Hello There, Guest!
View New Posts   View Today's Posts
Zapruder Fakery

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


01-02-2017, 10:28 AM #11
Fendlesworth
Junior Member
**
Posts: 6 Threads:1 Joined: Dec 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance Critic

RE: Zapruder Fakery
[Ad hominem post deleted]
This post was last modified: 01-02-2017, 03:49 PM by Ben Holmes.

01-02-2017, 03:51 PM #12
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: Zapruder Fakery
(01-02-2017, 10:28 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  [Ad hominem post deleted]

Those who are unable to debate using facts, evidence, and logical argument will eventually always resort to ad hominem attacks.

Ad hominem simply means that you're unable to utilize facts, evidence, and logical argument to present your viewpoint.

This explains why believers avoid this forum.

01-12-2017, 02:18 AM #13
Posts: 59 Threads:13 Joined: Jun 2016 Reputation: 1 Stance Critic

RE: Zapruder Fakery
Harrison Livingstone is a huge proponent of Z-film alteration. I can't say I find all his theories spot on, but he brings to attention some details about certain edits to the film which are worthy of a look. Specifically, he contends any visible spatter after 313 should have occurred for more than one frame, and does not. He uses a film of a bullet going through glass so demonstrate how effluence and shrapnel is visible for a number of frames after impact. You can argue the jump between frames 317 and 318 is a good place for an edit as well.

01-12-2017, 03:20 AM #14
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: Zapruder Fakery
(01-12-2017, 02:18 AM)Nick Principe Wrote:  Harrison Livingstone is a huge proponent of Z-film alteration. I can't say I find all his theories spot on, but he brings to attention some details about certain edits to the film which are worthy of a look. Specifically, he contends any visible spatter after 313 should have occurred for more than one frame, and does not. He uses a film of a bullet going through glass so demonstrate how effluence and shrapnel is visible for a number of frames after impact. You can argue the jump between frames 317 and 318 is a good place for an edit as well.

I've always found the 'First Frame Flash' issue to be quite decisive... since it's based on physics.

When a mechanically driven camera is first started, the iris opens & closes at a given rate all the time, but the film actually takes a finite amount of time to get moving... simple inertia.

This means that the first few frames of film - after the camera is started, will be moving somewhat slower than the film will be moving when it's at it's full regular speed.

Thus, the first few frames will be exposed to more light than succeeding frames. This is a well known issue with camera design - and although good design can help - you cannot overturn the laws of physics... the first few frames will always be 'lighter' in exposure than the rest of the film.

But the location where the film was stopped, then started, Z-132/Z-133 - fails to show the 'First Frame Flash' ... Z-133, and to a smaller extent, Z-134 and even Z-135 should have been more exposed.

YET THEY WERE NOT!

It's this exact issue that proved the 'Alien Autopsy' film a fraud... and equally so, it proves, SCIENTIFICALLY PROVES the extant Zapruder film has been altered.

Patrick Collins ran from this issue before...

But you're right... the fact that spatter should certainly have been seen longer in the extant Z-film is another excellent indicator of alteration.

01-12-2017, 03:03 PM #15
Posts: 59 Threads:13 Joined: Jun 2016 Reputation: 1 Stance Critic

RE: Zapruder Fakery
Stranger still is that no one can explain why the Zapruder film is missing footage from the exact moment as footage taken by Mark Bell, Charles Bronson, Robert Hughes and Tina Towner: that being the turn of the limo from Houston onto Elm. It's as though that wide turn was never meant to be seen.

01-12-2017, 03:31 PM #16
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: Zapruder Fakery
(01-12-2017, 03:03 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:  Stranger still is that no one can explain why the Zapruder film is missing footage from the exact moment as footage taken by Mark Bell, Charles Bronson, Robert Hughes and Tina Towner: that being the turn of the limo from Houston onto Elm. It's as though that wide turn was never meant to be seen.

Indeed.

I suspect that the limo made such a wide turn... that it almost ran over the curb... and the conspirators wanted no evidence of Greer's poor driving ... 

Some have speculated that it was to remove evidence of early shots - but I find that unconvincing.

05-24-2017, 08:12 PM #17
Posts: 59 Threads:13 Joined: Jun 2016 Reputation: 1 Stance Critic

Photo  RE: Zapruder Fakery
Seldom mentioned is the overhead street sign present in the first couple hundred frames of the Zapruder film:

   

And why does this overhead street sign not exist in any other footage? Here is a screen shot of the Robert Hughes film: 

   

The overhead sign is also missing from this shot of Mark Bell's film:

   

So how/why does it appear in Zapruder's film when it clearly does not exist at that street corner?

06-06-2017, 11:40 PM #18
David Healy
Junior Member
**
Posts: 33 Threads:5 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 2 Stance Critic

RE: Zapruder Fakery
(12-31-2016, 01:38 AM)Fendlesworth Wrote:  I've made it Ben.

It has to do with linking angular velocity with the Limo's true velocity. If you want to know if the Zapruder Film has been altered, it would be nice to know the actual speed of the limo as a function of time.

This is doable, and you could compare this with the Nix Film. All you need is a horizontally-stabilized version and a few geometric measurements of Dealy Plaza. You would also need the film's reel speed. You said:
Quote:I would state that from this viewpoint, Zapruder would have the most accurate perspective of the limo's speed.

No. A helicopter view from above would be more accurate. 
Quote:It cannot "mitigate" a slowdown
Not my choice of words. This is a ridiculous way to frame my post.
Quote:...it can only make it most visible.
More visible than what? 
Quote:...and there's nothing in such a perspective that would disguise the speed of the limo.
Yes there is, but an odd choice of words.
Quote:If you have a point, you're more than welcome to make it.
I have, and didn't expect it to be greeted by your condescending bullshit.

Again: The Limo appeared to be travelling the slowest at the point where it should have been appearing to be travelling the fastest (assuming constant speed); orthogonal to Zapruder's line-of-sight. 

You might expect that the Limo actually slowed-down more than that percieved by the viewer. 

If you think that humans have some infallable speed-sensing abilities, take a look at this paper: Apparent Speed of Sampled Motion

Percieved speed is relative to the observer. The Limo's true speed is what really matters. Percieved speed can change as the angle and distance changes between the object and the observer.
Go to the Education Forum, search for David Josephs/Chris Davidson's work on Z-film regarding frame deletion, addition, limo position relative to the 6th floor alleged snipers nest... AND limo speed(s)...
(btw: ad hom has never, EVER worked with Ben Holmes and somehow I think you know that)







Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)