RUBY>OSWALD shooting: another TV soap opera?

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Postby lux on May 7th, 2014, 2:06 am

brianv wrote:Lux, please don't patronise me. You are saying my HQ DVD release of the the Invaders was filmed from a TV set using what a 60's kodak brownie??


I'm saying it was common to film TV programs from a monitor at that time and if you are seeing "rounded TV corners" in your copy than that is the probable reason for it.

I don't understand your comment about a Kodak Brownie. Is it your belief that movie cameras didn't exist in the 1950s? I don't get it.

One of the first colour programs ever made and when everybody had black and white TV's. :lol: :lol:


Again, I don't understand this comment. You don't believe that color programs could be filmed? You don't believe there were color TV shows? What does this mean?

It was released on BlueRay, why don't you order a copy and see exactly what Im talking about instead of talking bullshit!
http://www.dvdempire.com/1389504/invade ... movie.html


Why don't you say what you mean in a clear fashion so it can be understood?

brianv wrote:Lux, are you insisting that these images are the result of somebody filming the images from a TV set?


The part of the video I posted which I indicated here with arrows ...
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2390119#p2390119

This is the scene where the car pulls in.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby brianv on May 7th, 2014, 2:55 am

You are being deliberately obtuse. I'm finished with you.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby lux on May 7th, 2014, 3:02 am

^ No, I'm not. I really don't understand what I said I don't understand. If you clarify your questions I will answer them.

Another thing I don't understand is what is so shocking about filming a TV screen? You're acting like I said they use fairy dust or something.

I admit I was a bit sarcastic earlier but that was only because of your preceding snarky and cryptic post.

So WTF is so upsetting about suggesting that someone filmed a frigging TV screen?
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby Evil Edna on May 7th, 2014, 3:13 am

Hello,

Assuming for one moment that this footage we see here was recorded off a CRT screen. The NTSC standard has a vertical refresh rate (with interleaving) of 30 frames per second

However, the film-based movie-camera of the 1960s (e.g. the popular Super-8 format) has a typical 24 frames per second.

That discrepancy in frame rate (and lack of synchronisation) would surely introduce the curious anomaly that is familiar to anyone who has ever tried photographing a CRT screen. It is where the exposure of the camera captures an incomplete CRT raster scan. Something like this:

Image

Yet we don't see any sign of that in the footage that Simon has used. Suggesting that the footage perhaps wasn't filmed indirectly from a CRT screen, but was copied directly from an "original" film?
Evil Edna
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: November 7th, 2013, 3:32 am

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby lux on May 7th, 2014, 3:35 am

Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie scene that had a TV set playing? Did you notice that the TV set in the movie didn't have that raster scan effect you mentioned. Did you notice that this same thing happened in hundreds of movies?

When filming TV screens cinematographers use a special speed control that allow them to match the frame rate of the film camera to that of the TV screen. A crystal sync speed control is one method. There are others such as this:
http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/TCS_Public_PDF/TMC2.pdf

I'm not talking about amateur cameras here such as the Super 8 you mentioned. These copies were made in TV studios by professionals who used professional equipment. Once a copy was on film it could be easily converted to other film formats such as 8 or 16mm etc.

But, obviously this whole idea is far too wild and fantastic to be believed by forum members so I promise I will never mention it again.
Last edited by lux on May 7th, 2014, 12:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby Evil Edna on May 7th, 2014, 4:03 am

We may as well get to the bottom of it, for the sake of clarity.

The footage of Oswald's supposed shooting was purportedly taken "live at the scene" using a tube-based video camera. [1]. The equipment also recorded a simultaneous audiotrack ("honk honk bang").

That footage was transmitted on live TV. And apparently back in the studio, someone fortuitously recorded that "live" footage for posterity using something like a Kinescope [2] A recording device which transferred the CRT frames, as they were "broadcast live", onto movie film - 35mm or whatever.

And that film-based footage (with the weird black corners), which has lately been converted to a digital mpeg video format (presumably via video tape before that) is now being analysed by Simon.

Does that sound about right?

---

So if the "original" was recorded live with a tube-video camera, there shouldn't be any signs of that "crude celluloid-layering technique", which Simon noted at viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&start=60#p2390105

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope
Evil Edna
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: November 7th, 2013, 3:32 am

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on May 7th, 2014, 2:27 pm

lux wrote:I'm not talking about amateur cameras here such as the Super 8 you mentioned. These copies were made in TV studios by professionals who used professional equipment. Once a copy was on film it could be easily converted to other film formats such as 8 or 16mm etc.


Lux,

Not sure if I'm understanding your point here. Is your take that the artifacts seen in the various available versions (mostly highly degraded) of the Ruby-Oswald clips may be the result of someone capturing this material from a TV screen - using professional equipment? Surely, if hundreds of TV shows were captured / archived in this manner, we would have thousands of privately uploaded, equally downgraded short clips (on Youtube, Vimeo, etc...) of our favorite 1960's TV shows? Is this the case?

In any case, I think we need to re-focus our discussions here so as to stay on track with the central subject at hand - which is: does the available RUBY-OSWALD material (images AND sound) represent a credible / legit archive of a professionally documented, historical media-reported event? Haven't we seen atrocious imagery of other major world events over the years - in spite of this material (supposedly) being handled by top broadcasting professionals? To be sure, NASA also 'justified' the piss-poor quality of their ghostlike / transparent asstruenots hopping around the TV screen - with this excuse: "the Apollo 11 images were filmed off a TV screen". Moreover, both NASA and the BBC claim to have lost virtually ALL of their original, best-quality tapes - due to 'unfortunate cock-ups':

Extract of the long and convoluted NASA 'explanations' as to why we were shown crap imagery of the most incredible technological feat of mankind :
APOLLO 11 missing tapes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

(...) "[The original tapes] are believed to have been erased and reused by NASA, along with many thousands of other tapes. (NASA was faced with a shortage of quality data tapes in the early 1980s due to a change in the manufacturing process in the mid-1970s. This caused tapes that were no longer needed to be reused.)"

(...)"The video seen on home television sets was further degraded in quality by the very long and noisy analog transmission path through which the converted signal was sent, first by satellite from the receiving ground stations to Houston, Texas and thence by microwave relay transmission to New York, from where it was broadcast live to the United States and the world. This low quality optical conversion of the Apollo 11 moonwalk video images, made with a TV camera taking pictures of a video monitor, is what was widely recorded in real-time onto videotape and kinescope."


Extract of the BBC's 'explanations' as to why they also lost their tapes of the top technological feat of mankind :
British television Apollo 11 coverage
"The footage of the BBC and ITV coverage became victim to the current broadcasting policy of either eventually erasing videotapes or simply not keeping them. It is not definitely known what happened to the original tapes."
Image
Wiki caption: "The only known video fragment of Patrick Moore and James Burke presenting Apollo 11 together."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_te ... 1_coverage



But to get back to RUBY-OSWALD case - may I just ask you what your take is on the audio analysis I posted yesterday? If I should venture to say that this is court-admissible, forensic proof of foul play (i.e. that the two compared audio tracks of "the Oswald shooting" can NOT be recordings of a real event - but must have been (clumsily) put together in a studio), would you agree with this statement?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: RUBY>OSWALD shooting: another TV soap opera?

Postby simonshack on May 7th, 2014, 4:41 pm

*

I just wish to mirror this fine commentary posted over at Fakeologist.com by Bluemoon :


Bluemoon wrote:
Fraternities, lodges, clubs, societies, secret or not, charitable groups, aid organizations, militaries, police forces- All of these collectives, if backed by the psycholigarchs, are designed to corral and direct in a certain direction an individual’s desire, whether decent or otherwise, to participate in activities with likeminded fellows.

As has been said before, control of the media is critical to aiming these desires in particular directions- Media in Rome were the roads- The roads were specifically designed to corral and direct traffic in the directions Rome wanted- Cut to today and television is (was?) the major information highway, in the hands of a few likeminded fellows who have controlled mass perception since its inception.

Of course The JFK Show, from start to finish, was a television production, and a badly staged one at that- But as I have argued in the past, the sloppiness is a deliberate part of the show- I maintain that these participants announce what they are going to do, then do it, then admit it. This is the only way many of the participants involved can cope with what they’ve done- They are not humane but they are human and humans have to process stress and guilt and shame or they will suffer dire consequences with regards to their physical and mental wellbeing.

As well, the execution of these ritual dramas require that no one is subject to prosecution so the dramas don’t actually involve a crime. This, too, is a great relief to the participants who won’t spend the rest of their lives stressed about being arrested or worse. This also allows a freer hand at recruiting participants, likely through fraternal orders (Masonry/Church/Police/Mafia etc.)

As to the specifics of Oswald/Ruby, beyond Simon’s as always excellent observations, just the script of this farce should reveal its fictional nature. I suppose a point blank gut shot from a revolver could kill instantly, but the consensus is that a wound in the abdomen takes a little while to be fatal. But even that aside, Ruby must have known that a point blank shot to the head would definitely do the trick so why didn’t he just shove the barrel under Oswald’s chin or in his ear?

Everything about this incident is staged, from the klieg lights and cameras to the stiff, processional feel of the entrance on stage of the victim and his handlers- The scrum after the shot does not suggest shock or surprise by anyone involved, save the commentators who are terrible at ad-libbing. Rather than sound surprised, they fumble around, trying to put a coherent sentence together and simply seem incapable of speaking without their scripts in hand. And Ruby never fires a second shot although he dives in apparently to do so- And if you look closely at the KRLD footage, one of the clowns lending a hand to tackle Ruby even has the wherewithal to free up his other hand by blithely chomping down on his cigar.

Follow through footage of Oswald being wheeled into Parkland Hospital reveals his torso laid bare and not a scratch, burn mark or bloodstain can be found- This blatant admission that nothing actually happened now requires the public to answer back. They did not. The perpetrators shrug and say: You had your chance- Not my fault you’re in the sheep pen…. And so forth….


A very lucid and insightful piece of writing, in my honest opinion.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: RUBY>OSWALD shooting: another TV soap opera?

Postby simonshack on May 7th, 2014, 6:05 pm

*

The "RUBY-OSWALD" money shots:

As the story goes, two photojournalists (Bob Jackson and Jack Beers) both snapped their pics just as Ruby pulled the trigger ... only that Jackson snapped his picture at the EXACT instant that the bullet hit Oswald, "6 tenths of a second later" than Beers - a lucky strike of luck which earned Jackson the Pulitzer Prize - whereas the poor Jack Beers, we are told, slumped into a "lifelong depression"...

Image credited to Bob Jackson - of the Dallas Times-Herald (this image won him the Pulitzer Prize)
Image
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25042706 * and * http://dsmithgalleries.com/lee-harvey-o ... b-jackson/


Image credited to Jack Beers - of The Dallas Morning News (rare, non-cropped version)
Image
The tale of Jack Beers' depression: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/04/sixtenths-of-a-second-two-lives-forever-changed.html

Perhaps the Beers image was discarded for the Pulitzer prize because of its goofy depiction of wall "X" ...? <_< In any case, as we compare it with the below video frame, the two walls in question do not compare very well - although they are certainly meant to be the same. Also, and aside from the inconsistent dark/light bricks, does the wall "X" seen in the below video frame even look like a brick wall?
Image

"Wall X" as seen on this CNN version - instants before the shooting:
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6PcVCqg3tg


********************
In this BBC video the Pulitzer-winning guy, Bob Jackson, says he had been traveling with the JFK motorcade a couple of days earlier (11/22), but failed to take any pictures of the Dealey Plaza drama - since he was in the process of unloading his film roll... A pretty poor pro-photographer, if you ask me - as no pro-photoreporter will carry only one camera at any time - and certainly not when covering / working for a Presidential motorcade!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby lux on May 8th, 2014, 5:56 pm

simonshack wrote:Lux,

Not sure if I'm understanding your point here. Is your take that the artifacts seen in the various available versions (mostly highly degraded) of the Ruby-Oswald clips may be the result of someone capturing this material from a TV screen - using professional equipment?


I pointed out the rounded corners visible in a portion of the clip you posted and offered an explanation. As mentioned by Evil Edna, the equipment used for this process is described here.

Surely, if hundreds of TV shows were captured / archived in this manner, we would have thousands of privately uploaded, equally downgraded short clips (on Youtube, Vimeo, etc...) of our favorite 1960's TV shows? Is this the case?


Well, since the existence of such a process is obviously considered an impossibility on this forum, perhaps we can start another thread titled "The Kinescope Hoax."
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: RUBY>OSWALD shooting: another TV soap opera?

Postby brianv on May 8th, 2014, 6:18 pm

Image

The Invaders, S.1, Episode 3 @29:00 From the DVD.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: RUBY>OSWALD shooting: another TV soap opera?

Postby lux on May 8th, 2014, 7:00 pm

Well, that clinches it. It's now proven that the Kinescope process never existed, no one has ever filmed a TV screen and Oswald was actually shot by The Invaders.

What was I thinking?
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: RUBY>OSWALD shooting: another TV soap opera?

Postby brianv on May 8th, 2014, 7:50 pm

lux wrote:Well, that clinches it. It's now proven that the Kinescope process never existed, no one has ever filmed a TV screen and Oswald was actually shot by The Invaders.

What was I thinking?


No it proves that you were talking bollox, and now you feel like a twat and have to reply with a smarmy ass post to make you feel better!
:edited for clarity
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: RUBY>OSWALD shooting: another TV soap opera?

Postby Evil Edna on May 8th, 2014, 9:01 pm

The early history of live TV recording is interesting. Does it give us another insight into the hoaxing of the Ruby-Oswald assassination?

In 1956, the video tape (an analog magnetic tape media) became a commercially-available technology. [1] However, in terms of quality it would, for some years, remain inferior to the kinescope / telecine method of recording live TV footage. The latter technology - kinescope / telecine - is where motion picture filmstrip is used to record live broadcast footage off a CRT; footage that was originally captured with a tube-based video camera.

Consequently, while video tape recording soon became significantly cheaper (around $300 an hour compared to $4000 for kinescope) - and had all the advantages of instant turnaround (no film-developing) - video tape wasn't immediately nor universally adopted by the television networks for recording live broadcasts.

However, a little later, there was a cross-over of technologies - kinescope and video tape - a period of time when both were in common use. Discerning viewers were presumably familiar with their individual peculiarities.

Though by 1963 - the year of the JFK/LHO assassinations - some seven years after magnetic video tape first came to market - it appears that video tape was not only much cheaper but by then had improved so much in quality that videotape was reportedly "far superior to kines" (kinescope recordings of live TV footage). [2]

Here, things become curious. Those darkened corners of the frames in the LHO assassination footage imply that at some point in its history, the footage was a motion picture film recording, of some nature. (Darkening of frame corners isn't possible with magnetic video tape recording.)

So it would seem that the Ruby-LHO "assassination" was either:

(i) pre-recorded with motion picture film, and 'on the day', projector-screened and re-captured with a tube-camera and broadcast "live" to the nation, and re-re-captured(!) from the airwaves with either a kinescope or videotape (explaining the darkened corners); or
(ii) pre-recorded with magnetic videotape, broadcast 'on the day', as if it were "live", and re-captured from the airwaves with a kinescope (explaining the darkened corners) - an unnecessary transfer process, which, if done, was presumably to intentionally degrade the quality; or
(iii) the "assassination" scene was acted out live (as many "shows" were in those days. e.g. the British TV soap opera, Coronation Street was apparently broadcast live right up until Feb 1961. Here's a 'Corrie' kinescope recording from Dec 1960 for comparison [3] ) In (iii) the acting of the LHO assassination would also be captured with a tube-camera, and also genuinely broadcast live, but for posterity, recorded off the airwaves using a kinescope, as that first Corrie episode apparently was. Which also makes little sense. If there were no blunders in the footage, wouldn't the hoaxers want to record their handiwork in the best quality of the day - which by 1963 was afforded by videotape, and not kinescope?

Also, if (ii) or (iii) was the method used, why would the hoaxers use / need the crude celluloid-layering technique that Simon noted earlier?

[1] http://www.earlytelevision.org/now_they ... _tape.html
[2] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vyoD ... &q&f=false
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_7Z3046_dg

edit: forgot method (ii)
Last edited by Evil Edna on May 8th, 2014, 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Evil Edna
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: November 7th, 2013, 3:32 am

Re: RUBY>OSWALD shooting: another TV soap opera?

Postby lux on May 8th, 2014, 10:30 pm

brianv wrote:
No it proves that you were talking bollox, and now you feel like a twat and have to reply with a smarmy ass post to make you feel better!
:edited for clarity


Oh, you're so right brian. I feel terrible. If you were with me right now you could take a sad photo of me with one of those rectangular lenses you mentioned earlier (the kind with the corners) to prove it. It's a good thing you didn't fall for any of my bollox!

BTW, I hope you continue to contribute such great material to the forum. I don't know what we'd do without you're vast contributions.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest