Zapruder film alteration or not?

[Dealey Joe]

Great observations Kirk

[JDThomas]

once again a plea:please will people take a look at Chris Davidsons recent work on the film:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... 0&st=15Yes this is mathematics, not always easy to follow, but unless you can show that 1+1 ACTUALLY EQUALS 3, his results are unimpeachable:using the extant film and taking account of the known splices, the claimed 18fps film synched with the Dorman and Bell films simply doesn't cut it - the film is probably missing over 50 frames.Once again, referring back to the Life Magazine article of Dec 6, 1963.The writer specifically states:1.JFK throat shot2.74 frames later, Connally is hit.3.48 frames later, JFK head shot.Math equation:74+48=122 frames.122frames/18.3 FPS=6.66 sec.122frames/24.3 FPS=5.02 sec.A difference of 1.64 seconds.Frame313-353=40 frames40frames/24.3 FPS=1.64 seconds.It's a match.1.64 seconds is not enough time for 1 shooter.2 ShootersOne of the major reasons the Altgen's shot had to be excised.The Life Magazine writer was viewing a 24FPS version of the original.chrisP.S. 40 frames/18.3 FPS =2.18sec. Enough time to support the 1 shooter scenario. When I relate simple math back to the Z film, I go as far as WC CE884.Once again, the WC says between frame 161-166 the limo traveled less than a foot.(2.23 mph)The overall speed from frame 161-313 is approx 11.3 mph.I see no instance "pryor to" or "between" frame 161-166 on the Zfilm, where it comes to basically a "stop" (2.23mph).Yet, when I average in the 161-166 results in a larger setting (frame 161-313 /11.3 mph), it's rather undistinguishable.So, unless the limo almost stopped around frame 161, the film and frame count is incorrect.chrisP.S. True distance traveled in 5 frames at 11.3 mph/18.3 fps = 4.53ft.5 frames at 15.0 mph/24.3fps= 4.52ft.A match!!!Either refute the mathematics or Zappy's film is heading down the (storm) drain.

[Phil Dragoo]

JDChris Davidson's calculations are sound. Zapruder filmed at 24 frames per second and CIA's Kodak Rochester operation Saturday night as described by Doug Horne in Inside the ARRB Volume IV NPIC Event II excised the evidence of the second shooter.The second shooter, according to Files on JFK provided by Joe, was none other than James Files who said his shot followed that of Nicoletti firing from the Dal-Tex Building.Jim Braden aka Eugene Hale Brading was taken in for questioning for acting suspiciously in the Dal-Tex that day.Braden-Brading was a Lansky courier; Nicoletti and Files were part of Lansky's operation.Braden-Brading and Jack Ruby visited Hunt's office in the Dal-Tex on the 21st; Braden-Brading stayed at the Cabana and Jack Ruby visited the Cabana the same night.Zapruder's partner was Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, wife of George who was tasked by CIA with shepherding Oswald into the Ruth Paine/Depository trap.DeMohrenschildt and Charles Nicoletti died by violence March 29, 1977.Greer braked the limo for the final double-tap: Nicoletti and Files, baddabing, baddaboom.Palamara's essay Delay on Elm Street, 59 Witnesses describes this fatal hesitation which does not present satisfactorily on the extant film.Evidence altered by our government?Some of us remain in denial.The backyard photo—taken by Marina—with a camera she looked through—but the camera used requires looking down, not through. Marina lying? We are shocked.Why oh why would deception be present in this fifty-year-old obscenity?

[Dealey Joe]

Very interesting article.http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/zapruder.htm

[Deborah]

Kit Carp wrote: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.For your consideration.Autopsy photos and Embalming photos are going to be completely different. It isn't that the actual autopsy photos do not exist, they do and you have seen them. Then there are the Embalming photos. Embalming entails aesthetically removing visible damage on the person with wax and plaster and make-up to make the corpse presentable, usually for the family viewing. I do not think any of the photographs of Kennedy's autopsy or photographs of his embalming have been altered but their use by the Secret Service and FBI became nefarious. Think about it. Read Joe West's interview with one of the Embalmers and you will see. Deborah

[tom jeffers]

Dealey Joe wrote:Very interesting article.http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-pal ... er.htmlook at frame 3 and 4. frame 4 was shot at the exact location zapruder was standing and is the exact scale as frame 3. then look at the background and even the car. notice how the zapruder film's car takes up more space between the top and the bottom of the sign. notice how the re-enactment picture covers more sky above the perfola. notice how the tree is a little bigger perportionally. i copied each picture onto my computer and printed them up and held each picture in front of a light and compared the difference. the zapruder frame's background is enlarged when comparing it to the re-enactment picture. try it for yourself.

[Alex Hidell]

Manuual claimed camera ran at 16 fps.FBI said it ran at 18 fps.I think one thing is for sure, it wasn't running at 24 fps the day Zapruder filmed JFK.

[Dealey Joe]

Folks i have spent some time contemplating what I see as facts, or lack of, about the assassination.I try to list the things we actually know.One of my first entries would have been the Z Filmwhich I considered to be the foundation we have built on.But now with all the experts claiming proof the the Z film, Nix,and most all known photos are fake or outright forgeries.If so where are we?To me the main thing the film showed proved that JFK was shot in the head, possibly from the right front.The timeline part really did not interest me much, after all it is a home movie shot on a rather inexpensive camera that had several new innovations like slow motion and still frame.Another thing is that the manufacturer rated the camera at 16 frames per second but when Zapruders camera was tested it ran at 18 fps. In that type of equipment variations can be expected.in new technology operator error can also be expected.The speed change feature was just a button that by touch would change the camera speed and also was the start button so it would be easy to get the camera in the wrong mode and the big feature was you could change between speeds without stopping the filming.The camera had to be fully rewound every 15ft of film.This is one thing researchers seem to overlook.So if the film is a fraud them we are not sure JFK was shot in the head or in fact shot at all.Lets say for a moment that the films and pictures are frauds.who are we going to believe about what really happened.Witnesses are at the very best shaky.Most don't want to believe James Files. who does that leave as witness to the head shot?Where does that leave us?I for one believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot by even attempting to show fakery.what difference does it make anyway.I think you could take up the same cause to show that JFK didn't actually die but was whisked of to some faraway place like Greece? Think about it, usually you can prove whatever you set out to prove because that is all you are looking for.I think what is going on now is a sad state of affairs for the research community.I hesitate to post this for fear of getting the whole for ray restarted but I just want you to know where I stand. No answer needed or expected.

[tom jeffers]

dealey joe,i appreciate and understand your apprehension. we who study this topic are passionate people who care about what is happening in the world today and draw a reference point back to this event and agree that this is truly the day that the music died. by by miss american pie!As passionate people, we get too hung up upon what we believe in and tend to get tunnel vision. Being in the people business for many years where I must interview thousands each year in my work, I know there are two subjects you can never speak about and that is religeon and politics. Now you must be extra carefull in speaking politics because you could easily be called a racist if you do not like our president. As a country, we have had some fine people die for protecting our right to free speach in our history and I think John Kennedy is one of them.At some point we must agree to disagree on certain topics and that is OK because we all see the facts through our own filtered eyes and each will interpret them based upon our collective experiences. I hope I have never offended anyone but I probably have without meaning to. I am greatful to have places like this forum to discuss our differences and share our similarities without getting personal. Too often we associate our opinions with our own egos and when someone disagrees, we see it as an attack on our ego. I pray this will stop.Namaste'

[Alex Hidell]

Guys,Let's agree on a few things- ALL people do not see forgery around the Z film. In fact, very few experts believe it was forged.Z ran his camera at 16 fps, per the manual, when he filmed JFK that day. The FBI replayed his film at 18 fps. This sped the film up marginally but probably not detectable by the human eye.Big Picture Advice- Stick to eyewitness accounts of the event. You can't go too far wrong studying what the actual eyewitnesses saw that day.Quit seeing a conspiracy under every rock and around every corner. Wild speculation and trying to tie the JFK killing to other events as wide ranging as 9/11 merely dilutes the dialogue and makes us all, as a gorup, look like conspiracy nuts.