Jeff Carter Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 hi Jim “In late January 2000, about six months after the arbitration decision was reached, our family donated the copyright in the Zapruder film to the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, the Dallas Museum that educates the public about President Kennedy’s assassination and memorializes him on the site where he was killed.” Alexandra Zapruder, Twenty-Six Seconds p 413 hi George That's frame 208. Maybe someone can step forward and direct to an online resource with numbered frames. Also, the third chapter of Sherry Fiester's book "Enemy of the Truth" is a discussion of issues such as the "brain matter" as seen in the film, which might clarify some of what you referenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: hi Jim “In late January 2000, about six months after the arbitration decision was reached, our family donated the copyright in the Zapruder film to the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, the Dallas Museum that educates the public about President Kennedy’s assassination and memorializes him on the site where he was killed.” Alexandra Zapruder, Twenty-Six Seconds p 413 hi George That's frame 208. Maybe someone can step forward and direct to an online resource with numbered frames. Also, the third chapter of Sherry Fiester's book "Enemy of the Truth" is a discussion of issues such as the "brain matter" as seen in the film, which might clarify some of what you referenced. This any good,Jeff? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 George, here is something even better for you: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Go there and you can look at and download each and every frame of the film, including the ones you think are missing. Jeff, I've always believed that right after he throws up his hands due to the throat shot hit, he's hit almost immediately afterward in the back. For another thread I made this video but it describes this sequence. That head bob has always done it for me. At least that's my interpretation of it. Then a second later JBC gets hit, totally destroying the craziness of the SBT: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 It's funny that within one hour experts could prove if the Nat. Arch. Zappi film the originial or a copie and fake: Zapruder used an Kodak outdoor film. To make copies you have to use an indoor film, with different dye on it. (Because of the different light conditions indoor ...) quote David Lifton, PIG ON LEASH ( A Scene out of the ARRB, back in the 90ties ...) For Zavada to even make such a suggestion ( to scrutinize the dye on the film) shows that he is one very smart guy, and, more important, apparentnly had some suspicions and had engaged in enough thinking “outside the box”i to come up with a “thought experiment” for a quick test to see if this kind of hanky panky was going on. The dyes in K-II and K-IIA are different, and Zavada broached the suggestion (to Doug, at Least) that a single frame of the film be snipped for use with a spectrometer. The frame Doug had in mind was one of the thirteen at the beginning of the film. It would not be history’s loss if there was one less frame (than the 13 already there) of Zapruder’s secretary sitting in the pergola, before the motorcade appeared.Doug told me what happened. For David Marwell, it was completely out of the question; and ridiculous. As for Gunn, he rolled his eyes in disbelief. The fact is: this test is perfectly sensible. If the emulsion and the dyes check out, that wouldn’t prove it was authentic, but should they be shown to be “indoor film,” then that would constitute dispositive evidence of forgery. (The ARRB never did that test ...) close quote KK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Scally Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Jeff: Excellent article, very fair and balanced, as are your later comments in this post. Personally, I find it very frustrating to listen to this debate about how the film could have been "manipulated" by the CIA/FBI/Hawkeye on the night of the assassination, or early the next day. Zapruder didn't give the original film to Richard Stolley of Life until mid-Saturday morning, and Stolley sent it directly to Life in Chicago. Three black-and-white copies were made off the then-still-unslit camera-original film in Chicago that evening during the preparation for Life's November 29 issue, which actually appeared on the following Tuesday/Wednesday, as I recall, and in which some of those B&W frames appeared. It was not until after those three B&W copies were made that the well-known damage to the film was done by a Life lab technician in Chicago that same evening. In July 2011 I had the very great fortune to view and study one of those three copies, and I will happily go to meet my maker in the certain and unshakable belief that the film had not been altered or manipulated in any way at that time. Karl, you are absolutely correct - the ARRB failed/refused to conduct proper or effective tests suggested by Zavada on both the original film and on Zapruder's actual camera. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Personally I've been more interested in the Rowley film in DC late FRIDAY night. This would be the first and earliest film no longer in Dallas. Yet I've not seen or read what happens to that film once in Rowley's hands. With more than 20 hours before it even gets to Dino... what is going on with that copy and why couldn't it have been used to create the replacement original before films start leaving Dallas on Saturday? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 David Healy - Hollywood production... Sure, Dave, sure. They had a bevy of "Hollywood" editors, matte artists, and painters at the ready. They even had Hitchcock, pulled away from The Birds, on stand by to direct it all. One thing they shot down was he wanted to incorporate the sodium vapor process to mask out the front head shots, but that would have required the car, Jackie, and the Connallys to be flown to Hollywood to film it all. So he just reverted to blobs. "Just paint in blobs," was his lone direction before leaving disgruntled. Do you not see how silly this sounds? http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/hollywoods-history-of-faking-it-the-evolution-of-greenscreen-compositing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_vapor_process David Josephs, FWIW, you did a nice job on the Mexico City caper. I try to look at this case as "how does the ends justify the means?" The MC caper, IMO, has a real "means" to it. In the continuing quest to make Lee look like a wildman Communist, they had him picking fights and handing out leaflets in NO; they had people lining up out the door "testifying" that he beat his wife; they had hilariously overdone pictures of him holding all of his weapons (and some leftwing newspapers to boot); and yes, one more "ends" to justify the means was making up the story that he was down in MC, supposedly cavorting with a Russian assassin and raising hell. But this is where many CT-ers get themselves in trouble just because of what one person said in the testimony, or because one other official said he didn't see something and suddenly, the whole thing is blown out of proportion. "Yep, there's the proof. This guy put some briefing boards together but he didn't see anything for several hours. Yep, there's the proof the film was being squirreled away to be altered." There are no "ends" here because it would have been impossible to remove what the film shows. The film we see today SHOWS plenty in it to destroy the SBT. So if they knew that, why in the world didn't they at least try to remove it? They didn't because it's far easier to keep the film from the public (which they did) and have their folks in the media lie about it (which they did). CT-ers should be grateful that Zapruder was there that day to film it. Can you imagine what this case would be like if he had not been? The Muchmore and Nix films and stills would be all we'd have and those - combined - show nothing compared to the Z film. But for some odd and strange and weird reason, many CT-ers want it all - they want a shooter in the storm drain right next to the car; they want blobs painted into the Z film; they want Jackie or Greer shooting JFK; they want the umbrella guy shooting a dart; they want the three guys standing down on the steps, one of them holding a black pistol in his hand; they want a 12 year old Lee and his 12 year old Hungarian clone, and their near identical mothers - one smiling and one sad with a unibrow - walking around way back in 1953 for some untold and unforseen caper to take place years later. To be honest, it's incredibly scary how the human mind works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 8 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said: It's funny that within one hour experts could prove if the Nat. Arch. Zappi film the originial or a copie and fake: Zapruder used an Kodak outdoor film. To make copies you have to use an indoor film, with different dye on it. (Because of the different light conditions indoor ...) quote David Lifton, PIG ON LEASH ( A Scene out of the ARRB, back in the 90ties ...) For Zavada to even make such a suggestion ( to scrutinize the dye on the film) shows that he is one very smart guy, and, more important, apparentnly had some suspicions and had engaged in enough thinking “outside the box”i to come up with a “thought experiment” for a quick test to see if this kind of hanky panky was going on. The dyes in K-II and K-IIA are different, and Zavada broached the suggestion (to Doug, at Least) that a single frame of the film be snipped for use with a spectrometer. The frame Doug had in mind was one of the thirteen at the beginning of the film. It would not be history’s loss if there was one less frame (than the 13 already there) of Zapruder’s secretary sitting in the pergola, before the motorcade appeared.Doug told me what happened. For David Marwell, it was completely out of the question; and ridiculous. As for Gunn, he rolled his eyes in disbelief. The fact is: this test is perfectly sensible. If the emulsion and the dyes check out, that wouldn’t prove it was authentic, but should they be shown to be “indoor film,” then that would constitute dispositive evidence of forgery. (The ARRB never did that test ...) close quote KK hi Karl The higher-ups at ARRB were not going to sanction damaging the film in support of, what may have seemed to them, a fishing expedition. Information mitigating against forgery - observable grain consistent with Kodachrome II, no technology available to accomplish the task, no time to do the deed, etc - had already been articulated. And it is clear, by the paragraph you shared, that the proposed “sensible” test would not have settled anything - “If the emulsion and dyes check out, that wouldn’t prove it was authentic…” One thing about the Z-film and ARRB which is interesting is that the film’s private ownership continued to hamper its analysis. Roland Zavada: “…tremendous complexity introduced by LMH Co. (established by Zapruder’s heirs) in their challenge to demand copyright license before any of the photographs I had taken could be used in the Kodak report…” see page 2 & 3 of his open letter. That is exactly what LIFE did to Josiah Thompson in 1967, except LIFE refused any access to the film and sued over reproduction (hand drawings based on frames). In 1998 the demand was compensation for using frame images in a report for the ARRB. In both instances it was ruled that use of the film was “fair use”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 5 hours ago, David Josephs said: Personally I've been more interested in the Rowley film in DC late FRIDAY night. This would be the first and earliest film no longer in Dallas. Yet I've not seen or read what happens to that film once in Rowley's hands. With more than 20 hours before it even gets to Dino... what is going on with that copy and why couldn't it have been used to create the replacement original before films start leaving Dallas on Saturday? Anyone know? hi David You are right that there is very little to account for the Rowley copy received in DC late Friday. It is my understanding that copy did not have the inter-sprocket information of the original. So if that copy had been altered, that work would subsequently required a further effort to join the alteration with the missing information from the original. The alteration would have generational loss that the added missing information would not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Jeff I´m interested in an extant film that includes Z-208-212. Frames won´t do. Have you seen the film that includes the damaged frames in question? If so I would like to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Jeff Sherry Conway I´m sure is a very competent forensic detective. I would believe what she says about blood splatter. If her analysis on the Kennedy spray from his head is not counter to the law of gravity I agree with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 hi George The Secret Service made a film late ’63/early ’64 about their reenactment, which features a black and white version of the Z-film - probably derived from one of their copies - which features the undamaged frames. Can be seen at around the 8 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkOp-y2do0 It is a poor print. I’ve seen better - maybe someone can point to a better version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Chris Doug Horne explains what occurred during the time the original arrived at the NPIC and when the second set of briefing boards were made. He says there was about 10 hours at which time alterations could have been made (between the making of the first set of briefing boards and the second). Alterations as simple as splicing, frame removal, touch up paint. Why two sets of briefing boards? Leads to questions about conspiracy. And why make briefing boards? Why not show McCord the film and let him make up his own mind. I´m sure in two days the SS can find a projector and screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Jeff Thank you. It´s not conclusive. When the ¨film¨ shows the limo in slow motion passing behind the freeway sign frames are shown and when the limo passes fast behind the sign it´s much too fast. The first question I would ask is ... why would the Warren Commission use a copy from LIFE with frames missing when the SS had a complete copy of the Zap film? I´m sure the Warren Commission asked the other government agencies who had copies for their complete copy but the FBI, SS, or CIA did not come forth with their copies. Which leads me to believe the other agencies who had copies did not have complete copies. The Warren Commission used flawed evidence for the most important investigation in the history of the United States when they could have used a complete copy that was not flawed (assuming one was in existence). Not only were frames Z-208-212 missing but all frames of LIFE´s copy before frame Z-173 were missing. LIFE gave no explanation why frames Z-135-172 were missing. So the Warren Commission never saw the effects of the backfire (firecracker) shot and the throat shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 hi George If four or so consecutive frames were missing from the SS film there would be a distinct jump, much as seen in the spliced versions. The Warren Commission received a copy of the film from LIFE in December 1963. That copy likely not struck from the damaged original but from their copy, and so would be intact although 2nd generation. Also the FBI had a copy which they made from the borrowed Secret Service print and that also was intact. In February it was requested that the original be made available because, according to LIFE memo, “the FBI having trouble determining the trajectories of the shots.” The original was examined February 25 1964, and at that time LIFE agreed to make 35mm transparencies of Z frames 171-434 from the original. The FBI’s Shaneyfelt apparently set that range, describing it as “pertinent.” LIFE was never “missing” Z frames other than the damaged ones. Alexandra Zapruder should get credit for presenting a more detailed and complete “official” timeline of the film, with the addition of LIFE’s internal records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now