The Dealey "Master Film"

[Steve Thomas]

It's in the Forum section.

Ah.

If I remember right, it's against their forum rules to post anything said there anywhere else.

Too bad.

Steve Thomas

[David G. Healy]

Steve wrote:

Ah.

If I remember right, it's against their forum rules to post anything said there anywhere else.

Too bad.

Steve Thomas

________________

The JFK Research forum rules and reg's are posted clearly for member review, if there's ANY doubt what one can or can not do regarding other peoples POSTINGS, and or copying and pasting posts elsewhere, its made abundantly clear...

[Bernice Moore]

It's in the Forum section.

Ah.

If I remember right, it's against their forum rules to post anything said there anywhere else.

Too bad.

Steve Thomas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are no restrictions about posting anything said there pertaining to the assassination elsewhere if it is the authors own work .As long as it is the authors own work he or she has the right to distribute his or her own work freely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*****************************

Hi Duncan :

Some may be interested in this from Livingstone....from one of his new books....

Two Different Versions of the Zapruder Film

From:

Harrison E.Livingstone : "The Radical Right and the Murder of John F Kennedy".

"A film of the assassination was created for public consumption as a propoganda film. That film is known as the Zapruder film, named after Abraham Zapruder -----one of the amateur camera persons in Dealey Plaza who filmed portions of the assassination.

...The film was altered in haste ,and later further alterations were made as needed upon discovery of problems with the films...... Zapruder points out in his testimony to the Warren Commission that he was concerned about altered frames as a book of pictures ostensibly from his film were shown to him.."

Warren Commission:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm

Shaw Trial:

1: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony...ruder_shaw1.htm

2: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony...ruder_shaw2.htm

"We sure would like to know how his testimony was manipulated or excised..

A major edit of the film occurs at 132 in the transition from frame 133. One half-block of the motorcade was removed as the limousine rounded the corner from Houston onto Elm . We do not see this , and the portion is gone that would have shown how the shots began and the fact that the limo stopped. A similar phenomena occurs in at least six other films where the same journey of the limo has been removed."

Zapruder Film:

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/

"My investigation has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zapruder never stopped his camera at that point , as he repeatedly told people , and that the film was cut and optically reframed so that there is no splice. Optical reframing is the method used when a film receives " special effects" or is altered. As is explained in my book on the film. "The Hoax of the Century", there are no flash frames or evidence of "first frame over exposure" at Z-133, the transition from the three motorcycles leading the motorcade to the limousine, and it is a jump cut. I have interviewed a leading film expert in the world as well as the inventors of the camera who were trying to prevent such flash frames, and it is a certainty that the camera always produced them when it was stopped and then restarted .We do not see them at this crucial transition from one scene to another in the film.

It is reasonable that there was another person operating a camera close by Zapruder with essentially the same perspective, perhaps in the "pill box" just behind Zapruder in the pergola. This film was the one that was flown to Kodak in Rochester N.Y, as testimony indicates ,altered, and Zapruder's film disappeared later on. During the massive shell game that was played with Zapruder's film before it was developed in Dallas. the other film was already in the air. " snip

Two Different Filmed Versions of the Assassination:

" The Zapruder film shows events not present in other films. For instance, Clint Hill testified:

Warren Commission:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm

Original Report:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-hill.htm

that he ran after the limousine when the shots began, and catching hold of the handle on the rear of the car, he crawled on his knees onto the trunk and grabbed at Jacqueline Kennedy ,who had crawled out on the trunk presumably to retrieve a portion of her husband's head. The Nix film shows him with his arms around her placing her in the back seat.

Nix Film:

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/

He stated that he saw the back of the president's head lying in the back seat.

2H 141, 6H 290 :HSCA Report 235

"" The rear portion of his head was lying in the rear seat of the car.His brain was exposed ....There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head...snip..

She turned to me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there....""

" We do not see Hill put his arms around Mrs. Kennedy in the Zapruder film, but instead see him only reach towards her outstretched hand.At the moment their fingers seem to almost ,touch. Mrs. Kennedy turns and gets back into her seat without his help .One might conclude the film was altered before Hill testified in 1964. Others might think that Hill is mistaken ,but not when the films show entirely different scenes. Again, the weight of evidence takes into account the pattern in all of the instances of conflict we see here..

There may be more films in conflict with the ones we have seen at this point, and the film taken by Beverly Oliver ,as yet not see by anyone outside the government ,apparently shows entirely different events. This film was used by the FBI to reconstruct the crime in their headquarters in Washington .Readers are referred to the exposition of the facts from the FBI report and exhibit in my "Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century." Many people have insisted that the limousine stopped or slowed way down. This is not what we see in the films....."....

B..

[Bill Miller]

The JFK Research forum rules and reg's are posted clearly for member review, if there's ANY doubt what one can or can not do regarding other peoples POSTINGS, and or copying and pasting posts elsewhere, its made abundantly clear...

Most researchers think that rule is there so people won't embarrass the site by letting the rest of the JFK community see the ridiculous things posted there. I mean ... what other purpose can there be for if this stuff was really ground breaking - would they not want it shared with the public. Think about it!

[Shanet Clark]

TWO RECENT POSTS PASTED FROM THE SEMINAR THREAD ON ZAPRUDER

Frame One through Frame 39 does have an anomaly in the upper right quadrant.

It is persistent, it looks like a MATTE overlay and it resembles, indeed,

the retaining wall and bushes in Nix and Moorman....

It essentially airbrushes the windows of the building to the right of the three upright narro windows (county records?)

View it in its "original" form here:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z1.jpg

Shanet

ALSO: The animation above (Lees post of the horizontal shadow man) might be best interpreted as light and shadow falling on the Screen during a cineplex transfer. If one were filming a dub or "doctored"

copy from a screen (or mirror) and someone opened a door, and light fell on the screen briefly, this is what you would see.

This to me is the "watermark" that shows film transfer and duplication in what

is supposedly an original. It didn't happen in the darkroom, because the light would be a dark spoilage, this is a light shining onto the image that is being filmed.

ALSO: what are the strange letters on the left margin in 34-38, some are letters against the tree, some are against a solid background, glimpse of margin of

composite element ...? (these #s return around 160...169 "M" in left margin... ?)

The shadow overlay looks most human and like the Badgeman or gunman in

Frame 170, against the follow up cars black hood --- check it out:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z170.jpg

Here is another anomaly, visible to the naked eye.

Click on frame 183 -- what is the secondary source of the building?

It is shown in the lower left hand corner and isolated in the upper

bracket fragment ... this looks like the triple overpass or a brick building !

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z183.jpg

ALSO coming and going at random are letters in the left hand margin

M, I, K, D, C, R etc.

Sometimes they are there and sometimes not....

??????????????????????????????????????????????

Duncan's theory comes into play here.

If someone from a nearly identical Point of View as Zapruder were to pan

across the parade route, a few yards before the limo, but with no limo in the frame, then this stock footage could have been used to superimpose the

limo in the bottom of the released zapruder film -- and all the witnesses like

Jean Hill and Mary Moorman would still be in the movie....

That retouching of the first forty frames or so in the upper right hand that Lee Forman points out ... that is the "smoking gun" for forgery,

this is more compelling than the pincushion effect problems

or speed and braking issues.

Some one asked what was the one "flag" for fraud, and here it is,

along with the super fast blood dispersal 313-314.

#2

I googled ZAPRUDER FRAME (no pun intended) and got several good

discussions. The big edit, the jump from no limo to limo in the kill zone,

is supposedly Zapruder turning off the camera, then turning it back on.

However, this would have produced strong overexposure of the First frame

of the "restart" because the Bell and Howell always overexposed the first frame

after a complete stop.

So someone edited out the missing portion and made a spliceless splice,

which means a false master print --- read the various opinions, they range from

TOTAL FAKE to INNOCENT HOME MOVIE.

I am concerned about the letters on the margin, this is evidence of tampering that is not visible when the movie is screened, only when the full frames are inspected.

Edited February 22, 2005 by Shanet Clark