The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

How do you know that the film in the Archives is the original film? ... (As I said, I don't know much on the history of the film.) 

I've explained this at least twice, earlier in this thread.

Quote

There are some who believe the limo slowed down substantially, but didn't stop.

Indeed there are. I explained this earlier too. Here, again, is a link to a page that looks at the witness evidence in detail:

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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

I guess you weren't invited to the party. Several years back a 'good quality" copy of the Darnell film was located and viewed by some prominent researchers. I was guaranteed by one of them that this was gonna come out and that it would change everything, as it was 99.99% obvious to him from viewing this film that Prayer Man was Oswald. I told him I'd believe it when I saw it for myself. I'm still waiting.

Yes, my invitation must have got lost in the post! I genuinely wasn't aware that a good-quality version of either the Darnell or Wiegman film had been made available.

If it's true that a good-quality copy does exist and shows that the man in the doorway isn't Oswald, that'll be one promising avenue closed off, unfortunately.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Gil Jesus writes:

Quote

Please look at frames 257 thru 332. This whole sequence involves an anomaly at the bottom of the frames. Grass on the side of the limo ? Do I see people's legs also around Z 306 ?

That's a weird anomaly all right! I'm not sure how that particular anomaly proves that frames have been removed, but it certainly doesn't seem to have an obvious, innocent explanation.

Or does it? Let's see if we can find one.

The first thing we can do is look at other, non-Zapruder-film, examples of 8mm film frames. If we do that, we'll notice that in Gil's edition of the film, the proportions of the frames are incorrect. The top quarter or so of each frame has been cut out.

The second thing we can do is compare Gil's edition to some of the other editions of the Zapruder film that are floating around. If we do that, we'll notice that Gil's edition appears to have been stabilised. In other words, parts of the frames have been cut off in order to show JFK's head in the same area of the image in each of the frames just before and just after the head shot.

If you watch an unedited, full-frame version of the film, you'll see that Zapruder's hand-held camerawork was a bit wonky. Whoever prepared that stabilised version presumably did so to make the head shot's effects easier to observe.

Here's a screenshot of Gil's frame 306:

Compare that edit to the Costella edit here, which shows the full frame (albeit with over-saturated colours):

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z306.jpg

The Costella edit conceals, by blacking out, the frames immediately above and below the one selected. As with the stabilised version that Gil uses, this edition was created for a particular purpose. Both purposes are perfectly legitimate.

If you look at the Costella version, you'll notice two things:

• There is no anomalous area at the bottom of the image. There's no grass, and no legs.
• At the top of the image, in the area that has been cut out of Gil's stabilised version, you'll see three pairs of legs against a grassy background.

Those three pairs of legs and that grassy background also appear at the top of the frames either side of frame 306:

• https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z305.jpg
• https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z307.jpg

If you check the horizontal alignment of the legs in frames 305 and 307, you should find that one or both of them matches the horizontal alignment of the legs in Gil's version.

There's a reason for all of that, and it isn't because the film was spliced.

It's because on the actual roll of film, the top of one frame appears almost immediately below the bottom of another. They are separated by a narrow black horizontal strip, exactly like the "wandering black line" that Gil finds suspicious in his version.

It isn't an anomaly, and it isn't anything sinister. It's there simply because whoever edited Gil's version included a small section of the frame immediately below frame 306. The taller, white horizontal strip below the "wandering black line" was clearly added to fill the available rectangular space, since Zapruder's wonky hand-held camerawork had allowed JFK's head to wander down toward the bottom of the frame.

Look again at one of the Costella frames. Concentrate on the sprocket hole area to the left of the main image. You'll see that in the sprocket hole area Costella has not blacked out the images above and below the frame in question. At around the middle of each sprocket hole, you can see the narrow black horizontal line that separates each pair of adjacent frames. That's the suspicious "wandering black line" that appears just above the suspicious legs and their suspicious grassy background in Gil's version.

It isn't an anomaly. It isn't evidence of tampering, or splicing, or interference by creatures from the Planet Tharg.

The 'anomaly' is actually the top-most part of the frame immediately below frame 306. There's nothing sinister about it at all.

I don't want to sound rude, but this sort of anomaly-spotting is just amateurish. When outsiders see this, they are liable to conclude that Warren Commission critics are just like moon-landings deniers and flat-earthers, because those people rely on the same research method:

• spotting apparent anomalies in the evidence,
• failing to look for plausible, everyday explanations,
• and jumping to unwarranted conclusions that happen to reflect their unrealistic view of the world in general.

Not only is it amateurish, but people have been doing it for over two decades, not learning from others' mistakes. Someone spots an anomaly, and jumps to a conclusion. Look at that! The film has been altered! There's no other explanation! And then someone else explains the anomaly, and the anomaly-spotter ends up looking foolish.

Josiah Thompson described this tiresome nonsense several years ago as 'anomaly of the week':

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html

I'm sure that spotting anomalies in the Zapruder film is a fine and entertaining hobby, but I have some advice for anyone who is tempted to do this. Please remember that it's always a good idea to do a little research before jumping to far-fetched conclusions, just in case your conclusion isn't quite as solid as it first appears.

Anyone who is tempted to question the authenticity of the Zapruder film could make a start by reading David Wrone's book, The Zapruder Film: Reframiing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003). Wrone doesn't get everything right (he thinks Billy Lovelady in Altgens 6 is Oswald, for example), but his book includes a lot of useful information and data, such as full-frame reproductions of many frames of the film, that may prevent public embarrassment.

P.S. Incidentally, one plausible case of photo manipulation has recently been discovered. Although it's a still photograph, not a home movie, and it wasn't taken in Dealey Plaza, it nevertheless provides a useful example of possible photo fakery to do with the JFK assassination:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2517-looks-like-more-photo-manipulation-from-h-l-land

Edited February 17, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited February 18, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/16/2022 at 2:39 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jeremy quoted some of what I said:

Quote

motion blur ... significant blur ... double exposure ... I don't believe there is any natural explanation for this.

And then Jeremy said:

On 2/16/2022 at 2:39 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen: the argument from ignorance, the ever-present accompaniment to claims of fakery. I can't explain this or that anomaly, so I'm going to have a blind guess and invent the most implausible explanation I can think of.

 

The appearance of selective blurring in one frame but not the adjacent one defies the laws of physics and logical reasoning. That Jeremy wants to believe something that is impossible and illogical, that is his choice. He chooses to ignore that which doesn't fit into his ideology.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

How do you know that the film in the Archives is the original film? ... (As I said, I don't know much on the history of the film.) 

Jeremy replied:

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I've explained this at least twice, earlier in this thread

 

Okay, I found it. You said that you know the film in the Archives is the original film because Roland Zavada and Prof Raymond Fielding looked at it and said it didn't have the tell-tale signs of Kodachrome being copied to Kodachrome, such as increased contrast, etc.

I have the choice of either believing what those guys said, or believing the hard evidence, which is Zapruder film itself showing the physics-defying sporadic selective blur.

Naturally I choose to believe the hard evidence. Zavada and Fielding are wrong.

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Gil Jesus writes:

That's a weird anomaly all right! I'm not sure how that particular anomaly proves that frames have been removed, but it certainly doesn't seem to have an obvious, innocent explanation.

Or does it? Let's see if we can find one.

The first thing we can do is look at other, non-Zapruder-film, examples of 8mm film frames. If we do that, we'll notice that in Gil's edition of the film, the proportions of the frames are incorrect. The top quarter or so of each frame has been cut out.

The second thing we can do is compare Gil's edition to some of the other editions of the Zapruder film that are floating around. If we do that, we'll notice that Gil's edition appears to have been stabilised. In other words, parts of the frames have been cut off in order to show JFK's head in the same area of the image in each of the frames just before and just after the head shot.

If you watch an unedited, full-frame version of the film, you'll see that Zapruder's hand-held camerawork was a bit wonky. Whoever prepared that stabilised version presumably did so to make the head shot's effects easier to observe.

Here's a screenshot of Gil's frame 306:

Compare that edit to the Costella edit here, which shows the full frame (albeit with over-saturated colours):

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z306.jpg

The Costella edit conceals, by blacking out, the frames immediately above and below the one selected. As with the stabilised version that Gil uses, this edition was created for a particular purpose. Both purposes are perfectly legitimate.

If you look at the Costella version, you'll notice two things:

• There is no anomalous area at the bottom of the image. There's no grass, and no legs.
• At the top of the image, in the area that has been cut out of Gil's stabilised version, you'll see three pairs of legs against a grassy background.

Those three pairs of legs and that grassy background also appear at the top of the frames either side of frame 306:

• https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z305.jpg
• https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z307.jpg

If you check the horizontal alignment of the legs in frames 305 and 307, you should find that one or both of them matches the horizontal alignment of the legs in Gil's version.

There's a reason for all of that, and it isn't because the film was spliced.

It's because on the actual roll of film, the top of one frame appears almost immediately below the bottom of another. They are separated by a narrow black horizontal strip, exactly like the "wandering black line" that Gil finds suspicious in his version.

It isn't an anomaly, and it isn't anything sinister. It's there simply because whoever edited Gil's version included a small section of the frame immediately below frame 306. The taller, white horizontal strip below the "wandering black line" was clearly added to fill the available rectangular space, since Zapruder's wonky hand-held camerawork had allowed JFK's head to wander down toward the bottom of the frame.

Look again at one of the Costella frames. Concentrate on the sprocket hole area to the left of the main image. You'll see that in the sprocket hole area Costella has not blacked out the images above and below the frame in question. At around the middle of each sprocket hole, you can see the narrow black horizontal line that separates each pair of adjacent frames. That's the suspicious "wandering black line" that appears just above the suspicious legs and their suspicious grassy background in Gil's version.

It isn't an anomaly. It isn't evidence of tampering, or splicing, or interference by creatures from the Planet Tharg.

The 'anomaly' is actually the top-most part of the frame immediately below frame 306. There's nothing sinister about it at all.

I don't want to sound rude, but this sort of anomaly-spotting is just amateurish. When outsiders see this, they are liable to conclude that Warren Commission critics are just like moon-landings deniers and flat-earthers, because those people rely on the same research method:

• spotting apparent anomalies in the evidence,
• failing to look for plausible, everyday explanations,
• and jumping to unwarranted conclusions that happen to reflect their unrealistic view of the world in general.

Not only is it amateurish, but people have been doing it for over two decades, not learning from others' mistakes. Someone spots an anomaly, and jumps to a conclusion. Look at that! The film has been altered! There's no other explanation! And then someone else explains the anomaly, and the anomaly-spotter ends up looking foolish.

Josiah Thompson described this tiresome nonsense several years ago as 'anomaly of the week':

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html

I'm sure that spotting anomalies in the Zapruder film is a fine and entertaining hobby, but I have some advice for anyone who is tempted to do this. Please remember that it's always a good idea to do a little research before jumping to far-fetched conclusions, just in case your conclusion isn't quite as solid as it first appears.

Anyone who is tempted to question the authenticity of the Zapruder film could make a start by reading David Wrone's book, The Zapruder Film: Reframiing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003). Wrone doesn't get everything right (he thinks Billy Lovelady in Altgens 6 is Oswald, for example), but his book includes a lot of useful information and data, such as full-frame reproductions of many frames of the film, that may prevent public embarrassment.

P.S. Incidentally, one plausible case of photo manipulation has recently been discovered. Although it's a still photograph, not a home movie, and it wasn't taken in Dealey Plaza, it nevertheless provides a useful example of possible photo fakery to do with the JFK assassination:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2517-looks-like-more-photo-manipulation-from-h-l-land

In one of the crazier threads on this Forum, King alterationist James Fetzer attacked The Godfather of alterationists Jack White for his manipulation of photos in Harvey and Lee. Amazingly, moreover, the proof of Jack's manipulation was being provided by Judyth Baker. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

P.S. Perhaps the main reason I've grown so cynical about the cries of the evidence being fake is that I've spent hundreds of hours dealing with Fetzer et al on this forum, and have spent many more hours reading the works of Livingstone and Groden et al. And these guys just aren't credible. At one point, when confronted with the fact the famous Altgens photo was published within a few hours of the assassination, Fetzer cooked up that there was a CIA trailer in the parking lot west of the depository, to which all photos were taken and altered within minutes of the shooting. There was zero evidence for this, mind you, but it must have been there else how could the Altgens photo have been altered so quickly?

Necessity is the mother of invention, and the alterationists have some serious mommy issues. Or something like that...

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jeremy replied:

 

Okay, I found it. You said that you know the film in the Archives is the original film because Roland Zavada and Prof Raymond Fielding looked at it and said it didn't have the tell-tale signs of Kodachrome being copied to Kodachrome, such as increased contrast, etc.

I have the choice of either believing what those guys said, or believing the hard evidence, which is Zapruder film itself showing the physics-defying sporadic selective blur.

Naturally I choose to believe the hard evidence. Zavada and Fielding are wrong.

 

Like I said, Sandy, if you ask anyone familiar with 8mm film, anomalies are expected, and not proof of alteration. These are tiny images created in a split second, of a moving object, by a hand-held camera. The level of clarity and consistency you seem to think should be expected just wasn't possible at that time. Or even today. 

[John Butler]

On 2/15/2022 at 6:14 PM, Pat Speer said:

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. 

Gil,

Pat said that above, but we know the FBI changed testimony, or in other cases actively coerced and intimidated witnesses to say what they wanted them to say about the events in Dealey Plaza.  When I read all of the witness statements I could find about what happened in Dealey Plaza there were 100+ who said certain similar things.  And, then there was about as many who said something similar, but one, two or three words would change the meaning of what was being said.  Instead of "passed in front of" you would find things like "just pass the TSBD" or "after passing the TSBD".  There were too many of these, in my opinion, to be natural.    

[John Butler]

Z frame 306 compared to Costella frame.

Plus,

The top of z frame 307:

Pat's explanation about this frame makes sense.  At least as far as the Z frame 306 goes.  

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

In one of the crazier threads on this Forum, King alterationist James Fetzer attacked The Godfather of alterationists Jack White for his manipulation of photos in Harvey and Lee. Amazingly, moreover, the proof of Jack's manipulation was being provided by Judyth Baker. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

I have no problem with altering a photo to get a clearer image through sharpening, lighting contrast, magnification, or some other process that will enhance what is being seen.  As long as the original is kept for comparison and the alteration is mentioned.  I cropped z frame 307 to show clearly what Pat was talking about.  I still have the original.  The cropped photo is clearly labelled to show the area under discussion.

I do not have expertise or knowledge in film manipulation.  I have just tried to follow David Healey's comments on how films are altered with traveling mattes.  I suggested a way to alter the Z film with just information taken from the inside of the p limo's passenger cabin.  What we see in Z frame 306 is another way to do that.  Simply use the top of the p limo and the information contained there.  You can take this p limo scene from another film and with the use of mattes transfer it into the film you are altering.  This image could have come from another place.  Z frame 157 says something different.  Take an honest look at what is in that frame.  There are more anomalies there and not just one.  

By 1963 the film alterationists had become really skilled with altering images.  Pull up a copy of the movie Jason and the Argonauts and watch the sowing of the dragon seeds.  Great stuff for kids.  Really great animation for its day.

What do we see in 306?  We see Kennedy with his head bowed, obviously shot.  The question here is how many times has been been shot?  We see his "Hollywood Patch" the blackened area covering the occipital/parietal wound.  The black patch says the 313-317 z frames shot are simply nonsense.  It is edited nonsense to deceive you into believing the shooting of President Kennedy occurred down by the Grassy Knoll so that Lee H. Oswald could be set up as the Patsy.  The black patch can be seen in early frames.  

My best guess is that Kennedy was shot on Houston Street just prior to the Houston and Elm intersection or possibly after the turn in front of the TSBD.  This part of the Z film has been excised leaving the Zapruder Gap.  There are 8 or so films that go haywire and become so distorted you can not see what happened in front of the Court Records Building.  All but the Hughes film, which is too distant to really see anything of import.  Elsie Dorman said she quit filming when she heard shooting coming from the Court Records Building.  Remember, she has been labelled the worst photographer ever.  If her film had not been heavily distorted and altered it would be the film of the assassination. 

Chis Davidson has shown us that there was another camera man directly behind Abe Z on the wall behind.  I can account for 14 extra camera people in Dealey Plaza on Houston and Elm that we don't know their names or have seen what they filmed.  They are in the extant media of those areas.  At the ARRB, there was a fellow that mentioned a photographic unit at Fort Hood was sent to Dealey Plaza, possibly as many as 50 people, were filming in Dealey Plaza.

Jack White is gone so it is easy to use him as a target with things like "moon lander Jack' or what Pat said earlier.  Whenever I see such nonsensical ad hominem attacks, the attackers lose all credibility with me.  They have moved over into the land of propaganda and fiction.   

 

  

Edited February 17, 2022 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Like I said, Sandy, if you ask anyone familiar with 8mm film, anomalies are expected, and not proof of alteration. These are tiny images created in a split second, of a moving object, by a hand-held camera. The level of clarity and consistency you seem to think should be expected just wasn't possible at that time. Or even today. 

 

Did you even look at my proof Pat?

There is no such thing as natural sporadic-selective-blur. Yet we can see it in the extant Zapruder film. Therefore the Zapruder film is not natural.

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Like I said, Sandy, if you ask anyone familiar with 8mm film, anomalies are expected, and not proof of alteration. These are tiny images created in a split second, of a moving object, by a hand-held camera. The level of clarity and consistency you seem to think should be expected just wasn't possible at that time. Or even today. 

A similar kind of thing happened with the Dead Sea Scrolls. After their first discovery or being brought to light to the world in the late 1940s, there was a brief original period of legitimate scholarly debate over whether they were medieval or modern. The leading exponent of the medieval argument was Solomon Zeitlin, who was one of the leading Jewish studies scholars in the world. The wholesale medieval-dating question was then answered in favor of authenticity, when radiocarbon datings were done, as well as a huge amount of additional knowledge concerning palaeographical dating and the archaeological find circumstances and associations. It happened that Zeitlin would not accept that despite massive evidence, and continued to the end of his life maintaining the medieval-dating argument long after the answer was in (on the dating) to the satisfaction of 99.9% of other scholars. Today this is regarded as a curiosity in the history of scholarship. Nobody seriously argues Zeitlin's position today. Zeitlin's other scholarly work stands. Sort of analogous to Linus Pauling and vitamin C, or in physics Roger Penrose, widely acclaimed by peers as one of the great astrophysicists but few if any peers like his cosmological theory of a heat death of the universe being followed by a Big Bang like the one that started ours (not being sufficiently educated in physics to understand the reasons his peers reject it, I actually like Penrose's theory myself!). 

But there is a postscript. In the late 1990s somebody with no training or expertise looked at the photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and noticed strange specks and dots in the margins and spaces between the letters in the photographs. In fact these are artifacts of the photography. He did not agree. He collected examples and put them together in making an argument for medieval dating. Like finding that happy face in the Mars moon rock. It was Rorschach Inkblot seeing shapes at work. But he was 100% passionate and believed what he was saying was true. He reasoned that the only reason scholars today were rejecting his findings could only be because they were in on a plot to hide the truth. He found difficulty getting his work listened to by established scholars. He solved that problem by going to major-city daily newspapers with submitted articles which were run as features in Sunday editions, and published in at least a half-dozen such cases, maybe many more I don't remember. He also attracted the loyalty of a journalist, no expertise or training himself in the subject matter, but an otherwise reputable city newspaper reporter who took up his cause.

My name came up in his newspaper articles not of my will or doing. I had obtained the second battery of radiocarbon datings on the Dead Sea Scrolls done in 1994-5, and had written what for some time was regarded as the leading popular-scholarly article on Dead Sea Scrolls radiocarbon dating, a chapter in a 1998 Flint and Vanderkam, eds., volume titled The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. In that article I discussed the problem of sample contamination possibly affecting some of the radiocarbon dates, along with other range of issues involved. He misunderstood and misrepresented what I wrote and quoted me by name as suggesting all the scrolls' radiocarbon datings were wrong, which was not what I said at all. I argued with reasons given why most of the radiocarbon dates were accurate and unquestionably in the correct era (Second Temple/late hellenistic-early Roman period, in no way could the scrolls be medieval), with the issue being whether among the accurate radiocarbon datings were "salted" a few inaccurate ones slightly offset by a century or two due to sample contamination. That is a fairly uncontroversial proposition itself today, fairly uncontroversially was the case, though the specifics remain debated.

The journalist advocate called me and I talked to him by phone. He was convinced by the specks and anomalies in the photographs argument. I tried to tell him, based on hundreds of hours of studying those photographs myself, that his friend was imagining significance in those specks which were not from the scrolls themselves but in the photographs. But he was just convinced. They would go back to the early years and cite the original questions which had been raised concerning authenticity of the scrolls, the early Solomon Zeitlin debates. I tried to say that was the right question to ask at the outset--absolutely the right question to ask when claimed new finds come to light not from controlled excavations--but the point was that that question had fairly quickly been answered, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, such that it is not a question now. But it did no good.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[John Butler]

On 2/15/2022 at 6:14 PM, Pat Speer said:

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. 

Gil,

Pat said that above, but we know the FBI changed testimony, or in other cases actively coerced and intimidated witnesses to say what they wanted them to say about the events in Dealey Plaza.  When I read all of the witness statements I could find about what happened in Dealey Plaza there were 100+ who said certain similar things.  And, then there was about as many who said something similar, but one, two or three words would change the meaning of what was being said.  Instead of "passed in front of" you would find things like "just pass the TSBD" or "after passing the TSBD".  There were too many of these, in my opinion, to be natural.    

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

In one of the crazier threads on this Forum, King alterationist James Fetzer attacked The Godfather of alterationists Jack White for his manipulation of photos in Harvey and Lee. Amazingly, moreover, the proof of Jack's manipulation was being provided by Judyth Baker. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

P.S. Perhaps the main reason I've grown so cynical about the cries of the evidence being fake is that I've spent hundreds of hours dealing with Fetzer et al on this forum, and have spent many more hours reading the works of Livingstone and Groden et al. And these guys just aren't credible. At one point, when confronted with the fact the famous Altgens photo was published within a few hours of the assassination, Fetzer cooked up that there was a CIA trailer in the parking lot west of the depository, to which all photos were taken and altered within minutes of the shooting. There was zero evidence for this, mind you, but it must have been there else how could the Altgens photo have been altered so quickly?

Necessity is the mother of invention, and the alterationists have some serious mommy issues. Or something like that...

Speaking of invention...

Can you explain how the great Ike Altgens shot this scene?  Did he use a magic camera capable of distorting some areas but not others in front and behind the distortion?  How does this work?

I await an answer with bated breath.

[John Butler]

Speaking of Ike Altgens and the honesty of his photography, I would like to go back and re-publish this just to go along with the prior comment on Altgens.  Can you see the alteration?  It is not a technical or film distortion.

It is out in plain site to be seen that this photo has been changed.  Why?  I don't know unless it is to cover up shooting on Houston as our star witness Bonnie Ray Williams said.  Two shots.  You just have to look at the details of things.

Jack White said this photo has another interesting anomaly.  The people in the crosswalk at East Houston are not the same as the people there we see in the Zapruder Film.  Then, that raises the question which is real?  Altgens or Zapruder?  Or, neither?