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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Davidson writes:

Quote

Bronson and Z do not match each other.

But they do: each of them shows police motorcyclists to the left of the presidential limousine. Ergo, the car was in the middle lane the whole time. If the car was in the middle lane, it did not swerve into the left-hand lane and stop there. The witnesses were wrong.

There are six photographs or home movies that show the police motorcyclists to the left of the limo, or the limo explicitly in the middle lane, or both. Either the witnesses were wrong, or all six photos and films must have been altered to show this. If they were altered, how was it done?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

The proper time for film alteration was from Nov. 22, 1963 to about May, 1964 or later after witnesses had been called to testify. ... Earlier films, particularly those that were shown earlier, could be seized and altered and who would know the difference?

Plenty of people would know the difference. As I pointed out to Jamey on the previous page, copies of Mary Moorman's Polaroid photograph were distributed to journalists within a few hours of the assassination. Any one of these copies would provide incontrovertible proof that Moorman's original photo had been altered later.

As it happens, we know that the copies agree with the original photo, because those copies were widely reproduced in newspapers only the day after the assassination. As Richard Trask writes:

Quote

Displayed on NBC-TV about 3:15 CST that Friday afternoon, by  Saturday Moorman's photo was being carried by scores of newspapers around the country through the UPI and AP wirephoto networks.

(Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p.246)

The element in question is Moorman's depiction of one of the police motorcyclists, and part of the second motorbike, riding to the left of the presidential limousine. That's what refutes the witnesses who claimed that the car swerved into the left-hand lane and stopped. If that element is a fake, it must have been done within just a few hours of the assassination. How was it done?

Unless anyone can provide a plausible explanation of how that element could have been faked within such a short time, we must conclude that the witnesses, like all human beings, had fallible memories.

By May 1964, or whatever date you think alterations were being made, many of the assassination films and photographs had been copied and distributed many times over. As with the six films and photographs which refute the car-stop fantasy, any substantial alterations would have been easy to spot.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Changed 'this very page' to 'the previous page'. Hadn't noticed that we'd moved to a new page. Duh!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Steven Kossor writes:

Quote

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).

This can't be true, because the Zapruder film, far from confirming the lone-nut theory, actively contradicts it!

[David Lifton]

On 5/16/2020 at 7:17 AM, David Lifton said:

Sandy. . thanks. See my separate post, which is posted "above".  DSL (5/26/20 - 7:15 AM PST)

 

On 5/16/2020 at 7:42 AM, Ron Ecker said:

David,

Thanks. Then all I can say is, if the car stopped it's remarkable that so little was made of it. But I guess that would have been a major reason to alter the Z film, to remove the stop to protect William Greer and the Secret Service. Of course what they couldn't remove was the head snap, so enter - what was it? - a "neuromuscular reaction."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The "car stop" is not on the film (i.e., the film does not show such a thing); rather  it is a fact of the "witness" record..

2. When (back around 1972-1974), Pat Lambert and I set out to create a detailed tabulation of what the Dealey Plaza witnesses observed and reported, the car stop wasn't even on our list(s) of phenomena to be "tabulated"..  "Who saw smoke?", for example, was a category; and there were many other categories.  Then, sitting in my West L.A. apartment, and as we were working our way through the mass of documents that I had gathered (mainly via a 2,000 page plus order from the National Archives), I noticed  (or "we noticed, I forget these details) that one witness after another mentioned the car stop (or, the car having seriously slowed down; we did make that distinction).

3.  Almost immediately, I realized the implication: that the Z film (and Nix, and Muchmore, etc.) must have been  altered, because the civilian films showed no such thing.   It was rather easy to make that "jump" if you'd been a physics (or applied math) major,. which I was.  (Both).  But I had zero knowledge of how a (civilian) motion picture film could have been altered. 

4. Fortunately, being  "West L.A. based," I was very familiar with the UCLA campus, and specifically, with the building that housed the "film school" -- Melnitz Hall.

5.   I immediately went up there, and learned the UCLA film school had their own library, right there in Melnitz.  Within hours, I was seated at a table, and reading an assortment of magazines pertaining to film editing.

6.  I learned that the basic tool of a film editor (just as an enlarger is a basic tool of a "still" photographer), was an optical printer.  

7.  The trade magazine --American Cinematographer, as I recall --had page after page of advertisements re optical printers.  At that point, i learned --for the first time -- all about the "machinery" that Robert Groden had been using to make his prints --with the sections in "slo-mo," the enlargements, etc.; and so what Groden was doing was completely demystified.  The air simply went out of his balloon--and I use that deliberately, because Groden, while a serious student of the assassination, had another side. And if you wanted a copy of anything, you found yourself in the equivalent of a Turkish market, trying to buy a carpet.

8.  Furthermore, the reason RG was able to do all this was not that he was an optical magician; but rather, that  he was an employee of Moe Weitzman's company in New York City, "EFX" (the acronym for "special effects"); and of course Weitzman's company had optical printers, probably more than one. (I believe I wrote about all of this in Pig on a Leash.) (Also note: Moe's company was also called "Manhattan Effects," as I recall.

9..  Bottom line: suddenly, with my new found familiarity with optical printers, all the air went out of Groden's balloon, along with his unwillingness to share, etc., so he could maintain his "monopoly."

10.  All of this is history.  The technology of film editing  (it tuns out) was not the issue. The real issue (or problem) was Groden's original access to the key civilian films of the assassination. These were priceless originals.  So how did he get access to them all?  Groden never finished high school. Hee as not --using insurance company terms --"bonded."  So what was the source of his access?  The problem (or issue) was the trust that had been placed in Groden by (Notre Dame) law professor Robert Blakey, Gen. Counsel of the HSCA., who was able to obtain many of the key films as part of his investigation. In other words, Blakey operated "under the color of authority, to use the vernacular. His access was legitimate.

11. Although I just wrote "trust," the real issue (or problem) was "mistrust".  Because of Groden's  access to an optical printer--not really extraordinary, but who the heck knew what such a device was?  Blakey needed "exhibits" for his nationally televised hearings.  Groden was given possession possession of priceless originals, to make dupes (by bringing them to EFX, in NYC; making the necessary exhibits etc. 

12.  All very well.  But unfortunately, Groden had the ethics of a kleptomaniac, and --once he was given access--there was no guarantee as to what would happen next. 

13. The  result was that he retained the original and substituted a copy.  I have written about this before (on the net, or in Pig on a Leash), and whatever I wrote, or spoke of, was based on many conversations that I had with Groden, and what he told me .   All of this has posed a real problem. 

14. I believe it is a fact that the true "camera original" of the Nix lilm is nowhere to be found; and the same is true for Muchmore.   Gail Nix, Orville Nix's niece (not sure, as I write this, of the precise relationship) has navigated these complex waters with Robert Groden, (who, she realizes  probably has her uncle's property).  She finds it very upsetting -- similar in reaction to someone who suffers in the aftermath of a kidnapping.

15. Meanwhile-- in the spirit of "these days" --Groden often can be found in Dallas, sitting on the grassy knoll, and --I believe-- knowing well the true whereabouts of the "originals" of a variety of film artifacts that pertain to 11/22/63; and which, IMHO, belong in the U.S. National Archives.

16.  Art museums are familiar with the "problem" of letting the wrong person near precious art.  A similar situation exists in the world of JFK research.   From conversations over the years, I know that the National Archives is well aware of the problem posed by RG and his "collector" mentality.  And, quite likely, there are other such persons, when it comes to the JFK assassination.

17.  More could be said; but I'll stop here, for now.

DSL

(David S. Lifton (5/28/21; 6 AM PDT; edited, 6:40 AM PDT)

Author, Best Evidence).

Edited May 28, 2021 by David Lifton
Adding to clarity. Further data.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Steven Kossor writes:

This can't be true, because the Zapruder film, far from confirming the lone-nut theory, actively contradicts it!

It contracts it to those who suspect multiple shooters or, an alternative narrative to the WC. It doesn’t contradict it if you are your average dumbed down citizen who swallows news like one of the patients in “One flew of the cuckoo’s nest”. Just look at the people who think Jackie or the SS shot JFK.
We shouldn’t assume what we see or what we conclude is what the masses do too. 

[Steven Kossor]

It looks like Jeremy is quoting me saying "This can't be true, because..." but those are actually his words, not mine. 

My words were:  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).

Even with all of its flaws, the Zfilm has been used to "show" what happened in Dallas, even to this day.  At first the authorities only used frames from the movie (and even presented them out of order to have the intended effect), but even with the release of the motion picture, they apply it to the same purpose (knowing that the vast majority of people will seek comfort untroubled by conscience), ignoring the flaws as if they didn't exist, or were irrelevant. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Steven Kossor

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

It looks like Jeremy is quoting me saying "This can't be true, because..." but those are actually his words, not mine. 

My words were:  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).

Even with all of its flaws, the Zfilm has been used to "show" what happened in Dallas, even to this day.  At first the authorities only used frames from the movie (and even presented them out of order to have the intended effect), but even with the release of the motion picture, they apply it to the same purpose (knowing that the vast majority of people will seek comfort untroubled by conscience), ignoring the flaws as if they didn't exist, or were irrelevant. 

You’re exactly right, Steven. 

[Steven Kossor]

I'm a psychologist after all, right?  Thanks for your encouragement!!!

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

I'm a psychologist after all, right?  Thanks for your encouragement!!!

Ha, I had no idea. I am a layman studying that field in my spare time, mainly Jung and Nietzsche. Jordan Peterson has got me into it, it makes you look at absolutely everything differently. 
 

Everyone presumes what they see or, what their brain processes must be what everyone sees and concludes. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[Jonathan Cohen]

24 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

My words were:  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).

Are you implying the plotters "chose" Abraham Zapruder to film the "official movie of the killing" ?

[Steven Kossor]

The Zfilm we have today shows the condition of JFK's head at the Bethesda autopsy, not the condition of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital.  When Abe Zapruder was on camera on 11/22/63 describing the movie he shot, he uses a gesture to indicate the opening-up of the right side of JFK's head (exactly what appears on the Zfilm we have today, but not what JFK looked like at Parkland).  Maybe Abe was foreseeing the future and describing what his movie would eventually look like, during that filmed TV interview.  Maybe he found his way onto that pedestal and the plotters took full advantage of his high-quality camera and modern film, and had their way with it.  The way the images are captured on the existing Zfilm, it looks like the camera panned left-to-right but did not also pan downward as the limo traveled down Elm Street, so the image of the limo almost went off the screen (Abe was much too skilled cameraman to have done such a poor job of framing his subject in the film that the US citizens eventually paid him $16,000,000.00 for).  For these reasons and more, I believe that an "official" movie film had an intentional role in JFK's killing - to create memories of "what happened" and to suppress dissenting opinions - and that Abe's movie was a better foundation for the "official" version than any amateur could probably have delivered.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Are you implying the plotters "chose" Abraham Zapruder to film the "official movie of the killing" ?

Do you think it’s possible that Abraham Zapruder  could have been coerced to film it? Or, have had some kind of foreknowledge of what was about to ensue? He profited greatly from it. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

4 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

The Zfilm we have today shows the condition of JFK's head at the Bethesda autopsy, not the condition of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital.  When Abe Zapruder was on camera on 11/22/63 describing the movie he shot, he uses a gesture to indicate the opening-up of the right side of JFK's head (exactly what appears on the Zfilm we have today, but not what JFK looked like at Parkland).  Maybe Abe was foreseeing the future and describing what his movie would eventually look like, during that filmed TV interview.  Maybe he found his way onto that pedestal and the plotters took full advantage of his high-quality camera and modern film, and had their way with it.  The way the images are captured on the existing Zfilm, it looks like the camera panned left-to-right but did not also pan downward as the limo traveled down Elm Street, so the image of the limo almost went off the screen (Abe was much too skilled cameraman to have done such a poor job of framing his subject in the film that the US citizens eventually paid him $16,000,000.00 for).  For these reasons and more, I believe that an "official" movie film had an intentional role in JFK's killing - to create memories of "what happened" and to suppress dissenting opinions - and that Abe's movie was a better foundation for the "official" version than any amateur could probably have delivered.

I can't follow much of anything you said above. Do you or do you not believe Zapruder was chosen by nefarious plotters to film the assassination? Either way, your theory about the intent and purpose of an "official" movie, just like the "all Dealey Plaza films were altered" nonsense, falls apart because how could the plotters have prevented against other films and photos surfacing that wildly contradicted their altered "official" version? Why would the plotters go to these needlessly complicated lengths, when in reality, the Zapruder film is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for conspiracy in the case?

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Do you think it’s possible that Abraham Zapruder  could have been coerced to film it? Or, have had some kind of foreknowledge of what was about to ensue? He profited greatly from it. 

No, because not only is that ridiculous on its face, there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Zapruder spent the rest of his life after the assassination haunted by what he had witnessed.

[Steven Kossor]

I stood on that pedestal myself a few years ago and videotaped cars coming down Elm Street, so it was absolutely clear what the camera had to do in order to track the cars, and keep them in the middle of the frame, from the corner at Houston St to the Overpass.  Not at all difficult, but having walked all around DP, there is no doubt that the view from that pedestal is singularly perfect to take a movie of the limousine traveling down Elm Street.  Through the use of an optical printer and other hardware that was certainly available at a high-end movie production company like Jamison's in 1963 Dallas, I believe that it would be possible for a skilled film editor to use the "missing" 4th copy that they printed on 11/22/63 to create the floating mat needed to separate the limo image from the background image, remove the necessary frames and add some painted-in effects (black out the back of the head, add a moving blob to the area of the right side of the head, etc) within a few hours.  And the rest is "history."  The fact that Abe profited immensely ("obscenely" would be a better word) for his work on 11/22/63 doesn't necessarily implicate him in the planned use for his work.