If the Zapruder film was altered, then the following must apply.

[Dean Hagerman]

Duncan

If the limo turn was taken out (which it was), or just a single frame is missing from the film, then that means the film is altered

So guess what?

The Z-film has been altered

There is nothing you can say that can or will change that fact

[Bill Miller]

The Z film clearly does not depict actual events. THEREFORE, it is a given that all objections raised by non-believers

automaticallY are givens also. This is simple LOGIC, not a matter of whether it could be done or not.

Jack

Anyone can claim anything and it doesn't make it a 'given'. I remember you and Fetzer proclaiming that you achieved Moorman's LOS and yet when it was tested ... the following was observed ----

Throwing dung at a wall doesn't constitute a 'given', Jack. Boys turning into girls, people shorter than parking meters, 7' tall Tony Fosters, there was no logic to those claims ... each one took less time to see the error in those claims that it took you to invent them. Again, if any of the alteration claims had merit, then experts on both sides of the fence would see it, but they don't have merit and have only existed within a small cult of individuals like yourself.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Duncan

If the limo turn was taken out (which it was), or just a single frame is missing from the film, then that means the film is altered

Thank goodness that Zapruder had enough foresight to have copies made of his film because that kept anyone from removing non-eventful limo turns from the original. How do we know this ... because Zapruder kept one copy and to this day that is a fact that alteration claim makers cannot get around.

Bill

[Paul Rigby]

The head movement was not back and to the left, It was forward and then back and to the left as described perfectly by Dan Rather on television, on the day of the assassination, and as seen in the Zapruder film.

As a service to Mr MacRae, his extraordinary hair, and anti-alterationists everywhere, a reminder of something else Dan Rather had to say to Walter Cronkite on CBS News, 25 November 1963:

"The films show President Kennedy’s open, black limousine, making a left turn off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, a left turn made just below the window in which the assassin was waiting,"

Richard B. Trask. National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005), pp. 142-144.

Attentive students of the subject will know that Mr R was not the only one to see this version of the Z-fake. So, too, did the compilers of the Dulles Report, as Mark Lane noted (without comment) in Rush To Judgment:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964),”

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

Glad to have been of assistance, Dunc. Keep up the good work.

[Bill Miller]

Also note that Rather says "The Films ( plural ) we saw"

You are correct, Duncan. Too much has been created from nothing in this case. Obviously Zapruder didn't shoot multiple films, thus Rather viewed the Houston Street film (probably the Hughes Film) and the Zapruder film. From this someone turns that into one film they the call Zapruder's and then ask why they cannot see the limo turn. After enough people hear the disinformation that comes from someone hearing things that are different from what was actually said .... it ends up on such a forum as this as fact that the Zapruder film must have been altered. And people wonder why CTs are considered unreliable. (sigh)

Bill

[Paul Rigby]

Also note that Rather says "The Films ( plural ) we saw"

A curiously common feature of early descriptions, both print and verbal:

“Governor Connolly said he was hit at a point corresponding to frames 231 to 234 of the Zapruder films (W-105),”

Vincent Salandria, “The Warren Report of the Analysis of Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds: A Lawyer’s Dissenting View,” The Legal Intelligencer, 2 November 1964, as reproduced within John Kelin (Ed), False Mystery: Essays on the Assassination of JFK (Louisville, Colorado: Square Deal Press, 2004), p.6

It could indicate, of course, an awareness of the existence of at least two versions of the Z-fake, but I see no evidence of that in Rather's case. Post-publication of the Dulles Report and the accompanying 26 volumes is a different matter.

The problem is that the alterationists believe that he is being truthful about the Limo turn, but untruthful about his description of the head shot.

Quite the reverse is true. Historically, the claim that Rather lied has been the preserve of authenticists. As I've argued previously, this was a curiously simple-minded argument given that Rather had every expectation on November 25 that the same version of the Z-fake he had just seen would indeed be broadcast.

I believe Rather's detailed descriptions of the version he saw on that day were accurate: It's just that the version he saw was no more authentic than the edited and reworked version which made it's way into the National Archives in 1964.

Two versions, both fakes.

[Paul Rigby]

You are correct, Duncan. Too much has been created from nothing in this case. Obviously Zapruder didn't shoot multiple films, thus Rather viewed the Houston Street film (probably the Hughes Film) and the Zapruder film. From this someone turns that into one film they the call Zapruder's and then ask why they cannot see the limo turn. After enough people hear the disinformation that comes from someone hearing things that are different from what was actually said .... it ends up on such a forum as this as fact that the Zapruder film must have been altered. And people wonder why CTs are considered unreliable. (sigh)Bill

A magnificent edifice of wild speculation, convenient conflation and non-sequitur, for which there is not a shred of supporting evidence. Typical of the anti-alterationists. How do we put up with you lot?

[Bill Miller]

A magnificent edifice of wild speculation, convenient conflation and non-sequitur, for which there is not a shred of supporting evidence. Typical of the anti-alterationists. How do we put up with you lot?

More general phrases that are void of data and facts concerning alteration ... how does anyone put up with that? To date there has not been one Zapruder film alteration claim hold up - why? Groden, a CTs, claims to have examined the Zapruder film and found it to be the original, as did Zavada. Can anyone post a request that was made by an alterionist to the NARA requesting to have an expert examine the film on their behalf .... I am sure many of us would love to see it.

Bill

[David G. Healy]

A magnificent edifice of wild speculation, convenient conflation and non-sequitur, for which there is not a shred of supporting evidence. Typical of the anti-alterationists. How do we put up with you lot?

More general phrases that are void of data and facts concerning alteration ... how does anyone put up with that? To date there has not been one Zapruder film alteration claim hold up - why? Groden, a CTs, claims to have examined the Zapruder film and found it to be the original, as did Zavada. Can anyone post a request that was made by an alterionist to the NARA requesting to have an expert examine the film on their behalf .... I am sure many of us would love to see it.

Bill

you're gonna have to do a lot better than that if you expect to dazzle all with your JFK assassination photo-film-pic brilliance. And, how would you verify a request was made to to NARA? The same way you verified Roland Zavada Report? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! You're still to easy William!

[David G. Healy]

Duncan

If the limo turn was taken out (which it was), or just a single frame is missing from the film, then that means the film is altered

Thank goodness that Zapruder had enough foresight to have copies made of his film because that kept anyone from removing non-eventful limo turns from the original. How do we know this ... because Zapruder kept one copy and to this day that is a fact that alteration claim makers cannot get around.

Bill

simple, then deliver Zapruder's copy for forensic film testing...

better yet, PROVE to us that film is a 1st generation copy -- and to this day that is a fact that non-alteration whiners cannot get around. tsk-tsk

Oh, and how long did Zapruder keep a copy of the film? Gary, your boy is doing it again.....

Edited January 2, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Paul Rigby]

For the benefit of those new to the debate, an explanation:

Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it?

The answer lies with the Parkland press conference.

The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film?

The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action.

Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston:

John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20:

“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more.

A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests.

A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.

The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.”

In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm:

Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1:

“Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy.

As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.

At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle.

The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course.”

And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm:

Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963:

“The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body.

Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it,”

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm

The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken.

More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit

[Karl Kinaski]

Fact: All films and photographs listed below are interlinked with the Zapruder film.

If the Zapruder film was altered, and Zapruder was not on the pedestal filming with Sitzman, then the following must apply.

D MavRaes assertons and my answers:

The Zapruder film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production. NO

Zapruder was part of the conspiracy. NO

Sitzman was part of the conspiracy. NO

Beatrice Hester was part of the conspiracy.NO

Charles Hester was part of the conspiracy. NO

The Nix film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production. BULLxxxx

The Nix film must have been altered. YES

Nix must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Muchmore film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Muchmore film must have been altered.YES

Muchmore must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Hughes film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Hughes film must have been altered.YES

Hughes must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Bronson film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Bronson film and photos (slides) must have been alteredYES

Bronson must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Moorman photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Moorman photograph must have been altered.YES

Moorman must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Altgens photographs were a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.NO

The Altgens photographs 6, 7 and 8 must have been altered.MAYBE

Altgens must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Willis photogeaph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Wilis photograph must have been altered.MAYBE

Willis must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Betzner photographs were a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Betzner photographs 2 and 3 must have been altered.MAYBE

Betzner must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Croft photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLSAGIT

The Croft photograph must have been altered.I DON'T KNOW

Croft must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Paschall film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Paschall film must have been altered.YES

Paschall must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Towner film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Towner film must be altered.YES

Towner must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Rickerby photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.BULLxxxx

The Rickerby photograph showing Zapruder, Sitzman and the Hesters must have been altered.

Rickerby must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Bell film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.NO

The Bell film must have been altered.YES

Bell must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Couch film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.NO

The Couch film must have been altered.MAYBE

Couch must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Weigman film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.NO

The Weigman film must have been altered.MAYBE

Weigman must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Daniel film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.NO

The Daniel film must have been altered.MABE

Daniel must have been part of the conspiracy.NO

The Martin film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.NO

The Martin film must have been altered.MAYBE

Martin must have been part of the conspiracy. NO

Employees at all of the different Labs, where all of these films and photographs were processed, must have been part of the conspiracy.NO. WHY? ONE CAN ALTERING A FILM WITHOUT BEEING A CONSPIRATOR

It's all completely bonkers. NO--- SOME OF YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE BONKERS.

Happy new year

KK

[Daniel Gallup]

For the benefit of those new to the debate, an explanation:

Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it?

The answer lies with the Parkland press conference.

The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film?

The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action.

Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston:

John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20:

“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more.

A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests.

A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.

The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.”

In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm:

Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1:

“Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy.

As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.

At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle.

The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course.”

And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm:

Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963:

“The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body.

Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it,”

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm

The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken.

More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit

Excellent post Paul. I have a copy of Kemp Clark's statement to the New York Times which you referenced. I did some further poking some time ago and if memory is correct Clark got his information direcetly from Perry about the bullet 'ranging downward' and not exiting. I have always wondered about that statement. On its face it would say Perry saw the bullet track while doing the trach and communicated that to Clark, who came after Perry into Tramua Room 1. That Perry claimed it did not exit says to me he could either see the bullet or inferred from Dr. Carrico's quick palpatating of Kennedy's back and not finding any wounds that such was the case.

I have always thought the limo stop and the lack of debris seen exiting Kennedy's head, and the area blacked out in Kennedy's head right where at the Parkland exit wound location, are the most obvious indications of forgery. The last requires minor alteration; removing the debris exiting Kennedy's head to the rear and the limo stop is another matter. Eyewitness testimony to both these events convinces me they in fact happened, even if I don't know how such alteration was accomplished. It's rather the same with the shipping casket -- I don't know how and when the perps got Kennedy's body into that body bag and shipping casket, but it seems from testimony at Bethesda that they nevertheless did. Perhaps we for a long time have been asking the wrong questions. Best, Daniel

[Jack White]

Excellent thinking, Daniel. The starting point in INVESTIGATING is determining WHAT HAPPENED, not how it happened.

Thus, if there were TWO CASKETS, wondering about HOW that was achieved is less important than the known facts.

If things are MISSING FROM FILMS that are known to have happened, that is more important than HOW it happened.

WHAT HAPPENED happened. How it happened is largely opinion and speculation.

Jack

[Paul Rigby]

I have a copy of Kemp Clark's statement to the New York Times which you referenced. I did some further poking some time ago and if memory is correct Clark got his information direcetly from Perry about the bullet 'ranging downward' and not exiting. I have always wondered about that statement. On its face it would say Perry saw the bullet track while doing the trach and communicated that to Clark, who came after Perry into Tramua Room 1. That Perry claimed it did not exit says to me he could either see the bullet or inferred from Dr. Carrico's quick palpatating of Kennedy's back and not finding any wounds that such was the case.

I have always thought the limo stop and the lack of debris seen exiting Kennedy's head, and the area blacked out in Kennedy's head right where at the Parkland exit wound location, are the most obvious indications of forgery. The last requires minor alteration; removing the debris exiting Kennedy's head to the rear and the limo stop is another matter. Eyewitness testimony to both these events convinces me they in fact happened, even if I don't know how such alteration was accomplished. It's rather the same with the shipping casket -- I don't know how and when the perps got Kennedy's body into that body bag and shipping casket, but it seems from testimony at Bethesda that they nevertheless did. Perhaps we for a long time have been asking the wrong questions. Best, Daniel

I agree with everything you've said, Daniel - and content myself with adding this, an extract from the text of Mark Lane's speech to the UK's "Who Killed Kennedy?" Committee, delivered at University College, London, in December 1964:

Well let’s look at the medical testimony, because the medical testimony will tell us how. When that first bullet struck the President and he grasped his throat with both hands, all one has to do is examine the wound and find out if it was an entrance wound indicating the shot came from the front, or an exit wound. The doctors at the Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22nd held a Press Conference after they pronounced the President dead, and at that Press Conference, which was widely televised and broadcast by radio throughout America, the doctors made these comments. Dr. Malcolm Perry, the physician who performed the tracheotomy on the President’s throat so that a tube could be inserted in the throat said: “I followed the path of the bullet which entered at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest. The bullet did not exit, and that is the path I followed with the tube when I performed the tracheotomy.” Dr. Kemp Clark, the physician who signed the death certificate said: “The bullet entered the President’s throat at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest and did not exit.” Dr. Robert N. McClelland, Senior Physician at the Parkland Hospital, said: “Down here in Dallas we have an opportunity to examine and treat bullet wounds every single day. As a result we know the difference between entrance wounds and exit wounds, and the wound in the President’s throat was an entrance wound. The bullet entered from the front.”

Based upon that information, the FBI and the Dallas Police issued a statement saying that the limousine was right here (on Houston Street, facing the Book Depository Building) when the first shot was fired and Oswald took that rifle, fired down Houston Street, the first bullet striking the President in the front of the throat. Well that testimony then totally confirms the medical statement that the bullet entered the throat from the front and from above and ranged downward into the chest. But there was a problem with that story.

The problem is that it’s totally false and not only that, the witnesses agreed that it was false, that the car was here, moving away from the Book Depository Building in this direction before the first shot was fired. Now among the witnesses who said that the car was on Elm Street, not on Houston Street, were such witnesses as Jacqueline Kennedy, Governor Connolly, Mrs. Connolly, and all the films that were taken showing the car there. Just before it was announced, however, just before the story was changed to version number two, the Dallas District Attorney said: “We have a map found in Oswald’s possession. He circled the Book Depository Building, and he had drawn a dotted line on the map down Houston Street, showing the trajectory which he had planned, and he drew that dotted line in his own handwriting.” However, now that the witnesses have all said publicly: “The car was here” (on Elm Street) and the films show the car was there, the FBI and the Secret Service and the Dallas Police are nothing if not absolutely flexible, and so version number one was forever erased, and we now reach version number two. Now version number two is presented with two new problems. Number one: what about that dotted line that Oswald drew down Houston Street? New York Times, November 29th: “The Dallas authorities said today there never was such a map. Any reference to it was an error.” That takes care of the map.

However, there’s another problem, how did Oswald shoot the President in the front of his throat, how did he shoot him from the front, from the back? That’s a more weighty problem. The autopsy was conducted on November 22nd from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on the very day of the assassination, and agents of the FBI were there when the autopsy was being conducted and got reports on the progress of the autopsy and immediately thereafter. After that autopsy had been completed, thirteen days later, the Federal Authorities re-enacted and reconstructed the crime, with an FBI Agent sitting in the back seat playing the role of President Kennedy, and the New York Times which observed the re-enactment reported that as the limousine came to this point, the officer of the FBI who was playing the role of the President turned completely around to face the Book Depository Building to expose his throat, seeking to explain how that first bullet entered the President’s throat from above, and from the front. “But,” mused the New York Times, then, “that’s rather curious because the pictures which have already been published widely show that the President was looking in this direction, to the front and to the right when the first bullet entered his throat.” Well, the Times, throwing its hands up at that point, said: “There is one document that will answer these questions for us: the statements made by Dr. Humes, the medical Corps Commander of the Navy who performed the autopsy on the President’s body at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, for Dr. Humes is the expert,” said the New York Times, “on the angle of entry of the bullet, so we must wait for his report.” And those preliminary statements prepared by Dr. Humes would be of great value, obviously, which show exactly what Dr. Humes thought when he conducted that autopsy, and so we waited eagerly the release of this most massive document in the history of detective work in the world. But no reference was made to those important and vital preliminary statements prepared by Dr. Humes, not a word, and then we waited for the twenty-six volumes.

Warmest best wishes to you and yours for the New Year,

Paul