Jump to content
The Education Forum

Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2


Recommended Posts

What I know comes from Don Thomas and Doug Horne. I believe they are better suited to discuss this subject with you than I am.

This is funny, George.  I don't know what Carer's background is but I can tell you I worked on 8mm film 35 years ago when I was in college.  I made several short movies with that medium, one being stop motion. I had a camera, the film, and a small film editing cutter where I had to splice the film to make my edits, very, very different than the videos I make today using Adobe Premiere and After Effects.

I can tell you, looking back on those experiences, it doesn't make me an expert at it but it gives me plenty of insight to tell you that what you are expecting the Bad Guys to have done, removing frames, painting in blobs, and pasting in objects like lamp posts - and for who knows what reason as many people who expect that that's what happened STILL to this day have still not told us WHY these alterations had to have been done - was impossible to have been done back in 1963.

Have you watched the '63 film The Birds?  Watch the crow chasing scene.  I've never been all that impressed with Hitchcock's movies and I actually believe he was a pretty lazy director because he liked to sit in his chair and direct as much as possible indoors.  And the crow chasing scene contains a lot of the "best" special effects of that era when you see the kids running down the street.  That was the best they could do and you can tell it's all pretty fake.

And yet, as I've said numerous times, we're expected to believe that major alterations were done on the Z film on the weekend of the assassination and the film we see today contains those alterations?

And as Carter pointed out above and I said several times elsewhere on EF, one of the earliest times we can get a glimpse of what the government was actually seeing of the Z film - but the public still did not have that opportunity to do so - was the FBI "eyes only" film on what happened. In that version, in black and white, is the exact same film we see today.  What does that mean?  It means that if they had performed elaborate special effects in the Z film that completely covered up any semblance of conspiracy as seen in it, why didn't they then show it on TV for all to see?

They didn't because the BW copy in that FBI film IS the one and same film that came out of Z's camera.

What makes Doug Horne any more of an expert on this film than Carter, or myself, or Zavada, who DID handle the film, thoroughly expecting it? Because Horne interviewed two government officials who saw the film? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael W

The original Zapruder film was used by Dino Brugioni to make the first set of briefing boards. Before Homer McMahon made the second set the original was altered. Only minor alterations were performed; touch up paint, splicing and removal of frames. 

The touch up paint job on Kennedy´s head is obvious, but it´s the best that could be done at the time. They wanted to hide the huge hole in the back of Kennedy´s head. 

A splice was made to join Z-208 with Z-212 due to the alleged damage to five frames, Z-208-212.

The spray that spurts out as a bullet hits Kennedy in the head was lessened because of the touch up paint job, IMHO. Frames  were removed and the remaining were spliced.

Later on, frames Z-158 -160 were discolored to hide the effects of Kennedy arching his back as a result of being shot in the back. IMHO, frames were removed and added to show Kennedy smiling throughout this segment of the film, eventhough a loud backfire like shot occurred. The altered film shows that Kennedy didn´t even flinch in response to the ¨backfire¨ sound. Also, as shown by a poster on this forum, John Butler, people standing on the sidewalk looking at the motorcade are there in one film but not there in another. This indicates frames have been removed. This part of the Zapruder film, all frames before Z-173 were not turned into the Warren Commission for their investigation.

Edited by George Sawtelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff

Shortly after Homer McMahon finished his job on the second set of briefing boards, copies of the altered original were made and given to the SS and FBI. The copies that were made in Dallas were destroyed. The altered original was handed back to Zapruder and then recovered by LIFE through negotiation with Zapruder.

What this means is that not one Zap film seen on the internet shows frames Z-208 to Z-212.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jeff

Shortly after Homer McMahon finished his job on the second set of briefing boards, copies of the altered original were made and given to the SS and FBI. The copies that were made in Dallas were destroyed. The altered original was handed back to Zapruder and then recovered by LIFE through negotiation with Zapruder.

What this means is that not one Zap film seen on the internet shows frames Z-208 to Z-212.

hi George

I am sorry but I don’t know what to say at this point. Zapruder frames Z-208 through Z-212 can be viewed in the folder created by John Costella which was shared with you previously, and those frames appear, for instance, in the motion sequence created by NPI for the “Images of an Assassination” DVD. These frames, from first generation prints, do not have the inter sprocket information seen on the original. 

Zapruder handed over the original film to LIFE on Saturday Nov 23, 1963. So if an “altered original” was to be swapped on Monday Nov 25, that would have happened directly with LIFE. LIFE also had a print which would need to be swapped, and also a check of frame blowups done Saturday/Sunday would have to occur, to be sure no compromising information was appearing in those. LIFE employees who handled the original film would have to be screened. There is no evidence that any of the above occurred.

Alteration to the Zapruder film is a suspicion, not a fact. No hard evidence has yet appeared to support that such a thing did happen. 

You said - “The touch up paint job on Kennedy´s head is obvious…”

This is why I referred you Sherry Fiester’s book, as her detailed Chapter Three discusses this, and does not support the notion of alteration in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff

I´ve provided a chain of events that would be necessary for alteration of the original. What I have written is my analysis of the evidence as presented by Horne and Thomas. Anyone who has access to the evidence may do their analysis and come up with something that either agrees with mine or takes off in another direction. I might add that my analysis is basically Horne´s.

Your evidence has come from your own experience and Sherry Fiester´s book. You may have mentioned other sources however I haven´t gone back and read all your posts on this subject. Whatever evidence you used you apparently have performed an analysis and you made conclusions. And that´s fine.

So there is really no disagreement between you and me. The disagreement results from the evidence that we have used in our analysis.

The most important points of Horne´s evidence:

1. Zapruder gave the original to rep from LIFE.

2. Brugioni used the original to make one set of briefing boards.

3. McMahon used the original to make a second set of briefing boards.

OBSERVATION: Brugioni makes briefing boards from the original and McMahon makes briefing boards from the original.  If the original hasn.t been altered why make two sets of briefing boards? The fact that McMahon also makes briefing boards means the original used by Brugioni was altered.

4. The government can´t have different films floating around so the copies made in Dallas are destroyed and copies of the original are made and handed to the SS, CIA, and FBI.

5. The altered original is returned to Zapruder and there is no problem if he makes copies and gives them to whoever.

Thank you Douglas Horne for letting us know what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2017 at 9:05 AM, Michael Walton said:
 
 

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. 

 
 

c'mon Mr. Walton, you can do better that that can't ya? And, green screen compositing? Either you're a little rusty concerning film compositing techniques circa. 1963 or, ignorant concerning the entire subject of special effects (film) cinematography... and dragging Jackie into the conversation? No class, sir!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2017 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Carter said:
 

hi David

"re-constituting" the Z-film in the manner you have suggested was not possible, Hollywood special effects lab or not. You frequently cite the book Techniques of Special Effects Cinematography by Raymond Fielding. But Fielding’s own opinion of Zapruder film alteration is clear: “in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available … if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963, the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny … challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation … are technically naïve.”

Your claim it makes "no difference what 8mm film stock the finished stock ended up on" is not a viable surmise. All film stocks have particular grain structure and exposure indexes, and alteration would need to match the particulars of the Kodachrome stock of the original. Zavada discusses this on page 18 of his response to Horne, which has been pointed out to you previously.

I do agree that American taxpayers were poorly served. That the film copyright is in effect is controlled by the Sixth Floor Museum - which has not hesitated to request large fees for use of the film, as Shane O'Sullivan has attested - is outrageous. 

 

Jeff, Hi, and BS re "professional scrutiny"! Here's a simple test, Jeff. How do YOU, or, a post-production film lab tech "prove" the Kodachrome II Zap film currently stored at NARA is a 1963 in-camera, 8mm film original? And don't go to Rollie Zavada's canned report re the Zapruder film. I asked Rollie the same question years ago, amongst other questions. Dr. John Costella had a few questions and comments too...

Actually, Rollie was suppose to appear at the 2003 Univ. of Minn Symposium (Jack White, John Costella, David Mantik and David Lifton and myself) on the Zapruder Film. He never showed up. That was a shame, and I told him same. He did tell me though he's an expert re the make-up of 8mm film (which I knew from his Zavada Report). He did admit to be a bit short on professional film compositing experience and knowledge, that's why he sought Professor Fielding input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Healey, I don't want to get into an argument with you here since it seems like you're pretty set that fakery was added to the film. But it's obvious you didn't even bother to read the links I posted.  FYI - there was *no such thing* as green screening in 1963.  Instead, they used the SV process which was probably the best way they knew how back then to put moving people in front of a projected or matte background.

You probably won't bother to go to this link as well but be my guest and see if you can catch the faked element I added into this copy of the Z film. It was done in a hurry but even by today's standards, with digital equipment, it'd be hard to pass muster with faked stuff added in 50 years ago.  FYI - only one other person bothered to look at it and caught the faked element so hurray for that person for being eagle eyed.

Z Film with Fake Element

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

Jeff, Hi, and BS re "professional scrutiny"! Here's a simple test, Jeff. How do YOU, or, a post-production film lab tech "prove" the Kodachrome II Zap film currently stored at NARA is a 1963 in-camera, 8mm film original? And don't go to Rollie Zavada's canned report re the Zapruder film. I asked Rollie the same question years ago, amongst other questions. Dr. John Costella had a few questions and comments too...

Actually, Rollie was suppose to appear at the 2003 Univ. of Minn Symposium (Jack White, John Costella, David Mantik and David Lifton and myself) on the Zapruder Film. He never showed up. That was a shame, and I told him same. He did tell me though he's an expert re the make-up of 8mm film (which I knew from his Zavada Report). He did admit to be a bit short on professional film compositing experience and knowledge, that's why he sought Professor Fielding input.

hi David

How does one “prove”…? Zavada’s report combines characteristics of what would be expected if the film was a 1963 in-camera original - which all exist - with characteristics expected if the film had been reconstituted through an alteration process - which don’t exist. But I notice you have dismissed Zavada’s report. Your dismissal would have more substance if you could a) offer a substantive critique of a flaw in Zavada’s analysis or B) demonstrate a film practice which runs counter to established wisdom. 

i.e. what “proof” do you have the film has been altered?  All I have ever seen is the waving of the Fielding book as constituting some kind of proof of the possibility - even as Fielding himself asserts that you do not know what you are talking about. But I see you dismiss Fielding now too (“professional scrutiny BS”). 

The alteration argument seems to consist of identifying anomalies within the film, and then positing that alteration or fakery must be the single answer to these assumed anomalies. The lack of a limousine slow-down is the most frequently cited anomaly, but clearly such slow-down is in fact visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2017 at 11:50 AM, Jeff Carter said:

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.

Hi there Jeff (great work on the BYP too !)

I can appreciate the assumption - yet what do we have to offer any conclusive proof of that?  Any documentation that gets it from Rowley's desk to the next stop?

Thanks Jeff...  I'd also be interested in your thoughts about Zapruder filming at 48fps.  A film with over 1200 frames at 48fps cut down to 486 gives us 18.3fps on a camera that only has 16 & 48 fps settings...  (btw - the 3 degree incline on Elm works out to 18.3':1' run over rise... just sayin')

Make the cuts, cover up a blob or two and then refilm it with Zapruder's camera...  we now have a new full flush left original that no one wants to let Doug Horne test for the difference between Kodachrome II and Kodachrome IIA...   I guess what I'm saying is we needn't make the alteration so complicated, the jumpiness of the film makes it fairly easy to hide this removal...What's to prevent 0184, or any copy of the original that day with full flush left images from being sent?  And I thought I remember reading a quote from Mrs. Zapruder saying the SS comes by Friday eve and takes the original with them... it's from Fetzer's compilation so I'm not sure.

and finally, if the film was accurate there would be no need for Shaneyfelt/Frasier to create POSITION A supported by Truly's testimony about the side turn... as well as realign each of the frame references as well as disgregard the results of the earlier surveys.....   all this screams a cover-up of the data to make reconstruction impossible.

Wasn't it Tom Wilson who said the film did not add up as it progresses thru Dealey... especially at the head shot...  

Food for thought... thatnks for the great work

DJ

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frame movement leading up to data that states the limo traveled at 2.24 or 3.74mph (depending on what version of CE884 you choose to use) from extant zframes 161-166 or z168-z171. Nice head turn also.

Extant film including tape across z154, missing z155-156 and a 157 splice.

 

151-163-frame-jump1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi David J - I'll have to respond piecemeal...

re: Rowley print

I concur with Chris Scally that it was the Rowley print which was used at NPIC for the Brugioni event. Brugioni said the work was led and directed by  Secret Service agents who arrived with the film, and their response to Pearse suggests that they in turn were following predetermined instructions. 
 
The Brugioni briefing boards are a missing JFK Record, last seen in 1975. Secret Service also had a set of same, also missing. Maybe destroyed with other items in 1992?
 
My line of inquiry suggests the first (Brugioni) NPIC analysis was covered up because its conclusions could not be reconciled with the developing lone nut paradigm (I suspect too many shots in area around the Stemmons sign). An alteration analysis holds that the Brugioni event was covered up because alteration on the film subsequently ensued. 
 
We can at least agree that an NPIC event was covered up, and there is a missing record to be found or at least try to establish when and maybe why it was destroyed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Frame movement leading up to data that states the limo traveled at 2.24 or 3.74mph (depending on what version of CE884 you choose to use) from extant zframes 161-166 or z168-z171. Nice head turn also.

Extant film including tape across z154, missing z155-156 and a 157 splice.

 

151-163-frame-jump1.gif

hi Chris

I have to admit I find many of your posts rather cryptic.

Did you have a chance to see the article, particularly the section on the Z-film not being a clock (spring-wound camera)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi David J - I'll have to respond piecemeal...

re: Rowley print

I concur with Chris Scally that it was the Rowley print which was used at NPIC for the Brugioni event. Brugioni said the work was led and directed by  Secret Service agents who arrived with the film, and their response to Pearse suggests that they in turn were following predetermined instructions. 
 
The Brugioni briefing boards are a missing JFK Record, last seen in 1975. Secret Service also had a set of same, also missing. Maybe destroyed with other items in 1992?
 
My line of inquiry suggests the first (Brugioni) NPIC analysis was covered up because its conclusions could not be reconciled with the developing lone nut paradigm (I suspect too many shots in area around the Stemmons sign). An alteration analysis holds that the Brugioni event was covered up because alteration on the film subsequently ensued. 
 
We can at least agree that an NPIC event was covered up, and there is a missing record to be found or at least try to establish when and maybe why it was destroyed.

Interesting Jeff...  I've spoken with Chris a number of times and don't remember his mentioning that....  I too thought Sat's Dino event was 20 hours after the film is in DC...

Quite a lot can be done in 20 hours....   Any thoughts about the 48fps speed throughout?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...