The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Dan Rice]

The one thing that bothers me as far as shooting happening on Houston, JFK is still waving on Elm before going behind the sign.

[John Butler]

6 hours ago, Dan Rice said:

The one thing that bothers me as far as shooting happening on Houston, JFK is still waving on Elm before going behind the sign.

Dan,

You know what bothers me more.  Shooting on Main Street.  Shooting at the intersection of Main and Houston.  Shooting on Houston Street.  Shooting in the intersection of Elm and Houston.  Shooting in front of the TSBD.  Shooting near the Grassy Knoll.

All of these are based on witness statements.  It is not something I said or made up.  Dealey Plaza witnesses said these things. If all of these statements were true, then the motorcade ran a gauntlet.  I haven't found anyone to believe that.  Are these statements partially true?  I have found anyone that believes that either.

I think that is mainly due to these witnesses forming a minority position.  About 20% of Dealey Plaza witnesses.  The majority of witnesses generally go along with the Official Story or they are said to.  The all pervasive influence of the Z film has led people to certain conclusions for years and decades.  After all, we see it on film.  It must be true.

As far as JFK waving to the crowd as he goes behind the Stemmons Sign and is shot, I think that occurred elsewhere and was edited into the Z film.  How sure am I of that?  About 20%.  And, that comes from what witnesses said in Dealey Plaza.  If over 100 people are not believable as versus a larger number just based on the larger number alone, then courts could not function. 

Serious doubt is raised by the witnesses that shooting occurred elsewhere then down by the Grassy Knoll on Elm Street.  That doubt needs to be accounted for in studying the JFKA.  I've tried to do just that.  I admit I have not been very successful in doing that.  But, I have raised the issue and it needs to be addressed.        

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On 2/12/2022 at 6:08 AM, Pat Speer said:

Except...a large percentage of those suspecting a conspiracy were swayed to do so after viewing the film, and the public viewing of the film led the public to call for a second investigation, which led to the HSCA. 

So, that's quite a conundrum. One can choose to believe the top piece of evidence convincing people there was a conspiracy was actually faked to suggest no conspiracy, or that people's memories are often in error. Hmmm...

Hi Pat,

I don't really like your 'conundrum', because it a pretty enormous ask to suggest a group of people watching a traumatic event would conjure a stop.  You are also giving us a false choice, so I'll give you a similar choice(perhaps also false) that aligns with Gil Jesus's initial post.

1. The conspirators view the original film, determine its suppression is impossible, and that the best course of action is alteration/frame removal.

2. Mockingbird is implemented (leaving the odd casualty, such as Dan Rather and a lot of other witnesses) including duff science (Luis Alvarez, Dale Myers) and crucially an unsolvable mystery : How can a shot from the front be proven, when a genuine recording of the events shows no evidence of a shot from the front?

My 'mystery' is far too simplistic for the readers of this forum, but it isn't for the general public. Especially when they are confronted with a concerted effort to bolster the premise, that is; that the extant Zapruder film is genuine.

Its not just me and other alterationists who can't make sense of the extant Z-film ;the Warren commission published the Rydberg drawing, the FBI produced a diagram showing a shot further down the street, and the HSCA failed to produce a conclusion on headwounds, that aligns with sufficient of the pertinent facts to convince anyone!

[Gil Jesus]

17 hours ago, David Andrews said:

What exactly did McMahon and Hunter say about the version they received, in contrast to what Brugioni describes receiving in the Horne film?  Was that an unslit 16mm/8mm, or a 16mm single strip?

From Doug Horne:

There were two Zapruder films delivered to NPIC, one late Saturday night and one Sunday evening.

"Homer McMahon vividly and independently recalled during his first interview that an unslit,“double 8” home movie film, 16 mm wide, was delivered to him at NPIC by “Bill Smith” of the Secret Service.  This was confirmed by him during his second, tape-recorded interview. He remembers being told by Bill Smith that the unslit double 8 movie was the camera-original film, and he believed this, because of its unslit format, as well as because of the sharpness of the image."

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

He goes on:

"The plain facts are these:

(1) the 8 mm ( already slit! ) camera-original Zapruder film was delivered to NPIC late on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, and the two "Secret Service" officials who brought it to NPIC for the making of briefing boards left with the film at about 3 AM Sunday morning;  and 

(2) a 16 mm, unslit version of the Zapruder film was returned to NPIC the next night, after dark, on Sunday evening, 11/24/63; and its courier (“Bill Smith”) said it had been processed at “Hawkeyeworks,” and that he had brought it directly to NPIC in Washington, D.C. from Rochester ( using the unmistakable code word “Hawkeyeworks” ) himself. "

And finally:

"Dino Brugioni’s knowledge of the “Hawkeyeworks” facility in Rochester, gained from Mr. Ed Green of Kodak and others whom he knew at the facility, was that it could indeed process motion picture film, and that the Kodak technicians at the Top Secret laboratory “could do anything” with film.  Because “Bill Smith” of the Secret Service delivered a Zapruder film to NPIC on Sunday, 11/24/63, whose format had miraculously been transformed, within 24 hours, from a slit, 8 mm wide “double 8” film, to an unslit, 16 mm wide, “double 8” film, it is reasonable to conclude that the Zapruder film’s image content was indeed altered on Sunday, 11/24/63, and that the alteration occurred at “Hawkeyeworks,” from whence Bill Smith had come with the film, which he readily admitted had been processed at that facility."

Edited February 13, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Sean Coleman]

Why would the Zfilm be altered if it was never intended to be publicly viewed? It was in hibernation for 12 years before it’s leak and subsequent appearance c/o Geraldo Rivera 1975-plenty of time to either alter it proficiently with advanced technology or just “lose it” 

Not casting aspersions, just asking…

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Sean Coleman said:

Why would the Zfilm be altered if it was never intended to be publicly viewed? It was in hibernation for 12 years before it’s leak and subsequent appearance c/o Geraldo Rivera 1975-plenty of time to either alter it proficiently with advanced technology or just “lose it” 

Not casting aspersions, just asking…

If I had been in charge of the handling of the Z film, I certainly would have either ordered it to be altered just in case it be be made public some time in the future, or I would have ordered it to be destroyed. Suspicions would be aroused either way. But I think more so if the film disappeared.

As it stands, with the film now being public, and thus with suspicions of alterations being raised, at least the film effectively suppresses a limo stop being made by a Secret Service driver and brain matter flying out the back of the head.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Dino Brugioni’s knowledge of the “Hawkeyeworks” facility in Rochester, gained from Mr. Ed Green of Kodak and others whom he knew at the facility, was that it could indeed process motion picture film, and that the Kodak technicians at the Top Secret laboratory “could do anything” with film. 

And, of course Honest Dino, a CIA asset, had nothing to do with film alteration.  He just made photo boards.  We can take his word for that.  I would say that NPIC could do much the same otherwise why were they in business.  Would they alter photo information for a president they didn't like?

1 hour ago, Sean Coleman said:

Why would the Zfilm be altered if it was never intended to be publicly viewed? It was in hibernation for 12 years before it’s leak and subsequent appearance c/o Geraldo Rivera 1975-plenty of time to either alter it proficiently with advanced technology or just “lose it” 

Not casting aspersions, just asking…

If you recall the Z film was shown at the Clay Shaw trial.  The powers that be would have known the effect that film would have on the public.  The Z film is a psychological tool to alter existing memories from Dealey Plaza into what the Z film portrays as reality.  Oh, that's how it was.  It's not what I recall, but there it is on film.  This was just like FBI agents altering testimony after the fact.  10 years later someone reads what they said to the FBI and say much the same thing.  There it is on paper.  They are not like Roger Craig identifying 14 changes in what he said.   

It couldn't be "lost" because it had purpose.  I suspect that if Robert Groden hadn't aired the film someone else would have.  It was time to do that.  So what that it caused the HSCA.  That was congress, an organ of government, corrupt and corruptible.  What effect did the HSCA have?  It verified most of the Warren Commission, but had to make the concession that there may have been a conspiracy based on one piece of evidence that could be refuted later.  Once it was out it became the story of the assassination for years and decades.  And, people today still consider it so. 

The events of Dealey Plaza indicate a master conspiracy planner or planners that created a situation that no one can figure out based on overwhelming contrary evidence.  I don't think one can find many things in the events of Dealey Plaza that everyone can agree on other than President Kennedy was shot and killed there.

[Gary Murr]

From a Ben Cole response earlier in this thread …

Quote: Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double…

Nope… and as I wrote in a previous thread regarding this possibility…

This, of course, is impossible [unless we are on the set of a Hollywood movie]. If one is to concede that John Connally’s thoracic wounding was as a result of impact from a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano bullet manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company of East Alton, Illinois, [or for that matter any bullet of comparative "size"] the mass of the bullet component of this cartridge simply is insufficient to generate enough momentum to “knock” a human body, which is tens of thousands of times heavier than the bullet, “over” in any direction. As most eloquently explained to me several years ago by the late Tom Purvis, no stranger to bullets and their capabilities to wound and kill, a bullet is a streamlined object, even one with a rounded nose like 6.5mm WCC ammunition. This specific bullet, like others, is designed to minimize the effect of aerodynamic drag, the advantage being that this design, in turn, concentrates a fairly large amount of “high” kinetic energy because of its speed onto a very small area with pressure facilitating penetration of the surface struck [in most cases, but in particular when it comes to human flesh]. Other factors to be considered is the caliber, “size’ and grain weight of the bullet, the length of the barrel, distance from the barrel of the object struck [in this case, John Connally] and where precisely the target [Connally] was hit. In the case of the Connally thoracic wound, and as described by Robert Shaw, it was a tunneling wound with the impacting missile traveling just under the surface of the skin until such time it struck, tangentially, the governor’s fifth rib at approximately its midpoint, before exiting with impact debris from the front of the chest just below the right nipple. That being the truth of the matter, there is no way possible that this same bullet knocked John Connally over “double” or otherwise – the math will not work.

A 6.5mm WCC bullet has an average grain weight of approximately 161 grains. This equates to 0.368 ounces, which in turn equates to 0.023 lbs. John Connally was 6 feet, 2 inches tall, and weighed in excess of 200 lbs. FWIW

Gary Murr

[Greg Doudna]

Several comments on this interesting post by Gil Jesus:

On the issue of the limousine stopping, I have thought that despite some witnesses expressing certainty that they saw a full stop, that could be an lllusion brought about in this way: when a vehicle slows suddenly, cars following closely behind will come to a full stop. If the presidential limousine had its brake lights on and slowed, and several cars behind came to a full stop before proceeding (perhaps several seconds later), spectators viewing that could have the mis-impression that the presidential limousine also came to a full stop for several seconds just like the cars behind. From a witness's point of view, it happens so fast, is unexpected, there is trying to remember... I notice also that in Vince Palamara's listing of 74 witness reports to a stopped or slowed presidential limousine that day in chapter 10 of Honest Answers (2021), no one from inside the presidential limousine is cited as claiming there was a full stop (and those inside the limousine might know best if it happened because a full stop could be felt, not simply seen). Therefore, while the limousine definitely slowed and there may be an issue of how long it was slowed, it does not seem obvious in the absence of any film evidence of such that there definitely was a full stop as opposed to a full stop of other cars behind a suddenly-slowing presidential limousine which then accelerated.

On Dan Rather reporting seeing in Zapruder JFK turn all the way around to face the rear when he was shot, I think the best explanation of that is neither that he saw a different version or that he was lie-ing. Instead, something underappreciated in television news reporting with charismatic talent (with which I have had very brief experience), is that they read what staff writes, as if it is their firsthand reporting. Dan Rather surely saw the film personally but I just assume there was someone else quickly composing, or perhaps already previously prepared, the narrative words to be read on air. Rather himself would have read it and if he did not see anything obviously amiss, would have studied it closely once or twice to mentally practice his emphasis and delivery, then gone on air with it, with the delivery in slow, somber, personal tones that we all have seen and remember (with Rather thinking it was all true as written for him). The one who wrote that, on the other hand, may have knowingly misrepresented. But I very much doubt that (a) Rather saw JFK turn backward; (b) Rather thought he saw JFK turn backward at the time he saw the film; or (c) Rather wrote that all himself unaided (even if that is the impression TV news wants viewers to have).

On Z312 (blurred) versus Z313 (clear), I am unable to confirm that from these frames of the "Costella Combined Edit Frames", http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/. Oddly, I don't think I am imagining this, but in those Costella Combined Edit Frames" looking at the top of the front windshield and of the framing behind the first row of seats, that looks unblurred in Z312, blurred in Z313, then unblurred again in Z314. Maybe other eyes can check this. Can a blur, if a neurological reflex, last only one frame? And why is this seemingly opposite of your information which has Z312 blurred and Z313 clear? 

On Rich DellaRosa claiming to have seen a portion of an original Zapruder showing the turn on to Elm from Houston, in which the presidential limousine almost goes down the wrong street, I looked up "The DellaRosa Report", Appendix E in Fetzer, ed., The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003). Indeed the DellaRosa sound clip you give sounds like strong testimony, but my question is are there corroborating witnesses to that? I do not understand also how DellaRosa can have seen this film three times in three separate years, with others, yet gives no exact dates, locations, other names, circumstances, etc. I understand he is now deceased, also it could well be that he had promised confidientiality or secrecy. Nor do I think he is dishonest in not having seen something. But there is just something odd about this, unless there is other corroboration. As Dellarosa tells it, the first two times he saw it he had not yet seen the "real" Zapruder (the arguably-tampered one we know). Only at the third viewing was he alert to the differences he says. I cannot help but think he has seen a better-quality version of the same Zapruder and has misremembered it. If there was an authenticated written statement from him available posthumously telling of the circumstances of how he saw it, or if there were authenticated notes written by him telling exactly what he saw within say 24 hours of when he saw it, that would be a different matter. Unfortunately, lacking this and lacking corroboration (if there is none), I cannot on present information find DellaRosa's witness claim of a missing turn on to Elm in an early Zapruder credible.

As for human memory being fallible in what it remembers seeing, I think of a true case a while ago in which a friend told me how when he was a teenager he remembered floating up off his bed into air, levitating, physically unsupported by anything, for a short period of time, before returning back down to the bed. No one else saw this. In answer to my question, he said he had taken no drugs or anything else which would influence perception. In answer to my question, he said he was fully awake. It was clear to me that he believed it had happened, believed his memory was true. Yet I judge it more likely that his memory is fallible than that the laws of gravity happened to be suspended in that moment of time and space without explanation. But this is a difference in interpretation. He was quite aware that what he remembered violated known science, and concluded that therefore known science isn't all that it is cracked up to be. I don't share that view--I think science is as good as it is cracked up to be in providing explanatory power to the natural world. The analogy is between my friend's claim of memory that he levitated, and DellaRosa's claim of memory to have seen that turn on to Elm in a Zapruder. In each case, a lone, unsubstantiated (if so in the case of DellaRosa, not sure about that) witness claim, with no knowledge or verification of when or how long after the event the memory in question was first claimed.

All this said, the power of what you bring out is how simple it would be if there was intent to modify what Zapruder showed, to do so by means of deleting frames. Then there is the whole business of Life magazine spending all that money for a film with no commercial exploitation of their investment, looking in retrospect for all the world as if the whole point of that was to keep the American public, for some unknown reasons, from seeing it!  

[Gil Jesus]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

And, of course Honest Dino, a CIA asset, had nothing to do with film alteration.  He just made photo boards.  We can take his word for that.  I would say that NPIC could do much the same otherwise why were they in business.  Would they alter photo information for a president they didn't like?

 

John, I'm just quoting what Doug Horne said. I'm not debating you.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

John, I'm just quoting what Doug Horne said. I'm not debating you.

Gil,

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression.  I very much enjoyed and found very interesting the things that you initially wrote.  I shy away from controversy and debate as much as I can.

I was just expressing my opinion of CIA people during that time.  I watched all of the interviews I could find of Dino Brugioni.  Sometime during that time I was watching him speak of what happened at the NPIC I suddenly realized he reminded me of a wide eyed, innocent 12 year old deceiver.

In fact I have enjoyed most of what you write.  Keep up the good work,    

[Dan Rice]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On Dan Rather reporting seeing in Zapruder JFK turn all the way around to face the rear when he was shot, I think the best explanation of that is neither that he saw a different version or that he was lie-ing. Instead, something underappreciated in television news reporting with charismatic talent (with which I have had very brief experience), is that they read what staff writes, as if it is their firsthand reporting. Dan Rather surely saw the film personally but I just assume there was someone else quickly composing, or perhaps already previously prepared, the narrative words to be read on air. Rather himself would have read it and if he did not see anything obviously amiss, would have studied it closely once or twice to mentally practice his emphasis and delivery, then gone on air with it, with the delivery in slow, somber, personal tones that we all have seen and remember (with Rather thinking it was all true as written for him). The one who wrote that, on the other hand, may have knowingly misrepresented. But I very much doubt that (a) Rather saw JFK turn backward; (b) Rather thought he saw JFK turn backward at the time he saw the film; or (c) Rather wrote that all himself unaided (even if that is the impression TV news wants viewers to have).

 

Rather was also very adamant that at no time did the limo stop.

[Chris Bristow]

How the limo stop could have been removed is a fascinating puzzle.  Removing frames would have required some additional work. Foster's movement across the frame would have to corrected because removing frames would cause that movement to jump. Her steps would also have to be altered because she takes almost one full step per second. The movements of everyone in the limo would also jump visibly if one full second of limo stop was removed.
 Adding a matte process has been suggested before but it also has difficulties to overcome. The reflections in the trunk match the limo position on Elm at least up to frame 340 approx. A 2nd matte would have to be applied to the trunk reflection to keep a match to the background.
The exact angle of the limo to Z matches the limo's position on Elm from approx frame 230 until well after the head shot, maybe frame 335. If a matte process changed the limo location on Elm they would have to change the limo angle to Z. You could skew a limo image and make it sort of appear like a different angle of view. But that does not alter the lines of sight through the limo as seen by Z. In other words skewing an image can alter the box shape of the limo but if, lets say, JC's ear is blocked by the side window, that image cannot change. His ear can't be revealed or hidden more by skewing the image. If you use the ear to window frame as a line of sight in an overhead drawing of the limo you will get the true limo angle to Z and it would not match the matte processed limo location.
 If the limo just slowed from 9 to 3mph for a few seconds there would be a mismatch with the background of about 40ft. Using a matte process to advance the background and hide the slowing would mean taking background from later frames and splicing portions of it into the current frame matte. You can't just use the next frames full background. You would need to take about 6 inches of the next frame and splice it into right edge the current frame. Once done the next frame would have 6" deficit from the start. You need to slide the background over 6" because the 6" on the left is now part of the previous frame. So now in order to do the matte on the next frame you will need 12" of the frame after it. This just keeps adding up and I'm not sure where it leads.
 How alteration was achieved is a tough question but I still think it must have occurred. Maybe it was a combination of removing a frame or two combined with a matte process. I guess if the background was magnified as has been theorized it would give the alteration people a little more background material to use for the mattes.
 I thought the Wiegman image of the limo near the underpass just 8 sec after the head shot made the limo stop impossible. But if the limo just slowed way down for a few seconds and was 40ft behind were it should be, then it would only be one second off where it should have been when it was reaching the underpass. Traveling at at least 30mph at the underpass the limo would advance 43ft in one second. Since we estimate the timing of the shots from Wiegman's reaction and his jump from the press car there is at least one second of wiggle room. So now I don't think the Wiegmans limo images makes a limo slowing/stopping impossible.

[John Butler]

Hi Chris,

Wasn't that one frame per second method also used in the Towner Film?

For the reasons you list I like the method of alteration I described earlier.  Just the contents of the p. limo are changed and nothing else.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Gil Jesus has written a lot of good stuff in the past, much of which I agree with. But not this time, sadly. The evidence for alteration of the Zapruder film is much weaker than he thinks it is. I'll deal with each of his main points in separate posts.

Part 1

Gil writes:

Quote

Until a few years ago, the authenticity and reliability of the extant Zapruder film was accepted by almost all JFK assassination researchers, even the severest critics of the Warren Report, myself included.

Questions about the authenticity of the Zapruder film were first raised more than 20 years ago by, among others, Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White and James 'Sandy Hook was a fake' Fetzer.

It has always been a fringe belief, held mostly by the more paranoid type of JFK assassination conspiracy enthusiasts, the sort of people who think that the world is one enormous conspiracy, and that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory that's too complex and implausible.

Quote

Today, however, things are different. There are serious doubts about whether the film is original and an accurate depiction of the assassination.

If anything is different these days, it's that there are now even fewer doubts about the film's authenticity. We've had two decades' worth of specific claims that are either worthless speculation or that have been actively disproved:

• This frame contains a strange spot! This other frame shows a turnip growing out of Jackie Kennedy's head! That means the film was faked! No, it means that you're looking at a poor-quality copy of a copy of a copy of the film. Every time a physical film is copied, anomalies are generated: spots appear, details vanish, and so on.
• Mary Moorman was standing in the street! No, she wasn't. Someone got their measurements wrong. See Josiah Thompson's three-part article for this and other examples:

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