Jump to content


Spartacus

Zapruder Film


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,096 posts

Posted 01 April 2004 - 06:42 AM

The Question I would like to ask the panel is:

Is it possible that the Zapruder footage may be digitally altered in the future to show JFK being blown FORWARD and to validate the LHO theory and do you think it is suspicous that the film is now owned by the government?


This question will of course be answered in detail by the panel. However, in the meantime here are a few comments on the Zapruder Film.

There were great suspicions about the Zapruder film from the beginning. Within hours of the assassination Zapruder had sold the 26-second film for $150,000 to Time-Life magazine, which published individual frames but did not allow the film to be screened in its entirety.

The Zapruder film first appeared on national television in March, 1975. The Zapruder film showed Kennedy's violent backward and leftward movement. This convinced many that the fatal head shot come from the Grassy Knoll. Others used the film to argue that it supported the lone-gunman theory put forward by the Warren Commission.

Some writers such as Noel Twyman, David Lifton, Jack White, John Costella and David Mantik have claimed that the Zapruder Film has been tampered with. They have pointed out that the film conflicts with the large number of witnesses who claimed that the limousine stopped after the first shot had been fired. This included the two people standing closest to the limousine, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman, and the four police motorcyclist nearest Kennedy's car.

Detailed analysis of the film has revealed that the limousine displays a variety of irregular movements, including travelling only ten feet within 21 frames between Z-197 and Z-218 (this is only about one half of the expected distance).

Noel Twyman carried out detailed research into the actions of William Greer in the Zapruder film. He discovered that Greer's rapid head turns between Z302 to Z-304 and Z-315 to Z-317 appeared impossibly fast. Experiments were carried out with athletic subjects repeating Greer's actions. These showed that no one was able to reproduce this angular speed. Twyman concluded that frames of the film had been removed therefore speeding up the actions of Greer.

We hope to have two of these experts (Jack White and John Costella) to answer questions on the Zapruder Film. You can see some of their comments at:

http://www.spartacus...FKzapruderF.htm

I would also suggest the book The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (edited by James H. Fetzer) that was published last year.

#2 McGoo

McGoo

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 10 April 2004 - 01:16 AM

Two theories.

Firstly various other films such as that shot by Orville Nix appear to fit with the timing of the Zapruder film which makes me doubt that it has been edited to any great extent. A camera dropping frames, say 1 in 13 every now and then may produce similar results as the irregular physical actions of some of the subjects.

Second, the entire conspiracy/lone-gunman arguement is based on the Zapruder film and other images and audio recorded during the assassination. The CIA, FBI, MI5 etc. etc. use a very powerful opinion manipulation method where by misinforming and confusing us, they can make us believe anything, or dis-believe as the case may be. The Zapruder film may be a classic example of this.

Using the excuse that the people of America were not ready to witness the Zapruder film until Geraldo first aired it in 1975 would have given them 12 years to work on the film to show us what they wanted us to see. If the film in any way halped to clear things up and give us an idea who was involved, do you think it would have been aired, ever? If it was expected to muddy the waters and make people even more confused then it worked well. The more opinions and theories they can construct the less likely we are of ever finding the truth.

#3 Martin Shackelford

Martin Shackelford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 09:08 AM

I'll add a few minor points to the matter of the Zapruder film, about which I've written more extensively elsewhere.

The Zapruder film was viewed on the day of the assassination by lab employees after it was processed. It wasn't sold to LIFE until the following day, after being viewed by Secret Service agents and media representatives.

Although Time-LIFE didn't allow public showings of the film, it was available for viewing at the National Archives following the Warren Commission Report's publication, and many researchers viewed it there.

The film was also repeatedly publicly shown in 1969 at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans, after which bootleg copies circulated widely. The film was also shown at JFK conferences beginning in 1973.

The idea that anyone had 12 years to "work on" the film is, of course, untenable. No one who saw in on November 22 or 23, 1963 has alleged alteration, and the film was readily viewable by researchers by late 1964, which would be a maximum of 12 months, not 12 years.

Many of us had seen the film before it was shown on television in March 1975.

I have examined the arguments alleging alteration of the film, and have found nothing convincing in them. I have also examined the Zavada Report, which seems to firmly establish the film at the Archives is the camera original. The two Secret Service copies of the film are also at the Archives (no missing frames).

Although the limousine slowed considerably, it didn't stop. Witnesses alongside the limousine mostly support this - and most witnesses who report a stop were viewing the limo from behind. I don't recall any early statement by Moorman, Hill or the motorcycle officers that the limo stopped. Some confusion has resulted from the fact that the Warren Commission used an average speed, when the limo went both faster and slower than the average at various points.

Noel Twyman's claims regarding the Greer head turn are without merit. I would say the same about the alteration claims of Jack White, David Mantik, David Lifton, John Costella and others.

"McGoo" is correct in noting that the Zapruder film is consistent with the other films of the assassination. Jack White has responded to this by claiming that ALL of the films were altered, which only adds to the absurdities.

#4 John Costella

John Costella

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, California
  • Interests:See johncostella.com

Posted 26 April 2004 - 01:36 AM

Hi all,

Just popping my head in to say that I am here, some of the time anyway. I'm spread pretty thin at the moment, so please understand that.

I'm not sure yet how much of The Great Zapruder Filx Hoax has been summarised here, so I won't repeat everything in the book, but will just address specific issues. (I will usually refer to the book as "HOAX" for simplicity.)

So far I see the Nix and Muchmore films being mentioned, and Martin Shackelford (gday Martin, long time no see) espousing the "unbroken chain of custody" line. Both of these are covered in some detail in HOAX, but I'll give an outline here.

The most time-critical task in the fabrication of the photographic evidence was the creation of the Zapruder film. Poor quality black and white images of individual frames were published within two days of the assassination; high quality colour images followed within a week. No section of the film was published in its entirety until the continuous sequence of frames published in the Warren volumes, a year after the assassination. Until then, it was just individual photographic images, which were alleged to be from a motion picture film taken by Zapruder.

The Nix and Muchmore films received far less attention, and the time restrictions on their alteration or fabrication are much looser.

David Healy's chapter in HOAX (together with my own observations) demonstrate that the fabrication of the Zapruder film in 1963 was well within these constraints. Creation of the other two films (which are much shorter and of much poorer quality) would be much easier.

It has been emphasised by all authors in HOAX -- without exception, I think -- that the fact that the Zapruder film has been fabricated by logical necessity implies that the Nix and Muchmore have been altered or fabricated, based on what we believe actually happened in Dealey Plaza. David Mantik also provides in HOAX some evidence that the Muchmore film seems to be a complete fabrication, based on anomalies in the way that the frames are blurred, although this is a statistical argument, rather than the direct violation of the laws of physics that I demonstrated for the Zapruder film frames.

It is logically absurd to claim that the authenticity of the most tightly-controlled film (the Zapruder film) can somehow be "proved" by showing its agreement with other, less tightly-controlled films. Rather, the logic flows the other way. If the Z was fabricated, then the other two films needed to be brought into agreement.

As for Martin's "unbroken chain of custody", this argument is a favourite of those who like to place their complete faith in the Zapruder film, while at the same time admitting that most of the other physical evidence in the assassination has been altered or fabricated. It is an appealing argument, until it is broken down and analysed. It relies on blurring the distinction between VIEWING copies of the film and PUBLISHING copies of the film to millions of readers. The latter is a "toothpaste out of the tube" exercise: once you've published something in LIFE or the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune, it's distributed on paper to millions of readers and you will never be able to retract them all.

Viewing a copy of the film, in contrast, is completely different. As I note in HOAX, those who viewed it once, or a few times, or even a dozen times, in the days after the assassination would not have "retained" more than the basic scenario of what happened, and that they saw the President's head almost blown right off.

For the purposes of people VIEWING the film, it was relatively simple with 1963 technology to alter the gross aspects of what is depicted in the film, within a matter of hours at most (see David Healy's chapter in HOAX). What those early viewers saw (including, famously, Dan Rather) was probably something intermediate between genuine footage of the event, and what we now have as "the Zapruder film", which is probably why events were described differently by those early viewers of the film. (Dan Rather describes the President's head being blown FORWARD, not "back and to the left"; surveyors using frames from the film for a reconstruction reported a number of frames showing blobs of bloody matter ejected from the REAR of the President's head, which of course are no longer in the film; and so on.) Even Abraham Zapruder himself insisted that he filmed the limo as it turned the corner onto Elm, but this is not present in the extant "Zapruder" film.

There are many more issues that we could go into, covered in HOAX, namely, that there are serious doubts as to whether Zapruder was even filming, or at least whether he was filming for the whole duration of the shots; that Zapruder's thick spectacles would have made it almost impossible to look through the viewfinder of the camera, and there was no optical correction; that he claimed that the viewfinder gave him a zoomed view of the event, whereas it actually doesn't; that the only known photograph of Zapruder using his camera shows that his eye is not looking through the viewfinder at all; that there are three fundamentally different versions of Zapruder's signature in existence, one of which appears on an FBI statement and one on his alleged contract with Time-Life, which cannot have been signed by the same man; and so on.

The can of worms really is endless.

You really gotta read the book. I'm not trying to make royalties (I don't get a cent from it) -- borrow it from the library and read it for all I care.

Hope that gives members here a flavour of what the Z film arguments are about.
John

#5 John Costella

John Costella

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, California
  • Interests:See johncostella.com

Posted 26 April 2004 - 01:38 AM

Sorry, a glitch at this end caused me to post a reply twice. I can't find the "delete" button so this is my replacement text.

:D

John

PS Let me mention something I glossed over in Martin's post. The Zavada Report does a good job of proving that the strip of film that the US Government paid US$16,000,000 for, stored in their National Archives, is a genuine strip of Kodak celluloid of 1963 vintage. Roland Zavada himself takes great pains to emphasise that he was NOT authorised, empowered or qualified to determine whether the IMAGERY on that celluloid is genuine or not. Indeed, he pulled out of appearing at the May 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium in Duluth, Minnesota when it became clear to him that his position was becoming untenable.

Zavada has since distanced himself from Martin and the other researchers who place divine faith in the Zapruder film. His most recent hilarious antics in trying to distance himself from the issue are detailed on my website,

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc

Edited by John Costella, 26 April 2004 - 01:52 AM.


#6 Antti Hynonen

Antti Hynonen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:JFK assassination debate

Posted 26 April 2004 - 07:17 AM

Delighted to read from people who have researched the Zapruder film in detail! Thank you for your contributions. Please explain to a less seasoned JFK assassination enthusiast the following:

Why do assassination researchers such as R. Groden widely use the Zapruder film to prove that there was a conspiracy?

The Z -film in fact seems to be one of the key elements he uses to prove the existence of a conspiracy (the left and back movement of JFK's head).

If the Z -film was tampered with, wouldn't the goal of those who were tampering with the film have been to create the opposite impression?


Antti Hynönen

Edited by Antti Hynonen, 26 April 2004 - 12:31 PM.


#7 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 26 April 2004 - 10:45 AM

Ron Redmon, a school principal in Indiana, has studied the Z-film extensively. Ron discovered that approximately 20 spectators along the north Elm curb east of the Stemmons sign do not appear to move for more than three seconds, while every spectator on the south curb does move. By overlapping images from two slide projectors, I determined that Ron was probably correct. It seems to me that a single image of the 20 spectators had been repeated over and over. It seems improbable that in this period of time not a single person moved an arm or leg, waved, or changed position to any noticeable extent. Ron speculates that when frames were removed in this sequence, spectator movements would have been very jerky so they had to be stabilized by repeating them. In correspondence with me, Ron also mentioned many other possible signs of tampering, which he summarized in The Fourth Decade in March of 1995. These include:

(1) In frames 144-153 (one-half second), spectator Hugh Betzner has moved a distance which exceeds human speed capability indicating excised frames.

(2) In frames 155-161 (one-third second), spectator Linda Willis has turned 180 degrees and comes in contact with spectator Robert Croft, another instance of superhuman speed... again indicating excised frames.

(3) In frames 161-180 (approximately one second), Linda Willis takes several steps, and Rosemary Willis takes several steps... again much too fast, indicating excised frames.

(4) Looking at the Stemmons sign, in frame 161 it is in perfect condition, but by frame 183 there is a significant notch on the top left edge, yet by frame 188, the notch disappears.

(5) In frame 255, Ron speculates that a fake shadow has obscured driver William Greer, to his west. Since the sun was overhead and to Greer's left, Ron says this shadow is inconsistent.

(6) In frames 312-321, Governor Connally turns 90 degrees in one half-second. Also the white spot on the grass in the background moves more than 10 feet in one half second.

(7) In frames 321-336, JFK's head moves from the seat back to leaning forward with his head in contact with Jackie's left arm in less than one second, seemingly too fast.

(8) In frames 153-155 (one-ninth of a second), a woman who is the thirteenth person east of the Stemmons sign has shifted her feet significantly... more than should be possible.

(9) In frames 335-336 (one-eighteenth of a second), Jackie moves her right arm a significant distance. Ron reminds us that laboratory tests show that a human eye blink is one-twenty-fifth of a second, and a flinch or startle response of moving an arm, leg or head takes one-fifth of a second as a basis for his conclusions.

(10) Comparing the Willis and Betzner photos, which are almost simultaneous in time, Ron notes that in Willis five adults and a child can be seen framed between the posts of the Stemmons sign, but in the Betzner picture, from a similar angle and a split second earlier, the same persons are not seen. Also, two women appearing in Zapruder in this sequence (188-210) should be seen in Willis and Betzner are not seen.

(11) In recent correspondence with me, Ron cites Dan Rather's description of the film and compares it to what is seen. Rather, of course, was one of the first persons to view the Z-film. Early in his commentary. Rather says the film shows... "The President's automobile was preceded by one other car... (the film does not show this) ... the President's black Lincoln automobile made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street (the film does not show this). It got about 35 yards from the corner of Elm and Houston... at the moment the President put his hand up and lurched forward and it was obvious he had been hit." The present film begins with the limo already on Elm at frame 133 and the forward lurch is between frames 188-200. "Governor Connally," Rather continued, "... in the seat just in front of the President, sensed something was wrong... his coat was unbuttoned... and as he turned he extended his right hand toward the President, he exposed his entire shirt front and chest... and was wounded with... a second shot (as Redmon comments, no existing Zapruder frames show the specific action that Rather describes, with the governor in full turn with hand extended toward the President). Rather continues"... the third shot hit the President, and... his head went forward with considerable violence." Was Rather looking at an unaltered different film... or is he just a lousy reporter?

Edited by Jack White, 26 April 2004 - 10:50 AM.


#8 ville huoponen

ville huoponen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Interests:critical thinking

Posted 27 April 2004 - 10:29 AM

Delighted to read from people who have researched the Zapruder film in detail! Thank you for your contributions. Please explain to a less seasoned JFK assassination enthusiast the following:

Why do assassination researchers such as R. Groden widely use the Zapruder film to prove that there was a conspiracy?

The Z -film in fact seems to be one of the key elements he uses to prove the existence of a conspiracy (the left and back movement of JFK's head).

If the Z -film was tampered with, wouldn't the goal of those who were tampering with the film have been to create the opposite impression?


Antti Hynönen

The answer to your question propably is that showing the Z-film and emphasizing the "back and to the left"-movement is by far the easiest way in proving a conspiracy to the layman and it takes the least amount of time. Few of us believe until we see. Another classic is the "badgeman" in Moorman polaroid #5.

David Mantik argues in Murder in Dealey Plaza that the people who were responsible for the alteration faced some severe limitations i.e. that it wasn´t possible to alter everything just like they wanted and that they were forced to compromise.

I have to remind that there is still no widely accepted theory of what exactly caused the "back and to the left" movement of JFK´s head. Lone nutters use the neurospasm or jet effect argument and conspiracy theorists on the other hand argue that the force and the trajectory of the bullet caused the movement.

And by the way the thing that constantly bugs me is the deposition of NPIC´s Homer Mcmahon to ARRB: "six to eight shots in Zapruder film".


Ville

#9 Antti Hynonen

Antti Hynonen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:JFK assassination debate

Posted 27 April 2004 - 11:33 AM

The "faced some severe limitations" sounds like the most probable explanation to me.

David Mantik argues in Murder in Dealey Plaza that the people who were responsible for the alteration faced some severe limitations i.e. that it wasn´t possible to alter everything just like they wanted and that they were forced to compromise.


However, I raise the following question assuming now that the Z-film underwent severe manipulation before it was viewed by the general public:

Since the manipulated/edited Zapruder -film does not successfully conceal the general impression that Kennedy was also shot from the front (implying conspiracy), what else was it supposed to hide?

Did they possibly try to conceal the fact that the limo came to a complete stop at the time of the head shot?

Ok, let's say the conspirators possibly managed to conceal the fact that the Limo stopped completely. So what? Greer and all the other secret service men were able to avoid accusations of foul play. At the very least they avoided accusations from all of the official investigative parties.

Greer explained something to the effect that in the hectic few seconds prior to the fatal head shot he was assessing the situation by turning back before he stepped on the gas. Ok, it's not a great excuse... but I seriously doubt it would dramatically change anything if the film would show that the limo came to a full stop for a few seconds.

Whether the car stopped completely or just slowed down won't change what can be seen on the Z-film; the head shot seems to come from the front, many of the skull pieces and brain matter are sprayed to the back and to the left; the same direction as JFK's head (one of the motor cycle police officers, located behind and to the left of the limo, was sprayed with elements of the Presidents brain). Mrs. Kennedy picks up a piece of the Presidents brain off of the trunk of the car.

Most of what is above can be seen on the Z-film, which to me proves multiple shooters, which again implies conspiracy. In other words, in my opinion the tampering of the film seems unsuccessful. The rest of my claims can be read in the witness testimony.

Furthermore, in my view, it was the witness testimony that contributed 90% of Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination case in the eyes of everyone who believed that Oswald could be the responsible one. Of all of the witness testimony, the testimony by Marina Oswald was the most damaging.


Antti Hynönen

Edited by Antti Hynonen, 27 April 2004 - 01:19 PM.


#10 ville huoponen

ville huoponen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Interests:critical thinking

Posted 27 April 2004 - 04:46 PM

Could someone who absolutely rejects the alteration theory (anyone else too) answer some critical questions I pose:

Did or did they not (the conspirators) THINK of altering the Z-film? Why is the Muchmore film mutilated at the exact time of the headshot?

Let me try first to answer as best as I can. Since there is a somewhat general consensus that the x-rays, the brain of JFK, back of the head photograph, and the Backyard photographs have been altered, doctored or switched it is an incredible perception that the conspirators did not bother to at least check this particular piece of evidence.

Based on that we can also quite safely conclude that these people were not amateurs and knew what they were doing. Is it really just a coincidence that the backyard photos were the first to be published of these and were also the first to be detected as forgeries? I´m speculating that either they didn´t have the skill or time enough to make perfect forgeries. I would argue that they simply didn´t have enough time to check the anomalies and the inconsistencies. On the other hand the conspirators had plenty of time with the Z-film.

Then there is the Muchmore film issue. (if someone could please reproduce these frames) I would guess that this "mistake in handling" was not a coincidence. If this was no coincidence, then it was either to conceal something or/and a part of a bigger alteration scheme. Based on only even this it is nonsense to say that the Z-film alteration theory is absolutely nonsense.

If there is a way and a will then that is the way it will be.

Edited by ville huoponen, 27 April 2004 - 04:57 PM.


#11 Lee Forman

Lee Forman

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:35 PM

I think John asks a good question, and it's one I have pondered myself. With appropriate computer analysis, I think that there may be opportunities to at least prove differences and discrepancies in the background, missing frames, proof of magnification, etc. With modeling and trending, you could put together some views of what was occurring to the President as he passed out of sight behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, but whatever valuable 'other' detail was removed can't truly be restored in this fashion.

I recently purchased "Image of an Assassin" and was greatly disappointed. I also stood in Dealey plaza last week Friday [first time there] and video taped Elm Street from 'Zapruder's pedestal.' What I noted was, in rewatching the "Image of an Assassin" was that, unless Zapruder was completely blind [which I have seen some substantiated claims regarding his glasses and his ability to even film the scene], why couldn't he keep his main character, The President of the Unites States, whom he had gone to some length to film, in the center of his shot? As the limo begins panning down further and further into the edge of the film, you have to wonder what the heck he was doing [unless of course someone else had reshot his film through his own camera, in possession of the FBI at that time, and magnified the top half of the scenes].

Jack White has a great analysis of the Z-Film in James H. Fetzers, "Murder in Dealey Plaza," Catfeet Press, Chicago, Copyright 2000. His photographic analyses of many of the frames go beyond his response here - and also give information and comparisons of the Z-film to the Moorman Polaroid, the Nix film, the Oliver film, etc.

But this is not why I chose to reply to John's question. I would like to answer John's question with another question - which I believe would resolve the issue, if at all feasible. If you can accept the veracity of claims which have been made substantiating the existence of an unaltered Z-film [turn on Elm, Moorman's position, no missing frames, halo of material behind JFK's head, head moving forward, pick-up man visible, Life photos, etc.], how would we go about getting one?

2 are at the Archives - SS#1 and SS#2, there are apparent differences even between these 2 versions [leader, frames, etc.,] as covered by David Mantik, in the same book referenced above, "Murder in Dealey Plaza."

Here's the real reason I am responding. It bothers me greatly that H.L. Hunt, the oilman with an office on Dealey Plaza, who has been implicated in the conspiracy, had motive based upon Kennedy's threat to end the "Oil Depletion Allowance," was a Texan of some political influence, an associated of LBJ, was a part of the right wing, plus the 'Torbitt Document" which states that Hoover had his men remove Hunt and his family at 12:30pm, 11/22/63 and fly them to a hotel in NY
http://www.parascope...196/torbitt.htm --

Can't find the reference at the moment, but I understand Hunt managed to obtain his own personal copy! Possibly at odds with the agreement signed by Zapruder in which copying was legally limited to a set number.

Although it's amazing that this man could have ended up with a copy of the Z-film - potentially before even Life magazine, how would we go about getting it? If fact, has anyone considered pursuit of this early edition copy?

#12 Lee Forman

Lee Forman

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:14 PM

As per my previous post, in reference to 'known' copies of the Zapruder film.

Reference, Harrison Edward Livingstone, Killing the Truth.

1. FBI Lab
2. Dallas FBI office
3. Washington, DC, FBI
4. Henry Wade
5. Dallas police
6. and 7. Two copies for the two couples who owned the film lab
8. Secret Service Copy
9. H.L. Hunt copy

Again, it's my distinct impression that there would be large gains made in the research effort, should one of these original copies again be brought to the light of day. Even if you dispute the 'doctoring' of the film [and what better way to make that determination?], there is at least one splice in the extant copy, which would more than likely lend additional credence to the estimated number of shots fired [I make it to be 11].

#13 Larry Peters

Larry Peters

    Advanced Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:58 PM

"Noel Twyman carried out detailed research into the actions of William Greer in the Zapruder film. He discovered that Greer's rapid head turns between Z302 to Z-304 and Z-315 to Z-317 appeared impossibly fast. Experiments were carried out with athletic subjects repeating Greer's actions. These showed that no one was able to reproduce this angular speed. Twyman concluded that frames of the film had been removed therefore speeding up the actions of Greer. "


The timing problem originated when Twyman failed to see Greer's head in motion in at least one or two of the frames. When a grid was made and Greer's head was stabilized, his head rotated as it should have. Twyman saw two or more of the frames as unchanged, so when he finally saw the head in motion, he felt that it had happened to rapidly. Below are frames showing what Twyman failed to see - Twyman thought these frames showed no head motion between them and the grid shows he was apparently wrong. (Z300/301)

Edited by Larry Peters, 18 May 2004 - 03:00 PM.


#14 Justin Martell

Justin Martell

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Location:Sacramento California
  • Interests:JFK,60's and 70's Music, Drug & Alcohol Counseling.

Posted 18 May 2004 - 03:48 PM

Found an interesting site that allows you to view the Z film from 220 to 350 in a wide pretty good picture still frame by still frame. Sorry I am computerly challenged so I will just have to type the address and those interested can go there.

http://homepage.ntlw...y/jfkvideos.htm

I hope that works sorry I am extremely new when it comes to computers.

#15 Larry Peters

Larry Peters

    Advanced Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 05:53 PM

"The Nix and Muchmore films received far less attention, and the time restrictions on their alteration or fabrication are much looser."


;)

Marie Muchmore's film never had the chance to get into the Feds hands before it was shown on TV. Once that occurred, it was too late for it to be altered.

Marie Muchmore kept her "undeveloped" film in her purse until Monday (11/25/63) at which time she went to UPI and sold them her undeveloped film sight unseen. UPI then sent that film, along with other images they were buying up pertaining to the assassination, to New York. There the film was developed and shown at a local TV station to see if it was of any value. Upon seeing that it did show the shooting of the President, it was then sent over to editing and aired on Television. That film being shown on TV is how the Feds found out about it.

So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination.

I might also add that it has been in Fetzer's book said that Moorman's Polaroid had possibly been altered because of an extended window of opportunity to have done so. I should point out that Moorman's photo was show on TV not less than 3 hours after the assassination had occurred. It can be seen on NBC's "As it Happened".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users