The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy also writes:

Quote

I don't know why you don't believe Pamela Brown's claim that she saw the Z film long before Geraldo released it in 1975. You yourself provide evidence that thousands of people saw it then.

I'm quite prepared to accept Ms Brown's claim that she saw the Zapruder film, if that's what she claims. What she saw might well have been one of the many poor-quality bootlegs that I mentioned in the post Sandy quotes.

But my understanding is that she claimed to have seen a film that differed from the Zapruder film as we know it, namely the mythical 'other' Zapruder film. Since there is very little evidence that this 'other' film has ever existed, and plenty of evidence that it cannot ever have existed, I think I'm justified in asking for a bit more than simply her assertion.

Maybe she took some detailed notes that can be verified and accurately dated, or maybe she snapped a quick photo of a scene that doesn't exist in the actual Zapruder film. As far as I'm aware, no such corroboration exists.

I wouldn't be surprised if most or all of the claims of having seen the 'other' Zapruder film are nothing more than poorly recalled viewings of a poor-quality bootleg.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

In one of the crazier threads on this Forum, King alterationist James Fetzer attacked The Godfather of alterationists Jack White for his manipulation of photos in Harvey and Lee. Amazingly, moreover, the proof of Jack's manipulation was being provided by Judyth Baker.

Ha! I don't recall that. It might have been before my time. But I do remember Fetzer's ludicrous claims about a mobile photo-alteration van in Dealey Plaza.

It makes you wonder how many rational lurkers back then, people who might have been able to make useful contributions, lost interest in the whole JFK assassination topic because of this sort of craziness. Unfortunately, others are carrying on Fetzer's work, making the topic look like a plaything for the paranoid.

There are two servings of irony here. Not only do we have one super-alterationist attacking another, but the 'Harvey and Lee' believers, who claim that any document which contradicts their theory must be faked, are actually the ones doing the faking! At least, one of them was. I don't know who was responsible for the latest example that has come to light.

I don't want to derail this thread too much, but on the topic of the Darnell film, I raised the matter at the ROKC forum:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p700-prayer-man#38302

The consensus seems to be that whichever version someone saw, it wasn't the first-generation copy that's supposed to be held at NBC or the Sixth-Floor Museum or wherever. If the first-generation copy hasn't yet been released to the public, it still has the potential to resolve the identity of the figure in the doorway. And if the figure turns out to be Oswald, just think of the effect that would have.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Interesting quote from John Butler on page 7:

Quote

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.

John makes three points:

• All of the films and photographs to do with the assassination have been altered in some way. Every single one of them.
• The photographic record can help us work out not only what happened in Dealey Plaza, but also who was behind the assassination.
• The choice we have is that either a vast conspiracy of all-powerful overlords did it, or Oswald did it.

The first point is crazy. The second point is correct. The third point is wrong.

It's the third point that interests me most, because it seems to be a view that's held by most or all of those who claim that widespread alteration of images took place.

But it's clearly wrong, because the choice isn't between an all-powerful, cast-of-thousands conspiracy and a lone nut. You don't need to employ a cast of thousands just to shoot a guy in a slow-moving open-topped car, and to frame a patsy. But you probably do need more than one person to do these things.

The way to solve the mystery of who was behind the assassination is to discard all the speculative stuff, start with a foundation of only the most solid facts, and build from there.

You don't need to come up with an all-encompassing theory that incorporates every anomalous witness statement or written document or image, because we know (at least, most of us do) that witnesses can be mistaken, written documents can contain errors, and images can contain visual anomalies.

I wonder if any of our resident everything-is-a-fake enthusiasts could tell us why they think it's essential to make their proposed conspiracy as complicated as possible, rather than as simple as possible.

[Jamey Flanagan]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In one of the crazier threads on this Forum, King alterationist James Fetzer attacked The Godfather of alterationists Jack White for his manipulation of photos in Harvey and Lee. Amazingly, moreover, the proof of Jack's manipulation was being provided by Judyth Baker.

Excuse me Pat, but the way you just casually throw around the term "alterationist" reminds me of the way the lone nutters throw around the term "conspiracy theorist", lumping everyone together from some guy who thinks there was a low level conspiracy and cover-up to what you might consider a full blown nutjob. And it's always used with negative connotations. Let me ask you this, do you consider Dino Brugioni (forgive me if I butchered the spelling) an alterationist? A highly credible guy who is just saying what he personally saw and what he saw was most definitely not the content in the extent Zapruder film. Do you think he is lying? Mistaken? Or to quote that great wordsmith George W. Bush, was he just misremembering? At the very least frames were removed. Each frame is an eighteenth of a second. There is blood spray in one frame. That's it. Anyone with a shred of common sense will tell you with that impact, with just how many people were covered in blood and brain matter, that all of that blood splatter is not gonna happen in an eighteenth of a second and be over with. If that makes me a nutjob "alterationist' then sign me up buddy, lol! Nothing personal either. I respect the work you've done in the field. You have made many valuable contributions. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jamey Flanagan writes:

Quote

There is blood spray in one frame. That's it. Anyone with a shred of common sense will tell you with that impact, with just how many people were covered in blood and brain matter, that all of that blood splatter is not gonna happen in an eighteenth of a second and be over with. If that makes me a nutjob "alterationist' then sign me up buddy, lol!

The higher the quality of the film you examine, the more likely it is that details such as blood spray will be visible. But even in a relatively poor-quality online version, the blood spray is visible in frame 314:

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg

And in frame 315:

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg

And in frame 316:

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg

There's also a hint of blood spray in frame 317 of that version, something which may or may not be more clearly visible in a better-quality version.

As we have learned over the years, almost all claims of anomalies come from people who have looked at relatively poor-quality versions of films and photos. We can expect poor-quality images to generate anomalies and to obscure details.

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Excuse me Pat, but the way you just casually throw around the term "alterationist" reminds me of the way the lone nutters throw around the term "conspiracy theorist", lumping everyone together from some guy who thinks there was a low level conspiracy and cover-up to what you might consider a full blown nutjob. And it's always used with negative connotations. Let me ask you this, do you consider Dino Brugioni (forgive me if I butchered the spelling) an alterationist? A highly credible guy who is just saying what he personally saw and what he saw was most definitely not the content in the extent Zapruder film. Do you think he is lying? Mistaken? Or to quote that great wordsmith George W. Bush, was he just misremembering? At the very least frames were removed. Each frame is an eighteenth of a second. There is blood spray in one frame. That's it. Anyone with a shred of common sense will tell you with that impact, with just how many people were covered in blood and brain matter, that all of that blood splatter is not gonna happen in an eighteenth of a second and be over with. If that makes me a nutjob "alterationist' then sign me up buddy, lol! Nothing personal either. I respect the work you've done in the field. You have made many valuable contributions. 

I didn't mean to offend, but you have to realize I'm not just throwing labels at people whose opinions I didn't like. I was an active moderator during a period where Fetzer tried to take over the Forum. Much as our former President, he hurled insults at everyone he saw as a rival. I'd made the mistake of admitting my friend's mom was once a secretary at the CIA. From then on, I was "CIA-affiliated" or some such thing. I was called a "lone-nutter" numerous times, although I was clear in my belief there was more than one shooter.

At one point as I recall I challenged Fetzer and his clan to debate me on the evidence under the assumption it was legit. I maintained then, as now, that it clearly suggests a conspiracy. They weren't interested. I think one of them even said the evidence all points to Oswald, but I couldn't get him to back up his claims.

The point is that this crowd was not interested in studying the case, or the actual evidence. Their sole interest in the case was in looking at photos or films and pointing out things they couldn't explain. This obsession on their part went way beyond the Kennedy assassination, moreover. Time after time after time, they would start threads on the moon landing or on 9/11 in the JFK assassination section of the forum, and freak out when one of the moderators moved it to its proper location. To their minds, studying the JFK assassination meant studying the alteration of the evidence, and that meant studying the alteration of evidence in other cases as well.

The good news, if there was any, is that this drew a NASA-phile and a professional photographer to the forum, who regularly wiped the floor with the arguments put forward by the "alterationists." 

[Jamey Flanagan]

I appreciate your response, and I do understand all of that. I am curious as to what your answer to my question would be, lol! Would you consider Dino Brugioni an alterationist?

[John Butler]

9 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

 

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.

 

Chris,

There is a lot of work involved in rehashing what I have already said across the years on the Forum.  In my old age I have grown lazy.  I recommend searching what I said with earlier topics and comments.

Thanks for your interest.  

[John Butler]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John makes three points:

• All of the films and photographs to do with the assassination have been altered in some way. Every single one of them.
• The photographic record can help us work out not only what happened in Dealey Plaza, but also who was behind the assassination.
• The choice we have is that either a vast conspiracy of all-powerful overlords did it, or Oswald did it.

The first point is crazy. The second point is correct. The third point is wrong.

There I am again.  Crazy.  Not the first time.  I think I'll just go and listen to Patsy Cline for the rest of the afternoon.  I sure Jeremy will take every opportunity to let me know about my mental health in future posts.

[Gil Jesus]

On 2/17/2022 at 12:37 PM, John Butler said:

Gil,

Pat said that above, but we know the FBI changed testimony, or in other cases actively coerced and intimidated witnesses to say what they wanted them to say about the events in Dealey Plaza.  When I read all of the witness statements I could find about what happened in Dealey Plaza there were 100+ who said certain similar things.  And, then there was about as many who said something similar, but one, two or three words would change the meaning of what was being said.  Instead of "passed in front of" you would find things like "just pass the TSBD" or "after passing the TSBD".  There were too many of these, in my opinion, to be natural.    

The FBI LIED in their reports about what the witnesses said:

 

[Gil Jesus]

I didn't start this thread as pre-text to World War 3. LOL

I think a healthy debate once in a while is good for us as we search fro the truth.

For me, I think there's enough evidence to believe that the extant film is an edited version of the original. Witnesses who saw the original at Kodak in Dallas on the evening of the assassination described it as sharp and clear.

The extant film is not.

There are witnesses who claimed to have seen a different version of the film, one which includes the turn onto Elm and the limo coming to a complete stop.

The extant film does not.

Frames 207-212 are missing on the extant film, strangely at the time the WC claimed that the first shot was fired and the witnesses said the limo slowed down.

The extant film is full of anomalies, like Kennedy's head disappearing at frame 157.

If you folks wanna believe that the film is original, that's fine with me. It's not going to change my life any.

And what happened to the films of Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold, taken by authorities never to be seen again ? 

Could this "other film" be Arnold's film ? I wonder.

[Jamey Flanagan]

I agree with many of the points made in the last post by Gil. Except maybe for the Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold thing, lol! I seriously doubt that Oliver was even there, but if she was she most certainly wasn't the babushka lady. I think, given that the video taken by the babushka lady has never surfaced, that she was an operative for the assassination team and took a video for them of what actually happened. Just a theory. I'm 50/50 on Arnold. He's more believable than Beverly anyway, lol! But another point that most people never bring up is that the events depicted on the extent Zapruder film are described as happening that way by ZERO eyewitnesses! Especially the violent backwards and to the left head jerk. Nobody saw that happen that day in Dealey Plaza! Most describe the head moving forward after the head shot. And not the imperceptible forward movement you see in the extent Zapruder film, though not as violent and fast as the back and to the left we see today. 

[John Butler]

54 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

I didn't start this thread as pre-text to World War 3. LOL

I think a healthy debate once in a while is good for us as we search fro the truth.

Gil,

The Forum is a lot better than in past years.  James Gordon has cracked down on those who show up here just to harass people.  He has rebuked several for the language choices and personal attacks on Forum members.  It is not really WWIII here to due Mr. Gordon, who when I get the chance, I thank for taking a harder hand with those who abuse other members.  The internet is a sad place that allows folks to abuse others when they sure wouldn't do it face to face.

 

[John Butler]

17 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

I agree with many of the points made in the last post by Gil. Except maybe for the Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold thing, lol! I seriously doubt that Oliver was even there, but if she was she most certainly wasn't the babushka lady.

Beverly Oliver, the Babushka Lady, and Tammi True are a complex story.  I doubt as you do that Beverly Oliver was there.  I also doubt the Babushka Lady was there until after the assassination and Kennedy had already left the area.  

One can make a case that Beverly Oliver may be the Lady in Blue seen in the Zapruder film by Charles Brehm and just before the camera gets to Mary and Jean.  But, I think the Lady in Blue is actually Tammi True, a stripper for Jack Ruby.  Beverly Oliver was also and was a blonde and can fit the description.

In the Marie Muchmore film you can actually see the transformation of the Lady in Blue into the Babushka Lady.  There actually was a Lady in blue.  She can be seen in the Zapruder Film and one of the Willis slides.  From Muchmore:

As far as the Babushka Lady, there are actually about 13 or 14 to be found in the media of Dealey Plaza.  

Edited February 18, 2022 by John Butler

[Chris Scally]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

There is a lot of work involved in rehashing what I have already said across the years on the Forum.  In my old age I have grown lazy.  I recommend searching what I said with earlier topics and comments.

Thanks for your interest.  

Thanks John. That answers my question.