[Ben Holmes]

NO-ONE has ever seen this "slowdown" in the film prior to the Alvarez study... and you *KNOW THIS TO BE A FACT*.... Now, can you CITE any source whatsoever, PRIOR to Alvarez, who noted the slowdown WHILE VIEWING THE ZAPRUDER FILM?

Henry Sienzant Wrote:I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Why do you have to "understand" the point? Why can't you simply ANSWER IT?

The problem you have, of course, is that you CAN'T answer it. There isn't ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that you can cite that shows that anyone had ever noted this slowdown before Alvarez spotted it.

And he did it with a frame by frame analysis.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:You admit a number of live witness claimed to have seen the limo slow down; you admit that effect is measurable in the Z-film. That would tend to prove those witnesses are correct.

Logical fallacy, again, Henry.

It's NOT visible in the extant Z-film. You can't cite anything to support such a claim.

The problem that believers have with the evidence is that it simply doesn't support their faith... the Zapruder film has a number of anomalies that believers refuse to address. Dealey Plaza witnesses both report what cannot be seen in the extant film, and FAIL to report features quite obvious in the film.

For example, the quite dramatic 'back and to the left' movement seen in today's film - SOMETHING NEVER SEEN AND DESCRIBED BY ANY DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS!

[Ben Holmes]

Ben Holmes Wrote:If a first-time viewer of the film CANNOT see a slowdown - and you're apparently admitting that - THEN ANY SLOWDOWN SEEN IN THE FILM ONLY WITH A FRAME BY FRAME ANALYSIS CANNOT BE USED TO VALIDATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE FILM.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Huh? Sorry, you don't get to just make unproven statements and we have to assume they are true. Show how you determined that. Cite a source.

Since you are clearly a tad illiterate, I'm going to go into more detail, just in case Dale & Patrick are having problems following this as well.

One way to 'authenticate' the film is quite simple - if it matches what eyewitnesses saw.

Simple... logical... and requires no citation for any honest person.

But if the film does NOT match up with what eyewitnesses saw, then this is evidence for alteration. PARTICULARLY when you have dozens of witnesses saying what they saw that corroborate each other.

Simply stating that the film shows a limo slowdown will NOT corroborate the eyewitnesses... there's that minor problem of believability here... dozens of witnesses seeing the limo for the first time were able to note OBVIOUSLY ENOUGH a slowdown of the limo.

But no-one can do this of the extant Z-film.

Yet the film captures largely the same thing seen by the human eye.

You CANNOT give an example of such a dichotomy between what a film captures, and what people report, as you're trying to pass off in this case.

Yet you think that a citation is needed.

[Lee Abbott]

Ben wrote to Henry, "Since you are clearly a tad illiterate, I'm going to go into more detail, just in case Dale & Patrick are having problems following this as well."

Henry and Patrick are only illiterate when they want to be... Dale, however, is an entirely other matter.

[Ben Holmes]

Lee Abbott Wrote:Ben wrote to Henry, "Since you are clearly a tad illiterate, I'm going to go into more detail, just in case Dale & Patrick are having problems following this as well."

Henry and Patrick are only illiterate when they want to be... Dale, however, is an entirely other matter.

Dale famously attempted to argue that Robert Kennedy had used his influence during the 1978 HSCA...

You normally can't catch Patrick or Henry pulling a really dumb mistake like that. Their mistakes tend to be more subtle, and not easily spotted.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:One way to 'authenticate' the film is quite simple - if it matches what eyewitnesses saw.

Does that include the witness who thought JFK stood up and the one who saw a fluffy white dog in the back seat...?

Ben Holmes Wrote:Simple... logical... and requires no citation for any honest person.

But if the film does NOT match up with what eyewitnesses saw, then this is evidence for alteration.

Absolute tripe. There were many witnesses who did not think the limo stopped...are you ignoring them...?

Ben Holmes Wrote:Simply stating that the film shows a limo slowdown will NOT corroborate the eyewitnesses... there's that minor problem of believability here... dozens of witnesses seeing the limo for the first time were able to note OBVIOUSLY ENOUGH a slowdown of the limo.

Nonsense. If the limo had stopped it would be apparent in the Nix and Z films. It is not. People perceived the limo stopped when in fact it slowed down.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You CANNOT give an example of such a dichotomy between what a film captures, and what people report, as you're trying to pass off in this case.

Your point cannot be established unless you show the films have been altered and Mr Zavada, who knows I would think, a lot more about film alteration than you Ben, states the Zapruder film is an in camera original which means there was no limo stop. Period.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...d/3672031/

[David Healy]

Patrick C Wrote:Your point cannot be established unless you show the films have been altered and Mr Zavada, who knows I would think, a lot more about film alteration than you Ben, states the Zapruder film is an in camera original which means there was no limo stop. Period.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...d/3672031/

interesting, I'll forward the USToday article to see if Dr. John Costella has comment. For the record, Mr. Zavada made no comment to me about Zapruder film content, in fact, he freely admitted film content is not his area of expertise, 8mm film material composition and its physical make up/properties are!

And with the full understanding 8mm film is NOT a Hollywood presentation/theatrical release format, why would anyone conclude or presume to conclude Rollie Zavada had sufficient knowledge to comment on the black art of special effects cinematography? Film Special Effects is a Hollywood thing, NOT a KODAK thing. Never was.

[David Healy]

for those that would like to persue Zapruder film alteration possibilities here's a link:
http://assassinationscience.com/johncost...index.html

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:One way to 'authenticate' the film is quite simple - if it matches what eyewitnesses saw.

Does that include the witness who thought JFK stood up and the one who saw a fluffy white dog in the back seat...?

The "fluffy dog" factoid is one that believers never seem to let go of, despite the fact that there WAS something there that looked "fluffy" and "white".

Clint Hill certainly did stand up...

You see how easy it is to mesh what people saw with the actual facts?

The problem that you have, is that NO-ONE saw the 'back and to the left' movement... all reports had him "slumping" forward or slumping left. This is not the movement currently seen, is it? This is a contradiction you cannot explain... in addition to the slowdown/stop witnesses.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Simple... logical... and requires no citation for any honest person.

But if the film does NOT match up with what eyewitnesses saw, then this is evidence for alteration.

Absolute tripe. There were many witnesses who did not think the limo stopped...are you ignoring them...?

Nope... this is why I invariably use the phrase "slowdown/stop" - but clearly you're too dishonest to actually debate what I really say... so you simply make up strawmen to attack.

The limo in the Z-film certainly has no stop - and the only slowdown seen was observed in a frame by frame analysis of the film. IT WAS NEVER SEEN PRIOR TO THE ALVAREZ STUDY OF THE FILM.

When you actually analyze the eyewitnesses, many of the closest witnesses reported a stop, to include the most valuable of all witnesses, the motorcycle cops... since they were tracking THEIR movement based on the limo - and would be the most credible witnesses. The "slowdown" witnesses were generally much further away... and if the stop, as the witnesses reported, were only a second or two - then clearly it would only look like a slowdown to those further away with a poor view.

As one person puts it: "Some reported seeing it slow dramatically and others that it came to a complete stop, which makes sense since, from different positions, different witnesses would have seen it slow dramatically as it came to a complete stop."

But this entire issue is a problem for believers - because it's contradictory to what we see in the extant Z-film. DOZENS of people reported the slowdown/stop - yet IT CANNOT BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER OF THE Z-FILM.

For those interested, here's a resource you can read to judge the eyewitnesses for yourself.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Simply stating that the film shows a limo slowdown will NOT corroborate the eyewitnesses... there's that minor problem of believability here... dozens of witnesses seeing the limo for the first time were able to note OBVIOUSLY ENOUGH a slowdown of the limo.

Nonsense. If the limo had stopped it would be apparent in the Nix and Z films. It is not. People perceived the limo stopped when in fact it slowed down.

You're using the same old tired logical fallacy. You cannot use the film to refute the evidence THAT THE FILM IS NOT AUTHENTIC.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You CANNOT give an example of such a dichotomy between what a film captures, and what people report, as you're trying to pass off in this case.

Your point cannot be established unless you show the films have been altered and Mr Zavada, who knows I would think, a lot more about film alteration than you Ben, states the Zapruder film is an in camera original which means there was no limo stop. Period.

Nope. Doesn't mean that at all. Zavada made it quite clear that he didn't examine the actual imagery in the film. His only concern was the film itself. His only EXPERTISE was on the film itself. David Healy, for example; has detailed how the film can be blown up to 35mm, altered, then re-shot in the original camera.

Now, back to what I said, and you ran from: you CANNOT give an example of such a dichotomy between what a film captures, and what people report.

There are many lines of evidence leading to the extant Z-film having been altered.

Anyone interested in the topic would do well to get these two books:

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax - Deceit & Deception in the Death of JFK
The Hoax of the Century - Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Anyone interested in the topic would do well to get these two books:

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax - Deceit & Deception in the Death of JFK
The Hoax of the Century - Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film

You are recommending Fetzer and Livingstone......!!!

Are you serious........!!!

Dear oh dear oh dear.......

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Anyone interested in the topic would do well to get these two books:

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax - Deceit & Deception in the Death of JFK
The Hoax of the Century - Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film

You are recommending Fetzer and Livingstone......!!!

Are you serious........!!!

Dear oh dear oh dear.......

Since you refuse to address the points they raise, no wonder you think an ad hominem attack on those authors is preferable to dealing with the evidence.

If you cannot refute the evidence they bring to the table, then you've lost, haven't you?