The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy Larsen said:

Quote

[Unlike Jeremy] I have an open mind and because of that I could explain [the seemingly impossible selective blurring in Zapruder frame 311]. Which I did.

Jeremy replied:

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy merely stated that some blurred images in a copy of a copy of a copy of an 8mm home movie "defied the laws of physics". That doesn't constitute an explanation.

 

Jeremy implies here that the selective blurring in Z311 (which the immediately preceding frame, Z310, doesn't have) is due the Zapruder film being a "copy of a copy of a copy."

I think that any person of average intelligence would understand that making a copy of a film will blur the whole image of every frame, and not just some parts of a single frame in the film. Which is what I refer to as "selective blurring."

So no, the selective blur we see in Z311 cannot be due to making copies of copies of copies of the film.

Jeremy also says I didn't explain what caused the selective blurring. Well yes I did, it's just that my explanation doesn't fit his ideology. What I said is that natural selective blurring is impossible, and therefore the film must have been altered in a way that introduced the selective blurring.

 

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's quite a claim to make, and it would be interesting to see if he can come up with an actual explanation that would satisfy a professional physicist.

 

You don't need to be a professional physicist to understand that film alteration can introduce otherwise impossible anomalies. Though Jeremy seems to need a physicist to understand that natural selective blurring is impossible.

(BTW, I have a masters degree in engineering, a profession that can be described as applied physics. I am certainly knowledgeable enough to understand this simple issue we're discussing.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

19 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

John Butler quoted John Costella here:

Simple introduction to the faking of the Zapruder film

In 2003 I created this simple introduction to some of the evidence of Zapruder film fakery:

• JFK Assassination Film Hoax

 

John Costella makes and documents the same argument as I have been pointing out here in my "selective blur" posts. And of course he agrees with me that it proves the Z film has been altered. Here it is:

http://www.johncostella.com/jfk/intro/blur.html

The only difference is that he uses different frames to show it. Also, he argues that it is the all-focused frames that are unnatural. My proof, in contrast, assumes that the the all-focused frame is the natural one. But it doesn't matter because the unnatural (impossible) thing is that the focus selectivity changes between the two consecutive frames,

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Undoubtedly, the most notable thing in the Linda Willis film is that she is soooooo good looking.  😋

 

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Undoubtedly, the most notable thing in the Linda Willis film is that she is soooooo good looking.  😋

 

ha, ha, very charming.

[John Butler]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

Richard Bothun.  I don't know what he really looked like.  But, in Zapruder he is a carbon copy of Ike Altgens.  Bothun was a railroad worker.  Guess who he gave his film too?  Altgens' Daily Morning News, if my memory hasn't failed me.

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

I've been there.  Last time 2015.  Houston Street is roughly 200 feet.  I don't remember the exact dimensions.  Croft ran from the south side of the intersection of Main and Houston to the SW Corner of Elm.  That is if he did it?  Maybe something like 250 feet.  Zapruder shows he is there waiting for the p limo to come by.  Elsie says he wasn't there.  He does look painted in.  He is standing close to where Allman and Ford should be. 

[John Butler]

11 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

Chris,

Once again.  Well said.  The Willis family were speed demons.  They moved around quickly.  After viewing the assassination on Elm they can be seen in the Hughes Film near Main Street.  They got there quickly also??  

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

Jeremy,

I continue to say no.  There are two sources for the imagery I use.  Groden's films and John Costella.  The "obvious and uncontroversial fact" is something you should confront with honesty and unclouded eyes from preconceptions and suppositions that only reside in your head.

You are like a dog with a bone, gnawing on something that doesn't have much meat on it.  

[John Butler]

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

I'm not certain Pat watched this short film, or he simply didn't understand what Linda was saying.  Particularly, about the train behind the Pergola in the railroad yards.  Maybe he confused me with her.  I am a proponent of a train being on the Triple Underpass during the assassination based on witness statements.  I call it the "Ghost Train" since there is no evidence of it except witness statements.  There is sufficient evidence to show the railroad men were not on the Triple Underpass above Elm.  They were nearby with Officer Foster just off the bridge.   

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

I'm not certain Pat watched this short film, or he simply didn't understand what Linda was saying.  Particularly, about the train behind the Pergola in the railroad yards.  Maybe he confused me with her.  I am a proponent of a train being on the Triple Underpass during the assassination based on witness statements.  I call it the "Ghost Train" since there is no evidence of it except witness statements.  There is sufficient evidence to show the railroad men were not on the Triple Underpass above Elm.  They were nearby with Officer Foster just off the bridge.   

Add the railroad men to John Butler's ever-growing list of witnesses who suggested conspiracy, but were nevertheless part of a plot to conceal the alteration of the photo evidence. Priceless.

As far as Linda, yes, I wasn't paying close enough attention to the interview. After it was pointed out that she said she saw it through the arcade, I remembered that this was something discussed on this forum eons ago.

I'm getting old in my old age. 

[John Butler]

31 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Add the railroad men to John Butler's ever-growing list of witnesses who suggested conspiracy, but were nevertheless part of a plot to conceal the alteration of the photo evidence. Priceless.

That's not what was being said.  The 10 or so railroad men could see the same events if they were stationed above Elm Street, or just off the bridge to the north.  There is more than 5+ photo sources that show there is no one on the bridge just before the shooting.  They don't show a train.  There are witnesses saying a train was there during the shooting.  Officer Foster would not have allowed those men on the bridge due to mishaps occurring.  3 of Dallas' finest said a train was there.  One didn't at first, but later admitted a train was there.  

Altgens 7 shows them on the bridge, Bell shows them off the bridge and just a few frames later on the bridge, and there are others which I am not recalling at the moment.

What the railroad men did testify to was in nature a conspiracy with shooting from the Grassy Knoll.  That is priceless.

I don't understand the bit about railroad men concealing alteration of photo evidence.  What they talked about to Mark Lane was seeing smoke rising above the Grassy Knoll suggesting a rifle being fired.  Rifles use smokeless powder.  I sure what they were seeing was steam from the heat of the round.  It was a humid day.  It had just rained prior to the assassination.  I have read their testimony and some said something different from the official story and are included in the list of 105+ witnesses I collected saying something different than the official story about where shooting occurred.

 

    

Edited February 21, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Add the railroad men to John Butler's ever-growing list of witnesses who suggested conspiracy

The list contains more than 105+ witnesses.  I just can't remember from time to time whether that number is 108 or 114 since I took some off the list due to their statements being more arguable than what I am comfortable with. 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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:

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:

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:

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.

The "Chaney caught the lead car in the plaza" argument was debunked on this forum back when Fetzer was citing it as the number one proof for alteration. I believe it was Gary Mack--say what you will but Gary was an expert on the photographic and eyewitness evidence--who offered up to someone that there was significant evidence Chaney caught up with and spoke to the lead car at the freeway onramp. I think he even found an image of this in the background of a photo, but I can't remember which one.

As far as Costella's frames, they are clearly from photos of the original frames. (I'm not sure where he got this but Groden is a safe bet. Thompson, I believe, also had access to the original and also made a frame by frame copy.) They show the images by the sprocket holes so they could not be photos of a copy. The copies do not show the images by the sprocket holes. (If you look at Costella's frame 209 you can see what I mean--this is a frame Life cut out of the original and is only available on early copies of the film like the one Groden claims came from the Secret Service.)

It turned out, of course, that there was some useful info by the sprocket holes. Few remember it now, but one of the longest running CT theories was that the motorcyclist at the far right of the limo (Douglas Jackson) was missing from the Z-film, and that maybe just maybe he'd raced up to the depository, or was knocked down when the limo turned on Elm, whatever. But no, he was right there all along, by the sprocket holes, unseen in the film as viewed by most everyone prior to the 90's, if I recall, when Groden made the the sprocket hole version available on his video, and then DVD. 

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, John Butler said:

That's not what was being said.  The 10 or so railroad men could see the same events if they were stationed above Elm Street, or just off the bridge to the north.  There is more than 5+ photo sources that show there is no one on the bridge just before the shooting.  They don't show a train.  There are witnesses saying a train was there during the shooting.  Officer Foster would not have allowed those men on the bridge due to mishaps occurring.  3 of Dallas' finest said a train was there.  One didn't at first, but later admitted a train was there.  

Altgens 7 shows them on the bridge, Bell shows them off the bridge and just a few frames later on the bridge, and there are others which I am not recalling at the moment.

What the railroad men did testify to was in nature a conspiracy with shooting from the Grassy Knoll.  That is priceless.

I don't understand the bit about railroad men concealing alteration of photo evidence.  What they talked about to Mark Lane was seeing smoke rising above the Grassy Knoll suggesting a rifle being fired.  Rifles use smokeless powder.  I sure what they were seeing was steam from the heat of the round.  It was a humid day.  It had just rained prior to the assassination.  I have read their testimony and some said something different from the official story and are included in the list of 105+ witnesses I collected saying something different than the official story about where shooting occurred.

 

    

If you read the historical record, John, you'll see that the railroad men made numerous references to their being on the bridge and watching the motorcade pass beneath them. William Greer has even said that's why he hesitated in the plaza. He saw these men up on the bridge and was afraid he was driving into an ambush. 

Your claim Foster wouldn't have allowed them to be up there was 100% wrong. Here are Foster's words:

Mr. BALL - Now, you had instructions to keep all unauthorized personnel off of that overpass? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - Did you do that? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - Did you permit some people to be there? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - Who? 
Mr. FOSTER - People that were working for the railroad there. 
Mr. BALL - Were there many people? 
Mr. FOSTER - About 10 or 11. 
Mr. BALL - Where were they standing? 
Mr. FOSTER - They were standing along the east banister. 
Mr. BALL - The east banister? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir; in front of me. 
Mr. BALL - In front of you. Will you mark there and show the general area where they were standing? 
Mr. FOSTER - They were standing along this area here [indicating]. 
Mr. BALL - You have marked a series of X's to show where about 10 people were standing? 
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. 

So, yes, there were people on the railroad bridge. And no, they didn't lie when they subsequently claimed they were up on the bridge as opposed to the side of the bridge or wherever you choose to believe they were "really" standing. 

[Gil Jesus]

IF the film isn't altered, maybe someone can explain how a motorcade just appears out of thin air in 1/18th of a second.

No evidence Zapruder stopped filming. No fade in, no fade out.

If you can't see that this film has been edited, then I don't know what to say.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

IF the film isn't altered, maybe someone can explain how a motorcade just appears out of thin air in 1/18th of a second.

No evidence Zapruder stopped filming. No fade in, no fade out.

If you can't see that this film has been edited, then I don't know what to say.

 

Gil,

Didn't anyone in the government give an explanation for that, something like the film got damaged there and had to be removed? And that the film was put in the Archive after that?

Not that I've ever heard that. It just seems like the thing the government would do. Either that or say that Zapruder quit filming for a few seconds and then resumed.