The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No one needed to fake anything.

 

Maybe not. But it doesn't follow that therefore it wasn't faked. If there is strong evidence it was faked, then it was probably faked. For whatever reason.

I've noticed that un-alterationists like to use these three similar arguments:

1. If something didn't need to be done, then it wasn't done.
2. If something happening isn't needed to prove something, then it didn't happen.
3. If something is hard to believe, then it didn't happen.

Truth is, if there is strong evidence that something happened, then it probably did happen. For whatever reason.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No one needed to fake anything.

Remember, we have the beauty of hind sight, decades of analysis from many angles, even though fundamental data is potentially still withheld or hidden. In real time the perpetrators/planners could not have predicted every challenge and route of investigation that has ensued. It would have been logical for them to cover as many bases as possible, second guessing how things may play out. 
 

Ultimately, if there are hundreds of theories that we can’t agree on, it has the same impact as one good cover up. As the whole thing becomes such a mess nobody feels certain of anything. The truth gets lost in a sea of irrelevance. 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/14/2022 at 4:14 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I can't believe that anyone still takes seriously the handful of people who claim to have seen 'the other Zapruder film' (I may be mistaken, but I think Pamela Brown can be added to Gil's list).

 

Yes, Pamela Brown said that she saw the Z film long before Geraldo released it to the public. In the 1960s. Do you think she is wrong?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/14/2022 at 3:55 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The evidence for alteration of the Zapruder film is much weaker than he thinks it is.

 

There is strong evidence that the Zapruder film has been significantly altered. And it's easy to prove so.

 

 

This is frame Z310.

Notice how everything in it is has about the same level of focus... a focus that is pretty good but not perfect. But the really notable thing is that Mr. Zapruder apparently used a VERY fast film. The exposure time for each frame is so short that there is no perceptible motion blur. Had a slower film been used, then motion blur would be seen on either the limo's passengers or the people standing on the ground, depending up which Zapruder was following with his camera.

 

 

This is the very next frame, Z311.

Notice how the focus is unchanged on the limo passengers. However there is now significant blur on all the stationary subjects in the background. And in fact, the woman in red and the one next to her (I forget their names) appear to have a bit of double exposure in their images.

I don't believe there is any natural explanation for this. If there isn't, it proves that the film has been altered, and significantly so. Not just the removal of frames.

I will take Jeremy Bojczuk more seriously on this topic if he can explain how the change in blur could have occurred naturally.

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Sandy Larsen
To correct spelling.

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Remember, we have the beauty of hind sight, decades of analysis from many angles, even though fundamental data is potentially still withheld or hidden. In real time the perpetrators/planners could not have predicted every challenge and route of investigation that has ensued. It would have been logical for them to cover as many bases as possible, second guessing how things may play out. 
 

Ultimately, if there are hundreds of theories that we can’t agree on, it has the same impact as one good cover up. As the whole thing becomes such a mess nobody feels certain of anything. The truth gets lost in a sea of irrelevance. 

Chris says a lot here.  But, I don't think he goes far enough.  Maybe, that's due to politeness.  

I would like to add that the "Lone Nutters" are out of touch with reality.  The concepts in their minds do not match the events of Dealey Plaza.  To me, that is wishful thinking on their part.  If they are not irrational, then there must be some agenda they are adhering to which calls for them to disregard facts put forth by others.  They say things like we believe 1 or two experts instead of 59 Palamara witnesses or 100+ Butler witnesses.  Would a court do that?  They list obviously altered films and photos as true blue.  They say prove that they have been altered.  Well, you can't to their satisfaction.  You will never be able to do that.

One said there are no missing frames in the Zapruder film using the most illogical argument.  One expert says it is authentic so everybody else with good reasons are simply wrong.  Flat out wrong. 

To that argument, I say listen to what Zapruder said.  He said he did not turn his camera off and filmed the entire event on Elm Street.  I guess Saint Zapruder lied here when he doesn't lie elsewhere.  I bring this up due to the Zapruder Gap that most people avoid talking about.  About 275 to 384 frames are missing there.  By various estimates somewhere between 15 to 21 seconds are missing.

As far as content imagery goes, the film is loaded with goofy things and poorly done alterations.  I'll re-post Z frame 157 again to just re-emphasize the point.  Take an honest look at the areas that have a red x.

OBTW, Z frame 157 is part of the reason I offered the alteration method based on the Elsie Dorman film.  Here we see this method in action concerning the interior of the p. limo.

We see a number of things once this scene is magnified.

Can you see JFK's head?  You can't due to the film splice.  Splicing film together means something is missing.  Frames.  I helped my brother who ran the projection booth at our local theater.  He let me into the movies free to help him quickly splice film when they broke.  The torn or broken frames had to be cut away so the frames could be spliced together.  There was a special machine to do that with.  Sometimes more than two frames were involved.  That happened quite often since the film sent to our local theater had been shown many times in other theaters. 

How do you like that huge, monstrous sized SS vehicle following the p. limo?  Tell me about all the technical film crap that account for that.  I will surely believe you.

Back to the film splice.  You can't see Kennedy's head, but you can see his hands reaching to his throat after being shot before he reaches the Stemmons Sign.  This is an easily arguable point.  It is what I see.  And, in tune with witness statements. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Notice how the focus is unchanged on the limo passengers. However there is now significant blur on all the stationary subjects in the background. And in fact, the woman in red and the one next to her (I forget their names) appear to have a bit of double exposure in there images.

Sandy,

I get beat up every time I mention Mary Moorman and Jean Hill not being there at all.  That is way beyond what other folks, about as close to 100% as you can get, believe.  Move Jean and Mary just a few inches and hell breaks loose.  The same goes for pointing out the camera imperfections that suggest they were editorially placed there.  

I think a lot of people think I make this stuff up.  Not at all.  It is based upon Arlen Specter's WC exhibit Hill No. 5.  OBTW, this exhibit was placed under Top Secret classification for years.  Why?  Well, Jean Hill said she and Mary were across the street from the SW end of the TSBD.  You can't have that known when the Z film says they were down in front of the Grassy Knoll.  I remember seeing photos of folks down by the Grassy Knoll measuring the area and angles where Mary and Jean were standing trying to determine whether Mary was in the street or on the grass.  That occasioned a lot of argument at the time.  I go way beyond that. 

I am surely going to get in trouble for this.  If you want to see Mary Moorman in the street then go back and watch the Z film around Z frame 133 to 157.  One of the women in black, which I consider Mary and Jean, goes out into the street.  There is more Mary and Jean testimony action there then in the Z film where they appear to be as mobile as the Mannikin Row folks.

  

  

Edited February 15, 2022 by John Butler

[Guest]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Chris says a lot here.  But, I don't think he goes far enough.  Maybe, that's due to politeness.  

I would like to add that the "Lone Nutters" are out of touch with reality.  The concepts in their minds do not match the events of Dealey Plaza.  To me, that is wishful thinking on their part.  If they are not irrational, then there must be some agenda they are adhering to which calls for them to disregard facts put forth by others.  They say things like we believe 1 or two experts instead of 59 Palamara witnesses or 100+ Butler witnesses.  Would a court do that?  They list obviously altered films and photos as true blue.  They say prove that they have been altered.  Well, you can't to their satisfaction.  You will never be able to do that.

One said there are no missing frames in the Zapruder film using the most illogical argument.  One expert says it is authentic so everybody else with good reasons are simply wrong.  Flat out wrong. 

To that argument, I say listen to what Zapruder said.  He said he did not turn his camera off and filmed the entire event on Elm Street.  I guess Saint Zapruder lied here when he doesn't lie elsewhere.  I bring this up due to the Zapruder Gap that most people avoid talking about.  About 275 to 384 frames are missing there.  By various estimates somewhere between 15 to 21 seconds are missing.

As far as content imagery goes, the film is loaded with goofy things and poorly done alterations.  I'll re-post Z frame 157 again to just re-emphasize the point.  Take an honest look at the areas that have a red x.

OBTW, Z frame 157 is part of the reason I offered the alteration method based on the Elsie Dorman film.  Here we see this method in action concerning the interior of the p. limo.

We see a number of things once this scene is magnified.

Can you see JFK's head?  You can't due to the film splice.  Splicing film together means something is missing.  Frames.  I helped my brother who ran the projection booth at our local theater.  He let me into the movies free to help him quickly splice film when they broke.  The torn or broken frames had to be cut away so the frames could be spliced together.  There was a special machine to do that with.  Sometimes more than two frames were involved.  That happened quite often since the film sent to our local theater had been shown many times in other theaters. 

How do you like that huge, monstrous sized SS vehicle following the p. limo?  Tell me about all the technical film crap that account for that.  I will surely believe you.

Back to the film splice.  You can't see Kennedy's head, but you can see his hands reaching to his throat after being shot before he reaches the Stemmons Sign.  This is an easily arguable point.  It is what I see.  And, in tune with witness statements. 

What amazes me is the picking and choosing of witnesses, ie which are credible and which are not. Often it's purely driven by "confirmation bias", as opposed to any logical process. People will make anything fit their narrative. 

When it comes to the "lone nut" guys, and their reluctance to see what is staring them in the face; there is also a relatively new phenomena that is not fully understood by the masses yet, it's called "profilicity." Since the invention of social media, which includes forums like this one, people have begun to see these platforms as extension of themselves. They see what they post as attached to them, and whenever something they have posted is questioned, attacked or critiqued, they choose to defend it as if it's part of them, or an attack on their person. In the past, a bloke disagreeing with you at the pub would have had very little impact on your psyche but, with social media where your social status is tracked and polarised, you potentially have a whole crowd watching your every move, which can be anything from tens to millions. This heightens the importance to the average person. Everything you say is recorded, sometimes forever more. 

In simple terms, those who have written posts, essays, or even books, and the content hasn't aged well, instead of doing the rational thing and just saying "I got it wrong", they just dig even deeper. It's rooted in ego as opposed to common sense or intelligence. IMHO opinion it's more of a weakness of character or personality disorder than anything else. If we think logically; we all get many things wrong throughout our lives, we quite often learn by making mistakes. Each decade we should in theory be getting wiser if we have an inclination to develop. What's the big deal in being wrong? It's not a big deal. Unless of course you place so much importance on your online network and digital persona, that you feel it's your reputation and status is ebbing away. 

This argument could be made about so many points of contention on the forum. We are all human, we all make errors, it's just some are more rounded people than others. 

PS Of course; there are also people profiting from a false narrative too. It's in their interests to promote a mistruth. For some it's been very lucrative. 
 

[John Butler]

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

What amazes me is the picking and choosing of witnesses, ie which are credible and which are not. Often it's purely driven by "confirmation bias", as opposed to any logical process. People will make anything fit their narrative. 

When it comes to the "lone nut" guys, and their reluctance to see what is staring them in the face; there is also a relatively new phenomena that is not fully understood by the masses yet, it's called "profilicity." Since the invention of social media, which includes forums like this one, people have begun to see these platforms as extension of themselves. They see what they post as attached to them, and whenever something they have posted is questioned, attacked or critiqued, they choose to defend it as if it's part of them, or an attack on their person. In the past, a bloke disagreeing with you at the pub would have had very little impact on your psyche but, with social media where your social status is tracked and polarised, you potentially have a whole crowd watching your every move, which can be anything from tens to millions. This heightens the importance to the average person. Everything you say is recorded, sometimes forever more. 

In simple terms, those who have written posts, essays, or even books, and the content hasn't aged well, instead of doing the rational thing and just saying "I got it wrong", they just dig even deeper. It's rooted in ego as opposed to common sense or intelligence. IMHO opinion it's more of a weakness of character or personality disorder than anything else. If we think logically; we all get many things wrong throughout our lives, we quite often learn by making mistakes. Each decade we should in theory be getting wiser if we have an inclination to develop. What's the big deal in being wrong? It's not a big deal. Unless of course you place so much importance on your online network and digital persona, that you feel it's your reputation and status is ebbing away. 

This argument could be made about so many points of contention on the forum. We are all human, we all make errors, it's just some are more rounded people than others. 

PS Of course; there are also people profiting from a false narrative too. It's in their interests to promote a mistruth. For some it's been very lucrative. 
 

Very well said.  As for my many errors, I'll give them up in a heartbeat if I think I was wrong.  I have 3 fine fellows, David Josephs, Chris Davidson, and Chris Bristow, keeping track of what I do and often correct my misconceptions.  I give them credit for that.  The only thing I am interested in is the truth.  Back in the day, I didn't really like Kennedy.  Johnson was my favorite.  Well, time has corrected that foolishness.  

I usually get bored with a field of study after a short period of time.   I would guess my stupidity involving Kennedy/Johnson keeps me here in this area longer than I would normally be.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Very well said.  As for my many errors, I'll give them up in a heartbeat if I think I was wrong.  I have 3 fine fellows, David Josephs, Chris Davidson, and Chris Bristow, keeping track of what I do and often correct my misconceptions.  I give them credit for that.  The only thing I am interested in is the truth.  Back in the day, I didn't really like Kennedy.  Johnson was my favorite.  Well, time has corrected that foolishness.  

I usually get bored with a field of study after a short period of time.   I would guess my stupidity involving Kennedy/Johnson keeps me here in this area longer than I would normally be.

The JFK quote goes something like this;

"The more our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds." 

 

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

They say things like we believe 1 or two experts instead of 59 Palamara witnesses or 100+ Butler witnesses.  Would a court do that?  They list obviously altered films and photos as true blue.  They say prove that they have been altered.  Well, you can't to their satisfaction.  You will never be able to do that.

One said there are no missing frames in the Zapruder film using the most illogical argument.  One expert says it is authentic so everybody else with good reasons are simply wrong.  Flat out wrong. 

You make a good point.  In a normal murder case,  10, 50 or 100 witnesses testifying to the same thing would convince any jury. One or two could be wrong, but 10 ? 50 ? 100 ? Not bloody likely. 

But in this case, the more witnesses you have, it seems the less credible they are. It's bizarre.

And the naysayers would like us to believe that it's wasn't possible to edit the film and then copy it back into 8mm format, hiding the splices.

I don't know if it was done or not, I wasn't there. But if the SS allowed JFK to be killed and the film was in their possession after the fact, there is prima facia motive for forgery. 

[Michael Crane]

Good afternoon folks.I have not posted here in a long time.

What ever happened to Doug Horne's Hollywood 7 findings?

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

You make a good point.  In a normal murder case,  10, 50 or 100 witnesses testifying to the same thing would convince any jury. One or two could be wrong, but 10 ? 50 ? 100 ? Not bloody likely. 

But in this case, the more witnesses you have, it seems the less credible they are. It's bizarre.

And the naysayers would like us to believe that it's wasn't possible to edit the film and then copy it back into 8mm format, hiding the splices.

I don't know if it was done or not, I wasn't there. But if the SS allowed JFK to be killed and the film was in their possession after the fact, there is prima facia motive for forgery. 

 I tried to make this point earlier. There are not a hundred limo stop witnesses. I went through them one by one on this forum a decade or so ago and showed that the vast majority of supposed "limo stop" witnesses said either that the limo slowed or that the motorcade stopped, which no one disagrees with. Their statements were then cherry-picked to make it look like they were all saying the "limo stopped." As stated, I subsequently found that Anthony Marsh had done the same thing on another forum years before. 

It's much like the "back of the head" witnesses who are far from uniform in their recollections. People want to believe that they are saying the same thing so they take snippets from their statements or video-taped interviews and make it seem like they are all saying the same thing, when they are not. 

This tendency towards cherry-picking info is so prevalent and so destructive, IMO, that some have even done this when it comes to reporting on research on eyewitness credibility. One writer read a book on eyewitness testimony and misrepresented the results of a study to make it seem like a large number of witnesses could not be wrong. He was then quoted on this by a number of other writers. But when I decided to read the book for myself I found he'd misrepresented the study. Well, this led me to contact two prominent cognitive psychologists and ask them if so many people could be wrong. And they both said yep. 

Of course, in this instance--the supposed limo stop--a large number do not need to be wrong because a large number never said it to begin with.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Good afternoon folks.I have not posted here in a long time.

What ever happened to Doug Horne's Hollywood 7 findings?

I started to write about that earlier but decided not to open up that can of worms. It's amazing how often when someone swears they have a breakthrough that it never gets shared with the rest of us. It's like the Darnell film showing "Prayer Man" that supposedly proves he was Oswald that has never been released. That's been over three years now. 

There are good reasons to be skeptical because the vast majority of CT claims turn out to be junk. But that doesn't bother me as much as the LN claims we know to be junk that will not die because the CT community is so focused on junk. 

[Michael Crane]

Thanks Pat.The last that I can remember was them talking about the black blobs in back of JFK's head,but nothing after that.

[David Andrews]

On 2/13/2022 at 9:35 AM, Sean Coleman said:

Why would the Zfilm be altered if it was never intended to be publicly viewed? It was in hibernation for 12 years before it’s leak and subsequent appearance c/o Geraldo Rivera 1975-plenty of time to either alter it proficiently with advanced technology or just “lose it” 

Not casting aspersions, just asking…

Like I mentioned above:

[N]o one could have been certain as to who in government at any date after the JFKA would see the composite, and what their disposition toward the contents might be.  There would be a difference between the viewers desired and the viewers who could conceivably see the composite.  So decisions made as to what could be seen in the composite had to be across-the-board convincing of the cover story, at least within the limits of argument.