Jump to content

The Zapruder Film


Recommended Posts

Until Life got their hands on it, the original z film was likely never altered, except in being transformed into a viewable reel as all such films are and then through repeated back forward at different speeds and in stepping fatiguing it and fraying the sprocket holes,

Lifes' alterations are multifaceted. They must have used one or more of the copies to reconstruct the broken film. In the process who knows which copy/ies they used, or whose hands it had been through and even exactly how they reconstructed it. Hypothetically it could be, as we have it today : a portion, made up of segments from a number of copies, so I don't think there is a clear answer to your question with regards to that.

A viewing of the SS copy first sent to them from Dallas to Washington that evening may answer a lot of questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...

If it was altered, I'd like to know when it was altered, I want to know when, before or after the three copies were made?

...

Thanks,

Bk

Your IF urged me to respond so.... between Nov. 24th and mid-February 1964, when the WC officially saw the film, as a group the first time. AFTER the 3 copies were made. One can reasonably suspect the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film has been altered more since then. Who'd know? The only folks needing to see the Zapruder film (in 1964) that is until Jim Garrison came on scene was the Warren Commission. Plenty of time to tidy up loose ends for that trial...

Hi David,

Thanks for your interest and response to all this.

Do all four versions, original and three copies contain all of the anomalies, or are they only in one or more of the copies?

I don't think they made three copies and Z kept the original, and then nobody watched them until the Warren Commission saw it many months later.

The Secret Service officials in DC certainly watched it as soon as they got it.

I don't know if Zapruder watched it or if he allowed anyone to watch his copy, but TT has told me that the difference between the original and the three copies is pretty evident.

If alterations weren't made in the original before being copied, then the cat was out of the bag once the copies were out.

Life could altered their copy, and apparently did, but the other copies went in differnt directions, so the alterationests would have had to track them down and bring them all together in order to alter them, right?

If the original was altered then, we can narrow down the time and place at which it could have been altered, and that's before they made the copies, unless you can show that the copies were re-corralled someplace at a later date and altered together?

Maybe Zapruder was part of the plot? He was a White Russian who worked with DeMohrenschildt's wife, and had an office in the Dal-Tex building. Did his office overlook Dealey Plaza?

The way I look at it, if was altered, the original Zap film had to be altered while in Zapruder's hands, before it was copied.

If not, then when, where and who had access to the original and three copies at the same time in order to alter them?

Show me where I am wrong and I'll follow you to the alterationists, so we can arrest them for tampering with evidence.

I'm still waiting to hear from some more non-alterationists, on what the unaltered Zapruder film shows us if it is an accurate portrayal of the murder.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Kelly wrote:

Hi David,

Thanks for your interest and response to all this.

Do all four versions, original and three copies contain all of the anomalies, or are they only in one or more of the copies?

dgh: I've heard it stated they do, but I've never seen a side by side frame comparison of all 4 films. I have seen (Zavada report) samples of frames depicting alleged bracketing when the copies were printed, that's it.****

I don't think they made three copies and Z kept the original, and then nobody watched them until the Warren Commission saw it many months later.

dgh: of course not, we have Roland Zavada stating at a SMPTE conference in 200 at NYC a buddy of his printed copies of the Z-film in their NYC plant I think for the FBI, copies of the film (in 8mm and 16mm) were all over the place...***

The Secret Service officials in DC certainly watched it as soon as they got it.

dgh: damn right and they made MORE copies...***

I don't know if Zapruder watched it or if he allowed anyone to watch his copy, but TT has told me that the difference between the original and the three copies is pretty evident.

dgh: probably the alleged bracketing, which I don't believe is the difference. According to Zapruder testimony he had no original or copy to watch after Saturday.... (note: his partner has disputed that, he thinks the final film Zapruder film left Dallas the following Tuesday or such...***

If alterations weren't made in the original before being copied, then the cat was out of the bag once the copies were out.

dgh: no time to make changes before the copies were printed...***

Life could altered their copy, and apparently did, but the other copies went in differnt directions, so the alterationests would have had to track them down and bring them all together in order to alter them, right?

dgh: great idea but when have you viewed one of the three prints struck from the original Z-film..... no one that I'm aware of can make that claim (not even Dr. Josiah Thompson). I'd be damn interested in knowing one who viewed one of the 3 original Zapruder films laced up on a projector and ran.... yeah, I'd be interested of knowing who, hell I'd be interested in hearing from one of those that sat in Zapruder office on Saturday morning and watched the damn film, too!***

If the original was altered then, we can narrow down the time and place at which it could have been altered, and that's before they made the copies, unless you can show that the copies were re-corralled someplace at a later date and altered together?

dgh: the intended audience for the Zapruder film was the Warren Commission, that's it! FINI! The film was not meant for public consumption. Conclusion: SINGLE assassin, PERIOD! No conspiracy. Me, I can show nothing... I haven't viewed any of the early dubs, I have no idea whats on them. I can say, you have 4 films that need to be under control... any film dupe made for whatever purpose would need to checked against either the alleged in-camera original or one of the three original prints. I personally have never heard of anyone doing that after ALL these years, even the 6th Floor Museum has not publicly announced they've undertaken that task. The organization I would expect to be the first folks to scream, "hey we got film dupes created within 60 days after the assassination, they all look the same to us when compared to the (hiccup) in-camera original or the original dupe we have here under our control." What I do find interesting though is, the only group I'm aware of that is collecting Z-films of every film gauge is the 6th Floor Museum, wonder why are they doing that? Early Spring cleaning perhaps? B) ***

Maybe Zapruder was part of the plot? He was a White Russian who worked with DeMohrenschildt's wife, and had an office in the Dal-Tex building. Did his office overlook Dealey Plaza?

dgh: I know nothing other than Zapruder is/was the least investigated major person associated with this assassination... he came out of a black hole and went back to it, lied about what he made, then his estate collected 16million big ones from the US taxpayers...***

The way I look at it, if was altered, the original Zap film had to be altered while in Zapruder's hands, before it was copied.

dgh: nah.... you're buying Tink-Mack time line restraints... simply find out when Shaneyfelt numbered the Z-frames. I said it once, I'll say it again, for all we know the original in-camera Z-film is sitting at the bottom of a Texas landfill, who'd know? Who can dispute that? ***

If not, then when, where and who had access to the original and three copies at the same time in order to alter them?

dgh: start with LIFE and/or government agencies... LIFE makes more sense to me and NYC-and-Hollywood is to the left and the right, just down the street...***

Show me where I am wrong and I'll follow you to the alterationists, so we can arrest them for tampering with evidence.

dgh: hell, I'm not going to say your wrong.... I don't know if I'm right, what I do know? It's a foolish assumption to assume the Zapruder film could not be altered, that's FACT...***

I'm still waiting to hear from some more non-alterationists, on what the unaltered Zapruder film shows us if it is an accurate portrayal of the murder.

dgh: more? they've actually responded, someone who knows about film compositing? Not Miller? the guy who sees heads in bushes... please I can't take that seriously, You're gonna wait for a longtime, I've waited for 5+ years all I hear is noise... Take care, Bill Kelly***

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Bill,

Maybe one of these articles will answer your questions:

Six Seconds in Dallas: A Belated Review

by Jerrold "Fatback" Smith Copyright © 1999

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...Issue/ssid.html

Zapruder Counterpoint

by Jerrold "Fatback" Smith © 2009

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...s_jt_zfilm.html

Jim

...

If it was altered, I'd like to know when it was altered, I want to know when, before or after the three copies were made?

...

Thanks,

Bk

Your IF urged me to respond so.... between Nov. 24th and mid-February 1964, when the WC officially saw the film, as a group the first time. AFTER the 3 copies were made. One can reasonably suspect the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film has been altered more since then. Who'd know? The only folks needing to see the Zapruder film (in 1964) that is until Jim Garrison came on scene was the Warren Commission. Plenty of time to tidy up loose ends for that trial...

Hi David,

Thanks for your interest and response to all this.

Do all four versions, original and three copies contain all of the anomalies, or are they only in one or more of the copies?

I don't think they made three copies and Z kept the original, and then nobody watched them until the Warren Commission saw it many months later.

The Secret Service officials in DC certainly watched it as soon as they got it.

I don't know if Zapruder watched it or if he allowed anyone to watch his copy, but TT has told me that the difference between the original and the three copies is pretty evident.

If alterations weren't made in the original before being copied, then the cat was out of the bag once the copies were out.

Life could altered their copy, and apparently did, but the other copies went in differnt directions, so the alterationests would have had to track them down and bring them all together in order to alter them, right?

If the original was altered then, we can narrow down the time and place at which it could have been altered, and that's before they made the copies, unless you can show that the copies were re-corralled someplace at a later date and altered together?

Maybe Zapruder was part of the plot? He was a White Russian who worked with DeMohrenschildt's wife, and had an office in the Dal-Tex building. Did his office overlook Dealey Plaza?

The way I look at it, if was altered, the original Zap film had to be altered while in Zapruder's hands, before it was copied.

If not, then when, where and who had access to the original and three copies at the same time in order to alter them?

Show me where I am wrong and I'll follow you to the alterationists, so we can arrest them for tampering with evidence.

I'm still waiting to hear from some more non-alterationists, on what the unaltered Zapruder film shows us if it is an accurate portrayal of the murder.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Maybe one of these articles will answer your questions:

Six Seconds in Dallas: A Belated Review

by Jerrold "Fatback" Smith Copyright © 1999

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...Issue/ssid.html

Zapruder Counterpoint

by Jerrold "Fatback" Smith © 2009

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...s_jt_zfilm.html

Jim

Prof. Fetzer,

I don't need "Fatback" Smith to tell me what Thompson wrote in Six Seconds in Dallas or said at COPA conferences that I also attended.

But I didn't realize that Time/Life got the original and one copy.

So, if Zapruder sold the original and one of the three copies to Time/Life (See: the related thread on Charles Douglas Jackson http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13700), then they certainly had the ability and motive to alter the film. But what about the other two copies that were out there?

The Secret Service got one, who got the other? Thompson says that the Zapruder family retained one copy.

Where did Garrison's copy come from?

Where did the copy that Groden got come from?

BK

...

If it was altered, I'd like to know when it was altered, I want to know when, before or after the three copies were made?

...

Thanks,

Bk

Your IF urged me to respond so.... between Nov. 24th and mid-February 1964, when the WC officially saw the film, as a group the first time. AFTER the 3 copies were made. One can reasonably suspect the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film has been altered more since then. Who'd know? The only folks needing to see the Zapruder film (in 1964) that is until Jim Garrison came on scene was the Warren Commission. Plenty of time to tidy up loose ends for that trial...

Hi David,

Thanks for your interest and response to all this.

Do all four versions, original and three copies contain all of the anomalies, or are they only in one or more of the copies?

I don't think they made three copies and Z kept the original, and then nobody watched them until the Warren Commission saw it many months later.

The Secret Service officials in DC certainly watched it as soon as they got it.

I don't know if Zapruder watched it or if he allowed anyone to watch his copy, but TT has told me that the difference between the original and the three copies is pretty evident.

If alterations weren't made in the original before being copied, then the cat was out of the bag once the copies were out.

Life could altered their copy, and apparently did, but the other copies went in differnt directions, so the alterationests would have had to track them down and bring them all together in order to alter them, right?

If the original was altered then, we can narrow down the time and place at which it could have been altered, and that's before they made the copies, unless you can show that the copies were re-corralled someplace at a later date and altered together?

Maybe Zapruder was part of the plot? He was a White Russian who worked with DeMohrenschildt's wife, and had an office in the Dal-Tex building. Did his office overlook Dealey Plaza?

The way I look at it, if was altered, the original Zap film had to be altered while in Zapruder's hands, before it was copied.

If not, then when, where and who had access to the original and three copies at the same time in order to alter them?

Show me where I am wrong and I'll follow you to the alterationists, so we can arrest them for tampering with evidence.

I'm still waiting to hear from some more non-alterationists, on what the unaltered Zapruder film shows us if it is an accurate portrayal of the murder.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until Life got their hands on it, the original z film was likely never altered, except in being transformed into a viewable reel as all such films are and then through repeated back forward at different speeds and in stepping fatiguing it and fraying the sprocket holes,

Lifes' alterations are multifaceted. They must have used one or more of the copies to reconstruct the broken film. In the process who knows which copy/ies they used, or whose hands it had been through and even exactly how they reconstructed it. Hypothetically it could be, as we have it today : a portion, made up of segments from a number of copies, so I don't think there is a clear answer to your question with regards to that.

A viewing of the SS copy first sent to them from Dallas to Washington that evening may answer a lot of questions.

If Life had the original and one copy, then the other two copies and their offspring should not have the alterations, unless it can be shown that Life also had access to the SS copy and the one retained by Zapruder.

From what I understand, the SS had multible copies of their copy made, so there would have had to be an accounting of these as well.

Where did the Garrison copy come from and where did the Groden copy come from?

Thanks,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Where did the copy that Groden got come from?

BK

...

LIFE requested Moe Weitzman (Groden's boss) owner of a NYC film lab to bump the alleged 8mm in-camera Zapruder film to 16mm. Somewhere along the line Moe felt he could get the 8mm Z-film direct to 35mm (no mean task for the day - but he did it, one frame at a time) with no interceding step at 16mm and THEN to 35mm.... LIFE wanted that. Groden came into his 35mm Zapruder film copy through Moe's lab where he, Groden worked as lab assistant (?). This info is public information on-the-record HSCA hearings, I believe Groden presence was requested and he gave testimony, and Moe Weitzman certainly gave testimony during the proceedings. As did David Lifton who by then also had a 35mm copy, which he got through I believe a Producer at a Public Televsion Station (?) station in New England (which he, Lifton donated to NARA, I believe).... The damn things were all over the place, in 35mm, 16mm, 8mm color AND b&w format even...

Frankly I don't believe for a second LIFE would of sent the alleged in-camera original anywhere for any purpose especially if they purchased and had in their posession a 1st generation dupe of the original (one of the three Jamison Lab prints control number #0185-6-7) the camera original #0183 (I'd really like to know what #0184 was used for)

I understand that LIFE dupe may be the print that was turned over to the 6th Floor a few years back..... who knows what the control number was for that film dupe...

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until Life got their hands on it, the original z film was likely never altered, except in being transformed into a viewable reel as all such films are and then through repeated back forward at different speeds and in stepping fatiguing it and fraying the sprocket holes,

Lifes' alterations are multifaceted. They must have used one or more of the copies to reconstruct the broken film. In the process who knows which copy/ies they used, or whose hands it had been through and even exactly how they reconstructed it. Hypothetically it could be, as we have it today : a portion, made up of segments from a number of copies, so I don't think there is a clear answer to your question with regards to that.

A viewing of the SS copy first sent to them from Dallas to Washington that evening may answer a lot of questions.

If Life had the original and one copy, then the other two copies and their offspring should not have the alterations, unless it can be shown that Life also had access to the SS copy and the one retained by Zapruder.

From what I understand, the SS had multible copies of their copy made, so there would have had to be an accounting of these as well.

Where did the Garrison copy come from and where did the Groden copy come from?

Thanks,

BK

fwiw, one way I heard it is that the FBI borrowed a 8mm dupe from the SS to have their own copies made.

Here's the problem:

One of the original dupes at NARA is in horrible shape all cut up, frames missing, sprocket holes stripped, etc at NARA, another the Jamison/Kodak control number is missing, well worn and out of reach, the third in the hands of the 6th Floor although it may be at NARA by now, who knows -- you've got no dupe film or access to match same frame-by-frame with the earliest known prints....

I think it was Doug Horne that did a complete inventory on these the 3 original Jamieson dupe/prints (a few years back). Doug also assisted the Zavada report. Perhaps someone has a url for the inventory, its out there somewhere, I've read it more than once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:

http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm

I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much, Kathy. Of great interest is the mss. that Phil Chamberlain wrote in the 1970s chronicling his recollections of that afternoon. It is A-11. He lays out the scenario that other workers filled in concerning the development and copying of the Z film and its viewing by workers at the Kodak lab. Once again, when one gets past the rhetoric and back to the most elementary level of fact the chimeras disappear.

Josiah Thompson

Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:

http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm

I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great, Bill. One can see from these handwritten notes that the frames being looked at for possible shot impacts are approximately the frames that have always been picked in the present Z film. Hence, McMahon's claim (endlessly repeated by Fetzer) of 6 to 8 impacts is suspect. Ben Hunter's observation concerning no intra-sprocket-hole content means they were looking at the Z film copy sent to Washington on the night of the 22nd. The fact that they would pick out the same area of frames as subsequent investigators highlighted means that both NPIC and later investigators have been looking at the same film.

Josiah Thompson

Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:

http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm

I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.

Kathy

Thanks Kathy,

Here's some notes from NPIC.

BK

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great, Bill. One can see from these handwritten notes that the frames being looked at for possible shot impacts are approximately the frames that have always been picked in the present Z film. Hence, McMahon's claim (endlessly repeated by Fetzer) of 6 to 8 impacts is suspect. Ben Hunter's observation concerning no intra-sprocket-hole content means they were looking at the Z film copy sent to Washington on the night of the 22nd. The fact that they would pick out the same area of frames as subsequent investigators highlighted means that both NPIC and later investigators have been looking at the same film.

Josiah Thompson

Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:

http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm

I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.

Kathy

Thanks Kathy,

Here's some notes from NPIC.

BK

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=7

slow down Dr. Thompson.... these NPIC guys according to Horne's interview looked at the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination, and the references to Z-frames on these notes are numbered, amazing! NOW, when did Shaneyfelt say he numbered the Z-frames? After all, he is the claimed author of numbering the frames.... It had to be the day after the assassination, at the very latest, right?

Now if Shaneyfelt didn't number them, who did that assassination weekend? The NPIC? Did they number the frames? Or, are the NPIC guys lying about when they worked on (extracting frames for blow-up, talking point boards) and analyzed the Zapruder film? If they lied, why? I also believe those NPIC guys stated in the Horne interview they, or one of the two determined there were at least 4 eprhaps 6 shots (maybe more).... fired, eh? But let's keep focused on the frame numbering issue, eh?

Amazing that Dr. Thompson now finds these notes so interesting, I think these notes were published (in their entirety) 5 or so years ago in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, in a article by contributing author Doug Horne and edited by none other than Dr. Jim Fetzer... someone correct me if I'm wrong, maybe it was Murder in Dealey Plaza or Assassination Science...

p.s. I also believe one of the two NPIC guys has/had a beef about not recognizing some of the handwriting in those very notes.... CYA or F-E-A-R?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, David. I don't know and I don't know if anyone knows when these notes were actually jotted down. They may have been written later in November or even early December. You certainly are right that making enlargements and story boards (so to speak) was something that went on for some time. Do you know when Shaneyfelt numbered the frames? My guess is that this was done much later than that weekend but I don't know that. I believe Gary Murr has done the definitive work on this NPIC chapter of the case. He sent me some chapters of a larger work years ago and it was great. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Gary Murr, he knows more about this than most anybody.

Josiah Thompson

This is great, Bill. One can see from these handwritten notes that the frames being looked at for possible shot impacts are approximately the frames that have always been picked in the present Z film. Hence, McMahon's claim (endlessly repeated by Fetzer) of 6 to 8 impacts is suspect. Ben Hunter's observation concerning no intra-sprocket-hole content means they were looking at the Z film copy sent to Washington on the night of the 22nd. The fact that they would pick out the same area of frames as subsequent investigators highlighted means that both NPIC and later investigators have been looking at the same film.

Josiah Thompson

Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:

http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm

I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.

Kathy

Thanks Kathy,

Here's some notes from NPIC.

BK

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=7

slow down Dr. Thompson.... these NPIC guys according to Horne's interview looked at the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination, and the references to Z-frames on these notes are numbered, amazing! NOW, when did Shaneyfelt say he numbered the Z-frames? After all, he is the claimed author of numbering the frames.... It had to be the day after the assassination, at the very latest, right?

Now if Shaneyfelt didn't number them, who did that assassination weekend? The NPIC? Did they number the frames? Or, are the NPIC guys lying about when they worked on (extracting frames for blow-up, talking point boards) and analyzed the Zapruder film? If they lied, why? I also believe those NPIC guys stated in the Horne interview they, or one of the two determined there were at least 4 eprhaps 6 shots (maybe more).... fired, eh? But let's keep focused on the frame numbering issue, eh?

Amazing that Dr. Thompson now finds these notes so interesting, I think these notes were published (in their entirety) 5 or so years ago in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, in a article by contributing author Doug Horne and edited by none other than Dr. Jim Fetzer... someone correct me if I'm wrong, maybe it was Murder in Dealey Plaza or Assassination Science...

p.s. I also believe one of the two NPIC guys has/had a beef about not recognizing some of the handwriting in those very notes.... CYA or F-E-A-R?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics (specifically the principle of the conservation of momentum) will understand that an impacting bullet will not have sufficient momentum to cause any appreciable movement in a target that is much heavier (apologies - I don't know what the precise ratio is, but I'm pretty sure JFK's head weighed considerably more than the bullet that penetrated it). The film also clearly shows debris ejecting in front of JFK. Only a bullet fired from behind could have this effect.

The 'headsnap' is therefore irrelevant in determining the direction of the bullet. I'm not even convinced the film shows a headsnap.

Assuming the film wasn't faked (no-one has ever provided any convincing evidence that it was), the shot that hit JFK's head came from behind. Simple.

I thought it was a given that any object, when moving at speed, gains weight exponentially?

Therefore, (and i am not a physicist) a bullet would weigh much more when traveling at supersonic speed.

Oh, and by the way, I was shot once, by a measly .22 round, and it knocked me to the deck, and I weighed 165 pounds at the time. Don't tell me that a bullet won't throw someone's head around like a rag doll, i know better from personal experience.

My 2 cents worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...