Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?


Recommended Posts

Alteration theories aside, the Z-film always appears at the heart of public debate about what happened in Dealey Plaza. It seems to rear its graphic frame every 12 years or so (like sun spots), causing a ripple in the fabric of the published story. It also seems to prompt responsible steps forward (e.g. HSCA, AARB) in the revelation of facts. I think that the most telling aspect of its story is not what might have happened in Rochester NY at Kodak, but rather that the film’s provenance was not the federal authorities but rather a private company... Time-Life, who kept it from public disclosure for more than a decade, until determined individuals (Garrison, Thompson, and Groden) used the power of subpoena to show in pictures the graphic events of Dealey Plaza.

Time-Life paid a handsome sum of money for the film. Its chain of custody reads confusing and unclear, and that part of the film’s story is debated hotly even today. Supposedly, Time-Life was so upset by what the film depicted that their executive management decided to restrict what that company would show in its magazines. This rings hollow, and reminds one of Ruby’s stated reason for killing Oswald; that he was so saddened for Jacqueline that he didn’t want her to endure a public trial. Time-Life conceals the graphic facts depicted on film, such as bullet impact and body motion. It’s a matter of historical fact that they stopped the presses twice to mold their October 1964 magazine issue to complement the Warren Commission’s findings. Time-Life never authorized the film’s use for television or films; they sued Josiah Thompson when he tried to use pictures for his book. That such a key piece of evidence would be help privately for more than ten years is, itself, astounding.

In 1969, at the trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans, Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film from Time-Life. The film was still made difficult to obtain, and protected from public disclosure. In retrospect, Time-Life seems determined not to show the film to the public. In 1975, Robert Groden and Dick Gregory secured access to a copy of the film and showed it on television. The public was allowed to see the film for the first time.... 12 years after the most public, controversial and famous murder in modern times. That fact alone is astounding. Public reaction was sensational; it prompted a hopeful re-examination of the murder with the House Select Committee formed the next year. Time-Life then philanthropically decided it didn’t want the Zapruder film anymore; returned to the Zapruder family (for one dollar). The film was still not in the National Archives, yet it’s an amazing piece of evidence in the murder of an American president.

Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie JFK was met with controversy, but used the Zapruder film to capture the emotion of audiences and the public’s attention once again. Newspapers ran editorials accusing Stone of taking liberties with historical facts; it felt (to this observer) like the critics were concerned with more than just art. The proverbial powers attacked Stone in a vicious and personal way, to discredit and blacklist him. The late Roger Ebert praised the film in his review for the Chicago Sun-Times, saying, "The achievement of the film is not that it answers the mystery of the Kennedy assassination, because it does not, or even that it vindicates Garrison, who is seen here as a man often whistling in the dark. Its achievement is that it tries to marshal the anger which ever since 1963 has been gnawing away on some dark shelf of the national psyche". Perhaps Stone got too close to the flame... but the film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, ironically winning Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing. One of the biggest ‘stars’ of JFK is the Z-Film... we hear the actor’s haunting voice narrate the Z-Film, with the words “back and to the left”... still a memorable scene. This prompted formation of the next leap forward in establishing the truth... the AARB. Following Doug Horne’s revelations, the Zapruder film is once again again forcing us to confront the inconsistencies and controversies that will never go away in the murder of a presidnt 50 years ago. For me, it doesn't matter that the extant film is original or altered, true or spliced... the film's story alone evokes emotion and passion, and that is telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Craig,

How can I shuck and jive when I'm posting the graphics for all to check. The key is provided @ 1inch=10ft.

What else can 91.6ft represent besides the hypotenuse. I showed you in terms of 15.5ft related to Position "A" at street level. The same 91.6ft distance.

Position A is Position A. The TSBD base is the base.

I didn't create these points, I merely tie them together.

So, if you measure out from the TSBD base, aligned with the snipers nest, it's approx 66.2ft.

The distance from Station 2+50(snipers nest aligned out on Elm St) to Position "A" is 28.5ft.

That total is 94.7ft approx.

Does that ring a bell to anyone?

chris

P.S.

Once again, I didn't create the distance from Station 2+50 to Position A, this is the WC work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

How can I shuck and jive when I'm posting the graphics for all to check. The key is provided @ 1inch=10ft.

What else can 91.6ft represent besides the hypotenuse. I showed you in terms of 15.5ft related to Position "A" at street level. The same 91.6ft distance.

Position A is Position A. The TSBD base is the base.

I didn't create these points, I merely tie them together.

So, if you measure out from the TSBD base, aligned with the snipers nest, it's approx 66.2ft.

The distance from Station 2+50(snipers nest aligned out on Elm St) to Position "A" is 28.5ft.

That total is 94.7ft approx.

Does that ring a bell to anyone?

chris

P.S.

Once again, I didn't create the distance from Station 2+50 to Position A, this is the WC work.

You have the tsbd wrong you silly boy.

All your measurements are garbage. That's where all your graphics belong. And ONCE AGAIN ( a bit a trend here) you don't have a clue what you are doing. Quite frankly you never have, and I keep showing that to the world. Roflmao!

Btw, what does 91.6 represent? Oh yea, you can't read. Distance to the rifle IN THE WINDOW. LOL!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

How can I shuck and jive when I'm posting the graphics for all to check. The key is provided @ 1inch=10ft.

What else can 91.6ft represent besides the hypotenuse. I showed you in terms of 15.5ft related to Position "A" at street level. The same 91.6ft distance.

Position A is Position A. The TSBD base is the base.

I didn't create these points, I merely tie them together.

So, if you measure out from the TSBD base, aligned with the snipers nest, it's approx 66.2ft.

The distance from Station 2+50(snipers nest aligned out on Elm St) to Position "A" is 28.5ft.

That total is 94.7ft approx.

Does that ring a bell to anyone?

chris

P.S.

Once again, I didn't create the distance from Station 2+50 to Position A, this is the WC work.

94.7ft = You can find it here.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0050b.htm

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

How can I shuck and jive when I'm posting the graphics for all to check. The key is provided @ 1inch=10ft.

What else can 91.6ft represent besides the hypotenuse. I showed you in terms of 15.5ft related to Position "A" at street level. The same 91.6ft distance.

Position A is Position A. The TSBD base is the base.

I didn't create these points, I merely tie them together.

So, if you measure out from the TSBD base, aligned with the snipers nest, it's approx 66.2ft.

The distance from Station 2+50(snipers nest aligned out on Elm St) to Position "A" is 28.5ft.

That total is 94.7ft approx.

Does that ring a bell to anyone?

chris

P.S.

Once again, I didn't create the distance from Station 2+50 to Position A, this is the WC work.

94.7ft = You can find it here.

http://www.historyma...Vol18_0050b.htm

chris

You really are beyond all hope. You don't even have the location of the snipers nest...on the ground correct. Looney Toons, and missing the intellectual honesty to acknowlege your errors. You just make up distances and locations from thin air. GIGO, the dictionary definition of the work of Chris Davidson.

BTW, The West plat has the face of the TSBD incorrect. All the fantasy you have concocted from there, besides being nonsense, is positioned wrong.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig, you are having troubles thinking in terms of 15.5ft.

For instance: Station "2+00" + 129.2ft = Station# 3.29.2 = entry for Z161 on CE884.

(Station "2+00" + 78.5ft) = (Position "A") + (15.5ft = Station# 2+94) or 94ft from Station "2+00"

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't quite equal the 94.7ft .

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig, you are having troubles thinking in terms of 15.5ft.

For instance: Station "2+00" + 129.2ft = Station# 3.29.2 = entry for Z161 on CE884.

(Station "2+00" + 78.5ft) = (Position "A") + (15.5ft = Station# 2+94) or 94ft from Station "2+00"

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't quite equal the 94.7ft .

chris

I'm not the one having trouble at all.

You on the other hand, why you can't figure out what 91.6 means for example. You can't figure out that West has the TSBD wrong. You cant figure out there are no measurements from the base of the TSBD under the sniper window. You can't figure out...well much of anything.

Why?

You live in a fantasy world. But please keep it up. Its highly entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig, you are having troubles thinking in terms of 15.5ft.

For instance: Station "2+00" + 129.2ft = Station# 3.29.2 = entry for Z161 on CE884.

(Station "2+00" + 78.5ft) = (Position "A") + (15.5ft = Station# 2+94) or 94ft from Station "2+00"

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't quite equal the 94.7ft .

chris

I'm not the one having trouble at all.

You on the other hand, why you can't figure out what 91.6 means for example. You can't figure out that West has the TSBD wrong. You cant figure out there are no measurements from the base of the TSBD under the sniper window. You can't figure out...well much of anything.

Why?

You live in a fantasy world. But please keep it up. Its highly entertaining.

amazing.... everyone is wrong except the Warren Commission (and lone nut trolls), you need to accept reality Craigster, the WCR is flawed, DEEPLY flawed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig, you are having troubles thinking in terms of 15.5ft.

For instance: Station "2+00" + 129.2ft = Station# 3.29.2 = entry for Z161 on CE884.

(Station "2+00" + 78.5ft) = (Position "A") + (15.5ft = Station# 2+94) or 94ft from Station "2+00"

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't quite equal the 94.7ft .

chris

I'm not the one having trouble at all.

You on the other hand, why you can't figure out what 91.6 means for example. You can't figure out that West has the TSBD wrong. You cant figure out there are no measurements from the base of the TSBD under the sniper window. You can't figure out...well much of anything.

Why?

You live in a fantasy world. But please keep it up. Its highly entertaining.

amazing.... everyone is wrong except the Warren Commission (and lone nut trolls), you need to accept reality Craigster, the WCR is flawed, DEEPLY flawed!

Did I ever say the WC was not wrong? In fact I said they were wrong in this very thread. I know you a few floors short but do try and keep up.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Referring back to the "Refresher" graphic:

Z161 = Station# 3+29.2 That would be 129.2ft from Station 2+00

Station "C" to Z161 = 94.7ft

129.2ft - 94.7ft = 34.5ft = Station# 2+34.5= Station "C"

2+34.5 (Station C) + 44ft(see CE886 in Refresher graphic)= 2+78.5= Position "A"

chris

Exactly correct.

Now WHERE does your fantasy 15.5 feet come in again?

Oh wait it does not. ROFLMAO.

You just can't read and comprehend. DISTANCE TO THE RIFLE IN WINDOW

Where from? The chalk mark on the stand in's back.

How do we know? The surveyed elevation of this mark (for position A) is ABOVE the base of the TSBD.

You don't have the first clue.

Welcome to reality. GIGO...Chris Davidson.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lamson, I see your responses to Chris and the others but it is odd....I mean you seem intelligent enough to posit your arguments in response to their claims but you seem........I don't know, it's odd seeing an older adult respond in kind the way I have observed you (and quite often)....I mean if Chris is offering "GIGO, ROFLMAO, guesses, fantasy, etc etc" then why not simply reiterate your knowledge against his own so that forum readers and students of the assassination can consistently see your observations or better yet provide links to your responses from other areas of the forum that are relevant to the claims Chris and others are making. It seems as though with almost every well (at the very least, on the surface for anyone who hasn't really studied these concepts and observations) spoken and thought out response or claim made by Chris or others, your response is not in kind but you are either telling him to "scram, beat it, wake up, get outta fantasy land, gigo, etc"....perhaps you are consistently annoyed with such trains of thought but I'd personally prefer to see you deal with these arguments by counter attacking with your own well reasoned studies concerning the very subjects you take part in discussing. Here is a starter for you Lamson:

Do you believe that such a theory is even possible that the film could have been altered? If not, how or why? (brief summary or you can even direct me to a written response to this very question if it exists in another topic elsewhere)

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lamson, I see your responses to Chris and the others but it is odd....I mean you seem intelligent enough to posit your arguments in response to their claims but you seem........I don't know, it's odd seeing an older adult respond in kind the way I have observed you (and quite often)....I mean if Chris is offering "GIGO, ROFLMAO, guesses, fantasy, etc etc" then why not simply reiterate your knowledge against his own so that forum readers and students of the assassination can consistently see your observations or better yet provide links to your responses from other areas of the forum that are relevant to the claims Chris and others are making. It seems as though with almost every well (at the very least, on the surface for anyone who hasn't really studied these concepts and observations) spoken and thought out response or claim made by Chris or others, your response is not in kind but you are either telling him to "scram, beat it, wake up, get outta fantasy land, gigo, etc"....perhaps you are consistently annoyed with such trains of thought but I'd personally prefer to see you deal with these arguments by counter attacking with your own well reasoned studies concerning the very subjects you take part in discussing. Here is a starter for you Lamson:

Do you believe that such a theory is even possible that the film could have been altered? If not, how or why? (brief summary or you can even direct me to a written response to this very question if it exists in another topic elsewhere)

If you don't like my posts don't read them. The film has not been altered BTW.

Whats the use "countering" arguments with people oyu are so locked into a fantasy they can't be rational.

Lets use Chris in this example. Even when faced with the fact that he is using the data incorrectly, he still just plods along doing the same wrong thing over and over again. So oyu deal directly with the errors, and I have in Davidsons case and they pretend the errors do not exist. It's FANTASY, whackjob stuff. And I tell it like it is.

Alterationists are a joke. Their work is a farce at best. Even the so called 'scientists" fail miserably. Like Costella and his "best" argument..which fails the use of perspective. Show me one single argument for alteration that is correct...and prove it.

Again, you don't like my posts, then please. don't read them.

A PERFECT example of alterationist nonsense...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20117

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I can definitely understand that you would interpret my words as not liking your posts but honestly, I say, post what you feel, I have no problem with that. I have simply been curious to see what technical and knowledgable responses you would give in return and I do see bits here and there, generally you just seem irritated or impatient with "explaining yourself" at least thats the idea I seem to get from time to time.

You say you "tell it like it is" and that is fine but thats exactly it, what it "is" could be evidence out there to flatly refute ZFA (z-film alteration for the record) and you don't articulate any opposing viewpoints or arguments (well to be fair, none that I notice in general).

The use in responding in kind (watch a william lane craig debate to get an idea) you may believe someone's view to be a fantasy, but is it too much to provide an argument that that is so? For example (this is purely hypothetical Chris lol) Chris could say to you Lamson "hey, there is absolutely no such thing as truth" now you could brush him off and take him for a fool or a fantasy induced zombie or you could simply ask him is that statement or claim he has made is "true" for himself and use a logical argument with sufficient evidence to prove (in the classical meaning of proofs) that objective truth is more plausible than its negation. My point? Well you seem to have arguments (I assume?) that can probably show Chris or any 'alterationists' views to be fallacious on scientific and evidential grounds, I'd like to read and study them, thats all. Please, post what you will but as I read your posts here and there, I get the feeling you are more capable than simply "GIGO, fantasy land, get out, etc".

Edited by B. A. Copeland
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...