The "Other" Zapruder Film

[John Butler]

23 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Like I said, Sandy, if you ask anyone familiar with 8mm film, anomalies are expected, and not proof of alteration. These are tiny images created in a split second, of a moving object, by a hand-held camera. The level of clarity and consistency you seem to think should be expected just wasn't possible at that time. Or even today. 

I have gone through several 8mm films taken in Dealey Plaza.  Hughes, Muchmore, Bell, Martin, Nix, etc.  They all have alterations.  They also show contradictory scenes.  Details of the same scene that doesn't make sense.

There is enough nonsense in all of these films to say they can't really be used as evidence of anything other than fraud.   

[Greg Doudna]

John Butler, on the preceding post the quotation you quote is not from me but from Pat Speer. Could you get that corrected? Thanks.

[John Butler]

Speaking of Bell, I have wondered how he did that.  Make his film of the grassy area down at the Triple Underpass and up Elm Street without getting those Dealey Plaza monument partitions in his film.  According to Jay Skaggs, they should be:

This is a question that has never been asked.  How did he do that?  I am interested in what the "Lone Nutters" will reply with.

[John Butler]

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

John Butler, on the preceding post the quotation you quote is not from me but from Pat Speer. Could you get that corrected? Thanks.

Greg,

I am truly sorry.  The editor does that.  I try to correct as much as possible.  I simply missed it.  Sorry.  It is something that needs to be adjusted.  If you will mention exactly what post that is I will go back and make sure Pat gets credited with what he said.

Edited February 17, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

John Butler, on the preceding post the quotation you quote is not from me but from Pat Speer. Could you get that corrected? Thanks.

I should also read post more carefully.  Thanks.

[Pat Speer]

22 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Z frame 306 compared to Costella frame.

Plus,

The top of z frame 307:

Pat's explanation about this frame makes sense.  At least as far as the Z frame 306 goes.  

I have no problem with altering a photo to get a clearer image through sharpening, lighting contrast, magnification, or some other process that will enhance what is being seen.  As long as the original is kept for comparison and the alteration is mentioned.  I cropped z frame 307 to show clearly what Pat was talking about.  I still have the original.  The cropped photo is clearly labelled to show the area under discussion.

I do not have expertise or knowledge in film manipulation.  I have just tried to follow David Healey's comments on how films are altered with traveling mattes.  I suggested a way to alter the Z film with just information taken from the inside of the p limo's passenger cabin.  What we see in Z frame 306 is another way to do that.  Simply use the top of the p limo and the information contained there.  You can take this p limo scene from another film and with the use of mattes transfer it into the film you are altering.  This image could have come from another place.  Z frame 157 says something different.  Take an honest look at what is in that frame.  There are more anomalies there and not just one.  

By 1963 the film alterationists had become really skilled with altering images.  Pull up a copy of the movie Jason and the Argonauts and watch the sowing of the dragon seeds.  Great stuff for kids.  Really great animation for its day.

What do we see in 306?  We see Kennedy with his head bowed, obviously shot.  The question here is how many times has been been shot?  We see his "Hollywood Patch" the blackened area covering the occipital/parietal wound.  The black patch says the 313-317 z frames shot are simply nonsense.  It is edited nonsense to deceive you into believing the shooting of President Kennedy occurred down by the Grassy Knoll so that Lee H. Oswald could be set up as the Patsy.  The black patch can be seen in early frames.  

My best guess is that Kennedy was shot on Houston Street just prior to the Houston and Elm intersection or possibly after the turn in front of the TSBD.  This part of the Z film has been excised leaving the Zapruder Gap.  There are 8 or so films that go haywire and become so distorted you can not see what happened in front of the Court Records Building.  All but the Hughes film, which is too distant to really see anything of import.  Elsie Dorman said she quit filming when she heard shooting coming from the Court Records Building.  Remember, she has been labelled the worst photographer ever.  If her film had not been heavily distorted and altered it would be the film of the assassination. 

Chis Davidson has shown us that there was another camera man directly behind Abe Z on the wall behind.  I can account for 14 extra camera people in Dealey Plaza on Houston and Elm that we don't know their names or have seen what they filmed.  They are in the extant media of those areas.  At the ARRB, there was a fellow that mentioned a photographic unit at Fort Hood was sent to Dealey Plaza, possibly as many as 50 people, were filming in Dealey Plaza.

Jack White is gone so it is easy to use him as a target with things like "moon lander Jack' or what Pat said earlier.  Whenever I see such nonsensical ad hominem attacks, the attackers lose all credibility with me.  They have moved over into the land of propaganda and fiction.   

 

  

Let me be clear. I actually liked Jack White. While he was prone to believe some crazy stuff, IMO, he came across as sincere. He was also helpful to other researchers, and provided his materials to the Poage Library, at Baylor University.

Fetzer was a different story, IMO. 

But on the thread discussing photo alteration in Harvey and Lee, he was 100% correct. As guided by Baker, he showed that  some of the photos presented in Harvey and Lee, which were designed to show there were two Oswalds, had been altered in proportion. IOW, Oswald's head had been stretched horizontally, which made his head wider in some of the photos. These altered photos were then used to "prove" there were two different Oswalds. 

Now, if push came to shove, I'd have to say Jack White probably screwed up while preparing his exhibit, as opposed to his being deliberately deceptive. But Fetzer, his former friend, was having none of that. He was upset that White wouldn't sign off on Baker's bona fides, and Baker saw Harvey and Lee as a challenge to her claim she'd been lovers with the "real" and only Oswald. So a battle ensued, which led to Fetzer's disavowing his friendship with White. Now, I can't remember the order, but around this same time, Fetzer also disavowed former colleagues David Lifton, Greg Burnham and John Costella. 

It was a reality TV show right here on the Ed Forum. 

But it was huge distraction from the actual research of men like Larry Hancock, and the effective arguments of Jim D. It was like we had Donald Trump on the forum, before we had the real Donald Trump. 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Speaking of Ike Altgens and the honesty of his photography, I would like to go back and re-publish this just to go along with the prior comment on Altgens.  Can you see the alteration?  It is not a technical or film distortion.

It is out in plain site to be seen that this photo has been changed.  Why?  I don't know unless it is to cover up shooting on Houston as our star witness Bonnie Ray Williams said.  Two shots.  You just have to look at the details of things.

John,

No, I don't see an alteration. Do you? If so, where and what is it?

 

18 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Jack White said this photo has another interesting anomaly.  The people in the crosswalk at East Houston are not the same as the people there we see in the Zapruder Film.

 

Couldn't that be because the people on Houston walked away after the parade had passed?

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[John Butler]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

Let me be clear. I actually liked Jack White. While he was prone to believe some crazy stuff, IMO, he came across as sincere. He was also helpful to other researchers, and provided his materials to the Poage Library, at Baylor University.

I never met Jack White.  He was gone by the time I got interested in Dealey Plaza and the events of the assassination.  If you truly like Jack, then why "the Godfather of Alterationists"?

[John Butler]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

John,

No, I don't see an anomaly. Do you? If so, where and what is it?

It is this.  There are more in the photo than just this.

The front of the front tire does not match the rear part of the tire.  This indicates the rear part of the tire is an overlay of the front part.  It is not done very well done.  It just occurred to me that the front tire was swapped with the back tire and that did not work out well.  So, another tire was overlayed on the front tire and that came out worse.  But, being good little alterationists with much experience they knew no one would see this.  They didn't take into consideration tech advancement through computers. 

The second arrow shows a front turning tire placed in the back as a rear tire.  Rear tires don't turn.  In other words, this tire was taken from another photo at a different location and put into this photo.

I have explained all of these things to folks before.  I am just doing it again since there are at least 3 people saying that there are no alterations in Dealey Plaza.  The films and photos are internally consistent and show the same things.

That is not true and never was.  I don't know which copy of the Z film is original.  All I know is what we usually see is a fraud and with other media, point out wide-spread deception in actually what happened in Dealey Plaza.

Here's where I will get into trouble.  More than likely, big trouble.  IMO, not many people know what happened in Dealey Plaza due this alteration of all, I say all, films and photos that show anything to do with the assassination.  The story we think we know is not real.  We need to know what happened in Dealey Plaza to understand the complexity of planning and effort went into this assassination.  If we had a clearer picture of what happened there, then it would suggest who was involved with the planning in a clearer way.  It would reveal that only folks with great power could have pulled this off and not a lone gunman however talented he might be.  

Edited February 17, 2022 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

As guided by [Judyth] Baker, [Fetzer] showed that  some of the photos presented in Harvey and Lee, which were designed to show there were two Oswalds, had been altered in proportion. IOW, Oswald's head had been stretched horizontally, which made his head wider in some of the photos. These altered photos were then used to "prove" there were two different Oswalds. 

 

Pat,

Copying or scanning an image back then often changed its aspect ratio.

[John Butler]

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Couldn't that be because the people on Houston walked away after the parade had passed?

No.  Jack was comparing scenes from the Zapruder film at the first part of the film that would coincide with where the p limo was at the same time.

The two don't match.  Chris Bristow went over this idea and thought he had someone who matched.  I don't think there was a match.  But, let's say Chris did find a match.  What about all the others that didn't match?  This was one of the reasons I thought Chris did not find a match.

Edited February 17, 2022 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, John Butler said:

It is this.  There are more in the photo than just this.

The front of the front tire does not match the rear part of the tire.  This indicates the rear part of the tire is an overlay of the front part.  It is not done very well done. 

 

There is a shadow under the front tire that makes it look like the back side of the tire is actually penetrating the asphalt. I believe that your brain interprets it as looking like a  bigger tire.

Or maybe it's the lack of a white stripe on the back of that tire that makes you interpret it as being different from the front of the tire. When really it is simply the bulbous part of the tire that is blocking our view of the white stripe.

 

12 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The second arrow shows a front turning tire placed in the back as a rear tire.  Rear tires don't turn.

 

As for the rear tire, what you see as a turned tire (turned by a steering wheel), I see as a tire that is set in from the fender quite a ways. It is set in much more than the front tire is, relative to its fender

After studying it, I come to the conclusion that this is explained by the fact that the body of the limo is much more rounded on the rear fender than the front fender. Thus the rear tire is set further in to be in line with the front tire.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

No.  Jack was comparing scenes from the Zapruder film at the first part of the film that would coincide with where the p limo was at the same time.

The two don't match.  Chris Bristow went over this idea and thought he had someone who matched.  I don't think there was a match.  But, let's say Chris did find a match.  What about all the others that didn't match?  This was one of the reasons I thought Chris did not find a match.

 

It's really tricky trying to compare the people in those two frames. It would help if the B&W one was in color. Still, it's hard to differentiate the people in the B&W frame because the angle is so acute. Also I think that the camera had a telephoto lens. Those two things together make it look like many of the people are standing in a group rather than in a line.

But there are a few candidates in the B&W that I feel should be findable in the Zapruder frame. Unfortunately, the only one that I THINK I found a match for is the guy holding the flag. If you look at the corner of the Purse & Co. building in the Z frame, then locate the guy blocking it from our view, the third face to his right is the flag holding guy... maybe. And really, it's only the flag that I (maybe) can see in both pictures.

 

[Chris Scally]

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

I have gone through several 8mm films taken in Dealey Plaza.  Hughes, Muchmore, Bell, Martin, Nix, etc.  They all have alterations.  They also show contradictory scenes.  Details of the same scene that doesn't make sense.

There is enough nonsense in all of these films to say they can't really be used as evidence of anything other than fraud.   

 

John,

I have a particular interest in the "UPI Films", Muchmore and Nix. Could you possibly post even a summary list of the alterations to these two films, please? TIA.

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Chris Scally

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

The appearance of selective blurring in one frame but not the adjacent one defies the laws of physics and logical reasoning.

Defies the laws of physics, eh? When Sandy gets his expert research on this topic published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, perhaps he could send me a copy. I'll pay the postage.

Quote

Roland Zavada and Prof Raymond Fielding looked at it and said it didn't have the tell-tale signs of Kodachrome being copied to Kodachrome, such as increased contrast, etc.

Correct. As far as I'm aware, no experts have examined the film and concluded otherwise. Until that happens, we are obliged to believe Zavada and Fielding.

Quote

I have the choice of either believing what those guys said, or believing the hard evidence, which is Zapruder film itself showing the physics-defying sporadic selective blur.

Oh dear. 'Hard evidence'! In other words: it looks strange to me, and I can't explain it, so it must have been faked. See also:

• Those crop circles are really elaborate! I can't explain how they were made, so extraterrestrials must have made them!
• Stonehenge contains a lot of really big, heavy stones that originated a long way away! I can't imagine how they were brought to the site, so people from Atlantis must have done it!
• I'm sure we can all think of other examples of believing 'hard evidence'.

Quote

Naturally I choose to believe the hard evidence. Zavada and Fielding are wrong.

Here's a serious suggestion. Sandy should get hold of some genuine experts in film chemistry and film duplication techniques, and persuade the said experts to visit the Archives, examine the film, and give their opinion, backed by the appropriate technical evidence, about whether the film has been copied.

If by some chance Sandy's experts are reluctant to get involved, all Sandy has to do is tell them that he's some guy on a web forum who has got the idea into his head that a handful of blurred images in an 8mm home movie defy the laws of physics.