Zapruder film alteration or not?

[dankbaar]

I added a new page. You can state your opinion in the poll at the end of the page. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/myths.htmWimI 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. Let me first discard that myth once and for all. Or better yet, let Robert Harris do it, as I could not do it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DguBcLpWBS0Here 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 his "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 and 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 joint magician's work performed by special effects people from the 1960's that could compete with the best of the computer age experts at Steven Spielberg's studios, along with illusionists of the stature of David Copperfield. 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 alleged 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 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 Muchmore 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 the 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).

[Kit Carp]

I for one am quite convinced that the Zapruder film has been altered, but I dont mind or even find it troubling that dankbaar considers the notion "hogwash". Everyone is entitled at arriving at their own opinion on various aspects of this case.The only thing I do feel a bit bad about is that his approach to film alteration lumps all people who believe the film has been messed with into a single cauldron of over the top, crazed, "all the films are fake!" category.It's precisely what the "Lone Nutter" crowd does with everyone who thinks there was a conspiracy. They focus on the most outrageous of conspiracists claims- and include everyone involved within this group.This is an illogical approach, and tends to point out deficencies not in the conspiracy believers, but in the methods the nutters bring with them into the argument.I actually agree with dankbaar with much of what he says. There are indeed some outlandish claims about the film- a lot of it I have extreme doubts about.But, I've seen the very best extant digital copy of frames from Zapruder- these are frames that are over 80 mb- that's megabytes, not kilobytes. These frames have much better definition that the past realeased dvds, and is worlds better that the bootleg other researchers possess.In these frames, taken directly from the forensic copy in the National Archives- there is artwork- physical effects in film editor speak. This artwork masks the back of the President's head with a black patch. This patch only exists after frame 314. In some frames, this patch has straight, geometric, manmade edges. These edges simply arent visible on poorer copies...they become fuzzy.It's obvious. It isnt even well done. Anyone with access to a clear, modern, digital copy is able to see it, and recognize it is fake. I assume this would be even more apparent on the film in the archives. Every successive film generation fuzzys the clarity a bit.A number of film restorationists- folks whose actual job is to fix crumbling old rare films by hand, have viewed these frames.All of them, 100%, agree it's artwork they are looking at.I have some film work in my background, and am actually a professional in a side field to animation. I made 8mm and 16mm films of my own in college, and edited these things by hand, myself. I am not ignorant on the realities of what can be done with physical film, the old fashioned way.The black cat is out of the bag, and it wont be returning to the archives. Sooner or later, this will be published. We will all get to see these frames.I reccomend that no one take any strong stances on the impossiblity of alteration until they view these critical images. Everyone has been looking at muddy crap for years. I dont know about car stops or cars doing wheelies or flips in the air. I dont know if the turn was taken out or not on various films. (I do think that is possible, and the reason for it probably has to do with making timing measurement's impossible using frames). I remain unsure about that very strangely focused out of place sign.But I do know that the Zapruder film HAS been altered. It had to be, otherwise it wouldnt match the autopsy photos of the rear of JFK's head, and everyone would be looking at a big hole there, where there couldnt have been, if Oswald was the lone gunman.The reason the conspirators did this was because they realized, in the long, long term, that witnesses would die off. History was bound to judge the case on the remaining quiet photos and film of that day, once all were dead who might otherwise condemn them.Unfortunately for the conspirators, researchers like Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, Mary Ferrell, and a great many others kept interviewing witnesses and recording the real history, and kept pushing for the truth.Finally, these new images combine with the recent discoveries of the film in the hands of the CIA's film experts shortly after the assassination to form a solid case that really shouldnt be ignored. Dont look at the wilder theories, look at what is solid evidence.For a great many years, researchers were lulled into a false sense of sureness about the film. Zapruder and Co. seemed to know the whereabouts of the film at all stages. If there was no opportunity for falsifying the dang thing, then, by gum-it, that 8mm filmstrip had to be real.Well. With the discovery of the film being at the CIA's top, top secret filmworks processing center for two successive nights shortly after the assassination, that sort of gums up that idea. How is it this remained completely hidden for decades?With the question of availability now firmly established, and with the CIA's culpability as assassins and framers-of-Oswald established beyond any reasonable doubt, it's really time we seriously took a look at this little bit of film.And looking, for the first time with an actual quality copy, this issue is closed, for this researcher. I know paint when I see it- and I'm a painter.

[dankbaar]

Let me start with a quote from the number 1 expert of the first hour on the Zapruder film, Robert Groden, who brought the film to the public in 1975 and was cognizant, as a phothographical expert of the forgery techniques available at his time: There is absolutely nothing fake about the Zapruder film. All that b.s. paranoia gives so much aid and comfort to the guilty. It’s so irresponsible for those who don’t know an f-stop from a bus stop to try to disregard the single most important piece of evidence that we have. McAdams must be laughing his ass off. Shame on you.Back to Kit Carp: The Zapruder film depicts the wounds and the shots to the head perfectly how they were actually inflicted. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htmI agree the autopsy photos do not. Or better said, some of the autopsy pictures do not. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/autopsy.htmKit Carp, Do you also pose that the Zapruder film was alterered in such a way to conceal a complete stop op the limo?Same question for the Nix and Muchmore films.Wim

[Bob]

In terms of the Zapruder film being altered, I always had some questions about some of the images, but up until about year ago, I thought the film was genuine...with no alterations. The reason I have changed my point of view is the excellent book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK by Douglas Horne. The book is in five volumes, but the volume that talks about the alteration of the Zapruder film is volume 4. (see below)http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Assassinat ... _b_1Volume 4 also talks about what really occurred at Bethesda, and how much of that night was coordinated by the Secret Service...namely Roy Kellerman, with help from Bill Greer.I think if anyone hasn't gotten this book yet, they need to. Start at volume 4. That will make this debate and discussion much easier.Also, you can hear Doug Horne discuss this volume on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer from last year...http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01 ... orne.htmlI also want to say this, although I disagree with Wim about the Zapruder film being altered, I DO agree with Wim about JFK's throat wound. I still say the wound came from a small fragment from the massive head wound that was caused by simultaneous shots by Charles Nicoletti and Jimmy Files, and not a shot to the throat. The Files bullet came from a mercury round. I have a lot of respect for Charles Crenshaw, the doctor from Parkland that said JFK's neck wound was one of entrance. He said there was no tissue tearing, and that is why it had to be an entrance wound. However, if tiny fragments from JFK's head wound from mercury round shot by Jimmy Files came out of the neck, they would also not cause tissue tearing. That is what Thom Robinson said as he watched both the pre-autopsy procedure and the actual autopsy procedure at Bethesda. Robinson said that when doctors tracked JFK's head wound, they found an exit area by the throat as well as the exit area from behind. Robinson said he also saw tiny fragments coming out of JFK's face. Robinson is mentioned a lot in volume 4 in Horne's book as well.

[JDB4JFK]

The Zapruder film clearly shows no exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head so it has obviously been colored in. Also why are so many frames missing? You don't have to hide the truth! Bob why would any of the researchers be surprized that the Zapruder film was altered? They altered the autopsy and autopsy photos, they altered the murder weapon, the majic bullett, the wounds in Connally, and the wounds in JFK, so why the surprise? It's about a 15 to 20 minute drive from Andrews Air Force base to Bethesda, and they left Andrews at 6:06 but didn't arrive at Bethesda until 8:00? Also there is supposely a taped conversation between Air Force One and Andrews Air Force Base on the flight home from Dallas, instructing them to meet them with a helicopter to take the body to Walter Reed Army Hospital for the autopsy. They had to alter the wounds to match the film thats obvious.Also Bob why do you think that Roy Kellerman and Bill Greer were still involved throughout the hole process of JFK's body transpertation and autopsy? I wonder if there the Secret Service agents that also took JFK'S body at gun point away from the Parkland doctors so they couldn't do the autopsy? This assassination has Secret Service DIRTY DEEDS written all over it.

[Kit Carp]

Hi all.It is remarkably easy for anyone who selflessly spends great time and effort, in searching for the truth about the death of JFK, to become "entrenched" at a certain point in their opinions about the the available evidence...and sometimes we can all have a great deal of trouble finding our way when new evidence surfaces, once we have "committed" ourselves, as it were, to a stance.We all are guilty of this from time to time, if we have spent endless years trying to ferret out the truth. One cant help but to eventually decide "I feel this is right", and it honestly can be very hard to move away from that, when new evidence arises.One of the largest problems facing researchers debating various points is that we tend to start taking personally our work. We are easily hurt, feel slighted or insulted when we are wrong about something, or it is suggested we are wrong, or we are right, and no one acknowledges the fact.I have stayed away from that "big site" where the well known researchers "debate" because precisely of this. They are always screaming at one another, hurling insults, and they accomplish little because they are unwilling to consider anything outside of their own little worlds where they "know they are right".It's very hard to make any progress in a situation like that, because of the entrenchment in certain schools or ideas of thought.Generally that is much less pronounced here, and I appreciate the chance to air my opinions on the case. Thank you all.I personally feel that new things keep coming to light from time to time that are relevant to the case, even after all these years. a startling "new" smoking gun is just coming to light in the case as of 2009. This evidence isnt viewable in the older copies of the Zapruder film, not in Groden's copy, not in the much touted dvd released to the public some years back either.By comparsion, the hi-tech digital frames created by the Film Group in California are overwhelmingly clearer, and hold vastly more information than all other versions of the Zapruder film- except for the forensic copy sitting in the National Archives, and, perhaps, the things that the "Museum" in Dallas hides from researchers as best they can.I have copies of Groden, Costella, and the MPI versions of Zapruder. All of them show the Z frames as muddy and unclear. You cant see the edges of the painted artwork in these films, so, anyone trying judging if the film has been tampered with is working at a great compromise compared to anyone viwing the 80 mb frame-each images the Hollywood Film Group has paid to have made.It's really just a matter of technology. The Film Group had access to top of the line, modern, post production equipment and facilities not available before. Side by side, there is just no comparison in quality and crispness, and the frames arent fiddled with for commerical use like the MPI frames....they are neutral scan, honest images, just as they sit in the Archives.Yes, Bob is right about "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK". Just as the Hollywood Film Group has redefined what we can learn from the Zapruder Film, Doug Horne's massive five-decker offers a state of things-now assessment of the Medical Evidence as a whole, and he goes into the particulars of this Film Group's efforts to document the Zapruder Film's alteration in detail more than I can relate here.This is a must have work, for anyone who is researching the case. No one can read his book, and come away from them with any honest belief that physical evidence is the case hasnt been tampered with on a large scale. There is simply too many instances of blatant fraud.The important thing I have to offer, I guess- is that I have seen these new digital Z frames, myself, in person.Obviously, all I can do is relate my observations about what I saw. Equally obviously, until they become pubically available, (as in published), I have no way of backing up my observations. However, I hope my posts in other threads show me to be at least a reasonably thinking, knowledgable and discerning observer. (Even if my spelling occassionally sucks).I generally agree with Dankbaar's critical questioning about some of the other mentioned research of the film. I agree with him a lot of it seems- silly, sloppy and imaginative.I already touched on the matter of the car-stop. I neither believe nor dont believe there was a full stop- I dont know.I have read all of the witness testimony. It is clear that seemingly scores of people, witnesses who were there, rather firmly believed the car DID stop, or "paused". For many of them, it is the one dominant thing they are sure of. It is very clear that none of the films show the car doing anything except slowing down- it's still moving at a fair clip in all the films.These two points cant both be right. One or the other is either mistaken, or evidence altered.The "stoppers" include the motorcycle policement right beside the car. I can see how witnesses further off might THINK the car stopped, as they wished perhaps desperately that it would drive away fast and save the President....but it really is difficult to understand how the cops along side on motorcycles could mistake what is visibly clear movement of maybe 8 miles per hour as a "stop" when they are moving there too. Their perspective on moving motorcycles dont allow for such a mistake. At least, it doesnt make any sense to me.I suppose that changing the car speed via the film would involve only removing/adding frames. If you were speeding up the car, everything else would also speed up- head turns from Kellerman and Greer and so on. This would be relatively easy to accomplish...I could make minor changes like this myself with a simple editing kit. One would need to be careful with the splices. Very, very careful. I remain neutral about all of this- but I dont think it is impossible. Clearly all the films were accessible by the CIA at one point or another, so I dont think anyone can defend the integrity of the films because the criminals couldnt get their hands on them.The removal of the turn would also be a relatively simple fix. I've always felt the most LIKELY reason for the turn removal would be to make the precise speed of the car, and where it exactly is at at any given moment, a lot harder to figure. I agree it's pretty outrageous to contemplate doing this to the other two major films. But, again, I remain firmly uncommitted. I dont know.There is solid proof other picture-type material has been altered, as Dankbaar acknowledges. If the autopsy photos, which were never the property of civilians and were closely watched in a chain of evidence could be altered- if photographs of the Depository could be destroyed in the hands of the HSCA, if a film other than Zapruder could be damaged suspiciously right at the head shot, I would not be so naive as to think it's impossible that frames were added or removed from the film, since there is other proof of frame alteration with painted effects.I mean, for goodness sakes, the Warren Commission's 26 volumes has Z frames switched around in order to accomadate a forward blasted President at exactly the critical moment. This is blatant, undeniable proof of the alteration of the most basic of evidence. Just because Hoover called it a "printing accident" 50 years ago doesnt change what amounts to incredible nerve and blatant disregard for the truth on the part of those covering up the crime.I hope this post doesnt come accross as in any way insulting to those who firmly believe the film is untampered with. I suspect that it won't be a terriblylong wait until these excitingly clear images from Zapruder are published, and when that happens you can bet I will be putting up the particulars here. I am hopeful that the publication of these images on a wide scale will further open peoples eyes to the bombastic nazi-like propaganda hoisted on the public by the paid lone-nut disinformation dispersers.My point is, I ask that we await the publication of this very clear dupe of the Z film, before arriving at firm conclusions one way or the other. This issue isnt whether the car stopped or not, nor whether the sign grows and shrinks, or heads spin around faster than is humanly possible.This issue is whether the film is altered, or it isnt. If ONE thing in the entire film is proven altered in a way that satisfies every reasonable, non-CIA paid person beyond a reasonable doubt, that is all the proof of alteration that is ever going to be needed. That is where I stand.

[Phil Dragoo]

Doug Horne Inside the ARRB Volume IV devotes 200 pages to the film. NPIC conducted two events with two different films on Saturday and Sunday nights using two different sets of personnel.If the authentic film was developed in Dallas and slit there, the alleged authentic unslit film presented by NPIC is a fake.The occipital jet-black trapezoid with remarkably sharp edges is a fraud, a mask, a hoax, a fake.Just as the white areas on the lateral x-rays are faked, just as the 6.5 mm round object on the AP x-ray is faked.James Files saw the back of the head blown out but Zapruder masks this.Both cannot be true and accurate representations.The Church Lady of the Confusatory says Files is lying and Zapruder shows no frontal shot.

[dankbaar]

I already touched on the matter of the car-stop. I neither believe nor dont believe there was a full stop- I dont know.I have read all of the witness testimony. It is clear that seemingly scores of people, witnesses who were there, rather firmly believed the car DID stop, or "paused". For many of them, it is the one dominant thing they are sure of. It is very clear that none of the films show the car doing anything except slowing down- it's still moving at a fair clip in all the films.These two points cant both be right. One or the other is either mistaken, or evidence altered.You need a sea of cautious words to answer (or not answer) a simple yes or no question. You're very firm on alteration of the Z film, but to what extent you cannot say? I asked you whether you believe all three films were altered/remanufactured to conceal a full stop of the car. Your answer is "I don't know" ? You cannot make a choice between One or the other is either mistaken, or evidence altered?Wim

[JDThomas]

JDB4JFK wrote:Also Bob why do you think that Roy Kellerman and Bill Greer were still involved throughout the hole process of JFK's body transpertation and autopsy? I wonder if there the Secret Service agents that also took JFK'S body at gun point away from the Parkland doctors so they couldn't do the autopsy? This assassination has Secret Service DIRTY DEEDS written all over it.Or as a former MOSSAD agent put it when commenting on the case:"You cannot get to the emperor without the help of the imperial guard!"For all their sharp suits and dark glasses, the SS spectacularly failed in their duty to protect the President and the photo and film evidence showed that many of them failed to follow their basic training of what to do ... yet none of them were even disciplined - funny that.Also, as I have tried to point-out in another post, Chris Davidson has discovered that splices have been synched in both the Zappy and the Towner films. Using a correct survey plath, without splicing, the Warren Commission shot timings and shooting angles would be blown out of the water, not just simply being highly improbable. These are gross alterations, yet simple and quick to do and difficult to spot.I believe that they did what they could do with the film - splicing, re-framing and retouching yes, but the head snap was out of their ball-park. Of course, their get out of jail free card was that they never expected that the film would be viewed by the public, let alone to the micro-level of detail that it now is. "Technology marches onward" - that's something else they forgot about or felt that they did not have to worry about.Its also interesting, that the splice misses the limo turn altogether, even though Zappy said that he filmed it and all surviving films are damaged at this point too. .... funny that, though not funny 'HaHa'.

[Kit Carp]

dankbaar wrote:I already touched on the matter of the car-stop. I neither believe nor dont believe there was a full stop- I dont know.I have read all of the witness testimony. It is clear that seemingly scores of people, witnesses who were there, rather firmly believed the car DID stop, or "paused". For many of them, it is the one dominant thing they are sure of. It is very clear that none of the films show the car doing anything except slowing down- it's still moving at a fair clip in all the films.These two points cant both be right. One or the other is either mistaken, or evidence altered.You need a sea of cautious words to answer (or not answer) a simple yes or no question. You're very firm on alteration of the Z film, but to what extent you cannot say? I asked you whether you believe all three films were altered/remanufactured to conceal a full stop of the car. Your answer is "I don't know" ? You cannot make a choice between One or the other is either mistaken, or evidence altered?WimThat's right sir. When you honestly dont know the answer to a question, I find that the best answer is to honestly state that you do not know. For reasons unknown to me, you equate the "car stop" as if it encompasses all opinions on whether the film has been altered. If the film shows other hard evidence of alteration, the car stop is completely moot. There is, obviously a lot of eyewitness evidence pointing to it stopping, but not enough in-film evidence for me to form an opinion about this particular facet of the film. How is this a problem for you? Why does the the car movement matter, if other ironclad evidence proves the film altered?It seems to me better to read, learn, wait on specific subjects until there is enough info to decide. I feel there isnt enough evidence either way on the "car stop", which explains how I can refrain from a "yes " or "no". I am just trying to be a good researcher who is careful.I very specifically answered your question as to the film being altered. One does not even have to consider the car stoppage-ness, to arrive at a firm opinion about the alteration of the film in question.My opinion on alteration of the Zapruder, as I have stated repeatedly and in detail, is based on the painted effects- the artwork, found on the rear of the JFK's head AFTER frame 314 of the Zapruder film. Animation, painted effects, these are areas that fall into my professional line of work. The alteration is readily visible on the frames I viewed, which came straight from the archives, and wasn't a bootleg that was unclear. The artwork on JFK is obvious to me. The speed of the car has nothing, repeat, no relevance, one way or the other, on how I have arrived at this opinion.I think you will find I am always cautious and that I have no yes or no answers to many questions on the case. That is because a lot of the questions simply dont have readily obvious answers as far as I am concerned- I am not trying to be cute, obtuse or obnoxious by not giving an answer about the movement of the car, sir; I just dont know.