Hello There, Guest!
View New Posts   View Today's Posts
First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


07-22-2016, 04:06 PM #1
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
Just for those who aren't following closely, here's the issue that Patrick can't face.

The extant Z-film first shows motorcycles coming up the street, then it abruptly changes to the President's limo. The last frame showing the motorcycles is frame 132 - the first frame showing the limo is frame 133. The contention of believers is that Zapruder stopped filming, then started again when the limo was in view.

Due to the mechanical nature of the spring wound camera, the film, due to inertia, cannot get up to speed instantly, and so is moving slower for the first few split seconds... meaning that the first few frames will be overexposed in comparison to the rest of the film. (as they are traveling slower, and end up receiving more light from the open shutter)

Patrick has admitted that he understands this issue. I've cited for Dale's benefit experts who state that this is the issue, and is known as 'first frame flash' for lack of a better term. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE not to have overexposed frames on a mechanical camera, because inertia will not allow the first frame to be moving at the speed that the rest of the film will very soon be moving at. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Camera designers work hard to minimize this effect, but it cannot be entirely removed without repealing the laws of inertia.

So Patrick KNOWS that in an unaltered film, when the camera is first started, the first few frames will be over-exposed. He's admitted this.

This was the very same issue that proved the 'Alien Autopsy' film to be a fake - as there wasn't any 'first frame flash' effects where there should have been - thus proving that the film was a spliced together creation.

Patrick has also admitted that he knows that Z-133 does NOT show any overexposure... AS IT ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE. (Zavada is also on record as stating this... that Z-133 shows no overexposure in comparison to Z-132)

So Patrick has, absent any other theory, proven that the extant Z-film has been DELIBERATELY cut and spliced together.

His first attempted solution was so silly that it's worth pointing out again, just for laughs... Patrick speculated that "Hey well perhaps Time Life damaged a preceding frame to Z133 and never mentioned it......."

Of course, Patrick clearly hadn't had his morning cup of tea, since any splicing that was done on the original film could not magically transfer to the copies of the film.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Now, despite understanding that the laws of inertia were not magically overcome in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and despite his admission that the relevant first few frames do NOT show the 'first frame flash' effect, Patrick has decided to pretend that he doesn't understand these two points, and that for Zapruder, on that day, with that camera, was able to do what the designers of the camera were unable to do... completely remove the effects of inertia.

He does so by pretending that if the COPIES made of the film ALSO fail to show the overexposure of Z-133 - then yes, Zapruder overcame the laws of physics that day, and magically overcome inertia.

He has to rely on the official story that the copies were made in Dallas, and that they are the ORIGINAL copies.

In other words, he's relying on the official story that the film is legitimate in order to "prove" that the film is legitimate. (Henry Sienzant must be desperately holding his tongue on this logical fallacy!!)

Patrick knows full well the evidence that the film was at a top secret film processing facility known as "Hawk Eye Works" the weekend of the assassination, so his theory that the film is unaltered because the copies are unaltered is just silly. You cannot logically argue that the film is legitimate because the film is legitimate. Circular arguments like this are just silly.

But that's the best Patrick can do.

He can't admit that first frame flash doesn't exist - he knows full well that I can cite experts stating otherwise... including the original designer of the Bell & Howell Zoomatic camera.

He can't admit that Z-133 shows an overexposure when HIS expert, Zavada, said otherwise - and anyone can look today and see that it doesn't.

So Patrick has to simply straddle the fence - unwilling to directly contradict the laws of physics, unwilling to pretend to see overexposure where none exists - yet unable to provide an alternate CREDIBLE theory...

He's stuck.

And he's not honest enough to admit it.

07-22-2016, 04:29 PM #2
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
Patrick C Wrote:Holmes, let me explain to you some simple facts.....
Start with a credible reason why Z-133 isn't overexposed. THAT would be teaching me something I don't know.
Patrick C Wrote:]We live on a spinning globe and as such we have time zones based on shall we say daylight. UK is 8 hours ahead of US west coast....therefore in terms of time of response there is in principle a delay at certain points in the 24 hour clock - namely the night.. Additionally of course some of us work for a living and depending on work loads attention to JFK can vary.
Congratulations Patrick, you've just given excuses that EQUALLY apply to me. Yet YOU are the one who keeps refusing to answer... why is that?
Patrick C Wrote:There is also the question of interest. Am I for example interested in communication with an arrogant extreme pro JFK conspiracy advocate?
Put me on "ignore" anytime, Patrick... doesn't matter to me. You'll be admitting defeat however, and I'm sure you KNOW that. So tell us, why can't you explain your answers on Z-133?
Patrick C Wrote:And am I interested in exchanging views with some one who frequently speaks in riddles? The answer Holmes is yes, but only from time to time. It has nothing to do with hiding or running to use your words.
No 'riddle' about Z-133 Patrick... just a question that you're clearly frightened of... why not try a little harder and actually give a credible answer?
Patrick C Wrote:I would however like to commend you on having probably the most irritating style of writing on Amazon JFK threads - you deserve an award for that.
Yeah, the truth does that to believers...
Patrick C Wrote:It seems you fail to notice that your accusations directed at unanswered - or indeed ignored questions reflects a certain hypocrisy on your part as you Holmes frequently fail to answer questions directed at you and abysmally fail to understand the consequences of your pie in the sky theories.
You're lying again, Patrick.

You know very well that there's NO question about the evidence that I cannot answer. The number of questions that YOU cannot answer are legion.

But do it, Patrick... FORCE ME TO APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A LIAR...

Ask the question about the evidence in this case that I will refuse to answer... exactly as you're refusing to explain the lack of first frame flash in Z-133.

(But of course you won't... you can't. Critics have no need to run from the evidence as believers do...)
Patrick C Wrote:You may be familiar with Lewis Carol's works about Alice. She lives in a rather strange world where there is a distorted perspective on reality. Conspiracy theories have something in common with Alice. There is a great but simpler term in the English language that admirably sums you up - its called not seeing the wood for the trees.
Since I've *OFTEN* publicly identified believers with the Queen's advice to Alice about believing in impossible things - yes, I'm quite clearly familiar.

Tell us about Z-133 Patrick...

Or run again...

07-22-2016, 04:37 PM #3
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
Patrick C Wrote:There is "riddle speak" on almost every page of your posts...a fine example is below:-
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Patrick C Wrote:We live on a spinning globe and as such we have time zones based on shall we say daylight. UK is 8 hours ahead of US west coast....therefore in terms of time of response there is in principle a delay at certain points in the 24 hour clock - namely the night.. Additionally of course some of us work for a living and depending on work loads attention to JFK can vary.
Congratulations Patrick, you've just given excuses that EQUALLY apply to me. Yet *YOU* are the one who keeps showing his cowardice... why is that?
I literally have no idea what you are saying in this example - you seem to be making an unrelated statement yet you feel like you are addressing a point I made with a relevant comment? You are not. Other than that you statement does not seem to make sense in any shape or form. It is hence a riddle.

No "riddle" to be found... Patrick tries to give excuses for not responding to the posts online, then fails to understand that the "excuses" apply equally to EVERYONE, including myself.

But this certainly cannot be hard to understand... I daresay if I had 100 random people read it, 99 out of the 100 would instantly recognize the truthfulness of my statement, and the other person would after a re-reading it.

Patrick pretends puzzlement.

A puzzlement that is directly contradicted by his asserted educational background.

Is there anyone who truly believes that Patrick is being honest here?

07-22-2016, 04:56 PM #4
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
Patrick C Wrote:Ref first frame flash (lack of) issue that you have raised. I contacted a photographic expert in California who specialises in 8mm and has dozens of films in his collection. Naturally he is familiar with the winding mechanism of the Bell & Howell 414PD as used by Zapruder. He advises that he has examples of film in which the first frame is not over exposed, however as I agreed Holmes one would expect it to occur typically and the photo expert I contacted advised that yes you would normally find that the first frame would be overexposed, but not always. What the explanation for this is - I do not know at this stage, but I am satisfied with that on what is after all a non subject. So you ain't the big photo expert you thought you were Holmes and your armchair physics seems to have failed you.
How ironic... As Roland Zavada has stated: "First frame density difference is seen at ALL tails to head transitions." As Zavada is the expert when it comes to the extant Z-film - it seems strange that Patrick is contradicting Zavada's assertion.

And doing so on the basis of his asserted conversation with an unnamed expert...

Malcolm Townsley, an inventor of the camera mechanisms, wrote: "First Frame Overexposure comes about because it takes a very brief, but real, time to get the mechanism up to speed. This means that the shutter takes more time to make the first turn, and over-exposes the first frame on each scene, and produces a bleached out image. ... The over-exposure of the first frame of a new scene is caused by the fact that it takes a little time on the part of the spring motor in the camera to bring the mechanism up to speed. ... I remember that this was one of the things which did take place in 8mm cameras, and which we worked very hard to overcome."

Herb Farmer, Professor at the USC School of Cinema, states: "I have never heard the term 'First Frame Over-Exposure' although that is what it is. I have always heard and used the term 'stop frame,' or 'flashed frame' used to indicate the overexposed frame apparent between separate 'takes' of regular operation of the camera with film. ... This is a familiar situation with any spring motor driven camera. When you push the 'go' button, it takes at least one frame for the mechanism to get up to operating speed, and the first frame is over exposed."

In another letter, Herb Farmer states: "With the same camera under the same light conditions,, I would say that if one stop-start has an overexposed frame, then all stop-starts should have the same overexposed (fogged) frame at the start."

Now, I quote REAL experts, and you merely mention some mysterious unnamed expert that you cannot even quote. Why can't you quote him, Patrick? Why can't you name him or cite him? You really expect everyone to simply believe you?

And since inertia is the cause, you must believe in miracles Patrick... since you clearly believe that the film comes up to speed INSTANTLY (or at least faster than .025 of a second), somehow avoiding the principles of inertia.

Of course, this is a common tactic that Patrick employs... he quite frequently refers to people he spoke to... most of the time unnamed, and ALL OF THE TIME UNCORROBORATED.

Fortunately, in this particular case, I spoke with that same photographic expert here in California... he agreed that first frame flash is invariably seen, and thought that Patrick must have misinterpreted what he said. He was being quite generous in presuming that Patrick misunderstood. He also mentioned his personal opinion that the Zapruder film was altered, and strangely enough, he based that opinion on the very same topic - that there wasn't any over-exposure on Z-133.

07-23-2016, 02:00 PM #5
William Charleston
Junior Member
**
Posts: 16 Threads:1 Joined: Jun 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance Critic

Re: First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
Anyone with an effective IQ even slightly above room temperature knows the Zapruder film was forged the first weekend after the assassination. Doug Horne isn't a borderline dumb ass like Vince Bugliosi, Horne nails the timeline as the forgers figured out Saturday and Sunday what had to be done to get the point where the average near brain dead presstitute and lawyer on the WC would have enough doubt that they would buy the lie.

Life Magazine bought the rights to the Z film and locked it away for years to hide the truth. Nothing to see here either I guess (/sarcasm)

If you don't believe Dino Brugioni, then there is probably no hope for you. Brugioni clearly states the Zapruder film is forged. And Doug Horne makes the point that this was 1963, they could only forge so much so the impossible movements we see in the Z film are just that, evidence of the not so well done forgery. Fortunately, the forgers left enough information in the Z film that we can determine what actually happened during the shooting.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://vimeo.com/102327635">https://vimeo.com/102327635</a><!-- m -->

There are only a small number of people who had the power to make the Z film alteration the first weekend after the assassination. Their fingerprints are all over the forged evidence.

07-23-2016, 03:29 PM #6
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
William Charleston Wrote:Anyone with an effective IQ even slightly above room temperature knows the Zapruder film was forged the first weekend after the assassination. Doug Horne isn't a borderline dumb ass like Vince Bugliosi, Horne nails the timeline as the forgers figured out Saturday and Sunday what had to be done to get the point where the average near brain dead presstitute and lawyer on the WC would have enough doubt that they would buy the lie.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that... the implication being, that the evidence isn't strong enough, so we need to insult those who don't know the evidence.

Now, it's true that those who do know the evidence for forgery, yet are unwilling to publicly state that there's evidence they can't explain - have a serious character issue.

But many people don't know the multiple lines of corroborating evidence for Z-film alteration... which, I think; will be a good topic for a future post.

William Charleston Wrote:Life Magazine bought the rights to the Z film and locked it away for years to hide the truth. Nothing to see here either I guess (/sarcasm)
The important fact here is the connections between the management of Life magazine with the CIA. Life was merely doing their patriotic duty - as someone whispered in their ear that they wanted the film locked up. Believers cannot explain the financial actions of the magazine, they spent quite a bit of money to lock down the very rights THEY NEVER USED. It's important to note that although Stolley from Life had ALREADY PURCHASED THE FILM, he returned on the evening of the 24th to purchase ALL rights to the film.

Rights they never used.

Rights who's only provable purpose was to prevent anyone else from watching the film.
William Charleston Wrote:If you don't believe Dino Brugioni, then there is probably no hope for you. Brugioni clearly states the Zapruder film is forged. And Doug Horne makes the point that this was 1963, they could only forge so much so the impossible movements we see in the Z film are just that, evidence of the not so well done forgery.
The supporters of the Warren Commission are very selective in who they believe. This has been demonstrated time and time again... As merely one recent example, Patrick accepts completely and uncritically John McAdams' tabulation of the earwitnesses, then refuses to explain the inconsistency he was forced to admit.

So this is a well-established pattern ... to accept or not accept witnesses, not based on their credibility or corroboration, but based on the content of what they state... whether it agrees with the Warren Commission or not.
William Charleston Wrote:Fortunately, the forgers left enough information in the Z film that we can determine what actually happened during the shooting.
I'm not convinced that this is strictly true. Without the eyewitnesses stating what they saw in Dealey Plaza on 11/22 - the film would have quite successfully covered up the true history.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://vimeo.com/102327635">https://vimeo.com/102327635</a><!-- m -->

William Charleston Wrote:There are only a small number of people who had the power to make the Z film alteration the first weekend after the assassination. Their fingerprints are all over the forged evidence.
Amusingly - believers must discount EACH AND EVERY EXAMPLE of evidential alteration... to admit even a single example would demolish their faith quite completely.

As just one example - Patrick still refuses to explain why no-one saw WHAT HE ADMITS is the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray on the night of the autopsy.

John McAdams wouldn't even publicly give that admission ...

07-23-2016, 03:36 PM #7
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

Re: First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
William Charleston Wrote:Anyone with an effective IQ even slightly above room temperature knows the Zapruder film was forged the first weekend after the assassination.

I cringe when I read childish comments like this from adults. Clearly there are thousands of people with high a IQ who do not accept the Z film was altered which logically shows the statement from Mr Charleson to be a pile of old tripe and frankly an embarrassment.

07-23-2016, 04:52 PM #8
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: First Frame Flash - The Proof of Z-Film Alteration That Supporters Just HATE!
Patrick C Wrote:
William Charleston Wrote:Anyone with an effective IQ even slightly above room temperature knows the Zapruder film was forged the first weekend after the assassination.
I cringe when I read childish comments like this from adults. Clearly there are thousands of people with high a IQ who do not accept the Z film was altered which logically shows the statement from Mr Charleson to be a pile of old tripe and frankly an embarrassment.
Of course, the "thousands" of people who accept the extant Z-film as authentic never seem able to explain the evidence for alteration.

You, for example... running (excuse me, "too busy") to answer the first frame flash issue...







Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)