The "Other" Zapruder Film

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Better quality equals more detail.

Sharpening added.

Chris,

I believe that is a few frames later.  Bell has both kinds of scenes.  I think I have made mention of this several times.

Edited February 22, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

43 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

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

The giant railroad man is behind someone and not near the rail.  I won't swear to it, but I think one can actually see his feet up in the air behind that fellow near the rail.  Another curious thing about that Altgens shot is you can see to the other side of the bridge.  I believe that is impossible from the position Altgens was at when he took that photo on Elm that close to the bridge.  The bridge is some 115+ feet wide.  Elm runs downhill, and not uphill.  There are 7 tracks on the bridge.

This is what it looked like back in the day.  It is impossible to see to the other side from Altgens position.  There was no other rail to the rear in those days.  That is a modern addition.

Here's another view of the bridge.  It is roughly the distance from the bridge as Altgens, but on North Elm.  I think you can go back to the intersection in front of the TSBD and you still cannot see the railing on the west side of the bridge.

It is not possible to see to the other side of the bridge from Altgens position.  From Bell's position yes.  But, I have my doubts due the partitions of the monument that Bell filmed through or didn't.  I don't see how those partitions are not in the frames.  Someone have a good explanation?

You can't even see the fence that was present in 2015.

Edited February 22, 2022 by John Butler

[Joe Bauer]

On 2/22/2022 at 6:36 AM, 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 :

 

Could someone share the provenance of the bottom JFK photo?

Obviously fake, how did it make it into the general media?

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Obviously fake, how did it make it into the general media?

Don't know.  Didn't someone once say or speculate that someone took a hammer to Kennedy's skull fracturing all of the skull bones we see missing thereby creating a wound such as this photo real or not portrays.

[David Andrews]

45 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Don't know.  Didn't someone once say or speculate that someone took a hammer to Kennedy's skull fracturing all of the skull bones we see missing thereby creating a wound such as this photo real or not portrays.

That's the dummy used in the autopsy scene of Oliver Stone's JFK.

There's a "Making of" doc that shows Stone and the techs on the autopsy room set, blocking out the shot beside the dummy - it's unintentionally creepy.

Edited February 24, 2022 by David Andrews

[Joe Bauer]

50 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

That's the dummy used in the autopsy scene of Oliver Stone's JFK.

There's a "Making of" doc that shows Stone and the techs on the autopsy room set, blocking out the shot beside the dummy - it's unintentionally creepy.

From Stone's JFK?

I see.

Still, I'll guess that JFK's skull was so obliterated in real life that once the brain was removed and they peeled back the hanging flaps it looked much like this photo and just as gruesome.

[Jamey Flanagan]

I remember in Lifton's Best Evidence where he called a coroner and without telling them who the victim was (JFK) he read the autopsy notes about the massive head wound and the description of it and the coroner said something along the lines of it sounding like this man had suffered a blow to his head or possibly several blows to the head with an axe! I think he may have called several and they all pretty much say the same thing. None said anything about a gunshot wound if I remember correctly. 

[Pat Speer]

Since this thread has drifted off into discussing wound ballistics, I'd like those with an interest to know that a few years back I added a substantial chapter to my website in which I discuss the history of wound ballistics, and the wound ballistics of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano in particular. It's Chapter 16b: Digging in the Dirt. 

To be completely modest, it's probably the best thing ever written about Kennedy's large head wound. 

[Dan Rice]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Since this thread has drifted off into discussing wound ballistics, I'd like those with an interest to know that a few years back I added a substantial chapter to my website in which I discuss the history of wound ballistics, and the wound ballistics of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano in particular. It's Chapter 16b: Digging in the Dirt. 

To be completely modest, it's probably the best thing ever written about Kennedy's large head wound. 

I hate to even further derail this thread but I have a question after reading through chapter 16b on your website.  The extensive info kind of confused me.  I was wondering how you would summarize it.  Based on the various authorities that you quoted, do you think that JFK was hit in the head twice and both shots from behind?

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Dan Rice said:

I hate to even further derail this thread but I have a question after reading through chapter 16b on your website.  The extensive info kind of confused me.  I was wondering how you would summarize it.  Based on the various authorities that you quoted, do you think that JFK was hit in the head twice and both shots from behind?

That's what it looks like. But the direction of the bullet striking the top of the head is not 100%, and not really all that important. It is 100% that the large wound on the right side/top of the head was a tangential wound. This means the small wound found near the EOP was a second head shot. I followed this chapter up with a chapter on the brain injuries. This confirmed my analysis. What's distressing, moreover, is that a lot of the information about head wounds and brain injuries came from the likes of Spitz, Fisher, and Lindenberg, members of the Clark Panel and Rockefeller Panel. From reading their articles it seems likely these men knew Kennedy was hit by more than one bullet, and that their reports and testimony were "doctored" to support the lone nut conclusion. 

I've spoken to Dr. Wecht about this, and he agrees that the conclusions of these men re Kennedy were in contradiction to the conclusions they shared in their articles. But he thinks they were simply blinded by confirmation bias.

 

[Michael Crane]

I'm simply amazed to hear this from you Pat.Especially with how the Parkland staff described the wound.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I'm simply amazed to hear this from you Pat.Especially with how the Parkland staff described the wound.

To be clear, Chapter 16b is about the history of wound ballistics and how it relates to the autopsy protocol and autopsy evidence, i.e. the autopsy photos and x-rays. It demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence suggests a second shooter. It is not a discussion of the Parkland witnesses. They are discussed in Chapters 18c and 18d. 

Now, that said, I'm assuming when you write "how the Parkland staff described the wound" you are thinking of one narrow aspect of what some of them said--its supposed location. My key finding--the finding that is 100% supported by the autopsy protocol, autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film--is that the large head wound was a tangential wound, a wound of both entrance and exit. This didn't come to me out of the blue. It came from Dr. William Kemp Clark. It was, almost certainly, his main observation.on the day of the shooting. It led me to sift through dozens of forensics journals and textbooks and learn all I could about tangential wounds. And it's 100% conclusive the large head wound was a tangential wound. 

Now, when I first started writing about this stuff, none of the supposed experts on the JFK medical evidence shared this opinion. But by 2013, many if not most of those writing on the assassination medical evidence were making this same claim. I know where they got it, even if they won't admit it. 

So the point is that the books and programs built around the recollections of the Parkland witnesses overlooked the most important observation made at Parkland, the observation that will ultimately re-open this case, IMO. They were so focused on pretending the Parkland witnesses said stuff they didn't say that they missed out on what Dr. Clark had said from the beginning. 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

To be clear, Chapter 16b is about the history of wound ballistics and how it relates to the autopsy protocol and autopsy evidence, i.e. the autopsy photos and x-rays. It demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence suggests a second shooter. It is not a discussion of the Parkland witnesses. They are discussed in Chapters 18c and 18d. 

Now, that said, I'm assuming when you write "how the Parkland staff described the wound" you are thinking of one narrow aspect of what some of them said--its supposed location. My key finding--the finding that is 100% supported by the autopsy protocol, autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film--is that the large head wound was a tangential wound, a wound of both entrance and exit. This didn't come to me out of the blue. It came from Dr. William Kemp Clark. It was, almost certainly, his main observation.on the day of the shooting. It led me to sift through dozens of forensics journals and textbooks and learn all I could about tangential wounds. And it's 100% conclusive the large head wound was a tangential wound. 

Now, when I first started writing about this stuff, none of the supposed experts on the JFK medical evidence shared this opinion. But by 2013, many if not most of those writing on the assassination medical evidence were making this same claim. I know where they got it, even if they won't admit it. 

So the point is that the books and programs built around the recollections of the Parkland witnesses overlooked the most important observation made at Parkland, the observation that will ultimately re-open this case, IMO. They were so focused on pretending the Parkland witnesses said stuff they didn't say that they missed out on what Dr. Clark had said from the beginning. 

I think what Pat Speer is proposing is really important, and perhaps not enough of the Warren Commission doubters are aware where a more rounded theory of the assassination leads to with the assumption the extant Z-film accurately reflects events.  To summarise: Two shooters, shooting from the rear, two head shots in close proximity. Tangential headwound.

Without making a critique of Pat's theory (and others) it would be fair to say it hasn't received as much scrutiny as the provenance of the Z-film has. 

[Michael Crane]

Pat,

I should have said where they placed the wound.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Pat,

I should have said where they placed the wound.

 

 

I  discuss all those witnesses and drawings in chapters 18c and 18d. If you read it you will see that many of those witnesses did not say what we were told they said, and that some of those who've written on this subject were unwell, dishonest, or both. 

Perhaps we should discuss this on another thread.