The Zapruder film and film information between the sprocket holes

[Michael Walton]

Doug - On August 5, 1963, representatives of the United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space, underwater or in the atmosphere.

Yes, thanks for posting this Doug and it's a good post by Danny. I agree that President Kennedy saved us from two nuclear wars when he refused to send the military at the BOP and for fighting off his war mongering generals and went the quarantine route during the CMC. I think both of these events are ones that eventually led to his elimination.

Sandy - Common sense -- which seems to have escaped Michael -- tells most people that if alterations were made, they would have been done on large prints. Which later would be photographed back onto 8 mm film. Or something along those lines.

Sigh...Sandy, please go and read what Jeremy wrote about you CAN'T bump up Kodachrome film without causing a lot of aritifacts. So think of this timeline: Take the 8mm film, bump it up to 16mm? 35mm? [artifacts]; paint in the blob; bump it back down to 8mm; send this version to NARA where it's currently stored. Really, Sandy? Really? OMG.

Chris - Added on edit: "Also, while the new Eastman color negative stock is almost grainless, there is a difference in grain between a print-up and a 70mm print made from a 65mm negative"

OMFG! You can't be serious, Chris. Bumping up an 8mm film to 70mm...in nineteen xxxxxxing 63?! Or whenever the Bad Guys decided to do it?! Hahahaha.....

Tom - On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964: Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

So now the Bad Guys brought in Hanna Barbera to paint in the blob, Tom?! I thought it was Ub Iwerks they brought in. Holy ####!

And here it is:

Secret Service in-house film made in early 1964 reviewing 11/22. Starts at 3:32 and the doctored, blob-painted-in-by-Hanna-Barbera, 67% of frames removed because Zapruder shot it at 48 FPS, yet the girl runs smoothly like she does in 2016 altered, faked, blobbed, bumped up and then down version, starts at 11:38.

And check out the title card at 4:17. You know, it's funny because I think the whole WC is nothing but BS. But that title card IS one of the few things they got right.

[David G. Healy]

...

Sigh...Sandy, please go and read what Jeremy wrote about you CAN'T bump up Kodachrome film without causing a lot of aritifacts. So think of this timeline: Take the 8mm film, bump it up to 16mm? 35mm? [artifacts]; paint in the blob; bump it back down to 8mm; send this version to NARA where it's currently stored. Really, Sandy? Really? OMG.

...

bull pookie son... you can bump anything to anything. Tell us what kind of artifacts, why they are there. And seeing you're not EVER going to make a comparison with the alleged in-camera original, you're simply passing on nonsense or disinfo. Which most of us have come to accept that of you...

[David G. Healy]

Michael Walton said:

"So now the Bad Guys brought in Hanna Barbera to paint in the blob, Tom?! I thought it was Ub Iwerks they brought in. Holy ####!"

********

now we know you're panicking... <boring>

[Tom Neal]

Tom - On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964: Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

So now the Bad Guys brought in Hanna Barbera to paint in the blob, Tom?! I thought it was Ub Iwerks they brought in. Holy ####!

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Twenty years later, NPIC still didn't have the skills so they brought in a cartoonist. Even by your standards that is a totally lame response. When you are dead wrong and EVERYONE knows it, including you, you are STILL to childish to admit that once again you're wrong.

[Tom Neal]

...you're simply passing on nonsense or disinfo. Which most of us have come to accept that of you...

David,

Do you think the best he can come up with is nonsense, or is he actually the worlds WORST disinfo agent?

If he's a disinfo agent, he has failed miserably because no one except his 'partner' believes any of his BS.

On the other hand based on the "quality" of his posts I truly believe that nonsense *IS* the BEST he can produce...

Edited July 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Tom writes:

Except that I NEVER stated his memory was perfect.

And I never claimed that you did. You seem prone to making exaggerated claims. Here's an example from the crazy mathematics thread, which you wisely deleted:

The techs were told to hide the shot from the front. ... The technicians who did the actual alterations did NOT make the call to hide the film away. This decision was made by higher-ups after viewing the results and finding them unacceptable.

Would you care to provide a documentary source for this?

Tom also writes:

You should be interested, but I doubt you are, that Homer McMahon ... recalled (30 years after the fact) that his interpretation of the film he saw indicated 6-8 shots were fired, from at least 3 different directions. ... I suppose you will dismiss him also.

How are we to judge Mr McMahon's reliability? In his interview with the ARRB, he himself gives us some clues:

Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can't remember, really - anything. Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don't know how the mind works, but I do know that I - that I'm not - OK, I'm a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a 'wet brain' is? You're looking at one. I damn near died, and I'm not a competent witness, because I don't have good recall - absolutely not - absolute recall. ...

I don't, I don't have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I don't know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything here. So, this is not - at the time I did it, I was not - I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you're talking to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].

(http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf [332 KB], pp.29-30)

In your opinion, Tom, how reliable a witness is Mr McMahon?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael writes:

please go and read what Jeremy wrote about you CAN'T bump up Kodachrome film without causing a lot of aritifacts. So think of this timeline: Take the 8mm film, bump it up to 16mm? 35mm? [artifacts]; paint in the blob; bump it back down to 8mm; send this version to NARA where it's currently stored.

Expert opinion, as far as I'm aware, is that copying images from one Kodachrome film onto another Kodachrome film will inevitably create increased grain and contrast and will distort the colour balance. According to Roland Zavada, the film in the National Archives does not show any signs of these anomalies:

The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing information, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has no evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup, etc.

(http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf [138 KB])

Prof Raymond Fielding points out that such visual anomalies would have been obvious:

in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available ... if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived scrutiny, and ... challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr Healy in the document that you [Zavada] sent me, are technically naïve.

(Roland Zavada's response to chapter 14 of Douglas Horne's Inside the ARRB, p.18: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf [7MB])

In that document, Zavada makes a very telling point:

The very interesting twist to your chapter is that it has done more to ensure the Zapruder film at NARA is authentic rather than altered.

Your interviews with Dino Brugioni and Homer McMahon and their handling of what they interpreted as "original" films, most likely were the Jamieson copies provided to the Secret Service by Zapruder and flown to Washington on successive days....

Your analysis of those interviews and the conclusions you draw about the briefing boards have provided a tight focus to establish a time frame and possible venue for the purported 'sanitizing' of the Zapruder original. Both reinforce all of the technology and film reproduction constraints to confirm our conclusion that alteration to the 8mm original and its reconstitution, as a 'sanitized' Kodchrome II equivalent, was impossible.

If these experts are correct, the film in the National Archives must be the one that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination, and any forgery that involved removing frames or copying the orginal film, simply cannot have happened.

Is there an expert opinion that disagrees with Zavada and Fielding? If not, the question of authenticity is settled: the Zapruder film in the Archives has not been faked.

[Michael Walton]

Dave Healy - bull pookie son... you can bump anything to anything. Tell us what kind of artifacts - now we know you're panicking... <boring>

Why should I tell you, Dave? You don't or won't believe it anyway, so why bother. Sigh... do you have anything GOOD to add here other than swooping down, saying ridiculous BS, and then flapping off again? I dont' think you've EVER offered anything useful here except your ill-informed opinions, the same ones you offer when sitting around the bowling alley snack table inhaling cigarettes and drinking a 64 oz Diet Coke.

Tom - Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Twenty years later, NPIC still didn't have the skills so they..

So when did Hanna Barbera, Iwerks (or even Walt himself for ###'s sake) come in and do this, Tom? Did you even watch the video above I posted? Probably not. According to you, they were painting in H-B characters in the 1940s on 35mm Hollywood film cels then overlaying them using an optical printer (that's a fact). Yet, you think they painted in an animated blob on Kennedy's head (what for I have no #### idea why they would)...but why not take it a step further? Why not paint in Connally's scowl as the bullet hits him, but paint it in right at 225 when Kennedy starts throwing his hands up? That would make the SBT more plausible. Or why not animate Kennedy's entire body, throwing him down onto the floor of the limo as the bullet hits at 313? I mean, why not, Tom? They painted Jerry Mouse to sing and dance with Gene Kelly, right? Get Hanna and Barbera to hold the film cel down, Iwerks to direct, and Walt to magically stroke the brush, right?

Kennedy's right side of his head was in shadow, Tom. The sunlight was over on the left side. That's why it looks so dark there, so "blobbish." That combined with the very tiny film crystals on the 8mm film stock is not going to show something in incredible detail. And what people don't realize too is it's not just the film stock. It's also the lenses. The Z camera was a prosumer grade machine circa 1963 with a decent but not great lens. Nothing like they used when filming Gene dancing with Jerry. You're just not going to see the detail you think you're supposed to see as if it was shot on 35mm film using a high-grade Fuji or like lens.

But as a mentioned over on Chris's thread - which I'm unofficially renaming from Swan Song to "The 67% Solution," none of you, not a one, can answer this: What were the Bad Guys seeing in the so-called original film that was so terrible that they had to go through all of the trouble of removing 67% of the frames, a la Chris, painting in blobs, and all of this other nonsense? What was it? And further: Where is this original film and how does everyone, including Chris, Tom, Dave, Dave H, Jim Fetzer, and all of other wackos, know what's in this mystery film, but why Jeremy, Zavada, me and others, don't know what's in it or have never seen it?

As was said in the other thread, it's like counting how many angels fit on the head of a needle - NO ONE has ever seen this EVER happen before, but we have all of these Fetzer acolytes standing around saying, "Oh, yeah...blob there!" and "Oh, yeah...48 FPS and 67% removed, oh, yeah...!" But when you ask them why, it's, "Because we say so! We know better and you don't!"

Absolutely, incredibly ridiculous.

These people remind me of my ridiculous brother-in-law who used to sit around spewing nonsense while hacking on his Salems. One time, we went out in my car and I turned on the air conditioner. I flipped the RECIRC button and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do that! It guzzles up a lot more gas when you throw that RECIRC switch." As if the switch turns on this magical extra motor to make it colder. I tried to explain that it doesn't, that it just recirculates the air, making it colder. I knew this because I researched it previously and was curious what exactly the switch did. He replied, "Naw! It guzzles up more gas." Then he took a hack on his Salem and just looked out the window.

It's just sheer stupidity and ignorance combined.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Chris Davidson]

And here it is:

Secret Service in-house film made in early 1964 reviewing 11/22.

Missing some frames. Why is that? What reproduction process was used? I guess "cutting and pasting" according to some.

And the quality of that missing frame. What a joke.

Once again, when was this created?

[Tom Neal]

Tom writes:

Except that I NEVER stated his memory was perfect.

And I never claimed that you did. You seem prone to making exaggerated claims. Here's an example from the crazy mathematics thread, which you wisely deleted:

The techs were told to hide the shot from the front. ... The technicians who did the actual alterations did NOT make the call to hide the film away. This decision was made by higher-ups after viewing the results and finding them unacceptable.

Would you care to provide a documentary source for this?

Tom also writes:

You should be interested, but I doubt you are, that Homer McMahon ... recalled (30 years after the fact) that his interpretation of the film he saw indicated 6-8 shots were fired, from at least 3 different directions. ... I suppose you will dismiss him also.

How are we to judge Mr McMahon's reliability? In his interview with the ARRB, he himself gives us some clues:

Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can't remember, really - anything. Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don't know how the mind works, but I do know that I - that I'm not - OK, I'm a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a 'wet brain' is? You're looking at one. I damn near died, and I'm not a competent witness, because I don't have good recall - absolutely not - absolute recall. ...

I don't, I don't have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I don't know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything here. So, this is not - at the time I did it, I was not - I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you're talking to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].

(http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf [332 KB], pp.29-30)

In your opinion, Tom, how reliable a witness is Mr McMahon?

That's right continue ignoring my questions that you can't answer, while asking me questions.

Answer the questions I've posed to you first.

[Tom Neal]

Tom - Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Twenty years later, NPIC still didn't have the skills so they..

And you of course know exactly what skills NPIC had because of your top-level security clearance and inside access.

Just like your buddy, any question you can't answer is ignored by you.

For the umpteenth time post a Z-film frame showing the hole in the back of JFK's head.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

Chris - The simplest explanation is usually the one that makes the most sense. We don't know how the SS made the Z film transfer to BW. For all we know, they might have just projected the Z film on a screen and the SS AV tech aimed his camera at the projected image and captured it on film. Very low tech but possibly very plausible, given that AV departments in the government worked cheaply. I used to do this myself when I worked in AV (not film but video) and it worked fine. You did things the best way you could on a shoestring. Because the AV camera was not synched with the projected film, perhaps when the shutter closed that single frame was not captured and possibly others.

But does it really matter, Chris? Why does a frame after the shooting that you think is missing be of concern? And as I said above, what was in that single frame you're claiming to be missing that was so terrible that it just HAD to be eliminated?

You might want to compare the BW film with this version, which is just the unstablized frames of the Z film, downloaded from the internet, just whizzing by at what the Zavada report states was the recording time of a little more than 18 FPS. I made this a while back so yes, there is a tested fake element I added to it. But the point here is watch the running girl in both, Chris. She's bouncing along naturally in both. Use her as your benchmark, Chris. It's all natural, Chris. Perfectly normal and not faked, Chris. Once you use the bouncing girl running and the guy stepping back onto the curb as benchmarks, it all just flows normally from there, Chris. No painted-in blobs...no 67% of frames removed...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRDVUT3ROS2psbTg

[Michael Walton]

That's right continue ignoring my questions that you can't answer, while asking me questions.Answer the questions I've posed to you first...

Tom, this pretty much proves what I've known all along - you don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. I just explained previously WHY there is no hole there. The catch is yes, I DO agree with you that there IS a hole there because I strongly believe that his whole right side of his head was shot out and it extended back toward the back.

But the reason why I DO NOT agree with you about Walt, Hanna-Barbera, and Ub having to come in and paint over this hole (which sounds so ridiculous that it's starting to sound comical) was because there's a simpler and far more reasoned explanation for what you're seeing in the film. You didn't even bother to read it but it was right there. So, nice guy that I am I'll put it right here in front of you. But it's up to you to read it:

Kennedy's right side of his head was in shadow, Tom. The sunlight was over on the left side. That's why it looks so dark there, so "blobbish." That combined with the very tiny film crystals on the 8mm film stock is not going to show something in incredible detail. And what people don't realize too is it's not just the film stock. It's also the lenses. The Z camera was a prosumer grade machine circa 1963 with a decent but not great lens. Nothing like they used when filming Gene dancing with Jerry. You're just not going to see the detail you think you're supposed to see as if it was shot on 35mm film using a high-grade Fuji or like lens.

So there it is, Tom. But speaking of answering people's question here, I'm STILL waiting for all of you guys to tell me:

But as a mentioned over on Chris's thread - which I'm unofficially renaming from Swan Song to "The 67% Solution," none of you, not a one, can answer this: What were the Bad Guys seeing in the so-called original film that was so terrible that they had to go through all of the trouble of removing 67% of the frames, a la Chris, painting in blobs, and all of this other nonsense? What was it? And further: Where is this original film and how does everyone, including Chris, Tom, Dave, Dave H, Jim Fetzer, and all of other wackos, know what's in this mystery film, but why Jeremy, Zavada, me and others, don't know what's in it or have never seen it?

As was said in the other thread, it's like counting how many angels fit on the head of a needle - NO ONE has ever seen this EVER happen before, but we have all of these Fetzer acolytes standing around saying, "Oh, yeah...blob there!" and "Oh, yeah...48 FPS and 67% removed, oh, yeah...!" But when you ask them why, it's, "Because we say so! We know better and you don't!"

I'm still eagerly awaiting...

[Tom Neal]

Tom, this pretty much proves what I've known all along - you don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

Oddly enough you stated that you used to think I was a reasonable person when I defended you. Now that I disagree with you I'm a jerk. OR you've known along that I don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees. Yet ANOTHER sterling example of altering what you said in the past to fit your current mood. And once again Pot calls kettle black. Why don't you just admit that you're pissed off at me, because I called you on posting OT?

I just explained previously WHY there is no hole there. The catch is yes, I DO agree with you that there IS a hole there...

Kennedy's right side of his head was in shadow, Tom. The sunlight was over on the left side. That's why it looks so dark there, so "blobbish."

So then anything that isn't in direct sunlight is completely devoid of any detail like the back and right side of his head in the z-film. Even when he turns his head in a different direction, falls over or the limo turns relative to the sun. You of course have calculated the altitude and azimuth of the sun at that time and date and computed where the shadows would fall. There are autopsy photos that show the back of his head intact despite the hole that you agree existed. So these were faked, but no one tried to do the same thing with the z-film?

Do you believe NO blood or brain exited the large hole you admit was in the back of his head? When this matter exited the black shadow that erased ALL detail including the large hole it remained invisible? Post a z-frame that shows the blood and brain matter exiting the back of his head that struck a motor cop in the face and landed on Sam Kinney's arm.

Also, I did NOT say there was 'blob' on the back of his head. I was referring to the red blob on the side/front of his head. Which to you is unquestionably a perfect representation of how it should appear because as you insist no frame of the z-frame was touched.

Funny when you ridiculed the animations you stated that it was because NPIC didn't have the technology to put something on the z-film, now you know the cartoon was laughable because of shadows. Changed your mind again about your past statements? It's real easy to nitpick someone's statements as you do, isn't it?

Provide the quote where I state that I *know* what was in the original film, or retract your statement that I made such a claim.

Try to get through your response without labeling everyone who disagrees with you a "wacko" or whatever insult-of-the-day you MUST include.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Chris Davidson]

Chris - The simplest explanation is usually the one that makes the most sense. We don't know how the SS made the Z film transfer to BW. For all we know, they might have just projected the Z film on a screen and the SS AV tech aimed his camera at the projected image and captured it on film. Very low tech but possibly very plausible, given that AV departments in the government worked cheaply. I used to do this myself when I worked in AV (not film but video) and it worked fine. You did things the best way you could on a shoestring. Because the AV camera was not synched with the projected film, perhaps when the shutter closed that single frame was not captured and possibly others.

But does it really matter, Chris? Why does a frame after the shooting that you think is missing be of concern? And as I said above, what was in that single frame you're claiming to be missing that was so terrible that it just HAD to be eliminated?

You might want to compare the BW film with this version, which is just the unstablized frames of the Z film, downloaded from the internet, just whizzing by at what the Zavada report states was the recording time of a little more than 18 FPS. I made this a while back so yes, there is a tested fake element I added to it. But the point here is watch the running girl in both, Chris. She's bouncing along naturally in both. Use her as your benchmark, Chris. It's all natural, Chris. Perfectly normal and not faked, Chris. Once you use the bouncing girl running and the guy stepping back onto the curb as benchmarks, it all just flows normally from there, Chris. No painted-in blobs...no 67% of frames removed...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRDVUT3ROS2psbTg

Sorry Charlie.

You tried to pass off an early version (insinuating it would be impossible for any alterations to have occurred) on this zfilm between Nov22 and whenever this was created.

I suggest finding the other version of that film.

What's next, Groden's version some 4+ years later.

It's real simple.

To begin:

Push and hold a camera button down.

Fire up optical printer.

Program the step frame process to 1/2 or 1/3.

The process has been recreated for you (both with original 48fps -motorcycle and modern day-car) footage.

You didn't have a clue that 2/3 of the motorcycle frames were removed. (Your comment about normal to slow down)

I highly doubt you knew half of the car footage frames were also removed.

Someone shows you an easy alternative and you can't process it.

David already pointed out Altgen's double for you.

Stop wasting my time.