't
own. A number of people, listed in the book, describe such three frame
startups.
The Home movie side generally shows precisely that.
>> Zavada wanted to limit it to one frame, but he can't legitimately do so.
>>
>>
>>> Zavada also speculated about light leakage
>>> because the hue was bluish, indicating the light was reaching the film
>>>from the emulsion side.
>>
>> From *one* example, as I recall... the "woman in a blue dress".
>>
>>Zavada can "speculate" all he wants to. What he *can't* do, is demonstrate why
>> Z-133 doesn't have what all other first frames have... a noticeable
>> overexposure.
>>
>
>He does not an overexposure of frame Z-133.
Your statement is meaningless as is... you want to try again?
And if you're trying to assert that Zavada proved a first frame flash occurred
at Z-133 - anyone can simply look for themselves.
You'll look just as stupid as you did when you kept claiming that the football
field and red truch showed "full flush left".
>>This will be *your* problem too, of course... since you believe the film to be
>> authentic.
>>
>>
>>> First Frame Over-Exposure:
>>> The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure
>>> condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with
>>> M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman
>>> Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to
>>> be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
>>>
>>> Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem.
>>
>>
>> "Appears???"
>>
>>
>>> Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences
>>> of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that
>>> consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about
>>> one-third of a stop.
>>
>> Bingo!
>>
>>> We were not given the opportunity to run a
>>> practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame
>>> artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll.
>>
>> And, as Livingstone points out, a silly excuse. Zavada merely needed to use
>>*any* B&H Director series camera. Does he suppose that the engineering of this
>> camera changed from day to day?
>>
>
>Zavada used 5 similar cameras and tried to find one closest to the
>production line and date as Zapruder's.
Produce, for the edification of all of us, his film showing *NO* first frame
flash phenomena.
You're a liar, Tony... and a bad one at that.
>> Your sheer stupidity often jumps out at times like this...
>>
>>
>>> It should be similar to previous frames.
>>> Likewise after a few frames of starting up all the frames should be
>>> similarly exposed.
>>>
>>>>Perhaps Livingstone is referring only to the 132/133 boundary - as the light
>>>>conditions couldn't have changed drastically in the 30 seconds or so of film
>>>> that has been cut out of it.
>>>>
>>>> It's certainly interesting that Zavada admits that *all* startups show the
>>>>"first frame flash"... and deals with the 132/133 by simply claiming that Z-133
>>>> *does* show first frame flash, when it clearly *DOES NOT*.
>>>>
>>>>I now have my own B&H Director series camera, so when I get around to it, I'll
>>>> pick up some film and play around with it.
>>>>
>>>>> Livingstone appears to be onto something...
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly is suspicious, coupled with the rest of the events
>>>>> surrounding DP that day, the follow-on WCR and attendant volumes.
>>>>I think Livingstone has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the film was cut.
>>>>He also notes that *none* of the other 7 films that would logically have shown
>>>> the turn from Houston on to Elm show that turn... that was something I was
>>>> vaguely aware of - but never put it together before.
Yes Tony... I noticed that you've never responded to my question of whether you
owned this book. Looks like you'll be at a disadvantage when I cite it.
Walt
No..... Brennan didn't say he saw Oswald wearing a white shirt and
trousers....You're attempting to lump Brennan in with two other
witnesses, who guessed that Oswald might have been wearing a T-shirt
AFTER the shooting.
Brennan saw a 35 year old, 175 pound, man who was dressed in a white
shirt and trousers, firing a rifle from a wide open window on the
sixth floor of the TSBD.
To be exact..... Brennan said that Oswald WAS NOT the man he saw firing
the rifle.
Walt
tomnln
TO ALL LURKERS;
You can take the word of a rock n roll drummer (steve barber) or look at
Officiakl Records
to determine if the "Z" film was Altered or not.
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
> "Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
> news:1154975861.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> aeffects wrote:
>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> > Finally got around to picking up Livingstone's expensive book on the
>>> > Z-film.
>>> > I'm having a tad bit of a problem with Livingstone's contention that
>>> > first frame
>>> > flash must involve examining the *previous* frame as well.
>>> >
>>> > Any comments?
>>>