Nix Film GIF ( angle adjusted )

[Chris Bristow]

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 8:25 AM, Paul Brancato said:

To the good folks who think the Z film is altered, what's your theory as to why? 

Paul I know  there are lots of fake proofs around using incorrect optical principles and such, but some like John Costella's theory about pincushion distortion in the Stemmons sign are pretty solid. I can't see any valid debunking of his theory. The only counter theory that I know of states that because the poles were leaning there is a swinging motion that you see as the camera panned right. This is the explanation for the change in the poles lean from frame 193 to 228.
The problem with that explanation is a pole leaning away from the camera would exhibit a 'with the motion swing.' (I.E. camera pans right, pole also swings right) conversely a pole leaning toward the camera exhibits an against the motion swing. Since the right pole on the Stemmons sign leaned away and Zapruder panned to the right, the direction of the pole swing has to be to the right. But from 193 to 228 the right pole swings to the left. This means the lean of the pole does not explain Costella's anomaly. Not to mention Zapruder panned about one third of one degree but it would take about 11 degrees of movement to cause the 2 degree change seen in the right pole from frame 193 to 228.
 So if the lean of the pole is not the answer what is the reason for Costella's anomaly? Put a different way the images that have not been corrected for pincushion distortion show the right pole leaning 1 1/2 degrees in both frames 193 and 228. Pincushion should cause a very obvious 2 degree shift but there appears to be no change. There should also be an additional approx 1/4 degree shift to the right due to the poles leaning which I do not see. So at this point I think Mr Costella's observations still raise valid questions about fakery.
 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/24/2016 at 9:25 AM, Paul Brancato said:

To the good folks who think the Z film is altered, what's your theory as to why? 

Nearly every medical professional who witnessed JFK's wounds described a gaping hole in the right-rear portion of the head in their first-day testimonies. There was also testimony that significant brain matter flew back behind the limo. Yet the Z film doesn't show either. It is therefore theorized that the relevant frames were touched up to hide these things. It was done in support of the lone nut theory.

Several closeup witnesses claimed that the limo came to a complete stop. Yet the Z film shows a fairly constant velocity. Therefore it is theorized that the film was modified in order to remove the stop. Had the film been shot in slow-motion mode, this could have been achieved fairly easily by removing excess frames. And if this was done, it would explain SS agent Greer's super-fast head turn that can be seen right after the headshot. It was done to hide Secret Service incompetence or involvement..

[Pamela Brown]

On 11/24/2016 at 3:33 PM, Michael Walton said:

I saw a copy of the Zapruder in NYC in 1964.  I have talked about that in my 2013 NID presentation "Midnight Blue to Black" in some detail.  Here's a link to a photo of the Charles Theatre, where I......

We're not talking about a chosen few who some how, some way got a sneak peek of it in a movie theater.  You may support the idea that Rather is making your point for you too.  But all you have to do is listen to him inaccurately describe what he "saw" in the film and it's obvious he's talking s##t on 11/25.

Do you remember the moon landings, Pam?  I do.  And I remember them showing live coverage on all three networks.  Now ask yourself - if an innocent, vigorous government was truly seeking the truth of what happened on 11/22, why didn't they show the Z film for all - and I mean everyone, every single citizen with a television set at home - to see?

Finally, why was there such an uproar in 1975 when the film was finally shown to a mass audience, the one where Groden snuck a copy of it onto live late night TV? It was so uproarious it led to the Church committee hearings on assassinations.  From your logic here, you make it sound it like "everyone" saw it in 1963 or '64, shrugged, then saw it again in '75 and everyone suddenly grew a conscious.

You have to know this, which is the whole point of whether the film was altered/faked or not.  It wasn't because you have to keep in mind too that the film SHOWS multiple shots from different angles.  Why, pray tell, would the bad guys leave that in if they even bothered to alter it any other way?

I never said 'everyone' saw it in 1964. I am the only person I know who saw it at the Charles Theater in November 1964 who will talk about it.  I contacted  Carol Sachi, the woman I went with -- tracked her down, in fact -- in 2013, in hopes of adding her recollections to my NID presentation, but she refused to discuss it.   I have been attacked by some, including David Lifton, who have said that the Z-film was not available then as he had not yet seen it, that this viewing was not possible, that I am lying or delusional.  Tink Thompson was working at Time-Life and he says he never heard anything about this happening.  

I consider myself very fortunate.  There is a great deal of secrecy about those who have information about being able to see the Zapruder in NYC early-on. I don't know if it was shown more than that one evening.  I went the first night.  

Based on what I recall, the film(s) that I have seen subsequently were different.  So I would say there is a lack of provenance to the Z-film(s) and I consider them to have been altered.  Everyone agrees that the 'camera original' was spliced in at least two places.  That is alteration.  The point is whether or not there is malevolent alteration.  I do think that has taken place, in the least, in adding the 'blob'.  

Edited November 26, 2016 by Pamela Brown