DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[David Andrews]

Greg, I know you had limited time and opportunity, but did it seem as if JFK was uninjured immediately after he emerged from behind the sign? In the extant Z-film this would be frame 225, with the throat wounded and the fists rising at 226.

You may like to listen to last night's Black Op Radio, as the John Costella interview went into discrepancies between the extant Z and the eyewitness reports.

[Greg Burnham]

Greg, I know you had limited time and opportunity, but did it seem as if JFK was uninjured immediately after he emerged from behind the sign? In the extant Z-film this would be frame 225, with the throat wounded and the fists rising at 226.

You may like to listen to last night's Black Op Radio, as the John Costella interview went into discrepancies between the extant Z and the eyewitness reports.

David,

Your question raises another interesting point. The position of the camera from which the "other film" was shot is different from the position of the extant film -- OR -- this is an illusion due to the

differences in the qualities of the "real" Stemmon's sign as opposed to the "pseudo" Stemmon's sign in the extant film. In the other film, the Stemmon's sign is not as wide, tall, nor "flat" relative to

the camera's angle. So, when I said "JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign..." -- it's difficult to nail down "when and where" that emerging

took place due to either an alternate camera position or the superimposition of a fake Stemmon's sign -- or perhaps both. In the "other film" the view to Kennedy was not obstructed by the Stemmon's

sign nearly as much as in the extant film. I didn't find that the sign obscured very much at all--and then, only briefly. Keeping that in mind, it is difficult to answer your question because I truly don't

know. I find it counter-intuitive to rely on the extant Zapruder film's "frame count" to make relative determinations that are, by definition, inaccurate due to the inauthenticity of the control source.

[Glenn Viklund]

Greg, I know you had limited time and opportunity, but did it seem as if JFK was uninjured immediately after he emerged from behind the sign? In the extant Z-film this would be frame 225, with the throat wounded and the fists rising at 226.

You may like to listen to last night's Black Op Radio, as the John Costella interview went into discrepancies between the extant Z and the eyewitness reports.

David,

Your question raises another interesting point. The position of the camera from which the "other film" was shot is different from the position of the extant film -- OR -- this is an illusion due to the

differences in the qualities of the "real" Stemmon's sign as opposed to the "pseudo" Stemmon's sign in the extant film. In the other film, the Stemmon's sign is not as wide, tall, nor "flat" relative to

the camera's angle. So, when I said "JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign..." -- it's difficult to nail down "when and where" that emerging

took place due to either an alternate camera position or the superimposition of a fake Stemmon's sign -- or perhaps both. In the "other film" the view to Kennedy was not obstructed by the Stemmon's

sign nearly as much as in the extant film. I didn't find that the sign obscured very much at all--and then, only briefly. Keeping that in mind, it is difficult to answer your question because I truly don't

know. I find it counter-intuitive to rely on the extant Zapruder film's "frame count" to make relative determinations that are, by definition, inaccurate due to the inauthenticity of the control source.

Greg,

How would you comment on the quality of the "other" film, vs other versions, incl. the extant film?

[Greg Burnham]

Extremely high quality by comparison to the extant film. Additionally, the camera was vertically centered on the target--it did not allow the limo to drop down to the bottom

of the frame cutting off the lower portion as in the extant film.

[Michael Crane]

I find it refreshing that we have a member such as Greg who has seen a different copy of the film.I would just like to ask you Greg is how close would you estimate that the person filming the motorcade was to Abraham Zapruder?

Edited March 25, 2011 by Michael Crane

[Chris Davidson]

Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged

from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The

gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the

head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance.

FWIW

Hi Greg,

Your description of the widening gap between the two vehicles at some point is very important.

Blaine's comments support this. Start listening a little before 39:15 of the video:

http://booktv.org/Program/12061/The+Kennedy+Detail+JFKs+Secret+Service+Agents+Break+Their+Silence.aspx

85 foot separation between the cars, speed of the limo 11 mph according to Blaine and Clint running 15 mph to catch it.

chris

[Glenn Viklund]

Extremely high quality by comparison to the extant film. Additionally, the camera was vertically centered on the target--it did not allow the limo to drop down to the bottom

of the frame cutting off the lower portion as in the extant film.

OK, thanks.

Now, I've followed the JFK assassination since the mid seventies, and I'm sure I've missed a lot. But I can't recall anyone else having witnessed the original film and on the basis of this stated that the limo actually - most definately - came to a stand still.

Oh, many witnesses said so, no doubt. But I find this info of yours very interesting.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

This is quite fascinating. Thinking about what you have described, my inference would be that they dismounted and looked around at the time of the limo stop and only resumed after the limo had sped ahead. I don't recall seeing the Queen Mary in the photos of Greer racing to Parkland, where we can see the Triple Underpass in the background but not the Queen. Since it is related to the limo stop, which had to be removed because it was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity in the assassination, It might simply have been excluded from other films and the FBI filtered witness statements, explaining that they were only interested in what happened up to a certain point, and so on. The more I think about this, the more plausible it becomes that we have here another aspect of the murder scenario that had to be covered up, but it would be terrific to locate witnesses who observed it as it happened, even though their recollections are not part of the official record.

Jim

Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged

from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The

gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the

head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance.

FWIW

Edited March 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

I find it refreshing that we have a member such as Greg who has seen a different copy of the film.I would just like to ask you Greg is how close would you estimate

that the person filming the motorcade was to Abraham Zapruder?

I have no idea. I have no faith that Zapruder was even filming from there that day! I believe I was the first person to point out that there is no clear photo available

that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zapruder was where he said he was. Jack White and I are very close friends. Back in 1998, Jack and I butted heads due

to my insistence that the Moorman polaroid was suspect. Back then, Jack was convinced of its authenticity. Yet, if Gary Mack can claim to have "found" Badge Man

amongst the visual obstructions in that alleged location--and was able to "clarify" his presence photographically through enhancements performed at his request

by Jack, then you would think that Zapruder should be very clearly seen by comparison since he was standing in the open (not hiding behind anything) in broad

daylight. Yet, his face is completely unidentifiable. Of course, one could argue that that is because the camera was in front of his face while he was filming. Fine...

except that you can't even tell he is holding a camera! If you look at the men on the steps--you can tell that THEY ARE MEN ON THE STEPS and you can make out

a few more details, such as, their clothing, etc. But, if you didn't already "know" that a man was allegedly standing on the pedestal holding a camera to his face with

his secretary behind (or in front of him--The Sitzman Waltz) --be honest--would you have ever guessed it? I definitely wouldn't have dreamed it. Possible? Yes.

But, even after enhancement it is far too obscure to conclude that it is Zappy or anyone "holding a camera". Moreover, as seen in the BRONSON slide, even if Zappy

(or whoever) was on the pedestal with a movie camera with their secretary (SITZMAN) standing DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF HIM, blocking the camera's view--to the

subject--well, you get the picture (no pun intended) -- but Zappy and Sitzy couldn't have "gotten the picture" under those conditions.

How in the world did Mack find "little old BM" almost in shadows, camouflaged by surrounding foliage to some degree (remember it's in Black & White), and fairly

TINY...itsy-bitsy...as it were--yet cannot "enhance" Zapruder and Sitzman so that we can be sure they are where they claimed to have been? Mack "found" the BM

image on a "hunch" I suppose, even WITHOUT the help of enhancement? Wow.

But, back to your question... I don't know if this film was an unaltered version of the so-called original Zapruder film. That is a possibility. The angle was very similar,

if not identical, to that of the extant film. But--with the introduction of a "new and improved" Stemmon's sign--we may never know.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

This discussion brings to mind an odd event in Dallas at the Hilton(?) on the occasion of the 30th observance, when David Mantik and Bob Livingston presented their findings about the alteration of the X-rays and the substitution of another person's brain for that of JFK. Robert Groden, as I recall, invited a group of us--about a dozen in all--to a special viewing of the Nix film, which astonished me because the Queen Mary was butt-on the Lincoln! I even blurted out, "That's stunning!" and suggested it was extremely peculiar, although I seem to recall someone saying that that was how they (the Secret Service) were taught to drive. Someone I took to be a military intelligence officer in civilian clothes (given his deportment, manner, and haircut, as a former Marine Corps officer myself) was sitting at the back of the room relatively inconspicuously taking in what we had to say about it. Among those with me at the time was David Mantik. I have never mentioned this before and he and I have not discussed it, but it was very strange. That version, to the best of my knowledge, has not surfaced since, which has led me to infer that it was a "trial balloon" or "pilot study" to measure the plausibility of its depiction, which is completely at odds with what you have described, which seems to me to be more authentic. The hard part in figuring out what has been changed in a film is not knowing what was there to begin with that posed problems to be solved.

Jim

Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged

from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The

gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the

head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance.

FWIW

Hi Greg,

Your description of the widening gap between the two vehicles at some point is very important.

Blaine's comments support this. Start listening a little before 39:15 of the video:

http://booktv.org/Program/12061/The+Kennedy+Detail+JFKs+Secret+Service+Agents+Break+Their+Silence.aspx

85 foot separation between the cars, speed of the limo 11 mph according to Blaine and Clint running 15 mph to catch it.

chris

Edited March 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

It is SOP to drive in tight formation like that under certain circumstances. One reason for such a formation is to allow the agents in the follow up car to be within a close enough proximity to

the "client" to enable them to respond instantly to a threat by shielding the "client" with their own bodies. In such a case, "distance from the client" is your enemy. However, in Dealey Plaza that

day, things actually worked in reverse. As the "client" became more exposed to danger (as evidenced by the slow, impotent, but visible recognition of the SS) the proximity between protective

detail and "client" INCREASED, creating an irreconcilable deficit in the ability of any willing agent to adequately perform his duty--assuming such a willingness existed that day. I

remember when we viewed this "training film" for the first time. It was in 1974, before Groden and Geraldo made the extant version public. To those of us who were familiar with protocol, it

was ANATHEMA. Obviously a very, very big problem was about to happen. Everything was wrong. The agents were being isolated from their own client as he travelled SLOWLY in an OPEN CAR...

And then, just like that: BANG...he was down.

Monk,

This discussion brings to mind an odd event in Dallas at the Hilton(?) on the occasion of the 30th observance, when David Mantik and Bob Livingston presented their findings about the alteration of the X-rays and the substitution of another person's brain for that of JFK. Robert Groden, as I recall, invited a group of us--about a dozen in all--to a special viewing of the Nix film, which astonished me because the Queen Mary was butt-on the Lincoln! I even blurted out, "That's stunning!" and suggested it was extremely peculiar, although I seem to recall someone saying that that was how they (the Secret Service) were taught to drive. Someone I took to be a military intelligence officer in civilian clothes (given his deportment, manner, and haircut, as a former Marine Corps officer myself) was sitting at the back of the room relatively inconspicuously taking in what we had to say about it. Among those with me at the time was David Mantik. I have never mentioned this before and he and I have not discussed it, but it was very strange. That version, to the best of my knowledge, has not surfaced since, which has led me to infer that it was a "trial balloon" or "pilot study" to measure the plausibility of its depiction, which is completely at odds with what you have described, which seems to me to be more authentic. The hard part in figuring out what has been changed in a film is not knowing what was there to begin with that posed problems to be solved.

Jim

Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged

from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The

gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the

head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance.

FWIW

Hi Greg,

Your description of the widening gap between the two vehicles at some point is very important.

Blaine's comments support this. Start listening a little before 39:15 of the video:

http://booktv.org/Program/12061/The+Kennedy+Detail+JFKs+Secret+Service+Agents+Break+Their+Silence.aspx

85 foot separation between the cars, speed of the limo 11 mph according to Blaine and Clint running 15 mph to catch it.

chris

[Jack White]

I find it refreshing that we have a member such as Greg who has seen a different copy of the film.I would just like to ask you Greg is how close would you estimate

that the person filming the motorcade was to Abraham Zapruder?

I have no idea. I have no faith that Zapruder was even filming from there that day! I believe I was the first person to point out that there is no clear photo available

that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zapruder was where he said he was. Jack White and I are very close friends. Back in 1998, Jack and I butted heads due

to my insistence that the Moorman polaroid was suspect. Back then, Jack was convinced of its authenticity. Yet, if Gary Mack can claim to have "found" Badge Man

amongst the visual obstructions in that alleged location--and was able to "clarify" his presence photographically through enhancements performed at his request

by Jack, then you would think that Zapruder should be very clearly seen by comparison since he was standing in the open (not hiding behind anything) in broad

daylight. Yet, his face is completely unidentifiable. Of course, one could argue that that is because the camera was in front of his face while he was filming. Fine...

except that you can't even tell he is holding a camera! If you look at the men on the steps--you can tell that THEY ARE MEN ON THE STEPS and you can make out

a few more details, such as, their clothing, etc. But, if you didn't already "know" that a man was allegedly standing on the pedestal holding a camera to his face with

his secretary behind (or in front of him--The Sitzman Waltz) --be honest--would you have ever guessed it? I definitely wouldn't have dreamed it. Possible? Yes.

But, even after enhancement it is far too obscure to conclude that it is Zappy or anyone "holding a camera". Moreover, as seen in the BRONSON slide, even if Zappy

(or whoever) was on the pedestal with a movie camera with their secretary (SITZMAN) standing DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF HIM, blocking the camera's view--to the

subject--well, you get the picture (no pun intended) -- but Zappy and Sitzy couldn't have "gotten the picture" under those conditions.

How in the world did Mack find "little old BM" almost in shadows, camouflaged by surrounding foliage to some degree (remember it's in Black & White), and fairly

TINY...itsy-bitsy...as it were--yet cannot "enhance" Zapruder and Sitzman so that we can be sure they are where they claimed to have been? Mack "found" the BM

image on a "hunch" I suppose, even WITHOUT the help of enhancement? Wow.

But, back to your question... I don't know if this film was an unaltered version of the so-called original Zapruder film. That is a possibility. The angle was very similar,

if not identical, to that of the extant film. But--with the introduction of a "new and improved" Stemmon's sign--we may never know.

Gary found BADGEMAN by putting a slide on the TV station monitor and adjusting brightness and contrast.

Jack

[Michael Crane]

Sorry Greg,

I was under the impression that you might have seen a different film.

My misunderstanding.

[Greg Burnham]

Sorry Greg,

I was under the impression that you might have seen a different film.

My misunderstanding.

Michael,

You didn't misunderstand. I'll try to be more precise. My apologies for digressing too far before getting back to your question. I can't determine (and neither could Rich dellaRosa) from

what EXACT position the "other film" was made. It is VERY similar to the ZAPRUDER position and, POSSIBLY, identical. I wasn't even thinking about this aspect at the time of viewing as I

had no idea it would ever become an issue.

As a review:

1) it "could be" an unaltered version of the Zapruder film

2) it "could be" a separate film taken from a very similar angle

However, since my attention was focused elsewhere in the film, I don't recall the immediate surroundings.

[Martin Hinrichs]

the side of the head not the back of the head that shows red.

I'am wondering why so many professional reseachers got it wrong.

I'am not picking you in particular Josiah but Duncan was for enough time my target and will not blame him again.

JFK's head is not a cube.

What we see in the unaltered Zapruder film is a human rounded head which is captured slightely from behind at Z372-375.

We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted.

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.

No offense but it's very obvious.

My very best to you

Martin