Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo


Recommended Posts

19FB59EB-B5BF-417A-8CD6-4E1F1A6C73B8.thumb.jpeg.80e2a5c45924e034ef169d27feb6a37f.jpeg
 

I think it’s safe to say multiple copies of the Zfilm were made on day 1…. the 22nd Nov., mere hours after the event, ie. later that day. These copies then went their separate ways to their nefarious destinations. 
Was there enough time (using cranky 1963 technology-scalpels,cut n paste,matte insertions etc.) to alter the master copy before copies were made, when it was in Zap’s possession the entire time?

To my knowledge (not the best), no two different Zfilms have come to light. With multiple copies out there and alterations aplenty this seems strange…..

FDCE3C82-F3BA-4C19-98A3-F71B526AF979.thumb.jpeg.a37354943c6db4ae48edd1b6e75098fe.jpeg

 

This is a 1975 Geraldo/Groden screenshot. (Search YouTube “Geraldo Zapruder” for the entire slot-interesting) 

82882EC8-A4D4-4704-9DF7-909A36A012B4.jpeg.460eba242c7a55c7b2bc318aec07ceb5.jpeg

This is the mid 90’s cleaned up version.Wouldn’t any 60’s style alterations have been massively apparent during this clean up? 

In a nutshell, I think there wasn’t enough time to alter the original and if it was altered it would be apparent with differing copies or have been discovered in the 90’s clean up. 
There, I said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

In a nutshell, I think there wasn’t enough time to alter the original and if it was altered it would be apparent with differing copies or have been discovered in the 90’s clean up.

 

Or, the story that copies were made and handed out the first day is false. Or, that later, the copies handed out were collected and destroyed.

I'll always believe the hard evidence -- as depicted on the Z film -- over people's statements.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Or, the story that copies were made and handed out the first day is false. Or, that later, the copies handed out were collected and destroyed.

I'll always believe the hard evidence -- as depicted on the Z film -- over people's statements.

 

I hope you realize that frames from the film were published within days of the shooting, and that these match the film as currently available. Did Life publish frames that were provided by the CIA? And, if so, what happened to the film given them by Zapruder? Is it sitting in a vault somewhere? And, why, when Tink and others, including Groden and Lifton, finally got their hands on the film stashed away by Life Magazine, was it identical to the one whose frames were published within days of the shooting? Are we to believe Life was given an altered version of the film by the CIA, then stashed it away where no one would see it, only to have it exposed and drive the public to suspect a conspiracy? 

I mean, why would a film be altered to hide a conspiracy, that still suggests conspiracy to most everyone who looks at it? Are these top secret superspies that inept? 

Or maybe, just maybe, outside of a few edits--such as the subsequent removal of the frames from the original which show Jackie looking to her husband before the WC believed her husband was hit--the original was unedited. (These frames were not removed from the SS copy and were later brought to light by Bob Groden. Bravo Bob!) 

Now, should one wish to believe the back of JFK's was painted in on a few frames, one is on much sturdier ground than what you seem to be saying--that the whole film is a fake. That simply makes no sense, IMO. The Muchmore, Nix, and Bronson films all confirm Zapruder's film. They are the photographic record of the assassination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I hope you realize that frames from the film were published within days of the shooting, and that these match the film as currently available. Did Life publish frames that were provided by the CIA? And, if so, what happened to the film given them by Zapruder? Is it sitting in a vault somewhere? And, why, when Tink and others, including Groden and Lifton, finally got their hands on the film stashed away by Life Magazine, was it identical to the one whose frames were published within days of the shooting? Are we to believe Life was given an altered version of the film by the CIA, then stashed it away where no one would see it, only to have it exposed and drive the public to suspect a conspiracy? 

John Costella said he thought the film was built from the ground up.  He said it was technically perfect except for a couple of minor things he found.  Sign distortions, if I am remembering correctly.  This didn't make any sense to me until I started looking at other things in Dealey Plaza.  Z frame 157 is where it all came together.  There are several different anomalies there that suggest the film was built from the ground up.  Phil Willis is one.  At one point I was calling Phil, Superleg Phil.  This was due to his exaggerated long leg.  That long leg had to be painted in by someone.  I have doubts that he was even there on the SW corner of Houston and Elm.  He is not there in the Elsie Dorman film.  His children, Linda and Rosemary, are there.  But, he isn't.  Which gave me the idea that Phil Willis' slides are actually Linda's slides.  You can see her stopping and taking pictures.

I'll use one more example from Z frame 157 before moving on.  It concerns the Johnson security vehicle.  It is a Mercury with a very distinctive top.  In Z 157 we can see the top has been reversed.  Why?  I suspect that is the only image they had to put into the film.  No one would ever see it.  It won't matter.  The back end of the top is in the front and the front of the top is in the rear.  The rest of the vehicle is going in the right direction while it's top is going into another.  Nobody saw that in 50+ years.

These can only be examples of things that were placed (built into) the film.  The SW corner of Houston and Elm has a different number of people there at the same time in the two films.  Less in Zapruder and more in Dorman.  There is a splice cutting of the president's head off. This indicates missing frames and imagery added from elsewhere.

How could they do that within the time limitation of hours or just a few days.  How did they know the cast of characters to put into a built up stage area.  There was no time limitation.  They had all the time they needed.  Think about what was shown to the public?  Life magazine frame/photos.  There were about 30, I think.  A very few people saw the original or one of the early copies.  Their memory of what was shown in the film was different.  Try to prove that afterwards.  It didn't matter. 

The idea that Life Magazine published the photos of the pictorial boards developed at NPIC is reasonable.  And, that is all the public saw.  The rest of the film could be played with over the upcoming months.  As far as who had what copies and who saw what doesn't matter.  I am sure the Secret Service and the FBI knew where every copy was and could get them when they wanted them.  And, they could do whatever they wanted with those copies.  Replace and destroy are the likely options.

Take Elsie Dorman's badly distorted film.  It was supposedly locked up in some lawyer's safe.  The question is how did it get so badly distorted being undisturbed, locked in a safe.  

E. Howard Hunt wrote a lot of spy novels.  In one of these his hero and a band of CIA guys burglarize the Bulgarian (hope I remembered that right) embassy.  They used the same technique as the Watergate Burglers.  And, that burglary would have worked except for the work of James McCord, Angleton's henchman.  What I am saying is the spy agencies, CIA, FBI, and others, were doing these things routinely.  IMO, films were black bagged, replaced, and the old destroyed leaving nothing but the extant film.  That is what looking at Z 157 suggests.

 

  

    

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

In a nutshell, I think there wasn’t enough time to alter the original and if it was altered it would be apparent with differing copies or have been discovered in the 90’s clean up. There, I said it.

Sean, thank you for injecting some common sense into this debate. I would love for there to be ironclad evidence of alteration or forgery of the Zapruder film -- but random anomaly spotting by Internet researchers doesn't come close to rising to that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I would love for there to be ironclad evidence of alteration or forgery of the Zapruder film -- but random anomaly spotting by Internet researchers doesn't come close to rising to that level.

Out of curiosity, what would be your criteria for ironclad evidence? What would satisfy you? 

Society is setup in a dominance hierarchy, in the JFKA case, that hierarchy has been blocking the truth. The apex produced the Warren Commission, which we now know is very incomplete, flawed, or deceptive, depending on who you believe. The machinations of power are still blocking data releases. We're trained through schooling to conform, look up to and respect authority. We are conditioned to accept what is delivered from high places. You're illustrating that here. My contention is; that it matters not who the messenger of the information is, all that matters is whether it has merit or not, Jonathan. Any of the "internet researchers" could be proficient in the techniques of video editing at the time that the Zapruder film was shot. Therefore they'd be qualified to provide an informed commentary on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Sean, thank you for injecting some common sense into this debate. I would love for there to be ironclad evidence of alteration or forgery of the Zapruder film -- but random anomaly spotting by Internet researchers doesn't come close to rising to that level.

There is nothing anomalous in pointing out human (physically limited) abilities.

One way to prove/disprove this is by reproducing the action and comparing it to the extant films using the allotted time given.

So, how does Jackie in Nix(elbow lowers onto trunk lid in last frame) slide back into her seat as we see in Z (z411-z417) in 6 zframes = 1/3rd of a second?

Remember, as she turns towards the back seat, she has to contend with JFK’s dead body weight, which is already crowding her space, besides ever sliding back down in a seated position.

Most people have a cell-phone and a car, don’t need a convertible(preferred though).

Once you find out how preposterous a feat this is to accomplish in 1/3 second, then ask yourself why the Nix film ends exactly at the point that it does.

So yes, please use a little common sense when weighing your options.

ZNix1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I hope you realize that frames from the film were published within days of the shooting, and that these match the film as currently available. Did Life publish frames that were provided by the CIA? And, if so, what happened to the film given them by Zapruder? Is it sitting in a vault somewhere? And, why, when Tink and others, including Groden and Lifton, finally got their hands on the film stashed away by Life Magazine, was it identical to the one whose frames were published within days of the shooting? Are we to believe Life was given an altered version of the film by the CIA, then stashed it away where no one would see it, only to have it exposed and drive the public to suspect a conspiracy? 

I mean, why would a film be altered to hide a conspiracy, that still suggests conspiracy to most everyone who looks at it? Are these top secret superspies that inept? 

Or maybe, just maybe, outside of a few edits--such as the subsequent removal of the frames from the original which show Jackie looking to her husband before the WC believed her husband was hit--the original was unedited. (These frames were not removed from the SS copy and were later brought to light by Bob Groden. Bravo Bob!) 

Now, should one wish to believe the back of JFK's was painted in on a few frames, one is on much sturdier ground than what you seem to be saying--that the whole film is a fake. That simply makes no sense, IMO. The Muchmore, Nix, and Bronson films all confirm Zapruder's film. They are the photographic record of the assassination. 

Did you see Doug Horne's 5 hour presentation Altered History? There he talks about the chain of custody for the Zapruder film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

We are conditioned to accept what is delivered from high places. You're illustrating that here. 

Huh? I'm illustrating that I am "conditioned to accept what is delivered from high places" because I reject the preposterous alteration scenarios trumpeted by John Butler and others? I am no Warren Commission apologist, nor am I a "lone nutter." But there is simply no hard, scientific proof that the Zapruder was massively altered.

 

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Any of the "internet researchers" could be proficient in the techniques of video editing at the time that the Zapruder film was shot. Therefore they'd be qualified to provide an informed commentary on it. 

Sure, but not a single one of them has been able to show a believable proof of concept of this level of alteration using only technology available at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Huh? I'm illustrating that I am "conditioned to accept what is delivered from high places" because I reject the preposterous alteration scenarios trumpeted by John Butler and others? I am no Warren Commission apologist, nor am I a "lone nutter." But there is simply no hard, scientific proof that the Zapruder was massively altered.

 

Sure, but not a single one of them has been able to show a believable proof of concept of this level of alteration using only technology available at the time. 


It’s not about you rejecting John or anyone else, specifically. It’s the linguistics you used, choosing a collective term like “internet researchers” with a negative connotation. They can be good and they can be bad, right? you also open up that the OP is talking common sense, the suggestion by default suggests that others aren’t. 
That’s what I picked up on. 

 

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Out of curiosity, what would be your criteria for ironclad evidence? What would satisfy you? 

Do you have experience with video editing and an intimate knowledge of the techniques at the time? ie what was possible and what wasn’t in 1963? 
 

Seems like some researchers here have gone to a lot of trouble to understand this side of things. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

you also open up that the OP is talking common sense, the suggestion by default suggests that others aren’t. 

That's right. People who claim every piece of film and photo evidence taken in Dealey Plaza is altered are not talking common sense, or utilizing it.

 

5 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Seems like some researchers here have gone to a lot of trouble to understand this side of things. 

I'm sure they have. So let's see one of them produce a reasonable facsimile of the Zapruder film that incorporates extensive alteration, while using only technology available at the time. I would wager that such editing would be immediately apparent to anyone with a pair of reasonably functioning eyeballs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

That's right. People who claim every piece of film and photo evidence taken in Dealey Plaza is altered are not talking common sense, or utilizing it.

We probably agree that it’s certainly a more plausible theory that most of it isn’t altered. Occam’s Razor isn’t always right. If you were on the cover up team, you may bank on that human investigative process using that logic. 

14 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I'm sure they have. So let's see one of them produce a reasonable facsimile of the Zapruder film that incorporates extensive alteration, while using only technology available at the time. I would wager that such editing would be immediately apparent to anyone with a pair of reasonably functioning eyeballs.


I’ll leave that to somebody here to make that case, and you can disprove them. 
 

My video editing experience is only in using very modern techniques and software, though the principals often come from the original rudimentary techniques. On a fundamental level; video is lots of still frames and each can be edited, spliced, etc. Today, a complete alteration would be easy for editors but, back then, they had very poor resolution going for them, ie alteration could he more crude and it would still look authentic to the layman. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

That's right. People who claim every piece of film and photo evidence taken in Dealey Plaza is altered are not talking common sense, or utilizing it.

 

I'm sure they have. So let's see one of them produce a reasonable facsimile of the Zapruder film that incorporates extensive alteration, while using only technology available at the time. I would wager that such editing would be immediately apparent to anyone with a pair of reasonably functioning eyeballs.

why? some here are well aware of specific Hollywood types of optical film printing. And a very long history of film special effects. Dating back at least 100 years...

Facts being what they are and early 1960 Optical Film Printing techniques, what you see in the current alleged in-camera Zapruder film maybe, just maybe the output of an assassination altered film. And you haven't a clue as to what your looking at...

Get into Raymond Fielding's The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography 1965, find out why Rollie Zavada flew to Florida for explanations after he and I spoke... check out the Bibliography -- no big shakes, educate yourself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

ZNix1.gif😋

 

 

 

Chris,

How certain are you that these two films are synchronized? (To other readers: All that needs to be known for synchronization are the frame rates of the cameras.)

If you are certain, then right here you have proof that at least one of the films has been altered! (Probably the Zapruder.) Because the two films start at precisely the same time, with Jackie on the trunk. But when the end of Nix is reached, Jackie is still on the trunk in Nix but fully inside the passenger compartment (though not seated) in Zapruder.

Gosh... it's almost as though a bunch of frames have been removed from Zapruder! 

Somebody needs to show this to the un-alterationists.

 

(If you are not certain of the frame rates, and thus synchronization, then never mind.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...