Zapruder film alteration or not?

[dankbaar]

I was informed that I may have offended some folks by stating my opinion on the Zapruder film alteration theories as "hogwash". Well, that is indeed my opinion. I find the ample discussions on it (whole books have been written about it) a waste of resource and energy. As unfortunate as the discussions on whether the driver Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK in the head with his service pistol. Here I shall lay out my case that the Zapruder film was not altered. I will update this first entry of this thread as time and mood suits me. Most of this Zapruder alteration hogwash comes from Jack White. This is the same man who thinks to see - in blobs of light and shadows - a firing policeman (or "badgeman") and an acomplice in the Moorman picture. But he never shows us the size of these "human figures" in relation to their surroundings: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htmNo wonder his former pal Gary Mack, now a notorious disinformation asset, does not dismiss the Badgeman theory. Let me concentrate on a particular reasoning by Costella: http://www.assassinationscience.com/joh ... htmlThings get more complicated when we look at the film frame-by-frame. As the bullet hits, JFK’s head first moves forwards:This makes things confusing. There seemed to be three possible explanations:1. He was hit by two bullets at almost the same time (one from behind and then one from the front). 2. He was hit from behind, and a jet of brain matter exploding from the front caused his head to recoil backwards. 3. He was hit from behind and some sort of muscle reaction caused his head to fly backwards.People tried to figure this out for three decades. Instead of clearing up the mystery, Zapruder’s film just made things more confusing.In the 1990s, researchers started to realize that there was a fourth possible explanation. Zapruder’s film might also be a part of the lies and cover-up that agencies of the U.S. Government had weaved around the JFK assassination!Costella takes his reader by the hand as if he were a child, inviting the child to do its own thinking with some help of Costella. He gives three possible explanations. Ofcourse the first explanation is a perfectly logical and possible explanation, but this is ignored an neglected by Costella. He does not want his reader to entertain this thought as a logical explanation. He wants to force his reader to accept his explanation: Zapruder’s film is a very good forgery. It is almost perfect. Some mistakes took almost 40 years to find.The scientists also proved that Zapruder’s film was not just changed a little bit. The whole film is a fake! Costella and White claim that the whole film is a fake. Not changed just a little bit, but a magic show performed by special effects people from the 1960's that could compete with the best of the current experts at Steven Spielberg's studios. If there was fakery applied to the film, then we first would have to ask ourselves: What was the motive of this fakery? Well, the conspirators would first like to conceal the fact that JFK was fatally hit from the right front, more specifically from the grassy knoll. Hence, they would want to conceal that JFK moved back and to the left as a result from the impact from such a shot. However, they failed to conceal that movement. Why? Why did they not do that, if they had the extensive skills, attributed by the alteration theorists? When the Zapruder film was made available to the public in the mid seventies, thanks to Robert, it made such a big splash, because anyone could see the movement of JFK as a result of the grassy knoll shot. Famous now for the blockbuster movie JFK, with Kevin Costner playing Jim Garrison: Back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left ........So again, we need to ask ourselves: Why was that movement not hidden through the alledged fakery of the film? My answer: Because it was not faked! It was only kept away from the public to not enlighten that public on the obvious fatal shot from the knoll.Now let us focus on another claim of Jack White and allies. That claim is that the Zapruder was faked to hide the fact that the JFK limousine came to a full stop. The evidence for that claim is a (very) few witnesses that said the car stopped. In other words they recall the car came to a full halt, before speeding away. In fact, the alteration theorists claim that the whole film was manipulated to conceal a complete stop of the car. I ask you: How is such a fakery done technically? But moreover: Why was that done? If the car came to a full stop, why would that need to be hidden? Apart from the cumbersome task to achieve such a forgery with 1960 technology, the true answer is: It did not need to be hidden....... Because it did not happen! This is easily and undeniable provable by the other three films form the other side, that show the car at the time of the assassination: The Hughes, the Muchmore and the Nix film. In order to maintain the claim that the Zapruder film was altered to hide the stop of the car, you do in fact claim that that the other three films were altered too. However, you never hear the alteration theorists claim that! Why is that? Because it makes their claim preposterous. There is no article or book written on the "great Nix film hoax", or the "great Hughes film hoax". In fact, those films show EXACTLY what the Zapruder film shows. Up to the almost simultaneous forward and backward snap of JFK's head (in my opinion the result of two almost simultaneous headshots, from the back and front). Which brings me to the next issue: Why was the Zapruder film (and the other films) not altered to hide the head movements, the forward and backward movement a split second apart? You cannot even see the forward movement with naked eye if the Zapruder film is played at normal speed of 18 frames per second? So why?The answer here is again: Because nothing was altered and the Zapruder film portrays the movements as they happened. A shot in the back of the head (tilting the head forward) and immediately after a shot in the right temple from the knoll (blowing the head backwards). To be continued......

[Dealey Joe]

For whatever it is worth I agree, no alteration.

[ThomZajac]

Wim,Before we turn our attention to the Zapruder film let me begin by asking you something about another piece of evidence (‘the best evidence’): do you also think it ‘hogwash’ that the president’s body was altered between its leaving the emergency room in Parkland and its arrival at Bethesda? Just wondering.Now then, on to another key piece of altered evidence; the Zapruder film- Wim writes: “If there was fakery applied to the film, then we first would have to ask ourselves: What was the motive of this fakery? Well, the conspirators would first like to conceal the fact that JFK was fatally hit from the right front…”So far, you are pretty close. To be more accurate, I think it would be better to say “to conceal conclusive evidence of shots originating from anywhere other than the 6th floor window of the Book Depository.”Wim continues: “…more specifically from the grassy knoll.”I don’t mean to split hairs, but no conclusion of precisely where in front the shots may have come from is necessary in determining a motive for film alteration.Wim continues: “Hence, they would want to conceal that JFK moved back and to the left as a result from the impact from such a shot.”Well, certainly the conspirators would want to conceal such a movement. But because they were altering an existing film rather than creating a film from scratch, they faced certain limitations. Their goal, therefore, was to conceal any CONCLUSIVE PROOF of a shot being fired from anywhere other than from behind. This meant, among other things, eliminating the blowout in the rear of the president’s head, and the creating of a false wound and false blood spray. As we have come to learn, the backwards movement of the president is NOT considered, by the deniers, as conclusive proof of a shot having been fired from in front. Certainly the conspirators would have liked to have been able to eliminate this movement, but it could not be done. Because of this, they decided not to let anyone see the film for years and years and years and years. Not because the backwards movement would be considered conclusive proof by everyone, but because it was powerful evidence indicating a shot from the front and it would beg the question. Wim writes: “However, they failed to conceal that movement. Why? Why did they not do that, if they had the extensive skills, attributed by the alteration theorists? When the Zapruder film was made available to the public in the mid seventies, thanks to Robert, it made such a big splash, because anyone could see the movement of JFK as a result of the grassy knoll shot. Famous now for the blockbuster movie JFK, with Kevin Costner playing Jim Garrison: Back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left ........So again, we need to ask ourselves: Why was that movement not hidden through the alledged fakery of the film? My answer: Because it was not faked! It was only kept away from the public to not enlighten that public on the obvious fatal shot from the knoll.”The conspirators did not want the public to see the Zapruder film- there can be no doubt about that. But imagine for a moment if the film revealed the back of the president’s head being blown off; that would have constituted UNDENIABLE AND CONCLUSIVE PROOF of a shot have been fired from in front. THAT had to be concealed, and it was a relatively easy fix. Not so with the president’s backwards movement- damning evidence that the conspirators would rather not have had to reveal, but not as damning as JFK’s brains coming out the back of his head. All us conspiracy researchers KNOW the president was hit from the front and that a massive and gaping wound in the back of the president’s head was the result. Why then, do neither the Zapruder film nor the autopsy photos show this? It’s because those pieces of evidence are not genuine. Wim writes: “Now let us focus on another claim of Jack White and allies. That claim is that the Zapruder was faked to hide the fact that the JFK limousine came to a full stop. The evidence for that claim is a (very) few witnesses that said the car stopped. In other words they recall the car came to a full halt, before speeding away. In fact, the alteration theorists claim that the whole film was manipulated to conceal a complete stop of the car. I ask you: How is such a fakery done technically? But moreover: Why was that done? If the car came to a full stop, why would that need to be hidden?”A full stop would be damning evidence against the driver, and it would spur a line of questioning that the conspirators did not want. And the fix was an easy one. Wim writes; “Apart from the cumbersome task to achieve such a forgery with 1960 technology, the true answer is: It did not need to be hidden....... Because it did not happen! This is easily and undeniable provable by the other three films form the other side, that show the car at the time of the assassination: The Hughes, the Muchmore and the Nix film. In order to maintain the claim that the Zapruder film was altered to hide the stop of the car, you do in fact claim that that the other three films were altered too. However, you never hear the alteration theorists claim that!”Yes, we do. Think about it: seconds after the president has been shot hordes of government officials begin confiscating everyone’s films and photos! How is this possible? And the one person’s film they don’t take is the most obvious guy in Dealey Plaza! Why do you suppose that was? Some never had their film returned and there is no record of it. Others say it came back altered: I’m pretty certain that Nix is one of them. Wim writes: “Why is that? Because it makes their claim preposterous. There is no article or book written on the "great Nix film hoax", or the "great Hughes film hoax".I think you are wrong on this, Wim. As mentioned, I am almost certain Nix believes his film was altered.Wim writes: “ In fact, those films show EXACTLY what the Zapruder film shows. Up to the almost simultaneous forward and backward snap of JFK's head (in my opinion the result of two almost simultaneous headshots, from the back and front).”Eliminating the backwards movement of the president was not possible in the time the conspirators had’ it was not as doable as concealing the blowout to the rear of the president’s head and eliminating the stopping of the car. These guys were technical experts, not magicians.Wim writes: “Which brings me to the next issue: Why was the Zapruder film (and the other films) not altered to hide the head movements, the forward and backward movement a split second apart? You cannot even see the forward movement with naked eye if the Zapruder film is played at normal speed of 18 frames per second? So why?”Couldn’t be done. The forward movment was consistent with a shot having been fired from behind so there was no need to conceal that, and the backward movement would have to explained in the manner they are continuing to explain it. As I have said, they would have concealed it if they could. They couldn’t. And they wanted to print only frames of the film- they didn't let anyone view it for many years (12?), and they knew there would be trouble then.Wim writes: “The answer here is again: Because nothing was altered and the Zapruder film portrays the movements as they happened. A shot in the back of the head (tilting the head forward) and immediately after a shot in the right temple from the knoll (blowing the head backwards). To be continued......”My Conclusion: The Zapruder film we are allowed to view is a composite. For how it was done, please view the following link-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

[tom jeffers]

thom,i pretty much agree with your rebuttal. they only needed to control peoples reactions in the very beginning. once the official version was out and considered solved, the average joe was not concerned with who was involved. today less than 1 out of 10 people even know or heard of the zapruder film. they don't care. the boys still spend a little money on the discovery channel or history channel to debunk conspiracy and keep the story in check. it is clear to me that the flap you see dangling from his head and the bright red flash is all special effects. witnesses testified that the spray went backwards and is not seen because the film did not have high enough resolution to capture it.

[Bighunter43]

I have always been on the fence on the Zapruder film possible alteration: If it's 100% real....then from what I see it does NOT show the back of the head blowout (I don't buy the "volcano" look that some point to in the back of the head! ) and the film does NOT correspond to what all the Parkland people saw. They said the back of the head had a huge exit hole in it. To me, the Z film shows the side of the head blown out (the scalp flap hanging down)...and if I had been a witness to it, that's how I would have described it....based solely on the film! (the side being blown out...not the back) So to me, the film doesn't add up to what they were describing at the hospital! So, the old saying, " the camera doesnt' lie"....well........who knows! Its a tough call.......so, for me, still on the fence!

[turtleman]

I agree with you point by point Thom. They sat on the film long enough to make it fishy. Zapruder was too well connected to pass the smell test. And look at the chain of custody of the film after Zapruder sold it. Like Bighunter says the film does not lie and it does not match the Parkland hospital staff's testimony. To me to think this film has not been altered would be a very naive conclusion. Nah, it's been jacked with. Hell, they screwed with everything else. And I am not on the Jack White bandwagon.

[dankbaar]

Bighunter / Thom, I will add much more to my original post. The blowout that you see on Zapruder is entirely consistent with a shot from the knoll in the right temple. That is because most people erroneously believe that the biggest cone of spray is at the exit side, while it is in fact on the IMPACT/ENTRY side. And don't forget a mercury bullet explodes immediately on impact after penetrating the skull. In fact, we do see the blowout in JFK rear head. Espacially a few frames later the back of his head is void of hair.Watch this page: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htmFor those who wonder about the debris pattern at the right front of JFK's head, the pictures hereunder illustrate how the debris patterns behave at the impact of a bullet. Thom and Turtleman could meanwhile also digest this one: What was the purpose of putting Mary Moorman and Jean Hill on the grass, when they were in fact on the street? That is what the Zapruder alterationists claim. Just because Jean Hill said she remembered it like that. And what was the purpose of making Mrs. Franzen dissapear in Zapruder and leave visible in Nix? That is what Mr Jack White also claims? In fact it's a product of White's wishfull make believe, she did not dissapear, but I'll get to that later. Am I right in understanding that Thom now maintains that in addition to the Zapruder film, the Nix film was also altered (in such a way that it conceals the alleged full stop of the car) ? Thom, could I ask you to rethink that thought? Or is the next thing you are going to say that the Muchmore film and the Nix film are "composites" too and that Clint Hill's running was altered in all three films, since he did not need to huury, as the car came to standstill, which was hidden from us by altering at least three films?Muchmore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vbgwB3_ ... G7IIMuBrkc

[Bighunter43]

Wim, As I said, "still on the fence"! I do NOT believe in Jack White's theories or several others........MM on the street, car coming to a stop, things not lining up, etc. I don't even see the need for them to be modified by the conspirators. And furthermore, I do NOT think the Nix and other films were altered. But, they say, "seeing is believing"........and if the Z film is real, then what "I" see and what was said at Parkland just does not add up! I tend to put a tremendous amount of stock in the eyewitnesses at Parkland, who say they saw the "gaping exit wound in the rear of the head", however in the Z film the "side" of the head is blown wide open. (which certainy could still be from the front right, a.k.a....grassy knoll) And yet, to my knowledge, no witness at Parkland described the wound like that. I am looking at Robert's JFK Case for Conspiracy as we speak, and I have always believed in Dr. McLellands drawing on page 29 showing the rear blowout, but yet Z frame 335 shows the side blowout with the skin flap from the front of the ear towards the front......and it in NO WAY resembles his drawing or other eyewitness testimony. It can't be both ways, so something doesn't add up. To me, IF it was altered in any way, this is the "area" in question......the head wound. Am I seeing things wrong? Can someone please deny or confirm on what you see in the Z film headwound......am I missing something? If all you had to go on was the Z film, how would you guys describe the wound YOU see? So, for this, and only this, I am still on the fence in the Z film alteration theory.......

[ThomZajac]

Wim writes:“The blowout that you see on Zapruder is entirely consistent with a shot from the knoll in the right temple. That is because most people erroneously believe that the biggest cone of spray is at the exit side, while it is in fact on the IMPACT/ENTRY side. And don't forget a mercury bullet explodes immediately on impact after penetrating the skull. In fact, we do see the blowout in JFK rear head. Espacially a few frames later the back of his head is void of hair.Watch this page: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htmFor those who wonder about the debris pattern at the right front of JFK's head, the pictures hereunder illustrate how the debris patterns behave at the impact of a bullet.”TZ-The motorcycle cop riding behind and to the left of JFK was hit so hard by brain matter and blood that he thought he’d been struck by a bullet. Clearly this matter and blood exited the back of the president’s head- yet the Zapruder film does not show this (nor the pieces of brain on the back of the trunk Jackie when out to retrieve). And by the way, no witnesses at Parkland saw the splaying you have described.Wim writes:“Thom and Turtleman could meanwhile also digest this one: What was the purpose of putting Mary Moorman and Jean Hill on the grass, when they were in fact on the street? That is what the Zapruder alterationists claim. Just because Jean Hill said she remembered it like that.”Wim, what you’ve written above clearly demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the how the film was altered, There no purpose, per say, of putting Moorman and Hill on the grass. This simply had to be done because in the making of the composite the curb was used as the dividing point between the two separate films used to make the Zapruder film, and nothing, therefore, in the back ground could extend into the foreground movie without messing up the whole thing (see link from previous post). Since Moorman and Hill were indeed standing in the street (with most of their bodies, of course, visually above the curb line that was to divide the two films) they had to either be eliminated or moved back entirely on the background (above) side of the curb. This is essentially provable by the fact that Hill is wearing different color shoes than what she’d been wearing earlier in the day when photographed. Her shoes had not been visable in the original Zapruder film and so the conspirators had to guess her shoe color and they guessed wrong! I don’t think simply eliminating the two women from the altered version was really an option as they had been so visible to so many and their absence would have been most conspicuous. Wim writes:"And what was the purpose of making Mrs. Franzen dissapear in Zapruder and leave visible in Nix? That is what Mr Jack White also claims? In fact it's a product of White's wishfull make believe, she did not dissapear, but I'll get to that later."TZ-I’ll have to look closer, but the making of the composite may have required it. I’ll check. Wim writes:"Am I right in understanding that Thom now maintains that in addition to the Zapruder film, the Nix film was also altered (in such a way that it conceals the alleged full stop of the car) ?"TZ-Better to ask: Does Nix believe his film was altered?Yes, he does.I do too. Easy fix. It was confiscated, was it not?Wim wrote:“Thom, could I ask you to rethink that thought?”TZ-You could Wim, but your arrogance on this matter is quite remarkable. The conspirators controlled not only the investigation, they controlled virtually ALL of the evidence; the president's body, the Zapruder film, and ALL the film -they miraculously confiscated all film within minutes. Do you actually believe the conspirators would give back evidence that was clearly at odds with the official version? Wim writes:“Or is the next thing you are going to say that the Muchmore film and the Nix film are "composites" too…”TZ-Not all film alterations require the making of composites. Just eliminating some frames is all that’s needed sometimes- and it’s way easier. I’ll look closer at Muchmore and Nix and get back to you. Wim continues:“…and that Clint Hill's running was altered in all three films, since he did not need to huury, as the car came to standstill, which was hidden from us by altering at least three films?TZ-I think one of the films does show breaking at the very least. And Clint Hill, the only Secret Service agent who took any protective action that day, actually crashes into the car as it is coming to a stop- he semi falls. Watch the motorcycle cop have to veer out to the left a bit to avoid hitting the car. Also, when watching the Zapruder film, watch the Connolly’s lurch forward in their seats- an action that only could have been the result of hard braking.Personally Wim, I don’t see what you are so attached to the Zapruder film being genuine. That it was altered does not undermine James Files’ story at all, unless I am missing something. I’m sure you’ll let me know.Lastly, I just viewed the three linked films- isn't it amazing how all skipped over the most important parts? Jesus! And I totally agree with BigHunter that when over 40 witnesses (most of them medical professionals) see the same thing at Parkland- and don't see the splaying- they were surely correct.

[Bighunter43]

Guys, These are the comparisons I was referring to: #1 a drawing approved by Dr. McClelland (whom I really believe) and #2: Z frame 335 which clearly shows this huge skin flap on the side and front of the ear, and gaping hole! I have always wondered why the doctors at Parkland did NOT describe the wound we see here? Or am I just missing something?So, to me, these two things aren't even close, and so many of the the doctors at Parkland talked about the rear blowout (Fig. 1), but don't even mention the gaping wound in the side in front of the ear (hanging flap).........and now #3: Robert Groden's theory (which lines up pretty well with the Z film)But if I was a doctor at Parkland and saw #3........I'm saying his entire RIGHT SIDE of the head were blown out.......not just the rear........so, why did they not describe this one?Wim, I totally agree with you on the blood spray, and I'm totally convinced that the shot came from James Files from the knoll...........and no doubt his mercury round could do this kind of damage scene on the Z film. (335)But, the drawing and eyewitness testimony at Parkland dont' reflect what we see on the Z film.............or maybe I'm just way confused! So, I'm still ridin' the fence on the Z film!