Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest Stephen Turner

Zapruder, Four questions..

Recommended Posts

Guest Stephen Turner

It appears that the Zapruder thread has degenerated into name calling, and point scoring.If the protagenists wish can we start again?

I believe that the argument breaks down into four questions, namely..

1, Did Zapruder take the "Zapruder" film?

2, Did the necessary technology exist in 1963 to do what the alterationists claim?

3,Were other films/photo's altered to agree with the extant Z film?

4,If it was altered, why?

I am aware that other questions about this exist, but i feel the above is the nub of the case. Gentlemen please, no name calling, best evidence when asked to provide it, and unless anyone has a good reason why, stick to the agreed perimeters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,If it was altered, why?

That's the crux of the matter. It is apparent that the film was quickly bought for the purpose of suppression, and indeed the public was not allowed to see it for years. It may be that the public was never intended to see it (wouldn't it always be too shocking to view, the reason given for it being locked away for years?). Otherwise why was it assumed that Dan Rather, one of the few allowed to see the film, could get away with (and launch a multimillion-dollar career on) a baldfaced lie, his description of JFK's head going violently forward?

But even if the assumption was made that the public would indeed see the film one day, what exactly was in the film that had to be altered? A quick pan shot to a shooter in the bushes? The limo stopping? (It never stopped! And even if it did, so what, with Greer being so presumably befuddled anyway? Hey, maybe Greer stopped, expecting the SS agents to come jumping on board to protect the president, with Emory Roberts quickly putting a stop to that.) And would film alterers, despite going to all their trouble, actually leave a conspiracy smoking gun in the film, the back and to the left head snap indicating a shot from the front? Wouldn't that be the first thing to take out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Stephen Turner' wrote:

It appears that the Zapruder thread has degenerated into name calling, and point scoring.If the protagenists wish can we start again?

dgh01: Stephen, I wouldn't worry about the name calling, too much! There are NO points to score, only maintaining staus quo.

I believe that the argument breaks down into four questions, namely..

1, Did Zapruder take the "Zapruder" film?

dgh01: there is NO photographic evidence that clearly shows and identifies Abe Zapruder as the taker of the "Zapruder Film" -- that said, it makes not one wit of difference who took the film from the DP pedestal!

2, Did the necessary technology exist in 1963 to do what the alterationists claim?

dgh01: Of course it did, in various forms it existed in the 1920-30's, all forms clearly in the 1950's

3,Were other films/photo's altered to agree with the extant Z film?

dgh01: or, was the Zapruder Film altered to match the OTHER film or was the Moorman5 photo -- ah, that another story.... other films and photos were irrelevant when the WC screened the Zapruder Film

4,If it was altered, why?

dgh01: the extant Zapruder film is the hub for the SBT, along with the Moorman5 photo. All other film or photo controversies of this day, pure window dressing !

The WC formally screened the Zapruder Film in Feb '64 [one time ONLY - to the best of my knowledge] -- the crux of the finalized WCR leaves: LHO being a lonenut gunman, no conspiracy... so, WW3 was averted. ANY alteration to the Z-film was for that intended result, avert WAR! End of story --

Good luck with your quest Stephen.... dgh

I am aware that other questions about this exist, but i feel the above is the nub of the case. Gentlemen please, no name calling, best evidence when asked to provide it, and unless anyone has a good reason why, stick to the agreed perimeters.

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears that the Zapruder thread has degenerated into name calling, and point scoring.If the protagenists wish can we start again?

Don't forget that the name calling has emanated entirely calling from one party in this debate. I have resisted replying in kind. In my experience people resort to name calling in a debate because their argument is weak. I hope you don't think I've been guilt of "point scoring". I think there are certain issues that need to be addressed, including your second question – for which IMO have yet to be adequately addressed by the "alterationists"

1, Did Zapruder take the "Zapruder" film?

I admit that I'm not well versed in the details of this debate but I've never heard any evidence that he didn't take it. IIRC there is a photo of 2 people filming from the pedestal who look like Zapruder and his assistant Marilyn Sitzman but it's not clear enough to be sure that it's them. He was photographed by two people, Art Rickerby and Associated Press photographer James Altgens close to the pedestal soon after the assassination.

If he didn't film it he must have been a very good actor. Zapruder was described as being extremely shaken and upset by several reporters. Also he was described as a great admirer of JFK did he fake such admiration in anticipation of the assassination to establish a cover story?

There is no doubt that the camera which bought back in 1962 was his and footage of his family and Stizman appear on the reel before the assassination footage. He didn't have it with him that morning and only went home and got it because he was urged to by his secretary Lillian Rodgers.

Are we to suppose that Zapruder, Stizman, Rodgers, Rickerby and Altgens were all part of the conspiracy? Some people have speculated that Zapruder was an intelligence asset without a single shred of evidence. Much has been made of the fact that his ex-business partner married the infamous George De Mohrenschildt, who also knew LHO and Jackie (maybe she was in on it too!). Such speculation is undermined by the fact Zapruder said in a TV interview a few hours after the assassination and before the WC that the sounds of the shots came from behind him. The Grassy Knoll not the TSBD was behind him. If he was part of the plot why would he stay something that undermined the official story?

All indications are that Zapruder was nothing more than what he claimed to be, a simple businessman and fan of JFK who filmed the assassination with the camera he bought to capture memories of his grandchildren. This is significant because if we are to believe Zapruder he knew of the whereabouts of the original and copies from the time of the assassination until he turned them over to the Secret Service that night and Life early the next morning.

This poses another important question that Healy has yet to give a straight answer too, how did the forgers get ahold of the original have time to alter it and make the switch?

2, Did the necessary technology exist in 1963 to do what the alterationists claim?

Healy and White etc. of course insist that it did. But when asked for contemporary examples of movies using such technology they give unsatisfactory answers. Jack cited Mary Poppins and Healy a book and some magazines.

I saw Mary Poppins last night with my kids and they loved it and I enjoyed it again after all these years. It's a good movie but to modern eyes the special effects look obviously faked so it fails on another question, could the alterations have been made undetectably?

Also the effects in Mary Poppins weren't nearly as extensive as what the alterationists claim was done to the Z-film. Costella claims:

They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

Some changes could be made. They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did.

There was nothing like that in the movie I saw last night!

When asked to name movies from the period which used such technology instead of citing movies Healy told us we should read a book called, The Art of Special Effects Cinematography and unspecified issues of the Journal of the SMPE/SMPTE which he claimed could be found in any good library. As I pointed out in my last post on the other thread this book is not part of the New York Public Library's collection nor are the journals. He gave the wrong title for the book which is The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, and the NYPL does have one non-circulating copy. The Chicago Public Library however doesn't have the book so they are not as widely available as he would lead us to believe. If movies from that period do indeed exist what can't Healy just cite some titles?

Roland Zavada one of the World's leading film experts and the inventor of the Kodakcrome II film that Zapruder used didn't think the technology existed nor did Oliver Stone (according to Gary Mack) nor the movie director Pat consulted. Who is the alterationists' expert who contends the technology existed? - David Healy - Much is made of his decades of experience in video and film esp. in post-production. Does Healy have any experience with doing the kind of work he claims could have so easily been done back in 1963? The kind he thinks would have taken a few months but his co-authors think was done that night. Apparently not since he refuses to answer such questions or show any examples of his work.

3,Were other films/photo's altered to agree with the extant Z film?

One thing that's odd is that Jack White claims that (at least one of) Mary Moorman's Polaroids were altered and then uses one of the Poloroids as evidence that the Z-film was altered!

As far as I've heard there are no alleged discrepancies between the various films of the assassination and the only supposed discrepancy between any photos and the Z-film is White, Fetzer and Mantik's claim that Moorman's Poloroid "proves" that she was in the street while the films show her in the grass.

Healy wrote "dgh01: or, was the Zapruder Film altered to match the OTHER film or was the Moorman5 photo -- ah, that another story.... other films and photos were irrelevant when the WC screened the Zapruder Film"

- The Muchmore film did not appear until Monday. Costella believes the Z-film was altered before frames appeared in Life on Sunday. How was the Z-film altered to match a film that hadn't even been developed yet?

- If the other films weren't shown to the WC they were irrelevant for that body, but they remain relevant in that they confirm the authenticity of the Z-film. If the Z-film was altered and the Muchmore film wasn't why haven't the alterationists be able to any discrepancies? Why don't the other films show what they were trying to cover up in the Z-film?

4,If it was altered, why?

The alterationists believe the original Z-film was more incriminating that the altered one.

My question is why alter it in such a complex fashion? What was the point of, "cut(ting) and paste(ing) this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street"? This would have been an unnecessary step that would have made their work much harder and more time consuming and increased the chances of the ruse being detected. Why move Mary Moorman from the street to the grass? If the background were pre-filmed how come Moorman and other people who were there that day appear? Was the background filmed on Elm St or somewhere else? If it was filmed on Elm St. why did they have to 'paste in' lamp posts, highway signs and other features like they claim. If it was filmed elsewhere why aren't many other discrepancies? Why would they make there forgery in such a complex fashion?

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

This is probably a stupid question, but would it not have been simpler to claim that the film showed nothing but static?Or that a technician made a terrible mistake and wiped the whole thing, sure questions would have been asked, and blame apportioned, but in the long run the film would have been nothing but a faded memory. Seems like an awful lot of trouble and risk to go through to produce a film that still makes it look like JFK took a frountal shot..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is probably a stupid question, but would it not have been simpler to claim that the film showed nothing but static?Or that a technician made a terrible mistake and wiped the whole thing, sure questions would have been asked, and blame apportioned, but in the long run the film would have been nothing but a faded memory. Seems like an awful lot of trouble and risk to go through to produce a film that still makes it look like JFK took a frountal shot..

That wouldn't have worked. The Z-film was projected in the Dallas Kodak lab immediatelly after it was developed and was seen by Zapruder, 14 lab employees and IIRC a few reporters. Zapruder went from Kodak directly to Jamison where 3 copies were made. Zapruder showed the film again early the next morning to reporters and Secret Service and IIRC FBI agents before turning over the original to Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is probably a stupid question, but would it not have been simpler to claim that the film showed nothing but static?Or that a technician made a terrible mistake and wiped the whole thing, sure questions would have been asked, and blame apportioned, but in the long run the film would have been nothing but a faded memory. Seems like an awful lot of trouble and risk to go through to produce a film that still makes it look like JFK took a frountal shot..

I am definitely in the midst of a subject I have somewhat intentionally stayed away from (Zapruder Film controversy) but didn't the History Channel show a 'unedited' version of the Zapruder film a couple of years ago? Was it the MPI Video 'Image of an Assassination?'

FWIW - I think there is an incredible lack of awareness regarding CIA technology circa 1963. And it is ironic how the 'temperature goes up', when 'certain aspects of the assassination' get brought up. I still havent quite figured that out, except it appears to be related to 'rejection of very cherished perceptions.'

Edited by Robert Howard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby wrote:

One thing that's odd is that Jack White claims that (at least one of) Mary Moorman's Polaroids were altered and then uses one of the Poloroids as evidence that the Z-film was altered!

Anyone who says this clearly does not comprehend the subject!

Mary Moorman took a GENUINE Polaroid while standing in the street,

not on the grass. This is provable by anyone.

That genuine Polaroid was altered by ADDING or CHANGING two persons

on the pedestal to represent Zapruder/Sitzman.

The proof of this is a COMPARISON of the Badgeman image and the

Zapruder image, BOTH FROM THE SAME POLAROID. (see attachment)

Badgeman, standing in the SHADE, is clear, crisp and sharp.

Zapruder, standing in FULL SUNLIGHT, is fuzzy and indistinct.

Focus is not involved, since both are at infinity from Mary's position.

It is logical to assume that the sharp Badgeman image, which is compatible with

the rest of the photo is GENUINE, and the fuzzy Zapruder image is added by

retouching.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len Colby' continues....

[...]

Roland Zavada one of the World's leading film experts and the inventor of the Kodakcrome II film that Zapruder used didn't think the technology existed nor did Oliver Stone (according to Gary Mack) nor the movie director Pat consulted.

dgh02: before I go any further, Mr Colby, what technology was it that Roland Zavada THINK [?] did NOT exist in 1963? Not hearsay Mr. Colby, a quote from Roland Zavada would do quite nice.

Do you know who Linwood Dunn is, Mr. Colby?

for lurkers who have a interest in the subject follow this link:

http://www.photosonics.com/Milestone%20HTL...wood%20dunn.htm

pay particular attention to what company he dealt with in 1942

Ask Rollie [a retiree from KODAK] if he knows who this is?

rest snipped

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

Jack,

It was always my impression that Zapruder climbed off the pedestal nearly immediately after completing his film. Wiegman, I thought, caught the pedestal later -- after A.Z. had climbed off.

I also reviewed the Nix film -- seems to show A.Z. filming exactly as expected.

Is your contention that Abraham Zapruder was *not* the one who shot the film?

Also -- I was under the impression that the Badgeman image was the byproduct of some *extensive* photographic enhancement. Have these techniques ever been applied to the Zapruder pedestal area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a stupid question, but would it not have been simpler to claim that the film showed nothing but static?Or that a technician made a terrible mistake and wiped the whole thing, sure questions would have been asked, and blame apportioned, but in the long run the film would have been nothing but a faded memory. Seems like an awful lot of trouble and risk to go through to produce a film that still makes it look like JFK took a frountal shot..

I am definitely in the midst of a subject I have somewhat intentionally stayed away from (Zapruder Film controversy) but didn't the History Channel show a 'unedited' version of the Zapruder film a couple of years ago? Was it the MPI Video 'Image of an Assassination?'

FWIW - I think there is an incredible lack of awareness regarding CIA technology circa 1963. And it is ironic how the 'temperature goes up', when 'certain aspects of the assassination' get brought up. I still havent quite figured that out, except it appears to be related to 'rejection of very cherished perceptions.'

Jack is right, anyone can do the experiment but theywill find that Mary Moorman took her photo from the grass, not the street.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/...x.html#contents

Badgeman is a photographic alteration, not a real segment of the original Moorman polaroid. It was created by photographic alteration of the original via excessive exposure during the copy process and increased contrast during the printing stage. As such some details of the original were "erased" and the result is a new image, which is not consistant with the Moorman original. In other words badgeman is not there.

Additionally the original polaroid material is not capable of the level of sharpness shown in the badegman alteration. Having spent years using all manner of polaroid b/w films as proofing media in commercial photography, and viewing said polaroids at high magnification to check focus etc., its my extensive personal experience that the grain structure (more like blobs actually) are such that the sharpness described by White is not availble on polaroid b/w filmstock.

Also the lens on the Polaroid camera used by Mary Moorman was stopped down to near f90 to deal with the bright sunlight, the 3000 iso film and the limited shutter speed of the camera which was 1/100 second. At this f-stop the lens suffers from being diffraction limited in a big way. What this means is that the lens itself, stopped down to its maximum f-stop goes very soft due to internal deffraction. There is no way the film/lens combination captured the shaprness White claims in his badgeman alteration.

I have tested the lens from a polaroid camera of the same type as Moorman's on a modern view camera using both polaroid b/w and a 48 mega pixel digital scanning back. My tests back up the fact that the Badgeman image is not indicitive of the sharpness that could be captured by the moorman polaroid.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

Jack,

It was always my impression that Zapruder climbed off the pedestal nearly immediately after completing his film. Wiegman, I thought, caught the pedestal later -- after A.Z. had climbed off.

I also reviewed the Nix film -- seems to show A.Z. filming exactly as expected.

Is your contention that Abraham Zapruder was *not* the one who shot the film?

Also -- I was under the impression that the Badgeman image was the byproduct of some *extensive* photographic enhancement. Have these techniques ever been applied to the Zapruder pedestal area?

Frank...your "impression" is wrong. During his very short run, Wiegman

captured both the empty pedestal and the limo not yet to the underpass

(see attachment). The empty pedestal frame and the underpass frame

are a split second apart. Zapruder filmed the limo entering the underpass,

so MUST be on the pedestal when Wiegman films while running.

On Badgeman...he can be seen on the ORIGINAL, which I have copied.

There was NO EXTENSIVE PHOTO ENHANCEMENT. All I did was copy the

image making an OPTIMUM EXPOSURE (bracketing).

The Nix film has been altered.

Nobody knows who shot the Z film...but it likely was NOT Abe.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len Colby' continues....

[...]

Roland Zavada one of the World's leading film experts and the inventor of the Kodakcrome II film that Zapruder used didn't think the technology existed nor did Oliver Stone (according to Gary Mack) nor the movie director Pat consulted.

dgh02: before I go any further, Mr Colby, what technology was it that Roland Zavada THINK [?] did NOT exist in 1963? Not hearsay Mr. Colby, a quote from Roland Zavada would do quite nice.

Do you know who Linwood Dunn is, Mr. Colby?

for lurkers who have a interest in the subject follow this link:

http://www.photosonics.com/Milestone%20HTL...wood%20dunn.htm

pay particular attention to what company he dealt with in 1942

Ask Rollie [a retiree from KODAK] if he knows who this is?

rest snipped

Zavada wasn't specific. Since you claim to be in touch with him why don't you ask him to elaborate?

"The author wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced

technology and film resources were able: to create a "Kodachrome

original" that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination

and evaluation by multiple researchers."

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

Dave your link lead to a nice little history lesson, just what is it supposed to prove? No one disputes that optical printers existed for a long time. So the Army got some in WWII. So just when exactly are YOU going to get around to citing a single movie made around the time of or before the assassination that utilized such extensive compositing and doesn't look obviously faked? And since you seem to be implying that the Army's printers were used maybe even a movie made in 1942 or earlier.

Dave now that I've got you dancing on the end of my string again why don't you reply to my last post on the other thread?

The theories purported by White and Healy are getting more far fetched by the minute.

So now we are to believe that not only was the Z-film not shot by Zapruder but it wasn't shot from the pedestal!

If we are to believe Costella the forgers had to shoot actual footage of the limo and it occupants, so even if they pre-filmed the "Elm St." background someone somewhere had to be filming the motorcade at the moment of the assassination. So where exactly was it shot from? It appears to have been shot from the pedestal. Why would the conspirators have gone through such an apparently unnecessary complication? If Zapruder and Stizman weren't on the pedestal they were part of the conspiracy, why not have one of them film it? If Zapruder didn't film it his secretary Lillian Rodgers was in on it too. Obviously whoever the conspirators were they would want to involve as few people as possible. Even if Zapruder were part of the conspiracy why bring these women in on it too? That's two more people they would have to worry might someday go public or tell a loved one who might go public. A few more questions present themselves:

-What was the point of having someone else film the assassination from somewhere else and then have Zapruder claim he had filmed it on the pedestal?

-Jack keeps referring to a 'dragnet' for photos. What evidence does he have that such a dragnet existed? The story I heard is that the FBI simply visited photo stores and other places where people could get developing done and asked the employees to attach notices asking people to turn over copies of any photos or movies they might have taken of the assassination.

-What would they have done if a photo turned up that clearly showed the pedestal without Zapruder on it? They could not have been sure they would be able to lay their hands on all images of Dealy Plaza, what about Poloaroids, what about people from out of town who might have developed their movies and photos elsewhere?

-Do the alterationists dispute that Zapruder was in the vicinity of the pedestal at the time of the assassination? If so how do they explain the 2 photos of him? Are they fakes too? Where the photographers also part of the conspiracy?

-Do they dispute that the camera used was Zapruder's?

-Was the reel of film he brought to the Kodak lab already altered? IIRC he called reporters to his office shortly after the assassination and they accompanied him to a local TV station and then to Kodak. How did they have time to make the forgery?

As for Jack's photo evidence it's worthless. As Craig pointed out Poloroid film is very low resolution and 'badgeman' looks more like a blob then anything else. There are numerous other reasons why part of the photo could be more out of focus than others, Poloroid lenses weren't exactly Zeisses. As for the film frame it's too unclear to identify anything on the pedestal. Jack try attaching a higher resolution unaltered frame of the Wiegman film along with a clip proving that it wasn't from after the assassination

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
This is probably a stupid question, but would it not have been simpler to claim that the film showed nothing but static?Or that a technician made a terrible mistake and wiped the whole thing, sure questions would have been asked, and blame apportioned, but in the long run the film would have been nothing but a faded memory. Seems like an awful lot of trouble and risk to go through to produce a film that still makes it look like JFK took a frountal shot..

That wouldn't have worked. The Z-film was projected in the Dallas Kodak lab immediatelly after it was developed and was seen by Zapruder, 14 lab employees and IIRC a few reporters. Zapruder went from Kodak directly to Jamison where 3 copies were made. Zapruder showed the film again early the next morning to reporters and Secret Service and IIRC FBI agents before turning over the original to Life.

Yes Len, I am aware of that, my point is (and it was poorly made) why allow things to develope in such a hap-hazzard fasion. In other words why not confiscate the film from the get go, as was done with other D/P film evidence. Once you posess the movie you are in control of what happens to it, and crucially, who see's it.

What do alterationists believe Zapruders role was in all this. Because if he did not take the film, he must have been a willing participant to the events. And so, it seems to me, the conspiracy becomes ever larger.

Share this post


Link to post
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...