Magda Hassan Wrote:Jeff's qualifications are more than adequate to discuss the Z film. They are far better than most. As far as I can see in the thread he states that some alteration was possible but extensive alteration was highly unlikely. {snip}.
Yes his qualifications are Magda.... yet please read into WHY he feels extensive alteration is unlikely.... and then see if those ideas are supported or even supportable.
It does not seem to bother you that he cannot address even one of the key questions to defend his conclusion
that a variable speed in the fps, due to a spring, would result in VISUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE FILM - i.e. the Greer head turn.
(if all you are referring to is the matte work DH supports, fine, I happen to think that did not happen given the time line and it still does not excuse Jeff from addressing question about his ideas)
He makes that assertion repeatedly... I could care about his politics or tactics at this point... he only needs to back it up, or understand that he cannot be taken seriously - Just cause he claims to have experience in the area.
I offered the math which shows a 12/10,000th of a second difference PER FRAME over 100 frames at a slower fps speed - if the camera filmed the entire sequence SLOWER than it should have been.
He claims these changes are enough to affect 3 frames. 36/10,000th of a second difference in fps over 3 frames would create the visually impossible movement of Greer's head.
The fps would have to drop to 9fps for the film to have missed all of the movement we see between 302 and 304... Basic Math Magda.
I also offered the logical opposite of his conclusion... speed variance cannot only be SLOWER fps, but also FASTER for this wacky spring that cannot unwind linearly...
For at least one series of frames the spring was moving FASTER than 18.3, meaning MORE FRAMES PER SECOND which equates to Slow motion... (48fps being true 1/3 slow motion)
If the spring only SLOWS to LESS than 18.3, it could not AVERAGE 18.3. There MUST BE as many frames above 18.3 to create the weighted average.
I simply asked that he point out in the film where we see action in Slow Motion as we see the FAST MOTION in 302-303-304 .
There's no worries in admonishing long time members, respected researchers and EXPERTS in their field for repeatedly trying to elicit some idea of why he posts facts that are wrong and unsupported conclusions that defy logic.
Yet there is no reciprical request that he explain himself...
He also mentions 16fps to 48fps artifacts would be seen... when I mentioned that these frames, if they did exist, would also be removed with the alteration...
That 302-304 cannot be accomplished in the manner he suggests - and rather than understand such limitation...
all we get is SPRING-MECHANISM and FPS inaccuracies...
The most obvious sign of something amiss with a poster is usually a refusal to address requests to explain oneself.
To illustrate the ideas which are repeated yet never explained.
You all would not take it from JF when he dove off the deep end and refused to address questions of inconsistency with the presentation...
a man with infinitely more qualification/resourcess to explore the possibilities and tangents than many of us
Mr Carter helped with the 50 reasons... Kudos - this should then RAISE the expectations for his posts and the expectation of accuracy...
If this was something given extensive thought - why such a hard time offering an explanation for FPS and SPRINGS ??? Why use Straw man tactic to change the subject rather than address the questions?
Why so many inaccuracies in his posts... the he proudly proclaims he will "stand behind everything he's posted" yet sidesteps even the slightest nudge
He states definitively that from Z1 to Z486 the film is authentic... Don't know about y'all, but that's a pretty BIG statement to make here of all places... without some well developed argument in your behalf.
Yet no one other than Charles and David and I has even attempted to get a reason from him, ask a question of him...
So much concern for the protection of this person who by Jim's admission should be able to easily defend himslef with facts, figures, examples or point to one of the 50 episodes...
Something other than:
Quote:That said, I stand by most everything I have said on any post. All of the points I listed at the beginning of this thread are repeated, and with greater clarity and detail, by Zavada in his 'Open Letter".
David also denies that there was any NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. He did not ask for a citation, preferring to again attack my credibility on this issue. But this analysis is discussed right in the Introduction to McKnight's "Breach Of Trust". I mentioned it not because I am an arrogant bullshit artist, but because I assumed that you already knew about it.
What Jeff actually posted:
Might the CIA's reluctance to admit interest in the Z-film have anything to do with the report the NPIC presented on Nov 25 which stated there were at least two shooters?
Quote:
John Simkin asked McKnight specifically this question: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....topic=5226
(2) On page 6 you point out that after analysizing the Zapruder film for the CIA, the National Photographic Intelligence Center (NPIC) concluded: "First, the first shot at the motorcade had not come from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" where Oswald had allegedly secreted himself. Second, there had been at least two gunman in Dealey Plaza shooting at the motorcade". You add: "The results of NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film were suppressed."
Did you discover who was involved in suppressing this evidence? Did the House Select Committee on Assassinations see this report? Did G. Robert Blakey include it in his report? What do you think of Dale K. Myers' work on the Zapruder film. Supporters of the Warren Report seem to be now very reliant on Myers' research.
Posted 03 November 2005 - 06:39 PM
McKinght's Answer:
2. I never saw a Commission document that indicated it ever was familiar with the NPIC results of the Z film examination. A month or two after the WC Report became public the CIA requested from the FBI a loan of the Z film so the agency could use it for training purposes. I think this was to cover the fact that the CIA had made copies of the film borrowed from the Secret Service over the weekend following the assassation. The FBi request was just ass-covering scheme. I might point out that the FBI's analyis of the Z film also concluded that the first shot came before Z 210, that is at about Z170, before a shooter in 6th floor had access to JFK (my emphasis). I think we'll come to a time when it will be agreed that there were at least 6 shots fired that day. Probably three shots fired just before Altgens famous photo.
My source on the Z film is Dave Wrone's seminal work. I am looking forward to Richard Trask's work on the Zapruder film to be released soon. The title I think is "National Nightmare. . . . .something"
The ONE report that has surfaced - is CIA450.... does not conclude anything of the sort, nor was it dated Nov 25th... A pile of assumptions does not equate to proof....
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...elPageId=4 NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION(CIA450 pages)
If there was a NPIC report that STATED there were at least two shooters, as opposed to illustrating how the scenario the SS decided upon was not necessarily possible... while the FBI decided the shots were at 224, 313 and 375 (I do not know what report McKnight is referring to here...) the FBI in the months after the assassination concluded the following and graphically created it PRIOR to January 20th 1964:
I'd be interested to see the FBI conclusions about a shot BEFORE 224... which contradicts the time, effort and accuracy they built into this model and the report that accompanies it... which ALSO was never shown to the WC and was burried in a WCD called:
Commission Document 298 - FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...ocId=10699
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5188[/ATTACH]
Stating as FACT that a report existed from the NPIC about two-shooters is again...
If there was a report from the NPIC from the 25th, as opposed to the report and boards created by Dino on the 23rd/24th which indeed gives the impression of two or more shooters... please post it...
McCone was in the room with LBJ on the 24th with Dino and Arthur L. The boards are gone, the rpoerts are gone.... If the NPIC offered a report about two shooters on Nov 25, it is surely gone to history... The NPIC was not supposed to have had the film at all that weekend... the CIA denied it although the NPIC was a joint CIA/DoD creation.... the CIA 450 pages - help suggest something may have gone on that weekend... Horne's work and the Dino and Homer interviews proves it.
This comment MAY be a result of the Dino Boards McCone saw...
On December 9, 1963, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., advisor to President Kennedy, met with RFK and asked him what he thought about his brother's assassination. As Schlesinger wrote in his diary, published in 2007:
"I asked him, perhaps tactlessly about Oswald. He said there could be no serious doubt that he was guilty, but there still was argument whether he did it by himself or as a part of a larger plot, whether organized by Castro or by gangsters. He said the FBI people thought he had done it by himself, but that McCone thought there were two people involved in the shooting." [Emphasis added](Journals 1952-2000, p. 184).
Bottom line - I take this very seriously... I search and compile and read and compare and search more and ask and confirm and include it as part of my understanding of the case...
When someone comes along making statements that conflict with this knowledge base, I DO NOT ASSUME they are wrong... I assume I may be wrong and would like to understand the reasoning behind this difference.
My approach may not be as polished as others... but I go out of my way to include sources, images and back-up to what I post and EXPECT to be questioned about it, EXPECT to have it torn apart expecially if I am making a statement that goes so against the grain of research to this point.
How about enough tiptoeing around Jeff's "rights" here and start promoting the expectation that posting here requires some level of support to one's stated "facts"...
whether he is US or THEM will bear out in time...
avoiding the questions, posting inaccuracies and refusing to discuss WHERE one is coming from is NOT the way to go about it...
my .02
DJ
