The Zapruder film and film information between the sprocket holes

[Tom Neal]

Tom, this pretty much proves what I've known all along - you don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

Oddly enough you stated that you used to think I was a reasonable person when I defended you. Now that I disagree with you I'm a jerk. OR you've known along that I don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees. Yet ANOTHER sterling example of altering what you said in the past to fit your current mood. And once again Pot calls kettle black. Why don't you just admit that you're pissed off at me, because I called you on posting OT?

I just explained previously WHY there is no hole there. The catch is yes, I DO agree with you that there IS a hole there...

Kennedy's right side of his head was in shadow, Tom. The sunlight was over on the left side. That's why it looks so dark there, so "blobbish."

So then anything that isn't in direct sunlight is completely devoid of any detail like the back and right side of his head in the z-film. Even when he turns his head in a different direction, falls over or the limo turns relative to the sun. You of course have calculated the altitude and azimuth of the sun at that time and date and computed where the shadows would fall. There are autopsy photos that show the back of his head intact despite the hole that you agree existed. So these were faked, but no one tried to do the same thing with the z-film?

Do you believe NO blood or brain exited the large hole you admit was in the back of his head? When this matter exited the black shadow that erased ALL detail including the large hole it remained invisible? Post a z-frame that shows the blood and brain matter exiting the back of his head that struck a motor cop in the face and landed on Sam Kinney's arm.

Also, I did NOT say there was 'blob' on the back of his head. I was referring to the red blob on the side/front of his head. Which to you is unquestionably a perfect representation of how it should appear because as you insist no frame of the z-frame was touched. All this matter CLEARLY appears from a part of his head with a comparatively tiny or non-existent hole, yet the same stuff does not appear from the GAPING hole - even in direct sunlight...

Funny when you ridiculed the animations you stated that it was because NPIC didn't have the technology to put something on the z-film, now you know the cartoon was laughable because of shadows. Changed your mind again about your past statements? It's real easy to nitpick someone's statements as you do, isn't it?

Provide the quote where I state that I *know* what was in the original film, or retract your statement that I made such a claim. There's a world of difference between stating what you *know* and what you think is likely. As an example, you state that NPIC could NOT have put anything on the film because they didn't have the technology. To *know* this would require access to highly classified technology. Just because you can't do it doesn't PROVE it can't be done by the BEST. Even IF some technology is NOT available to the general public it is not absolute proof that it doesn't exist.

Try to get through your response without labeling everyone who disagrees with you a "wacko" or whatever insult-of-the-day you MUST include.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

But how do you know that the SS didn't do it that way? You know no more than I do.

If I'm wasting your time, then nobody is twisting your arm to reply.

And I'm still waiting for everyone to tell me what the so-called original film showed that they had to go through all of this trouble in the first place.

[Sandy Larsen]

I was actually going to type something similar to your reply to Tom Neal and others, who think that you can magically just paint things onto an 8mm frame of film, which is the size of a pinky nail and doing so 53 years ago. As Jeremy clearly explained elsewhere, people who think of these crazy alterations of the Z film were not omnipotent. They couldn't just snap their fingers and say, "Hey, John. Paint out the head. Hey, Rick, take out 67% of the frames." It's ridiculous.

Common sense -- which seems to have escaped Michael -- tells most people that if alterations were made, they would have been done on large prints. Which later would be photographed back onto 8 mm film. Or something along those lines.

Something else that escapes Michael is the fact the sophisticated special effects were being done even in the private sector around the time of the assassination. Like the animated penguins dancing with Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Does he think those those dancing penguins were painted directly onto the projector film?

Dancing Penguins

Sandy,

On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964:

Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

Great catch, Tom. And they say alteration couldn't have been done 20 years later!

Just thought I'd add Stewie Dancing just for fun.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy - Common sense -- which seems to have escaped Michael -- tells most people that if alterations were made, they would have been done on large prints. Which later would be photographed back onto 8 mm film. Or something along those lines.

Sigh...Sandy, please go and read what Jeremy wrote about you CAN'T bump up Kodachrome film without causing a lot of aritifacts. So think of this timeline: Take the 8mm film, bump it up to 16mm? 35mm? [artifacts]; paint in the blob; bump it back down to 8mm; send this version to NARA where it's currently stored. Really, Sandy? Really? OMG.

Of course you can bump it up without artifacts. Bump it to 8" x 10" or larger prints.

I'm no a photographic expert, but I can't believe that Kodachrome film is so awful that it would create noticeable artifacts on prints. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on Kodachrome:

"For many years it was used for professional color photography, especially for images intended for publication in print media."

[Sandy Larsen]

But as a mentioned over on Chris's thread - which I'm unofficially renaming from Swan Song to "The 67% Solution," none of you, not a one, can answer this: What were the Bad Guys seeing in the so-called original film that was so terrible that they had to go through all of the trouble of removing 67% of the frames, a la Chris, painting in blobs, and all of this other nonsense? What was it? And further: Where is this original film and how does everyone, including Chris, Tom, Dave, Dave H, Jim Fetzer, and all of other wackos, know what's in this mystery film, but why Jeremy, Zavada, me and others, don't know what's in it or have never seen it?

I can answer your question, Mike:

The awful thing they (the bad guys) saw and had to get rid of was the Secret Service driver coming to a complete stop so that the final bullet could finish off Kennedy.

That's my supposition.

[Tom Neal]

On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964:

Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

Great catch, Tom. And they say alteration couldn't have been done 20 years later!

Thanks!

They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it.

BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film?

Should we wager on what his response will be?

Everyone knows that eyewitness testimony is unreliable?

The debris was traveling so fast that the back-spatter exited between frames?

Forward-spatter caused the blob and there was no more blood or brain tissue to exit from the rear?

The blob is the 'flap' of skull that opened when the bullet struck and only appears fake, much to large, etc.?

My choice is "Someone tell me what was on the film that had to be removed. I'm still waiting..."

Tom

Edited July 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964:

Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

Great catch, Tom. And they say alteration couldn't have been done 20 years later!

Thanks!

They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it.

BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film?

Tom

Edited July 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

Sandy - The awful thing they (the bad guys) saw and had to get rid of was the Secret Service driver coming to a complete stop so that the final bullet could finish off Kennedy.

Sandy, You may want to watch this. From what I can see, it clearly shows the car slowing down and almost stopping before the head shot. I'm assuming you mean they tried to get it rid of that but it looks like it's still there to me:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRDVUT3ROS2psbTg

Tom - Thanks! They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it.

BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film?

Tom, I've never said nor doubted the buckets of blood as seen by witnesses. I'm sure you've seen the photo below so yes, we all know it was all over the place:

As I explained before, a consumer 8mm film camera with an adequate lens and zoomed in to a distant point is just not going to capture as much detail as you'd like to think, especially as compared to today when you can shoot something in HD with your phone. For the time, there's pretty decent detail as you can actually see a piece of brain fall out of this head right after 313.

But because his head was turned to the right toward the sun, the side of the head is illuminated. Unfortunately, the back was in shadow and in film - as in video - something always is lost when you have that much contrast between light and dark. I've shot over 300 special events in my career using $10,000 cameras and $5,000 lenses and even today, on a "hot" (hot as in bright with sunshine), you're constantly fighting the camera's iris to find that perfect shot. But when you do, even then, something is always too dark or too bright. It's just the way it is. The same goes for the Z film. You can see the whitish skull flap, the pink of the gore coming out of his head, but in the shadows and on a day full of light and dark, the back of the head loses a lot of detail.

You can even notice this darkness on the lower side of his head in the freeze frame below. And this was before the head shot:

The same goes for the blood. There's just no way a consumer camera circa 1963 is going to capture every single piece of brain matter and blood flying around after 313. It's just not possible.

Have you ever noticed in the Z film how even their faces kind of look not clear and slightly blurred? Again, this is the 8mm and an OK lens. As a comparison, look at this 35mm (I'm guessing) photo taken earlier with a much better lens. If Zapruder's camera had been 35mm and a great lens, we'd see a lot more detail:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxYXR5WWxkZ05QRkU

As was mentioned numerous times here, you may be surprised to know that I'm far from being the only one who thinks the Z has not been faked. The ARRB hired Zavata and Milch to thoroughly investigate the film that was at NARA at the time and concluded that no alteration took place.

Now, if you then come back and say, "That's because there's some other "original" film out there that was shot at 48 FPS and showed some truly horrible things in and showed clear conspiracy and the bad guys took that film and removed 67% of the frames in it and painted a blob on Kennedys and so and so forth, then we're pretty much back to square one.

If that's what you'll then say, then YOU - not me - have to then prove three things:

1. What was so terrible in this "other" film that the Bad Guys went through all of the trouble of altering it?

2. Where is this other film?

3. How do YOU (and Chris, Dave, Dave, Jim Fetzer and others) know what was in it if the film has NEVER been seen before?

If you can't answer these three questions conclusively, then I'm sorry to say but the whole Z film alteration theory collapses like a deck of cards. Then if you can't answer them but want to keep playing Whack A Mole here, jumping around from topic to topic, then it'd probably be a good idea to just wrap this up. Because you're going to continue to believe what you want, and I'm going to continue to know what really happened.

The "same difference" goes to the The 67% Solution thread (aka Swan Song).

If you can't answer the above three questions conclusively - the same with Chris over on The 67% Solution - but want to continue posting and saying yes, it happened, there's a blob...there's 67% frames removed, then I can't help you.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Tom writes:

Answer the questions I've posed to you first.

I presume you're referring to these questions:

If it was NOT altered, why is blood spatter visible on only a single frame of the headshot? Why is the large hole in the back of his head not seen? Why does that 'blob' appear in front of his head that no witness described? Why does the limo driver make impossibly fast movements turning his head to see over his shoulder?

Question 1. Have a look at these three frames:

• http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
• http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
• http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg

Here's another version of frames 314 and 315: http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/z-frags.jpg.

Question 2. The back of JFK's head is in shadow. Perhaps you can produce a good-quality reproduction of a frame which shows something you think shouldn't be there, such as JFK's unruffled hair or a painted-in blob. I'd guess you think there's a painted-in blob, since you wrote, in one of your self-deleted posts:

"painting over" the back of JFK's head ... Photography experts working with the best possible copy of the film have stated that this is what is seen.

I hope you are at last able to name these experts, and tell us which copy of the film they were using.

Question 3. You must be referring to the flap of skin and bone that hangs down from the right side of his head. As far as I can tell, this damage is consistent with what the relevant autopsy photographs and X-rays show. Perhaps you can produce a good-quality reproduction of a frame which shows something else.

Question 4. As I've already pointed out, there is no good reason to suppose that the "impossibly fast" head turn was impossibly fast. Here are the two sources I cited earlier:

• http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/gordon-greer-turn.html
• http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=581

Now, here are a couple of questions for you:

As I pointed out in post 52 on page 4, two undoubted experts, Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding, have concluded that the Zapruder film in the National Archives cannot have been forged by having frames removed or by being copied. If they are correct, that's the end of the line for the 'Zapruder film is a fake' theory. Are you aware of any experts who contradict Zavada and Fielding? If you know of no such experts, what is it that prevents you from agreeing with Zavada and Fielding?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy writes:

I can answer your question, Mike:

The awful thing they (the bad guys) saw and had to get rid of was the Secret Service driver coming to a complete stop so that the final bullet could finish off Kennedy.

That's my supposition.

But we can be sure that the driver did not come to a complete stop, because there are three films which show the opposite. Not only must the Zapruder film have been faked, but the Nix film and the Muchmore film must have been faked too, and in such a way that they matched the faked Zapruder film. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Muchmore film was not developed until the 25th, and was shown on TV later that day, leaving next to no time for any alterations to have been made.

If anyone thinks it is even remotely plausible that all three films were faked, then they are entitled to their opinion, but I can't imagine that any rational readers of this thread would agree with them.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Several people have mentioned that Mary Poppins and the like show that it was possible to make alterations to films. The point is that, according to expert opinion, it is not possible to make the sort of alterations that have been claimed for the Zapruder film without leaving detectable traces. See post 52 on page 4 for quotations from Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding, the experts in question.

Unless anyone can come up with a more credible expert opinion, the question of forgery is settled: the Zapruder film in the National Archives is authentic.

[Michael Walton]

Jeremy - If you know of no such experts, what is it that prevents you from agreeing with Zavada and Fielding?

Because none of these people want to listen to reason. They're all just anti-education and act similar to the Mel Gibson character in the film "Conspiracy Theory" with foil taped all over their walls and photos of people who merely glanced over at them walking down the street taped all over their walls.

It's why this whole country is going down the toilet because Trump pretty much panders to them, makes them feel like - FINALLY - someone is listening to me! Yeah! But they're too ignorant to realize that Trump is just playing them along to get their vote. They used to be on the fringe and you'd never hear from them unless one of your relatives married one. But thanks to the internet, the crazies have come out of the woodwork.

They see little green goblins under every nook and cranny. And no matter how much you try to reason with them, it's a losing effort as I pointed out with my own crazy brother-in-law:

These people remind me of my ridiculous brother-in-law who used to sit around spewing nonsense while hacking on his Salems. One time, we went out in my car and I turned on the air conditioner. I flipped the RECIRC button and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do that! It guzzles up a lot more gas when you throw that RECIRC switch." As if the switch turns on this magical extra motor to make it colder. I tried to explain that it doesn't, that it just recirculates the air, making it colder. I knew this because I researched it previously and was curious what exactly the switch did. He replied, "Naw! It guzzles up more gas." Then he took a hack on his Salem and just looked out the window.

And it's also why one of our proudest astronauts, who worked his tail off, went to college, and educated himself, finally had had enough and punched one of the crazies while cameras were rolling. All you have to do is take out Aldrin and put in Zavada or me and in place of the idiot badgering him with nonsense, put in anyone on The 67% Solution or Sprocket Holes threads:

And to top it off, here is the guy who started it all with this Z film craziness. Would you listen to ANYTHING this man has to say?

One other thing -- I've actually been accused of being a Lone Nut believer, meaning I think Kennedy was killed only by Oswald with no help elsewhere. This couldn't be further from the truth as I KNOW it didn't happen that way, that it was a massive conspiracy to get rid of him.

So what does that tell you about the people on The 67% Solution and Sprocket Hole threads? Just like my Salem hacking brother-in-law, who absolutely refused to listen to the correct answer about the RECIRC switch in the car, the same goes here. A CT believer explaining why the Z film is authentic and I'm not only wrong, but I must be wrong because I'm a Lone Nut believer. It's hilarious.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Sandy Larsen]

On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964:

Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

Great catch, Tom. And they say alteration couldn't have been done 20 years later!

Thanks!

They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it.

BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film?

Should we wager on what his response will be?

Everyone knows that eyewitness testimony is unreliable?

The debris was traveling so fast that the back-spatter exited between frames?

Forward-spatter caused the blob and there was no more blood or brain tissue to exit from the rear?

The blob is the 'flap' of skull that opened when the bullet struck and only appears fake, much to large, etc.?

My choice is "Someone tell me what was on the film that had to be removed. I'm still waiting..."

Tom

LOL, yeah that's my choice too. Either that or something about 8 mm film being the size of a pinky fingernail.

BTW, I agree ... or at least I think it's likely .... that the Z-film was edited to hide the rear head wound and escaping gore. It's incredible that the supposed spray of blood is confined to such a small area, and nearly disappears by the following frame. It is highly suspicious to me that frame 313 seems to indicate something whitish in color flying up and forward from the head. (Is it supposed to be the Harper fragment?) It's suspicious because it presents itself as three or four dots. If something really were flying at a high speed, it would appear as a streak in the frame, not dots. Then following frame 313 we see a blob in front of JFK's temple that morphs into a white spot by frame 321.

More than forty witnesses -- a majority of whom were medical professionals -- saw extensive damage in the back of Kennedy's head. and yet there is none of this in the film. I'm a little surprised that Michael doesn't blame the discrepancy on a mass hallucination on the part of the witnesses, the way he does with the many witnesses who saw the procession come to a brief halt. Maybe he realizes how goofy the mass hallucination explanation is, and so uses it only when no other excuse remains. So he says that the bloody mess of a wound at the back of the head can't be seen because it's on the dark side of the head.. Well, if so, how does one explain all the other stuff that can by seen in the film where the sun isn't directly shining? For example, Jackie's face? (See Z-312 and Z-325.)

[Sandy Larsen]

Jeremy - If you know of no such experts, what is it that prevents you from agreeing with Zavada and Fielding?

Because none of these people want to listen to reason. They're all just anti-education and act similar to the Mel Gibson character in the film "Conspiracy Theory" with foil taped all over their walls and photos of people who merely glanced over at them walking down the street taped all over their walls.

It's why this whole country is going down the toilet because Trump pretty much panders to them, makes them feel like - FINALLY - someone is listening to me! Yeah! But they're too ignorant to realize that Trump is just playing them along to get their vote. They used to be on the fringe and you'd never hear from them unless one of your relatives married one. But thanks to the internet, the crazies have come out of the woodwork.

They see little green goblins under every nook and cranny. And no matter how much you try to reason with them, it's a losing effort as I pointed out with my own crazy brother-in-law:

These people remind me of my ridiculous brother-in-law who used to sit around spewing nonsense while hacking on his Salems. One time, we went out in my car and I turned on the air conditioner. I flipped the RECIRC button and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do that! It guzzles up a lot more gas when you throw that RECIRC switch." As if the switch turns on this magical extra motor to make it colder. I tried to explain that it doesn't, that it just recirculates the air, making it colder. I knew this because I researched it previously and was curious what exactly the switch did. He replied, "Naw! It guzzles up more gas." Then he took a hack on his Salem and just looked out the window.

And it's also why one of our proudest astronauts, who worked his tail off, went to college, and educated himself, finally had had enough and punched one of the crazies while cameras were rolling. All you have to do is take out Aldrin and put in Zavada or me and in place of the idiot badgering him with nonsense, put in anyone on The 67% Solution or Sprocket Holes threads:

And to top it off, here is the guy who started it all with this Z film craziness. Would you listen to ANYTHING this man has to say?

One other thing -- I've actually been accused of being a Lone Nut believer, meaning I think Kennedy was killed only by Oswald with no help elsewhere. This couldn't be further from the truth as I KNOW it didn't happen that way, that it was a massive conspiracy to get rid of him.

So what does that tell you about the people on The 67% Solution and Sprocket Hole threads? Just like my Salem hacking brother-in-law, who absolutely refused to listen to the correct answer about the RECIRC switch in the car, the same goes here. A CT believer explaining why the Z film is authentic and I'm not only wrong, but I must be wrong because I'm a Lone Nut believer. It's hilarious.

Tom,

You know you're onto something when your opponent has to resort to personal attacks.

[Sandy Larsen]

Several people have mentioned that Mary Poppins and the like show that it was possible to make alterations to films. The point is that, according to expert opinion, it is not possible to make the sort of alterations that have been claimed for the Zapruder film without leaving detectable traces. See post 52 on page 4 for quotations from Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding, the experts in question.

Unless anyone can come up with a more credible expert opinion, the question of forgery is settled: the Zapruder film in the National Archives is authentic.

Jeremy,

What you are saying here is a logical fallacy known as an "appeal to authority." Just because somebody says something doesn't make it so. Even if the person is an expert.

If you feel comfortable accepting Zavada's and/or Fielding's views, then fine, go ahead. But just know that what they say doesn't settle anything.