The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Chris Bristow]

I have to say something about Gary Macks explanation for the CT about Chaney riding forward to tell Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. His explanation is the most ludicrous story I have ever heard from a LN'er.
 He claimed the people involved  came to him independently and told him the meeting actually happened on the Stemmons on ramp, that Chaney chased the motorcade down and caught them there. Mack said the McIntye photo shows Chaney in the far background under the triple.
 So Chaney initially pulls over and witnesses the following. He hears Kinney hit his siren. He sees Hill leap onto the car. He sees the limo, follow up car and Curry as they accelerate out of the plaza. If he was the guy in the McIntye photo he would also see them separated from the motorcade and racing together as they near the Stemmons on ramp. I believe Curry had also started his siren by then. After all that Chaney believes he has to tell Curry to get to Parkland?
  The next issue would be that Chaney would have to assume that he is going to be chasing Curry down the Stemmons a long ways before he can give the most important and time sensitive message of his career(Old Harleys are not fast by any means). The limo is 800 ft ahead of him and he would not know it is stopping on the on ramp(Per Mack's story). Why would he not use his radio?? If the radio was too crowded it was due to the assassination and he would know that everyone including Curry is aware.   I can't believe Chaney was attempting to chase the limo down the freeway.
 The next crazy part is Mack claimed Chaney stopped the motorcade on the Stemmons on ramp and that is when Chaney caught up with them. Gary Mack claimed that Curry said he stopped for two reasons. 1. Greer did not know the way to Parkland so he had to tell him. 2. Curry was not yet sure if anyone was hit by gunfire so he stopped to check!!
 First ,I can't buy the idea that he would stop the rush to the hospital just to make sure someone was shot? I guess we replace doctors with SS agents to evaluate JFK? Second, if Greer did not know where was he going was he going to get lost? following right behind Curry with sirens blaring and all the traffic pulling over and running all the red lights together? How could he get lost? The other factor is the radio. Curry had Decker riding shotgun and he could man the radio. Same for Kellerman in the limo. No need to friggin stop the rush to the hospital when you could solve both question over the radio.
 Gary Macks explanation has too many large holes in it. I believe by the time he told the story the others were dead and could not verify Mack's account.
 

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

I have read all the testimony of these witnesses.  I have watched the Mark Lane interviews.  Foster committed perjury.  He said what they wanted him to say.  He later said different things.  Officer White on the other hand spoke truly.  Why be considered crazy with a Ghost Train on the bridge that kept him from seeing or hearing anything during the assassination while nobody else believed a train was there?  And, then there is the 3rd officer, Officer Brown out on the Stemmons bridge.  

I know the railroad men said they were on the bridge.  Oher evidence contradicts that.  I first notice this in the badly edited Patsy Paschal film.  Someone or an editing team didn't get the word.  They didn't put the railroad men on the bridge.  Officer Foster's white cap is visible just off the bridge to the north.  In part I believe the railroad men were agents of the company they worked that were sent out to say things that would keep their company out of the investigation occurring in Dealey Plaza.  No train.  Railroad men on the bridge.  Officer Foster verification.  Shooting from the Grassy Knoll.  I believe this was prepared to keep the railroad company (I'll have to go back and look up the name) out of the investigation and any thought of a train being on the railroad tracks during the assassination.  The railroad bridge is the absolute best place to shoot for the assassination in Dealey Plaza on Elm Street.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Gary Macks explanation has too many large holes in it. I believe by the time he told the story the others were dead and could not verify Mack's account.

Chris,

It is just one more story in Dealey Plaza that has holes and is false.  There are way too many people making up things, like false stories, to justify Lone Nutism and stir controversy into the understanding of Dealey Plaza.

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

It is just one more story in Dealey Plaza that has holes and is false.  There are way too many people making up things, like false stories, to justify Lone Nutism and stir controversy into the understanding of Dealey Plaza.

Yes and the timeline provided by Chief Curry and at least one of agents in the backseat verified that it happened before the limo caught up to them which was before they passed through the triple. Hargis also had Cheney throwing it in first gear and immediately racing forward to Curry.

People can speculate about the witnesses state of Minds when it comes to perceiving a limo slowing or almost stopping. But I think explaining away the perceptions of Cheney, Hargis, Curry, Sorrels and I think Lawson is a harder sell.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler wrote:

Quote

Officer Foster would not have allowed those men on the bridge due to mishaps occurring.

Pat Speer replied:

Quote

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

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

Quote

Foster committed perjury.  He said what they wanted him to say.

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

The problem with using this technique is that, sooner or later, you'll run out of legitimate evidence, and everything will be a fake. Unfortunately, John has reached that point. He wrote earlier:

Quote

this alteration of all, I say all, films and photos that show anything to do with the assassination.

By the way, if any casual visitors have stumbled across this thread, you may be getting the wrong impression. I'm sure that only a small minority of Warren Commission critics believe that a significant amount, let alone all, of the evidence has been faked.

(Apologies to any poker aficionados if my 'losing hand' and 'all-in' analogy is inaccurate.)

[Gil Jesus]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

I'm not sure that they ever gave an explanation on the sudden appearance of the limo, I know that frames 207-212 are missing and they may have made an excuse for that, I'm not sure.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that when you took your finger off the button, the film stopped on a dime. Ive done some video recording and it seems like when you stop, there is a fade out. When you start, there is a fade in. Starting and stopping takes frames. If they had the ability to cut those frames out, then they had the ability to cut other frames as well.

Zapruder and Sitzman both said that he started filming while the motorcade was on Houston St. I can't find any evidence where either said that he stopped filming after he started.

It's impossible for the car to appear in the film in 1/18 of a second.

Therefore, he either stopped filming and the fade in and out frames were removed or the film was cut and spliced to edit out the turn on Elm St. and the limousine stop.

Another anomaly in the film is how it depicts JFK's head wound. In the film it looks like the whole front of his head is gone, but that's not supported by the autopsy photos and the Dallas doctors' descriptions.

I believe that this frame has been altered to make it look like the damage was in the front caused by a bullet from the rear, when in fact, it looked more like this :

 

[John Butler]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

Quote

Foster committed perjury.  He said what they wanted him to say.

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

Foster said,

"Mr. BALL. I have a map that I will---just a moment. I will get it.
Mr. FOSTER. All right. (Off the record.)
Mr. BALL. Tell me where you were standing on the triple overpass about the time that the President's motorcade came into sight?
Mr. FOSTER. I was standing approximately along the---I believe the south curb of Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. Were you on the overpass?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir; at the east--be the east side of the overpass.
Mr. BALL. On the east side of the overpass?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir."

and,

"Mr. BALL. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)

and, the record had to be corrected and improved:

"Mr. BALL. Now, where were you standing?
Mr. FOSTER. Standing along the east curb of---east side of the overpass over Elm Street there. About the south curb.
Mr. BALL. Over, above the south curb of Elm?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL Will you put a mark on there? Mark an "X" where you were standing and write your initials right next to that "X".
J.---what are the initials?
Mr. FOSTER. J. W.
Mr. BALL. J. W. F. That marks where you were standing.
Mr. FOSTER. Approximately; yes, sir."

His testimony had to match Altgens 7. 

If you look close every person on the bridge is surrounded with a halo of light.  I believe this is an indication of cutting and pasting.

A closer look:

I can hear it now.  That's just light reflection.  

Who is the giant railroad man standing on the left-hand side behind a person.  Giant?  Standing on a box?  Wrongly placed in the film by the alterers?

And,

Where is Officer Foster?  Is he the last man going north on the bridge?  His Dallas Police white had doesn't show up very well.  But, that is where he said he was.   

Edited February 22, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

Quote

Foster committed perjury.  He said what they wanted him to say.

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

Jeremy,

Don't ascribe your techniques to me.  

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler wrote:

Pat Speer replied:

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

The problem with using this technique is that, sooner or later, you'll run out of legitimate evidence, and everything will be a fake. Unfortunately, John has reached that point. He wrote earlier:

By the way, if any casual visitors have stumbled across this thread, you may be getting the wrong impression. I'm sure that only a small minority of Warren Commission critics believe that a significant amount, let alone all, of the evidence has been faked.

(Apologies to any poker aficionados if my 'losing hand' and 'all-in' analogy is inaccurate.)

From the Robert Hughes film:

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler wrote:

Pat Speer replied:

Actually Jeremy:

John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in:

That's how to win an argument!

• Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake.
• Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake.

Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose!

The problem with using this technique is that, sooner or later, you'll run out of legitimate evidence, and everything will be a fake. Unfortunately, John has reached that point. He wrote earlier:

By the way, if any casual visitors have stumbled across this thread, you may be getting the wrong impression. I'm sure that only a small minority of Warren Commission critics believe that a significant amount, let alone all, of the evidence has been faked.

(Apologies to any poker aficionados if my 'losing hand' and 'all-in' analogy is inaccurate.)

Patsy Paschal:

There are several more photos showing no one on the bridge.  Should I go on?

[John Butler]

Bell Film:

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I'm not sure that they ever gave an explanation on the sudden appearance of the limo, I know that frames 207-212 are missing and they may have made an excuse for that, I'm not sure.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that when you took your finger off the button, the film stopped on a dime. Ive done some video recording and it seems like when you stop, there is a fade out. When you start, there is a fade in. Starting and stopping takes frames. If they had the ability to cut those frames out, then they had the ability to cut other frames as well.

Zapruder and Sitzman both said that he started filming while the motorcade was on Houston St. I can't find any evidence where either said that he stopped filming after he started.

It's impossible for the car to appear in the film in 1/18 of a second.

Therefore, he either stopped filming and the fade in and out frames were removed or the film was cut and spliced to edit out the turn on Elm St. and the limousine stop.

Another anomaly in the film is how it depicts JFK's head wound. In the film it looks like the whole front of his head is gone, but that's not supported by the autopsy photos and the Dallas doctors' descriptions.

I believe that this frame has been altered to make it look like the damage was in the front caused by a bullet from the rear, when in fact, it looked more like this :

 

This beyond gruesome bottom photo of JFK is of course photo shopped, correct?

[John Butler]

Bond Photo 6:

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Bell Film:

Better quality equals more detail.

Sharpening added.

[Sean Coleman]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Foster said,

"Mr. BALL. I have a map that I will---just a moment. I will get it.
Mr. FOSTER. All right. (Off the record.)
Mr. BALL. Tell me where you were standing on the triple overpass about the time that the President's motorcade came into sight?
Mr. FOSTER. I was standing approximately along the---I believe the south curb of Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. Were you on the overpass?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir; at the east--be the east side of the overpass.
Mr. BALL. On the east side of the overpass?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir."

and,

"Mr. BALL. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)

and, the record had to be corrected and improved:

"Mr. BALL. Now, where were you standing?
Mr. FOSTER. Standing along the east curb of---east side of the overpass over Elm Street there. About the south curb.
Mr. BALL. Over, above the south curb of Elm?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL Will you put a mark on there? Mark an "X" where you were standing and write your initials right next to that "X".
J.---what are the initials?
Mr. FOSTER. J. W.
Mr. BALL. J. W. F. That marks where you were standing.
Mr. FOSTER. Approximately; yes, sir."

His testimony had to match Altgens 7. 

If you look close every person on the bridge is surrounded with a halo of light.  I believe this is an indication of cutting and pasting.

A closer look:

I can hear it now.  That's just light reflection.  

Who is the giant railroad man standing on the left-hand side behind a person.  Giant?  Standing on a box?  Wrongly placed in the film by the alterers?

And,

Where is Officer Foster?  Is he the last man going north on the bridge?  His Dallas Police white had doesn't show up very well.  But, that is where he said he was.   

Giant railroad man possibly sitting/crouching on right hand side pillars? Overlooking Dealey to the left