JFK Assassination Forum

I was planning a "Conspiretard of the Week" post here on (dis) Education Forum follies.

You beat me to the punch. on the Z-film nonsense.

But, in some ways, this is like "punching down" or shooting fish in a barrel. Too much material. 

I came across Chris Davidson and Keven Hofeling's allegations at the Ed Forum that the Zapruder film that we know, isn't the original. Chris Davidson uses "maths" to allege that the Limo stopped, while Hofeling has accumulated a vast number of buzzwords which he uses to sound somewhat knowledgeable but as they say in the classics, garbage in garbage out.

1. Refuting a Limo stop.

I don't think Zapruder critics realize that the changes they suggest were impossible;
For example, say you remove frames then how do you have the people outside moving towards the Limo not be affected by the frame removal and that goes for the Limo passengers, there is no sudden jumps and everyone has constant motion. And then you have the problem of the Limo, it doesn't stop and start on a dime but has to come to a stop and then has to gain speed to go again, so at what two points in the "original" Zapruder film do you snip the film to show the slowing Limo and how do you account for the multiple people elements and the missing yards to account for the slow down, stop and reacceleration?
This may be difficult to grasp but to have an end product that equals the "Current" Zapruder film we need to edit out a stop, so we match the Limo's approach speed of say 8mph and edit that with a departure speed of 8mph but what happens to the footage in between? The Limo has travelled some distance, the people outside didn't become statues and likewise the occupants of the Limo have continued to move.

And considering that Nix captured from the opposite end of Dealey Plaza, the entire sequence where the Limo was supposed to have stopped, makes the limo stop theory dead in the water.



2. Addressing Hofeling's needlessly verbose allegations or in other words, if you can't impress with science and legitimate evidence, then baffle them with BS!

According to Jonathan Cohen, in Hofeling's latest post at the ED Forum, Hofeling used over 10,000 words to attack his critics and repeat much of the garbage which he has posted multiple times before. I have previously created a thread addressing Hofeling's belief that JFK's back of head "patch" at Z317 was painted on to cover a back of head hole but this is only the start of a much larger problem, namely how do you cover up the cloud of expelled matter? 

My original thread addressing Hofeling's first wave of Zapruder fakery.
Ever wonder why the hardcore CT's try to create doubt about the Zapruder
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3920.msg154876.html#msg154876

Hofeling has recently added some new pieces of "evidence", some of which are the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

2a. Hofeling lists some witnesses who allegedly corroborate Brugioni's "Multi-Frame, Rearward-Flying Biological Debris", for those who don't know who Brugioni is, he watched the Zapruder film on the day after the assassination. And for a start, Brugioni was the worst witness because after seeing the Zapruder film 50+ years later said of the original film, "it(biological matter) was straight up [gesturing high above his own head]... in the sky..." which is precisely what we see in the current Zapruder film and is totally at odds with rearward-flying anything! Brugioni also says that this biological matter was visible for more than 1 frame but the Zapruder film shows this debris in the air for more than 1 frame, so who knows what he was shown and at what resolution? and let's not forget that Brugioni back in 1963 saw either the much clearer original or at the very least a first generation print?
To support the rearward-flying matter, Hofeling lists along with Brugioni, Zapruder himself and Sitzman who was Zapruder's secretary who stood behind Zapruder and kept him steady.

But unfortunately for Hofeling, Sitzman and Zapruder's evidence equally doesn't support rearward-flying debris, in fact it strengthens the exact opposite??





These Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses just an hour or two later were interviewed and all said what they saw and guess what, they all saw what the Zapruder film shows! How about that!



2b. In Hofeling's latest presentation, Hofeling boasts that him and his team of modern researchers are working off the fabled 6K Zapruder film print which came from a second generation NARA copy and then was logarithmically improved! Let's see where that takes us?

This GIF demonstrates a "logarithmically" adjusted Hofeling frame over an original Zapruder frame and the obvious strong red bias just increases and crushes the blacks and all for what? For the misguided hope of artificially enhancing JFK's back of head shadow and this deception is the exact the opposite of what a logarithmically manipulated image is designed to show.



Hofeling also links to a video which shows his team analysing their high res 6K logarithmically enhanced Zapruder frames and even though this video capture lose a little resolution, the much lauded microscopically visible film grain is a joke and the clearly visible macro blocking is an embarrassment. It's no wonder that previous to this that they only showed zoomed out images which hid their poor copies and awful artefacts.

A near original Zapruder Film frame demonstrates the Back of head shadow showing subtle shade variation, a feathered edge and clear film grain.



On this supposed 6K frame grab, the microscopic visible film grain is severely lacking, the macro blocking is painfully obvious and the hard edged, solid coloured back of head shadow is not seen on the original.



2c. Hofeling has been very busy making all sorts of infographics, but what use are they if they are intellectually dishonest? In the following table, his team compares JFK's hair to Connally's grey hair in the same frame, Z317 but we have different ambient lighting, different angle of incidence and different reflective properties then declares same same! Give me a break! How about comparing Kellerman and Kennedy? Nah, that would give the game away.





And upon closer examination the "drop-off" is only visible in their horrible attempt to "logarithmically" enhance/alter the Zapruder original.

My second generation Zapruder vs Hofeling's dogs breakfast!



2d. Hofeling also cites two Hollywood experts who don't seem to have the relevant credentials for a detailed analysis of the back of head "patch" but even if they did, they were no doubt showed the above fraudulent "logarithmically" enhanced/altered Zapruder frames which makes their opinions worthless.

2e. Hofeling also makes the same claim as Davidson, that because some eyewitnesses saw the Limo stop or slow down then that must mean the Zapruder film was faked but how reliable are these eyewitnesses who saw these two contradictory events, it's physically impossible for a Limo to stop and slow down at the same time but the Zapruder film does in fact show the Limo to slow down, so some of the witnesses were correct and some were wrong, it's as simple as that!

In conclusion, and I've said this before, whatever could be done with celluloid film in 1963 can be done infinitely easier using computers and photoshop but I still haven't seen anybody replicate anything that was alleged to have occurred with the Zapruder film? Why can't someone film a car stop and then edit the film to show that the car didn't stop? I can tell you why, because even with advanced SFX, the job would be mammoth, it would require the car element to be digitally removed, then because the car slows, stops and starts this car element would be excised and then we require three dimensional perspective correction to be reinserted over the constantly updating background. And BTW just editing out some frames would look absurd, so don't even go there.

And finally, David Healey who worked in the film/TV industry provided this proof of concept image where he used Photoshop an image manipulation tool which was unheard of for at least a couple of decades after 1963(the technology at the time was literally a sharp knife and sticky tape) and it just looks fake AF and it's only a single frame, imagine the mess that would be created by a string of these in photoreal film!



JohnM

Did Jim Garrison originally think closeted gay businessman Clay Shaw had masterminded a homosexual "thrill kill assassination of JFK which involved Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie and Guy Banister?

That's what over-ambitious, scandal-plagued and revengeful New Orleans DA Jim Garrison thought before he read an anti-CIA / anti-Shaw article published in "Paese Sera," a Communist-owned Italian newspaper (which article was republished in a French Communist newspaper, L'Humanité, translated into English and given to him by Bertrand Russell's Far-Left secretary, Ralph Schoenman -- Joan Mellen's ex-husband -- in 1967).

We know that in his 1989 book, On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison lied when he wrote that he hadn't been aware of the article until after the Shaw Trial was over because about three weeks after Garrison had arrested Shaw, Life Magazine's Richard Billings -- who was helping Garrison -- wrote in his journal that Garrison had a copy of the L'Humanité article:

"Story about Shaw and CIA appears in Humanite [L'Humanité], probably March 8 . . . Giant has copy datelined Rome, March 7, from La Presse Italien . . . It explains Shaw working in Rome in '58 to '60 period . . ."  (22 March 1967)

Bumped

PS I miss Lance "Fancy Pants Rants" Payette!!!

Joffrey van de Wiel:

I don't suspect the JFKAC was well-funded or backed by powerful people.

My guess is a couple of guys split off from G2, or possibly Alpha-66 (itself penetrated by G2), and conspired with or manipulated LHO (who had a propensity to shoot at major public figures---see General Walker) regarding the JFKA.

They got lucky on the motorcade route.

How much planning does it take to point rifles at the President and shoot? All three participants likely had military or para-military backgrounds. LHO did.

The GK smoke-and-bang show as a diversion in an interesting idea. A snub-nose .38, the default conceal-carry weapon of the day, would have served perfectly for such a role.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own concusions.