Zfilm Revisited

[Bernice Moore]

Note I am not asking “Is the Z film altered?” I’m asking “If they needed to alter a ‘problem’ film – any film - and could do…would they?”

I personally cannot see anyone trying to alter the Zapruder film before frames were going into print. The film was shot with Kodachrome II film that according to CTs Robert Groden ... its properties could not have allowed someone to merely make prints and put them back into the film without color shifts and sharpness irregularities being present.

Another problem for an alteration would be to risk one of the actual witnesses spotting the change as being something that did not match what they witnessed at the time of the assassination. There also would have been the problem that the Feds did not know who all was filming at the time of the shooting and to keep an alteration hidden ... it would had to have been done to each and every assassination film that was running at the time of the shooting.

As far as frames being reversed ... that didn't occur to the actual film, but rather to the prints placed into the 26 volumes of the WCR.

Bill

Another problem for an alteration would be to risk one of the actual witnesses spotting the change as being something that did not match what they witnessed at the time of the assassination

Didn't Jean Hill say she wasn't stood where the film shows her to be standing? But that problem is chicken feed. A good old fashioned car crash or suicide normally sorts that kind of trifling problem.

A much worse scenario surely would be definitive PROOF of a conspiracy catured on film! If you were a conspirator which would you risk? A problem witness or 200 or definitive proof of your culpability?

But in fairness Bill you still haven't addressed my question. I asked would they do it if they could? Not DID they.

*************

Bernie :

You may be referring to this information by Mary re where she and Jean were.......from an previous post..

Jean Hill also stated in a interview, that she did not see the Zapruder film till 15 years later..

FYI.....

B...

Title: David Lifton strikes paydirt

Post by: jack white on February 16, 2007, 12:22 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yesterday while reviewing some transcribed old notes taken many years ago

at the National Archives, David Lifton came across a long forgotten

information of the mother lode variety.

He was transcribing by hand, listening with earphones to audio tapes made

on the afternoon of 11-22-63, from KRLD Radio tape reels.

The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at

3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA.

I am excerpting from the lengthy transcript several relevant parts of the

interviews. Decide for yourself the importance of this first day evidence:

HOGAN:

Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman?

A: Yes.

Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before?

A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know,

whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: About how close were you?

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more . . . Because I fall behind my camera.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

A: We stepped out in the street. We were right at the car

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out".

A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard.

Q: Uh huh.A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more.

It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening.

Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought?

A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT.

And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car,

so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs)

Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just

slump suddenly?

A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately,

and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot."

Q: Did you notice any other reactions...

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself,

rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they

were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was itj ust a backfire, or

just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up,

real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were

several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must

of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up

the hill across the street from where the shots came from.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by?

A: Yes, uh huh.

Q And form what direction did they seem to be?

A: Oh, Lord? North. Just back there (at--laughs)

Q: Just just right at you?

A: Yes, sir.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might

have been a firecracker right there in that car.

Q: And in your picture, uh, you uh took this picture just BEFORE the shot?

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Evidently, at the minute (means "instant") that he, that it hit him because,

uh, we was we was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the

people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she

hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there

at the scene. Was anybody else with you?

A No, uh uh.

Q: OK, well we sure thank you.

FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill

Q: (continuing)

And also, here, we do have Miss Hill. Miss Hill, you were an

eyewitness, also?

A: Yes, I was . I suppose we were the people closest to the

President's car at the time.

Q: Uh, that as about 10 or fifteen feet, you'd say?

A: Not anymore than that at all.

Q: Uh huh. You were both looking right at the presidential car, then?

A: Yes, we were looking right at the President. We were looking at his face.

As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him. And he grabbed his hands across

his ch-when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest. I have

never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but there was this odd

look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap.

DSL NOTE: I believe this must mean: "to the side onto Jackie's lap" --because Jackie was

to the left of JFK, not in front of JFK. In my interview of the Newman's, circa 1971, in

person, and on tape, they talk of JFK falling to the side, or being thrust towards Jackie.

A: And uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and

everything, and she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot."

Q: ..... Did you notice particularly any of the other people around? At the time (she cuts in)

A: There was NO one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way;

we wanted to be down there by ourselves; that’s the reason we had gotten almost

to the underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear.

Q: Any other reactions form the other people in the motorcae, that you recall?

A: The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt,

and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn't

register with me. Mary was uh had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg,

saying "Get , get down, they're shooting, get down, they're shooting; and I didn't even

realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And uh uh just about that time, well,

of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side

and started running up the bank; there's a hill on the other side (she is interrupted)

Q: Yes, Maam.

A: And the shots came from there. After they were momentarily stopped--after the

first two shots--THEN they sped away REAL quickly.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Well, thank you Miss Hill, and also Miss Moorman, for speaking with us about this.

A. Thankyou.

ANNOUNCER: That's two eyewitnesses to the murdered president, who saw on his face the

anguish of his very last hour alive. Before we go back to CBS, here again are some

announcements of special local importance.

TO SUMMARIZE:

MOORMAN

1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more

2. WHERE WERE YOU: We stepped out in the street

3. HOW MANY SHOTS: three or four ... there might have been more.

4. WHAT DID MRS. KENNEDY DO: Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him;

and she said: "My God, he's been shot."

5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO: they hesitated just for a moment...and they immediately sped up

6. WHAT DID THE MOTORCYCLES DO: they stopped

7. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: Oh, Lord? North.

8. WHAT DID YOUR PHOTO SHOW MRS. K DOING: he's bent over, and she's... and she

hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car.

HILL:

1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: about 10 or fifteen feet...not anymore than that at all.

2. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT DO: he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap.

3. WHAT DID MRS. K DO: she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot."

4. WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU: There was NO one around us on our side of the street

5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO:The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came

to a momentary halt. After they were momentarily stopped--after the first two shots--THEN

they sped away REAL quickly.

6. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: there's a hill on the other side...and the shots came

from there.

THIS IS FIRST DAY TESTIMONY FROM THE TWO CLOSEST WITNESSES.

Jack

B......

Edited May 15, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[Mike Williams]

Bernice,

I would like to know your thoughts in Zavadas report. I would also like to know of ANY expert,of Zavada's caliber, in any related field that has ever said the Film was altered.

Thanks a bunch for the information you have posted Bernice, I sincerely appreciate it.

Mike

[Bernie Laverick]

Bernie,

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

Just because the autopsy photos could well have been tampered with, does not mean the films were. They had the opportunity to completely control the autopsy photos, an opportunity they do not, and did not have with the films.

Mike I never made ANY comparisons regarding the Z film. I simply asked WOULD they have changed a film, any film, if they had the opportunity. But you have confirmed (albeit in a roundabout way) that indeed you do believe that they would tamper with film evidence if it showed proof of conspiracy. You concede that they changed the autopsy photos (photos which would highlight such a conspiracy) because they had the opportunity to do so. So they did.

And did they not consider the problem of conflicting witness testimony that would simply refute them? How damning would that be? Of course they did: but they had no choice did they? It was the lesser evil. They’d deal with that problem if or when it became necessary.

So once again I repeat, (desperately hoping for a direct answer) had the conspirators that same opportunity with a similarly damning moving film showing beyond doubt their culpability, IN PRINCIPLE, and if they HAD to, would they try and alter that too?

Bernie

[Mike Williams]

Bernie,

I think if it was necessary to alter a movie then yes I believe they would have. I just do not believe they needed to in the case of the z film, I believe it was much easier to just misinterpret it.

[Bernie Laverick]

Bernie,

I think if it was necessary to alter a movie then yes I believe they would have.

Thanks Mike, that's an honest answer.

Bill, do you also believe the conspirators would have changed any film evidence if they had to?

Bernie

[Mike Williams]

Bernie,

As I said earlier, I do not believe they had to. The film unaltered, was no threat to them, because they could buffalo the interpretation. Besides if it were altered, why hold it until 75 to make public, and then why not alter the back and to the left?

Zavada's report is pretty convincing in regard to authenticity, and to date there has not been one "expert" of Zavada's caliber to dispute him.

If they altered the z film, would they not have to alter every other film, and sync them perfectly?

To me the z film alteration is as ridiculous as the single bullet theory. No substance, no evidence, and no professional opinion.

[Mike Williams]

duplicate computer hiccup.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Mike Williams

[Bernie Laverick]

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

This point is spot on. The autopsy photos were all done in-house so-to-speak. No one had to worry that new autopsy photos would show up somewhere showing something altogether different.

Bill

But Bill I didn't make ANY comparisons. I simply asked your opinion on whether you think they WOULD have changed film evidence if they had to. I guess the answer is yes because you agree that the autopsy photos were faked - presumably because they showed a clear proof of conspiracy. They had the opportunity and means to change them so they did. We both agree on that then.

Given your belief that the conspirators changed the photograhic evidence, is it not remotely possible that they would have considered doctoring a moving film if it were absolutely neccessary to do so?

[Bill Miller]

Bernie,

I think if it was necessary to alter a movie then yes I believe they would have. I just do not believe they needed to in the case of the z film, I believe it was much easier to just misinterpret it.

You are making sense, Mike ... and that usually isn't accepted by some folks. There is nothing in the Zapruder film that needs to be altered, despite the experts saying time and time again that the alterations on Kodachrome II film could not hold up to todays testing. In the case of Gordon Arnold and Bev Oliver ... their films were taken and just disappeared ... thats how one deals with evidence that is damaging IMO. Then you lock up your inquiry for 75 years so that all the witnesses will have since passed on. That seems to have been the plan at the time ... it was the Freedom Of Information Act that threw a monkey wrench into everything.

Back to the bottom line ... one cannot alter evidence that it had no control over. Several assassination films were not even known about until after the Zapruder film frames were being printed and placed on the news stands.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Given your belief that the conspirators changed the photograhic evidence, is it not remotely possible that they would have considered doctoring a moving film if it were absolutely neccessary to do so?

I don't know how to say it any clearer ... 'NO!' Zapruder kept one of the three copies of his film made on the day of the assassination, so if the other copies were altered, then Z's copy would not match them ... that has not been the case. Other films had not been rounded up, so any changes to the Zapruder film only to have a new film come along and show the changes would be devastating to a conspirator. And even if most researchers cannot comprehend the physical characteristics of Kodachrome II film, you can bet that the Feds would understand it and know what the Kodachrome II inventor knew.

Bill

[Mike Williams]

Bill,

What was the latest film to be discovered?

How was it discovered?

When was it discovered?

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

What was the latest film to be discovered?

How was it discovered?

When was it discovered?

I believe that it was Patsy Paschall's film in a 1967 Life Magazine publication ... when a still frame was put into print. The same about Towner's film when frames were published as well. It wasn't until the HSCA took up in 1978 that the Paschall, Bell, Doorman, and Towner films were researched.

Its also worth noting that Jay Skaggs photos were not even known about until 2002. While Jay's photos do not show the shooting ... no one could have known that. And the only original assassination images that were never returned to their owners were not lost by the government, but rather by UPI. Those two films were the Nix and Muchmore films.

Bill

[Bernie Laverick]

Given your belief that the conspirators changed the photograhic evidence, is it not remotely possible that they would have considered doctoring a moving film if it were absolutely neccessary to do so?

I don't know how to say it any clearer ... 'NO!' Zapruder kept one of the three copies of his film made on the day of the assassination, so if the other copies were altered, then Z's copy would not match them ... that has not been the case. Other films had not been rounded up, so any changes to the Zapruder film only to have a new film come along and show the changes would be devastating to a conspirator. And even if most researchers cannot comprehend the physical characteristics of Kodachrome II film, you can bet that the Feds would understand it and know what the Kodachrome II inventor knew.

Bill

I don't know how to say it any clearer

Nor me. You keep telling me that there was no opportunity to have faked the Z film and I have to bow to your greater knowledge on this. It may just be Bill that further proof of that (and further reading on my part) would sway my opinions accordingly, but with respect you haven't answered the question I asked.

For the last time... I never asked whether the Z film was faked. I simply asked whether, like the autopsy photos which you agree were changed, whether they would contemplate changing a moving film - ANY FILM - if it also showed evidence of conspiracy and they had the opportunity to do so?

I don't understand why that general point can't be addressed.

You see Bill, had you said... "well of course they would have considered it, of course in principle they would have gone to those lengths, but I believe with the Z film they simply didn't need to" I would have considered that a very honest answer. Mike gave a similar reply and I respected that.

It is your refusal to concede the PRINCIPLE of film alteration readers of this forum may find difficult to understand. I certainly do.

[Mike Williams]

Bill,

What was the latest film to be discovered?

How was it discovered?

When was it discovered?

I believe that it was Patsy Paschall's film in a 1967 Life Magazine publication ... when a still frame was put into print. The same about Towner's film when frames were published as well. It wasn't until the HSCA took up in 1978 that the Paschall, Bell, Doorman, and Towner films were researched.

Its also worth noting that Jay Skaggs photos were not even known about until 2002. While Jay's photos do not show the shooting ... no one could have known that. And the only original assassination images that were never returned to their owners were not lost by the government, but rather by UPI. Those two films were the Nix and Muchmore films.

Bill

So Bill, having said that, it is impossible for any film to have escaped the FBI, Secret Cervix or any other Government agency?

[Jack White]

Bill,

What was the latest film to be discovered?

How was it discovered?

When was it discovered?

I believe that it was Patsy Paschall's film in a 1967 Life Magazine publication ... when a still frame was put into print. The same about Towner's film when frames were published as well. It wasn't until the HSCA took up in 1978 that the Paschall, Bell, Doorman, and Towner films were researched.

Its also worth noting that Jay Skaggs photos were not even known about until 2002. While Jay's photos do not show the shooting ... no one could have known that. And the only original assassination images that were never returned to their owners were not lost by the government, but rather by UPI. Those two films were the Nix and Muchmore films.

Bill

I would like to see Bill's documentation for his "belief". I dispute that the govt did not know of certain films till

they were "discovered by Life Magazine".

Jack