Beginners Guide for No Zapruder Film Alteration

[Tim Gratz]

They left in the backward head snap when they altered it.

[Tim Gratz]

As Dr. Josiah Thompson points out in an essay on the Zapruder film controversy: "When it became clear that the Nix and Muchmore films matched the Zapruder film, they too were branded "fake." But surely all the films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza cannot be 'fake.'"

And this portion of his essay is of great importance:

The claims that government agents confiscated films do not compel belief. When Professor Fetzer claims that the FBI tracked any assassination films or photos that came to the attention of the Kodak lab, he is blowing his usual smoke. As Richard Trask and others have pointed out, the FBI was rather passive with respect to photos and films of the assassination. All the Bureau did was ask the Kodak lab to enclose with returned film or photos a request asking the photographer to get in touch with the FBI if the film or photos concerned the assassination. At one of the other labs, the FBI had a couple of men looking at the prints which came out of the processor for a short period of time. But as Trask made clear, FBI efforts were "not fully focused and lacked investigative follow-through." The Muchmore film was shown on WNEW-TV in New York before the FBI even heard of it. Similar fates befell other films which have kept surfacing over the years. Only last year, a previously unknown series of slides showing the motorcade in Dealey Plaza was given to the Sixth Floor Museum. Given the fact that no one had any idea who was filming in Dealey Plaza or where that film might be developed there was no way the government could throw a net over the photo record of what happened in Dealey Plaza.

His essay is on the Mary Ferrell website. If you are interested in the issue, I commend it to your attention.

[Tim Gratz]

From the Thompson essay on alleged Zapruder film alteratyion:

The Muchmore film was shown on WNEW-TV in New York before the FBI even heard of it.

I submit that to debunk the myth of film alteration, one need not say much more than that!

Sorry, folks--but the statement is of course true!

[Bill Miller]

The claims that government agents confiscated films do not compel belief. When Professor Fetzer claims that the FBI tracked any assassination films or photos that came to the attention of the Kodak lab, he is blowing his usual smoke. As Richard Trask and others have pointed out, the FBI was rather passive with respect to photos and films of the assassination.

A good example of the above is the fact that Muchmore's film wasn't even known to exist by the Feds until it aired on TV. By that time - it had already been shown to the public, thus what ever images it offered were now locked in stone.

Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

They left in the backward head snap when they altered it.

Tim,

Your decision to start this thread seems to me an intelligent and constructive response to my suggestion. I wish the thread every success - anti-alterationists, put your best foot forward, and let newcomers - and any other interested parties - see why you believe what you believe.

I intend to read it avidly; and sincerely hope to profit from it. But, true to my part of the bargain, I'll refrain from any critiques. I urge fellow pro-alterationists to do the same.

Again, good luck, and well done.

Paul

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Tim, Paul, this is great! For the first time I feel there is an access ramp avilable onto this major-interstate of a debate. It feels like the early 1700s and the Europeans have just discovered caffeine and Enlightenment! I will follow both threads with enthusiasm.

[Len Colby]

Kathy

I'm not ambitious enough to set up a guide like the one you propose perhaps Tink (who's been MIA for a while) Bill or Craig etc are. But some of the leading points against alteration are:

1) Despite being repeatedly asked to the alterationists have failed to cite and specific scenes from movies made before or around the time of the assassination that employed undetectable alteration as extensive as they claim was done in TGZFH. They have only cited Mary Poppins and Citizen Kane neither of which employed alteration alleged in TGZFH. The fakery in the latter can often be seen with the naked eye.

2) They have yet to find any FILM experts who back their position. David Healy their top “expert” is a videographer. Postproduction methods between the media are almost completely different.

3) He repeatedly cited Raymond Fielding's "Techniques of Special Effects Cinematography" apparently the most important (or one of the most important) books on the subject as backing his position. Mr. Fielding told me in an e-mail: “I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruda film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny” and called “this debate…a waste of time”.

4) Roland “Rollie” Zavada is the retired Kodak chemical engineer who led the team that invented Kodakchrome II, the type of film shot by Zapureder. Not only has he declared that such manipulation was NOT technically possible back then but he examined the original and declared it showed no signs of “compositing” or any other alteration and was an “in camera original” (i.e. it is 1st generation and not a duplicate).

5) Robert Groden also examined the original and said the same thing as “Rollie”.

6) According to Gary Mack, Oliver Stone (who went to NYU, one of America top film schools, in the late 60’s) also said such alteration would have been impossible at the time.

7) Trying to show how easy such alteration would be Healy made composite images for his article in TGZFH. Despite using technology far beyond what available 4 decades earlier (i.e. a computer video editing station) the single frame(s) he produced had easily detectable errors and didn’t approximate the level of sophisticated alteration alleged by his co-authors.

8) As is still the case today Kodakchrome can only be developed in a small number of labs. IIRC there were only 6 in the US (and the Americas) 3 owned by Kodak (Rochester, Dallas and LA) and 3 independent ones (NYC, Chicago and LA). It’s hard to believe “they” would have risked processing the film at a private lab. Developing it took several hours (making almost impossible for the work to have been done the next morning when Zapruder turned the film over to Life). There is no evidence the gov’t had a Kodakchrome lab it would have been almost impossible for them to set up a secret one without Kodak knowing about it. On the other hand the equipment and chemicals to process Ektachrome were widely available and they easily could have set up a clandestine lab and developed the film there in a few minutes. The use of Kodakchrome makes no sense if Zapruder had been a plant.

9) They cold never have been sure thay got their hands on copies of all fils shot that day and apparently they didn't. They only made a half hearted effort to get copies of all films developed in Dallas.

The above has all been documented in earlier threads but I will provide citations if asked (except for the 1st two – I would have to document a negative).

Len

Edited September 2, 2007 by Len Colby

[Bill Miller]

2) They have yet to find any FILM experts who back their position. David Healy their top “expert” is a videographer. Postproduction methods between the media are almost completely different.

And we should never forget David Healy's responses when confronted about Zfilm alteration ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15

post #19

David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ...