The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[David G. Healy]

On 3/22/2022 at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Once again, John Butler proposes something that would be downright impossible with 1963 technology, if not easily spotted as phony by anyone with two functioning eyes. Built from the ground up how? How could any forgers have significantly altered the movements and actions of the occupants of the Presidential limousine? By pasting them over with footage of stand-ins dressed in their identical clothing? As always, there would also be no way for the forgers to be sure other films and photographs of the assassination wouldn't be discovered later, which would immediately contradict their fake Zapruder film and blow the whole operation. Are you also once again implying that Abraham Zapruder was somehow involved in the conspiracy ahead of time?

"impossible with 1963 technology"? please tell us why. I'd love to hear your reasoning.

Then I'll direct you to thousands of Hollywood film periodical articles which seem to suggest otherwise.

Pasting? LMAO! 

Edited March 24, 2022 by David G. Healy

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Eddy Bainbridge wriets:

Quote

You are repeating the claim that the film hasn't been altered.

No, I'm not claiming that the film definitely hasn't been altered. I'm claiming that no-one has yet provided convincing evidence that it was altered. That isn't the same thing.

Quote

I think your position is that people need to prove the film was altered.

Correct. If someone is saying that the film has been altered, it's up to them to prove it.

In the same way, if someone is saying that you robbed a bank, it's up to them to prove it. In the absence of such proof, the default setting applies: we should assume, provisionally, that the film is genuine and that you didn't rob that bank. 

Currently, there's no good reason to suppose that the Zapruder film, or the Moorman photo, or the Altgens photos, or any of the other Dealey Plaza images, were altered. In the same way, there is currently no good reason to suppose that the Loch Ness monster exists, or that alien abduction stories are truthful.

If someone does come up with convincing evidence, I'll be happy to claim that the film was altered (or that Nessie exists, etc). But we've been waiting three decades or so, and that evidence hasn't turned up yet. I'm not optimistic that it ever will.

It's more likely that someone will discover the Loch Ness monster. Loch Ness is a very long, very deep lake, and there may be areas that haven't yet been fully explored. If that's the case, it might be conceivable that a colony of unknown-to-science animals has somehow survived in some remote part of the loch.

But the Zapruder film is a tiny 8mm home movie that runs for less than half a minute. It has been examined in detail by many people over the past 30 years or so. There aren't any remote parts that haven't yet been explored.

Given that almost all of the claims of alteration have turned out to be the result of reading too much into visual anomalies in poor-quality copies, what are the chances that anyone is ever going to discover something worthwhile that everyone else has missed up to now?

The search for this particular Holy Grail became a dead end years ago. Plenty of far more promising areas of research are being neglected because people are wasting their time looking for something they are very unlikely to find.

P.S. Does anyone still rob banks? I can't remember the last time I saw a news report about a bank robbery. What do bank robbers do these days? Flower arranging? Knitting? And what happened to all their sawn-off shotguns? Are they in a museum somewhere, with the muskets and longbows?

[John Butler]

On 3/23/2022 at 4:30 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A fourth claim is simply to say that until someone comes up with convincing evidence, there is no good reason to suppose that the film has been altered.

This gif offers proof that the Z film was altered with this strange image.  Z frame 157 is one of the Crown Jewels in film altering with a number of strange things.  What is shown in this gif is Z frame 160.  This can also be seen in Z 157, but not as well.

Frame 1 has a Mercury Monterey Breezeway which was the same vehicle as the Johnson security vehicle.  Frame 2 shows the same vehicle but orientated to the other direction.  Frame 3 shows a crop of Z 160 which has in the background the Mercury Monterey which is the same as the Johnson security vehicle with the top reversed and going in a different direction than the bottom.  Very strange indeed.  I can't think of any film copying that would do that.

Frame 4 is a blurry crop and mag of that anomaly.  Z 157 has several strange film alterations.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

This gif offers proof that the Z film was altered with this strange image. ... Frame 3 shows a crop of Z 160 which has in the background the Mercury Monterey which is the same as the Johnson security vehicle with the top reversed and going in a different direction than the bottom.

Here we go again. Another round of spot-the-anomaly!

As usual, it's difficult to tell if John Butler is being serious. Apparently those all-powerful film-alteration masterminds messed up badly by pasting in the top half of the white car back to front.

Why on earth would they have done this? John doesn't say. How did they manage to switch the top half of the car around without switching around the spectators in front of and behind the car? John doesn't say. Who did all this stuff? John doesn't say.

And what exactly is the problem with the car in Zapruder frame 160, anyway? John isn't very forthcoming on that either, but he seems to be implying that the front pillar of the car in frame 160 is actually the car's rear pillar. But it can't be, because John himself has shown us that rear pillar of a Mercury Monterey is the wrong shape to be the front pillar that we see in frame 160.

I'll take John's word that the car in frame 160 is a Mercury Monterrey, and is identical to the car in the other images he has provided. But maybe it isn't identical. Maybe the Secret Service modified it in some way. Maybe the manufacturer changed this or that detail in that year's model.

If John is saying that the white car doesn't look right, he needs to rule out this type of explanation. What he needs to do is compare the Zapruder film's depiction of that car with another image of that car taken during the motorcade. If I recall correctly, the Altgens 6 photo shows the white car, including its front pillar. There may be other images that show it. Has John checked Altgens 6? Has he looked for any other images taken during the motorcade? If he has looked, do those images show an obvious discrepancy? If he hasn't looked, why not?

If John does find a discrepancy between the Zapruder film's depiction of that car and another film or photo's depiction of that car, he will then need to rule out other straightforward explanations. We're back with our old friend, copying errors. Can the discrepancy be explained as a visual anomaly caused by the copying process, as has happened with most of John's other 'proofs' of alteration? If it can, another claim bites the dust.

There are plenty of good-quality versions of Altgens 6 floating around, in print and online. John will find far more detail and fewer copying errors in these versions than in the relatively poor-quality copy of frame 160 that he has provided. Of course, John thinks that Altgens 6 was faked too, which makes the whole process a waste of time.

[John Butler]

On 3/24/2022 at 1:12 PM, John Butler said:

This gif offers proof that the Z film was altered with this strange image.  Z frame 157 is one of the Crown Jewels in film altering with a number of strange things.  What is shown in this gif is Z frame 160.  This can also be seen in Z 157, but not as well.

Frame 1 has a Mercury Monterey Breezeway which was the same vehicle as the Johnson security vehicle.  Frame 2 shows the same vehicle but orientated to the other direction.  Frame 3 shows a crop of Z 160 which has in the background the Mercury Monterey which is the same as the Johnson security vehicle with the top reversed and going in a different direction than the bottom.  Very strange indeed.  I can't think of any film copying that would do that.

Frame 4 is a blurry crop and mag of that anomaly.  Z 157 has several strange film alterations.

This alteration is something you cannot talk or argue away.  It is not a copying error.  There are two instances of something bizarre about the Johnson security vehicle.  The first is in Altgens 6 when the vehicle is badly distorted and all else around it is not.  Then, there was the Z 157 image.  Z 160 was used because it was a slightly sharper image.  Several frames show this bizarre vehicle hence ruling out a copying problem.

I can only speculate that perhaps the Johnson security vehicle did not make the turn with the rest of the motorcade and was halted in the intersection.  This complicates the Mayor's Car story of being stopped in the intersection.  It may have been halted briefly and released within seconds.  They are bumper to bumper perhaps suggesting they were released at the same time.   

It is a weak notion since we might see the Johnson SS vehicle in Weigman photo in front of the Mayor's Car.  Other than that I can't find any photos of films showing the Johnson SS vehicle other than Altgens 6 and Zapruder on Elm Street.  Other films have the vehicle on Main Street as the motorcade moved down Main. 

This photo/frame has an interesting negation of Altgens 7.  We should see railroad men and a police officer on the bridge above Elm Street.  They are not there.  A figure on the bridge marked with a question mark could be Officer Foster.

The Mayor's Car on Houston.  The correct line up for that part of the motorcade is the Johnson SS vehicle, the Mayor's Car, and the National Press Pool Car.

I believe the Elsie Dorman film shows the vehicle turning the corner at the Houston and Main intersection.  There we can see the proper orientation of the top to the bottom of the vehicle.

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

On 3/23/2022 at 3:08 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Then ask yourself how Jackie was layed out on the trunk in Nix's last frame, later sat down in Z and finally was back on the trunk in the same position in Bell (as with Nix) with the same orientation to Clint approx 23 extant zframes later.

 

 

 

In fact, if the Wiegman frame(most recently provided by John Butler) is supposed to sync/plot with extant z447, and shows what appears to be Jackie in that similar, laid out position, her continuity works in Nix, Bell and Wiegman. The odd film out is Z.

 

 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

This alteration is something you cannot talk or argue away.  It is not a copying error.  There are two instances of something bizarre about the Johnson security vehicle.  The first is in Altgens 6 when the vehicle is badly distorted and all else around it is not.  Then, there was the Z 157 image.  Z 160 was used because it was a slightly sharper image.  Several frames show this bizarre vehicle hence ruling out a copying problem.

I can only speculate that perhaps the Johnson security vehicle did not make the turn with the rest of the motorcade and was halted in the intersection.  This complicates the Mayor's Car story of being stopped in the intersection.  It may have been halted briefly and released within seconds.  They are bumper to bumper perhaps suggesting they were released at the same time.   

It is a weak notion since we might see the Johnson SS vehicle in Couch frame in front of the Mayor's Car.  Other than that I can't find any photos of films showing the Johnson SS vehicle other than Altgens 6 and Zapruder on Elm Street.  Other films have the vehicle on Main Street as the motorcade moved down Main. 

This photo/frame has an interesting negation of Altgens 7.  We should see railroad men and a police officer on the bridge above Elm Street.  They are not there.  A figure on the bridge marked with a question mark could be Officer Foster.

I believe the Elsie Dorman film shows the vehicle turning the corner at the Houston and Main intersection.  There we can see the proper orientation of the top to the bottom of the vehicle.

 

"Mayor's car?" LOL! That's the LBJ back-up car. Obviously. The Mayor's car was a convertible. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Pat Speer

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

"Mayor's car?" LOL! That's the LBJ back-up car. Obviously. The Mayor's car was a convertible. 

Sorry,

I posted the wrong photo.  Earlier, years ago, with the first photo posted, I thought that was the Mayor's Car and asked for help from folks on the forum as to whether I was right or not.  They said not.  It was the Johnson SS vehicle.  

It is now corrected.  I also posted a photo of the Mayor's Car on Houston to show the difference.

The problem with the corrected photo is that it shows the National Press Pool Car as the first vehicle in the picture.  I have this listed as a Weigman photo and I think others describe it as such.  

The first vehicle in the photo is the National Press Pool Car image and was taken from Camera Car #1 that Dave Weigman was in.  Just ahead of the National Press Pool Car is the Mayor's Car in the motorcade.  This is according to the motorcade work of  Todd Wayne Vaughan, Presidential Motorcade Schematic Listing.

I can't tell whether there is another vehicle in front of the National Press Pool Car or not. 

That is the confusion in the Weigman photo.  There is where my earlier uncertainty came from and the appeal for help.  

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

This alteration is something you cannot talk or argue away.

Maybe. Let's see the evidence. Tell us exactly what you think is wrong about this aspect of the film, and why you think alteration is the most convincing explanation.

All we've had so far is the assertion that the top of the white car is back to front. It doesn't look back to front to me. I pointed out that the front pillar in frame 160 is not the same shape as the rear pillar in the other photos of that model of car, which suggests that the image isn't back to front.

But maybe I've missed something. What exactly is the problem with the white car in frames 157 and 160?

The copies of frame 160 that John has posted are not of very high quality, which suggests that his back-to-front problem may be nothing more than a run-of-the-mill artefact of the copying process. Does John have a good-quality version of frame 160 to show us? That might at least help us to work out exactly what he thinks the problem is, which would be a start.

Quote

There are two instances of something bizarre about the Johnson security vehicle.  The first is in Altgens 6 when the vehicle is badly distorted and all else around it is not.  Then, there was the Z 157 image.  Z 160 was used because it was a slightly sharper image.

The car doesn't look distorted in any of the versions of Altgens 6 that I've seen. I did notice, though, that the rear door on the driver's side is open, presumably in response to the audible shot that has clearly wounded JFK. Is that what makes the car look distorted? If it is, it'll simply be the result of looking at a poor-quality copy, or not looking closely enough. If that isn't it, what exactly is "badly distorted" about the car in Altgens 6?

John needs to do more than just assert that the car is distorted. He needs to expain in detail which parts are distorted, and in what way they are distorted. Is the car too long, or too short, or too high, or too low? Are the doors too big or too small? Are the wheels the wrong shape?

If that sort of thing is what John is getting at, measurements would be helpful. Other, non-distorted images of that car (or at least that model of car) from a similar angle would be helpful too, so that we have something we can compare to Altgens 6.

Remember, if John is claiming that these frames from the Zapruder film and the Altgens 6 photo have been altered, the onus is on him to prove it. To do that, he has to do more than just claim that something doesn't look quite right to him.

Quote

It is not a copying error. ... Several frames show this bizarre vehicle hence ruling out a copying problem.

Not necessarily. If each frame has been subjected to the same copying processes, we might expect every frame to be degraded to roughly the same extent.

But we can't answer that question until we know what the problem is. What exactly is wrong with the white car in frame 160 and the Altgens photo?

[David G. Healy]

On 3/24/2022 at 3:08 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Eddy Bainbridge wriets:

No, I'm not claiming that the film definitely hasn't been altered. I'm claiming that no-one has yet provided convincing evidence that it was altered. That isn't the same thing.

Correct. If someone is saying that the film has been altered, it's up to them to prove it.

In the same way, if someone is saying that you robbed a bank, it's up to them to prove it. In the absence of such proof, the default setting applies: we should assume, provisionally, that the film is genuine and that you didn't rob that bank. 

Currently, there's no good reason to suppose that the Zapruder film, or the Moorman photo, or the Altgens photos, or any of the other Dealey Plaza images, were altered. In the same way, there is currently no good reason to suppose that the Loch Ness monster exists, or that alien abduction stories are truthful.

If someone does come up with convincing evidence, I'll be happy to claim that the film was altered (or that Nessie exists, etc). But we've been waiting three decades or so, and that evidence hasn't turned up yet. I'm not optimistic that it ever will.

It's more likely that someone will discover the Loch Ness monster. Loch Ness is a very long, very deep lake, and there may be areas that haven't yet been fully explored. If that's the case, it might be conceivable that a colony of unknown-to-science animals has somehow survived in some remote part of the loch.

But the Zapruder film is a tiny 8mm home movie that runs for less than half a minute. It has been examined in detail by many people over the past 30 years or so. There aren't any remote parts that haven't yet been explored.

Given that almost all of the claims of alteration have turned out to be the result of reading too much into visual anomalies in poor-quality copies, what are the chances that anyone is ever going to discover something worthwhile that everyone else has missed up to now?

The search for this particular Holy Grail became a dead end years ago. Plenty of far more promising areas of research are being neglected because people are wasting their time looking for something they are very unlikely to find.

P.S. Does anyone still rob banks? I can't remember the last time I saw a news report about a bank robbery. What do bank robbers do these days? Flower arranging? Knitting? And what happened to all their sawn-off shotguns? Are they in a museum somewhere, with the muskets and longbows?

my-oh-my... we wrote a book on Z-film alteration 20 years ago and listen to you... further that, if someone, someplace is drawing up a court case for some court proceeding anywhere on the map they certainly aren't going to stroke your ego by posting what the do and don't know about optical film special effects...

Based on your own experience, please tell us why it wasn't altered - then I will give you 4 reasons as to why it MAY have been altered...

[Chuck Schwartz]

This is an article written by D. Horne on the Zapruder film alteration...https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

David Healy writes:

Quote

we wrote a book on Z-film alteration 20 years ago

Ah yes, James Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax! There are one or two worthwhile articles in that collection, but they are heavily outweighed by speculative, hilariously paranoid stuff by the likes of Jack White.

If the book is still in print, I would encourage everyone with an interest in the question to buy a copy, partly for its entertainment value and partly to see exactly how weak the pro-alteration arguments are. Here are a few of the anomalies mentioned in the book that apparently prove that the film was faked:

• Toni Foster, who was 5' 2" tall in real life, appears to be 6' 5" in the Zapruder film!
• Mrs Franzen grows in height between frames 360 and 367!
• Mary Moorman was standing in the street!
• A lamppost disappears in frame 456!
• Beverly Oliver's [sic] clothes are the wrong colour!
• Mary Moorman's shoes are the wrong colour!
• The Stemmons road sign is in the wrong place!
• A white laundry van is parked at the wrong angle!

Needless to say, there was no attempt to identify the sort of alterations that might have increased Toni Foster's height or changed the colours of people's clothes or shoes. It's all about spotting anomalies in poor-quality copies of the film. This bit doesn't look quite right to me, therefore the film is a fake! It's brain-dead stuff.

My favourite piece of nonsense from that book is the claim that Mary Moorman must have been standing in the street when she took one of her photos, because a feature in the background isn't consistent with the photo having been taken from the grass verge, where the Zapruder film shows her to have been standing.

On page 91 there is even a photo of James Fetzer and David Mantik proving this point by performing a survey, while Stewart Galanor looks on. These are three intelligent people, all of them with letters after their names, all of them so devoted to the notion that the film was a fake that they couldn't see why they were utterly mistaken. Josiah Thompson solves the mystery in this article:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html

Quote

please tell us why it wasn't altered - then I will give you 4 reasons as to why it MAY have been altered...

David clearly didn't read the comment of mine that he quoted. The burden of proof is on those who claim the film was altered. It isn't up to anyone to prove that it wasn't altered.

Until someone does come up with proof, there's no reason to suppose that the film was altered. People have been trying for three decades now, and no-one has yet produced anything even resembling proof.

No-one has even come up with a plausible reason why the film might have been altered. I suspect we'll be waiting forever. It's all a game, played by people who really should be doing something more productive and more likely to succeed, such as looking for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.

The latest 'proof' was put forward yesterday morning, UK time. It was debunked about 5 minutes after it was posted:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27679-possibly-the-easiest-to-understand-proof-that-the-zapruder-andor-nix-film-was-altered/

Would David care to try to prove (actually prove, not merely suggest) that the film is altered?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chuck Schwartz writes:

Quote

This is an article written by D. Horne on the Zapruder film alteration

It's full of speculation, and is based on a small number of interviews made decades after the event. Horne mentions that he interviewed Dino Brugioni in 2011, a mere 48 years after the event in question.

There's a useful antidote to Horne's speculation here, in Roland Zavada's response to Horne's book:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

Horne claims that the film was altered primarily in order to remove two incriminating pieces of evidence: JFK's car coming to a halt at around the time of the fatal shot, and what he calls "exit debris", the brain, blood and skull fragments from the fatal shot that would have flown backwards, thereby proving a shot from the front.

Unfortunately, there's no good reason to believe that the car stopped or that the film would have recorded any exit debris. The car-stop evidence is examined here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street

Only a minority of witness statements claimed that the car stopped; far more claimed that the car merely slowed down. Not only that, but the Muchmore, Nix and Bronson films also fail to show the car stopping. We can interpret this body of evidence in two ways:

• Either a small number of witnesses were correct, and a larger number were mistaken, and the Zapruder film was altered, and the Muchmore film was altered, and the Nix film was altered, and the Bronson film was altered.
• Or a small number of witnesses were mistaken, a larger number were correct, and none of the four home movies were altered.

Which of these two interpretations sounds more plausible?

As for the exit debris, there is no reason to assume that the Zapruder film would have recorded it. During each exposure cycle, the shutter was open for 1/40 second, and closed for a little longer than that. There would presumably have been ample time for the debris to have vanished while the shutter was closed between frames 312 and 313.

Horne also refers to Sydney Wilkinson's examination of a good-quality copy of the film in the hope of finding proof that the back of JFK's head was blacked out. Wilkinson obtained the copy in 2009. Horne's article was written in 2012. If Wilkinson had actually found anything, it would surely have been front-page news. Has anyone heard anything about this momentous discovery in the past decade?

On the subject of the supposed discrepancy between the film's depiction of the head wound and the accounts of the Parkland doctors, please see Pat Speer's website, which gives a comprehensive account of what the doctors actually claimed to have seen.

Finally, why should we take any of Horne's claims seriously? He even believes in Lifton's body-alteration stuff! Would you buy a used theory from this man?

[John Butler]

On 3/27/2022 at 5:32 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Beverly Oliver's [sic] clothes are the wrong colour!

Betty Oliver said she was the "Babushka Lady" in Dealey Plaza photographing the Kennedy assassination.  People have found a number of problems with her story. 

I don't believe there was a "Babushka Lady" in Dealey Plaza until after the assassination and the p. limo had left the area.  At this point, let me say that I have looked at the media of Dealey Plaza and found 13 or so Babushka Ladies.  That is women wearing a head scarf.  Some were on Elm Street such as the women in the Mannikin Row area.  None were in the grassy field south of Elm Street according to the Zapruder Film, the Holy Grail of the assassination.  If the Babushka Lady was in the grassy field south of Elm then the Zapruder film lied.  However, there are films and photos that show the Babushka Lady was indeed in the grassy area south of Elm Street.  I believe they are false.

So, who was in the grassy field next to Charles Brehm?  In these other films I spoke of earlier the Babushka Lady is near Charles Brehm and his son.  Here is an example from I believe the Marie Muchmore film:

This is in direct opposition to the Zapruder Film that does not have the Babushka Lady as shown in Marie Muchmore.  If you look closely at this frame you see two people in the place of the person I call the Lady in Blue.  It seems that the two are being melded together.  Look at the location of the purse.  It's a bit odd for the BB Lady.  More on this later.

So, what does the Zapruder Film have?  It has a person I call the Lady in Blue:

This person resembles Betty Oliver and just might be.  She has a figure consistent with Betty Oliver's figure.  However, I think it is another employee of Jack Ruby whose show name was Tammi True.  Look at the following photo which I believe was taken a short period of time before the assassination.

Tammy was known to wear a head band which is the same as the Lady in Blue.  This was to keep her wig in place while doing a vigorous strip tease.

When you put this together you have this:

 

Notice that Willis 7 has the Lady in Blue and not the Babushka Lady as seen in Marie Muchmore.

Here, the Lady in Blue is changed into the Babushka Lady in Marie Muchmore courtesy of the film editors.

I am sure someone will say these are blurred images, or copying mistakes, of misinterpreted images.  But, that is nothing new.  Folks have said this before.  They were wrong then and if said now they are wrong now.

Whether the Lady in Blue was Betty Oliver or Tammi True doesn't matter.  Those ladies worked for Jack Ruby.  It is my best guess that one of them was the Lady in Blue.  My pick is Tammi True due to the way she dressed and the black head band.  Jack Ruby was well aware of what was going to happen in Dealey Plaza and he more than likely wanted a record of it.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Jack Ruby was well aware of what was going to happen in Dealey Plaza and he more than likely wanted a record of it.

Oh really? Where did he plan on viewing this "record of it" ? On the in-house movie projector while craning his neck from his cell in a Texas prison?