Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?

[Edwin Ortiz]

I have felt that the whole zapruder film being alterred is just a red herring or even worse a case for economic exploitation by greedy authors. Why would the government ie cia alter the film and Not show the head shot just going to the front instead of Back and to the left as Kevin costner so aptly put in Jfk.

[John Dolva]

What is generally available has been altered to some extent like splices and people like Costella thrashing it with various simple techniques of lens correction(s) which compresses data and color adjustments and smoothings so that the splices in some cases are hard to spot.

What exactly the complete incamera original showed afaik is not known. I suspect it's knowable.

[Len Colby]

The last thing this forum need is yet another Zfilm thread.

[Ian Kingsbury]

Len

Have you seen the in camera original?.

Ian

[David G. Healy]

Len

Have you seen the in camera original?.

Ian

good question Ian, however, I suspect Len is much over wrought with emotion from his current spiritual experience.

Perhaps he or Ortiz (above) fill us in on exactly what is on the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, the film that no one here has ever seen or touched much let alone seen laced up in a projector and projected on to a screen, ANYWHERE, including the National Archives.

My lord, I think the .john mcadams-ites are now climbing out of woodwork, beginning their Z-film disinfo work in prep for the 50th anniversary. Carry on troops!

Edited April 3, 2013 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

good question Ian, however, I suspect Len is much over wrought with emotion from his current spiritual experience.

Perhaps he or Ortiz (above) fill us in on exactly what is on the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, the film that no one here has ever seen or touched much let alone seen laced up in a projector and projected on to a screen, ANYWHERE, including the National Archives.

My lord, I think the .john mcadams-ites are now climbing out of woodwork, beginning their Z-film disinfo work in prep for the 50th anniversary. Carry on troops!

And yet all the ct alteration goofballs are OK making their claims using copies. Can you say hypocrite davie? What a very tired and over worked canard. But then again its the very best you have and you don't have squat.

What is your very original and witty reply...oh yes, carry on son.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

good question Ian, however, I suspect Len is much over wrought with emotion from his current spiritual experience.

Perhaps he or Ortiz (above) fill us in on exactly what is on the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, the film that no one here has ever seen or touched much let alone seen laced up in a projector and projected on to a screen, ANYWHERE, including the National Archives.

My lord, I think the .john mcadams-ites are now climbing out of woodwork, beginning their Z-film disinfo work in prep for the 50th anniversary. Carry on troops!

And yet all the ct alteration goofballs are OK making their claims using copies. Can you say hypocrite davie? What a very tired and over worked canard. But then again its the very best you have and you don't have squat.

What is your very original and witty reply...oh yes, carry on son.

and YOU have seen, touched, smelled and saw projected the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original currently stored at NARA? Is that what YOU are saying here? YOU can prove the alleged in-camera original is in **FACT** the in-camera original? Speak to us, a simple yes or no will do. Yes or No, quite nicely, actually!

I'll wait while you ring Gary for his response.....

Edited April 3, 2013 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

and YOU have seen, touched, smelled and saw projected the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original currently stored at NARA? Is that what YOU are saying here? YOU can prove the alleged in-camera original is in **FACT** the in-camera original? Speak to us, a simple yes or no will do. Yes or No, quite nicely, actually!

I'll wait while you ring Gary for his response.....

Poor davie,

Still stuck on that tired old song and dance, and you are still a hypocrite. Can you prove the film in storage is NOT the in camera original daive? Opps, there you are stuck.. again.

I'll wait for you to offer up yet more recycled garbage....

you got no game...never did.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

and YOU have seen, touched, smelled and saw projected the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original currently stored at NARA? Is that what YOU are saying here? YOU can prove the alleged in-camera original is in **FACT** the in-camera original? Speak to us, a simple yes or no will do. Yes or No, quite nicely, actually!

I'll wait while you ring Gary for his response.....

Poor davie,

Still stuck on that tired old song and dance, and you are still a hypocrite. Can you prove the film in storage is NOT the in camera original daive? Opps, there you are stuck.. again.

I'll wait for you to offer up yet more recycled garbage....

you got no game...never did.

yet, you can't answer a simple question, one that you surely know the answer to (after all it's your own experience), why is that, Craig?.... Can YOU prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder Film currently stored at NARA is in FACT the **ORIGINAL** film shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Let me save you some face, you can't! Nor can Rollie Zavada, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack, etal.... best ANY of you have is pure speculation!

[Daniel Gallup]

On the contrary, Z-film alteration goes to the heart of the matter: fraud in the evidence. It is useless to study the assassination without identifying fraudulant evidence in the case, and the case for fraud in the Z-film is compelling, and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw. This issue will never go away, and it ought not.

[Craig Lamson]

yet, you can't answer a simple question, one that you surely know the answer to (after all it's your own experience), why is that, Craig?.... Can YOU prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder Film currently stored at NARA is in FACT the **ORIGINAL** film shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Let me save you some face, you can't! Nor can Rollie Zavada, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack, etal.... best ANY of you have is pure speculation!

Actually Zavada has, and you know it. And the overwhelming evidence says it is. But that is beside the point. YOU CAN'T PROVE ITS NOT. And my oh my the alterationists sure have tried...and failed over the years. Your attemps are childish at best and talk about speculation! ROFLMAO! Heck even you very best tried to do "science" and he failed at step one of his claim. The rest? Pure bunk.

Like I said davie you got no game, never have, never will.

And you are a major league hypocrite to boot.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw.

EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure.

[David Josephs]

yet, you can't answer a simple question, one that you surely know the answer to (after all it's your own experience), why is that, Craig?.... Can YOU prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder Film currently stored at NARA is in FACT the **ORIGINAL** film shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Let me save you some face, you can't! Nor can Rollie Zavada, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack, etal.... best ANY of you have is pure speculation!

Actually Zavada has, and you know it. And the overwhelming evidence says it is. But that is beside the point. YOU CAN'T PROVE ITS NOT. And my oh my the alterationists sure have tried...and failed over the years. Your attemps are childish at best and talk about speculation! ROFLMAO! Heck even you very best tried to do "science" and he failed at step one of his claim. The rest? Pure bunk.

Like I said davie you got no game, never have, never will.

And you are a major league hypocrite to boot.

Here we are again... BullSh!t personified... since you can't prove anything, make others prove what you know cannot even be accessed...

Why not look at what your buddy Zavada writes?

Rollie needs ever standard procedure to have been scraped and even then he can't explain the problems with the film called the "camera-original"

He needs the actual personnel who stood next to the SS agents and actually processed and developed and copied the films all to be wrong... ALL of them.

He needs them wrong about edge printing, he needs them to be wrong about bracketing, he also needs the SS to be wrong as to which film was where and when...

So your entire play here is, "You go first" ?? That's the best you can do to provide evidence of authenticity? "Read Zavada" you even imply... but have you even bothered to?

Doubt it highly...

Let's start with easy stuff for you... the length and physical condition of the "original" taken from a 33 foot, max length, roll of film.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1c.pdf

Zavada tells us that the film at the Archives has 8 inches of white leader, SPLICE, 6 feet 3 inches of "assassination film", then 2 feet 7 inches of black film (no image), SPLICE, then 19 feet 3 inches of black film that flashes to clear, SPLICE, 6 feet 2 inches of black film, SPLICE, and 5 feet 8 inches of black film, SPLICE, then 6 feet 9 inches of "Light - Struck Leader.

The home movie side... side "A" is 32'7" in length (a standard roll of film has 25 feet of usuable film and 8 feet of leader for a total of 33')

Side "B" has 8" + 6'3" = 6'11" + 19'3" = 26'2" + 6'2" = 32'5" + 5'8" = 38'1" + 6'9" = 44'10"; so side "B" of a 33' roll of film with NO SPLICES winds up being almost 45 feet of film SPLICED 5 times.

(EDIT: I missed the 2'7" for a total of 47 feet 5 inches... even worse for ya )

and THIS is what you claim is the original film? which does not even include the test frames taken on side B adding even MORE length to the film... ooops.

shall we look a little deeper?

The "Original" has no ID number 0183

The copies have 0183 in the wrong place if it was copied from the original

The employees state repeatedly that the film was NOT PROCESSED using bracketing - that a single setting was agreed upon and used... the three copies are bracketed

The copies 0185 and 0187 do NOT have these numbers anywhere on them

and finally... Max Philips sends Rowley a note with the Zfilm he mails the evening of 11/22 explaining that Sorrels has 2 copies, Zap has the "master" and the Third Print is forwarded...

except we all know that Zapruder "retained the best first day copy for himself" and subsequently gives it to Stolley on the 25th... he supposedly projected an 8mm film on 11/23 - surely NOT the original... yet even

IF it was the original, it would have been in 8mm format... not 16mm. So we come to learn the identified "original" was indeed split to 8mm (and rec'd by Dino the night of 11/23 afterwhich it simply disappears)

0186, seen by the FBI the morning of 11/23 is a 16mm version shown at Kodak with no documentation of what occurs with this 16mm version.

McMahon creates his briefing boards (which are not the same as what Dino/Lundahl created the day before) from a 16mm original delivered by an SS agent who tells them the film was produced in Rochester.

a 16mm original... take a look at the enlargements... do they appear of a quality that would come from a 16mm original? and can you explain how CIA450 details these boards EXACTLY... and goes on to show that internegs were to be shot and 3 prints were to be made... - coincidence, right?

So we need to address - Would a COPY have been left in 16mm format for any reason - 0186 is acknowledged as the film given to the FBI, yet they viewed a 16mm film at Kodak...

and why on the SS copies does the edge print info read BACKWARD when viewing the film correctly?

Try and address the questions and evidence BEFORE you launch into ad-homs and misdirection CL... just this once.

BRING the evidence of authenticity and POST IT

or is that simply too much for you?

Edited April 3, 2013 by David Josephs

[Ian Kingsbury]

Why no splices on the family side of the film?????.

[David Josephs]

Why no splices on the family side of the film?????.

The only portion of this case NOT a national security issue... ??

I also found in Zavada's attachments the letter from Phil Chamberlain explaining the FBI watched their film on an "Analyst" projector, which is a 16mm device that allows for running the film forward/backward and to stop on individual frames..

His footnotes states he knows the Analyst projector is 16mm yet "I'm pretty sure we were doing this in 8mm, so it must ahve been another projector" 27 years after the fact the change CLEANS things up a bit....

During the entire letter Phil holds fast to remembering only TWO (2) IIa copies, not three.... but since there are three, he states "I believe three copies have been accounted for"

These footnotes are added NOT in the 70's when written but within a few days of sending the notes to Rollie... in 1997. http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-11.pdf

The footnotes remain a nother classic example of, "That was the first story... it needed to be changed"