JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on January 06, 2018, 10:13:57 PM

Title: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Mytton on January 06, 2018, 10:13:57 PM


Life magazine printed 30 frames from the Zapruder film a week later in the 29th of November 1963 issue and considering the time it took to get the film and then the time it takes to organise, write, format, print and then get the magazine distributed across the country left the amount of time the conspirators had to do any alteration to be a couple of days at most.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-emFM6cquXgM/VHzuOcmo57I/AAAAAAABB6w/A3jh2k1oy7Y/s1600/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963--04.jpg)   

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bv3zdhgEPkQ/VHzuOu0yuAI/AAAAAAABB60/qoEcZCWAhp8/s1600/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963--05.jpg)                               

In the following gif the Life magazine photos have superimposed over the original Zapruder Film and all the way through the most important events we get a perfect match to every image which means that to add a new element across a number of frames then there will be a knock on effect to these surrounding frames. The only frames we don't see are the actual headshot and the resulting back and to the left but if you had the time wouldn't these frames be the ones you would alter? Doh!

(https://s17.postimg.org/xl5r04a2n/Zap_life.gif) 

So in conclusion these Life Magazine photos published a week later are all the proof anyone needs to show no Zapruder fakery.
But in addition to this powerful evidence there is;

perfect synchronization between the Muchmore/Nix and the Zapruder films

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FkJltN832PY/hqdefault.jpg)

the impossible to fake ghost image in the sprocket area is an accurate representation of images captured with Zapruder's type of camera

(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/zapruder-film.jpg?w=700&h=393&crop=1)

and upon microscopic examination the Zapruder film shows the correct and overall consistent grain level for the relevant Kodak film stock.

(https://s17.postimg.org/qa7xzaor3/film_grain_Zapruder.jpg)




JohnM
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Chris Scally on January 07, 2018, 11:16:07 AM
John,

By my calculations, having studied the chain-of-possession in detail, the film arrived at Life's printing plant in Chicago somewhere between 2 and 5pm on the afternoon of Saturday, November 23, 1963. The black-and-white frames used in the issue of November 29 were available to the printers, according to my information, at around 8pm on the Saturday evening, so the only available time for any (highly-improbable, IMHO) manipulation was almost certainly restricted to within that 3-6 hour period.

Chris S
 
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bob Prudhomme on January 07, 2018, 03:55:29 PM
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 08, 2018, 03:27:43 AM

Bob believes that eyewitnesses, either eyewitnesses at Dealey Plaza, or an early witness of the Zapruder film, overcomes the most logical of arguments. There is no way the eyewitnesses could be mistaken. Either as a group, or as an individual, like Dan Rather.

It does not matter that the eyewitnesses disagree with each other. The fact that the eyewitnesses disagree with the Zapruder film shows that this film was faked.

Can the film be faked in a few days using 1963 technology? Of course, it could. The eyewitnesses show us it did happen and so was possible.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bob Prudhomme on January 08, 2018, 06:33:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bob believes that eyewitnesses, either eyewitnesses at Dealey Plaza, or an early witness of the Zapruder film, overcomes the most logical of arguments. There is no way the eyewitnesses could be mistaken. Either as a group, or as an individual, like Dan Rather.

It does not matter that the eyewitnesses disagree with each other. The fact that the eyewitnesses disagree with the Zapruder film shows that this film was faked.

Can the film be faked in a few days using 1963 technology? Of course, it could. The eyewitnesses show us it did happen and so was possible.

What you fail to understand, Joe, is that when a large group of eyewitnesses recall something incorrectly, they seldom tend to corroborate each others' mistaken memories. A large number of witnesses saw the limo stop, and a large number of those witnesses also saw the limo swerve to the left.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Chris Davidson on January 08, 2018, 07:29:09 AM
The first alteration is the removal of the Elm St turn.
The frame rate of Z's camera was not known until the first week in December (Joe Webb-FBI)
A 16mm film(frame rate 24fps) on a 16mm projector shown at 24fps.
24fps x 20.25 seconds = 486 frames
133 + 353 = 486
Excerpts from Rather's video description.
No reference made to the initial motorcycle cop footage.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4640/38862810794_db11263104_b.jpg)

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Krulvyn Skaarg on January 08, 2018, 02:43:19 PM
Supporters of Z film authenticity just won't address matters like Rather's description of a film that differs significantly from the established version. An hour of studying a 20m clip and you get something WRONG like 'back and to the left' after the fatal head shot. I respectfully ask you LNers to step up and explain this glaring discrepancy.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Richard Smith on January 08, 2018, 04:25:49 PM
Another example of CTers entertaining multiple and sometimes mutually exclusive realities.  In some cases, they rely upon the Z-film as proof of a conspiracy (e.g. "back and to the the left").  In others, that the film is faked or altered to avoid showing evidence of a conspiracy.  The Alamo defense of all CTer claims ultimately boils down to suggesting that all evidence is faked or the product of intentional lies.  The Catch-22:  Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is suspect and dismissed for that reason alone. 
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Ray Mitcham on January 08, 2018, 08:55:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Another example of CTers entertaining multiple and sometimes mutually exclusive realities.  In some cases, they rely upon the Z-film as proof of a conspiracy (e.g. "back and to the the left").  In others, that the film is faked or altered to avoid showing evidence of a conspiracy.  The Alamo defense of all CTer claims ultimately boils down to suggesting that all evidence is faked or the product of intentional lies.  The Catch-22:  Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is suspect and dismissed for that reason alone.

Just tell us why the film we see is different to the one Rather saw.  (And don't say "prove they are different" because Rather saw the limo turn the corner into Elm Street,) or is he just mistaken, lying or crazy?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Chris Davidson on January 08, 2018, 09:52:18 PM
The only car close enough to the limo to fulfill Rather's description.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4613/24715922567_fa8a3bd384_b.jpg)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 08, 2018, 10:35:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The only car close enough to the limo to fulfill Rather's description.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4613/24715922567_fa8a3bd384_b.jpg)

... And the white car didn't appear in the Zapruder film.

But Rather -- who claimed to be to the west of the Underpass -- could have seen the white car ahead of the limousine when the two cars were east of and beneath the Underpass.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Snapshot021.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_daniel03.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_jfkMcIntire_Crop.jpg)

The limousine moved increasingly ahead of the white car once westward of the Underpass.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Chris Davidson on January 08, 2018, 11:02:25 PM
Except his reference is to the film he just watched, not what was viewed from where he was standing.

The white lead car most likely appeared in the same footage as the limo turn onto Elm St, which was eventually excised.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4676/38688494315_2041425522_b.jpg)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 09, 2018, 12:21:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Except his reference is to the film he just watched, not what was viewed from where he was standing.

The white lead car most likely appeared in the same footage as the limo turn onto Elm St, which was eventually excised.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4676/38688494315_2041425522_b.jpg)

You're assuming that Rather is limiting his description to what the film shows.

If I was Dan Rather and a firsthand witness to some part of the event, I would be inclined to incorporate it.

Now if you had someone just after the assassination describing the film who had no firsthand impression of the motorcade arrangement, that would more likely mean he's describing things in the film not seen later on.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 09, 2018, 01:16:46 AM
I already replied to this thread but it got wiped out by the LNers because I was getting too close to home.   ;D

Chris Davidson is on the right track. There are only 2 questions needed to be answered to resolve this one:

1) Where is the "original" Z-film? Life got a COPY.
2) Why was the film "edited"?

There were at least 2 splices in the film, which the FBI must have created and they removed an entire section of the turn onto Elm. Zapruder said he never recalled letting his finger off the trigger at any time after he started filming. So why was this footage removed? And why are there splices in the film? And most importantly, where is the original film and why did the FBI keep it?

Any editing done to the film to remove contradictions to the LN scenario would have been done with an optical printer like they used for practically all movies at the time for FX. This would include:

1) Speeding the limo up by removing frames before and after the head shot. Easy peasy.
2) Blackening the back of JFK's head for a few dozen frames. Piece of cake.
3) Cut out the turn onto Elm where the limo barely navigated the turn. Just another splice, which they botched.

So to ans the OP of how long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film is...a few hours max. Which is exactly what they did. Otherwise, why did they modify it at all?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 09, 2018, 04:04:22 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Any editing done to the film to remove contradictions to the LN scenario would have been done with an optical printer like they used for practically all movies at the time for FX. This would include:

1) Speeding the limo up by removing frames before and after the head shot. Easy peasy.



Jack does not understand simple Physics.

The limousine can only slow down so much. It can only lose about 0.5 foot per second per frame.

So, a limousine is moving at 10 feet per second. It advances half a foot down the street from frame to frame.

Let’s take a theoretical example:

Frame 100: It starts to brake as much as possible
               ; I known, I chose 100 to make the math as simple as possible.
               ; And 20 Zapruder frames per second to, again, make the math as simple as possible.

Frames 100-120: It slows from 10 feet per second to zero feet per second.
               ; About half as fast as it could slow down (decelerate)

Frame 120: The limousine is stopped 5 feet further down the street from Frame 100.

Frames 120-140: Limousine stays stopped for one second.

Frames 140-160: Limousine accelerates back to 10 feet per second.

              ; The maximum acceleration would be something like this, at best.

Frame 160: The limousine is back at 10 feet per second, now 5 feet further down the street from Frame 120.


Remove frames 100 through 160? Removing the slowdown and stop? Easy peasy?

Except for one problem. The limousine would suddenly appear to leap 10 feet down the street between the now two consecutive frames.

And also, the problem that the occupants in the limousine, and the moving spectators, would also appear to suddenly move at an impossible speed.



If:

 limousines could suddenly start and stop. Accelerate and Decelerate at 6 G’s (as opposed to the more realistic 0.3 G’s)

and:

all people in the limousine and spectators froze and did not move a muscle while the limousine was stopped.

Then:

Yes, Jack’s method would work fine. There are no frames to remove during the deceleration and acceleration, because this was down instantly. Just remove the frames while the limousine was suddenly stopped. Easy peasy.

But this would not work in the real world.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 09, 2018, 04:42:07 AM
1) How could Kennedy's hand be at the side of his head (as Rather reports) when I see both his hands rise up sharply from just below his chest as he emerges from behind the sign. Oh, wait... the Zfilm was faked. Right?

2) Did Connally say anything about being shot in the chest as he turned to the back (according to Rather) or did he say he felt like someone had punched him in the back?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 09, 2018, 08:01:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Jack does not understand simple Physics.

I'm a physicist.  ;D

Quote
The limousine can only slow down so much. It can only lose about 0.5 foot per second per frame.

snip..


Are you referring to the jump cut at the turn onto Elm? I agree that from all accounts the limo had to almost stop to navigate the turn, which is probably why it was cut wholesale from the film. Pls explain the splice at frames 154-158:

(http://www.readclip.com/images/154_158.gif)


But I was referring to the head shot which is more complicated to speed the film up but easy peasy nonetheless. An optical printer can quickly decimate frames to smoothly speed up the limo enough to cover up a "near" stop. If you want to do this right you must redo your calculations to determine the frame frequency/de-acceleration and decimate frames accordingly.

(http://www.readclip.com/images/ZapNixLimoSpd.PNG)

Note that the "speed" of the limo is in photo-units. Track the rotation of the tires and their circumference for a photo-unit -> speed conversion. When I did this I found the limo slowed down to ~7 mph. Speeding up the limo any more than that would also speed up bystanders actions as well, which would raise suspicions. I am not convinced that the limo was sped up in the darkroom, but it certainly could have been done easy peasy. The real question is why did it slow down at all? And why did it slow down just before the head shot? It caused the trailing motorcycles to make complete stops and gave Clint Hill a chance to climb aboard.

Lastly, I have a problem with the following clip of frames 317 to 320:

(http://www.readclip.com/images/Z317_Z320.gif)

This animated GIF is depicted in real time. All the motion seen in the limo happened in less than a blink of the eye (.17 secs). In particular, note how quickly William Greer turned face front after applying the breaks and looking back at JFK just before the head shot. Looks like it is missing a couple of frames to de-emphasize that Greer hit the brakes hard enough to throw Kellerman forward, almost into the dashboard.

Given the Z-film was clearly modified by the FBI and as far as anyone knows they still have the original film, how can anyone look at a copy of the Z-film and claim the original had not been altered?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Chris Davidson on January 09, 2018, 08:49:03 PM
Close to the 154-158 span

CE884 entries for Z161-z166

Using the lightpost and CRB corner from the extant Z background, plotting the limo via the WC final plat, the speed of the limo equals 13.44mph.

13.44 x 1.47(1mph) = 19.7568 ft per sec

19.7568 / 18.3fps = 1.0796 ft per frame

5 frames (z161-z166) x 1.0796 ft per frame = 5.4ft traveled

CE884 states .9ft traveled for 5 frames

6frames x .9ft (distance given for 5 frames traveled CE884) =5.4ft

CE884 distance reflects 1 frame traveled at .9ft with the distance of 5 frames traveling @ 13.44mph, missing.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4678/39600922101_0f7b704e15_b.jpg)

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Chris Davidson on January 09, 2018, 09:09:20 PM
Limo Speed from CE884 Z161-z166:

18.3frames/5frames = 3.66 x .9ft = 3.294ft per sec / 1.47 = 2.24 mph

13.44mph - 2.24mph = 11.2 mph = Shaneyfelt

Mr. SPECTER. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed reflect any variations in the movement of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the overall average from 161 to 313. It does not mean that it was traveling constantly at 11.2, because it was more than likely going faster in some areas and slightly slower in some areas. It is only an average speed over the entire run.




Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 09, 2018, 09:39:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jack does not understand simple Physics.

I'm a physicist.  ;D

(https://media.tenor.com/images/06c659bdf93677d7c8bf81cdee92b9b1/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Chris Davidson on January 09, 2018, 10:50:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Limo Speed from CE884 Z161-z166:

18.3frames/5frames = 3.66 x .9ft = 3.294ft per sec / 1.47 = 2.24 mph

13.44mph - 2.24mph = 11.2 mph = Shaneyfelt

Mr. SPECTER. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed reflect any variations in the movement of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the overall average from 161 to 313. It does not mean that it was traveling constantly at 11.2, because it was more than likely going faster in some areas and slightly slower in some areas. It is only an average speed over the entire run.


One other confirmation is Myers multi film sync project.

Once again, when plotted the limo travels 12.03 mph from z149-161 and 13.44mph from z161-z172.

The average between those two equals 12.735mph.

Myers has it traveling 10.5 mph between z150and z175.

The difference being 12.735mph - 10.5 mph = 2.235mph equals the previous difference (2.24mph) listed.

Myers 25 frame span = 25/18.3 = 1.366.... sec

1.366...sec  x 3.294ft per sec(2.24mph) = 4.5ft = 5frames at .9ft per frame

So 5 frames @ 13.44mph = 6 frames @ 11.2mph in terms of distance.

And, .9ft per frame = 11.2mph @ 18.3Frames per sec.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4616/24734983667_d893d40383_b.jpg)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Mytton on January 09, 2018, 11:38:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I already replied to this thread but it got wiped out by the LNers because I was getting too close to home.   ;D

Chris Davidson is on the right track. There are only 2 questions needed to be answered to resolve this one:

1) Where is the "original" Z-film? Life got a COPY.
2) Why was the film "edited"?

There were at least 2 splices in the film, which the FBI must have created and they removed an entire section of the turn onto Elm. Zapruder said he never recalled letting his finger off the trigger at any time after he started filming. So why was this footage removed? And why are there splices in the film? And most importantly, where is the original film and why did the FBI keep it?

Any editing done to the film to remove contradictions to the LN scenario would have been done with an optical printer like they used for practically all movies at the time for FX. This would include:

1) Speeding the limo up by removing frames before and after the head shot. Easy peasy.
2) Blackening the back of JFK's head for a few dozen frames. Piece of cake.
3) Cut out the turn onto Elm where the limo barely navigated the turn. Just another splice, which they botched.

So to ans the OP of how long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film is...a few hours max. Which is exactly what they did. Otherwise, why did they modify it at all?





Quote
I already replied to this thread but it got wiped out by the LNers because I was getting too close to home.

This is what I was talking about, delusions of self grandeur are rife in your community.

Quote
Any editing done to the film to remove contradictions to the LN scenario would have been done with an optical printer like they used for practically all movies at the time for FX.

This was explained to you in the other thread, as soon as images are combined in an optical printer you have a degraded image with additional layers of grain. The special effects in movies at the time were locked off matte shots or blue screen work and not suitable for Zapruder type alterations.

The following two frames were filmed directly on set but the robots fighting picture was processed with multiple passes through an optical printer for added special effects like lasers and starfields which creates a much softer grainier image whereas the Zapruder film was just exposed once on the correct film stock.

(http://notonbluray.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Black-Hole-Infinite-Power-Cast.png)
(http://notonbluray.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Black-Hole-Laser-duel.png)

The Zapruder frames reveal no build up of Film grain and thus the film was exposed in Zapruder's camera.

(https://s17.postimg.org/qa7xzaor3/film_grain_Zapruder.jpg)

Quote
1) Speeding the limo up by removing frames before and after the head shot. Easy peasy.

As soon as even one frame is removed you introduce an obvious stutter but throughout the Zapruder film is silky smooth. In the following gif only one frame was removed and the resulting lack of fluidity is plain to see.

(https://s17.postimg.org/n1iu1ulkv/zapz313in-out1_zpsfe80c426.gif)

Quote
2) Blackening the back of JFK's head for a few dozen frames. Piece of cake.

You do realize that blackening one frame requires the exact correct pigment of black to match the surrounding level of black and then  when you start a series of frames then you have to consider how your black is affected by the movement and constantly changing lightsource that have a direct effect on your black, so in other words without advanced computer cycles to calculate the various intensities of black you're not going to provide anything close to photorealistic.

Quote
3) Cut out the turn onto Elm where the limo barely navigated the turn. Just another splice, which they botched.

Or maybe because an 8mm camera only takes a limited amount of film and Zapruder had already used some of the film so was simply saving film for Kennedy.



JohnM
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Mytton on January 09, 2018, 11:45:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm a physicist.  ;D


(https://media.tenor.com/images/06c659bdf93677d7c8bf81cdee92b9b1/tenor.gif)



Yeah I thought it was hilarious too, now he's physicist who is also a photogrammetrist on the side.
Too bad all the old posts got scrapped because the list of what professions Trojan magically morphed into to support any number of his arguments was staggering.
He claimed to be a photo something or other expert but didn't know the about the difference in size between 35mm still and motion picture film then he put the sprockets on the wrong side, he tries to bluff his way through but keeps getting busted.



JohnM
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Mytton on January 10, 2018, 07:09:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What are my objectives on this forum, Mytton?

What are your objectives on this forum? What makes you try so hard? What are you trying to accomplish?

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."

Are YOU part of the coverup?



Quote
What are my objectives on this forum, Mytton?

To obfuscate as much as possible and make CTs appear to be Paranoid Kooks!

Quote
What are your objectives on this forum?

To learn about a time period that is interesting and I like the photo side where you work with a lump of clay and try to create a masterpiece.

Quote
What makes you try so hard?

I'm a perfectionist.

Quote
What are you trying to accomplish?

To make the World a better Place, and wipe out World War and World Hunger!



JohnM

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 10, 2018, 11:32:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This was explained to you in the other thread, as soon as images are combined in an optical printer you have a degraded image with additional layers of grain. The special effects in movies at the time were locked off matte shots or blue screen work and not suitable for Zapruder type alterations.

It's just too easy. You are in no position to comment since it has been shown time and again that you don't have a clue about film. An optical printer adds no more grain to film than it does when it makes a copy. Who the hell said anything about overlays and matting? Give your head a shake and get in the game at least. How the hell can you analyse the grain on a copy of the original and tell me an optical printer wasn't used to create it? Duh.

Quote
The Zapruder frames reveal no build up of Film grain and thus the film was exposed in Zapruder's camera.

Super BS.

Quote
As soon as even one frame is removed you introduce an obvious stutter but throughout the Zapruder film is silky smooth. In the following gif only one frame was removed and the resulting lack of fluidity is plain to see.

You mean like this? ;)

(http://www.readclip.com/images/Z317_Z320.gif)

This is why only a few alternating frames can be removed to speed up the limo without a perceptible herky jerkiness. And I never claimed the limo was sped up, only that I have concerns and that it could have been done, easy peasy. But why did it slow down in the first place smart guy? I won't hold my breath for your obfuscation.

Quote
You do realize that blackening one frame requires the exact correct pigment of black to match the surrounding level of black and then  when you start a series of frames then you have to consider how your black is affected by the movement and constantly changing lightsource that have a direct effect on your black, so in other words without advanced computer cycles to calculate the various intensities of black you're not going to provide anything close to photorealistic.

Are you serial? Hahaha!

Quote
Or maybe because an 8mm camera only takes a limited amount of film and Zapruder had already used some of the film so was simply saving film for Kennedy.

Not according to Zapruder, but what would he know?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 10, 2018, 11:50:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Yeah I thought it was hilarious too, now he's physicist who is also a photogrammetrist on the side.
Too bad all the old posts got scrapped because the list of what professions Trojan magically morphed into to support any number of his arguments was staggering.
He claimed to be a photo something or other expert but didn't know the about the difference in size between 35mm still and motion picture film then he put the sprockets on the wrong side, he tries to bluff his way through but keeps getting busted.



JohnM

Geo-physics->Geomatics->Photogrammetry

There are lots of us out there in the GIS world, dufus. Just ask Google Earth. You should try taking a course sometime instead of spending countless hours spouting LNer obfuscation on a JFK forum.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Mytton on January 11, 2018, 12:36:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's just too easy. You are in no position to comment since it has been shown time and again that you don't have a clue about film. An optical printer adds no more grain to film than it does when it makes a copy. Who the hell said anything about overlays and matting? Give your head a shake and get in the game at least. How the hell can you analyse the grain on a copy of the original and tell me an optical printer wasn't used to create it? Duh.

Super BS.

You mean like this? ;)

(http://www.readclip.com/images/Z317_Z320.gif)

This is why only a few alternating frames can be removed to speed up the limo without a perceptible herky jerkiness. And I never claimed the limo was sped up, only that I have concerns and that it could have been done, easy peasy. But why did it slow down in the first place smart guy? I won't hold my breath for your obfuscation.

Are you serial? Hahaha!

Not according to Zapruder, but what would he know?


Quote
You are in no position to comment since it has been shown time and again that you don't have a clue about film.

Aren't you the "film expert" that said any ghost image in the sprocket area was impossible with Zapruder's Bell and Howell, and also thought the size of 35mm photographic film should allow for the sprockets and for that matter you put the sprockets on the wrong end, WOWOW??? LMFAOYD!

Quote
An optical printer adds no more grain to film than it does when it makes a copy.

The purpose of an Optical Printer is to combine different pieces of film footage into one combined piece of footage, which is useful for locked off shots or combining elements with previously shot blue screen footage, so basically to produce any type of special effect requires multiple passes. You keep espousing the virtues of using an optical printer but have not yet produced any methodology, you claimed something happened but don't say what that was.  But alas some before your have tried and failed, just look at David Healey who is light years ahead of you in technical knowledge and can more or less visualise his ideas instead of speaking from a Wiki search.

David claims that the Limo was cut out, I'm guessing with a very sharp knife and was recomposited over the background and enlarged, why, who the fcuk knows! But anyway first of all this makes hideous outlines and can be instantly spotted because there is no natural bleeding, the new differing position of the lighting will be geometrically incorrect thus instantly spotable and how do you trace around objects which have heavy motion blur.

Here we see the basic concept of compositing various elements with an Optical Printer and the result even with computers shows heavy borders around the occupants and is not close to photorealistic.

(https://s17.postimg.org/mtr2awhkv/trojaannz.gif)

David tried using photoshop which has many levels of benefit over a traditional chop and paste with an Optical Printer and what he produced also isn't photorealistic.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7207/6918589907_f00093ffb6_b.jpg)

Hahaha, compositing ain't easy.

(https://s17.postimg.org/cjonbqk0f/trojaann.gif)

Btw if an Optical Printer could produce results like the amazing images we see in Zapruder then why does virtually nobody use them any more?


Look here and learn from Zavada.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm



JohnM
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Mytton on January 11, 2018, 12:46:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Geo-physics->Geomatics->Photogrammetry

There are lots of us out there in the GIS world, dufus. Just ask Google Earth. You should try taking a course sometime instead of spending countless hours spouting LNer obfuscation on a JFK forum.



Geo-physics->Geomatics->Photogrammetry

WOW, and you also lower yourself to the mundane work of Optical Printer Operator, you're an astrophysicist,  and you're an astronaut and your dad's the President!



JohnM
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 26, 2018, 04:58:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm a physicist.  ;D

Sure you are. And Rob Caprio is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 26, 2018, 03:05:43 PM
By my count, there's at least the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Bell, Bronson, Dorman, Hughes, and Towner films that show JFK in Dealy Plaza.

To those of you who believe the Zapruder film has been altered, it might help everyone to understand your position if you could tell the rest of us two things:
*  Which of these films do you believe have been altered ?
*  Which of these films do you believe have not been altered ?

Many thanks...
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on March 26, 2018, 04:43:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




This is what I was talking about, delusions of self grandeur are rife in your community.

This was explained to you in the other thread, as soon as images are combined in an optical printer you have a degraded image with additional layers of grain. The special effects in movies at the time were locked off matte shots or blue screen work and not suitable for Zapruder type alterations.

The following two frames were filmed directly on set but the robots fighting picture was processed with multiple passes through an optical printer for added special effects like lasers and starfields which creates a much softer grainier image whereas the Zapruder film was just exposed once on the correct film stock.

(http://notonbluray.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Black-Hole-Infinite-Power-Cast.png)
(http://notonbluray.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Black-Hole-Laser-duel.png)

The Zapruder frames reveal no build up of Film grain and thus the film was exposed in Zapruder's camera.

(https://s17.postimg.org/qa7xzaor3/film_grain_Zapruder.jpg)

As soon as even one frame is removed you introduce an obvious stutter but throughout the Zapruder film is silky smooth. In the following gif only one frame was removed and the resulting lack of fluidity is plain to see.

(https://s17.postimg.org/n1iu1ulkv/zapz313in-out1_zpsfe80c426.gif)

You do realize that blackening one frame requires the exact correct pigment of black to match the surrounding level of black and then  when you start a series of frames then you have to consider how your black is affected by the movement and constantly changing lightsource that have a direct effect on your black, so in other words without advanced computer cycles to calculate the various intensities of black you're not going to provide anything close to photorealistic.

Or maybe because an 8mm camera only takes a limited amount of film and Zapruder had already used some of the film so was simply saving film for Kennedy.



JohnM

       Instead of doing your Hokey Pokey Routine with regard to the Middle of the Current Z Film, why Not start at the Beginning of this Black Hole of a Motion Picture? The BEGINNING. The Time Warp/GAP we see at the beginning of the Current Zapruder Film is contrary to what we are told by both Zapruder & Sitzman. They could see the JFK Limo coming down Houston and were filming as it turned onto Elm.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 26, 2018, 04:49:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sure you are. And Rob Caprio is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.

I recall someone trying to tell an actual physicist back then that Kennedy was hit from the front and he responded with 'No physicist would tell you that'

And I wonder why Trojan hasn't prepared a white paper and published amongst his peers. Oh, wait.. his peers are the rest of CT wonder world where everyone becomes an instant expert in anything & everything.

I can't wait for his press conference.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Matthew Finch on March 26, 2018, 04:59:47 PM
Come back Lamson, all is forgiven.  ;)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 26, 2018, 05:22:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I recall someone trying to tell an actual physicist back then that Kennedy was hit from the front and he responded with 'No physicist would tell you that'

And I wonder why Trojan hasn't prepared a white paper and published amongst his peers. Oh, wait.. his peers are the rest of CT wonder world where everyone becomes an instant expert in anything & everything.

I can't wait for his press conference.

If one starts with the premise or belief that "they" (the conspirators and actual murderers of JFK) can do anything, that there are no limits to "their" power and resources, then everything follows logically from there.

It doesn't matter whether the technical experts said the Z-film couldn't be altered with the changes unnoticed; it doesn't matter that forensic pathologists say that JFK's body couldn't be altered without the changes being noticeable.

Those experts are either corrupt or ignorant as to what "they" could do. And the evidence for this is that "they" did it. That's all that matters.

In conspiracy world everything is evidence of the conspiracy. I used to be a CTer and that's how I looked at this.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 26, 2018, 06:05:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
By my count, there's at least the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Bell, Bronson, Dorman, Hughes, and Towner films that show JFK in Dealy Plaza.

To those of you who believe the Zapruder film has been altered, it might help everyone to understand your position if you could tell the rest of us two things:
*  Which of these films do you believe have been altered ?
*  Which of these films do you believe have not been altered ?

Many thanks...

To build upon your questions (and hopefully not to distract from them) how would "they" - the people who altered the Zapruder film - know that they didn't have to alter these other films? In other words, wouldn't they have to view the films first to see if what the films showed exposed their alterations of the Z-film? Is there any evidence that these other films were taken by "they" and viewed?

And how would they know exactly how many other films there were? What if they missed one? Or three?

As Josiah Thompson explained:

"[T]he critical problem for anyone thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films. It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."

I disagree that the "unknown" is the critical problem. But it's certainly a major one.

There has to be some limits to what "they" could do?

Anyway, back to your questions first. Mine can wait for later <g>.

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 26, 2018, 06:32:07 PM
LOL !
You're not distracting from my point - you're making my point.

If someone says that one or more of the other assassination films - other than Zapruder - are authentic
    Then the burden is on them is to show the inconsistencies between that unaltered film and the altered Z-film...we should be able to see the inconsistencies, right ?

If someone says the opposite, that in addition to Zapruder none of the other films are authentic
    Then the burden of proof is on them to show how films like Muchmore or Nix are in perfect sync with the Zapruder film - yet somehow were publicly available within days after the assassination despite going through very different chains of custody

If the alterationists can demonstrate how either one of the above is even *possible* - let alone probable - then I'll be the first guy to listen.
If they can't, then what they're suggesting has no possible basis in fact, and I tend to disregarded it as illogical...
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Tom Sorensen on March 27, 2018, 01:35:05 PM
As long as the film was locked away there wouldn't be any apparent problem.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on March 27, 2018, 03:04:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL !
You're not distracting from my point - you're making my point.

If someone says that one or more of the other assassination films - other than Zapruder - are authentic
    Then the burden is on them is to show the inconsistencies between that unaltered film and the altered Z-film...we should be able to see the inconsistencies, right ?

If someone says the opposite, that in addition to Zapruder none of the other films are authentic
    Then the burden of proof is on them to show how films like Muchmore or Nix are in perfect sync with the Zapruder film - yet somehow were publicly available within days after the assassination despite going through very different chains of custody

If the alterationists can demonstrate how either one of the above is even *possible* - let alone probable - then I'll be the first guy to listen.
If they can't, then what they're suggesting has no possible basis in fact, and I tend to disregarded it as illogical...

            With regard to the " very different chains of custody" claim raised above, it Must be remembered that back in "63" KODAK basically held a Monopoly in  Film Developing. Kodak frequently partnered with the U.S. Govt dating back to at least WW2. The overwhelming vast majority of JFK Assassination Films/Images were Initially "handled" & "developed" by Kodak.   
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 03:41:55 PM
How would you explain this then:
- The Muchmore film shows the exact same content - and the EXACT same headshot - as the Zapruder film, right ?
- The Muchmore film was shown publicly on WNEW TV in NY just four days after the assassination.
- Was the Muchmore film altered so as to be in sync with Zapruder ?

Do you really believe that the conspirators were able to create a fake Zapruder AND Muchmore film that are perfectly in sync - and they were able to create a false record in just four days that would stand the scrutiny of 50+ years and guys like Zavada ?

Seriously ?

In fact, it's even more preposterous when you consider that as of three days after the assassination (Nov. 25) Muchmore's film hadn't even been developed yet - so the conspirators actually would have only have had ONE day...

"Muchmore sold the undeveloped film to the Dallas office of United Press International on November 25, 1963, for $1,000. It was processed by Kodak in Dallas, and flown to New York City. It appeared the following day on local television station WNEW-TV."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Muchmore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Muchmore)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 05:39:39 PM
Are you really claiming that there is enough resolution and definition (not to mention the camera angle) in the Muchmore film to declare that it shows the "EXACT same headshot"?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 27, 2018, 05:47:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL !
You're not distracting from my point - you're making my point.

If someone says that one or more of the other assassination films - other than Zapruder - are authentic
    Then the burden is on them is to show the inconsistencies between that unaltered film and the altered Z-film...we should be able to see the inconsistencies, right ?

If someone says the opposite, that in addition to Zapruder none of the other films are authentic
    Then the burden of proof is on them to show how films like Muchmore or Nix are in perfect sync with the Zapruder film - yet somehow were publicly available within days after the assassination despite going through very different chains of custody

If the alterationists can demonstrate how either one of the above is even *possible* - let alone probable - then I'll be the first guy to listen.
If they can't, then what they're suggesting has no possible basis in fact, and I tend to disregarded it as illogical...

My point was focused more on your second observation - how did "they" get possession of the Muchmore, Nix et al. films? They had to at the very least review them to make sure their alterations of the Z film wouldn't be exposed by these other films. Then they had to either alter those films and make them in sync with the changes in the Z film or somehow make the changes in the Z film synchronize with the other films while not being exposed by them.

But first they had to review them, get possession of them. Wouldn't they?

Furthermore, how would they not know that these other films by themselves wouldn't reveal their conspiracy? That they didn't show a shooter on the knoll? That they showed there was no one in the sniper's nest? Forget having them expose the alterations in the Z film; what if they exposed their framing of Oswald?

Here's a closeup of the 6th floor taken from the Hughes' film. The sniper's nest is on the right. This was taken, apparently, about seven seconds before the first shot (yeah, whenever that really was). What if Hughes had continued filming for another 10 seconds? And it showed no shooter?

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4J1-FasG4tJ2V6P0taydCT-IQRL5I_BM8hnzF-vCXl5Cf6qUo8JWOrCTWfIPL8FN6Ir3ORpwuT9E_TARwGCQPL_yGTSzd5GcGt3YcaQzyMhCVJNCQbvdYncroOJe6vrduQ_9FgfpHpXI0sEoaaYg7SbwNkPQm3AA8hl6cnwHwkvTohdj8r-hbQ49J98pscVZCOXMoxwLflsiyZry0_j_TAuvvbAbtYDb23zlUuu4wHtKBTSUhXDZyLnU5gT0x45DL_YFwZybLivNf1MfCAWUFxiAfZru1caJf165QU-_YcrBZo1e4Cne3cIBCmOButZE5AVShzL_4VHZBrLtBUjei4Urc8oZDquF54Pcpgxl5UrT7dPm8rjvVbV0i5oDfSEQnGJ0PIWNfHAIDfxNmLbUJnH7CmXW0eJ6BPCpmMl1NTsJiw7IPXl0gjFihfUDfuRQ3VmxeoHa-biEC1Ky7ONA84DnW3gIaREl5I-uftgWBxk3rcmbUt2b4ViD-aH535yvRALZW_EseL8ZqEeLqhT8S1Wz0XP7lq8JBAy7hx3h3O7yQhcdO7UPDN9a5_En_vRp_9HVUZ4F9RxuEl5wsmncRbG01UvhYPCzJb4yOiw=w469-h281-no)

This is absurd. As I asked above, are there any limits to what "they" could have done? Seemingly many in the conspiracy world - or those that believe in the Z alteration - there wasn't.

There was no alteration of the Z film done to hide what actually happened.

And don't get me started on the claim that JFK's wounds were altered <g>.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 06:02:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you really claiming that there is enough resolution and definition (not to mention the camera angle) in the Muchmore film to declare that it shows the "EXACT same headshot"?

John - go ahead and point out the differences between the headshot in Muchmore vs the headshot in Zapruder.
    1.  If you *can* point out the differences - then my claim that they are an EXACT match falls from its own lack of merit.
    2.  If you *can not* point out any differences, then my statement cannot necessarily be disproven, can it ?

Hey, I'm nothing if not teachable - and open to facts and evidence.

Over to you...

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 06:40:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John - go ahead and point out the differences between the headshot in Muchmore vs the headshot in Zapruder.
    1.  If you *can* point out the differences - then my claim that they are an EXACT match falls from its own lack of merit.
    2.  If you *can not* point out any differences, then my statement cannot necessarily be disproven, can it ?

Hey, I'm nothing if not teachable - and open to facts and evidence.

Over to you...

That's not how it works, Steve.  You don't get to make a positive claim like "they show the exact same headshot" and then say that it's true unless somebody can disprove it.

I'm asking you how you can tell that they are exactly the same.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 07:04:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm asking you how you can tell that they are exactly the same.

Oh, well that's easy... I just put my assertion out there that the Muchmore/Zapruder headshots are "exactly the same" and dare anyone to disprove it.
If, after a week or so on this forum (with all its experts) no one can disprove my assertion, then it must be a fact.

But, in all seriousness, I'd say this is one of those cases where a lack of evidence is in fact evidence.
Either they are different, or they are the same.

Once again, what are the differences ?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 07:16:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, well that's easy... I just put my assertion out there that the Muchmore/Zapruder headshots are "exactly the same" and dare anyone to disprove it.
If, after a week or so on this forum (with all its experts) no one can disprove my assertion, then it must be a fact.

<facepalm>

LBJ knew about the assassination in advance.  I dare you to disprove that.

Quote
But, in all seriousness, I'd say this is one of those cases where a lack of evidence is in fact evidence.
Either they are different, or they are the same.

....OR....

Whether they are the same or not is inconclusive and indeterminate.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 07:31:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
<facepalm>

LBJ knew about the assassination in advance.  I dare you to disprove that.

LBJ didn't know about the assassination in advance.  I dare you to disprove that.

The Muchmore film and the Zapruder film are 100% consistent.  I dare you to disprove that .
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 07:39:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LBJ didn't know about the assassination in advance.  I dare you to disprove that.

I think you're starting to see the problem.  The inability to disprove something tells you nothing about whether it's true or not.

Quote
The Muchmore film and the Zapruder film are 100% consistent.  I dare you to disprove that .

Well now you're watering down your original claim, which was that they show the EXACT same headshot.  "Consistent" just means that you can't rule something out.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 07:53:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well now you're watering down your original claim, which was that they show the EXACT same headshot.  "Consistent" just means that you can't rule something out.

John, honestly, I don't think we need to engage Failure Analysis Associates or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to tell us that the Muchmore film shows exactly the same thing as Zapruder film... albeit from a different angle.

If Muchmore showed a different headshot than Zapruder - conspiracy theorists and Robert Groden and all the rest would have been shouting it from the house tops for 50+ years.

I heard a comedian once say "what's the greatest evidence that Elvis really is dead ?  If he were alive and could see the idiots that are impersonating him and not coming running out of hiding then I'm pretty sure he's dead..."
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 08:21:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Muchmore showed a different headshot than Zapruder - conspiracy theorists and Robert Groden and all the rest would have been shouting it from the house tops for 50+ years.

I'm sure they would.  That, however, doesn't demonstrate that they show the EXACT same headshot.  Honestly, if Muchmore was the only thing you had to go on, you wouldn't even know that the guy was shot.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 09:48:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm sure they would.  That, however, doesn't demonstrate that they show the EXACT same headshot.  Honestly, if Muchmore was the only thing you had to go on, you wouldn't even know that the guy was shot.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, as I do believe that Muchmore's film and Zapruder's film show the EXACT same headshot, and indeed the EXACT same scene - obviously taking in to account the different perspectives of the photographers. 

I can see NO inconsistencies. 
I can see 100% correlation between things like:
    *  JFK's head being positioned forward and to the left
    *  Jackie's right elbow immediately behind JFK's left shoulder
    *  Moorman's position in the background
    *  Kellerman's head pointed straight ahead

As far as your "if Muchmore was the only thing you had to go on, you wouldn't even know that the guy was shot" comment... seriously ?  There's clearly a halo of blood and brain matter ejecting from JFK's head just as is seen in Zapruder.

I think a reasonable person can conclude that both photo's are depicting the EXACT same event and the EXACT same instant.
I believe the photo comparison below is strong evidence of this.

If you believe this is open to doubt, once again - prove why your doubts are founded in fact - and not just the "we can never really know anything with 100% certainty" thing...

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K1gaaoWeIYY/V75l_75PxOI/AAAAAAAAAGg/rwKDaAx-4JIuq3vA2q6t57LvGCfRzJilACLcB/s1600/Muchmore.jpg)

(https://www.icp.org/icpmedia/z/a/p/r/zapruder_abraham_1846_2005_407424_displaysize.jpg)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 27, 2018, 10:03:36 PM
But the Muchmore film doesn't show the first two shots - certainly not the critical second or the SBT. And it shows a limited part of the assassination scene.

Just because it appears to support the head shot shown in the Z-film doesn't mean it corroborates what is shown there. As in: Where did the head shot in the Muchmore film come from?  But it does - importantly - show that the blood/brain tissue didn't exit the back of the head. I don't see that in the film.

It seems to me that saying a film doesn't contradict the Zapruder film - and there's nothing I can see in Muchmore that does - is not the same as saying it corroborates it.

We still come back to the issue that if the Z film was altered then the alterationists were greatly risking being exposed by the potential revelations in other films. Did they not worry about that possibility? Is there any evidence they did?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 10:12:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It seems to me that saying a film doesn't contradict the Zapruder film - and there's nothing I can see in Muchmore that does - is not the same as saying it corroborates it.


With all due respect, Steve, I'm not just "saying that a film doesn't contradict the Zapruder film", am I ?

My previous post details four points of absolutely correlation between Z and Muchmore, doesn't it ?

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 27, 2018, 10:26:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
With all due respect, Steve, I'm not just "saying that a film doesn't contradict the Zapruder film", am I ?

My previous post details four points of absolutely correlation between Z and Muchmore, doesn't it ?

Sorry for not being clear: I am saying that not you.

As I added to the above, it certainly appears to show - to me - that the blood/brain/tissue from the shot exited the side/top of the head and not from the rear. Your point about the head shot itself - and the aftermath - is spot on. But I would not say it shows exactly the same thing as the Z film. As I said, it doesn't contradict what we see in that film but I - me not you - wouldn't say it corroborates it.

But for those who claim the Z film was altered to hide the material exiting from JFK's head have to answer the question: What about the Muchmore film?

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 10:55:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm going to have to disagree with you, as I do believe that Muchmore's film and Zapruder's film show the EXACT same headshot, and indeed the EXACT same scene - obviously taking in to account the different perspectives of the photographers.

You don't see a wound of any kind in Muchmore.  How could you possibly determine that they are EXACTLY the same?

Quote
As far as your "if Muchmore was the only thing you had to go on, you wouldn't even know that the guy was shot" comment... seriously ?  There's clearly a halo of blood and brain matter ejecting from JFK's head just as is seen in Zapruder.

Clearly you jest.  How is this "clearly" a  halo of blood and brain matter?

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K1gaaoWeIYY/V75l_75PxOI/AAAAAAAAAGg/rwKDaAx-4JIuq3vA2q6t57LvGCfRzJilACLcB/s1600/Muchmore.jpg)

The point is that you are overstating by claiming that they depict the exact same head shot when you really mean that you don't see any obvious discrepancies between the two.

And one could always speculate that we may not have ever seen Muchmore if there were any.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 28, 2018, 12:04:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm going to have to disagree with you, as I do believe that Muchmore's film and Zapruder's film show the EXACT same headshot, and indeed the EXACT same scene - obviously taking in to account the different perspectives of the photographers. 

I can see NO inconsistencies. 
I can see 100% correlation between things like:
    *  JFK's head being positioned forward and to the left
    *  Jackie's right elbow immediately behind JFK's left shoulder
    *  Moorman's position in the background
    *  Kellerman's head pointed straight ahead

As far as your "if Muchmore was the only thing you had to go on, you wouldn't even know that the guy was shot" comment... seriously ?  There's clearly a halo of blood and brain matter ejecting from JFK's head just as is seen in Zapruder.

I think a reasonable person can conclude that both photo's are depicting the EXACT same event and the EXACT same instant.

They are obviously depicting the same event but the question is whether the head shot occurred at the EXACT same instant. You can't make that determination by eye-balling the films. You need  to know the exact frame rates for both films then match them up.

For example, there would be differences if frames were removed from the Z-film intended to speed up the limo. This might be detected by synchronizing both flims at frame 313 of the Z film, then advancing the films 1 frame at a time and trying to match up landmarks common to both films. Problem being, an offset of a few frames represents at most a few feet depending the speed of the limo and the camera operator's panning rate. IOW, it is extremely difficult to detect the EXACT frame when films do not match unless enough frames have been removed from 1 of the films. Also, we have no way of knowing whether the films were edited to match each other.

For what it is worth, here is an analysis of the limo speed for the Zapruder and Nix films on a frame by frame basis. Limo speeds are relative to photo units and actual speeds can be calculated by using physical rulers in each film (i.e. tire diameter) to establish a pixels/foot ruler.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/ZapNixLimoSpd.PNG)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 28, 2018, 12:10:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You don't see a wound of any kind in Muchmore.  How could you possibly determine that they are EXACTLY the same?

Clearly you jest.  How is this "clearly" a  halo of blood and brain matter?

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K1gaaoWeIYY/V75l_75PxOI/AAAAAAAAAGg/rwKDaAx-4JIuq3vA2q6t57LvGCfRzJilACLcB/s1600/Muchmore.jpg)

The point is that you are overstating by claiming that they depict the exact same head shot when you really mean that you don't see any obvious discrepancies between the two.

And one could always speculate that we may not have ever seen Muchmore if there were any.

You've convinced me John.
I was mistaken.
And your right, that cloud coming out of JFK's head could be anything.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Take care.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 28, 2018, 12:33:58 AM
Speaking of JFK's head exploding...why does frame 317 look like a fireball blew out a perfectly circular hole on the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head when the shot supposedly came from the TSBD?

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/PDVD_178.jpg)

And when does a FMJ bullet explode in the 1st place? And why didn't the MB explode, let alone show up on the wrong stretcher with no trace of DNA in swimming pool condition?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 28, 2018, 12:41:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Speaking of JFK's head exploding...why does frame 317 look like a fireball blew out a perfectly circular hole on the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head when the shot supposedly came from the TSBD?

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/PDVD_178.jpg)

And when does a FMJ bullet explode in the 1st place? And why didn't the MB explode, let alone show up on the wrong stretcher with no trace of DNA in swimming pool condition?

The twofer didn't hit any large bone nose first
The head shot hit the hard bone of the skull
You do to math

And you call yourself a physicist LOL
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 28, 2018, 05:14:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The twofer didn't hit any large bone nose first
The head shot hit the hard bone of the skull
You do to math

And you call yourself a physicist LOL

Sure, it's easy when you just make xxxx up. BS-ology 101. LOL
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Mytton on March 28, 2018, 05:19:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You've convinced me John.
I was mistaken.
And your right, that cloud coming out of JFK's head could be anything.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Take care.



 

(https://consciousawarenessforall.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jfk-6-320-x-240.gif)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/9a/6a/c49a6a1fedcabc0ebad3da5a3ec08f91.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/ENHkRd8.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Mytton on March 28, 2018, 05:22:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And you call yourself a physicist LOL



Physicist!??? LOL!



JohnM
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Joe Elliott on March 28, 2018, 05:37:09 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

For what it is worth, here is an analysis of the limo speed for the Zapruder and Nix films on a frame by frame basis. Limo speeds are relative to photo units and actual speeds can be calculated by using physical rulers in each film (i.e. tire diameter) to establish a pixels/foot ruler.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/ZapNixLimoSpd.PNG)


This analysis is not worth much, at least the analysis of the speed of the limousine based on the Zapruder film. This graph shows a steady speed from z300 through z345, then a speed up of 50 % by z360.

In truth, the limousine slowed form 13 mph to 8 mph during z265-z305. Then held a steady speed of 8 mph during z305-z345, then speeded up to 25 mph from z345-382. By z382, the limousine was moving 200 % faster (or 3 times faster) than the speed at z330, not 50 % faster.

When I have time, I will repost my analysis of the speed of the limousine based on the Zapruder film. I have a few updates I would wish to make. I hope to have it posted within two weeks.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Joe Elliott on March 28, 2018, 05:44:01 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Speaking of JFK's head exploding...why does frame 317 look like a fireball blew out a perfectly circular hole on the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head when the shot supposedly came from the TSBD?

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/PDVD_178.jpg)

And when does a FMJ bullet explode in the 1st place? And why didn't the MB explode, let alone show up on the wrong stretcher with no trace of DNA in swimming pool condition?


There is no fireball.

The entrance wound was on the back of the head and the exit wound, along with the much larger explosive wound, was on the right side of the head. As expected from a shot from the TSBD, with JFK’s head turned significantly to the left at z312.

Question:

Can you site a single Ballistic Expert, one who does real world tests of bullets with ballistic gel who holds any of these opinions of yours about “fireballs”, bullets held in cloth pockets for several minutes which fail to retain blood traces or DNA?

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 28, 2018, 04:07:14 PM
Steve: I think you're overstating what the Muchmore film shows vis-a-vis the Zapruder film.

But that doesn't mean that some of what it shows - critical parts of it - supports what we see in the Zapruder film.

The main claim by the alterationists is that the Z film was altered to hide the blowout in the back of JFK's head. And that BOH blowout indicates that JFK was shot from the front.

But the Muchmore film, to me, shows no such rear blowout. As to the angles of Kellerman's head, et cetera. That for me is of secondary interest. Why would it be necessary for the alterationhists to touch those areas? The key, again, is the BOH.



Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Robin Unger on March 28, 2018, 05:11:19 PM
Muchmore GIF

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qB64sjleNYw/WGMqFkG690I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/8jtXjjfWtIIR3i_DnSuPDLCUOIIknhvQgCLcB/s640/Muchmore%2B2.gif)

Nix Zoomed

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UpVHD04f4jw/WE_27UHWZII/AAAAAAAAAQk/yJK5XwOLMucDfCtzzzcPs3nPtzw6bvEAQCLcB/s1600/NixSlowZoomed.gif)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Robin Unger on March 28, 2018, 05:14:51 PM
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N6CnYbicsSc/WbUOqG4YYRI/AAAAAAAAAoE/o6hjK492J1IAddHfr0SERsVEX69TVR5eQCLcBGAs/s1600/Zap3.gif)

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d--lDDmaDw8/V7_bl2Q-slI/AAAAAAAAAIk/nOqDDtqpNKomq5seaiQ69Q1OEPL3d7J2wCLcB/s1600/Moorman.gif)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 28, 2018, 05:29:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You've convinced me John.
I was mistaken.
And your right, that cloud coming out of JFK's head could be anything.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Take care.

It's obviously blood and brain matter.

We know this from the other evidence.

If we're going to look at every single piece of evidence in isolation, removed from the other evidence, then you're going to wind up nowhere.

Which is where John Iacolletti is. Contrarian nowhere land.



Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Robin Unger on March 28, 2018, 05:40:45 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/image313.jpg)

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Image317.jpg)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 28, 2018, 05:54:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's obviously blood and brain matter.

No, no... anything but that.

 ;)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 28, 2018, 06:09:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Muchmore GIF

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qB64sjleNYw/WGMqFkG690I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/8jtXjjfWtIIR3i_DnSuPDLCUOIIknhvQgCLcB/s640/Muchmore%2B2.gif)

Nix Zoomed

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UpVHD04f4jw/WE_27UHWZII/AAAAAAAAAQk/yJK5XwOLMucDfCtzzzcPs3nPtzw6bvEAQCLcB/s1600/NixSlowZoomed.gif)

“Motorcade Cop Tells How It Happened,” Sunday News (New York)
, 24 November 1963, p.25:

Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) - B. W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding
in President Kennedy’s motorcade, gave this account today of the assassination:
 
“We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about half a block from where it happened. I was

right alongside the rear fender on the left hand side of the President’s car, near Mrs. Kennedy.
 
When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had

been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look.

The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor,

talking to him.
 
As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he

got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around.

I was splattered with blood.
 
Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I

might have been hit.


Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and

drew my gun.
 
Then this Secret Service agent (in the President’s car) got his wits about him and they took off.

The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward

and announced to the chief that the President had been shot.”

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 28, 2018, 07:13:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You've convinced me John.
I was mistaken.
And your right, that cloud coming out of JFK's head could be anything.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Take care.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  You wouldn't know there was "a halo of blood and brain matter" from just looking at Muchmore.  Not unless you have a much better copy of Muchmore than the one you actually posted.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 28, 2018, 07:17:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you site a single Ballistic Expert, one who does real world tests of bullets with ballistic gel who holds any of these opinions of yours about “fireballs”, bullets held in cloth pockets for several minutes which fail to retain blood traces or DNA? [/b]

Can you cite how you determined that CE399 ever went through Kennedy or Connally?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 28, 2018, 07:21:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's obviously blood and brain matter.

We know this from the other evidence.

If we're going to look at every single piece of evidence in isolation, removed from the other evidence, then you're going to wind up nowhere.

Which is where John Iacolletti is. Contrarian nowhere land.

Then you're completely missing the point.  Steve said that the Muchmore film "shows the exact same headshot".  You can't prove that by looking at "other evidence" -- that's just a circular argument.  The Muchmore film shows what it shows, which isn't much detail.  You can't claim that the films are in sync by just assuming that the films are in sync.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 30, 2018, 06:57:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is no fireball.

The entrance wound was on the back of the head and the exit wound, along with the much larger explosive wound, was on the right side of the head. As expected from a shot from the TSBD, with JFK’s head turned significantly to the left at z312.

Question:

Can you site a single Ballistic Expert, one who does real world tests of bullets with ballistic gel who holds any of these opinions of yours about “fireballs”, bullets held in cloth pockets for several minutes which fail to retain blood traces or DNA?


Sorry, but there isn't a straight line path from the TSBD to the head shot as you describe it. If you contend that a FMJ bullet entered the back of JFK's head and exited his right temple, blasting out the right side of his skull, then use my laser experiment to show that it was possible. Providing you are even interested in the truth. Just ask dufus Myttonhead, because he must have done my laser exp and choked on the results, which is why he has STFU lately.

You don't need to be an expert to use logic and common sense. When does a FMJ bullet create an explosion when it strikes anything non-combustible? FMJ bullets don't explode, ever. So if you see "light" or a "flash" or the skull explodes then this was NOT a FMJ bullet, it must have been a frangible bullet.

Are you serial re the bullet not retaining DNA after it was in a cloth pocket? And exactly why was it in a cloth pocket and not a plastic bag? Was that standard forensic protocol? Then ask yourself why you're ok with Cappy Fritz picking up evidence with his bare hands and putting it in his pocket? Why isn't that either a conspiracy or insanity?

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Mike Orr on March 30, 2018, 11:42:09 PM
You Tube --- The Zapruder film mystery >> Doug Horne interviews legendary NPIC photo Interpreter Dino Brugioni who viewed the film and worked on the film to put 12 to 15 prints(frames) on two briefing boards . This interview tells of a different set of "4" briefing boards that were done at the same NPIC later on Sunday and ended early Monday Morning the day of JFK's funeral . Dino Brugioni and his help did their work on the Zapruder film starting on late Saturday evening and they ended up being finished early Sunday morning. This is a very important interview with Horne and Brugioni . You will be glad that you watched this 85 minute interview .
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Robert Reeves on March 31, 2018, 11:55:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Muchmore film shows what it shows, which isn't much detail. 

*Edited/selected parts from your quote*

Depends which Muchmore you're viewing at the time.

(https://s7.postimg.org/hcc1umbm3/croppeduncropped.jpg)

(https://s7.postimg.org/v2b6h9qpn/Muchmore.gif)

Groden appears to own a copy of the Muchmore film that is: 1) uncropped (or at least conveniently cropped just above the fence line) 2) revealing an orange blob at the end of the wall 3) a blue blob at the end of the wall  4) showing greater detail above the end of the wall!

When embossed the orange blob appears to have a face and a hat. Just sayingggg.

Has anyone at this forum ever seen the complete uncropped Muchmore film in its entirety? I doubt it. Good look trying to find one too.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Joe Elliott on March 31, 2018, 03:59:57 PM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sorry, but there isn't a straight line path from the TSBD to the head shot as you describe it. If you contend that a FMJ bullet entered the back of JFK's head and exited his right temple, blasting out the right side of his skull, then use my laser experiment to show that it was possible. Providing you are even interested in the truth. Just ask dufus Myttonhead, because he must have done my laser exp and choked on the results, which is why he has STFU lately.

You don't need to be an expert to use logic and common sense. When does a FMJ bullet create an explosion when it strikes anything non-combustible? FMJ bullets don't explode, ever. So if you see "light" or a "flash" or the skull explodes then this was NOT a FMJ bullet, it must have been a frangible bullet.

Are you serial re the bullet not retaining DNA after it was in a cloth pocket? And exactly why was it in a cloth pocket and not a plastic bag? Was that standard forensic protocol? Then ask yourself why you're ok with Cappy Fritz picking up evidence with his bare hands and putting it in his pocket? Why isn't that either a conspiracy or insanity?



Questions:

Give me the name of just one ballistic expert who agrees with this?

If all of the ballistic experts in the United States are under control of this massive secret conspiracy, give me the name of one outside the United States.

If you can’t give me a such a reference, have you fired at skulls fired with animal brains or some jelly to confirm that FMJ bullets do not cause skulls to “explode”? Or is this just an armchair conclusion you have drawn?




Ballistic experts, who have done real world experiments with bone, skulls, ballistic gel, etc. all conclude that FMJ bullets can and do cause explosive head wounds.



I suspect you won’t answer my questions, but if you did give an honest answer, I think it would be something like this:


No. I can’t give a reference to an American ballistic expert who agrees with this. Because the conspiracy is large.

No. I can’t give a reference to any ballistic expert in the entire world who agrees with this. Because the conspiracy is really massive.

No. I have not done any such experiments with FMJ bullets, bones and ballistic gel. Nor is there any need to do so. Because my armchair reasoning is so good I don’t have to run any real-world experiments to find out what happens when a 1400 mph FMJ bullet strikes a skull.






And by the way, I don’t see any “light” or “flash” in any of the Zapruder frames. Just the sunlight reflecting off of bloody tissue.

Here’s a clue. If you see a bright point of light in just one frame, much brighter than any you see in the other frames, that might be some sort of explosion. If you see it in multiple frames, it isn’t multiple explosive bullets flashing in different frames. It’s the reflection of sunlight off of bloody tissues.

And here’s another clue. If a head is struck by an explosive bullet, you don’t see a flash. Because the explosion takes place inside the skull. You can’t see it. Unless the ‘bullet’ is a bazooka shell.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 31, 2018, 06:20:04 PM
Remember, the eyewitnesses - Brennan, Markham, Brewer, Postal et al. - lied. All just flat out made up their stories.

And the physical evidence is not believable. The fingerprints are not believable, handwriting experts are wrong, the photographic experts are wrong, the forensic experts are wrong, the ballistics experts are wrong.

And circumstantial evidence is meaningless. Lots of men leave their wedding rings behind. And nearly all of their money. Men who work in the building where people saw a gunman fire? Men who have expressed deep hatred of the US? Men with radical views? Men who left the building three minutes after the shooting? Men who....well, never mind we're not supposed to consider other evidence; we just look at each piece individually.

But remember: they're here to discuss the evidence with you. Honest.

And he's not a conspiracy believer. You're just making unfair assumptions.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 01, 2018, 12:59:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Remember, the eyewitnesses - Brennan, Markham, Brewer, Postal et al. - lied. All just flat out made up their stories.

And the physical evidence is not believable. The fingerprints are not believable, handwriting experts are wrong, the photographic experts are wrong, the forensic experts are wrong, the ballistics experts are wrong.

And circumstantial evidence is meaningless. Lots of men leave their wedding rings behind. And nearly all of their money. Men who work in the building where people saw a gunman fire? Men who have expressed deep hatred of the US? Men with radical views? Men who left the building three minutes after the shooting? Men who....well, never mind we're not supposed to consider other evidence; we just look at each piece individually.

But remember: they're here to discuss the evidence with you. Honest.

And he's not a conspiracy believer. You're just making unfair assumptions.

Now that you've gotten that gigantic strawman off your chest, do you feel better?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 01, 2018, 01:30:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Questions:

Give me the name of just one ballistic expert who agrees with this?

Name me just one ballistic expert who disagrees with this?

Quote
If all of the ballistic experts in the United States are under control of this massive secret conspiracy, give me the name of one outside the United States.

WTF are you talking about?

Quote
If you can’t give me a such a reference, have you fired at skulls fired with animal brains or some jelly to confirm that FMJ bullets do not cause skulls to “explode”? Or is this just an armchair conclusion you have drawn? [/b]

Just use some common sense and logic, which you are struggling with to refute me.

Quote
Ballistic experts, who have done real world experiments with bone, skulls, ballistic gel, etc. all conclude that FMJ bullets can and do cause explosive head wounds.

Blow-outs yes, explosions no.

Quote
I suspect you won’t answer my questions, but if you did give an honest answer, I think it would be something like this:

yadayadayada

Quote
And by the way, I don’t see any “light” or “flash” in any of the Zapruder frames. Just the sunlight reflecting off of bloody tissue.

Why wasn't the sunlight reflecting off of ANYTHING else on JFK? Sorry, this was NOT sunlight.

Quote
Here’s a clue. If you see a bright point of light in just one frame, much brighter than any you see in the other frames, that might be some sort of explosion. If you see it in multiple frames, it isn’t multiple explosive bullets flashing in different frames. It’s the reflection of sunlight off of bloody tissues.

If you say so. What ballistic expert agrees with you? Waiting...

Quote
And here’s another clue. If a head is struck by an explosive bullet, you don’t see a flash. Because the explosion takes place inside the skull. You can’t see it. Unless the ‘bullet’ is a bazooka shell.

Or the frangible bullet blows out a hole in the side of JFK's head, which couldn't possibly be an exit wound if the shot came from the TSBD. Otherwise show the trajectory. Waiting...
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Joe Elliott on April 01, 2018, 02:09:57 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Name me just one ballistic expert who disagrees with this?

If you say so. What ballistic expert agrees with you? Waiting...



Well, there is no need to keep you waiting long. Larry Sturdivan. Luke Haag. Michael Haag. Robert Frazier.

If you say “They are all lying”, can you name a ballistic expert who is not? Do you really want to admit to being a Large-Secret-Conspiracy believer by stating that all the ballistic experts in the world are in on it?


Question:

Now, what real world ballistic expert thinks the Zapruder film shows evidence of an explosive bullet? Can you name one or are you going to keep us waiting? Not a self-described ballistic expert but one who is employed to do real world testing with targets consisting of bone, ballistic gel and other appropriate materials.





You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Why wasn't the sunlight reflecting off of ANYTHING else on JFK? Sorry, this was NOT sunlight.



Frames 314, 315, 316 and 317 all show a small bright source of light on the bloody tissues.

Question:

Do you believe that some sort of Continuously-Exploding-Bullet was used? Which is why we can see it “exploding” in frames 315, 315, 316 and 317?



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Or the frangible bullet blows out a hole in the side of JFK's head, which couldn't possibly be an exit wound if the shot came from the TSBD. Otherwise show the trajectory. Waiting...


With JFK’s head turned to the left, yes, it could be an exit wound on the right side of the head. A straight line from the sniper’s nest would hit the center of the back of the head and exit the side of the head, closer to the front. It would not exit the face.

Also, the wound on the right side of the head is both an exit wound and an explosive wound. Initially, there was a small exit wound. Within 5 to 10 milliseconds, there was a large explosive wound that blew out several square inches of skull and expelled blood and brain tissues. This is common with head wounds caused by rifle bullets, even FMJ rifle bullets.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 01, 2018, 03:36:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, there is no need to keep you waiting long. Larry Sturdivan. Luke Haag. Michael Haag. Robert Frazier.

If you say “They are all lying”, can you name a ballistic expert who is not? Do you really want to admit to being a Large-Secret-Conspiracy believer by stating that all the ballistic experts in the world are in on it?

Sorry, I just don't know what you are getting at.

Quote
Question:

Now, what real world ballistic expert thinks the Zapruder film shows evidence of an explosive bullet? Can you name one or are you going to keep us waiting? Not a self-described ballistic expert but one who is employed to do real world testing with targets consisting of bone, ballistic gel and other appropriate materials.


I'm still waiting for you to show me a ballistic expert that claims this was NOT an explosion. Make sure to quote them and not just their names.

Quote
Frames 314, 315, 316 and 317 all show a small bright source of light on the bloody tissues.

By bloody tissues, you mean brains because that is what we are talking about. You actually think that what you are seeing is sunlight on brain tissue?

Quote
Question:

Do you believe that some sort of Continuously-Exploding-Bullet was used? Which is why we can see it “exploding” in frames 315, 315, 316 and 317?


Ans: It's because you don't understand anything about explosions. A fireball is a plasma ball and like any fireball it lasts over several frames.

Quote
With JFK’s head turned to the left, yes, it could be an exit wound on the right side of the head. A straight line from the sniper’s nest would hit the center of the back of the head and exit the side of the head, closer to the front. It would not exit the face.

Do my laser experiment and say that. I dare you.

Quote
Also, the wound on the right side of the head is both an exit wound and an explosive wound. Initially, there was a small exit wound. Within 5 to 10 milliseconds, there was a large explosive wound that blew out several square inches of skull and expelled blood and brain tissues. This is common with head wounds caused by rifle bullets, even FMJ rifle bullets.

Sure, FMJ bullets can blow out skull fragments (tho not usually tangential to the trajectory) but they NEVER disintegrate and scatter fragments and they don't blow out most of your brain unless they explode. Face it, a FMJ bullet would not have done the damage we see here. This MUST have been a frangible bullet.  Just ask the magic bullet.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 01, 2018, 04:17:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry, I just don't know what you are getting at.

I'm still waiting for you to show me a ballistic expert that claims this was NOT an explosion. Make sure to quote them and not just their names.

By bloody tissues, you mean brains because that is what we are talking about. You actually think that what you are seeing is sunlight on brain tissue?

Ans: It's because you don't understand anything about explosions. A fireball is a plasma ball and like any fireball it lasts over several frames.

Do my laser experiment and say that. I dare you.

Sure, FMJ bullets can blow out skull fragments (tho not usually tangential to the trajectory) but they NEVER disintegrate and scatter fragments and they don't blow out most of your brain unless they explode. Face it, a FMJ bullet would not have done the damage we see here. This MUST have been a frangible bullet.  Just ask the magic bullet.

Seems the missile didn't actually explode.

The Head Shot
Citation Ken Rahn

[EXCERPTS]

(...)

    High-velocity missile wounds of the head are especially destructive because of formation of a temporary cavity within the cranial cavity. the brain is enclosed by the skull, a closed rigid structure that can relieve pressure only by "bursting."

     Thus, high-velocity missile wounds of the head tend to produce bursting injuries. That these bursting injuries are the result of temporary cavity formation can be demonstrated by shooting through empty skulls. A high-velocity bullet fired through an empty skull produces small entrance and exit holes with no fractures. The same missile fired through a skull containing brain causes extensive fracturing and bursting injuries.

(...)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Joe Elliott on April 01, 2018, 05:56:53 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sorry, I just don't know what you are getting at.


Of course you do.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm still waiting for you to show me a ballistic expert that claims this was NOT an explosion. Make sure to quote them and not just their names.


Robert Frazier, Larry Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag all support the theory that JFK was shot by non-explosive bullets, made by the Western Cartridge Company. Larry Sturdivan wrote a book about the ballistic science of the JFK assassination, “The JFK Myths”.

Can I dig up a quote that they stated the Western Cartridge Company bullets (WCC/MC) were not explosive bullets? I don’t think so. Nor can I dig up a quote saying the bullets were not made mostly from arsenic (to act as a poison?), or not made of gold, or not made of silver (A wolf? Maybe, but not a werewolf). But they all support the notion that these bullets were ordinary WCC/MC bullets which were not explosive bullets.

You are being disingenuous to imply that, perhaps, one or more of these experts do support the notion of an explosive bullet causing the wounds to JFK.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By bloody tissues, you mean brains because that is what we are talking about. You actually think that what you are seeing is sunlight on brain tissue?


I am no medical expert but it looks like I am seeing sunlight reflecting off of the interior of the scalp. I would guess it is covered in blood and the sunlight if reflecting off of the blood.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ans: It's because you don't understand anything about explosions. A fireball is a plasma ball and like any fireball it lasts over several frames.


Chemical explosions are not powerful enough to produce a plasma. Nuclear explosions can but not chemical explosions. Lightning can produce plasma, but it requires an enormous cloud and needs to generate temperatures of 28,000 Kelvin to do so. No chemical explosion is powerful enough to do this.

And even the plasma produced by a lightning strike typically only lasts 10 to 100 milliseconds, covering perhaps 3 Zapruder frames at most. And I can’t believe that a small explosive bullet could produce plasma at all, let alone for as long as the plasma produced by a powerful lightning strike.


My one and only question is:

Can you site a respectable source that says an explosive bullet, fired from a rifle, produces plasma? [

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Joe Elliott on April 01, 2018, 06:01:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Seems the missile didn't actually explode.

The Head Shot
Citation Ken Rahn

[EXCERPTS]

(...)

    High-velocity missile wounds of the head are especially destructive because of formation of a temporary cavity within the cranial cavity. the brain is enclosed by the skull, a closed rigid structure that can relieve pressure only by "bursting."

     Thus, high-velocity missile wounds of the head tend to produce bursting injuries. That these bursting injuries are the result of temporary cavity formation can be demonstrated by shooting through empty skulls. A high-velocity bullet fired through an empty skull produces small entrance and exit holes with no fractures. The same missile fired through a skull containing brain causes extensive fracturing and bursting injuries.

(...)


Yes. This is correct. The WCC/MC, FMJ bullet does not explode. It only broke into 3 major fragments. But it does cause a bursting wound (when it travels through a skull at near muzzle velocity). Larry Sturdivan referred to this as an “explosive wound”. The head basically explodes, expelling pieces of bone, brain tissue and blood away from the head. But the bullet itself never explodes.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 01, 2018, 09:04:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course you do.

No, I don't.

Quote
Robert Frazier, Larry Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag all support the theory that JFK was shot by non-explosive bullets, made by the Western Cartridge Company. Larry Sturdivan wrote a book about the ballistic science of the JFK assassination, “The JFK Myths”.

Can I dig up a quote that they stated the Western Cartridge Company bullets (WCC/MC) were not explosive bullets? I don’t think so. Nor can I dig up a quote saying the bullets were not made mostly from arsenic (to act as a poison?), or not made of gold, or not made of silver (A wolf? Maybe, but not a werewolf). But they all support the notion that these bullets were ordinary WCC/MC bullets which were not explosive bullets.

If you are going to cite them then quote their arguments that support your claims and keep in mind that their opinions aren't facts. You don't expect me to read their books, do you?

Quote
You are being disingenuous to imply that, perhaps, one or more of these experts do support the notion of an explosive bullet causing the wounds to JFK.

What I need is the opinion from an expert that knows what they are talking about. I'll know one when I see one. An expert needs to come forward and explain whether the copper powder in a frangible bullet emits light after exploding and whether the explosion lasts >1/8th of a second. Have any of your experts explored that? Then cite their arguments and I will gladly eat crow.

Quote
I am no medical expert but it looks like I am seeing sunlight reflecting off of the interior of the scalp. I would guess it is covered in blood and the sunlight if reflecting off of the blood.

The other comparable bright spot is the patch of sunlight reflecting off of Connally's forehead, which is very specific. If Connally had moved his head the lit spot would disappear. What we see with JFK was the lit spot move with him as he reacted to the shot. That indicates this was not sunlight and that brain matter would not show up that bright on film. So what else then?

Quote
Chemical explosions are not powerful enough to produce a plasma. Nuclear explosions can but not chemical explosions. Lightning can produce plasma, but it requires an enormous cloud and needs to generate temperatures of 28,000 Kelvin to do so. No chemical explosion is powerful enough to do this.

And even the plasma produced by a lightning strike typically only lasts 10 to 100 milliseconds, covering perhaps 3 Zapruder frames at most. And I can’t believe that a small explosive bullet could produce plasma at all, let alone for as long as the plasma produced by a powerful lightning strike.

I'm not an expert in chemical explosions, I merely ask the question, does the copper powder that explodes in a frangible bullet produce light and if so, for how long?

Quote
My one and only question is:

Can you site a respectable source that says an explosive bullet, fired from a rifle, produces plasma? [


The most popular gun in history that fires frangible bullets is called the "Fireball". Fire is plasma. Does igniting copper powder produce plasma? Looks like it to me. Let me know what your experts think.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Mike Orr on April 02, 2018, 01:52:57 AM
In a video interview by Doug Horne, Dino Brugioni says that he and his team examined the 8 mm Zapruder film of the John F. Kennedy assassination the evening of Saturday 23 November 1963 and into the morning of Sunday 24 November 1963, when he was the weekend duty officer at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). Dino and his team projected the film for two members of the Secret Service several times, and they indicated which frames they wanted prints made from, which in turn should be included on the briefing boards. Dino indicated in the interview that he was positive that they had the original film, and that when they projected it for the two members of the Secret Service, it was the first time they had viewed the film. After creating the required duplicate negatives from the desired frames, the film was returned to the two members of the Secret Service, and that approximately 3 AM they left the NPIC facility. He and his team then made up two identical sets of Briefing boards, one set for CIA Director John McCone and one for the Secret Service. Each set was consisted of two boards, hinged in the middle, and contained between 12 and 15 prints of frames from the film, with the frame number indicated on the board. Mr. Brugioni prepared identical one sheet of notes that that accompanied each set of Briefing Boards , which included the name of each person who had seen the film and worked on the production of the prints and the Briefing Boards. When the work was complete , Dino Brugioni reviewed the Briefing Boards and notes with his superior, Arthur Lundahl, whom he had called and requested to come to the facility. The Briefing Boards and notes were then turned over to Arthur Lundahl. Brugioni said he was not aware of a "Second examination of the film at NPIC the night of Sunday 24 November and the early morning of Monday 25 November, by a completely different team. Apparently the team that worked on the 2nd examination was given "16 mm" film and made up another, and possibly larger , series of frame prints, and that another set of briefing boards was also created. Mr. Brugioni thought the Zapruder film in the National Archives today, and available to the public, has been altered from the version of the film he saw and worked with on November 23-24. The version he recalls had one or more frames than the version now available to the public. Additionally, he is adamant that the set of briefing boards available to the public in the National Archives is not the set that he and his team produced on November 23-24, 1963 . Brugioni and his team had their prints on 2 Briefing Boards and the Briefing Boards at the National Archives consist of " 4 " Briefing Boards . Brugioni also said that the blood spray from Kennedy's head was 3 to 4 feet into the air and lasted several more frames . Brugioni said there was no way that the blood spray would have only been contained on frame 313.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Allan Fritzke on April 16, 2018, 07:12:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Life magazine printed 30 frames from the Zapruder film a week later in the 29th of November 1963 issue and considering the time it took to get the film and then the time it takes to organise, write, format, print and then get the magazine distributed across the country left the amount of time the conspirators had to do any alteration to be a couple of days at most.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-emFM6cquXgM/VHzuOcmo57I/AAAAAAABB6w/A3jh2k1oy7Y/s1600/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963--04.jpg)   

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bv3zdhgEPkQ/VHzuOu0yuAI/AAAAAAABB60/qoEcZCWAhp8/s1600/Life-Magazine-November-29-1963--05.jpg)                               

In the following gif the Life magazine photos have superimposed over the original Zapruder Film and all the way through the most important events we get a perfect match to every image which means that to add a new element across a number of frames then there will be a knock on effect to these surrounding frames. The only frames we don't see are the actual headshot and the resulting back and to the left but if you had the time wouldn't these frames be the ones you would alter? Doh!

(https://s17.postimg.org/xl5r04a2n/Zap_life.gif) 

So in conclusion these Life Magazine photos published a week later are all the proof anyone needs to show no Zapruder fakery.
But in addition to this powerful evidence there is;

perfect synchronization between the Muchmore/Nix and the Zapruder films

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FkJltN832PY/hqdefault.jpg)

the impossible to fake ghost image in the sprocket area is an accurate representation of images captured with Zapruder's type of camera

(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/zapruder-film.jpg?w=700&h=393&crop=1)

and upon microscopic examination the Zapruder film shows the correct and overall consistent grain level for the relevant Kodak film stock.

(https://s17.postimg.org/qa7xzaor3/film_grain_Zapruder.jpg)




JohnM
So, what is your point?  You have just pointed out in your discussion that the only shots that aren't shown are actually the important ones???? Doh! You don't need to alter hundreds of frames - that is absurd!

Wouldn't the missing ones be the ones to alter?  Absolutely.  That is why they aren't shown.  The shown frames are uninteresting and not altered!

Frame Z313/Z314 don't contain anything "except paint" and they don't show those anyway.   The rest in the sequence after those are of utmost importance to show the actual sequence of events and the kill shots.   I cover the logic of this statement that I am making with the following list of 11 points.  I cover why the missing pictures are the most important ones and will never give a conflict with those that were shown.   There never will be a conflict as those AP photos shown are the "non-issue" undoctored ones anyway!   You could also advance the argument that they aren't going to use them all anyway for their paper and that is why none of those ever showed up!

Look at the photographic evidence presented:

1)  There is absolutely no reaction by Mrs. Kennedy at Z313/314 and no jiggle or reaction in Zapruder's camera.   Could you imagine being 18 inches beside a spray of blood and brain matter and what her face would look like after going through a volley like that?  She would have been blinded and would have immediately raised her hands and wiped her eyes clean so she could see.  No evidence of that whatsoever.  Policeman on bikes claimed they were hit with brain matter.  What about her?   No reaction as she continues to show concern as she did from the time of the neck shot.

2) Those 2 frames were the incriminating evidence that was used to incriminate  a dead Lee Harvey Oswald who supposedly fired his bolt action sniper rifle from the "sniper's nest"!   The first neck shot occurred at about Z224 and produced no visible damage other than the President raising his hands to his neck and slumping forward.   Then LHO takes another shot or two from the 6th floor of TSBD building at Z313.    LHO was dead so remained unquestioned, NO alibi and NO statement was taken when he went to police stations and spent considerable time there - very questionable and concerning that police would neglect to take a statement!    A very convenient couple of picture with "blood plume"  have gun, gun casings, ownership papers and lead bullets. That  makes a conviction  conviction de facto.   Never mind he had no motive - unless he did it for his handlers.

3) Given that no one wants to testify that  JFK's head moved back about a foot and that he raised his arm in a defensive maneuver after this supposed shot - should lead you to question once more that there is a contradiction in visual evidence.   If you put yourself in JFK's shoes and you actually saw the shooter at the front of the car, imagine what your reaction would be?    The testimony of James Altgens, an AP reporter, (issued into the WC report about 6 months after the shooting), failed to see this obvious movement.   His testimony reported that he was about 15 feet away at the time of the fatal shot but he failed to snap the shutter!   He did get a picture of the bacj if the limousine a little farther down though which was headlined in many newspapers across the world.    That particular picture which an astute AP News Reporter should have taken has never shown up and disappeared.    What he did note in his testimony 6 months later was that there was a slight frontal movement of Kennedy's head.  Obviously this is collaborating evidence to suggest  a bullet coming from behind pushing the head forward!!!   He failed to note the rather obvious movement back and the raising of the arm - which you  obviously can't miss when you look at the Zapruder's film.  There has been no attempt by anyone to justify the head or arm movement.   It was just considered a nerve reaction to having the "massive" head injury at Z313.

4) The "fireball" appearing on JFK's head quickly disappears and leaves a white face behind.  Again the coloring of the "fireball" is fairly close to Mrs. Kennedy's dress and overlaps (blending colors) with an added enhancement of catching the "light of course".   All evidence of "fireball" is removed by Z321.
   
5) At Z322,  there is light piercing through the windshield which I have suggested is a bullet which shatters glass and issues a spray seen in the sunlight.  The secret service man is below the dash or beside  this glass shatter.  Certainly tracing his head movement, he looks like he was in the motion of ducking in the previous frames.  The "projectile" appears to be low and doesn't strike Kennedy in the face as the face continues to be white and uninjured, although the arm drops down and becomes lifeless.

6)  At Z329,  a mere 1/2 a second later than this, you see a head shot that you just can't miss.   A huge explosion in the windshield and large shatter in the light and a very large "red fireball" / blur at a position where the President's "white face and head" were in the frames just prior.

7)  Zapruder was very close and it may have just shocked him and he shook his camera and that is why it became blurred at that instant.

8) Look closely at Z335 and you can see Jacqueline's eyes grow as big as saucers.  We still don't see any evidence of anything in her face or eyes which suggests that it was a frontal shot with the debris field behind the vehicle, not the front.  Closely examining this photograph and zooming in on JFK's head it appears that they clearly "wiped off" the front of his head and replaced it with her dress with some blending.
 
9)   Anyone that looks at that frame and can't see that it was doctored is really naive and doesn't want to know the truth when it is starring them right in the face!  It is an abrupt interface.  There is a distinct line between face and no face!

10)  Note also that the white marker in the grass lines up very nicely with Z322 and Z329 - just a coincidence of course that someone left that in the grass for the driver to look at for cue-ing! 

11) Blow this evidence of as farcical and you might as well continue to be a LNer.  It might help to laugh a bit at how inconceivable this cockamamie explanation is!   More than one shooter - absolutely!  Have  a lone gunman bear it alone - absolutely! He was just simply an expert marine marksman and a nut case to boot!

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 16, 2018, 03:17:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, what is your point?  You have just pointed out in your discussion that the only shots that aren't shown are actually the important ones???? Doh! You don't need to alter hundreds of frames - that is absurd!

Wouldn't the missing ones be the ones to alter?  Absolutely.  That is why they aren't shown.  The shown frames are uninteresting and not altered!

Frame Z313/Z314 don't contain anything "except paint" and they don't show those anyway.   The rest in the sequence after those are of utmost importance to show the actual sequence of events and the kill shots.   I cover the logic of this statement that I am making with the following list of 11 points.  I cover why the missing pictures are the most important ones and will never give a conflict with those that were shown.   There never will be a conflict as those AP photos shown are the "non-issue" undoctored ones anyway!   You could also advance the argument that they aren't going to use them all anyway for their paper and that is why none of those ever showed up!

Look at the photographic evidence presented:

1)  There is absolutely no reaction by Mrs. Kennedy at Z313/314 and no jiggle or reaction in Zapruder's camera.   Could you imagine being 18 inches beside a spray of blood and brain matter and what her face would look like after going through a volley like that?  She would have been blinded and would have immediately raised her hands and wiped her eyes clean so she could see.  No evidence of that whatsoever.  Policeman on bikes claimed they were hit with brain matter.  What about her?   No reaction as she continues to show concern as she did from the time of the neck shot.

2) Those 2 frames were the incriminating evidence that was used to incriminate  a dead Lee Harvey Oswald who supposedly fired his bolt action sniper rifle from the "sniper's nest"!   The first neck shot occurred at about Z224 and produced no visible damage other than the President raising his hands to his neck and slumping forward.   Then LHO takes another shot or two from the 6th floor of TSBD building at Z313.    LHO was dead so remained unquestioned, NO alibi and NO statement was taken when he went to police stations and spent considerable time there - very questionable and concerning that police would neglect to take a statement!    A very convenient couple of picture with "blood plume"  have gun, gun casings, ownership papers and lead bullets. That  makes a conviction  conviction de facto.   Never mind he had no motive - unless he did it for his handlers.

3) Given that no one wants to testify that  JFK's head moved back about a foot and that he raised his arm in a defensive maneuver after this supposed shot - should lead you to question once more that there is a contradiction in visual evidence.   If you put yourself in JFK's shoes and you actually saw the shooter at the front of the car, imagine what your reaction would be?    The testimony of James Altgens, an AP reporter, (issued into the WC report about 6 months after the shooting), failed to see this obvious movement.   His testimony reported that he was about 15 feet away at the time of the fatal shot but he failed to snap the shutter!   He did get a picture of the bacj if the limousine a little farther down though which was headlined in many newspapers across the world.    That particular picture which an astute AP News Reporter should have taken has never shown up and disappeared.    What he did note in his testimony 6 months later was that there was a slight frontal movement of Kennedy's head.  Obviously this is collaborating evidence to suggest  a bullet coming from behind pushing the head forward!!!   He failed to note the rather obvious movement back and the raising of the arm - which you  obviously can't miss when you look at the Zapruder's film.  There has been no attempt by anyone to justify the head or arm movement.   It was just considered a nerve reaction to having the "massive" head injury at Z313.

4) The "fireball" appearing on JFK's head quickly disappears and leaves a white face behind.  Again the coloring of the "fireball" is fairly close to Mrs. Kennedy's dress and overlaps (blending colors) with an added enhancement of catching the "light of course".   All evidence of "fireball" is removed by Z321.
   
5) At Z322,  there is light piercing through the windshield which I have suggested is a bullet which shatters glass and issues a spray seen in the sunlight.  The secret service man is below the dash or beside  this glass shatter.  Certainly tracing his head movement, he looks like he was in the motion of ducking in the previous frames.  The "projectile" appears to be low and doesn't strike Kennedy in the face as the face continues to be white and uninjured, although the arm drops down and becomes lifeless.

6)  At Z329,  a mere 1/2 a second later than this, you see a head shot that you just can't miss.   A huge explosion in the windshield and large shatter in the light and a very large "red fireball" / blur at a position where the President's "white face and head" were in the frames just prior.

7)  Zapruder was very close and it may have just shocked him and he shook his camera and that is why it became blurred at that instant.

8) Look closely at Z335 and you can see Jacqueline's eyes grow as big as saucers.  We still don't see any evidence of anything in her face or eyes which suggests that it was a frontal shot with the debris field behind the vehicle, not the front.  Closely examining this photograph and zooming in on JFK's head it appears that they clearly "wiped off" the front of his head and replaced it with her dress with some blending.
 
9)   Anyone that looks at that frame and can't see that it was doctored is really naive and doesn't want to know the truth when it is starring them right in the face!  It is an abrupt interface.  There is a distinct line between face and no face!

10)  Note also that the white marker in the grass lines up very nicely with Z322 and Z329 - just a coincidence of course that someone left that in the grass for the driver to look at for cue-ing! 

11) Blow this evidence of as farcical and you might as well continue to be a LNer.  It might help to laugh a bit at how inconceivable this cockamamie explanation is!   More than one shooter - absolutely!  Have  a lone gunman bear it alone - absolutely! He was just simply an expert marine marksman and a nut case to boot!


           The Kill Shot Explosion which resulted in blood and brain matter going Far Forward onto/across the hood of the JFK Limo, Backward onto Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo, as well as all over ASAIC Kellerman and SA Greer in the front seat & the Connally's riding in the jump seats/mid Limo, should have also resulted in Jackie's face displaying at least traces of this same blood and brain matter. She was in front of and within inches of JFK's head/face at the time of the Kill Shot Explosion. Yet, as we see on the Current Zapruder Film, there are No Traces of any blood and or brain matter on her face following the Kill Shot. Starting with the start/stop/start Gap in the Current Zapruder Film, it continues to Disprove its' authenticity. 
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Allan Fritzke on April 16, 2018, 04:34:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

           The Kill Shot Explosion which resulted in blood and brain matter going Far Forward onto/across the hood of the JFK Limo, Backward onto Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo, as well as all over ASAIC Kellerman and SA Greer in the front seat & the Connally's riding in the jump seats/mid Limo, should have also resulted in Jackie's face displaying at least traces of this same blood and brain matter. She was in front of and within inches of JFK's head/face at the time of the Kill Shot Explosion. Yet, as we see on the Current Zapruder Film, there are No Traces of any blood and or brain matter on her face following the Kill Shot. Starting with the start/stop/start Gap in the Current Zapruder Film, it continues to Disprove its' authenticity.

It does not disprove its' authenticity, it disproves the carefully scripted witnesses statements involved in the plot/scheme to assassinate the President.       You have just fallen into my hands.   Really, the FBI, CIA and Secret Service find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.  You can't have the cake and eat it too!     They need to discredit the rest of the film but keep Z313/314 as they really need that for de facto evidence to complete the framing of a lone dead gunman LHO who did it all!

So in your opinion, you can't use the Z313/Z314 frames as they are not authentic.     How do you convict LHO?  These frames are produced as the infallible evidence used to convict LHO of a crime he didn't commit.    I would not go so far to say that he wasn't somehow involved, but I don't think he realized he was going to be killed for his sins in the plot!   We know that he must have had serious ties to his handlers as he had trips to Russia and Cuba that must have been funded by someone!    Those 2 slides collaborate the evidence of finding a sniper rifle in the sniper's nest in TSBD building!   A few frames were released at the time showing this to the WC but the bulk of the  film wasn't released for 10 years into the public domain.    The public cried for some pictures so some had to come out!   Why do you suppose this was done?    By saying what you have stated in your statement, you are admitting someone had wrongfully used this film as the concrete evidence to convict LHO.     What was the purpose of not letting the American Public see this film at the time?    The cameraman who took the pictures of the TBSD window, bus, theater and others entered as evidence is just too coincidental to have been real.   He was never even interviewed but disappeared from the scene!

You have just admitted to a real conspiracy - whatever statement you make debating its authenticity points the fingers to those who held this film for many years and chose not to let people see it in its entirety!   Who had a "copy" of it?  How many were made and how was it kept from being "leaked" out?

I will admit its authenticity must be questioned because of the modifications made to it.   That is why you have to ask who would want to modify and why was that necessary?   Z313, Z314 and look at Z335 where you see part of the President's head "erased" and blended in by a blouse.  You can't say the film wasn't modified.   Anyone that says that is lying!   As you said, overwhelming evidence that Jacqueline face and eyes were not covered in brain matter, blood spatter from the Z313/Z314 supposed "plume shots with explosive bullets is not there.    The reason it wasn't there is because it didn't happen that way!   If you look at the film without looking at individual slides, you will miss the modifications made.   Playing the film back, you don't see any problems with the storyline as it happens so fast!   Nelly Connally even goes so far to say that Jacqueline Kennedy had the President's brain in her hands if you watch her interview!     This film was modified.  If you admit that, you have to question why was it necessary if you are seeking the truth and why a coverup was necessary?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 16, 2018, 08:41:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Name me just one ballistic expert who disagrees with this?

WTF are you talking about?

Just use some common sense and logic, which you are struggling with to refute me.

Blow-outs yes, explosions no.

yadayadayada

Why wasn't the sunlight reflecting off of ANYTHING else on JFK? Sorry, this was NOT sunlight.

If you say so. What ballistic expert agrees with you? Waiting...

Or the frangible bullet blows out a hole in the side of JFK's head, which couldn't possibly be an exit wound if the shot came from the TSBD. Otherwise show the trajectory. Waiting...


Why wasn't the sunlight reflecting off of ANYTHING else on JFK?

> The brain matter was wet
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 16, 2018, 09:19:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It does not disprove its' authenticity, it disproves the carefully scripted witnesses statements involved in the plot/scheme to assassinate the President.       You have just fallen into my hands.   Really, the FBI, CIA and Secret Service find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.  You can't have the cake and eat it too!     They need to discredit the rest of the film but keep Z313/314 as they really need that for de facto evidence to complete the framing of a lone dead gunman LHO who did it all!

So in your opinion, you can't use the Z313/Z314 frames as they are not authentic.     How do you convict LHO?  These frames are produced as the infallible evidence used to convict LHO of a crime he didn't commit.    I would not go so far to say that he wasn't somehow involved, but I don't think he realized he was going to be killed for his sins in the plot!   We know that he must have had serious ties to his handlers as he had trips to Russia and Cuba that must have been funded by someone!    Those 2 slides collaborate the evidence of finding a sniper rifle in the sniper's nest in TSBD building!   A few frames were released at the time showing this to the WC but the bulk of the  film wasn't released for 10 years into the public domain.    The public cried for some pictures so some had to come out!   Why do you suppose this was done?    By saying what you have stated in your statement, you are admitting someone had wrongfully used this film as the concrete evidence to convict LHO.     What was the purpose of not letting the American Public see this film at the time?    The cameraman who took the pictures of the TBSD window, bus, theater and others entered as evidence is just too coincidental to have been real.   He was never even interviewed but disappeared from the scene!

You have just admitted to a real conspiracy - whatever statement you make debating its authenticity points the fingers to those who held this film for many years and chose not to let people see it in its entirety!   Who had a "copy" of it?  How many were made and how was it kept from being "leaked" out?

I will admit its authenticity must be questioned because of the modifications made to it.   That is why you have to ask who would want to modify and why was that necessary?   Z313, Z314 and look at Z335 where you see part of the President's head "erased" and blended in by a blouse.  You can't say the film wasn't modified.   Anyone that says that is lying!   As you said, overwhelming evidence that Jacqueline face and eyes were not covered in brain matter, blood spatter from the Z313/Z314 supposed "plume shots with explosive bullets is not there.    The reason it wasn't there is because it didn't happen that way!   If you look at the film without looking at individual slides, you will miss the modifications made.   Playing the film back, you don't see any problems with the storyline as it happens so fast!   Nelly Connally even goes so far to say that Jacqueline Kennedy had the President's brain in her hands if you watch her interview!     This film was modified.  If you admit that, you have to question why was it necessary if you are seeking the truth and why a coverup was necessary?

You can Not cherry pick. If the well has been poisoned, IT is poisoned. Once you agree that the Current Zapruder Film lacks credibility, you have cast doubt on the Entire film.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Allan Fritzke on April 17, 2018, 06:07:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can Not cherry pick. If the well has been poisoned, IT is poisoned. Once you agree that the Current Zapruder Film lacks credibility, you have cast doubt on the Entire film.

Cherry pick? Poisoned Well?  Not really!  The film's origin was authentic.  Abraham Zapruder filmed it and his position is well known and can be verified.    Someone modified it to support the story line and framing of the lone gunman LHO.  That is true and I agree 100%.   
 It is authentic and it was not a Hollywood Production done years later.   Some frames match the originals posted in the Life article.  Only ones that never had modification applied to them were used however!   The important ones like Z313 and on and the real kill shots were not part of the Life Magazine article.   I am sorry.   Therefore it can't be said that the film is not credible and crucial piece of evidence to solve the mystery.
   
No, the film is real and the lack of brain matter and blood spraying in Jacqueline's face is also real.   It never happened.  Frame Z313 shows a distinct line at the front of JFK's face going up at an angle and would be indicative of a shot coming from behind (although it looks like a ruler line).    If that didn't spray her with brain and blood matter, there was no bullet - plain and simple and it was drawn in!  In fact it doesn't look authentic!

Furthermore, dead men with a massive head shot like that shown on Z313, don't move back in their seat and raise their arm just prior to the real shots coming in.    Having no one report that move from any witness is also telling.   There are many theories that the shots came from the front and so the human blood and brain matter would exit out of the rear of the skull.   In this case, the front remains relatively clean.  This makes sense as to why Jacqueline is able to continue to observe her husband without being blinded.  Kennedy's move after being hit in the neck behind the sign many frames earlier means that he was maybe a little slow in reaction but still very conscious at Z322!  No, this film is very credible. 

Modifying or removing frames just means corrections were made to match the "frame job of LHO" and to keep the volley of bullets hitting the car coming only from the 6th floor TSBD building.    Withholding the release of the film, it further points the finger at someone not wanting it to be in the public domain and for good reason.    Modification points a finger at the Department of Justice and other internal organizations that are not accountable to Congress or Government.   After all why was the killing of a President investigated by a handpicked Warren Commission and not a Grand Jury?

Yes, there is a well that was poisoned but it is not the Zapruder Film!   It is the SYSTEM. That well is deep and involves a number of organizations that operate above the law, meddles and controls world affairs and the politics of other countries, start wars and keeps the governments in perpetual debt to it.   Like JFK, anyone that threatens it, is removed!  The Kennedy's and the likes of Trumps are not supposed to be in politics period as they interfere with the NWO.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 18, 2018, 10:09:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Why wasn't the sunlight reflecting off of ANYTHING else on JFK?

> The brain matter was wet

As is your argument. Have a look at the spot of sunlight on Connally's forehead during that sequence in the Z film and note how it disappeared when he moved. Not the case with JFK because you think wet=sunlit. Right.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 18, 2018, 10:21:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It does not disprove its' authenticity, it disproves the carefully scripted witnesses statements involved in the plot/scheme to assassinate the President.       You have just fallen into my hands.   Really, the FBI, CIA and Secret Service find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.  You can't have the cake and eat it too!     They need to discredit the rest of the film but keep Z313/314 as they really need that for de facto evidence to complete the framing of a lone dead gunman LHO who did it all!

So in your opinion, you can't use the Z313/Z314 frames as they are not authentic.     How do you convict LHO?  These frames are produced as the infallible evidence used to convict LHO of a crime he didn't commit.    I would not go so far to say that he wasn't somehow involved, but I don't think he realized he was going to be killed for his sins in the plot!   We know that he must have had serious ties to his handlers as he had trips to Russia and Cuba that must have been funded by someone!    Those 2 slides collaborate the evidence of finding a sniper rifle in the sniper's nest in TSBD building!   A few frames were released at the time showing this to the WC but the bulk of the  film wasn't released for 10 years into the public domain.    The public cried for some pictures so some had to come out!   Why do you suppose this was done?    By saying what you have stated in your statement, you are admitting someone had wrongfully used this film as the concrete evidence to convict LHO.     What was the purpose of not letting the American Public see this film at the time?    The cameraman who took the pictures of the TBSD window, bus, theater and others entered as evidence is just too coincidental to have been real.   He was never even interviewed but disappeared from the scene!

You have just admitted to a real conspiracy - whatever statement you make debating its authenticity points the fingers to those who held this film for many years and chose not to let people see it in its entirety!   Who had a "copy" of it?  How many were made and how was it kept from being "leaked" out?

I will admit its authenticity must be questioned because of the modifications made to it.   That is why you have to ask who would want to modify and why was that necessary?   Z313, Z314 and look at Z335 where you see part of the President's head "erased" and blended in by a blouse.  You can't say the film wasn't modified.   Anyone that says that is lying!   As you said, overwhelming evidence that Jacqueline face and eyes were not covered in brain matter, blood spatter from the Z313/Z314 supposed "plume shots with explosive bullets is not there.    The reason it wasn't there is because it didn't happen that way!   If you look at the film without looking at individual slides, you will miss the modifications made.   Playing the film back, you don't see any problems with the storyline as it happens so fast!   Nelly Connally even goes so far to say that Jacqueline Kennedy had the President's brain in her hands if you watch her interview!     This film was modified.  If you admit that, you have to question why was it necessary if you are seeking the truth and why a coverup was necessary?

You only have to ask yourself 1 question. Where is the original Z film? Life and Z got copies. There are at least 2 obvious splices in the copies, which can only mean 1 thing: The FBI conspired to edit the film to "scrub" out any contradictions to the LN narrative. Otherwise, why else would the FBI hide the original film? And where the hell is it?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 19, 2018, 12:49:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You only have to ask yourself 1 question. Where is the original Z film? Life and Z got copies. There are at least 2 obvious splices in the copies, which can only mean 1 thing: The FBI conspired to edit the film to "scrub" out any contradictions to the LN narrative. Otherwise, why else would the FBI hide the original film? And where the hell is it?

    There are Many issues with the Current Zapruder Film. The most obvious being the Start/Stop/Start sequence at the beginning of the film, and the Sudden appearance of the JFK Limo after having completed the turn onto Elm & now in transit down Elm St.  By No coincidence, this Missing JFK Limo footage would also have included the Records Building in the background.   


Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 19, 2018, 02:28:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Cherry pick? Poisoned Well?  Not really!  The film's origin was authentic.  Abraham Zapruder filmed it and his position is well known and can be verified.    Someone modified it to support the story line and framing of the lone gunman LHO.  That is true and I agree 100%.   
 It is authentic and it was not a Hollywood Production done years later.   Some frames match the originals posted in the Life article.  Only ones that never had modification applied to them were used however!   The important ones like Z313 and on and the real kill shots were not part of the Life Magazine article.   I am sorry.   Therefore it can't be said that the film is not credible and crucial piece of evidence to solve the mystery.
   
No, the film is real and the lack of brain matter and blood spraying in Jacqueline's face is also real.   It never happened.  Frame Z313 shows a distinct line at the front of JFK's face going up at an angle and would be indicative of a shot coming from behind (although it looks like a ruler line).    If that didn't spray her with brain and blood matter, there was no bullet - plain and simple and it was drawn in!  In fact it doesn't look authentic!

Furthermore, dead men with a massive head shot like that shown on Z313, don't move back in their seat and raise their arm just prior to the real shots coming in.    Having no one report that move from any witness is also telling.   There are many theories that the shots came from the front and so the human blood and brain matter would exit out of the rear of the skull.   In this case, the front remains relatively clean.  This makes sense as to why Jacqueline is able to continue to observe her husband without being blinded.  Kennedy's move after being hit in the neck behind the sign many frames earlier means that he was maybe a little slow in reaction but still very conscious at Z322!  No, this film is very credible. 

Modifying or removing frames just means corrections were made to match the "frame job of LHO" and to keep the volley of bullets hitting the car coming only from the 6th floor TSBD building.    Withholding the release of the film, it further points the finger at someone not wanting it to be in the public domain and for good reason.    Modification points a finger at the Department of Justice and other internal organizations that are not accountable to Congress or Government.   After all why was the killing of a President investigated by a handpicked Warren Commission and not a Grand Jury?

Yes, there is a well that was poisoned but it is not the Zapruder Film!   It is the SYSTEM. That well is deep and involves a number of organizations that operate above the law, meddles and controls world affairs and the politics of other countries, start wars and keeps the governments in perpetual debt to it.   Like JFK, anyone that threatens it, is removed!  The Kennedy's and the likes of Trumps are not supposed to be in politics period as they interfere with the NWO.

The left side of JFK's brain was virtually undamaged as I understand it. The injury was referred to, in some quarters, as a shattering-type wound, partially blowing out the right side and top of the head, apparently. Clearly seen in Zap. This, arguably, explains why Jackie avoided a bloody face-wash.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Allan Fritzke on April 19, 2018, 07:48:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The left side of JFK's brain was virtually undamaged as I understand it. The injury was a referred in some quarters a shattering type, partially blowing out the right side and top of the head, apparently. Clearly seen in Zap. This, arguably, explains why Jackie avoided a bloody face-wash.

Look at the facts once more:

1) The plume visible in Z313 at an angle distributed 6 feet above the car clearly shows an incredible and unavoidable mist at the front of his head.  The view of her face is blocked by the spray.
2) The car movement forwards would also help scatter this on her face.  It is shown in Z313 as a massive cloud which would have had to have distributed itself!
3)  The reports of motorcycle policemen passing behind on Jacqueline's side also reported being struck with body tissue (6 to 8 feet away)
4)  Jacqueline's distance a mere 12 to 18 inch distance without even a flinch in the film sequence just following Z313  pretty much dismisses a right side blowout coming from the TBSD (up and behind) and staying on his side of the car!  Her face was facing his direction too!
5)  She has no reaction until after Z329/Z330 upon which time she notices something very much has happened and that unusually matches the red blur masking the President's entire head!  As I said earlier,  JFK's face goes from white to that of dark red. (Just after you see the massive windshield glass shatter reflected in the light.    Clint Hill is in ducking motion and out of way by Z322 to avoid being hit.   
6) The mere fact that JFK goes back in his seat and raises his right arm is too coincidental with Clint Hill ducking and going forward at the very same instant.   If there was hard braking of vehicle, you could say Clint Hill lurched forward as a result.  However that motion is exact opposite to a supposed limp Kennedy's reaction.  Weakened by an earlier visible neck shot when he stops wavings and places his hands near his neck, he reacts in the exact opposite Clint Hill!

Bullets from the front explain rather nicely why Jackie avoided a bloody face-wash, please and thank you!   You would be foolish to think that an explosive round such as that exhibited in Z313/Z314 complete with a lingering mist in those frames could miss Jacqueline's face.  There was lack of expression change just after Z313 as well but before Z329 indicating nothing has changed other than her trying to figure out where he was injured in the neck shot.    Could we not draw a conclusion that inbound bullets never occurred there?  Remember that is evidence only required to frame LHO and make it look like the shots came from behind!

You can't help but see the expression change in Z335 when she decides to leave the car - wondering if she is going to survive!  Her clean face with eyes getting very large and in shock - no indication of splatter and there are some very clear Zapruder frames in this area.  Look closely at Z335 and you can see Jacqueline's left shoulder in the frame, see the position of Kennedy's ear and absolutely nothing in front of it.  It sure looks like an edited picture to me!  His head is cut off!   Kind of a "wet" gold nugget (sunlight reflection of course) below Jacqueline's clearly visible shoulder.  If that frame wasn't edited, Kennedy had no head at all from the ear forward to try to save at hospital or to even take a picture at a morgue.   It was edited out of the picture obviously as you can't reconstruct that big of a mess and end up with a head later on for a funeral!   That was a rather serious edit on that particular frame!

You couple that with the man coming from the front of the car (some would like to call him Macolm Summers) having his head totally scratched out of the frame on Lightbox Z347 (intentionally obliterated???) leads a conspiracist to question that maybe this man who rolls into the grass has more to do with a windshield  shot than meets the eye and is a key character in the assassination scene!    At frames z363 the family with the small child remains virtually motionless and emotionless - that is unexplained!   Why is there only one massive reaction (movement done by  one guy rolling across from the front of the car -  my assumption) while everyone else close remains motionless in the pictures?  You would have thought the next couple with the child would have some reaction after hearing gun shots and seeing a man rolling in the grass.  Wouldn't  the child be covering his face in horror?  Instead no responses.  They missed looking over and seeing the guy beside them running and rolling?

Again,  Kennedy's hand and head movement is extremely meaningful if he is reacting to something he saw at the front of the limousine.   Who would think that a shot taking out his entire front of head at Z313 would cause his head to move back in the seat (about a foot) against the bullet flow and at the same time causing him to raise his right arm up.  That looks like a pure defensive move to me!   Tie it together and you have a very close frontal shot, no splatter on any occupant's in the car and a dead President!  No one else hurt! 

Of course, no eye witnesses observed or ever recorded that very obvious head movement and arm lifting visible in the Zapruder Frames!  Maybe it was all masked by the cloud of misty vapor?   I would guess it was a well executed script to thwart out the possibility of having to deal with more than just one lone gunman who was killed before he could talk and proclaim his innocence.  Yes, it had to be a deranged nut with no motive at all!
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 19, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Look at the facts once more:

1) The plume visible in Z313 at an angle distributed 6 feet above the car clearly shows an incredible and unavoidable mist at the front of his head.  The view of her face is blocked by the spray.
2) The car movement forwards would also help scatter this on her face.  It is shown in Z313 as a massive cloud which would have had to have distributed itself!
3)  The reports of motorcycle policemen passing behind on Jacqueline's side also reported being struck with body tissue (6 to 8 feet away)
4)  Jacqueline's distance a mere 12 to 18 inch distance without even a flinch in the film sequence just following Z313  pretty much dismisses a right side blowout coming from the TBSD (up and behind) and staying on his side of the car!  Her face was facing his direction too!
5)  She has no reaction until after Z329/Z330 upon which time she notices something very much has happened and that unusually matches the red blur masking the President's entire head!  As I said earlier,  JFK's face goes from white to that of dark red. (Just after you see the massive windshield glass shatter reflected in the light.    Clint Hill is in ducking motion and out of way by Z322 to avoid being hit.   
6) The mere fact that JFK goes back in his seat and raises his right arm is too coincidental with Clint Hill ducking and going forward at the very same instant.   If there was hard braking of vehicle, you could say Clint Hill lurched forward as a result.  However that motion is exact opposite to a supposed limp Kennedy's reaction.  Weakened by an earlier visible neck shot when he stops wavings and places his hands near his neck, he reacts in the exact opposite Clint Hill!

Bullets from the front explain rather nicely why Jackie avoided a bloody face-wash, please and thank you!   You would be foolish to think that an explosive round such as that exhibited in Z313/Z314 complete with a lingering mist in those frames could miss Jacqueline's face.  There was lack of expression change just after Z313 as well but before Z329 indicating nothing has changed other than her trying to figure out where he was injured in the neck shot.    Could we not draw a conclusion that inbound bullets never occurred there?  Remember that is evidence only required to frame LHO and make it look like the shots came from behind!

You can't help but see the expression change in Z335 when she decides to leave the car - wondering if she is going to survive!  Her clean face with eyes getting very large and in shock - no indication of splatter and there are some very clear Zapruder frames in this area.  Look closely at Z335 and you can see Jacqueline's left shoulder in the frame, see the position of Kennedy's ear and absolutely nothing in front of it.  It sure looks like an edited picture to me!  His head is cut off!   Kind of a "wet" gold nugget (sunlight reflection of course) below Jacqueline's clearly visible shoulder.  If that frame wasn't edited, Kennedy had no head at all from the ear forward to try to save at hospital or to even take a picture at a morgue.   It was edited out of the picture obviously as you can't reconstruct that big of a mess and end up with a head later on for a funeral!   That was a rather serious edit on that particular frame!

You couple that with the man coming from the front of the car (some would like to call him Macolm Summers) having his head totally scratched out of the frame on Lightbox Z347 (intentionally obliterated???) leads a conspiracist to question that maybe this man who rolls into the grass has more to do with a windshield  shot than meets the eye and is a key character in the assassination scene!    At frames z363 the family with the small child remains virtually motionless and emotionless - that is unexplained!   Why is there only one massive reaction (movement done by  one guy rolling across from the front of the car -  my assumption) while everyone else close remains motionless in the pictures?  You would have thought the next couple with the child would have some reaction after hearing gun shots and seeing a man rolling in the grass.  Wouldn't  the child be covering his face in horror?  Instead no responses.  They missed looking over and seeing the guy beside them running and rolling?

Again,  Kennedy's hand and head movement is extremely meaningful if he is reacting to something he saw at the front of the limousine.   Who would think that a shot taking out his entire front of head at Z313 would cause his head to move back in the seat (about a foot) against the bullet flow and at the same time causing him to raise his right arm up.  That looks like a pure defensive move to me!   Tie it together and you have a very close frontal shot, no splatter on any occupant's in the car and a dead President!  No one else hurt! 

Of course, no eye witnesses observed or ever recorded that very obvious head movement and arm lifting visible in the Zapruder Frames!  Maybe it was all masked by the cloud of misty vapor?   I would guess it was a well executed script to thwart out the possibility of having to deal with more than just one lone gunman who was killed before he could talk and proclaim his innocence.  Yes, it had to be a deranged nut with no motive at all!

Kennedy's hand and head movement is extremely meaningful if he is reacting to something he saw at the front of the limousine

LOL

Same goes for the rest of your post

Seek help
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 19, 2018, 05:05:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL

Same goes for the rest of your post

Seek help

Cool rebuttal, bro.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Allan Fritzke on April 19, 2018, 06:37:43 PM
Bill's Response to my offered explanation:

Kennedy's hand and head movement is extremely meaningful if he is reacting to something he saw at the front of the limousine

LOL

Same goes for the rest of your post

Seek help
[/quote]

I was counting on you to enlighten me - "Seek help from you"!!

So Bill ..... you can start by giving your opinion as to why no one notes that rather large head and arm movement in any reports!    Why there is no splatter on Jacqueline's face?  I guess you answered that one by saying it was on the RH side of the face so the spray was directed only to his side and up  and that is  "shattering type" injury was in a direction in every other direction than on Jacqueline's face.   If anything the wind blew it in the direction of the grassy knoll I guess!   The mist floated in that  direction only - even though others all over the car reported something different!  No testimony from Jacqueline herself.    Witnesses more reliable than the picture evidence presented as it doesn't match their scripts would be your suggestion I could only assume!  The visual image is very much at odds with testimonial evidence from those closes to the scene!

I guess you just classify the "Kennedy move" as an involuntary movement do to a bullet strike from behind - must be nerves?  It was a "knee jerk reaction" against the force propelling him forwards from the bullet's impact!  Who wouldn't push back against when you are missing your head as shown in frame Z335!  (Even though a fully present face was seen again after the mist subsided.  The face was present until Z329!)
 
Did you even look at the frames Z313/314 ,Z322, Z329/330, Z335 and Z347 or are you just talking through your hat?  Your attempt at a reply is to knock down the writer rather than refute the evidence.    Witnesses more reliable than film I would have to assume is your statement of facts?    You are obviously making a rhetorical statement because you don't have any worthwhile rebuttal or answer and are only playing the devil's advocate!

Post something worthwhile:   - a rebuttal would have been nice rather than posting for the sake of posting!    Of the 454 posts you have made this year,  How many posts have you offered as solutions?    "Any statement that is intended to not have any feedback, output, or response is known as a rhetorical statement and useless.     A good starting point for a LNer!    This is exactly what you did here!   No solution is offered except to suggest that it is a wildly outlandish cockamanie statement!    Put some facts behind your dismissal of the film's evidence and its tampering please!   Paint us a coherent picture of this part of the film's scene and interpret it - I beg you!  Give us the whole story!  "You might even want to include the driver's 1/18 of a second neck turn and the white marker in the grass!  How was that all possible if not tampered with?

Here are the visual cues from the images that I would like to see you include in your story line!    It would be good to include,   lack of spray on Jacqueline's face 12 inches away from an explosive bullet,  large head and arm movement of JFK,  Clint Hill quickly moving forward in a ducking motion at same instant,  glass shatter seen in light and the front of head totally missing in Z335.  Include a rendition of a wipe out of a face in lightbox  Z347.          Give it a whirl, as I need a coherent rebuttal statement so I can adjust my statement of logic of what took place in those 3 or 4 seconds of Zapruder's film.     Give more than a rhetorical statement!   We can reach synergy - unfortunately that doesn't seem to be your goal to find a mutually agreeable solution based on presented facts in photo images!   

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Mike Orr on April 19, 2018, 06:45:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dino Brugioni worked on the original Zapruder film Saturday night Nov. 23 ( Reply 87 on this subject page 9 ) Brugioni says the head shot spray of blood goes 3-4 feet in the air and that the spray which starts on Z313 goes well into the next several frames. This work was done at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center ( NPIC ) . Brugioni said the Z-film was very clear . They were shocked at what they saw. Brugioni's team used " 2 " briefing boards which contained between 12 and 15 prints . Not known by Brugioni was the fact that later that evening Nov. 24th , another team came in to do another (4) briefing boards which are the boards that are seen at the National Archives . This tells us that Brugioni's 2 briefing boards must have shown some prints that the CIA did not want anyone to see. The second team actually finished their work on their 4 briefing boards early Monday morning the 25th day of November and the day that JFK was laid to rest.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Allan Fritzke on April 19, 2018, 07:13:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Certainly you can see a 20 degree line from the vertical drawn at an exact angle upwards and to the front at Z313.  From that slide alone, you would have to say that the "explosion" was right beside Jacqueline's face and unavoidable to have been hit by some spray if not a lot as she is only about 6 inches to the front and facing him perfectly!  The perfect extension of that 20 degree line goes up to nearly 6 feet in my estimation of the "light glimmer"!   You can draw a ruler on it and extend that line down to his dark suit to determine its origin.     It looks like a slight abutment/anomaly where the cheek juts out but lacking any detail other than "smear".   

You can also see a clearly visible vertical line in the "ligthbox" frames "still" that has a distinct difference between the back and the front of his face.  The image on the LHS is much darker and this line is very visible in the lightbox re-creation of Z313.   It looks like a block image at the front.  Of course we are told that is light effects lol!    But that vertical line is very apparent on the image nonetheless which should not have influenced the picture on the shade side so perfectly vertical to the film frame.  The ear is missing and debatable which side of the line it is on when comparing it to Z312!   Evidence manipulation, film does not lie and it is difficult to modify and get away with it - even if you are experts.  The back of head doesn't move between those 2 frames, only frontal changes evident.

It is at Z330 that you see Kennedy's head to begin falling forward and by the time of a clear picture with Jacqueline's reaction at Z335, it is forwarded as far is it goes and then rolls over to her side by Z341.   Those are the assassination scene pictures that are very interesting and to see her reaction at Z335 with the mouth and eyes wide open and a clean face!  By Z341 she is climbing out of the car and doesn't plan on sticking around!   That is more than a second after Z313!
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 19, 2018, 08:23:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The left side of JFK's brain was virtually undamaged as I understand it. The injury was referred to, in some quarters, as a shattering-type wound, partially blowing out the right side and top of the head, apparently. Clearly seen in Zap. This, arguably, explains why Jackie avoided a bloody face-wash.

   And what would be the explanation for Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding closely on the LEFT Rear of the JFK Limo getting hit so hard with blood and brain matter that he thought he had been hit with a bullet?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 20, 2018, 05:02:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill's Response to my offered explanation:

Kennedy's hand and head movement is extremely meaningful if he is reacting to something he saw at the front of the limousine

LOL

Same goes for the rest of your post

Seek help


I was counting on you to enlighten me - "Seek help from you"!!

So Bill ..... you can start by giving your opinion as to why no one notes that rather large head and arm movement in any reports!    Why there is no splatter on Jacqueline's face?  I guess you answered that one by saying it was on the RH side of the face so the spray was directed only to his side and up  and that is  "shattering type" injury was in a direction in every other direction than on Jacqueline's face.   If anything the wind blew it in the direction of the grassy knoll I guess!   The mist floated in that  direction only - even though others all over the car reported something different!  No testimony from Jacqueline herself.    Witnesses more reliable than the picture evidence presented as it doesn't match their scripts would be your suggestion I could only assume!  The visual image is very much at odds with testimonial evidence from those closes to the scene!

I guess you just classify the "Kennedy move" as an involuntary movement do to a bullet strike from behind - must be nerves?  It was a "knee jerk reaction" against the force propelling him forwards from the bullet's impact!  Who wouldn't push back against when you are missing your head as shown in frame Z335!  (Even though a fully present face was seen again after the mist subsided.  The face was present until Z329!)
 
Did you even look at the frames Z313/314 ,Z322, Z329/330, Z335 and Z347 or are you just talking through your hat?  Your attempt at a reply is to knock down the writer rather than refute the evidence.    Witnesses more reliable than film I would have to assume is your statement of facts?    You are obviously making a rhetorical statement because you don't have any worthwhile rebuttal or answer and are only playing the devil's advocate!

Post something worthwhile:   - a rebuttal would have been nice rather than posting for the sake of posting!    Of the 454 posts you have made this year,  How many posts have you offered as solutions?    "Any statement that is intended to not have any feedback, output, or response is known as a rhetorical statement and useless.     A good starting point for a LNer!    This is exactly what you did here!   No solution is offered except to suggest that it is a wildly outlandish cockamanie statement!    Put some facts behind your dismissal of the film's evidence and its tampering please!   Paint us a coherent picture of this part of the film's scene and interpret it - I beg you!  Give us the whole story!  "You might even want to include the driver's 1/18 of a second neck turn and the white marker in the grass!  How was that all possible if not tampered with?

Here are the visual cues from the images that I would like to see you include in your story line!    It would be good to include,   lack of spray on Jacqueline's face 12 inches away from an explosive bullet,  large head and arm movement of JFK,  Clint Hill quickly moving forward in a ducking motion at same instant,  glass shatter seen in light and the front of head totally missing in Z335.  Include a rendition of a wipe out of a face in lightbox  Z347.          Give it a whirl, as I need a coherent rebuttal statement so I can adjust my statement of logic of what took place in those 3 or 4 seconds of Zapruder's film.     Give more than a rhetorical statement!   We can reach synergy - unfortunately that doesn't seem to be your goal to find a mutually agreeable solution based on presented facts in photo images!

I meant seek help of a psychological nature. You are batxxxx crazy, son. Possibly an Alex Jones fan?

In any case, we have matter that was blown forward and upward as seen in the Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore film, and Bronson films.

We have matter blown forward into the front seat as observed by Roy Kellerman. (2H78)

We have matter blown forward onto the back of William R. Greer. Fred Newcomb interview with William R. Greer, cited in Murder From Within, p.139)

We have matter blown forward onto Governor Connally. (4H133), and Mrs. Connally.(4H147)

We have matter blown forward onto the inside surface of the limousine windshield.

We have "Blood, tissue, or bone frag. scattered over interior of car and on the hood and on visors (both sides of rt visor)" (Notes of FBI Agent Robert Frazier, 11/23/63, 1:30AM), Clay Shaw trial testimony of Robert Frazier.

We have matter that was blown to the right and right front. (Zapruder film frame Z-313, William Newman and Abraham Zapruder interview, 11/22/63, WFAA TV)

In fact, blood and brain matter was blown every which way including some of what you said.

The Gore in Dealey Plaza
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Allan Fritzke on April 20, 2018, 08:02:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I meant seek help of a psychological nature. You are batxxxx crazy, son. Possibly an Alex Jones fan?

In any case, we have matter that was blown forward and upward as seen in the Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore film, and Bronson films.

We have matter blown forward into the front seat as observed by Roy Kellerman. (2H78)

We have matter blown forward onto the back of William R. Greer. Fred Newcomb interview with William R. Greer, cited in Murder From Within, p.139)

We have matter blown forward onto Governor Connally. (4H133), and Mrs. Connally.(4H147)

We have matter blown forward onto the inside surface of the limousine windshield.

We have "Blood, tissue, or bone frag. scattered over interior of car and on the hood and on visors (both sides of rt visor)" (Notes of FBI Agent Robert Frazier, 11/23/63, 1:30AM), Clay Shaw trial testimony of Robert Frazier.

We have matter that was blown to the right and right front. (Zapruder film frame Z-313, William Newman and Abraham Zapruder interview, 11/22/63, WFAA TV)

In fact, blood and brain matter was blown every which way including some of what you said.

The Gore in Dealey Plaza
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm

So tell me again who is batxxxx crazy?   Everyone in the car got hit with debris except Jacqueline Kennedy whose face was 6 to 12 inches away from him, sitting slightly to the front of his position and facing directly toward him according to Z312/313/314?   Policeman on LHS rear was also hit so hard with debris that "he thought he was struck by a bullet"!    I seem to see that you are missing that witness in your "hellbound" argument to prove that the debris field was only on the RHS of car and to the front!   Although you did mention Mrs. Connally!  I guess you are continuing to avoid answering my post as it is beyond your reasoning power to try and tie it all together for a logical argument.   Really the only reason she is kept clean is because the bullets flew front to back!  You could also have maybe voiced an argument that there was a strong wind from hell blowing that day!

You seem to think the answer to what I asked you lies with saying everyone else got hit with brain matter in the car front and right - except Jacqueline because she was to the left.  Look at her closely in each frame and see that she was no more or less concerned with JFK up until about Z329. She  remained "unblinded" by debris and continued to look after her husband in the same manner throughout that sequence.  In other words, she was unreactive to the misty cloud formed inches from her face (Z313) if you want to believe what you have saw in that frame!     

Who answers visual presented evidence with scripted witness statements?  I guess you do as you don't have access to the "still" seeing the heavy mist over Jacqueline in Z313!   You can hardly see her in the picture for mist!  You are a true LNer that uses rhetorical statements, avoids answering the difficult questions and the visual imagery laid out before you .  As a true LNer with no answers other than to call people batxxxx crazy!    "Witnesses are only to be trusted and way more reliable in your opinion than photographic evidence!"

As a furtherance of that argument, even President Bill Clinton issued statements denying his sexual misconduct with Lewinski in the oval office in front of cameras rolling.   Did he lie?  She was paid off when semen stains on her dress were brought in as evidence.  He was impeached but never removed!   I guess it would be safe to say witnesses or the President for that matter will say what they have to in order to protect themselves for a number of reasons - even under oath.   They may be under pressure to protect their organization, their job and reputation,  or even may be offered some money.    Being under oath doesn't mean you are going to die if you tell a lie.  You have to believe in God first and that he will strike you down for telling one!

Pictures don't lie, witnesses can and do if their skin is involved and there is money involved - Stormy Daniel's as an example!   She was paid off and admitted it.  We could only hope that FBI, CIA and Secret Service never have lied to the American people and never will.   That is a very noble thought on your part!   These people are always chosen for their moral scruples, integrity and ability to always tell the truth under oath no matter what and in all circumstances!   They have been hand chosen for the job and are the "incorruptibles" -  model citizens always!

 Well....then there is modern day Comey, Mccabe, Strzok, Paige, Mueller and maybe Rosenstein to name a few.   Certainly don't think there is anything new under the sun and what goes on now has gone on in the past even in  the era with J.Edgar Hoover at the helm for 48 years of service.    Having a fired  Allen Dulles appointed to the Warren Commission could be likened in a modern day setting to having someone like James Comey on a Commission in an ensuing investigation of a Donald Trump affair.  I don't think there would be any love lost there either!

Back to your collaboration of evidence of the various films.  You suggest that the other films Bronson, Nix and Muchmore Film "all show matter being blown forward and upward".   I would have to call you on that one!   That is pretty wishful thinking on your part as none show anything close or similar to what the Zapruder Film Shows with a plume in Z313 extending 6 feet above the car!   Then again only the Zapruder Film was used as evidence in the trial.    I think I can call you batxxxx crazy as well for figuring you have an irrefutable argument in that consensus of those films lol!   You better go see a psychiatrist for help yourself!

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 20, 2018, 04:27:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So tell me again who is batxxxx crazy?   Everyone in the car got hit with debris except Jacqueline Kennedy whose face was 6 to 12 inches away from him, sitting slightly to the front of his position and facing directly toward him according to Z312/313/314?   Policeman on LHS rear was also hit so hard with debris that "he thought he was struck by a bullet"!    I seem to see that you are missing that witness in your "hellbound" argument to prove that the debris field was only on the RHS of car and to the front!   Although you did mention Mrs. Connally!  I guess you are continuing to avoid answering my post as it is beyond your reasoning power to try and tie it all together for a logical argument.   Really the only reason she is kept clean is because the bullets flew front to back!  You could also have maybe voiced an argument that there was a strong wind from hell blowing that day!

You seem to think the answer to what I asked you lies with saying everyone else got hit with brain matter in the car front and right - except Jacqueline because she was to the left.  Look at her closely in each frame and see that she was no more or less concerned with JFK up until about Z329. She  remained "unblinded" by debris and continued to look after her husband in the same manner throughout that sequence.  In other words, she was unreactive to the misty cloud formed inches from her face (Z313) if you want to believe what you have saw in that frame!     

Who answers visual presented evidence with scripted witness statements?  I guess you do as you don't have access to the "still" seeing the heavy mist over Jacqueline in Z313!   You can hardly see her in the picture for mist!  You are a true LNer that uses rhetorical statements, avoids answering the difficult questions and the visual imagery laid out before you .  As a true LNer with no answers other than to call people batxxxx crazy!    "Witnesses are only to be trusted and way more reliable in your opinion than photographic evidence!"

As a furtherance of that argument, even President Bill Clinton issued statements denying his sexual misconduct with Lewinski in the oval office in front of cameras rolling.   Did he lie?  She was paid off when semen stains on her dress were brought in as evidence.  He was impeached but never removed!   I guess it would be safe to say witnesses or the President for that matter will say what they have to in order to protect themselves for a number of reasons - even under oath.   They may be under pressure to protect their organization, their job and reputation,  or even may be offered some money.    Being under oath doesn't mean you are going to die if you tell a lie.  You have to believe in God first and that he will strike you down for telling one!

Pictures don't lie, witnesses can and do if their skin is involved and there is money involved - Stormy Daniel's as an example!   She was paid off and admitted it.  We could only hope that FBI, CIA and Secret Service never have lied to the American people and never will.   That is a very noble thought on your part!   These people are always chosen for their moral scruples, integrity and ability to always tell the truth under oath no matter what and in all circumstances!   They have been hand chosen for the job and are the "incorruptibles" -  model citizens always!

 Well....then there is modern day Comey, Mccabe, Strzok, Paige, Mueller and maybe Rosenstein to name a few.   Certainly don't think there is anything new under the sun and what goes on now has gone on in the past even in  the era with J.Edgar Hoover at the helm for 48 years of service.    Having a fired  Allen Dulles appointed to the Warren Commission could be likened in a modern day setting to having someone like James Comey on a Commission in an ensuing investigation of a Donald Trump affair.  I don't think there would be any love lost there either!

Back to your collaboration of evidence of the various films.  You suggest that the other films Bronson, Nix and Muchmore Film "all show matter being blown forward and upward".   I would have to call you on that one!   That is pretty wishful thinking on your part as none show anything close or similar to what the Zapruder Film Shows with a plume in Z313 extending 6 feet above the car!   Then again only the Zapruder Film was used as evidence in the trial.    I think I can call you batxxxx crazy as well for figuring you have an irrefutable argument in that consensus of those films lol!   You better go see a psychiatrist for help yourself!

LOL

The statements I offered are cited...
Visit the link I provided.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 20, 2018, 04:58:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I meant seek help of a psychological nature. You are batxxxx crazy, son. Possibly an Alex Jones fan?

In any case, we have matter that was blown forward and upward as seen in the Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore film, and Bronson films.

We have matter blown forward into the front seat as observed by Roy Kellerman. (2H78)

We have matter blown forward onto the back of William R. Greer. Fred Newcomb interview with William R. Greer, cited in Murder From Within, p.139)

We have matter blown forward onto Governor Connally. (4H133), and Mrs. Connally.(4H147)

We have matter blown forward onto the inside surface of the limousine windshield.

We have "Blood, tissue, or bone frag. scattered over interior of car and on the hood and on visors (both sides of rt visor)" (Notes of FBI Agent Robert Frazier, 11/23/63, 1:30AM), Clay Shaw trial testimony of Robert Frazier.

We have matter that was blown to the right and right front. (Zapruder film frame Z-313, William Newman and Abraham Zapruder interview, 11/22/63, WFAA TV)

In fact, blood and brain matter was blown every which way including some of what you said.

The Gore in Dealey Plaza
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm

        Let's back the bus up here.  Where at Any Point are we seeing, "Matter that was Blown Forward and Upward" on the Bronson Film ???
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 20, 2018, 05:21:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
        Let's back the bus up here.  Where at Any Point are we seeing, "Matter that was Blown Forward and Upward" on the Bronson Film ???

Back that chuckwagon up, Tex.
Are you expecting a tsunami of bloody gore?
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on April 20, 2018, 06:21:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
   And what would be the explanation for Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding closely on the LEFT Rear of the JFK Limo getting hit so hard with blood and brain matter that he thought he had been hit with a bullet?

Hargis said he "rode" "run through" the material as it came down.

Hargis:  "We were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it."

He also said this: "If he'd [JFK] got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side. "

He saw no exit hole in the back of the head; all he saw was a "splash" coming out of the other side, i.e., right side.

The Connallys said they were hit by blood and brain; Kellerman said he was hit by the blood/brain/matter; Greer said he was also hit. Blood and brain matter were reportedly found all on the interior of the limo, on the hood - that is, in FRONT of where JFK was seated.

Question: If the exit was in the back of the head how did this material/matter land in front of where JFK was? On the hood, the interior et cetera?

Hargis source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 20, 2018, 06:49:31 PM
Frangible bullet Or I assume there is some resistance from the skull which could send some material backwards from the direction of the shot. Also if Greer was breaking material would move forward relative to the position of the car

  I assume the important thing from Hargis from your perspective is that he did not see an exit wound in the back of the head
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 20, 2018, 07:17:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Back that chuckwagon up, Tex.
Are you expecting a tsunami of bloody gore?

      Just tell the forum Where at Any Point on the Bronson Film you are seeing, "Matter that was blown forward and Upward", or withdraw that claim.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 20, 2018, 07:31:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hargis said he "rode" "run through" the material as it came down.

Hargis:  "We were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it."

He also said this: "If he'd [JFK] got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side. "

He saw no exit hole in the back of the head; all he saw was a "splash" coming out of the other, i.e., right side.

The Connallys said they were hit by blood and brain; Kellerman said he was hit; Greer said he was hit. Blood and brain matter were found all on the interior of the limo, all in FRONT of where JFK was.

Question: If the exit was in the back of the head how did this material/matter land in front of where JFK was?

Hargis source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm

            The link you provided referenced Tink Thompson and his "Six Seconds in Dallas" book. The theory proffered in that book was that the JFK kill shot = 2 bullets, fired from 2 different locations, striking the head of JFK at almost the same time. This would explain the multiple directions that material/matter was expelled + the head explosion. 
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 20, 2018, 11:15:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
            The link you provided referenced Tink Thompson and his "Six Seconds in Dallas" book. The theory proffered in that book was that the JFK kill shot = 2 bullets, fired from 2 different locations, striking the head of JFK at almost the same time. This would explain the multiple directions that material/matter was expelled + the head explosion.

I thought later Thompsomn backed away from this theory when he looked at David Wimps information in the early 2000's
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 21, 2018, 04:43:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I thought later Thompsomn backed away from this theory when he looked at David Wimps information in the early 2000's

          Thompson may have changed his mind at some future point in time, but the Link you provided was Tied to his "Six Seconds In Dallas" book. Many of the points/conclusions made within the Link were based on information supplied by Thompson in his book. Personally, I like the interviews he did for his book. The Complete interview with Sitzman reveals information that to this day has Not been researched.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on April 21, 2018, 06:21:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
            The link you provided referenced Tink Thompson and his "Six Seconds in Dallas" book. The theory proffered in that book was that the JFK kill shot = 2 bullets, fired from 2 different locations, striking the head of JFK at almost the same time. This would explain the multiple directions that material/matter was expelled + the head explosion.

Once again: Hargis said he saw no exit wound in the back of JFK's head. He saw no splash exiting JFK's head in the back. Only the side.

He was right behind JFK: if there was an exit wound caused by a second bullet why didn't he see it? And there is no exit wound seen in the Zapruder film. Or splash from the rear of the head. And there is no exit wound in the head shown in the autopsy x-rays and photos.

You can say that Hargis (somehow) missed it but if you do that then you open yourself up to questioning about what the other eyewitnesses said they saw re a exit wound. We all agree that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Unless they're corroborated by other evidence we can't rely on them. In this case Hargis's account is corroborated - for me - by the other physical evidence.

The physical evidence is the problem for those that say there was a exit wound in the back of the head.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 21, 2018, 07:19:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
   And what would be the explanation for Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding closely on the LEFT Rear of the JFK Limo getting hit so hard with blood and brain matter that he thought he had been hit with a bullet?

Good grief

He rode through it
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Royell Storing on April 21, 2018, 08:39:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Once again: Hargis said he saw no exit wound in the back of JFK's head. He saw no splash exiting JFK's head in the back. Only the side.

He was right behind JFK: if there was an exit wound caused by a second bullet why didn't he see it? And there is no exit wound seen in the Zapruder film. Or splash from the rear of the head. And there is no exit wound in the head shown in the autopsy x-rays and photos.

You can say that Hargis (somehow) missed it but if you do that then you open yourself up to questioning about what the other eyewitnesses said they saw re a exit wound. We all agree that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Unless they're corroborated by other evidence we can't rely on them. In this case Hargis's account is corroborated - for me - by the other physical evidence.

The physical evidence is the problem for those that say there was a exit wound in the back of the head.

            For the record, Officer Hargis was Not, ".....right behind JFK".  Of course, You are avoiding any mention what-so-ever of the location of the JFK Head Wound as documented by numerous Parkland Professionals. 
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 23, 2018, 09:22:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Post something worthwhile:   - a rebuttal would have been nice rather than posting for the sake of posting!    Of the 454 posts you have made this year,  How many posts have you offered as solutions?    "Any statement that is intended to not have any feedback, output, or response is known as a rhetorical statement and useless.

Chapman is really adept at cutting and pasting from McAdams, though.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 24, 2018, 08:21:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Chapman is really adept at cutting and pasting from McAdams, though.

Why are you so fearful of C&P
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 24, 2018, 09:50:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If the information is factual, who cares what website carries it?

I think you just answered your own question.
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 24, 2018, 10:06:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Once again: Hargis said he saw no exit wound in the back of JFK's head. He saw no splash exiting JFK's head in the back. Only the side.

He was right behind JFK: if there was an exit wound caused by a second bullet why didn't he see it? And there is no exit wound seen in the Zapruder film. Or splash from the rear of the head. And there is no exit wound in the head shown in the autopsy x-rays and photos.

You can say that Hargis (somehow) missed it but if you do that then you open yourself up to questioning about what the other eyewitnesses said they saw re a exit wound. We all agree that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Unless they're corroborated by other evidence we can't rely on them. In this case Hargis's account is corroborated - for me - by the other physical evidence.

The physical evidence is the problem for those that say there was a exit wound in the back of the head.

The "Turkey Shoot Point" (Z313) was intended to disguise multiple shots if the Mauser didn't score a head shot before then. The umbrella man signaled the shooters, otherwise, simple geometry disproves the head shot came from the TSBD.

Below shows an overhead view of JFK's orientation at Z313 if a shot from behind blew out the right side of his head. According to this view Zapruder could not have filmed JFK's profile at the TSP, when clearly he did. LNers?

(http://www.readclip.com/images/JFK_headshot.png)
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 25, 2018, 01:56:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you just answered your own question.

That's an answer for Tim.

Again, why do you fear C&P..
Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 25, 2018, 09:35:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's an answer for Tim.

Again, why do you fear C&P..

Loaded question.  Why are you incapable of independent thought?

Title: Re: How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 27, 2018, 01:35:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The "Turkey Shoot Point" (Z313) was intended to disguise multiple shots if the Mauser didn't score a head shot before then. The umbrella man signaled the shooters, otherwise, simple geometry disproves the head shot came from the TSBD.

Below shows an overhead view of JFK's orientation at Z313 if a shot from behind blew out the right side of his head. According to this view Zapruder could not have filmed JFK's profile at the TSP, when clearly he did. LNers?

(http://www.readclip.com/images/JFK_headshot.png)

To be fair to you LNers, I have provided a solution 4 u.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/HS_enter.png)

This trajectory works for the head shot. So where in the autopsy photos did they show the entrance wound? Was it anywhere near the red circle?