David Lifton spots a piece of scalp in the Moorman photo.

[Steven Kossor]

Lots of people reported that the limo stopped, yet none of the movies show it.  Either all of the car stop witnesses are wrong, or all of the films were cut and frames showing the stop were removed from all of them before the film was given to its owners.  Both options are improbable but they are mutually exclusive, so only one can be correct.  Given the existence of the technology in close proximity of both time and space, the film altering option is not any more improbable than all of the car stop witnesses being mistaken.  A photo captures a split second in time so Moorman’s photo cannot possibly be fixed to any time that includes the pivot of JFK’s head, that’s all.  The pivot of his head is necessary geometrically to allow Hargis and the driver’s side taillight to be struck with substantial amounts of gore, so the Moorman photo has to have been taken before the head pivoted— milliseconds before, possibly.  The Zfilm was used to show Connelly “what happened” in a private screening in his hospital room before he made any public comments.  It has terrific value as an indoctrination tool, even with its flaws and obvious deficiencies, because it has been featured prominently as the “time clock” of the killing, by which all other accounts (including other movies) are to be compared.  It wasn’t necessary to create a flawless false memory on film, just enough to support the fiction that the shots all came from above and behind, which really doesn’t require much time or Academy Award winning expertise with the right equipment that was close at hand.  Once the decision was made to cut frames from the Zfilm, other films showing the same content had to be cut too, as improbable as it might be for that to have happened.  At least that’s how I’ve stacked up the odds for the various options so far.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Steven Kossor writes:

Quote

Lots of people reported that the limo stopped, yet none of the movies show it.  Either all of the car stop witnesses are wrong, or all of the films were cut and frames showing the stop were removed from all of them before the film was given to its owners.

The popular idea, that around 50 witnesses claimed the limo stopped, is incorrect. Many of these witnesses actually claimed that the car slowed down, just as we see in the three home movies. Others were referring to cars further back in the motorcade. Of the hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza, only a handful consistently claimed that JFK's limo actually came to a stop. The witnesses' statements are examined here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street

Quote

Both options are improbable but they are mutually exclusive, so only one can be correct.  Given the existence of the technology in close proximity of both time and space, the film altering option is not any more improbable than all of the car stop witnesses being mistaken.

The film-altering option is far, far more improbable than a small number of witnesses being mistaken. People's recollections are notoriously unreliable.

Two factors make the film-altering option very improbable indeed:

• The films came to the attention of the authorities and the public at different times. Abraham Zapruder's film was seen by Kodak employees, journalists and others within 24 hours of the assassination, by which time several copies had been made. Marie Muchmore's film remained in her camera, unprocessed and unseen, until three days after the assassination, and was shown on TV the next day. Orville Nix didn't hand his film over to the FBI until 1 December.
• Alterations to each film would have needed to match any alterations that had already been made to the other films.

And two other factors make the notion flatly impossible:

• The alterations would need to be performed to such a high standard that they could not be discovered in the future.
• The altered films would need to match every film or photo that was yet to be made public.

On the first item, Roland Zavada, who examined the Zapruder film on behalf of the Assassination Records Review Board, wrote a long report which concluded that the existing film is the one that was in Zapruder's camera.

Zavada pointed out that it was impossible to copy Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film without leaving obvious traces, such as increased contrast, increased grain, and colour distortion. None of these defects exist in the Zapruder film. This is quite independent of whatever technology existed in 1963 to insert or remove particular parts of an image. After any such alterations had been made, even if an intermediate, non-Kodachrome film was used, it would have been necessary to copy the altered film onto a second Kodachrome film. The lack of relevant defects in the Zapruder film shows that this did not happen.

The final factor raises a question that no-one has yet found an answer to: how could the Bad Guys be sure that their alterations would not be exposed by another film or photo coming to light in the future? They couldn't, could they?

Quote

it [the Zapruder film] has been featured prominently as the “time clock” of the killing

And that's what makes all the Zapruder-film-is-a-fake speculation so nonsensical. The Zapruder film's 'time clock', when combined with the time needed to operate the sixth-floor rifle, is one of the factors that invalidates the single-bullet theory. Anyone who claims that the Zapruder film is a fake, is undermining the case against the lone-nut theory.

It really isn't necessary for everything about the JFK assassination to be a conspiracy!

---

Further reading:

• The Zavada report: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm
• Another useful article by Zavada: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf [7.8 MB]
• A link to an article by a professional camera operator pointing out technical reasons why the Zapruder film cannot have been altered: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2220-was-the-zap-film-altered

[David Lifton]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Steven Kossor writes:

The popular idea, that around 50 witnesses claimed the limo stopped, is incorrect. Many of these witnesses actually claimed that the car slowed down, just as we see in the three home movies. Others were referring to cars further back in the motorcade. Of the hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza, only a handful consistently claimed that JFK's limo actually came to a stop. The witnesses' statements are examined here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street

The film-altering option is far, far more improbable than a small number of witnesses being mistaken. People's recollections are notoriously unreliable.

Two factors make the film-altering option very improbable indeed:

• The films came to the attention of the authorities and the public at different times. Abraham Zapruder's film was seen by Kodak employees, journalists and others within 24 hours of the assassination, by which time several copies had been made. Marie Muchmore's film remained in her camera, unprocessed and unseen, until three days after the assassination, and was shown on TV the next day. Orville Nix didn't hand his film over to the FBI until 1 December.
• Alterations to each film would have needed to match any alterations that had already been made to the other films.

And two other factors make the notion flatly impossible:

• The alterations would need to be performed to such a high standard that they could not be discovered in the future.
• The altered films would need to match every film or photo that was yet to be made public.

On the first item, Roland Zavada, who examined the Zapruder film on behalf of the Assassination Records Review Board, wrote a long report which concluded that the existing film is the one that was in Zapruder's camera.

Zavada pointed out that it was impossible to copy Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film without leaving obvious traces, such as increased contrast, increased grain, and colour distortion. None of these defects exist in the Zapruder film. This is quite independent of whatever technology existed in 1963 to insert or remove particular parts of an image. After any such alterations had been made, even if an intermediate, non-Kodachrome film was used, it would have been necessary to copy the altered film onto a second Kodachrome film. The lack of relevant defects in the Zapruder film shows that this did not happen.

The final factor raises a question that no-one has yet found an answer to: how could the Bad Guys be sure that their alterations would not be exposed by another film or photo coming to light in the future? They couldn't, could they?

And that's what makes all the Zapruder-film-is-a-fake speculation so nonsensical. The Zapruder film's 'time clock', when combined with the time needed to operate the sixth-floor rifle, is one of the factors that invalidates the single-bullet theory. Anyone who claims that the Zapruder film is a fake, is undermining the case against the lone-nut theory.

It really isn't necessary for everything about the JFK assassination to be a conspiracy!

---

Further reading:

• The Zavada report: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm
• Another useful article by Zavada: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf [7.8 MB]
• A link to an article by a professional camera operator pointing out technical reasons why the Zapruder film cannot have been altered: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2220-was-the-zap-film-altered

Jeremy,

As the younger generation might put it,  you are "out to lunch."

I spent hours with the Chism, Franzen and the Newmans, back in 1971.   The car stopped. Period. there is no/was no question about it.  If you believe otherwise, you are living in fantasy land.  Of all the witnesses who mentioned the car stop, the Newman's were perhaps the most dramatic.  The car-stop witnesses are not important because they establish the driver's action in slowing the car; that is secondary. The primary importance of the car-stop witnesses is that they constitute the evidence that the Zapruder film (and other civilian films) were altered, to eliminate the stop.

If you believe the assassination was a six second event (and without a car stop), you are living in fantasy land.

DSL

5/26/21 --

 

 

[Jamey Flanagan]

Amen DSL!

And where Jeremy is mistaken is that he wrongly assumes that EVERY piece of photographic evidence would have to be altered to hide the car stop and all would have to be synced up together to match each other. How can you tell a car is stopped in a still picture other than seeing a brake light on, which would only be dismissed as we know the limo slowed almost imperceptibly so that's why you see a brake light on? Only the assassination films would have to have frames taken out and matched to each other as closely as possible. You have the Z film which recorded the whole assassination so that's gonna be your template right there. The Nix film, which was said by Orville Nix not to be the same film he handed over and that some frames had been removed! And what else you got? Was it the Dorman film? One other besides the Nix and Zapruder films. The other two besides the Z film didn't have heavy editing work done on them. Probably just some frames removed. The Z film had mostly frames removed with a few other touches involved.

[Gene Kelly]

Jamey

Based on recent research and truth-finding, I am coming around to the notion that none of the films or still pictures can be trusted.  There appears to have been a very thorough collection/gathering of all films (and photographers) in the hours and days immediately following the assassination. Evidence and witnesses were being managed early-on, especially film.  So, from first-hand reliable witnesses, its highly likely the President's limousine stopped when it reached the kill zone. 

Gene

[Tony Krome]

Jamey is on the right track, the Z-film is a template. Look at the other films of Elm street and we see a series of synchronised snippets.

Gene, I would say the whole of Dealey Plaza was closely monitored. Jean Hill was informed that afternoon that a bullet struck by her feet by someone at the Sheriff's office, and we saw Featherstone make a beeline for Moorman's camera. They were watching Jean and Mary closely, and no doubt everybody. Another example was Holmes with his binoculars watching the Hesters from the Post Office building.

[Steven Kossor]

Thanks to David, we know more about what actually happened on 11/22/63 than through any other source, by far, and I am indebted to him for having shared so much of his work with me over the past 10 years or so.  Jamey is positively correct in saying that it isn't necessary to make every film alteration an academy award winning special effects triumph in order for the Zfilm to be held out as the definitive truth about "what happened" -- even the Zfilm has its obvious flaws, but the authorities have conscientiously and successfully ignored or dismissed all of them because the vast majority of people at any time in history are content to be comfortable.  It is left to the scientists to study things to make sense of them, especially when the laws of physics and the necessity for continuity in a sequence of time slices are violated, and that's the antithesis of being comfortable. I haven't dedicated nearly as much time to the study of the JFK assassination as many of the contributors to this forum (especially Mr. Lifton!) but I am thankful for the opportunity to lay out things as I understand them and receive a substantial amount of support for my understanding.  I'll keep trying to get it all right, and "the truth will out" because the scientists among us will keep looking for it.

[Jamey Flanagan]

And the ones behind this truly never believed in a million years that common people, just your average Joe (or Jane) civilians would ever do this kind of in-depth research. They were never worried about opposition from Kennedy loyalists at least until it appeared RFK was on track to becoming President. And they were right. Even the most ardent Kennedy supporters fell right in line. Even the Kennedy family "officially" towed the line of the lone nut scenario, at least in public. They had the Z film locked away. Their arrogance was their undoing. It's almost as epic as the Star Wars saga! This small band of rebels that they never conceived would be even the slightest problem started chipping away at their story almost from day 1. And it snowballed and got bigger and bigger. They really believed that no one would read the Warren Report. They also could never have imagined anyone would ever read the 26 volumes, let alone make any sense out of that jumbled mess they created. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

David Lifton writes:

Quote

As the younger generation might put it,  you are "out to lunch."

I'm not sure Mr Lifton's grasp of the youthful patois is quite up to date. According to https://www.dictionary.com/browse/out--to--lunch, the phrase dates from the middle of the twentieth century. You dig, daddy-o?

Quote

I spent hours with the Chism, Franzen and the Newmans, back in 1971.   The car stopped. Period. there is no/was no question about it.

There is plenty of question about it, because all you have is a handful of witnesses, supported by some dogmatic assertion. That's not cool, man.

Quote

The primary importance of the car-stop witnesses is that they constitute the evidence that the Zapruder film (and other civilian films) were altered, to eliminate the stop.

True dat. They do constitute that evidence. There is no other evidence. All you have is a handful of witnesses.

Given what we know about the fallibility of human memory, why should we believe a small number of witnesses rather than the evidence of three home movies? Or indeed (see my next comment) the evidence of four home movies and two photographs?

Unless you can make a plausible case that each of the films was altered, the only rational conclusion is that the witnesses were, like all humans, fallible.

Prithee, sirrah (as all the young people are saying these days), explain to us how each of these films was altered so that they all matched up. Dogmatic assertions don't count. How was the alteration done? The more details you can provide, the less implausible your claim will be.

You could start with the Muchmore film. It remained in her camera until the 25th, when she sold it, unseen, to UPI. The film was shown on TV the next day. Please explain to us, in detail if thou wouldst be so kind, how that film was faked in the time available.

I'd be particularly interested to see how Mr Lifton deals with Roland Zavada's observation that the Zapruder film, having been shot on Kodachrome, cannot have been faked. You feel me?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jamey Flanagan writes:

Quote

where Jeremy is mistaken is that he wrongly assumes that EVERY piece of photographic evidence would have to be altered to hide the car stop and all would have to be synced up together to match each other.

No. It's only the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films that show that the car didn't stop.

If you go for the full-fat version of the car-stop fantasy, and claim that the car pulled over into the left-hand lane as it stopped, you need to account for the Moorman photo, the Altgens 7 photo, and the Bronson film, in addition to the three films already mentioned.

To be consistent, you really would need to claim that the car pulled into the left-hand lane. After all, that's what some of the witnesses said. I suppose you could dismiss that aspect of their story, by pointing out that witnesses make mistakes sometimes, but that wouldn't look very good, would it?

Now we have six photos or home movies that needed to be altered so that they matched each other:

• The Zapruder film.
• The Muchmore film.
• The Nix film.
• The Bronson film.
• The Moorman photo.
• The Altgens 7 photo.

How was it done? How was each one faked? The more details you can provide in each case, the less far-fetched your claim will appear to be. Hint: writing 'The fakers clicked their fingers and - hey presto - all the films and photos were altered' isn't good enough.

Let's take one example. As I pointed out earlier, the Moorman photo was seen by others within minutes of the assassination. It was broadcast on TV within three hours of the assassination. Copies were made and distributed to journalists shortly after that, by which time it would have been out of the reach of any nefarious photo-fakers. Any alterations must have been made within a few hours of the assassination. How was that done?

Once you've provided a plausible, detailed account of how the Moorman photo might have been altered in the very limited time available, we can move onto each of the other five items. Good luck!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Gene Kelly writes:

Quote

There appears to have been a very thorough collection/gathering of all films (and photographers) in the hours and days immediately following the assassination.

We know that this didn't happen. On the contrary, the police and the FBI made little effort to round up films and photographs. Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain (Yeoman Press, 1994), gives a good account of how the authorities dealt with the main photographers and home movie makers. The authorities overwhelmingly relied on photographers making the effort to contact them.

As I pointed out a few posts ago, almost all of the photographers and home movie makers left Dealey Plaza with their cameras and films intact. Here's the list I gave:

• Oscar Bothun didn't have his camera or film seized: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p.157).
• Hugh Betzner didn't; he went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police.
• Phil Willis didn't: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (Trask, p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera seized there either.
• Orville Nix didn't; like Zapruder, he walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized.
• Marie Muchmore didn't; she retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination.
• Wilma Bond didn't; she wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964.
• Jim and Tina Towner didn't; they stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras.
• Robert Croft didn't; he left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera.
• Mark Bell didn't; he walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination.
• Robert Hughes didn't; he too left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed it to the FBI two days after the assassination.
• Charles Bronson didn't; he left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras seized.
• James Altgens didn't; he waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed.

There wasn't even an effort made to identify all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Once the witnesses had dispersed to who-knows-where, how could the authorities ever identify them all?

More importantly, how could the authorities be sure that every film or photo could be accounted for? They couldn't. As we have seen, some films and photographs didn't come to the attention of the authorities until long after the assassination.

I and others have asked the following question several times recently, and no-one has yet come up with an answer. How could any film-fakers be sure that their fakery wouldn't be exposed by a previously unknown film or photo coming to light in the future?

[Chris Davidson]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

"altered so that they matched each other:"
 

An invalid argument.

Asked and answered previously.

Bronson and Z do not match each other.

Glover's steps and Jackie's hand give it away. Look for common actions in both.

Count frames, divide by frame rates and you can figure out the unmatched frame totals in the gif.

 

[John Butler]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm not sure Mr Lifton's grasp of the youthful patois is quite up to date. According to https://www.dictionary.com/browse/out--to--lunch, the phrase dates from the middle of the twentieth century. You dig, daddy-o?

I didn't know this fella was that old to recall the mid-fifties, but looking at his photo I would guess he is.  Me, I was a mere child in that era.  I don't know anything about beatniks or other counter-culture people.  

 

As far as Mr. J's list of films being altered immediately, or taken by the feds immediately is kind of a dodge on the whole film alteration business.  The proper time for film alteration was from Nov. 22, 1963 to about May, 1964 or later after witnesses had been called to testify.  Here's one that will generate outrage.  Earlier films, particularly those that were shown earlier, could be seized and altered and who would know the difference?  

Just to be wasting time, I will give you an example of the cut-apart policemen in the Robert Hughes film.  I obtained my copy from Robert Groden down in Dealey Plaza.  Some internet Hughes films I have seen have that part, the cut-apart policemen, frames fixed where there is no splice. 

If Mr. JB, I should say, wants to know how those films were altered then all he has to do is look up the history of my posts on those films and photos over the last 5 years.  I don't think I said anything about Wilma Bond, except maybe the Babushka Lady is surrounded by a glow that suggests she was transported, not by a Star Trek transporter, but, a film alterer. 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

An invalid argument.

Asked and answered previously.

Bronson and Z do not match each other.

Glover's steps and Jackie's hand give it away. Look for common actions in both.

Count frames, divide by frame rates and you can figure out the unmatched frame totals in the gif.

 

I am going to use some out dated language from that long gone era the mid-fifties that was brought up recently.  That's cool, daddy-o.

Acutally, I'm liking that so much I am going to have to ask for more and more.

"Bronson and Z do not match each other."  I totally agree.  I have focused on the people shown in Zapruder between the lamppost/R L Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign.  It is just another example of the fraudulence of the Z film:

Bronson appears to have been stretched to an area much greater than 40 feet approximately.  I say approximately because the people lined in Zapruder are lined up shoulder to shoulder between the lamppost and the Stemmons sign.  This is shown in the Betzner photo.  This area I have calculated by saying each person is about 2 feet wide or just a little over and there were 19 counted in Zapruder.  That's where the 40 feet comes from.  The area shown in Bronson between people is much greater than shoulder to shoulder.  Camera angles won't explain it.  Besides, there are only 15 or so showing with distance between them.

To me Bronson calls into question Zapruder, Willis, and Betzner.  

[Steven Kossor]

The idea is that confusion, all resolved to the Zfilm as the “official record,” results in the confirmation of the lone nut solution to all mysteries, and that’s the value of the Zfilm to the plotters (and why I believe an official movie of the killing was a planned part of the operation).