David Andrews Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 On 2/13/2022 at 9:13 AM, Gil Jesus said: 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." Thanks for that, Gil. I'm still processing it, amid distractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 Sandy Larsen writes: Quote If the original film in the National Archives is missing damaged frames, can't it also be missing other frames? Ones removed to cover up the slowing down of the limo? No, it can't, because the section of the film at around frame 313, when the slowing-down happened, is intact, and the film is not a copy. To put that another way, the film in the Archives is the physical film that was in Zapruder's camera, and the slowing-down section does not contain splices. Without splices, no frames can have been removed from that section. (Pedantic aside: No-one is claiming that frames were "removed to cover up the slowing down of the limo". The claim is that frames were removed to cover up the stopping of the limo, a claim for which, as we have seen, there is very little evidence.) Quote If there is strong evidence it was faked, then it was probably faked. Correct. And if there isn't strong evidence that it was faked, there's no justification for claimiing that it was faked. As we have seen, the evidence that it was faked is very weak. Quote I've noticed that un-alterationists like to use these three similar arguments ... Those are not the arguments that are being used. The relevant argument is the universal one that if insufficient evidence has been offered to support a particular claim, there is no need to accept that claim. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the film was faked, and so far that burden of proof has not been met. It isn't only Sandy's "un-alterationists" that use this method; it's used by other rational people too, such as un-alien-abductionists and un-flat-earthists. Quote Pamela Brown said that she saw the Z film long before Geraldo released it to the public. In the 1960s. Do you think she is wrong? I've no reason to suppose that she's right. If she can produce more evidence than a mere assertion, I might be able to take her claim seriously. Isn't she the one who thinks she's the reincarnation of Mozart or something? Quote motion blur ... significant blur ... double exposure ... I don't believe there is any natural explanation for this. And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen: the argument from ignorance, the ever-present accompaniment to claims of fakery. I can't explain this or that anomaly, so I'm going to have a blind guess and invent the most implausible explanation I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 Gil Jesus writes: Quote But in this case, the more witnesses you have, it seems the less credible they are. It's bizarre. That isn't what we are saying. In fact, it's the precise opposite of what we are saying. There are many more witnesses to the car not stopping than there are to the car stopping. We should believe the majority of those eye-witnesses, not only because there are more of them, but also because their accounts are supported by every relevant item of physical evidence. As I explained earlier, we have on the one hand a small number of eye-witness statements, and on the other hand a much larger number of eye-witness statements, plus four home movies, plus two photographs. That is the entire body of evidence relating to the car-stop, and it overwhelmingly points in one direction. The car didn't stop. Quote And the naysayers would like us to believe that it's wasn't possible to edit the film and then copy it back into 8mm format, hiding the splices. It's the experts who say that. Until another expert examines the film and comes to the opposite conclusion, we are obliged to go with the current consensus of expert opinion, aren't we? The Zapruder film in the National Archives is not a copy. Any proposed alteration which requires that film to be a copy must be incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 (edited) Pat Speer writes: Quote It's amazing how often when someone swears they have a breakthrough that it never gets shared with the rest of us. It's like the Darnell film showing "Prayer Man" that supposedly proves he was Oswald that has never been released. That's been over three years now. A quick nit-pick: the claim isn't that the Darnell film proves that Oswald is the man in the doorway. It's that when combined with three things: what we know of Oswald's movements, Oswald's long-suppressed but recently discovered alibi ("went outside to watch the P. Parade"), and the lack of plausible alternative candidates, the figure's resemblance to Oswald indicates that it may in fact be Oswald. I'm not sure that anyone would claim with 100% certainty that the figure is Oswald; I myself wouldn't. It may turn out not to be Oswald. But access to a good-quality copy of either the Darnell or Wiegman films will probably allow us to resolve the question one way or the other. It's an avenue that is very much worth pursuing, given the enormous potential effect such a discovery would have on the case. As for those Hollywood experts who were supposed to be on the verge of supplying proof that the Zapruder film is a fake, well, it has been a few years now, and we're still waiting. I think we can draw the obvious conclusion. Edited February 16, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk corrected a typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted February 16, 2022 Author Share Posted February 16, 2022 (edited) John Butler mentioned an anomaly at Z frame 157. Please look at frames 257 thru 332. This whole sequence involves an anomaly at the bottom of the frames. Grass on the side of the limo ? Do I see people's legs also around Z 306 ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/zap-anomalies.mp4 How in God's name can a film this screwed up be considered as evidence of anything ? Then there's the Muchmore film: There is a "double black line" that appears in the Muchmore film just before the head shot. It's similar to the "wandering black line" at the bottom of Z frames 257 thru 332. It might interest people that it happens at Muchmore frame 41, the same time as Zapruder frame 312. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Zapruder-Nix-Muchmore-Kennedy-1963.mp4 Then there's a second "double black line" in the Muchmore film at Z 316. It's funny how all of these anomalies happen to appear just before and just after the head shot. It couldn't have been spliced to hide the fact that the vehicle had stopped. I'm sure this is all just a coincidence. After all, we were told by experts that the extant film was original. And they would never lie to us. Edited February 16, 2022 by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 FWIW, Forum member Greg Burnham also claims to have seen a different version of the Zapruder film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 2 hours ago, Michael Crane said: FWIW, Forum member Greg Burnham also claims to have seen a different version of the Zapruder film. Sorry, but there is no "other Zapruder film." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamey Flanagan Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 I think possibly a casualty of missing frames or editing is what was described by a close assassination witness. I'm pretty sure it was Bill Newman although it could have been Charles Brehm. He said something about hearing that first shot and JFK jumping up in his seat a little. Said he thought it was the President kind of joking to a backfire or a firecracker at first, kinda like "Oh, it got me!" I was listening to various interviews of witnesses so I don't remember exactly who it was for sure, but I believe he was a police officer that said a very similar thing after hearing the first shot the President did something that he had first thought was joking about the sound not recognizing it was a gun shot. I guess you could argue that JFK raising his hands up to his throat was what these two men interpreted as him possibly acting like he had been hit as a joke. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 49 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said: Sorry, but there is no "other Zapruder film." The video is down,but he also said it on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 (edited) Members 2.2k Gender:Male Location:San Diego, CA Posted April 11, 2011 Glen, 1) The film I saw was shown for training purposes. I do not know "who" possessed [read:owned] the film that I saw, but I am sure it was NOT an individual. 2) The "secrecy" seems to be related, IMO, to the gross negligence (at best) --or the complicity--of the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail as demonstrably evident by their inaction and by several breaches of protocol. 3) Although I didn't see it on any TV station, Milicent Cranor saw it as Jack reported and Scott Myers saw it on television. 4) I was in no position to ask such questions at the time even if I had thought to ask them. 5) I have never expected anyone to take my word for it. I understand the reluctance. I would respond in exactly the same way. I wish I could be more helpful, but that is all I know. Edited February 17, 2022 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Pat Speer writes: A quick nit-pick: the claim isn't that the Darnell film proves that Oswald is the man in the doorway. It's that when combined with three things: what we know of Oswald's movements, Oswald's long-suppressed but recently discovered alibi ("went outside to watch the P. Parade"), and the lack of plausible alternative candidates, the figure's resemblance to Oswald indicates that it may in fact be Oswald. I'm not sure that anyone would claim with 100% certainty that the figure is Oswald; I myself wouldn't. It may turn out not to be Oswald. But access to a good-quality copy of either the Darnell or Wiegman films will probably allow us to resolve the question one way or the other. It's an avenue that is very much worth pursuing, given the enormous potential effect such a discovery would have on the case. As for those Hollywood experts who were supposed to be on the verge of supplying proof that the Zapruder film is a fake, well, it has been a few years now, and we're still waiting. I think we can draw the obvious conclusion. I guess you weren't invited to the party. Several years back a 'good quality" copy of the Darnell film was located and viewed by some prominent researchers. I was guaranteed by one of them that this was gonna come out and that it would change everything, as it was 99.99% obvious to him from viewing this film that Prayer Man was Oswald. I told him I'd believe it when I saw it for myself. I'm still waiting. And I think I know why. Because those in possession of this "breakthrough" evidence have decided to hold it back, seeing as its release would damage their argument instead of helping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: I guess you weren't invited to the party. Several years back a 'good quality" copy of the Darnell film was located and viewed by some prominent researchers. I was guaranteed by one of them that this was gonna come out and that it would change everything, as it was 99.99% obvious to him from viewing this film that Prayer Man was Oswald. I told him I'd believe it when I saw it for myself. I'm still waiting. And I think I know why. Because those in possession of this "breakthrough" evidence have decided to hold it back, seeing as its release would damage their argument instead of helping it. A couple-three-four decades back I lost patience with anyone who said they had key and vital evidence regarding the JFKA, but that it was being withheld. I can't think of a single case where the evidence emerged, and then proved something. I have concluded the only entity withholding evidence is the US government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 19 hours ago, Gil Jesus said: John Butler mentioned an anomaly at Z frame 157. Please look at frames 257 thru 332. This whole sequence involves an anomaly at the bottom of the frames. Grass on the side of the limo ? Do I see people's legs also around Z 306 ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/zap-anomalies.mp4 How in God's name can a film this screwed up be considered as evidence of anything ? Then there's the Muchmore film: There is a "double black line" that appears in the Muchmore film just before the head shot. It's similar to the "wandering black line" at the bottom of Z frames 257 thru 332. It might interest people that it happens at Muchmore frame 41, the same time as Zapruder frame 312. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Zapruder-Nix-Muchmore-Kennedy-1963.mp4 Then there's a second "double black line" in the Muchmore film at Z 316. It's funny how all of these anomalies happen to appear just before and just after the head shot. It couldn't have been spliced to hide the fact that the vehicle had stopped. I'm sure this is all just a coincidence. After all, we were told by experts that the extant film was original. And they would never lie to us. I spent a good a deal of time working with a film producer some 15 years ago, while creating my video series. He'd been working with Super 8 and video since he was a child. And he swore that ALL films have anomalies in them when you look at them frame by frame. Spurred on by my questions, he did some reading on the supposed film-alteration of the Z-film. One argument--that the ability to insert animated images into a color film was common-place in 1963--and that this was demonstrated in Mary Poppins--gave him a chuckle. So he took some Z-film frames and added some dancing penguins into the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Sandy Larsen writes: Quote If the original film in the National Archives is missing damaged frames, can't it also be missing other frames? Ones removed to cover up the slowing down of the limo? 22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: No, it can't, because the section of the film at around frame 313, when the slowing-down happened, is intact, and the film is not a copy. To put that another way, the film in the Archives is the physical film that was in Zapruder's camera, and the slowing-down section does not contain splices. Without splices, no frames can have been removed from that section. How do you know that the film in the Archives is the original film? How do you know that the film in the Archives has physical splices where the limo turns from Houston to Elm? And where a few other frames (inconsequential) are said to be missing? (I've seen it mentioned a few time that there are some individual missing frames.) (As I said, I don't know much on the history of the film.) 22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: (Pedantic aside: No-one is claiming that frames were "removed to cover up the slowing down of the limo". The claim is that frames were removed to cover up the stopping of the limo, a claim for which, as we have seen, there is very little evidence.) There are some who believe the limo slowed down substantially, but didn't stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 I said: Quote I've noticed that un-alterationists like to use these three similar arguments: If something didn't need to be done, then it wasn't done. If something happening isn't needed to prove something, then it didn't happen. If something is hard to believe, then it didn't happen. Truth is, if there is strong evidence that something happened, then it probably did happen. For whatever reason. Jeremy said: Quote It isn't only Sandy's "un-alterationists" that use this method; it's used by other rational people too, such as un-alien-abductionists and un-flat-earthists. The difference is that alien-abductionists and flat-earthists don't have strong evidence indicating they are right. In many cases, alterations do have strong evidence for their claims. And... If there is strong evidence that something happened, then it probably did happen. For whatever reason. But un-alterationists refuse to believe it because it doesn't fit into their preconceived reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now