My evidence of Z-film alteration
Herbert Blenner
Viewing Z-311, Z-312, Z-314 and Z-315 shows Toni Foster gracefully
walking forward.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withoutz313.gif
Including Z-313 in the sequence disrupts the grace of her motion and
shows that frames Z-312 and Z- 314 do not provide sufficient time for
an intermediate position of Foster.
David Von Pein
Good God in San Diego!
It's called a "blur", Herbert.
a1e...@verizon.net
> Good God in San Diego!
>
> It's called a "blur", Herbert.
Are you telling us that a clear frame would have provided sufficient
time for a intermediate frame between Z-312 and Z314? If so then you
have confused blur with a time wrap.
Herbert
David Von Pein
Is a "time wrap" anything like a time warp?
a1e...@verizon.net
> Is a "time wrap" anything like a time warp?
A warp reduces an interval of time and a wrap is more general
alteration of time, which may increase an interval.
So why does Z-313 fail to fit the pattern of Foster's motion shown on
the other frames?
Herbert
Robert Harris
<691e20e7-d35d-4c83...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Viewing Z-311, Z-312, Z-314 and Z-315 shows Toni Foster gracefully
> walking forward.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withoutz313.gif
311-314 are too blurred to make any kind of determinations.
RH
bigdog
"the grace of her motion"??? WTF??? Where do you guys dream this shit
up. Have you and the Human Stain been comparing notes? This is the
kind of lame shit he posts. After 45 years, this is the best you've
got?
a1e...@verizon.net
For decades experts have argued that discontinuity of motion would
expose removal of a frame from the Zapruder film. I agree and would
add that insertion of a frame would also disrupt the smoothness of a
motion.
For example frames Z-311, Z-312, Z-314 and Z-315 show the right foot
of Toni Foster farther forward than on the preceding frame.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withoutz313.gif
Inclusion of Z-313 completely disrupts the continuity by producing two
abrupt changes in the direction of Foster's feet.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withz313.gif
The subsequence of Z-311 and Z-312 shows the right feet moving forward
while the next subsequence of Z-312 and Z-313 shows that a lateral
motion of the feet replaced the forward movement of the right foot.
This discontinuity represents the first abrupt change in the direction
of the feet.
Similarly the subsequence of Z-313 and Z-314 shows the right foot
moves farther forward and the feet move laterally closer together
while the following subsequence of Z-314 and Z-315 shows that the
right foot moves farther forward without lateral motion of the feet.
These abrupt changes in direction of Foster's feet expose Z-313 as an
untrue member of its numerical sequence.
Herbert
curtjester1
> In article
> <691e20e7-d35d-4c83-9b0c-1b641443a...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Viewing Z-311, Z-312, Z-314 and Z-315 shows Toni Foster gracefully
> > walking forward.
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withoutz313.gif
>
> 311-314 are too blurred to make any kind of determinations.
>
> RH
>
the panning, the jiggling, and find to a close proximity that the
point of shoot vs. the foreground's should be or in the pan when there
isn't motion to contend with. Here in Toni's case, especially with
the limo at a stoppage, there shouldn't have been a blurring. The
difference in the point and foreground's is in way too many cases
throughout the film (especially in parts where they would have wanted
to do that if they were hiding a conspiracy). Too bad the film was
hidden from the public for such a long time where that wasn't dealt
with.
What Happened On Elm Street - John Costella 2007
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf
Delay On Elm 59 Witnesses - Vince Palarma
http://www.jfk-info.com/palam1.htm
CJ
>
>
>
>
> > Including Z-313 in the sequence disrupts the grace of her motion and
> > shows that frames Z-312 and Z- 314 do not provide sufficient time for
> > an intermediate position of Foster.
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withz313.gif- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
sitdown you incompetent fool..... when you grow enough to debate tjhe
film and its contents give us a ring till then.... sweet dreams
aeffects
> Good God in San Diego!
>
> It's called a "blur", Herbert.
David Von Pein aka Dave Reitzes: Herbert is asking a tough questions
based upon what we see in various Z-film sources floating around the
net, and of course the **ALTERED** Z-film version delivered to us by
MPI 10 years ago. 16million dollars we paid for that piece of history
and no one can see it, much let alone lace it up on a projector and
run it.... a joke!
What you 'need' to do hon is this: produce the Z-film in-camera
original currently house at NARA for forensic film testing, until that
happens you're blowing smoke up everyones rearends.... you, nor
Vinnie, or Rosemary (his ghostly secretary) for that matter, have a
CLUE what you're talking about. And to refresh your memory, anymore
than the gang of eight did in 2003. Whom thought they'd take on The
Great Zapruder Film Hoax...
seen here: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/index.html
(from Josiah Thompson right down through Barb Junk to Craig 'Lampoon'
Lamson, Joe Durnavitch, Dave Wimp, etal)
When you get the nads then we'll discuss The HOAX of the Century
Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film by Harrison E. Livingstone,
ISBN 1-4120-4462-6. His personal interview and discussions with Roland
Zavada are quite enlightening. (Roland Zavada being KODAK'S man on the
scene when it comes to the Zapruder Film [the Zavada Report of ARRB
fame])
Any time you'd like to discuss the attributes of the Z-film and it's
current issues, ON-CAMERA, let us know.
aeffects
bumperoo.....
David Von Pein
>>> "Blurring in itself shows that there is alteration." <<<
LOL.
David Von Pein
RE: ZAPRUDER FILM FAKERY.......
So, per the "alterationist" kooks, somebody went to the trouble of
faking/altering the Zapruder Film (presumably to REMOVE ALL EVIDENCE
OF "CONSPIRACY") -- but the goofball film-fakers decided it was wise
to LEAVE IN the rear head snap which begins at Z315.
Is that what you kooks want to peddle?
Anyway, one thing's for certain -- whoever "faked" that film ought to
be fired from the "Film-Fakers" payroll asap! Because their "fakery"
not only did no good whatsoever in making people think there was only
one shooter from behind -- but their idiotic way of "faking" the Z-
Film did exactly the opposite....with the current version of the film
(which contains a bunch of "fakery" according to kooks like David G.
Healy) being one of THE MAIN THINGS that led to the creation of the
HSCA in the 1970s.
Those film-forgers were sure a crackerjack bunch, huh?
(And to think -- there are retards like Healy who actually BELIEVE
such Z-Film fakery nonsense.)
curtjester1
> RE: ZAPRUDER FILM FAKERY.......
>
> So, per the "alterationist" kooks, somebody went to the trouble of
> faking/altering the Zapruder Film (presumably to REMOVE ALL EVIDENCE
> OF "CONSPIRACY") -- but the goofball film-fakers decided it was wise
> to LEAVE IN the rear head snap which begins at Z315.
>
> Is that what you kooks want to peddle?
>
Ever think that there was too much film conspiracy to deal with? Even
then you don't get the right sequence for those frames. You might
want to deal with Charles Breneman who saw blobs of blood going on the
trunk who had to deal with early slides, the head shot prior which had
the head going forward, the limo stoppage, and the fact that the
motorcyclist Chaney went forward to meet with Stavis Ellis and Jesse
Curry. Simply, they had a lot to cover up, and when they added the
blob that never existed in a hospital and an upward jet spray, they
knew they could thwart off the backward head movement by some neuro-
muscular psychobabble.
CJ
> Anyway, one thing's for certain -- whoever "faked" that film ought to
> be fired from the "Film-Fakers" payroll asap! Because their "fakery"
> not only did no good whatsoever in making people think there was only
> one shooter from behind -- but their idiotic way of "faking" the Z-
> Film did exactly the opposite....with the current version of the film
> (which contains a bunch of "fakery" according to kooks like David G.
> Healy) being one of THE MAIN THINGS that led to the creation of the
> HSCA in the 1970s.
>
> Those film-forgers were sure a crackerjack bunch, huh?
>
> (And to think -- there are retards like Healy who actually BELIEVE
> such Z-Film fakery nonsense.)
And to think people might really think that you are really part of the
research community, when you never seem to appear in a public conclave
setting.
CJ
curtjester1
> >>> "Blurring in itself shows that there is alteration." <<<
>
> LOL.
It's about camera focus, not about Attention Deficit Syndrome (yours).
CJ
aeffects
he can't, he's .john's lackey.... also know as Dave Reitzes. .johns is
full of ghosts and aliases, the entire site is fraud and
disinformation
From jmca...@primenet.com Sat Feb 15 05:17:02 1997
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Blown back by shot
From: jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700
You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme
to make this group a shambles.
And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret.
I have publicly announced it.
I have made it perfectly obvious.
I have rubbed you buffs' noses in it.
It's blatantly obviously to everybody.
.John
see:
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/faq.html
nice guy, huh?
> CJ
lazu...@webtv.net
been spoke. Other than Lifton's articles, and Palamara's when his head
was screwed on straight, and maybe a couple others, but other than that
it's pure unadulterated BS. Might as well all be written by George
Poppy Bush,Posner, Bugliosi, or a CIA Publicist.
curtjester1
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say his site is a total fraud, since
he takes quite a beating over there as well. He just has enough
lackeys to lick his wounds and ego to continue on..:).
CJ
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81c81239-cc7c-48be...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
.John
see:
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/faq.html
nice guy, huh?
> CJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What Goes around, Comes around">>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curtjester1
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
> Subject: Re: Blown back by shot
> Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700
>
> You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme
> to make this group a shambles.
> And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret.
> I have publicly announced it.
> I have made it perfectly obvious.
> I have rubbed you buffs' noses in it.
> It's blatantly obviously to everybody.
>
> .John
>
> see:
>
>
> nice guy, huh?
>
> > CJ
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yer right, Tom, and even the moderators have said to copy one's posts
before hitting the send button. Even though I don't like some of the
agenda and antics they have, I do like the fact that I can post under
any name I can think of. I still wonder why some CT top heavy forums
do that?
CJ