The "Other" Zapruder Film

[David Josephs]

23 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

To my thinking, there is no question that the Zfilm(s) have been altered, as everyone acknowledges they have been spliced in at least two places...

According to Horne's film map of the original there are 7 splices, no "0183" perforated into the film, and well over 30 feet of film stock when re-combined.  The assassination sequence exists completely on it's own piece of film within the entire length...  claiming this isn't altered is absurd on its face..  whoever assembled this made 100% sure this could never be considered the "in-camera original".   

BARRETT's report 12/4/63:
The camera was set to take normal speed movie film or 24 frames per second. The control buttons for the zoom-lens wore not touched once he started taking photographs of the Presidential motorcade.
 

MEMORANDUM

January 28, 1964

TO: J. Lee Rankin

FROM: David W. Belin

SUBJECT: Original Print of Zapruder Film

I was Informed that the FBI film of the assassination is a copy of a Secret Service copy of the original colored film taken by Zapruder.  According to an interview with FBI Special Agent Robert M. Barrett, Zapruder states that the original print is on 16 mm fIlm and "is much clearer" than those appearing on the 8 mm film copies. (I assume that his 8 mm camera used the standard 16 mm film which is reversed and split In two in the course of processing.) See page 12 of December 10 Gemberling Report.

FBI Special Agent Shaneyfelt, with whom Mr. Bail and I discussed the problem of determination of speed of car and points of shots through use of the Zapruder film, felt that with a more clear film print it could give a more precise determination of the data we are endeavoring to obtain.

Shaneyfelt said that the primary use of the original Zapruder print would be under microscopic examination and that there should not be any Impairment of the quality of the film through such a microscopic check.

Inspector Tom Kelley of the Secret Service suggested that perhaps you might want to contact Henry Suydam of the Washington office of Life Magazine. He evidently has some familiarity with Mr. Kelley.

Thank you.

[Charles Blackmon]

47 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Good job David! Details are optional lol

[David Josephs]

13 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Good job David! Details are optional lol

He did it to himself mostly...  would not get off some "Russia did it" kick and wound up annoying everyone, repeatedly. 

I think everyone had him on ignore at some point... no one wanted to engage...  it's been a while.

[Michael Crane]

Gordon Arnold was over near where Zapruder was.

Did the LEO/actor confiscate his film before or after the assassination?

I honestly can't remember.

Beverly Oliver had her movie camera taken away also.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Jonathan Cohen]

7 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Gordon Arnold was over near where Zapruder was.

Did the LEO/actor confiscate his film before or after the assassination?

I honestly can't remember.

Beverly Oliver had her movie camera taken away also.

There is no proof whatsoever that Gordon Arnold was in Dealey Plaza, other than his own claims. Likewise, Beverly Oliver is a super nice person, but she is absolutely not the Babushka Lady.

[Pamela Brown]

On 3/13/2023 at 2:23 PM, David Josephs said:

According to Horne's film map of the original there are 7 splices, no "0183" perforated into the film, and well over 30 feet of film stock when re-combined.  The assassination sequence exists completely on it's own piece of film within the entire length...  claiming this isn't altered is absurd on its face..  whoever assembled this made 100% sure this could never be considered the "in-camera original".   

BARRETT's report 12/4/63:
The camera was set to take normal speed movie film or 24 frames per second. The control buttons for the zoom-lens wore not touched once he started taking photographs of the Presidential motorcade.
 

MEMORANDUM

January 28, 1964

TO: J. Lee Rankin

FROM: David W. Belin

SUBJECT: Original Print of Zapruder Film

I was Informed that the FBI film of the assassination is a copy of a Secret Service copy of the original colored film taken by Zapruder.  According to an interview with FBI Special Agent Robert M. Barrett, Zapruder states that the original print is on 16 mm fIlm and "is much clearer" than those appearing on the 8 mm film copies. (I assume that his 8 mm camera used the standard 16 mm film which is reversed and split In two in the course of processing.) See page 12 of December 10 Gemberling Report.

FBI Special Agent Shaneyfelt, with whom Mr. Bail and I discussed the problem of determination of speed of car and points of shots through use of the Zapruder film, felt that with a more clear film print it could give a more precise determination of the data we are endeavoring to obtain.

Shaneyfelt said that the primary use of the original Zapruder print would be under microscopic examination and that there should not be any Impairment of the quality of the film through such a microscopic check.

Inspector Tom Kelley of the Secret Service suggested that perhaps you might want to contact Henry Suydam of the Washington office of Life Magazine. He evidently has some familiarity with Mr. Kelley.

Thank you.

This is excellent. Thank you.

The real question, imo, is not whether or not the Zfilm(s) were altered, but to what extent and with what ill-intent they were altered...

The copy of the Zapruder that I saw in NYC in 1964 was clear. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Pamela Brown

[David Josephs]

19 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

This is excellent. Thank you.

The real question, imo, is not whether or not the Zfilm(s) were altered, but to what extent and with what ill-intent they were altered...

The copy of the Zapruder that I saw in NYC in 1964 was clear. 

Chris Davidson's threads show us what the intent was...  and to what extent...  probably the most important work related to the film's use as a "true depiction of the event" and what was done by the FBI/SS to insure it showed what it needed to and no longer showed what so many witnesses experienced.

[Chris Davidson]

Thanks David,

Using an old phrase from Tom Purvis:

Hiding In Plain Sight

 

 

[Paul Rigby]

21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Thanks David,

Using an old phrase from Tom Purvis:

Hiding In Plain Sight

 

 

From a nearly nine year-old post, which has stood the test of time very well:

Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any 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. 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:

Quote

 

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:

Quote

 

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:

Quote

 

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.

Just how imperative it was for the plotters and their heirs on the Warren Commission to withdraw the first version of the Z fake – thus making comparison impossible for the general public and posterity - is made abundantly clear in the following piece:

Quote

 

Joseph A. Loftus, “Kennedy Slaying Is Reconstructed,” NYT, 6 December 1963, p.18:

Dallas, Dec. 5 – Thirteen days after the assassination of President Kennedy, Federal investigators were still reconstructing the crime on film today…

An open car with a man and a woman in the back seat simulated again and again today the ride of the President and Mrs. Kennedy on Nov. 22. A motion picture camera in the sixth-floor window…recorded these trips…

Each simulation differed slightly, either in the speed of the car or the gestures of the occupants or in some other detail. On one trip both occupants of the back seat waved. On another the man turned to the right and, moments later, slumped in his seat; then the car’s speed picked up…

One question was how the President could have received a bullet in the front of the throat from a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository Building after his car had passed the building and was turning a gentle curve away from it. One explanation from a competent source was that the President had turned to his right to wave and was struck at that moment.

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/12216-was-muchmore%E2%80%99s-film-shown-on-wnew-tv-new-york-on-november-26-1963/page/18/

 

[Michael Davidson]

On 3/19/2023 at 5:33 PM, Pamela Brown said:

This is excellent. Thank you.

The real question, imo, is not whether or not the Zfilm(s) were altered, but to what extent and with what ill-intent they were altered...

The copy of the Zapruder that I saw in NYC in 1964 was clear. 

Erm can i ask how old you were in 1964 ? 

[Pamela Brown]

14 hours ago, Michael Davidson said:

Erm can i ask how old you were in 1964 ? 

Does that make a difference to my recollection?

[Karl Kinaski]

From the moment they knew that they could put Oswald in that 6th floor window  they had to alter Kennedy's body and the Zapruder-film accordingly. ... 

[Michael Davidson]

4 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Does that make a difference to my recollection?

It might do . You dont look old enough to have been alive in 1964 . So , how old are you actually ? 

[Pamela Brown]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:35 AM, Michael Davidson said:

It might do . You dont look old enough to have been alive in 1964 . So , how old are you actually ? 

Hijacking the thread?