The "Other" Zapruder Film

[John Butler]

4 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

Are there any other murder / attempted murder cases where a private agent was allowed to purchase and hold  original evidence (films, photos, weapons, forensic evidence, etc.) while the investigation was ongoing?

Bill,

I don't believe there are any.  And, this is the first time I have heard someone put this idea forward.  I wonder why?

Maybe they should have sold Oswald's alleged rifle.  It might have brought as much money as the film?  After all, that rifle was also private property like the film.  Marina should have had some say in its disposition.  She was in need of money.

[John Butler]

On 2/19/2022 at 9:59 AM, John Butler said:

Look at the Vice President's security vehicle and you will understand this frame is a poorly done alteration suggesting how the film frames was built.

This is how the vehicle looks when seen in the proper form:

And, in Z 157 we have this:

The security vehicle for Johnson can be see in other frames better:

I noticed in all this reaction to what I have said folks tend to focus in on things they think can be disproved.  And, they avoid obvious things such as the VP security vehicle which they can't disprove.  One incident of editing destroys the whole film.  I would say there are dozens, but I haven't gone through and counted them.

Not only are there things placed into the Zapruder Film there are things left out.  Here's an example:

Of the people that can be seen in the last, or right-hand frame, only the two women, who I think are disguised Mary and Jean based upon WC Exhibit Hill No. 5, make it into the Zapruder film at a different location.  The others don't.

Elsie Dorman is said to be the worst photographer ever and her film suffered much distortion and such creating an unwatchable film.  Some parts of it are available to point out the difference between the Zapruder Film and the Dorman Film on the SW corner of Houston and Elm.  There are more people there on that corner in the Dorman Film than the Zapruder Film.  This point usually goes unanswered also.  I wonder what happened to Pierce and Terry's film?  Obviously, their photos would have been very, very important since they were just a few feet away.  OBTW, where is Robert Croft?  Is the Croft photo the Allman photo or Ford photo?

The Dorman film also points out the veracity of the girls when they said they ran with their father to the SW corner in time to watch p limo turn the corner onto Elm in about a second or two.  No, Phil can't be seen coming out from the walkway onto Elm Street in this film either and he can't be seen running with the girls.  Who do you believe?  Zapruder or Dorman?

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by John Butler

[Joe Bauer]

8 hours ago, John Deignan said:

Check out what Linda Willis, Phil’s daughter says starting at 17:08 of the video. 

Very interesting interview.

She is certain of a conspiracy and doesn't hold back saying so.

The exploding of JFK's brain and blood matter out "the back" of his head versus the side or front does raise legitimate questions of bullet entry, impact and damage physics.  As well as the sheer size of the spray cloud and matter and it's long distance reach beyond the interior of the car to splattering two Dallas PD motorcycle officers behind it.

And those officers stated in their WC testimony that it wasn't just blood and brain fluid that hit them, but actual chunks of JFK's brain. All that from a shot from behind JFK and the motorcycle officers?

Anyone here hunters? Can they weigh in whether shots to the heads of their game targets replicated to any similar degree the dynamics of JFK's head shot?

[Bill Fite]

16 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

Anyone here hunters? Can they weigh in whether shots to the heads of their game targets replicated to any similar degree the dynamics of JFK's head shot?

Not a hunter, but I've been watching  World War 2 documentaries on YouTube.

Some have horrific films of executions and/or mass executions.

In all cases I've seen, when victims are shot in the back of the head they fall forward.

German soldiers lined up kneeling victims facing massed graves then shot them in the back of the head and they fall forward into the grave, not backwards onto the executioner's boots from a jet effect.

[John Butler]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:47 PM, Pat Speer said:

Once again, John, you're just making stuff up. There is NO testimony from Phil Willis on the day of the assassination. He took his photos home, and did not give them to the FBI. No one from the Willis family was interviewed until June of the next year.

Linda says differently.  Check out John Deignan at the top of the page.  The above piece is skillful piece of nonsense designed to charge someone with a malicious accusation.  The above was designed to ruin a fellow's honesty and place doubt on what he said.  

Edited February 20, 2022 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Very interesting interview.

She is certain of a conspiracy and doesn't hold back saying so.

The exploding of JFK's brain and blood matter out "the back" of his head versus the side or front does raise legitimate questions of bullet entry, impact and damage physics.  As well as the sheer size of the spray cloud and matter and it's long distance reach beyond the interior of the car to splattering two Dallas PD motorcycle officers behind it.

And those officers stated in their WC testimony that it wasn't just blood and brain fluid that hit them, but actual chunks of JFK's brain. All that from a shot from behind JFK and the motorcycle officers?

Anyone here hunters? Can they weigh in whether shots to the heads of their game targets replicated to any similar degree the dynamics of JFK's head shot?

Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell - Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing

Two shots to the back of the head.

[Pat Speer]

On 2/20/2022 at 12:17 AM, John Deignan said:

Check out what Linda Willis, Phil’s daughter says starting at 17:08 of the video. 

OK. I took a look at it, and, sad to say, Linda was talking out of her butt. Both she and her interviewer seem confused. Her father took photographs, which were developed as slides. He did not make a film from which frames could be removed. Now, to her credit, she doesn't say anything was removed. But says instead that some train was blotted out from her father's film. Only Willis 5--her father's most famous slide--barely even shows the railroad bridge. Now, she was probably thinking of Willis 6, taken maybe a minute after the shooting, that does show the railroad bridge.

Now, in some ways, this is kinda funny. If you were interviewed by someone 28 years after an event, how much detail would you remember about your father's home movies--or slides--of this event? But because she likes attention, and is not afraid to go against the official story, she suggests that a sinister SS somehow removed a train from her father's "film". Which makes absolutely no sense, when you think of it... A train's being on the railroad bridge was not problematic to the official story, but people being on the railroad bridge were. And they were shown in a number of the photos and films, including her father's slide. So, no, no mass cover-up of a train occurred. 

There's also this. Linda makes out that her father's slides were scooped up by the SS. But her father told Trask he kept the slides after they were developed and took them over to show the Dallas Morning News. He then loaned them to the SS on the Monday after the assassination. It follows that they wouldn't have reached Washington until the 26th at the earliest. Well, a  Z-film frame showing Willis exactly where he needed to be was published in the 11-29 Life Magazine, which was already completed and possibly even on the streets. The idea that some evil guv'ment agency to which both the FBI and SS were providing photos faked the Z-film to add in witnesses such as Willis and Croft just doesn't fly.

Now, if someone wants to suggest a few individual frames were altered, that's a different story. But the wholesale creation of a film from scratch that somehow magically places witnesses just where they would subsequently claim they were is just ludicrous, IMO.

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

I noticed in all this reaction to what I have said folks tend to focus in on things they think can be disproved.  And, they avoid obvious things such as the VP security vehicle which they can't disprove.  One incident of editing destroys the whole film.  I would say there are dozens, but I haven't gone through and counted them.

Not only are there things placed into the Zapruder Film there are things left out.  Here's an example:

Of the people that can be seen in the last, or right-hand frame, only the two women, who I think are disguised Mary and Jean based upon WC Exhibit Hill No. 5, make it into the Zapruder film at a different location.  The others don't.

Elsie Dorman is said to be the worst photographer ever and her film suffered much distortion and such creating an unwatchable film.  Some parts of it are available to point out the difference between the Zapruder Film and the Dorman Film on the SW corner of Houston and Elm.  There are more people there on that corner in the Dorman Film than the Zapruder Film.  This point usually goes unanswered also.  I wonder what happened to Pierce and Terry's film?  Obviously, their photos would have been very, very important since they were just a few feet away.  OBTW, where is Robert Croft?  Is the Croft photo the Allman photo or Ford photo?

The Dorman film also points out the veracity of the girls when they said they ran with their father to the SW corner in time to watch p limo turn the corner onto Elm in about a second or two.  No, Phil can't be seen coming out from the walkway onto Elm Street in this film either and he can't be seen running with the girls.  Who do you believe?  Zapruder or Dorman?

 

There was no "Pierce and Terry's film." And the girl with the gold dress in the frame at far left is Linda Willis. As far as the "girls" racing in the Dorman film, one of them is Rosemary, the other, the woman in blue, if I recall, remains unidentified. 

I know that last point is a tough one to swallow. I once assumed the two racing women were the Willis girls. But Linda Willis herself cleared this up in an interview with the Sixth Floor Museum, and pointed herself out as the girl with the gold dress in the Dorman frame above. 

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There was no "Pierce and Terry's film." And the girl with the gold dress in the frame at far left is Linda Willis.

True.  There is no Pierce and Terry film.  But, Elsie Dorman shows they had cameras and were taking photos.  Maybe they just liked to carry cameras around.  What happened to there film?  I have always suspected that Robert Croft was not on the SW corner.  Do you know where he was at in the intersection of Main and Houston?  He was on the south side of the intersection on Houston Street.  To beat the p limo to the SW corner of Houston and Elm he would have to have made a similar miraculous run such as the one Phil Willis made.  He had a longer distance to travel.

In Zapruder Croft looks like he was painted into the film.  His much credited photo may be either from Allman or Ford.  He is not in the Elsie Dorman film.  OBTW, Phil is either.  Are they really in the Zapruder film?  There is no more than about a second or two difference in the films.  The p limo is just about to turn the corner into the intersection.

As far as Linda identifying herself as the dark haired girl in the gold skirt, you yourself said she was "talking out of her butt".  If she can't be trusted with what she said, then why believe her in this instance?  That's been gone over before and the consensus was she is not Linda.

I wonder who is making up things now? 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by John Butler

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

True.  There is no Pierce and Terry film.  But, Elsie Dorman shows they had cameras and were taking photos.  Maybe they just liked to carry cameras around.  What happened to there film?  I have always suspected that Robert Croft was not on the SW corner.  Do you know where he was at in the intersection of Main and Houston?  He was on the south side of the intersection on Houston Street.  To beat the p limo to the SW corner of Houston and Elm he would have to have made a similar miraculous run such as the one Phil Willis made.  He had a longer distance to travel.

In Zapruder Croft looks like he was painted into the film.  His much credited photo may be either from Allman or Ford.  He is not in the Elsie Dorman film.  OBTW, Phil is either.  Are they really in the Zapruder film?  There is no more than about a second or two difference in the films.  The p limo is just about to turn the corner into the intersection.

As far as Linda identifying herself as the dark haired girl in the gold skirt, you yourself said she was "talking out of her butt".  If she can't be trusted with what she said, then why believe her in this instance?  That's been gone over before and the consensus was she is not Linda.

I wonder who is making up things now? 

 

If you think Croft and Willis made miraculous runs, you should think about Altgens and Bothun. Here were two beefy middle-aged men, both photographing the limo as it turned onto Houston. And yet, there they were up ahead of the limo as it drove down Elm. 

I'm assuming you've never been to the Plaza. If you had, you'd realize that the northwest corner of Houston and Main is just a short jog from the middle of Elm. 

Instead of wondering how running men could keep pace or even pass the motorcade, perhaps we should be wondering why a parade route with such a slow turn at Houston and Elm was considered acceptable. If a close-up attack on JFK's life was to be attempted, that was the ideal spot, and it would almost certainly have been successful. I mean, if two men charged the limo from the location of Tina Towner, while another two charged it from in front of the TSBD. The SS would have been helpless to prevent a successful attack, IMO. 

[Jamey Flanagan]

And although we currently have no photographic evidence (alteration) of the wide turn onto Elm, we do have a handful of witnesses who did speak of the driver, Greer, almost turning down that TSBD access road mistaking it for Elm and having to make a quick adjustment to make that turn onto Elm. It is said he actually either ran over part of the curb or almost did. Then he had to make adjustments to right the limo. So I'm sure this would have taken significantly more time than if the limo had made this smooth turn onto Elm. Maybe that allowed some of these guys to get ahead of the limo.

[Chris Bristow]

After watching the Willis interview I find she talks about her dad's "film" and a missing "frame" but she also calls her dads photos  "slides" and refers to her dad's "picture". I don't see any reason to think she is calling his photos a motion picture film.
 Her comments about the missing train is specifically about the view of the train behind the "cement arcade" that you could see through the arcade windows. She was not referring to the overpass. Some of the Bond photos do show the train in the train yard behind the arcade. They also shows the train ends before it would appear between the pergola and knoll fence. That and the Hughes film of the Pullman cars in the train yard tell us right where they sat.  The cars would not be visible in Willis 5 unless they had a view of the right side(Eastern 1/3) of the arcade(Colonnade). The Willis family likely saw the trains through the arcade when they walked farther west for Willis 6 and mistakenly assumed they should be visible in Willis 5.

[Joe Bauer]

I just watched the attached video posted above showing JFK's head exploding  in frame 312 and 313.

I must say after watching this 10X, it looks to me like the pink spray from JFK's exploding head is coming from the raw brain area exposed underneath the big flap of scalp blown away above his right ear.

That spray is shooting upward from there.

From Linda Willis's statements in the interview above she stated the pink cloud spray came out and up from the" back" of JFK's head.

Just have to be honest regards what my eyes are telling me here.

I could see a high velocity bullet entering the back of JFK's head ( where the occipital and parietal lobes meet? ) and then moving through the brain and blowing out a huge skull bone flap just above the right ear.

However, SS agent Clint Hill said in his WC testimony that when he got within inches of JFK's head he noticed a huge hole in that Occipital/Parietal area and nothing in there to a noticeable depth.

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I just watched the attached video posted above showing JFK's head exploding  in frame 312 and 313.

I must say after watching this 10X, it looks to me like the pink spray from JFK's exploding head is coming from the raw brain area exposed underneath the big flap of scalp blown away above his right ear.

That spray is shooting upward from there.

From Linda Willis's statements in the interview above she stated the pink cloud spray came out and up from the" back" of JFK's head.

Just have to be honest regards what my eyes are telling me here.

I could see a high velocity bullet entering the back of JFK's head ( where the occipital and parietal lobes meet? ) and then moving through the brain and blowing out a huge skull bone flap just above the right ear.

However, SS agent Clint Hill said in his WC testimony that when he got within inches of JFK's head he noticed a huge hole in that Occipital/Parietal area and nothing in there to a noticeable depth.

There seems to be two distinct issues regarding the location of the hole in JFK's head. Was there a hole in the side or top that Clint Hill and the Parkland doctors missed?

The second issue is the question of whether there was a hole in the occipital parietal? It's the second question that is important because doctors could miss a hole due to the hair or the flap on the side closing. But what is much harder to reconcile is Clint Hill and the Parkland doctors thinking there was a hole where there was not one , according to the official autopsy.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I asked John Butler if he was aware that the act of copying a physical film will generate visual anomalies such as the ones he is fond of citing as evidence of alteration. He replied:

Quote

NO!  I don't grasp those points.  I think they are ludicrous

Oh dear! I'm sure that John, like everyone else, does actually accept this obvious and uncontroversial fact. Unlike everyone else, he just doesn't want to admit it.

He continues:

Quote

I use John Costella's frames.  I believe he made those from the original copy or a copy of the original.

It's clear that Costella didn't make his copies directly from the original Zapruder film, because copies that are far more detailed than Costella's can be found in, for example, David Wrone's book which I mentioned a few pages ago.

The frames John Butler uses must be several generations removed from the actual Zapruder film. For that reason, those frames must contain a number of visual anomalies, which provide a straightforward, everyday explanation for odd-looking features such as Phil Willis having an extra-long leg.

If a straightforward, everyday explanation is available, it's a mistake to use a far-fetched explanation instead.

Incidentally, Costella's collection of individual frames is a useful resource, and it was good of him to create it for us. But he makes some of the same mistakes that others do. From the page John Butler quotes:

Quote

Senior law enforcement officials in the lead car testified that motorcycle cop James Chaney passed the presidential limousine while it was in Dealey Plaza. This should be easily visible in the Zapruder film and the Nix film, but it isn’t there. This is a simple proof that both of these films have been faked.

No, if it's simple proof of anything, it's that a few guys in a car got their recollections wrong! As we learned a few pages ago with the 'car-stop' witnesses, a consistent body of physical evidence is more likely to be accurate than a handful of fallible human eye-witnesses.