Beginner’s Guide to the Zapruder film alterationists’ case

[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.

...

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.

Costella claimed "The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second". The blood didn't "vaporize" but rather it dispersed to the point it no longer registered on the who know how many generations removed from the original copies of blurred low resolution 8mm film frames. If you disagree with the highly qualified crime scene expert who's a CT you should reply on that thread.

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

[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.

...

Charles

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

Myra,

I took special care to note that the other person's hypothesis is just that, and was not presented to me as fact backed by evidence.

If the latter had been the case, I would not have made my original post absent documentation.

As it stands, I simply indicated to Paul and other readers that at least one other reputable researcher has asked questions about the origin of the back wound.

As we say in Avian Flu country: no harm, no fowl.

Charles

[Jack White]

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?

Myra,

I took special care to note that the other person's hypothesis is just that, and was not presented to me as fact backed by evidence.

If the latter had been the case, I would not have made my original post absent documentation.

As it stands, I simply indicated to Paul and other readers that at least one other reputable researcher has asked questions about the origin of the back wound.

As we say in Avian Flu country: no harm, no fowl.

Charles

As I recall, that researcher even shows the instrument he theorizes was used to

make the back wound.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

...

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.

Costella claimed "The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second". The blood didn't "vaporize" but rather it dispersed to the point it no longer registered on the who know how many generations removed from the original copies of blurred low resolution 8mm film frames. If you disagree with the highly qualified crime scene expert who's a CT you should reply on that thread.

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

Wow ... I'm blown away by what someone who hasn't posted on the physics involved with Kodachrome film or blood spatter science concerning how it should look in the Zapruder film other than telling us that it should have been visible for 18 to 30 frames. I would like to hear more on how that opinion was formed? Sherry Gutierrez, who is a blood spatter expert, has said that what is seen on the assassination films is exactly what should have occurred and Sherry does believe there was a conspiracy, thus dismissing her as a LNr won't work here. And the Zapruder film that we have to work with for the better images is the MPI film, which is degraded in itself because its a multi-generational print. Not even the facial details of the occupants are visible.

Another point that I must have missed being offered in why one would think the cranial fluid, not blood spray, should be seen for 18 to 30 frames was the wind factor. At the time the President's head exploded there was a stiff gust of wind coming from the northwest. The coats on Jean Hill and Mary Moorman in Muchmore's film are testimonial to this.

For more information on blood spatter - go to this link ... http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...id=26&page=

If particular questions still need to be answered, then contact Sherry directly for she seems to always find time to help others understand this science and how to apply it to the JFK assassination films.

Bill Miller

[Charles Drago]

Jack,

I think we're referencing different researchers.

[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

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

Jack,

You have the wrong end of the stick. Nat asked me specifically about advocates of an in-car shooting, not pro-alterationsists per se. And, no, to anticipate a possible future objection, I do not claim now, nor have I the slightest interest in claiming in future, that pro-alterationists are crypto-in-car-shootists. The evidence is abundant, and unequivocal - they aren't.

More's the pity.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

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.

Understood. But please enter a plea on my behalf to the researcher concerned to give serious consideration to offering his findings publicly. This is a subject long overdue revisiting.

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.

True; and a pity. I am reminded of something from Wordsworth: "Apostacy from ancient faith brought but conversion to a higher creed."

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

Noted, with appreciation.

Paul

[Jack White]

...

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.

Costella claimed "The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second". The blood didn't "vaporize" but rather it dispersed to the point it no longer registered on the who know how many generations removed from the original copies of blurred low resolution 8mm film frames. If you disagree with the highly qualified crime scene expert who's a CT you should reply on that thread.

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

Wow ... I'm blown away by what someone who hasn't posted on the physics involved with Kodachrome film or blood spatter science concerning how it should look in the Zapruder film other than telling us that it should have been visible for 18 to 30 frames. I would like to hear more on how that opinion was formed? Sherry Gutierrez, who is a blood spatter expert, has said that what is seen on the assassination films is exactly what should have occurred and Sherry does believe there was a conspiracy, thus dismissing her as a LNr won't work here. And the Zapruder film that we have to work with for the better images is the MPI film, which is degraded in itself because its a multi-generational print. Not even the facial details of the occupants are visible.

Another point that I must have missed being offered in why one would think the cranial fluid, not blood spray, should be seen for 18 to 30 frames was the wind factor. At the time the President's head exploded there was a stiff gust of wind coming from the northwest. The coats on Jean Hill and Mary Moorman in Muchmore's film are testimonial to this.

For more information on blood spatter - go to this link ... http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...id=26&page=

If particular questions still need to be answered, then contact Sherry directly for she seems to always find time to help others understand this science and how to apply it to the JFK assassination films.

Bill Miller

CS fluid is colorless and tastes like vaseline. CS fluid (surrounding the brain and spinal cord) would

not resemble BLOOD SPRAY. It would look like water. When my skull was fractured, it dripped out

of my ear and eustacian tube for nearly a month till an operation to seal the leakage.

Jack