Jump to content
The Education Forum

JACKIE ON THE TRUNK- NIX VS ZAPRUDER


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Ok,  I glossed right over the  'WAS'. I had checked that issue on the Google books site and yes the photo is no longer in that issue. I assume since we can find no other versions with the flower that you took the image right off the actual magazine page?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

After staring at that disappearing flower I think it may not be a flower but the rear part of Nellie's collar. The color is closer to her collar with the Sun falling on it and in earlier frames and seems to have a similar look with a shadow through it. It looks to be a little lower than I would expect in that frame but at the same time it is such a different color than the yellow roses I see in all other images of the bouquet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what it is ???, don't lose sight of the most important aspect.

The object in that frame, does not appear in any other publication, either film or magazine besides the original Life magazine published in Dec/1963.

This includes the SS/FBI copies, Groden copies,Oliver Stone(JFKfilm), MPI(supposedly the "Out of Camera" original), 35mm "Lost Bullet" and 3rd generation 6K "A Coup In Camelot" and many more.

Yet, that Life edition has it with/without the object.

There are now a very limited amount of choices to explain this.

Zero which are favorable to anti-alterationists.

Nellie.png

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2021 at 4:22 PM, Chuck Schwartz said:

This is an essay on the alteration of the Zapruder (which briefly mentions part of JFK's brain on the trunk of the limo). It is written by Doug Horne.  https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/

 

This is an interesting article.  Horne says the Zapruder film was in the hands of the Hawkeye Works on Saturday, 11/23/63.  It was there for a day or so and then went to the NPIC on Sunday.  

The work at the Kodak Hawkeye Works must have been rushed with confusing coordination.  During that 12-24 hours, or so period there were  a lot of content mistakes made in the Zapruder film due to speed and haste in placing the information on what was to be used in the film that we know today.  Information from other films and photos needed to be coordinated with what was used in the Zapruder film.  And, that gives rise to a new question. 

I have detailed a few of these errors in Zapruder over the years.  I would like to go back and review one frame with a new question.  This frame is Z 157.

z157-cropped-a.jpg

 

Zapruder 157 contains many errors.  I would just like to focus on two.  Phil Willis’ extra-long leg and the Johnson security vehicle.  First off, Phil Willis taking pictures here produces his famous slides.  One of which shows President Kennedy well and in good shape here.  Dino Brugioni, a skilled marksman, said he saw the President shot 6 to 8 times in the Zapruder film he saw.  It may very well have begun here or just earlier in the missing frames of the Zapruder Gap.

The second questionable item is the Johnson security vehicle.  Its top is backward.  The extra long leg and the backward top on the Mercury are film alteration mistakes.  And, if Horne is correct these occurred on 11-23-63 or 11-24-63.  You will probably need to magnify these up to see these better. 

 

zapruder-content-error-new-question-157.

The Johnson security vehicle in the lower left hand Altgens 6 photo is badly distorted in perspective.  But, the folks standing behind are not.  This indicates alteration in Altgens 6.  In Zapruder 157, the top left hand photo (best seen in Z 160, top right hand) the top of the security vehicle is backwards.  Maybe at Hawkeye they had a limited source of films and photos to work with. 

So, like many they did the best with what they had.  After all, no one would notice this for 50 years, if ever.  The right hand photo shows you what the front and back of the top part of the Mercury looks like.

Other than the alterations, the question is how did they know there was a problem with the Johnson security vehicle?  How did they know that the vehicle had to be added in Altgens and Zapruder?  And, this leads to the wider question of how did they coordinate events in the film to be reasonably close to what we see in other films and photos?

What was the problem with the Johnson security vehicle that it had to be altered in these film and photo?  Was it not there at all and had to be place into the film and photo?  If so, where was it?

My answer is that the Johnson security vehicle was stopped on Houston Street along with the rest of the motorcade.  It was stopped by the policemen in the intersection.  It was a mistake stoppage.  Then,  itquickly released to be in other films like Weigman and Couch.

This scenario may not be correct, but there must be some reason for the alteration in Algens and Zapruder.

 

 

 

    

  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Regardless of what it is ???, don't lose sight of the most important aspect.

The object in that frame, does not appear in any other publication, either film or magazine besides the original Life magazine published in Dec/1963.

This includes the SS/FBI copies, Groden copies,Oliver Stone(JFKfilm), MPI(supposedly the "Out of Camera" original), 35mm "Lost Bullet" and 3rd generation 6K "A Coup In Camelot" and many more.

Yet, that Life edition has it with/without the object.

There are now a very limited amount of choices to explain this.

Zero which are favorable to anti-alterationists.

Nellie.png

 

 

 

 

Chris D.,

The rose you point to is one that I see to Nellies side.  I see her head projecting towards the driver's side of the vehicle as she covers John with her body.  But, that's hard to see.  It may be the other way around.  Whichever, the rose is not part of her costume.

"Zero which are favorable to anti-alterationists."  Love that phrase.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

How did they know that the vehicle had to be added in Altgens and Zapruder?

No vehicle was "added" to the Altgens 6 photo, which, as has been pointed out to you umpteen times, was sent out over the Associated Press wire within 30 minutes of the assassination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Regardless of what it is ???, don't lose sight of the most important aspect.

The object in that frame, does not appear in any other publication, either film or magazine besides the original Life magazine published in Dec/1963.

This includes the SS/FBI copies, Groden copies,Oliver Stone(JFKfilm), MPI(supposedly the "Out of Camera" original), 35mm "Lost Bullet" and 3rd generation 6K "A Coup In Camelot" and many more.

Yet, that Life edition has it with/without the object.

There are now a very limited amount of choices to explain this.

Zero which are favorable to anti-alterationists.

Nellie.png

 

 

 

 

While I disagreed with you about the distortions in the photo like the curb angle and image jump through the side window I still consider the disappearing 'flower' to be of interest. The other distortions seem to be consistent with the page of the magazine not being flat when photographed. The uneven top of the un cropped image supports that notion.
     I don't think it is the button or whatever on Nellie's lapel as it should not be visible from Z's position. I favor the collar theory at the moment.
 It is very strange that the flower/collar disappears when the saturation of other reddish things like the back of her dress are so intense. In the flower image the saturation is much less but the flower is clear. The only thing that supports a natural explanation is that in the non  flower image Jackie's right arm and the front of her dress have a dark cast but in the flower image they are much brighter in comparison. If we assume a similar effect over the flower image it would be darker and maybe the effect is greater and it disappears. Maybe that is a stretch but the possibility that the printing of other copies had a localized error that didn't allow the reds and yellows to be reproduced at that location is something I can't fully rule out. The question for me would be what  version of the Z film can we see that is the closest to the camera original and does not have the flower.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 8:10 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Yet, the MPI version is touted as the original Zapruder film. They also say/state that specifically.

MPI.png 

It wasn't on the 3rd generation National Archives edition scanned at 6K either.

 

Why?

Because none of these are original or close enough to the original.

I would encourage you to watch the MPI special below.

As stated in the program with the reproduction process covered in depth, there is absolutely no way the process would not have picked up the object, even though they claim the enlarged transparencies are created from the original Z "out of camera" film.

MPI2780e2b229d37c99.png 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Regardless of what it is ???, don't lose sight of the most important aspect.

The object in that frame, does not appear in any other publication, either film or magazine besides the original Life magazine published in Dec/1963.

This includes the SS/FBI copies, Groden copies,Oliver Stone(JFKfilm), MPI(supposedly the "Out of Camera" original), 35mm "Lost Bullet" and 3rd generation 6K "A Coup In Camelot" and many more.

Yet, that Life edition has it with/without the object.

There are now a very limited amount of choices to explain this.

Zero which are favorable to anti-alterationists.

 

 

 

 

 

My apologies to all.

I am wrong about the object in Life Magazine.

It is a printing hickey.

Looks like it was on the black plate/impression cylinder and eventually removed.

There was a choice for anti-alterationists and in this instance it is the correct explanation.

Here's a high-res enlargement of the images directly from both magazine versions if interested, the rosette CYMK pattern makes it readily apparent what the actual problem was.

Sorry about that.

Back to frame excisions.

LIFE.gif

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

My apologies to all.

I am wrong about the object in Life Magazine.

It is a printing hickey.

Looks like it was on the black plate/impression cylinder and eventually removed.

There was a choice for anti-alterationists and in this instance it is the correct explanation.

Here's a high-res enlargement of the images directly from both magazine versions if interested, the rosette CYMK pattern makes it readily apparent what the actual problem was.

Sorry about that.

Back to frame excisions.

LIFE.gif

 

 

 

 

Good observation! I see the direction of the cross hatching pattern does not match everything around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...