Beginner’s Guide to the Zapruder film alterationists’ case

[Bill Miller]

Paul appears to be a proponent for anything absurd that could make a CT's as a whole look so foolish that nothing they say should be considered ... even if he has to pretend to be one himself.

What's really absurd is your notion that Paul Rigby's postings could be in any way construed to represent CTs as a whole.

Mike, I believe that there is such a thing as counter intelligence. So all I was saying is that it appears that some people invent and/or applaud the silliest claims imaginable regardless of the evidence to the contrary. What this does is give ammunition to anyone wanting to pick and choose these various claims so to try and make a case for the lack of competence of the CT's as a whole. In fact, it was Fletcher Prouty who got me considering such possibilities when I hear someone claim things that are really way out there and do so without any rational reasoning that I know the person would not have trouble doing on another subject. Is that the case here ???

Bill

Edited August 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Tim Gratz]

Post in error.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Len Colby]

...

Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).

The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.

...

This is the very thing that originally convinced me the film was tampered with.

313 there's the big bloody blob.

By 314 there's no sign of any bloody debris.

It should have been visible, dissipating backward for many frames.

It's a red flag so to speak.

This point has been discussed and pretty much debunked on these thread. The blood would have been dispersed by the bullet.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7695

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6162

Adams and Newcomb as quoted by Paul

Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and Houston Streets and before the freeway sign.

Life admitted to cutting out frames of one of their copies for reproduction and spliced it film back together. It sounds like they examined dupes of the spliced copy. Groden and Tink Thompson* both had access to the original and say it wasn’t altered. So did Roland Zavada the inventor of Kodachrome II. I find it hard to believe that so many frames are missing and no one else noted it. Also if the alterationist claim the fakers had the ability to completely fake frames why make such crude alterations

What are the author's credential in forensic film/photo analysis?

* I’m not sure about Tink he had access to one Life’s copies.

[Paul Rigby]

Paul,

So I'm clear: You write that you are "an unrepentent in-car shootist ... "

Unrepentent and, to me at least, obtuse.

Am I to understand that you are of the opinion that at least one shot was fired at JFK from inside the presidential limo?

No judgment intended. Just want to know.

Charles

Charles,

I believe two shots were fired at Kennedy from within the presidential limousine. The first hit him in the throat, struck his spine, and lodged in a lung. The second entered the left temple and exited from the right rear of his skull. I believe the wound in his back was a post-mortem fabrication. Ditto the entrance wound in the rear of his head. Hope that clarifies.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Is anyone in contact with Fred Newcomb? I lost contact with him when he

moved from California to Alabama.

Jack

Sadly, I and a couple of friends have, too. Wherever you are, Fred, best wishes & thank you.

[Paul Rigby]

Interesting and useful reading. I will go back and look for the two left legs.

I am wondering if the in car shooting hypothesis is dependent upon film alteration. Are there any proponents of the in car view who also think that the Z-film was NOT altered. In short, are these dependent variables all the way around?

Nat,

There aren't many of us; and of the few I've come across, I can think of none who reject the entire film as a fabrication. But most do posit some degree of alteration. It is a question of degree, ranging from simple frame removal, to, as in Fred Newcomb's case, something much more elaborate.

Paul

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

I believe two shots were fired at Kennedy from within the presidential limousine. The first hit him in the throat, struck his spine, and lodged in a lung. The second entered the left temple and exited from the right rear of his skull. I believe the wound in his back was a post-mortem fabrication. Ditto the entrance wound in the rear of his head. Hope that clarifies.

Paul

Thank you, Paul.

FYI, one of the most respected and brilliant of the so-called second generation researchers shares your belief regarding the back wound.

[Paul Rigby]

Charles,

I believe two shots were fired at Kennedy from within the presidential limousine. The first hit him in the throat, struck his spine, and lodged in a lung. The second entered the left temple and exited from the right rear of his skull. I believe the wound in his back was a post-mortem fabrication. Ditto the entrance wound in the rear of his head. Hope that clarifies.

Paul

Thank you, Paul.

FYI, one of the most respected and brilliant of the so-called second generation researchers shares your belief regarding the back wound.

I'd be fascinated to see his (?) argument. Any chance of posting it?

Paul

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Paul, since you are so fond of witness testimony rather than the recorded films, and since none of the witnesses said anything about SS100 slowing before they heard a shot, or before they heard exclamations from the occupants, is it your theory that Greer fired the first shot at JFK without even slowing the limousine? Is that the reason his aim was so poor he missed JFK's head? Or was he just a poor shot?

[Jack White]

Interesting and useful reading. I will go back and look for the two left legs.

I am wondering if the in car shooting hypothesis is dependent upon film alteration. Are there any proponents of the in car view who also think that the Z-film was NOT altered. In short, are these dependent variables all the way around?

Nat,

There aren't many of us; and of the few I've come across, I can think of none who reject the entire film as a fabrication. But most do posit some degree of alteration. It is a question of degree, ranging from simple frame removal, to, as in Fred Newcomb's case, something much more elaborate.

Paul

This is not accurate. Originally I thought like Newcomb that the alteration

was mostly frame removal plus alteration of frame 313.

After considerable more study and expert opinions, I now believe that

Zapruder did not shoot the extant film but was a witting accomplice in

a hoax which is not fully understood, but involves a very quick rough cut

followed by a more detailed sophisticated version which is a fabrication

based on a guide film combined with actual images of the assassination...

essentially an ANIMATION. Others who endorse some version of this besides

me are John Costella, David Healy, David Mantik, David Lifton and Jim Fetzer.

So do not include us in your "most who posit some degree of alteration",

because we believe it was FABRICATION, not ALTERATION.

There is considerable significant evidence that Zapruder did not take

the extant film.

Jack

Edited August 31, 2007 by Jack White

[Tim Gratz]

Jack, so is it your opinion (it must be) that Zapruder was in on it?

[Bill Miller]

Interesting and useful reading. I will go back and look for the two left legs.

I am wondering if the in car shooting hypothesis is dependent upon film alteration. Are there any proponents of the in car view who also think that the Z-film was NOT altered. In short, are these dependent variables all the way around?

Nat,

There aren't many of us; and of the few I've come across, I can think of none who reject the entire film as a fabrication. But most do posit some degree of alteration. It is a question of degree, ranging from simple frame removal, to, as in Fred Newcomb's case, something much more elaborate.

Paul

This is not accurate. Originally I thought like Newcomb that the alteration

was mostly frame removal plus alteration of frame 313.

After considerable more study and expert opinions, I now believe that

Zapruder did not shoot the extant film but was a witting accomplice in

a hoax which is not fully understood, but involves a very quick rough cut

followed by a more detailed sophisticated version which is a fabrication

based on a guide film combined with actual images of the assassination...

essentially an ANIMATION. Others who endorse some version of this besides

me are John Costella, David Healy, David Mantik, David Lifton and Jim Fetzer.

So do not include us in your "most who posit some degree of alteration",

because we believe it was FABRICATION, not ALTERATION.

There is considerable significant evidence that Zapruder did not take

the extant film.

Jack

Jean Hill who you (Jack) have always felt was a credible witness has said in the past that she saw Zapruder across the street on the pedestal ... so now I supposed that like with Altgens #6 showing Mary and Jean's shadows coming from the grass and Jean's interview on Black Op Radio where she said she had stepped back out of the street BEFORE the first shot was fired ... that because Jean also said Zapruder was on the pedestal that she must also be part of the conspiracy.

Bill

Edited August 31, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

I believe two shots were fired at Kennedy from within the presidential limousine. The first hit him in the throat, struck his spine, and lodged in a lung. The second entered the left temple and exited from the right rear of his skull. I believe the wound in his back was a post-mortem fabrication. Ditto the entrance wound in the rear of his head. Hope that clarifies.

Paul

Thank you, Paul.

FYI, one of the most respected and brilliant of the so-called second generation researchers shares your belief regarding the back wound.

I'd be fascinated to see his (?) argument. Any chance of posting it?

Paul

I cannot make the decision to publicize this person's point of view. To be frank, it was expressed to me privately as a hypothesis in need of significant supporting research and analysis. I'd term it more of a "hunch" or intuitive leap. And I wouldn't count on more info any time soon. Sorry ... really.

I would add only that a pm or fabricated back wound would not necessarily support your in-car shooting hypothesis -- one with which I respectfully if forcefully disagree.

But I'll continue to support your efforts to challenge us with your thinking.

Charles

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).

The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.

...

This is the very thing that originally convinced me the film was tampered with.

313 there's the big bloody blob.

By 314 there's no sign of any bloody debris.

It should have been visible, dissipating backward for many frames.

It's a red flag so to speak.

This point has been discussed and pretty much debunked on these thread. The blood would have been dispersed by the bullet.

...

Forum discussions don't alter the laws of physics.

No way all that blood and brain matter could vaporize in 1/16 of a second.

[Myra Bronstein]

Charles,

I believe two shots were fired at Kennedy from within the presidential limousine. The first hit him in the throat, struck his spine, and lodged in a lung. The second entered the left temple and exited from the right rear of his skull. I believe the wound in his back was a post-mortem fabrication. Ditto the entrance wound in the rear of his head. Hope that clarifies.

Paul

Thank you, Paul.

FYI, one of the most respected and brilliant of the so-called second generation researchers shares your belief regarding the back wound.

I'd be fascinated to see his (?) argument. Any chance of posting it?

Paul

I cannot make the decision to publicize this person's point of view. To be frank, it was expressed to me privately as a hypothesis in need of significant supporting research and analysis. I'd term it more of a "hunch" or intuitive leap. And I wouldn't count on more info any time soon. Sorry ... really.

...

Charles

Charles, why bring it up if you're not at liberty to share the info?