The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, on one of the old threads regarding the "other film" it was pointed out that the timing of Pamela Brown's supposedly seeing the film corresponded with the selling of the Muchmore film. From this it seems possible it was shown in a theater in the weeks after the assassination, only to be withdrawn. This possibility was never quite nailed down, if I recall. 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

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

 

Gil,

I believe I have an innocent explanation for this apparent anomaly. Let's look frame by frame beginning with Z155.

 

Z155

 

This appears to be a composite of the frame from two Z-films. The lower part has lost most of its color and has no image in the sprocket area.

The partition between the upper and lower parts is highly irregular as opposed to consisting of straight lines. This suggests to me that the splice was made with a computer program. (But then, I don't know anything about splicing film.)

 

Z156

 

This appears to be from the Z-film copy having faded colors.

 

 

Z157

 

This appears to be another composite from two different Z-films. This time the faded part is on top. It's hard to see where the splice is. But clearly the limo is in the colored, bottom part and the car behind it is in the faded part.

Now, look at the left headlight (our right) of the car behind the limo. What appears to be a round headlight on that car is really Kennedy's face.

Now, assume that I am right and compare that frame with the next one:

 

Z158

 

Note that Kennedy's face is in the same location as the "headlight" in the previous frames. His face looks larger in this frame because of the motion blur in this frame. In addition to that, I believe Kennedy may have been looking to his left at first and then turned to his right, thus exposing more of his face to the camera.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy wrote:

Quote

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

Jeremy replied:

On 2/18/2022 at 2:54 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

 

That's like saying I need a peer-reviewed published paper to prove a solution to an algebra problem.

But maybe that's to expected from someone who doesn't understand algebra.

 

Sandy wrote:

Quote

I have the choice of either believing what [Zavada and Fielding] said, or believing the hard evidence, which is Zapruder film itself showing the physics-defying sporadic selective blur. [Naturally I choose to believe the hard evidence.]

Jeremy replied:

On 2/18/2022 at 2:54 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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

 

Yes we know, Jeremy can't explain it.

As for me, it would have looked impossible had I limited my thinking the way Jeremy does. But I have an open mind and because of that I could explain it. Which I did.

(Of course, as with anybody else, there is always the possibility I made a mistake in my thinking. But I'm feeling pretty confident with this for reasons I haven't gone into.)

 

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Gil,

I believe I have an innocent explanation for this apparent anomaly. Let's look frame by frame beginning with Z155.

 

Z155

 

This appears to be a composite of the frame from two Z-films. The lower part has lost most of its color and has no image in the sprocket area.

The partition between the upper and lower parts is highly irregular as opposed to consisting of straight lines. This suggests to me that the splice was made with a computer program. (But then, I don't know anything about splicing film.)

 

Z156

 

This appears to be from the Z-film copy having faded colors.

 

 

Z157

 

This appears to be another composite from two different Z-films. This time the faded part is on top. It's hard to see where the splice is. But clearly the limo is in the colored, bottom part and the car behind it is in the faded part.

Now, look at the left headlight (our right) of the car behind the limo. What appears to be a round headlight on that car is really Kennedy's face.

Now, assume that I am right and compare that frame with the next one:

 

Z158

 

Note that Kennedy's face is in the same location as the "headlight" in the previous frames. His face looks larger in this frame because of the motion blur in this frame. In addition to that, I believe Kennedy may have been looking to his left at first and then turned to his right, thus exposing more of his face to the camera.

 

Z 157 contains the splice not earlier or later frames around Z 157.

You also can clearly see the oversized SS security vehicle.

In this crop you can clearly see the film splice.  Kennedy's head is missing due to the splice.  And Kennedy's head is not a headlight on the SS vehicle.  Other frames around Z 157 are irrelevant to Z 157 in showing a large number of alterations. 

Z frame 158 has an oversized motor bike cop.

Kennedy's head is missing in Z 156 also and is not a SS vehicle headlight:

If you look at Z 156-157 you will not be able to identify a single person in the p limo.  The exception is a partial Kennedy with hands nearly in position to clutch at his throat in Z 157.  In Z 156 you can't see much of anything in the p limo.  

Z frame 157 is just one of 480+ frames.  In many other frames you can see things that can only be explained as artistry and alteration.

Another good example is Z 313 to Z 317 has the head wound of Kennedy showing debris from his skull flying in the air.  He can assume that 1 second is about 18 frames.  The frames showing the head wound are about 1/4 of a second.  Just long enough to see matter ejected from Kennedy's head in the film.  Good enough is what those film editors thought.

Z 155

Can you see a single person in Z 155 in the passenger compartment of the p limo?  This is very similar to Elsie Dorman.  When these frames go by as the film is running your mind supplies the details from other frames that do show someone.

 

  

Edited February 19, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Look at the Vice President's security vehicle and you will understand this frame is a poorly done alteration suggesting how the film frames was built.

This is how the vehicle looks when seen in the proper form:

And, in Z 157 we have this:

The security vehicle for Johnson can be see in other frames better:

[John Butler]

Another content problem in Z 157 is Phil Willis and his extra-long leg.  It is not a shadow.  His shadow of that leg is on the pavement and not part of his leg.  This is really a goofy image of Phil suggesting he was placed into this scene basically because he is supposed to be there.  Elsie Dorman shows that he is not there.  His daughters are there.  Linda is seen taking a picture.  Are Phil's slides really his, or are they Linda's slides.  

How did the film alterers know that he was there or not there?  It comes from testimony taken on the day of the assassination and later days.  This indicates that the film alterers had plenty of time to make this scene based upon the testimony of witnesses that were interviewed up to around March, 1964.  This is the extant film.  The "original".  Therefore the "original" is not original, but a false copy.  The original would not have splices and foolish content imagery in the original Z 157.  

The more I study Z frame 157, the more I conclude that this is how the film was manufactured based on the different types of alterations seen there.  The original film would probably have very different imagery in Z 157.  In the original Z 157 would be something we are not supposed to see or know.  Remember the Zapruder Gap adds a large number of frames, 280+, which would change everything if those frames were found intact. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by John Butler

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Another content problem in Z 157 is Phil Willis and his extra-long leg.  It is not a shadow.  His shadow of that leg is on the pavement and not part of his leg.  This is really a goofy image of Phil suggesting he was placed into this scene basically because he is supposed to be there.  Elsie Dorman shows that he is not there.  His daughters are there.  Linda is seen taking a picture.  Are Phil's slides really his, or are they Linda's slides.  

How did the film alterers know that he was there or not there?  It comes from testimony taken on the day of the assassination and later days.  This indicates that the film alterers had plenty of time to make this scene based upon the testimony of witnesses that were interviewed up to around March, 1964.  This is the extant film.  The "original".  Therefore the "original" is not original, but a false copy.  The original would not have splices and foolish content imagery in the original Z 157.  

The more I study Z frame 157, the more I conclude that this is how the film was manufactured based on the different types of alterations seen there.  The original film would probably have very different imagery in Z 157.  In the original Z 157 would be something we are not supposed to see or know.  Remember the Zapruder Gap adds a large number of frames, 280+, which would change everything if those frames were found intact. 

Once again, John, you're just making stuff up. There is NO testimony from Phil Willis on the day of the assassination. He took his photos home, and did not give them to the FBI. No one from the Willis family was interviewed until June of the next year. There is no way someone altering the Z-film would know where to put Willis, and his photo's matching up perfectly with the Z-film is one of the strongest proofs for its authenticity. I mean, here was someone unknown to the supposed fakers appearing exactly where he would need to have been to take a picture that was also unknown to the supposed fakers. The same goes for Croft, whose picture didn't surface for another decade or so. 

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

How did the film alterers know that he was there or not there?  It comes from testimony taken on the day of the assassination and later days.  This indicates that the film alterers had plenty of time to make this scene based upon the testimony of witnesses that were interviewed up to around March, 1964. 

Once again?  I don't see where I made anything up.  Most people were interviewed by March, 1964.  Some were interviewed several times.  The Willis were interviewed in July, 1964 and others were inteviewed after March.  That just stretches out the time for altering the film.  There was plenty of time to do all that alteration contained in the film.  Who saw a complete film by July, 1964 or even by 1965.  Nobody in the public.  All that was seen of Zapruder was the Life photo/frames.  

There were a few people who saw the real film early on.  They generally say the "original" is different.  Can they prove it?  Can they prove the film we have today is the original copy or not?   No.  My believe is that all of the early films were destroyed leaving only what we have today which is a replacement copy.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The same goes for Croft, whose picture didn't surface for another decade or so. 

The FBI went after Croft and immediately seized his photos.  They were available to the folks making the Zapruder film.  I suspect they same was for Phil.

"According to the book, “Matrix for Assassination: The JFK Conspiracy,” Croft took a fourth photo at the scene. He believed it was snapped at the exact moment as the devastating head shot struck Kennedy.

But when he received his photos back from the FBI, this slide was “a complete blank.”

The FBI told him his camera appeared to have malfunctioned at that moment.

Croft’s photos were first examined by the FBI, according to a Secret Service memo, after he turned his film over to the Denver FBI office."

If I remember correctly Phil also had problems with his slides.  Something about a missing train.

At this time I don't see the point to continue a conversation with you.  No matter what I say it will not fit in with your views.  It is a waste of my time.  I have pointed out things that can clearly be seen.  If you don't see them then you have some agenda that leads you to making the kind of comments that you do.  That's not my problem.  

   

[John Deignan]

Check out what Linda Willis, Phil’s daughter says starting at 17:08 of the video. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

I have an open mind and because of that I could explain it. Which I did.

Sandy merely stated that some blurred images in a copy of a copy of a copy of an 8mm home movie "defied the laws of physics". That doesn't constitute an explanation.

It's quite a claim to make, and it would be interesting to see if he can come up with an actual explanation that would satisfy a professional physicist.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Another content problem in Z 157 is Phil Willis and his extra-long leg.

As we have seen many times before, John appears not to understand a couple of very basic facts:

• He is looking at a copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of an 8mm home movie, and not the original film.
• Each time a physical film is copied, anomalies are generated.

Odd-looking features such as extra-long legs are precisely the sort of thing you would expect to see if you're looking at a poor-quality, several-generations-old, copy of what is already a tiny detail on a film.

Trivial anomalies such as these provide no evidence at all that the original film has been altered.

Does John genuinely not grasp these points?

[David Butler]

Zapruder frames 154 to 157 were amongst the two splices made by Time Life when their technician damaged the film. They were spliced back in to the original from their first generation copy.

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, David Butler said:

Zapruder frames 154 to 157 were amongst the two splices made by Time Life when their technician damaged the film. They were spliced back in to the original from their first generation copy.

Hi David,

Time had the original and a first-generation copy.  Did they make a copy of their so-called original?  That brings up a question I don't have any info on and really never thought about.  The question is what happened to all of those same day or first-generation copies?  There were at least 2 or 3.  FBI and Secret Service copies?  Time Life copy?

The next question might be is Time Life believable?  Which copy or copies went to the Hawkeye Works and later to NPIC.  Did they have splices also?

If you can provide info on these questions it would be appreciated.

[Bill Fite]

Are there any other murder / attempted murder cases where a private agent was allowed to purchase and hold  original evidence (films, photos, weapons, forensic evidence, etc.) while the investigation was ongoing?

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As we have seen many times before, John appears not to understand a couple of very basic facts:

• He is looking at a copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of an 8mm home movie, and not the original film.
• Each time a physical film is copied, anomalies are generated.

Odd-looking features such as extra-long legs are precisely the sort of thing you would expect to see if you're looking at a poor-quality, several-generations-old, copy of what is already a tiny detail on a film.

Trivial anomalies such as these provide no evidence at all that the original film has been altered.

Does John genuinely not grasp these points?

Jeremy,

To answer your question, NO!  I don't grasp those points.  I think they are ludicrous as most of what you say.  I use John Costella's frames.  I believe he made those from the original copy or a copy of the original.  Costella says this:

"The JFK Assassination

Since 2000 I have investigated the Zapruder home movie of the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

Which way does JFK’s head move from Frame 312 to Frame 313 of the Zapruder Film?

Incredibly, 58 years after the assassination, a newly-published book led to this question still being debated. I answered it comprehensively back in 2002. In 2021 I answered it anew using current image processing programs on this page.

Simple introduction to the faking of the Zapruder film

In 2003 I created this simple introduction to some of the evidence of Zapruder film fakery:

• JFK Assassination Film Hoax

Black Op Radio, March 24, 2011

On Thursday, March 24, 2011, I happened to be in Vancouver, British Columbia. I dropped in on Len Osanic in the Fiasco Bros recording studios, and he was kind enough to do an impromptu interview with me for the third segment of his live weekly radio show, Black Op Radio.

• Real format (15 MB) | MP3 format (50 MB)

What did the eyewitnesses say?

In 2007 I compiled all of eyewitness statements I could find in the Warren Commission’s 18 volumes about what they saw on Elm Street on that fateful day (omitting the issues of the number of shots fired and their direction, as this had been already done by Stewart Galanor).

• What Happened On Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak (alternate link)

Senior law enforcement officials in the lead car testified that motorcycle cop James Chaney passed the presidential limousine while it was in Dealey Plaza. This should be easily visible in the Zapruder film and the Nix film, but it isn’t there. This is a simple proof that both of these films have been faked.

Stabilized HD versions of the Zapruder film

In 2006 I created seven stabilized HD versions of the Zapruder film, running at real-time speed. The YouTube links are below, as well as links to the original QuickTime files.

NOTE (January 25, 2021): YouTube no longer allows the Zapruder film to be shown on their platform, as they say it violates their graphic violence policy.

• Zapruder HD Stable Pan: Following the presidential limousine down Elm Street
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z001-Z257: Fixed camera pointing to the top of Elm Street (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z198-Z301: Fixed camera pointing at the white wall (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z274-Z357: Fixed camera pointing at Mary Moorman (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z325-Z389: Fixed camera pointing at Ike Altgens (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z372-Z425: Fixed camera pointing at Main Street (original)
• Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z408-Z486: Fixed camera pointing at the triple underpass (original)

Frames of the Zapruder film

In 2003 I put together a reference set of all 486 frames of the extant Zapruder film. In 2006 I improved the processing steps and reissued the full set of frames.

• All 486 frames of the Zapruder film

Panoramic view of Dealey Plaza: then and now

In 2002 I used 16 photographs taken by Jack White from the Zapruder pedestal in Dealey Plaza, and applied advanced scientific methods to create a single panoramic image. I registered this image using the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ topographic survey. I then overlaid three black and white photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department in the days after the assassination, and then finally frames from the Zapruder film itself.

• Dealey Plaza panorama
• Dealey Plaza panorama, with gridlines, compass bearings, and angles of depression
• Zapruder panorama only
• Zapruder panorama only, with gridlines, compass bearings, and angles of depression

Zapruder Film Symposium, Duluth, Minnesota, May 2003

Shortly before his death, Rich DellaRosa kindly uploaded to YouTube the DVDs of the Zapruder Film Symposium held in Duluth, Minnesota in 2003.

Click on the links below for YouTube playlists, or on the numbers for the original parts uploaded by Rich.

• My interview and presentation: Int 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
• David Lifton’s presentation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
• Jack White’s interview and presentation: Int1 Int2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
• David Healy’s presentation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
• Jim Fetzer’s presentation: 1 2 3 4
• David Mantik’s presentation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Book: The Great Zapruder Film Hoax

Based on the above symposium, I contributed two chapters to this book, published in November 2003.

It was out of print and expensive to buy second-hand for many years, but it is now available on Amazon Kindle.

Disclaimer

My work on the JFK assassination has been personal research, and I have never profited financially from it.

© 2000–2022 John Costella"

I recommend you watch David Healey's presentation.  You may learn something about film editing.

Jeremy said,

"Odd-looking features such as extra-long legs are precisely the sort of thing you would expect to see if you're looking at a poor-quality, several-generations-old, copy of what is already a tiny detail on a film." 

You are always asking me to prove things.  Can you prove this statement?  Phil's leg is obviously painted into the frame.