Making enemies with "Zapruder alterationists"

[Wim Dankbaar]

Tom, Are you buying into the Zapruder alteration crap?

If you are, I am telling you, they have you exactly where they want you.

Wim,

I guess they got me. Can you explain the harm in going down that path?

namaste

Tom

Well, it's chasing ghosts. Something that doesn't exist. Like "Badgeman". hence it is spending time and energy ineffectively.

Tell me, what is the purpose of putting Mary Moorman and Jean Hill on the grass, if they were actually on the sidewalk? What is the purpose of making Mrs. Franzen dissapear and replacing her by another woman?

What is the purpose of concealing the limousine coming to a full stop? Did they alter the Nix, Muchmore and Hughes film too? Those films do not show a stopping car either, you know. (they also show Moorman and Hill on the grass by the way)

Mind you , these are all claims of the "Zapruder alterationists", Jack White (the discoverer of "Badgeman") being the main promoter. I can (and have) demolish(ed) them one by one.

But the question that really should awaken you, is this one: Why did the "fakers" go through all the alleged trouble to fake things in the background, but neglected to alter the only significant part, namely that JFK is hit with two simultaneous headshots, one from behind and then from the front causing his head go BACK and to the LEFT? Why did they not take the trouble to alter that, instead concentrated on trivial things? Why? If their only goal of fakery was to drive home the point of Oswald being the lone assassin from behind?

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

Wim

Edited August 13, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Charles Drago]

Arguing and quarreling over superficial Z-film alteration issues prolongs the long ago-settled conspiracy-no conspiracy "debate," factionalizes researchers, and diverts energies better applied to the quest for justice in the JFK assassination case.

In other words, internecine alteration-related fights, like so many others, play into the conspirators' hands.

Has the Z-film been altered? Is the Z-film unaltered?

The only sensible answer is "yes."

And so once again we must reflect on the myriad values inherent in recognizing and, when warranted, embracing the so-called "third alternative" whenever we study deep political events.

The dualities that haunt the JFK case in particular, and what I'd argue are the majority of deep political investigations in general, present in so many fascinating areas and manners.

Two Oswalds. Two rifles. At least two near-identical plots (Chicago and Dallas). Two presidential corpses. Two caskets. Two sets of autopsy photos. Two conclusions regarding conspiracy by two USG investigative bodies.

Double agents everywhere.

And I've barely scratched the surface.

Doppelgangers abound. The trickster wears a cloak and carries a dagger.

But all is not lost. See these either/or presentations for what they are: essential elements of intelligence operations.

Then join hands in solidarity with the most vehement proponents of opposing viewpoints (within the ranks of those who accept the overarching truth of conspiracy in the murder of JFK, of course).

Victory is within our grasp.

Common ground is the only ground we can defend. The only ground from which we can mount a final, successful offensive.

Charles

Edited August 12, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Mark Knight]

Is the Z-film altered?

To answer that, one must take the Bill Clinton approach: it depends upon what your definition of the word "is" is.

Were frames removed from the film? Certainly. Does that constitute alteration? In my mind, yes.

Were remaining frames altered? I'm not sure that they were, and I'm inclined to believe that they weren't.

I'm just not sure that Zapruder just "happened" to zoom in on the frames around the 313 head shot...especially since the motorcade was closest to him at this point. Would've been more logical to zoom in as the motorcade was further away, and then either stay "zoomed in," or even zoom out a little as the motorcade got closer in order to keep images relatively consistent.

JMHO...I claim no expertise in moviemaking, photography, photogrammetry, or any related scientific or mystical field.

[Pamela Brown]

The question isn't whether or not the Zapruder was altered -- everyone knows it was, because there are at least two splices in it. The question then becomes just how maliciously it was altered.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Well yeah, the splice means something was taking out. If you see that as "alteration", I agree it was altered. The remaining film was not altered in any way. Basically I'm with Groden on that.

[Mike Williams]

Well yeah, the splice means something was taking out. If you see that as "alteration", I agree it was altered. The remaining film was not altered in any way. Basically I'm with Groden on that.

I would not consider the splices an alteration (intentional) as a repair(unintentional).

I do not believe the film was altered, repaired yes.

At least there is something we agree on Wim.

Mike

[Pat Speer]

Well yeah, the splice means something was taking out. If you see that as "alteration", I agree it was altered. The remaining film was not altered in any way. Basically I'm with Groden on that.

I would not consider the splices an alteration (intentional) as a repair(unintentional).

I do not believe the film was altered, repaired yes.

At least there is something we agree on Wim.

Mike

I assumed, for a long time, that the destruction of frames 208-211 by Life Magazine was entirely innocent. While taking a close look at these frames, however, in order to to reconstruct Jackie Kennedy's movements as her husband disappears behind the sign, I came to a different opinion.

I discovered that, when one looks at Mrs. Kennedy in these frames, it is quite clear that she is re-acting to a shot, with her head jerking around, looking first at Connally and then her husband. This is BEFORE a sniper would have had a clear shot from the sniper's nest. It only makes sense then that Life, perhaps at the behest of the Warren Commission, who planned on printing the frames in their report, made the tell-tale frames go bye-bye. If this wasn't by design then it was indeed quite the coincidence.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Pat Speer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Not sure if this has been posted, but this article by Errol Morris from the New York Times blog 8/11/08 may be of interest.

Photography as a Weapon

By Errol Morris

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11...apon/index.html

[Len Colby]

Tom, Are you buying into the Zapruder alteration crap?

If you are, I am telling you, they have you exactly where they want you.

Wim,

I guess they got me. Can you explain the harm in going down that path?

namaste

Tom

Well, it's chasing ghosts. Something that doesn't exist. Like "Badgeman". hence it is spending time and energy ineffectively.

Tell me, what is the purpose of putting Mary Moorman and Jean Hill on the grass, if they were actually on the sidewalk? What is the purpose of making Mrs. Franzen dissapear and replacing her by another woman?

What is the purpose of concealing the limousine coming to a full stop? Did they alter the Nix, Muchmore and Hughes film too? Those films do not show a stopping car either, you know. (they also show Moorman and Hill on the grass by the way)

Mind you , these are all claims of the "Zapruder alterationists", Jack White and Gary Mack (the discoverers of "Badgeman") being the main promoters. I can (and have) demolish(ed) them one by one.

Gary Mack is an anti-alterationist, AFAIK he never backed the notion the film had been altered (other than the splices).

[Wim Dankbaar]

Len, you're quite right. Slip of the pen in connection with Badgeman.

Wim

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg

In event that the object is not absolutely "original", as orginally produced, then by definition, it is altered.

Intentional omission constitutes alteration!

Intentional (complete) reproduction in an unclear and/or "blurred" copy constitutes alteration!

========================================================================

This is BEFORE a sniper would have had a clear shot from the sniper's nest.

Now exactly why would anyone accept as fact; believe; and/or repeat such a statement!

Would it be because the WC/aka Specter, Hoover, Shaneyfelt, & Company told them this and they actually believed it?????

For those who have yet to catch on, the WC LIED in many ways.

==========================================================================

The question isn't whether or not the Zapruder was altered -- everyone knows it was, because there are at least two splices in it. The question then becomes just how maliciously it was altered.

And one could add to that, for what purpose was this done.

===========================================================================

I'm just not sure that Zapruder just "happened" to zoom in on the frames around the 313 head shot...especially since the motorcade was closest to him at this point. Would've been more logical to zoom in as the motorcade was further away, and then either stay "zoomed in," or even zoom out a little as the motorcade got closer in order to keep images relatively consistent.

The B&H Camera was an "auto-zoom"!

http://www.pimall.com/NAIS/pivintage/zaprudercamera.html

Lens: Bell & Howell Varamat f1.8 / 9-27mm - Power Zoom

==============================================================================

[Mark Knight]

Tom, I read your link, and NOWHERE did it say that the camera was AUTO zoom. It was POWER zoom...meaning its zoom mechanism was motorized...but I can't find anything that says the zoom wasn't manually controlled by the operator.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

but I can't find anything that says the zoom wasn't manually controlled by the operator.

Wanted to insure that you looked at the information.

The Electric Eye operated the focus on the lense.

The "Power Zoom" gave the camera a motorized drive to operate the zoom.

The camere had to seperate buttons located on it's top. One button had to be pushed in order to operate the Zoom ability, and the other button had to be pushed to reverse the Zoom and return to varying degrees of wide angle.

Therefore, according to viewing the film:

1. Zapruder would have had to set the camera for the "wide angle" exposure at the distance to which the Presidential limo came around the turn on Elm St., and then Power Zoomed (pushed the zoom-in button) as the subject matter got closer to him.

Which happens to be somewhat in reverse order as one normaly "zooms" on the subject matter when it is far away, and then decreases zoom as one comes closer to the camera.

2. After having observed the headshot impact to JFK at Z313, Zapruder would have had to have the experience and forethought to reverse his previous zoom-in operation and thereafter immediately after the headshot, change buttons and operate the camera in the reverse zoom/zoom out mode.

http://www.pimall.com/NAIS/pivintage/zaprudercamera.html

The camera zooms from telephoto to wide angle.

======================================================================

Obviously, I know little in regards to camera usage, as I was always under the impression that if one wanted a decent photo at long distances, then one utilized the "telephoto" ability for such shots and then "zoomed out" as the subject approached the camera.

And, as cool; calm; and collected as I may (or may not be), it is quite doubtful that after seeing JFK's head blown to pieces, that I would have had the foresight and/or ability to immediately reverse the zooming ability and zoom back out as the car moved farther away.

[Mark Knight]

Tom, you just made the point I was alluding to...that ol' Abe had to MANUALLY push the zoom button to zoom in leading up to frame 313, and then MANUALLY zoom out afterwards. Those actions just seem counterintuitive to me...more logical to zoom in when the subject is further away, zoom out as subject gets closer, and then zoom in again as the subject starts to move away again.

Maybe Abe was a klutz, and got it backwards.

Or maybe not...which would mean something else is afoot with version of the Z-film we have in the public domain.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Mark Knight

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, you just made the point I was alluding to...that ol' Abe had to MANUALLY push the zoom button to zoom in leading up to frame 313, and then MANUALLY zoom out afterwards. Those actions just seem counterintuitive to me...more logical to zoom in when the subject is further away, zoom out as subject gets closer, and then zoom in again as the subject starts to move away again.

Maybe Abe was a klutz, and got it backwards.

Or maybe not...which would mean something else is afoot with version of the Z-film we have in the public domain.

Tom, you just made the point I was alluding to...that ol' Abe had to MANUALLY push the zoom button to zoom in leading up to frame 313, and then MANUALLY zoom out afterwards.

Actually, you made the point! I merely insured that it was sufficiently brought to light.

Maybe Abe was a klutz,

Could not have been! No "klutz" that I am aware of could balance themselves on a pedestal, (even with help),

and thereafter lean sufficiently to the left to make a film in which a motor vehicle is traversing left to right on a downhill grade,

gets filmed as if it were traversing on an uphill grade,

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z275.jpg

While maintaining a camera position which exactly matches the parallel alignment of the right side of the presidential limo along the window/door edge,

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

for multiple; multiple frames of the film.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z300.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z320.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z325.jpg

All of which is transpiring as the vehicle travels from left to right on a downhill grade and the camera is being "panned" at a speed to follow the vehicle, while at the same time the camera is either zooming in, or zooming out on the filmed subect matter.

Some things are just beyond the ranges of human ability.

An overlooked "human" error in the reproduction of the Z-film which we currently see and are lead to accept and believe as being a copy of the "original".

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Forest Gump