Zapruder film alteration or not?

[Phil Dragoo]

Bob Harris posits at least two suppressed shots from the Dal-Tex Building necessitating the removal from the extant films of the limo turn as the pavement was hit producing startle reaction in the passengers.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBk ... ddedSecret Service committed over a dozen blatant acts of security stripping; Elmer Moore who called Kennedy a “traitor” admitted it was he who badgered Malcolm Perry all Friday night in re the entry wound to the throat.http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kennedydetailreview.htmlI was living with the conventional explanation until viewing the film on Geraldo as Groden and Gregory sat in. Then it was clear it was a conspiracy, crossfire, coverup, coup d'etat.59 witnesses saw Greer slow, turn, watch for the headshot.http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.ba ... /59_1.html

[Dealey Joe]

Folks I am getting more confused with this Zapruder business.Chain of Custody?Alterations?Fakery?Extant?What is the chain of Custody?? who had custody? Who was supposed to have custody?is that the same as possession? If you own something is there a chain of Custody??Who are custody explanations owed?In the case of the Zapruder film did the government own it?The chain of custody to me would be that Zapruder had it in his custody until he sold it to Life Magazine people. Life reportedly purchased the film for use in its magazine. and at that time they owned it and it was in their custody to do with as they pleased.I assume in 1963 there was no way to put a movie in a magazine and probably still can't be done today unless you flip the pages pretty fast?It was reported that Mr. Zapruder insisted that the Film never be shown to the public and I assume Life's agreement was to cut the film up into frames to use as stills. Life had no use for a moving picture.Since it was obvious to me that the "Alteration" to the head was done by Life in order not to be repulsive to it's viewers because it was very obvious that the blackout was not done to fool peopleas it is very visible to anyone who looked when it was delivered to it's subscribers one week after the Assassination.Extant? does that mean the one you have in your hand is considered to be the original?The first thing Horne says about the Film in the national Archives is that IT CANNOT BE THE ORIGINAL. How do you know if you have the original?"Horne - likely alterationsubstantial irregularities in custody, irregularities in appearance inconsistent with processing, inconsistency between extant (presumed original) and the control film shot during authenticity study, major inconsistencies between eyewitness Zavada presumed film authenticHorne presumed film forgery."Major inconsistencies between witnesses? Give me a break please.Life Magazine thought they were purchasing the original? the government got a couple copies?Fakery, Why would Life Forge the movie?The film was not intended to be shown and was not for several years, why forge it?It is easy for me to visualise the handling of the cut up frames after they were used in the Magazine a few times, kept in a file box, then someone decided to spliced the frames back together to be seen as a jumpy dirty out of order film.Some "experts" say the original probably never left Dallas?Witnesses? I think it would not be hard to find witnesses in Dallas to lean any direction.OK lets say IF the film is a forgery, why? for what purpose?Timing? number of shots, Oswald was in the picture so we put a sign over him?Oh I forgot to keep Mary Moorman out of the street?Guess I just don't get the big picture?

[Kit Carp]

Well, you believe that the autopsy photos of the back of the President's head have either been switched out for ones not his head, or altered, correct?Why do this?It's very simple. People look at photos and films, and see something easily grasped and understandable. With witnesses, even medical witnesses, experts, it's more abstracted.The conspiractors wanted Oswald to be blamed for the assassination, yes?So, you change photos and film to alter the wounds to show no exit wounds to the rear.It's that simple.***On the different matter of "chain of custody" for the Zapruder film.For a great many years, Zapruder and the Secret Service's tale of a simple and direct development of the film, under Zapruder's supervision, was thought to be ironclad.This has been destroyed entirely with the revelations by two CIA Photo technicians who worked at a top secret facility and handled the film. They, completely in secret and unbeknownst to Zapruder, had the film in hand shortly after the assassination. They dont claim to have altered it. They claim to have made prints used to determine the nature of the shots.Amazingly, one of their big briefing boards showing the frames still exists in the archives, along with pages of their notes, buttressing the facts that the "chain of evidence" for the film is a fat lie. No way it's true.So, like most of the evidence in the case, there is now no way of accurately stating where the film was when, and whom did what to it.No one, really, knows who had which copy, nor who had the original film. It's historical whereabouts is now unknown during the immediate days after the assassination.Finally, the film represented as being the "Forensic Copy" of the Zapruder film is not the original film. Everyone looking at it, I think, agrees it's perhaps 3 or 4 generations removed from the "camera original". You can prove this by comparing clarity to any known 1st generation 8mm film, and make copies, and figure out how far removed from the original the copy residing at the Archives is. NO ONE knows where the original got to. Like JFK's brain, the medical tissue slides, the chest photos, close up entrance wound photo, the first autopsy draft, the second report, the larger bullet fragments from Connally's wrist, the Parker occipital fragment, and Oswald's intelligence issued military ID, these pieces of evidence were either lost, swapped out, or mutilated until you cant read 'em.It's hard for us to impart in a thread like this the great progress in actually solving the case that has been made by Doug Horne's work about the ARRB's findings. If you buy only one book on recent evidence in the case- this is the one to buy.

[Dealey Joe]

Boils down to which witness you choose to believe looks like.Don't know much about the x rays.After watching TV from Friday thru Sunday we all believed LHO done it.Didn't even know about the X Rays or Zfilm

[Bob]

One can certainly put together a lot of the puzzle as to what happened on 11/22/1963 by reading a few books.One would be Wim's book...Files on JFKAnother would be James Douglass' book...JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It MattersAnother would be Russ Baker's book...Family of SecretsAnother would be Doug Horne's book...Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFKAnother would be Judyth Vary Baker's book...Me & LeeIn my opinion, these books are interconnected, when looks at the big picture. That being said, the book that bridges this all together is Horne's book. That is why Kit, Phil and I have been endorsing this book so much.

[Phil Dragoo]

Indeed, Bob, I find Horne, Douglass, Files, JVB mutually reinforcing.Mantik is presented in six ways in Horne, one of the few good things DiEugenio sees in Horne. Mantik in MIDP places the Harper Fragment as shown in this diagram.It is the Rosetta Stone for the head shots: it shows the first was the inshoot at the right occipital denoted by the lead trace at the right ("L" in the diagram) likely by Nicoletti in the Dal-Tex Building.The second was the frontal temporal by Files' Fireball from the fenceline which blew the Harper Fragment ("H" in the diagram) out.The FBI of course “lost” the fragment, but photos show its key placement.

[dankbaar]

Kit Carp, or whatever your fancy pseudonym stands for. You are now going to answer my question with a simple YES or NO. Is it your opinion that all three films (Muchmore, Nix and Zapruder) were altered to conceal a full stop of the limousine? If you don't answer this question with a YES or NO. I will throw you off this board.Since it remains my board and since I am SICK and TIRED of people that make a sport of it to not show their true colors! Wim

[Kit Carp]

Since I have already answered your question perfectly honestly- that I DO NOT KNOW, you can consider me "thrown off the board". How can I answer something I dont know the answer to? There are many questions you cannot answer about the JFK assassination as well. Same with Bob, Phil, and everyone else. In my opinion it is stupid to have opinions on subjects that I cant find firm answers to. That is why I dont post on subjects outside what I consider myself on firm ground on.There is nothing in any post on this board I have offered a firm "yes" or "no" to that I can't back up with firm, interlocking documentation with multiple proofs. That is just how I am built, and there is nothing I can do about that.I wont post here again, in any case, unless invited to personally by you.Thank you all for having me in the first place, and my apologies to dankbaar, since I apparently have offended him in some manner.

[dankbaar]

Kit Carp, You have NOT answered my question! And certainly not "perfectly honestly". Is it your opinion that all three films (Muchmore, Nix and Zapruder) were altered to conceal a full stop of the limousine? I want a simple YES or NO! That is what I asked. That is what you refuse to answer! Wim

[j.j.c.bruinsma]

The autopsie foto,s we know are 1000 % fake,why not the Zapruder film,what i can see on the Internet (o.a. John Costella ,Jim Fetzer and more)i think the film is fake.grtzz.