Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Zapruder film and film information between the sprocket holes


Recommended Posts

Danny Vasquez, who almost daily posts original matter on Facebook about the Kennedy Assassination, wrote on Facebook today:

I am in the Video Transfer business, for many years I have transferred thousands of regular 8mm home movies to DVD for my customers. In the many years I have NEVER come across footage similar to the Zapruder film, ****meaning film information between the sprocket holes. Examples show the Nix film with no information between the sprocket holes, and the Zapruder film with film information within the sprocket holes, I have looked for many years, but all footage from different sources over the years are ONLY similar to the Nix film with a dark image between sprocket holes, with NO film information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If it's true that the movie camera used by Zapruder didn't record information between the sprocket holes, then that would in and of itself be virtual proof that the Z film has been altered. Because one has to ask how it came about that that additional information was introduced.

The only non-sinister scenario I can think of this happening is if the film had been enlarged when copies were made. But that would be stupid, right? Why would a 8 mm film be enlarged and then copied onto the same size film?

The net effect would be the whole film being cropped when played back. Okay, there might be circumstances where someone would want to crop a film. But certainly this would not be done if the goal was merely to make copies. Surely they wanted exact copies.

The bottom line is this: Why have we not heard from Z film experts about this issue? One doesn't need to view thousands of 8 mm films (as Danny Vasquez has) to determine if the inter-sprocket information should be there. One only needs to look at a film made by Zapruder's camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hasn't this been debunked over and over and over again? Why does it seem so very, very hard for people to accept that the film, as is, PROVES conspiracy WITHOUT alteration? Why did they keep it away from the general public until 1975? If it was altered WHY didn't they show it to the public immediately, saying, "See, here's proof one crazy Commie did it." You don't alter something and then immediately hide it away from the general public.




Danny Vasquez - whew, I went to his site and he's one of those "Bush was involved" kind of guys along with believing Lifton's crazy body alteration theories.


I like to go by what Josiah Thompson said years ago - "There are NO experts in this case."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are three posts made so far today by Danny Vasquez on Facebook. By the time you will have read this he will have posted more. Apparently no good deed goes with being criticized by someone in the JFK assassination community. As I wrote earlier, Danny’s has an inexhaustible treasure trove on material on the assassination that he posts daily on Facebook. He deserves praise, not unjust criticism. Danny in his post that I quoted at the beginning of this thread contrasted excerpts from the Zapruder film with the Nix film. Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce these excerpts here but the difference between the two on their sprocket holes is shown clearly.

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zapruder/821.html

Here is information on the Zapruder film sprocket holes:

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of several reasons why authority figures in Nov 1963 might want to enlarge & re-copy the Z-film. At the top of my list would be to knock off the screen the SS follow-up car practically riding the bumper of JFK's parade car that disappears early in the film, making it appear that Clint Hill came out of nowhere in the middle of the street to jump on the JFK parade car bumper. In actuality, it was only a few feet of foot travel for Mr. Hill. This was demonstrated repeatedly in the recent 11-22-63 re-enactments.

The pattern that runs through all the JFK ambush visuals is the SS car disappears or appears sporadically. Knocking the SS agents & their car out of view enabled the Z-film purchasers to cash in on the film without having to destroy it. I'd put my chips on Zapruder captured the SS car & agents engaged in something that was not to be seen by the public. If it was done, that's where I'd put my guess as to why.

Brad Milch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brad 's hypothesis for why authorities might have wanted Z-film copies to be cropped is a reasonable one that is worth exploring.

But note that in my post above, I said I couldn't think of any "non sinister" reasons for doing it... at least not on the first set of copies. Anybody with a whit of common sense would have had exact duplicates made... though they might have made the duplicates on larger film, and even enlarged the film onto a larger film size.

Had I been in charge, I would have ordered high quality copies be made, enlarged, on a larger film size. It simply makes no (non sinister) sense to enlarge the film and print it on the same size film as the original.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hasn't this been debunked over and over and over again?
Hasn't what exactly been debunked over and over again, Michael?
Why does it seem so very, very hard for people to accept that the film, as is, PROVES conspiracy WITHOUT alteration?
I, for one, want to know if the film has been altered. It's as simple as that. Because the more we know, the more likely we'll be able to figure out what happened. Also, I don't particularly care if the Z-film, as is, proves conspiracy. Because if it has been altered, that particular proof may be invalid.
Why did they keep it away from the general public until 1975? If it was altered WHY didn't they show it to the public immediately, saying, "See, here's proof one crazy Commie did it."
Because it may have taken years to complete the alteration. They may have waited to see what most needed changing. It wouldn't surprise me if it was altered a number of times before deciding any further effort was too expensive or unnecessary.
You don't alter something and then immediately hide it away from the general public.
Sure you do. You keep it from the public as long as possible. But you alter it just in case it does become public, for whatever reason.
Danny Vasquez - whew, I went to his site and he's one of those "Bush was involved" kind of guys along with believing Lifton's crazy body alteration theories.
It seems I disagree with Lifton on most things these days. But one thing he got right was that Kennedy's head was altered just before the autopsy began. And that there were three casket entrances involving two caskets. The evidence is overwhelming and the witness testimonies are quite consistent with this taking place.
Lifton got it right (almost) and Horne got it right. The so-called pre-autopsy autopsy happened. It just takes a great deal of studying to be convinced.
I like to go by what Josiah Thompson said years ago - "There are NO experts in this case."
Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sandy:

Had the people that put together the 11-22-63 TV series taken advantage of the JFK parade car & SS followup car tailgating it during the ambush re-enactment scenes put a person with an exact duplicate camera as Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Bronson, Bell & others that captured portions of the ambush on film 53 years ago in their historically accurate filming spots & applied the suspicions about those films that have arisen over the years, re-filmed the re-enactment action scenes, the public might have more tools to work with than we do now in attempting to understand this old, unsolved crime.

For Zapruder, I would have filmed the re-enactment cars traversing Elm Street at both a normal & a zoom setting to compare how much image of the SS car is captured via each setting on the z-camera. Those re-enactment films could have been compared against the Zapruder 'camera original' to determine what info was probably captured 53 years ago before someone started monkeying around with the original film (allegedly).

A case can be made with witness testimony & statements that some sort of gunfire originated in or close to the Presidential parade car while under attack. Witnesses heard it, smelled gun powder or saw weapons displayed (Hugh Betzner saw a chrome pistol, for example).

From there, what could it be that Zapruder captured that someone who had the film, did not want the public to see the captured action & had the means to knock that scene out of the film? Could it be someone tossed a firecracker near JFK? How about SS Agent Ready pulling his piece & squeezing off a couple fast shots? How about a puff of smoke coming from the grill of the SS followup car?

The public focus has never been on the SS car. It's always been on what one can see in Zapruder's ambiguous home movie, not on what's not visible or why? An interested public can look at the available visuals & wonder why some or all of those people that didn't know each other, were positioned in different places around Dealey Plaza (after fighting traffic & crowds to get to where they filmed the events) stopped filming in the same places in time. Is that even possible? Or is it an indication their films were cut? What gets omitted in each film where filming stops? Is it not the SS followup car & its agents that meets this curious pattern? Why is that?

I'd make a case that the Z-film hasn't been studied enough in just the study of the reflections that are visible on the JFK side, the hood & trunk of the parade car. For example: we all see JFK & his car pass Umbrella Man & 'The Cuban' on Elm Street. Both are between JFK & Zapruder. Can you see them both in the parade car reflection? If not, why?

I can't count the times I've stood on top of Zapruder's filming spot & seen a very clear image of the TSBD & its sniper's nest' window reflected off the hood of dark colored flat hooded cars that is visible at the Zapruder film perch. Why don't we see the TSBD 'sniper's nest' window reflected off the JFK parade car hood in the Z-film?

There's not been enough study of the Z-film IMHO.

BM

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps the good folks here will read the complete Roland 'Zavada Report' (KODAK'S 8mm film guru) re the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film.

The Dallas film house owner (film processing lab) that ran off the 3 Zapruder film dupes went into some detail regarding the inter-sprocket imagery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, David

I agree, it's an essential read. For me, Roland's tone & attitude that certain things can't be done on film wears a bit thin after decades of viewing special effects in motion pictures, particularly when he challenges people to SHOW him how any given special effect or alleged alteration to the Z-film was carried out by unknown perpetrators. More from the actual technicians that worked on the original Z-film & the 3 original dupes would have satisfied me nicely, particularly in what exactly they collectively viewed before the film made its way to Hawkeyeworks secret film labs via the CIA (as per Doug Horne). Did those technicians see the limo turn from Houston St. onto Elm St. that Zapruder had told Dallas TV viewers he had filmed? What else did the techs see? Did they see more of the SS followup car tailgating the JFK parade car the entire trip thru the kill zone? Did they see someone already on the bumper of the parade car before Clint Hill arrived? Roland Zavala doesn't address those questions in his report.

When folks argue over the Z-film, I am reminded of the 'gap' in the Nixon White House tapes following Watergate. Even though the original audio evidence was erased, the fact that such an erasure occurred under Nixon's umbrella eventually sunk his ship; the 'hard audio evidence' that once existed in the erasure process gap had vaporized, but it still sunk Nixon's Presidential ship.

Sometimes in life, it's the little things than bring down a giant. Hard evidence isn't always available after evidence has been tampered with.

The Z-film alteration is an interesting topic. There are plenty of self-proclaimed 'experts'. Some could tell us if Zapruder wore shorts with little fire trucks emblems on them or what flavor gum he & Marilyn Sitzman were chewing when their filming experience ended. As for me, I still look at re-runs of King Kong & have trouble sleeping, thinking a giant ape is still out there somewhere climbing skyscrapers (lol).

Best to you always, David

Brad Milch

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy writes:

If it's true that the movie camera used by Zapruder didn't record information between the sprocket holes, then that would in and of itself be virtual proof that the Z film has been altered.

The bottom line is this: Why have we not heard from Z film experts about this issue?


That's like asking "Why haven't any of these so-called expert astronomers answered some guy on Facebook who knows for a fact that the moon is made of green cheese? What are they hiding?"

The very least you should do before making a comment like this is to look for the evidence you think is missing. As it turns out, we have indeed heard from "Z film experts", or at least one of them, about this issue. In a presentation to the Movie Machine Society in Toronto in 1998, Roland Zavada described the extent of the images between the sprocket holes:

  • The telephoto lens setting consistently produces the maximum image penetration into the perforation area;
  • Normal lens focal length produces some but not full penetration into the perforation area; and
  • Wide-angle lens focal length produces the least penetration into the perforation area.

This presentation is easily found online. Here it is: http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm.

This is one of a very informative series of articles about the Zapruder film's authenticity, which you can find here: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm. Anyone who is even slightly tempted to believe that the Zapruder film has been faked should read these articles, as well as David Wrone's book, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SANDY - Hasn't what exactly been debunked over and over again, Michael?


Sandy, why are you asking me the above question when the premise of this thread is "Danny says there's info between the sprocket holes of the Z film; he's never seen this before in 30 years of film transfer and therefore it's been altered?"


I'm giving you the answer, that this whole crazy moon-landing wing of the research community STILL thinks the film has been altered, but in actuality, the Z film has been poked, prodded and tested and there is NO evidence it has ever been altered by the Bad Guys. I then posted a link that clearly and obviously explains WHY there's "info" between the sprocket holes of the film. Did you even bother to read the link or did you see that I'm a "Z film is not altered" researcher and just start typing your replies?


Many of your replies to me don't make any sense at all. The Bad Guys altered the film but it took them 13 years to show it? That's ridiculous because the film most probably was NEVER going to be shown in 1975 to the public. We have Robert Groden to thank for sneaking a copy of it onto a late-night broadcast TV show for it to be revealed. So that totally demolishes your claim of "yes, they altered the film but weren't quite ready to show it to anyone until 1975; they still needed to cook it to get it ready for its big reveal."


And why do you think - after it was finally revealed to the public on broadcast TV - there was such an outcry, so much that the Church committee was started to investigate the assassinations? The reason is simple - it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the whole film SHOWS conspiracy. So the Bad Guys have now squirreled away the film since '63, furiously working on it to eliminate any evidence of conspiracy, and yet the public demands action after they have seen it on broadcast TV? The Bad Guys did a pretty lousy job of alteration if you ask me.


As I and another researcher on EF have said elsewhere, the Bad Guys were NOT omnipotent - they couldn't just snap their fingers and make something happen. The technology back then - as much as you want to believe otherwise - did NOT exist then to create alterations or painting little green men into the film. As for adding or removing frames, there is a website (I'm not posting it here as it's easy to find) where you can download all of the frames of the film. I strongly suggest you go there, download them, and then on your computer open one up and then use your right and left arrow keys to cycle through them. If you hit the keys fast enough, it almost gives the illusion of movement. But the key here is to watch the movements of everything - there are no pops, clicks, or hisses, nor jumpy frames. Nothing has been altered or removed. It's that simple.


BRAD - knock off the screen the SS follow-up car practically riding the bumper of JFK's parade car that disappears


Brad, you can't be serious? Knock off the SS car even if the film was bumped up to 35mm? There was NO technology back then to do this. None. And even if the Bad Guys meticulously waited for digital technology to come around (it still wasn't around in 1975 when the film was shown on broadcast TV) even by '75 the technology was still not there.


Yes, the SS car was tail-gating the limo at the very start of the film. According to the ARRB tests of the film, Zapruder had the lens set to a slight zoom in when he shot the film. That, combined with the SS car slowing down as the limo slowed right after it appears from the freeway sign, is why there is a separation between the two cars by the time of Z 310 or so.


It should be obvious to you, Brad, that when you zoom in with a lens, you have a less wide shot than when you don't zoom in, right? You're going to see less of the top, bottom, and left and right edges than when you're not zoomed in.


DAVID HEALEY - perhaps the good folks here will read the complete Roland 'Zavada Report' (KODAK'S 8mm film guru) re the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film. The Dallas film house owner (film processing lab) that ran off the 3 Zapruder film dupes went into some detail regarding the inter-sprocket imagery.


Wow, David. Un-freaking-believable. On another EF post on the Z film that I've been posting on, when further evidence that no alterations of the film took place, instead of showing the common sense you're now showing here, you swept in and just bashed what I was saying with absolutely nothing to back it up. And now here, when my first post here mentions the Zavada Report and the ghost images explains WHY those images are there, you concur? Jeez.


***


I mean, what I can't understand about this forum and its members is, it just seems like all common sense on many of the theories here are thrown completely out the window. I explained above and elsewhere that there was NO NEED to even try to alter the Z film because it SHOWS conspiracy. It's simply the reason why the Bad Buys squirreled it away from all public viewings. The most we got about the film was when Dan Rather did his deceptive description of it on 11/25, and then still frames of it in Life magazine. In a common sense approach, you have to ask yourself, why is that? The answer is simple - they couldn't fix the problem, so they lied and buried the problem.


And yet on this forum and elsewhere, all pretense of reason is thrown out with the bath water. For example, a group of researchers have done a really good job of not only showing the possibility of Oswald standing in the doorway during and after the shooting (Prayer Man) and they even back it up by meticulously researching and making a chart showing the whereabouts of everyone in the TSBD that day. But as soon as it's posted, the same people who think of the crazy beliefs that the Z film was altered tear into this well-researched PM post, saying "It's not LHO, it's a woman, wearing a dress, taking a photo, holding a bottle, wearing a shiny bracelet, she's 4 foot 11, or 6 foot 5..." and on and on and on. It's ridiculous. Then, this other guy, who actually recreated the scene in 3D animation software - and which I applaud for his efforts - and can pretty much prove that the size and character of the person there could be Oswald - is completely ignored.


I honestly believe it's because the people who made PM are not from the U.S. and, therefore, the U.S. members are ###### off because THEY didn't think of it and start bashing it. But how does that serve the research community as a whole? It doesn't and makes us all look like a bunch of baying loons and crackpots. It's really sad if you ask me.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny Vasquez, who almost daily posts original matter on Facebook about the Kennedy Assassination, wrote on Facebook today:

I am in the Video Transfer business, for many years I have transferred thousands of regular 8mm home movies to DVD for my customers. In the many years I have NEVER come across footage similar to the Zapruder film, ****meaning film information between the sprocket holes. Examples show the Nix film with no information between the sprocket holes, and the Zapruder film with film information within the sprocket holes, I have looked for many years, but all footage from different sources over the years are ONLY similar to the Nix film with a dark image between sprocket holes, with NO film information.

janowitz-strip1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny Vasquez, who almost daily posts original matter on Facebook about the Kennedy Assassination, wrote on Facebook today:

I am in the Video Transfer business, for many years I have transferred thousands of regular 8mm home movies to DVD for my customers. In the many years I have NEVER come across footage similar to the Zapruder film, ****meaning film information between the sprocket holes. Examples show the Nix film with no information between the sprocket holes, and the Zapruder film with film information within the sprocket holes, I have looked for many years, but all footage from different sources over the years are ONLY similar to the Nix film with a dark image between sprocket holes, with NO film information.

janowitz-strip1.jpg

thanks Chris....

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]
And yet on this forum and elsewhere, all pretense of reason is thrown out with the bath water. For example, a group of researchers have done a really good job of not only showing the possibility of Oswald standing in the doorway during and after the shooting (Prayer Man) and they even back it up by meticulously researching and making a chart showing the whereabouts of everyone in the TSBD that day. But as soon as it's posted, the same people who think of the crazy beliefs that the Z film was altered tear into this well-researched PM post, saying "It's not LHO, it's a woman, wearing a dress, taking a photo, holding a bottle, wearing a shiny bracelet, she's 4 foot 11, or 6 foot 5..." and on and on and on. It's ridiculous. Then, this other guy, who actually recreated the scene in 3D animation software - and which I applaud for his efforts - and can pretty much prove that the size and character of the person there could be Oswald - is completely ignored.
I honestly believe it's because the people who made PM are not from the U.S. and, therefore, the U.S. members are ###### off because THEY didn't think of it and start bashing it. But how does that serve the research community as a whole? It doesn't and makes us all look like a bunch of baying loons and crackpots. It's really sad if you ask me.

Reason, out the window? Methinketh you're whining too much!

I think, if you "honestly" believed the research regarding Z-film alteration was faulty, you'd do your best insisting that the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film be authenticated. Simple as that, that would end all the quibbling, whining and moaning... Pontificating gets you NO WHERE! What seems foolish to you, not so with others. If you want to preserve the findings of the 1964 WCR report, terrific, carry on.

BTW, pontificating is NOT research!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...