The Zapruder Film

[Paul Baker]

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.

I believe a bullet travelling at about 1000 m/s will weigh about the same as one that is stationary.

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.

If a bullet travelling at 1000 m/s hit you, assuming it weighs 10.45 grammes (equivalent to 161.2 grains), even if it transferred all its momentum to you, your resultant initial speed would be about 0.14 m/s, which isn't exactly 'ragdoll tossing' speed. In reality, if the bullet passed right through you, you'd gain a mere fraction of its momentum.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Paul Baker

[David G. Healy]

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

Josiah,

Thank you for the information on Gary Murr's study. I was able to find this posted by him regarding the date of Shaneyfelt's numbering :

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

Kathy

tnx to Gary Murr... a step closer

[David G. Healy]

Top post

Thank you Dr. Thompson, and no, I have no idea the exact date when the Zapruder frames were numbered....I've been pointed towards a Lancer board response by one Gary Murr (this thread) to a request I made there concerning the same topic in September of 2002. After a quick review of his post (url provided by KBeckett) it appears the frame numbering system came about sometime in January '64... I'll follow up on this...

If you know (or anyone for that matter) Mr. Murr's definitive work can be found where? (or his current email address)

Thank you,

DHealy

Edit: and still no, regardless of what Mr. Murr has posted at Lancer, or here during the past 2 years concerning the numbering of the Z-film frames -- evidently Mr. Murr seems to think I'm from the school the Z-ffilm was altered while in the hands of the NPIC/CIA the weekend of the assassination, perhaps he needs to read or re-read The Great Zapruder Film HOAX...

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?

Edited March 26, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

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.

I believe a bullet travelling at about 1000 m/s will weigh about the same as one that is stationary.

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.

If a bullet travelling at 1000 m/s hit you, assuming it weighs 10.45 grammes (equivalent to 161.2 grains), even if it transferred all its momentum to you, your resultant initial speed would be about 0.14 m/s, which isn't exactly 'ragdoll tossing' speed. In reality, if the bullet passed right through you, you'd gain a mere fraction of its momentum.

I think it is relative to the weight and density of the target.

As a child I had a BB gun. I would set a tin can on a post and shoot at it. The BB would dent or penetrate

the lightweight tin, and THE CAN WOULD FALL OFF OF THE POST IN THE DIRECTION OF THE BB TRAVEL.

If I used a wooden plank, the BB would bury itself a little in soft wood and could be dug out.

If I used a heavier, thicker, denser target, the BB would bounce off, and could be recovered and used again.

I am not a gun expert nor gun owner. Guns are largely for killing. I hate guns, and the lives they ruin.

Even in the proper hands. The son of a friend was a FW policeman. In the line on duty, he shot and killed

a burglarly suspect. A religious youth, the killing preyed on his mind. He resigned his job. He later committed

suicide...with his pistol...the only way to clear his conscience.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Hi Bill,

You wrote below:

"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."

I believe you mentioned me by name in another post as one you'd like to hear from on what an authentic film gives us.

The Z film, imo, is a valuable tool. Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. This film is worth far more than that.

It gives us specifics as to where witnesses were located ... no quibbling over trying to parse a witness's words about what they meant by being close to, near, far from, etc anything.

It gives us a visual lay of the land, the location of the cars, where people were looking and when, what they were doing, what the occupants in the limo were doing.

It helps us assess some witnesses statements ... when we can see their words come to life before us.

It helps us assess the timing of some still photographs (Willis at 202, for example).

It is not the best evidence for where shots hit,

it is not the best evidence for assessing the full extent of the damage of any of the wounds.

Alone it is not the best evidence for the timing of the shots (save a head shot at 313), but because it can be assessed in conjunction with

other photographs and witness statements, it can be a powerful and revealing tool, imo.

When other photos, witness statements and what we see on the film converge, just maybe we can reach some important conclusions.

I used the film, other photos and witness statements for this, for example.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/bj190.pdf

[Note: End note 5 should read: HSCA Record number 180-10123-10047, Letter from Sherman, Bennett to Jane Downey, HSCA, 10-27-78.]

Hope this answers your question.

Bests,

Barb :-)

...

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

Edited March 31, 2009 by Barb Junkkarinen

[William Kelly]

Thanks Barb,

I'm glad you bring James Tague into the picture in your article.

Thanks for your thoughts.

BK

Hi Bill,

You wrote below:

"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."

I believe you mentioned me by name in another post as one you'd like to hear from on what an authentic film gives us.

The Z film, imo, is a valuable tool. Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. This film is worth far more than that.

It gives us specifics as to where witnesses were located ... no quibbling over trying to parse a witness's words about what they meant by being close to, near, far from, etc anything.

It gives us a visual lay of the land, the location of the cars, where people were looking and when, what they were doing, what the occupants in the limo were doing.

It helps us assess some witnesses statements ... when we can see their words come to life before us.

It helps us assess the timing of some still photographs (Willis at 202, for example).

It is not the best evidence for where shots hit,

it is not the best evidence for assessing the full extent of the damage of any of the wounds.

Alone it is not the best evidence for the timing of the shots (save a head shot at 313), but because it can be assessed in conjunction with

other photographs and witness statements, it can be a powerful and revealing tool, imo.

When other photos, witness statements and what we see on the film converge, just maybe we can reach some important conclusions.

I used the film, other photos and witness statements for this, for example.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/bj190.pdf

[Note: End note 5 should read: HSCA Record number 180-10123-10047, Letter from Sherman, Bennett to Jane Downey, HSCA, 10-27-78.]

Hope this answers your question.

Bests,

Barb :-)

...

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