On 2/19/2022 at 9:59 AM, John Butler said:

Look at the Vice President's security vehicle and you will understand this frame is a poorly done alteration suggesting how the film frames was built.

This is how the vehicle looks when seen in the proper form:

And, in Z 157 we have this:

The security vehicle for Johnson can be see in other frames better:

I noticed in all this reaction to what I have said folks tend to focus in on things they think can be disproved.  And, they avoid obvious things such as the VP security vehicle which they can't disprove.  One incident of editing destroys the whole film.  I would say there are dozens, but I haven't gone through and counted them.

Not only are there things placed into the Zapruder Film there are things left out.  Here's an example:

Of the people that can be seen in the last, or right-hand frame, only the two women, who I think are disguised Mary and Jean based upon WC Exhibit Hill No. 5, make it into the Zapruder film at a different location.  The others don't.

Elsie Dorman is said to be the worst photographer ever and her film suffered much distortion and such creating an unwatchable film.  Some parts of it are available to point out the difference between the Zapruder Film and the Dorman Film on the SW corner of Houston and Elm.  There are more people there on that corner in the Dorman Film than the Zapruder Film.  This point usually goes unanswered also.  I wonder what happened to Pierce and Terry's film?  Obviously, their photos would have been very, very important since they were just a few feet away.  OBTW, where is Robert Croft?  Is the Croft photo the Allman photo or Ford photo?

The Dorman film also points out the veracity of the girls when they said they ran with their father to the SW corner in time to watch p limo turn the corner onto Elm in about a second or two.  No, Phil can't be seen coming out from the walkway onto Elm Street in this film either and he can't be seen running with the girls.  Who do you believe?  Zapruder or Dorman?

4 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

Are there any other murder / attempted murder cases where a private agent was allowed to purchase and hold  original evidence (films, photos, weapons, forensic evidence, etc.) while the investigation was ongoing?

Bill,

I don't believe there are any.  And, this is the first time I have heard someone put this idea forward.  I wonder why?

Maybe they should have sold Oswald's alleged rifle.  It might have brought as much money as the film?  After all, that rifle was also private property like the film.  Marina should have had some say in its disposition.  She was in need of money.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As we have seen many times before, John appears not to understand a couple of very basic facts:

• He is looking at a copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of an 8mm home movie, and not the original film.
• Each time a physical film is copied, anomalies are generated.

Odd-looking features such as extra-long legs are precisely the sort of thing you would expect to see if you're looking at a poor-quality, several-generations-old, copy of what is already a tiny detail on a film.

Trivial anomalies such as these provide no evidence at all that the original film has been altered.

Does John genuinely not grasp these points?

Jeremy,

To answer your question, NO!  I don't grasp those points.  I think they are ludicrous as most of what you say.  I use John Costella's frames.  I believe he made those from the original copy or a copy of the original.  Costella says this:

"The JFK Assassination

Since 2000 I have investigated the Zapruder home movie of the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

Which way does JFK’s head move from Frame 312 to Frame 313 of the Zapruder Film?

Incredibly, 58 years after the assassination, a newly-published book led to this question still being debated. I answered it comprehensively back in 2002. In 2021 I answered it anew using current image processing programs on this page.

Simple introduction to the faking of the Zapruder film

In 2003 I created this simple introduction to some of the evidence of Zapruder film fakery:

• JFK Assassination Film Hoax

Black Op Radio, March 24, 2011

On Thursday, March 24, 2011, I happened to be in Vancouver, British Columbia. I dropped in on Len Osanic in the Fiasco Bros recording studios, and he was kind enough to do an impromptu interview with me for the third segment of his live weekly radio show, Black Op Radio.

• Real format (15 MB) | MP3 format (50 MB)

What did the eyewitnesses say?

In 2007 I compiled all of eyewitness statements I could find in the Warren Commission’s 18 volumes about what they saw on Elm Street on that fateful day (omitting the issues of the number of shots fired and their direction, as this had been already done by Stewart Galanor).

• What Happened On Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak (alternate link)

Senior law enforcement officials in the lead car testified that motorcycle cop James Chaney passed the presidential limousine while it was in Dealey Plaza. This should be easily visible in the Zapruder film and the Nix film, but it isn’t there. This is a simple proof that both of these films have been faked.

Stabilized HD versions of the Zapruder film

In 2006 I created seven stabilized HD versions of the Zapruder film, running at real-time speed. The YouTube links are below, as well as links to the original QuickTime files.

NOTE (January 25, 2021): YouTube no longer allows the Zapruder film to be shown on their platform, as they say it violates their graphic violence policy.

• Zapruder HD Stable Pan: Following the presidential limousine down Elm Street
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z001-Z257: Fixed camera pointing to the top of Elm Street (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z198-Z301: Fixed camera pointing at the white wall (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z274-Z357: Fixed camera pointing at Mary Moorman (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z325-Z389: Fixed camera pointing at Ike Altgens (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z372-Z425: Fixed camera pointing at Main Street (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z408-Z486: Fixed camera pointing at the triple underpass (original)

Frames of the Zapruder film

In 2003 I put together a reference set of all 486 frames of the extant Zapruder film. In 2006 I improved the processing steps and reissued the full set of frames.

• All 486 frames of the Zapruder film

Panoramic view of Dealey Plaza: then and now

In 2002 I used 16 photographs taken by Jack White from the Zapruder pedestal in Dealey Plaza, and applied advanced scientific methods to create a single panoramic image. I registered this image using the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ topographic survey. I then overlaid three black and white photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department in the days after the assassination, and then finally frames from the Zapruder film itself.

• Dealey Plaza panorama
• Dealey Plaza panorama, with gridlines, compass bearings, and angles of depression
• Zapruder panorama only
• Zapruder panorama only, with gridlines, compass bearings, and angles of depression

Zapruder Film Symposium, Duluth, Minnesota, May 2003

Shortly before his death, Rich DellaRosa kindly uploaded to YouTube the DVDs of the Zapruder Film Symposium held in Duluth, Minnesota in 2003.

Click on the links below for YouTube playlists, or on the numbers for the original parts uploaded by Rich.

• My interview and presentation: Int 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
• David Lifton’s presentation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
• Jack White’s interview and presentation: Int1 Int2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
• David Healy’s presentation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
• Jim Fetzer’s presentation: 1 2 3 4
• David Mantik’s presentation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Book: The Great Zapruder Film Hoax

Based on the above symposium, I contributed two chapters to this book, published in November 2003.

It was out of print and expensive to buy second-hand for many years, but it is now available on Amazon Kindle.

Disclaimer

My work on the JFK assassination has been personal research, and I have never profited financially from it.

© 2000–2022 John Costella"

I recommend you watch David Healey's presentation.  You may learn something about film editing.

Jeremy said,

"Odd-looking features such as extra-long legs are precisely the sort of thing you would expect to see if you're looking at a poor-quality, several-generations-old, copy of what is already a tiny detail on a film." 

You are always asking me to prove things.  Can you prove this statement?  Phil's leg is obviously painted into the frame.   

2 hours ago, David Butler said:

Zapruder frames 154 to 157 were amongst the two splices made by Time Life when their technician damaged the film. They were spliced back in to the original from their first generation copy.

Hi David,

Time had the original and a first-generation copy.  Did they make a copy of their so-called original?  That brings up a question I don't have any info on and really never thought about.  The question is what happened to all of those same day or first-generation copies?  There were at least 2 or 3.  FBI and Secret Service copies?  Time Life copy?

The next question might be is Time Life believable?  Which copy or copies went to the Hawkeye Works and later to NPIC.  Did they have splices also?

If you can provide info on these questions it would be appreciated.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

How did the film alterers know that he was there or not there?  It comes from testimony taken on the day of the assassination and later days.  This indicates that the film alterers had plenty of time to make this scene based upon the testimony of witnesses that were interviewed up to around March, 1964. 

Once again?  I don't see where I made anything up.  Most people were interviewed by March, 1964.  Some were interviewed several times.  The Willis were interviewed in July, 1964 and others were inteviewed after March.  That just stretches out the time for altering the film.  There was plenty of time to do all that alteration contained in the film.  Who saw a complete film by July, 1964 or even by 1965.  Nobody in the public.  All that was seen of Zapruder was the Life photo/frames.  

There were a few people who saw the real film early on.  They generally say the "original" is different.  Can they prove it?  Can they prove the film we have today is the original copy or not?   No.  My believe is that all of the early films were destroyed leaving only what we have today which is a replacement copy.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The same goes for Croft, whose picture didn't surface for another decade or so. 

The FBI went after Croft and immediately seized his photos.  They were available to the folks making the Zapruder film.  I suspect they same was for Phil.

"According to the book, “Matrix for Assassination: The JFK Conspiracy,” Croft took a fourth photo at the scene. He believed it was snapped at the exact moment as the devastating head shot struck Kennedy.

But when he received his photos back from the FBI, this slide was “a complete blank.”

The FBI told him his camera appeared to have malfunctioned at that moment.

Croft’s photos were first examined by the FBI, according to a Secret Service memo, after he turned his film over to the Denver FBI office."

If I remember correctly Phil also had problems with his slides.  Something about a missing train.

At this time I don't see the point to continue a conversation with you.  No matter what I say it will not fit in with your views.  It is a waste of my time.  I have pointed out things that can clearly be seen.  If you don't see them then you have some agenda that leads you to making the kind of comments that you do.  That's not my problem.  

19 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

The reasons for the Zfilm alterations were lying on the cutting room floor before they were collected and destroyed forever.  All we have to go on is the "finished product" and it leaves tantalizing evidence of the editing that was done.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider that the stuff that was removed was more damning than the rearward/left motion of JFK's head, more damning than the slowdown/stopping of the limousine, more damning than the persistent brake lights while the car is supposedly moving forward.  What could that be?  The answer might be found by revisiting the evidence and some of the discredited speculation about "what happened in the car" between Houston Street and Parkland hospital.

 

What said here is very important.  What I considered to happen in Dealey Plaza is truly on the cutting room floor.  That is the film frames from the Zapruder Gap.  Those frames that were lost could change the entire conception of what happened if they were shown in their proper sequence.  IMO, that is the important part of the story.  From what I have seen and from witness testimony what happened down by the Grassy Knoll might have occurred earlier in the Gap.  Farfetched?  Possibly. 

From what I have seen in the Zapruder film more time was necessary to manufacture the "Official Story" as what was needed for the Lone Nut scenario.  I think any alterations that were made were done for only a very few frames.  The picture boards prepared for the SS and FBI during the first weekend.  Along with Mary Moorman, Ike Altgens, and a few others that was all that was seen early on.  There was plenty of time to work on the whole film afterwards.  The altered and completed film replaced every other film around so that today the "original" is all that we see.

According to WC Exhibit Hill Number 5, the original Mary Moorman Polaroid may have been completely different in background then what is currently there.  If Jean Hill is believable, she fought with Arlen Specter to say what is in Hill No. 5, then the background of Mary's Polaroid would be the SW corner of the TSBD rather than the Grassy Knoll.  Arlen Specter classified the exhibit as Top Secret.  Without the ARRB, no one would know what she said.  It is a shame she succumbed to the Official Stroy and said she was down by the Grassy Knoll with Mary.   

Another content problem in Z 157 is Phil Willis and his extra-long leg.  It is not a shadow.  His shadow of that leg is on the pavement and not part of his leg.  This is really a goofy image of Phil suggesting he was placed into this scene basically because he is supposed to be there.  Elsie Dorman shows that he is not there.  His daughters are there.  Linda is seen taking a picture.  Are Phil's slides really his, or are they Linda's slides.  

How did the film alterers know that he was there or not there?  It comes from testimony taken on the day of the assassination and later days.  This indicates that the film alterers had plenty of time to make this scene based upon the testimony of witnesses that were interviewed up to around March, 1964.  This is the extant film.  The "original".  Therefore the "original" is not original, but a false copy.  The original would not have splices and foolish content imagery in the original Z 157.  

The more I study Z frame 157, the more I conclude that this is how the film was manufactured based on the different types of alterations seen there.  The original film would probably have very different imagery in Z 157.  In the original Z 157 would be something we are not supposed to see or know.  Remember the Zapruder Gap adds a large number of frames, 280+, which would change everything if those frames were found intact. 

Look at the Vice President's security vehicle and you will understand this frame is a poorly done alteration suggesting how the film frames was built.

This is how the vehicle looks when seen in the proper form:

And, in Z 157 we have this:

The security vehicle for Johnson can be see in other frames better:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Gil,

I believe I have an innocent explanation for this apparent anomaly. Let's look frame by frame beginning with Z155.

 

Z155

 

This appears to be a composite of the frame from two Z-films. The lower part has lost most of its color and has no image in the sprocket area.

The partition between the upper and lower parts is highly irregular as opposed to consisting of straight lines. This suggests to me that the splice was made with a computer program. (But then, I don't know anything about splicing film.)

 

Z156

 

This appears to be from the Z-film copy having faded colors.

 

 

Z157

 

This appears to be another composite from two different Z-films. This time the faded part is on top. It's hard to see where the splice is. But clearly the limo is in the colored, bottom part and the car behind it is in the faded part.

Now, look at the left headlight (our right) of the car behind the limo. What appears to be a round headlight on that car is really Kennedy's face.

Now, assume that I am right and compare that frame with the next one:

 

Z158

 

Note that Kennedy's face is in the same location as the "headlight" in the previous frames. His face looks larger in this frame because of the motion blur in this frame. In addition to that, I believe Kennedy may have been looking to his left at first and then turned to his right, thus exposing more of his face to the camera.

 

Z 157 contains the splice not earlier or later frames around Z 157.

You also can clearly see the oversized SS security vehicle.

In this crop you can clearly see the film splice.  Kennedy's head is missing due to the splice.  And Kennedy's head is not a headlight on the SS vehicle.  Other frames around Z 157 are irrelevant to Z 157 in showing a large number of alterations. 

Z frame 158 has an oversized motor bike cop.

Kennedy's head is missing in Z 156 also and is not a SS vehicle headlight:

If you look at Z 156-157 you will not be able to identify a single person in the p limo.  The exception is a partial Kennedy with hands nearly in position to clutch at his throat in Z 157.  In Z 156 you can't see much of anything in the p limo.  

Z frame 157 is just one of 480+ frames.  In many other frames you can see things that can only be explained as artistry and alteration.

Another good example is Z 313 to Z 317 has the head wound of Kennedy showing debris from his skull flying in the air.  He can assume that 1 second is about 18 frames.  The frames showing the head wound are about 1/4 of a second.  Just long enough to see matter ejected from Kennedy's head in the film.  Good enough is what those film editors thought.

Z 155

Can you see a single person in Z 155 in the passenger compartment of the p limo?  This is very similar to Elsie Dorman.  When these frames go by as the film is running your mind supplies the details from other frames that do show someone.

17 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

I agree with many of the points made in the last post by Gil. Except maybe for the Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold thing, lol! I seriously doubt that Oliver was even there, but if she was she most certainly wasn't the babushka lady.

Beverly Oliver, the Babushka Lady, and Tammi True are a complex story.  I doubt as you do that Beverly Oliver was there.  I also doubt the Babushka Lady was there until after the assassination and Kennedy had already left the area.  

One can make a case that Beverly Oliver may be the Lady in Blue seen in the Zapruder film by Charles Brehm and just before the camera gets to Mary and Jean.  But, I think the Lady in Blue is actually Tammi True, a stripper for Jack Ruby.  Beverly Oliver was also and was a blonde and can fit the description.

In the Marie Muchmore film you can actually see the transformation of the Lady in Blue into the Babushka Lady.  There actually was a Lady in blue.  She can be seen in the Zapruder Film and one of the Willis slides.  From Muchmore:

As far as the Babushka Lady, there are actually about 13 or 14 to be found in the media of Dealey Plaza.  

54 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

I didn't start this thread as pre-text to World War 3. LOL

I think a healthy debate once in a while is good for us as we search fro the truth.

Gil,

The Forum is a lot better than in past years.  James Gordon has cracked down on those who show up here just to harass people.  He has rebuked several for the language choices and personal attacks on Forum members.  It is not really WWIII here to due Mr. Gordon, who when I get the chance, I thank for taking a harder hand with those who abuse other members.  The internet is a sad place that allows folks to abuse others when they sure wouldn't do it face to face.

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John makes three points:

• All of the films and photographs to do with the assassination have been altered in some way. Every single one of them.
• The photographic record can help us work out not only what happened in Dealey Plaza, but also who was behind the assassination.
• The choice we have is that either a vast conspiracy of all-powerful overlords did it, or Oswald did it.

The first point is crazy. The second point is correct. The third point is wrong.

There I am again.  Crazy.  Not the first time.  I think I'll just go and listen to Patsy Cline for the rest of the afternoon.  I sure Jeremy will take every opportunity to let me know about my mental health in future posts.

9 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

 

John,

I have a particular interest in the "UPI Films", Muchmore and Nix. Could you possibly post even a summary list of the alterations to these two films, please? TIA.

 

Chris,

There is a lot of work involved in rehashing what I have already said across the years on the Forum.  In my old age I have grown lazy.  I recommend searching what I said with earlier topics and comments.

Thanks for your interest.  

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I hope you realize that frames from the film were published within days of the shooting, and that these match the film as currently available. Did Life publish frames that were provided by the CIA? And, if so, what happened to the film given them by Zapruder? Is it sitting in a vault somewhere? And, why, when Tink and others, including Groden and Lifton, finally got their hands on the film stashed away by Life Magazine, was it identical to the one whose frames were published within days of the shooting? Are we to believe Life was given an altered version of the film by the CIA, then stashed it away where no one would see it, only to have it exposed and drive the public to suspect a conspiracy? 

John Costella said he thought the film was built from the ground up.  He said it was technically perfect except for a couple of minor things he found.  Sign distortions, if I am remembering correctly.  This didn't make any sense to me until I started looking at other things in Dealey Plaza.  Z frame 157 is where it all came together.  There are several different anomalies there that suggest the film was built from the ground up.  Phil Willis is one.  At one point I was calling Phil, Superleg Phil.  This was due to his exaggerated long leg.  That long leg had to be painted in by someone.  I have doubts that he was even there on the SW corner of Houston and Elm.  He is not there in the Elsie Dorman film.  His children, Linda and Rosemary, are there.  But, he isn't.  Which gave me the idea that Phil Willis' slides are actually Linda's slides.  You can see her stopping and taking pictures.

I'll use one more example from Z frame 157 before moving on.  It concerns the Johnson security vehicle.  It is a Mercury with a very distinctive top.  In Z 157 we can see the top has been reversed.  Why?  I suspect that is the only image they had to put into the film.  No one would ever see it.  It won't matter.  The back end of the top is in the front and the front of the top is in the rear.  The rest of the vehicle is going in the right direction while it's top is going into another.  Nobody saw that in 50+ years.

These can only be examples of things that were placed (built into) the film.  The SW corner of Houston and Elm has a different number of people there at the same time in the two films.  Less in Zapruder and more in Dorman.  There is a splice cutting of the president's head off. This indicates missing frames and imagery added from elsewhere.

How could they do that within the time limitation of hours or just a few days.  How did they know the cast of characters to put into a built up stage area.  There was no time limitation.  They had all the time they needed.  Think about what was shown to the public?  Life magazine frame/photos.  There were about 30, I think.  A very few people saw the original or one of the early copies.  Their memory of what was shown in the film was different.  Try to prove that afterwards.  It didn't matter. 

The idea that Life Magazine published the photos of the pictorial boards developed at NPIC is reasonable.  And, that is all the public saw.  The rest of the film could be played with over the upcoming months.  As far as who had what copies and who saw what doesn't matter.  I am sure the Secret Service and the FBI knew where every copy was and could get them when they wanted them.  And, they could do whatever they wanted with those copies.  Replace and destroy are the likely options.

Take Elsie Dorman's badly distorted film.  It was supposedly locked up in some lawyer's safe.  The question is how did it get so badly distorted being undisturbed, locked in a safe.  

E. Howard Hunt wrote a lot of spy novels.  In one of these his hero and a band of CIA guys burglarize the Bulgarian (hope I remembered that right) embassy.  They used the same technique as the Watergate Burglers.  And, that burglary would have worked except for the work of James McCord, Angleton's henchman.  What I am saying is the spy agencies, CIA, FBI, and others, were doing these things routinely.  IMO, films were black bagged, replaced, and the old destroyed leaving nothing but the extant film.  That is what looking at Z 157 suggests.

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Couldn't that be because the people on Houston walked away after the parade had passed?

No.  Jack was comparing scenes from the Zapruder film at the first part of the film that would coincide with where the p limo was at the same time.

The two don't match.  Chris Bristow went over this idea and thought he had someone who matched.  I don't think there was a match.  But, let's say Chris did find a match.  What about all the others that didn't match?  This was one of the reasons I thought Chris did not find a match.

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

John,

No, I don't see an anomaly. Do you? If so, where and what is it?

It is this.  There are more in the photo than just this.

The front of the front tire does not match the rear part of the tire.  This indicates the rear part of the tire is an overlay of the front part.  It is not done very well done.  It just occurred to me that the front tire was swapped with the back tire and that did not work out well.  So, another tire was overlayed on the front tire and that came out worse.  But, being good little alterationists with much experience they knew no one would see this.  They didn't take into consideration tech advancement through computers. 

The second arrow shows a front turning tire placed in the back as a rear tire.  Rear tires don't turn.  In other words, this tire was taken from another photo at a different location and put into this photo.

I have explained all of these things to folks before.  I am just doing it again since there are at least 3 people saying that there are no alterations in Dealey Plaza.  The films and photos are internally consistent and show the same things.

That is not true and never was.  I don't know which copy of the Z film is original.  All I know is what we usually see is a fraud and with other media, point out wide-spread deception in actually what happened in Dealey Plaza.

Here's where I will get into trouble.  More than likely, big trouble.  IMO, not many people know what happened in Dealey Plaza due this alteration of all, I say all, films and photos that show anything to do with the assassination.  The story we think we know is not real.  We need to know what happened in Dealey Plaza to understand the complexity of planning and effort went into this assassination.  If we had a clearer picture of what happened there, then it would suggest who was involved with the planning in a clearer way.  It would reveal that only folks with great power could have pulled this off and not a lone gunman however talented he might be.  

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

Let me be clear. I actually liked Jack White. While he was prone to believe some crazy stuff, IMO, he came across as sincere. He was also helpful to other researchers, and provided his materials to the Poage Library, at Baylor University.

I never met Jack White.  He was gone by the time I got interested in Dealey Plaza and the events of the assassination.  If you truly like Jack, then why "the Godfather of Alterationists"?

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

John Butler, on the preceding post the quotation you quote is not from me but from Pat Speer. Could you get that corrected? Thanks.

I should also read post more carefully.  Thanks.

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

John Butler, on the preceding post the quotation you quote is not from me but from Pat Speer. Could you get that corrected? Thanks.

Greg,

I am truly sorry.  The editor does that.  I try to correct as much as possible.  I simply missed it.  Sorry.  It is something that needs to be adjusted.  If you will mention exactly what post that is I will go back and make sure Pat gets credited with what he said.

Speaking of Bell, I have wondered how he did that.  Make his film of the grassy area down at the Triple Underpass and up Elm Street without getting those Dealey Plaza monument partitions in his film.  According to Jay Skaggs, they should be:

This is a question that has never been asked.  How did he do that?  I am interested in what the "Lone Nutters" will reply with.

23 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Like I said, Sandy, if you ask anyone familiar with 8mm film, anomalies are expected, and not proof of alteration. These are tiny images created in a split second, of a moving object, by a hand-held camera. The level of clarity and consistency you seem to think should be expected just wasn't possible at that time. Or even today. 

I have gone through several 8mm films taken in Dealey Plaza.  Hughes, Muchmore, Bell, Martin, Nix, etc.  They all have alterations.  They also show contradictory scenes.  Details of the same scene that doesn't make sense.

There is enough nonsense in all of these films to say they can't really be used as evidence of anything other than fraud.   

Speaking of Ike Altgens and the honesty of his photography, I would like to go back and re-publish this just to go along with the prior comment on Altgens.  Can you see the alteration?  It is not a technical or film distortion.

It is out in plain site to be seen that this photo has been changed.  Why?  I don't know unless it is to cover up shooting on Houston as our star witness Bonnie Ray Williams said.  Two shots.  You just have to look at the details of things.

Jack White said this photo has another interesting anomaly.  The people in the crosswalk at East Houston are not the same as the people there we see in the Zapruder Film.  Then, that raises the question which is real?  Altgens or Zapruder?  Or, neither?  

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

In one of the crazier threads on this Forum, King alterationist James Fetzer attacked The Godfather of alterationists Jack White for his manipulation of photos in Harvey and Lee. Amazingly, moreover, the proof of Jack's manipulation was being provided by Judyth Baker. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

P.S. Perhaps the main reason I've grown so cynical about the cries of the evidence being fake is that I've spent hundreds of hours dealing with Fetzer et al on this forum, and have spent many more hours reading the works of Livingstone and Groden et al. And these guys just aren't credible. At one point, when confronted with the fact the famous Altgens photo was published within a few hours of the assassination, Fetzer cooked up that there was a CIA trailer in the parking lot west of the depository, to which all photos were taken and altered within minutes of the shooting. There was zero evidence for this, mind you, but it must have been there else how could the Altgens photo have been altered so quickly?

Necessity is the mother of invention, and the alterationists have some serious mommy issues. Or something like that...

Speaking of invention...

Can you explain how the great Ike Altgens shot this scene?  Did he use a magic camera capable of distorting some areas but not others in front and behind the distortion?  How does this work?

I await an answer with bated breath.

On 2/15/2022 at 6:14 PM, Pat Speer said:

It's much like the "back of the head" witnesses who are far from uniform in their recollections. People want to believe that they are saying the same thing so they take snippets from their statements or video-taped interviews and make it seem like they are all saying the same thing, when they are not. 

Gil,

Pat said that above, but we know the FBI changed testimony, or in other cases actively coerced and intimidated witnesses to say what they wanted them to say about the events in Dealey Plaza.  When I read all of the witness statements I could find about what happened in Dealey Plaza there were 100+ who said certain similar things.  And, then there was about as many who said something similar, but one, two or three words would change the meaning of what was being said.  Instead of "passed in front of" you would find things like "just pass the TSBD" or "after passing the TSBD".  There were too many of these, in my opinion, to be natural.    

Z frame 306 compared to Costella frame.

Plus,

The top of z frame 307:

Pat's explanation about this frame makes sense.  At least as far as the Z frame 306 goes.  

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

In one of the crazier threads on this Forum, King alterationist James Fetzer attacked The Godfather of alterationists Jack White for his manipulation of photos in Harvey and Lee. Amazingly, moreover, the proof of Jack's manipulation was being provided by Judyth Baker. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

I have no problem with altering a photo to get a clearer image through sharpening, lighting contrast, magnification, or some other process that will enhance what is being seen.  As long as the original is kept for comparison and the alteration is mentioned.  I cropped z frame 307 to show clearly what Pat was talking about.  I still have the original.  The cropped photo is clearly labelled to show the area under discussion.

I do not have expertise or knowledge in film manipulation.  I have just tried to follow David Healey's comments on how films are altered with traveling mattes.  I suggested a way to alter the Z film with just information taken from the inside of the p limo's passenger cabin.  What we see in Z frame 306 is another way to do that.  Simply use the top of the p limo and the information contained there.  You can take this p limo scene from another film and with the use of mattes transfer it into the film you are altering.  This image could have come from another place.  Z frame 157 says something different.  Take an honest look at what is in that frame.  There are more anomalies there and not just one.  

By 1963 the film alterationists had become really skilled with altering images.  Pull up a copy of the movie Jason and the Argonauts and watch the sowing of the dragon seeds.  Great stuff for kids.  Really great animation for its day.

What do we see in 306?  We see Kennedy with his head bowed, obviously shot.  The question here is how many times has been been shot?  We see his "Hollywood Patch" the blackened area covering the occipital/parietal wound.  The black patch says the 313-317 z frames shot are simply nonsense.  It is edited nonsense to deceive you into believing the shooting of President Kennedy occurred down by the Grassy Knoll so that Lee H. Oswald could be set up as the Patsy.  The black patch can be seen in early frames.  

My best guess is that Kennedy was shot on Houston Street just prior to the Houston and Elm intersection or possibly after the turn in front of the TSBD.  This part of the Z film has been excised leaving the Zapruder Gap.  There are 8 or so films that go haywire and become so distorted you can not see what happened in front of the Court Records Building.  All but the Hughes film, which is too distant to really see anything of import.  Elsie Dorman said she quit filming when she heard shooting coming from the Court Records Building.  Remember, she has been labelled the worst photographer ever.  If her film had not been heavily distorted and altered it would be the film of the assassination. 

Chis Davidson has shown us that there was another camera man directly behind Abe Z on the wall behind.  I can account for 14 extra camera people in Dealey Plaza on Houston and Elm that we don't know their names or have seen what they filmed.  They are in the extant media of those areas.  At the ARRB, there was a fellow that mentioned a photographic unit at Fort Hood was sent to Dealey Plaza, possibly as many as 50 people, were filming in Dealey Plaza.

Jack White is gone so it is easy to use him as a target with things like "moon lander Jack' or what Pat said earlier.  Whenever I see such nonsensical ad hominem attacks, the attackers lose all credibility with me.  They have moved over into the land of propaganda and fiction.