Unveiling The Limo Stop

[Dennis Berube]

On 9/21/2020 at 1:45 PM, Steven Kossor said:

Is it just me, or does a filming speed of 48 fps indicate some foreknowledge of the assassination on Zapruder's part?  Why take a slo-mo movie of the limo driving by?

I have always wondered about Zapruder.  Considering he was a 33rd degree Mason and apparently a member of some CIA fronts, Dallas council of world affairs and crusade for a free europe, he's interesting. This was a Greg Burnham article on the subject.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol8/articles/zapruder.shtml

 I have just always found it difficult to believe that someone filming like he was would be able to keep such a steady view whilst gun shots were going off around him. 

[Dan Rice]

49 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol8/articles/zapruder.shtml

 

Wow!  It's crazy how the cast of characters we all know from the JFK assassination are intertwined.

[Jamey Flanagan]

I had the thought just the other day that figures thought to have been shooters hiding in the pergola seen in the Moorman photo I believe could possibly have been someone filming instead of shooting. Don't know what kinda line of sight they would have had there. Just a thought. I know many have speculated whether the altered film we know as the Zapruder film was even filmed by Zapruder or from someone else placed there by the plotters and then substituted with Zapruder's film. I don't know about all of that but I like to keep an open mind and brainstorm and see what makes sense sometimes. So much about this case is strange I try not to discount anything until evidence leads me to dismiss it.

[John Butler]

On 9/10/2020 at 12:43 PM, David Josephs said:

yet she claims not to have taken images of the assassination...

How dat?

I ran across this while re-reading through the thread.  This is somewhat speculative.  There is some evidence to support the next statement, but not enough to stake a firm position on.  It could be because she thought the assassination was at the corner of Houston and Main and later down Houston at Houston and Elm.  This is what I read from her testimony when first given.  She lied to the FBI about not taking photos or films on 11-22-63.  I wrote a note on this:

"

Marie Muchmore:  A second look at truthfulness Part I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Muchmore was an employee of Justin McCarty Dress Manufacturer in Dallas located at 707 Young Street, four blocks south of the Texas School Book Depository. On November 22, 1963, Muchmore was in Dealey Plaza with five co-workers, including Wilma Bond, who had a still camera, to watch the presidential motorcade. Muchmore stood near the northwest corner of Main Street and Houston Street with her 8 mm Keystone movie camera and awaited the president’s arrival….

Muchmore sold the undeveloped film to the Dallas office of United Press International on November 25, 1963, for $1,000. It was processed by Kodak in Dallas, and flown to New York City. It appeared the following day on local television station WNEW-TV.^[6] The film now belongs to the Associated Press Television News, which restored it in 2002.^” 

Wikipedia is saying in this article that Marie Muchmore is a xxxx and committed perjury to the FBI in her statement dated December 4, 1963.  She basically said two things of importance there.

First, she said she was standing on Main and Houston Streets when the parade passed by and she heard a shot.  This statement had to be clarified so that one wouldn’t think that she heard a shot on Main Street as the President passed by.

Secondly, her perjury statement saying she did not take photographs as the presidential motorcade passed by.  These statements are underlined in red.  Understanding these statements make it easy to interpret what happened in her next statement to the FBI on February 14, 1964.  Because of a possible perjury charge the FBI could have induced her to say anything they wanted."

  

I wonder if this film made a side track to the Rochester editing facility or was the work done in Dallas.  Of course it did.  Just look at the frames on the p. limo in the Houston and Main intersection.  There we have the treat of Flat-headed See Through Man, Phil Willis blocking the view of the p. limo and also many distorted and damaged frames of the p. limo in the turn.

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by John Butler

[Steven Kossor]

It's turning out that Zapruder's film wasn't the only piece of visual evidence that was altered in a relatively short span of time in this case, right?  The call went out through the media at the time, calling all citizens to deliver their movies and other media to the Dallas PD so they could be used for the investigation into JFK's murder and lots of people complied.  The Zapruder film itself was processed at "the Hollywood of the Midwest" (Jamison's) in Dallas which had state-of-the-art film production/editing facilities on-site there.  In Zapruder's interview on TV on the afternoon/evening of the 22nd, he uses a motion to depict JFK's head injury that matches the appearance of his head in Bethesda (the right side blown open), but not as it appeared at Parkland (a hole at the right rear with the right side seemingly intact), but the Zapruder film we have now also matches the appearance of the head in Bethesda, not Parkland.  All that we know now makes it harder to believe that Zapruder mounted that pedestal (and was allowed to remain there with a camera filming the motorcade) by accident.  I climbed up there myself a few years ago and recorded cars coming down Elm Street and, unless you pan down while panning to the right, you lose the cars (as Zapruder nearly did), and since he wasn't a bad cameraman in other films he made, it's really hard to believe he almost lost the car at the bottom of the frame while filming.  Not showing the wheels would make it much easier to conceal a car stop, after all....

[Chris Davidson]

13 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

it's really hard to believe he almost lost the car at the bottom of the frame while filming.  Not showing the wheels would make it much easier to conceal a car stop, after all....

Touche´

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JjtRzfrsjfR3xCJpW9xENdj41ywlHTk_/view?usp=sharing

 

[John Butler]

Chris,

The wheels go missing about z 256 and come back about z 350.  Very well could be the limo stop is the reason, but there are other considerations.  First off one could have a good excuse to say well that's why we don't see Bill Newman or One-armed Bill Newman as the p. limo passes him.  Another set of missing characters are the 2 or 3 men on the sidewalk coming down from the parking lot.  Your video showed that they should be seen.

There could be other things.  As I study the Zapruder film I get closer and closer to John Costella's idea that the film was built from the ground up. 

[John Butler]

On the Authenticity of the Zapruder Film

The next pictorial presentation is based on what David Joseph said about Z 001 as a start up frame and Z 133 not being a startup frame after the Zapruder Gap .  In other words the frames in the Zapruder Gap have been excised from the film and Zapruder did not shut his camera down for a brief time.

Frame Z 001 is a start up frame and is lighter in color than the others.  The next Frame 002 is similar to all the other Zapruder frames and particularly like Z 133.

The reason I started this comment if that I didn't realize why I rejected Z 001 in favor of Z 002 in another montage based on something Jack White said many years ago.  I rejected Z 001 in favor of Z 002 because Z 001 is a lighter and less usable than Z 002 for my purposes.

Jack White said that you can take a frame from the Zapruder film showing the east crosswalk of Houston and Elm and compare it to the crosswalk of east Houston and Elm as show in Altgens 5 and you would not find a single person that is in the Zapruder frame and Altgens 5.  Not a single one.  See if you can find the same person in the Zapruder Frame Z 002 and Altgens 5.

I can't find a single person that matches.  Another thing you might notice is that an automobile is present in Zapruder and a van is present in Altgens 5.  Z 001 and Z 002 to the artist's eye seems like an alteration by painting out the other white strips that should be visible at the Houston and Elm turn.  I am sure this was done to hide something by altering the appearance of the road bed in the turn.  

This is where Chris, David, and Tony's work excels concerning the p. limo as in turned in the intersection.  Notice in Z 133 you can see 3 lanes as versus 2 in Z 001 and Z 002.

I don't see how anyone can base anything on the Zapruder film since it starts as an altered fraud from the very beginning in Z001 and Z 002 and continues on with other stage sets such as the SW corner of Elm and Houston and the Mannikin Row.  And, there are many other problems I have pointed out over time.

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by John Butler

[Tony Krome]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

I don't see how anyone can base anything on the Zapruder film

Agree 100%

This is where I am;

There was in fact film from the pedestal of the entire Elm/Houston turn. The first frames of the limo coming down Elm leaves one with the impression that the car had just completed turning left. This is a deception, seeing is believing.

The close-up filming of the limo further down Elm where the car is low on the screen is not how the scene was originally filmed. It is simply a post-zoomed film to conceal activity between the camera and the car. Please read Zapruder's testimony where he himself is surprised that the car is "buried" low on the film.

[Paul Bacon]

You guys are right.  The use of zooming was used to manipulate what the frames showed.  I'd never noticed before that the camera is much more zoomed-in in z133 versus z01 and 02, as well as later in the film.

[John Butler]

6 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

The use of zooming was used to manipulate what the frames showed. 

Paul,

I agree and perhaps what the zooming did not show.  I went back and reviewed Z frames 254 to 350.  Zooming occurs here to show the contents of the p. limo and possibly hide something (Like Bill Newman not really being there).  I believe that is correct rather than Zapruder camera wandering off target or losing balance for that length of time.  It's like the camera jiggles that folks talk about.  It could simply be Zapruder's aide steadying him as he is filming.  All is that is arguable.

When you look closely at the content of many Z frames something is always awry.  For instance, Mary and Jean have a barely noticeable glow or fuzziness surrounding in some of these frames from 254 to 350.  I won't argue what that means.  Here's an example:

That is somewhat arguable here in Z 298 and Z 306 is that aura.  What is not arguable is the lack of a half raised window by Nellie Connally.  This is demonstrated by the arrows pointing to where a window should be.  This half raised window is seen in many other films and photos.  I suppose one could argue that she lowered the window.  But, that's not a good argument for a windy day.  Besides that, the Marie Muchmore film shows the window up at about the same time as those Zapruder frames.  In this example at least 3 other films show the window up.

As I said you can find flaky things like this throughout the Zapruder film.  And, why people haven't seen this particular thing in over 50+ years I haven't got a clue.    

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

Paul,

I agree and perhaps what the zooming did not show.  I went back and reviewed Z frames 254 to 350.  Zooming occurs here to show the contents of the p. limo and possibly hide something (Like Bill Newman not really being there).  I believe that is correct rather than Zapruder camera wandering off target or losing balance for that length of time.  It's like the camera jiggles that folks talk about.  It could simply be Zapruder's aide steadying him as he is filming.  All is that is arguable.

When you look closely at the content of many Z frames something is always awry.  For instance, Mary and Jean have a barely noticeable glow or fuzziness surrounding in some of these frames from 254 to 350.  I won't argue what that means.  Here's an example:

That is somewhat arguable here in Z 298 and Z 306 is that aura.  What is not arguable is the lack of a half raised window by Nellie Connally.  This is demonstrated by the arrows pointing to where a window should be.  This half raised window is seen in many other films and photos.  I suppose one could argue that she lowered the window.  But, that's not a good argument for a windy day.  Besides that, the Marie Muchmore film shows the window up at about the same time as those Zapruder frames.  In this example at least 3 other films show the window up.

As I said you can find flaky things like this throughout the Zapruder film.  And, why people haven't seen this particular thing in over 50+ years I haven't got a clue.    

I believe the window is visible in the lower right image you posted. Just next to Jackie's head is a reflection off the chrome of the top of the window frame. It is visible in many frames and shows more of the pink color of her dress or hat. As you follow that line to the right the reflection ends and the chrome looks dark. That makes it blend in with the shadow of the grass behind it. But you can see how that dark part of the chrome sits on top of the grass shadow and is a continuation from, is inline with, the reflection of Jackie. If you blow the photo up a lot you can see a dim light that is reflecting off the the chrome in the dark portion. It may be more visible in the photo on the left because Moorman's shadow surrounds it.

[Chris Bristow]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:58 AM, John Butler said:

On the Authenticity of the Zapruder Film

The next pictorial presentation is based on what David Joseph said about Z 001 as a start up frame and Z 133 not being a startup frame after the Zapruder Gap .  In other words the frames in the Zapruder Gap have been excised from the film and Zapruder did not shut his camera down for a brief time.

Frame Z 001 is a start up frame and is lighter in color than the others.  The next Frame 002 is similar to all the other Zapruder frames and particularly like Z 133.

The reason I started this comment if that I didn't realize why I rejected Z 001 in favor of Z 002 in another montage based on something Jack White said many years ago.  I rejected Z 001 in favor of Z 002 because Z 001 is a lighter and less usable than Z 002 for my purposes.

Jack White said that you can take a frame from the Zapruder film showing the east crosswalk of Houston and Elm and compare it to the crosswalk of east Houston and Elm as show in Altgens 5 and you would not find a single person that is in the Zapruder frame and Altgens 5.  Not a single one.  See if you can find the same person in the Zapruder Frame Z 002 and Altgens 5.

I can't find a single person that matches.  Another thing you might notice is that an automobile is present in Zapruder and a van is present in Altgens 5.  Z 001 and Z 002 to the artist's eye seems like an alteration by painting out the other white strips that should be visible at the Houston and Elm turn.  I am sure this was done to hide something by altering the appearance of the road bed in the turn.  

This is where Chris, David, and Tony's work excels concerning the p. limo as in turned in the intersection.  Notice in Z 133 you can see 3 lanes as versus 2 in Z 001 and Z 002.

I don't see how anyone can base anything on the Zapruder film since it starts as an altered fraud from the very beginning in Z001 and Z 002 and continues on with other stage sets such as the SW corner of Elm and Houston and the Mannikin Row.  And, there are many other problems I have pointed out over time.

 

Trying to compare that crowd in Alt 5 and the Z film is really tough. Z's perspective does not show the white vans parked on Elm. It looks like you can see both sides of Elm but it is just an illusion.
I put a blue arrow over the guy in both photos that I think is the same person. The blue arrow in the Dealey map shows his location. That guy has to be within that blue marker at the end of the arrow. I used the building behind him in the Z film to get a line of sight. The overhead photo of the plaza shows that line of sight. I know Altgens 5 really makes it look like he is standing out in the middle of the street or beyond, but he is really only about 12 feet from the South East corner of Elm. 
So both the guy in the Z and the guy in Alt5 are located within two feet of each other. There is only one person there with dark pants and light shirt so I conclude they are the same person. Based on that we can start mapping out the other people in Z.

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[John Butler]

12 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Trying to compare that crowd in Alt 5 and the Z film is really tough.

Thanks Chris,

I always pay attention to what you write.  Thanks again for correcting some of my errors in previous times.  But on the Altgens 5/Zapruder frames I have to disagree.  There is basically two reasons.  First, Jack White did this same kind of comparison many years ago.  I believe he was working from original material rather than what I have picked up from the internet.  So, that's reason number one.  The second is I don't see things as you do.  Here is Altgens 5:

The man in the white shirt and dark slacks has a young black kid next to or just behind him.  In front and nearby there is Officer Joe Marshall Smith.  I believe his testimony said he was standing in the middle of the crosswalk.  These two are indicated by red arrows.  You don't see the black youth or Officer Smith in the Zapruder frames.

This may be really confusing.  I have added red arrows to the Zapruder frame.  The 3 red arrows pointing downward indicate other white men wearing a light shirt and dark trousers.  The two on the right hand side (left) are not in Altgens 5.  There are two question marks near your blue arrow.  Those present "Where is Officer Foster?" and "Where is the black youth?"   The black youth is clearly seen in Altgens 5, but not seen clearly in Zapruder.  There is something there, but to vague and blurry to make out.  Based on Jack White and the too vague Zapruder frame I would say the black youth is not present in Zapruder.  Regardless of the camera angles Officer Marshall should be seen in the middle of the street in Zapruder as he is seen in Altgens 5.

The furthest red ? to the left hand side refers to the automobile/van differences in the photo frame comparison.  The amount of time difference between Z 002 and Altgens 5 should not matter.  Frames 130 and other frames after the gap show much the same scene as Z oo2.

So, we will just have to disagree.  Keep up the good work.  I do need checking on from time to time.  Thanks.

 

[Chris Bristow]

14 hours ago, John Butler said:

Thanks Chris,

I always pay attention to what you write.  Thanks again for correcting some of my errors in previous times.  But on the Altgens 5/Zapruder frames I have to disagree.  There is basically two reasons.  First, Jack White did this same kind of comparison many years ago.  I believe he was working from original material rather than what I have picked up from the internet.  So, that's reason number one.  The second is I don't see things as you do.  Here is Altgens 5:

The man in the white shirt and dark slacks has a young black kid next to or just behind him.  In front and nearby there is Officer Joe Marshall Smith.  I believe his testimony said he was standing in the middle of the crosswalk.  These two are indicated by red arrows.  You don't see the black youth or Officer Smith in the Zapruder frames.

This may be really confusing.  I have added red arrows to the Zapruder frame.  The 3 red arrows pointing downward indicate other white men wearing a light shirt and dark trousers.  The two on the right hand side (left) are not in Altgens 5.  There are two question marks near your blue arrow.  Those present "Where is Officer Foster?" and "Where is the black youth?"   The black youth is clearly seen in Altgens 5, but not seen clearly in Zapruder.  There is something there, but to vague and blurry to make out.  Based on Jack White and the too vague Zapruder frame I would say the black youth is not present in Zapruder.  Regardless of the camera angles Officer Marshall should be seen in the middle of the street in Zapruder as he is seen in Altgens 5.

The furthest red ? to the left hand side refers to the automobile/van differences in the photo frame comparison.  The amount of time difference between Z 002 and Altgens 5 should not matter.  Frames 130 and other frames after the gap show much the same scene as Z oo2.

So, we will just have to disagree.  Keep up the good work.  I do need checking on from time to time.  Thanks.

 

It is an interesting puzzle. I think the young black kid may be standing behind the women in the coat to the right of the white shirt/ dark pants guy. I don't know where the cop is but he is larger than the people behind him in Alt5 so he would be right of ws/dp guy in Z. The only solid fact is ws/dp guy in Alt5 and in Z are standing within 1 or 2 feet of the same location. more to come.