The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[John Butler]

19 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

The reasons for the Zfilm alterations were lying on the cutting room floor before they were collected and destroyed forever.  All we have to go on is the "finished product" and it leaves tantalizing evidence of the editing that was done.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider that the stuff that was removed was more damning than the rearward/left motion of JFK's head, more damning than the slowdown/stopping of the limousine, more damning than the persistent brake lights while the car is supposedly moving forward.  What could that be?  The answer might be found by revisiting the evidence and some of the discredited speculation about "what happened in the car" between Houston Street and Parkland hospital.

 

What said here is very important.  What I considered to happen in Dealey Plaza is truly on the cutting room floor.  That is the film frames from the Zapruder Gap.  Those frames that were lost could change the entire conception of what happened if they were shown in their proper sequence.  IMO, that is the important part of the story.  From what I have seen and from witness testimony what happened down by the Grassy Knoll might have occurred earlier in the Gap.  Farfetched?  Possibly. 

From what I have seen in the Zapruder film more time was necessary to manufacture the "Official Story" as what was needed for the Lone Nut scenario.  I think any alterations that were made were done for only a very few frames.  The picture boards prepared for the SS and FBI during the first weekend.  Along with Mary Moorman, Ike Altgens, and a few others that was all that was seen early on.  There was plenty of time to work on the whole film afterwards.  The altered and completed film replaced every other film around so that today the "original" is all that we see.

According to WC Exhibit Hill Number 5, the original Mary Moorman Polaroid may have been completely different in background then what is currently there.  If Jean Hill is believable, she fought with Arlen Specter to say what is in Hill No. 5, then the background of Mary's Polaroid would be the SW corner of the TSBD rather than the Grassy Knoll.  Arlen Specter classified the exhibit as Top Secret.  Without the ARRB, no one would know what she said.  It is a shame she succumbed to the Official Stroy and said she was down by the Grassy Knoll with Mary.   

Edited February 19, 2022 by John Butler

[Sean Coleman]

The chain of custody for the film.

It was in Zap’s possession for the duration of 22nd Nov.

No time for alterations?

Of course NARA could be tellers of untruths as could Mr.Zap…..but you gotta believe something sometimes 
 

 

[Pat Speer]

John, your idea that there was plenty of time to work on the Z-film is just wrong. Frames from the film were published in the 11-29-63 issue of Life, which was on the streets days before and almost certainly sent to press on the 25th or so. These frames are identical to the frames seen today. It appears you're also claiming the Moorman photo is a fake. Well, the photo was shown on television around 2 1/2 hours after the shooting, and Moorman tried to auction the photo off a few years back. Are you claiming she's a fraud and a huckster?

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sean Coleman]

Wow. These stills are surprisingly clear. Was expecting crusty images as per Groden’s Geraldo footage. But then Groden’s copy was at LEAST a copy of a copy. I still think there’s multiple films out there, yes, but they all seem to be the same. There’s hearsay of other versions, but hearsay don’t pay the rent.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Pat Speer said:

Quote

John, your idea that there was plenty of time to work on the Z-film is just wrong. Frames from the film were published in the 11-29-63 issue of Life, which was on the streets days before and almost certainly sent to press on the 25th or so. These frames are identical to the frames seen today. It appears you're also claiming the Moorman photo is a fake. Well, the photo was shown on television around 2 1/2 hours after the shooting, and Moorman tried to auction the photo off a few years back. Are you claiming she's a fraud and a huckster?

 

Unfortunately, the frames in that issue of Life don't include any of the frames that many of us believe were altered:

• Frame Z313 that shows the fatal shot.
• The frames just after Z313 that would show the spray of blood not visible in the extant film.
• The frames just before Z313 from which the removed frames were taken.
• The two frames I used to prove that alteration had taken place. (As revealed by selective motion blur.)

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

Why do you think you are struggling so much to debunk them?

Who is struggling to debunk what? I made the point that many of the claims of alteration, over many years, have been easily debunked. I gave a link to a claim which I debunked, without any struggle, just the other day:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27630-the-other-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=454632

Quote

I don't think you believe they are "crazy" opinions, otherwise why would you be here debating them?

The claims I was referring to as crazy are both far-fetched and supported by grossly insufficient evidence. If 'crazy' isn't the appropriate word, how about 'absurd' or 'ridiculous'?

Quote

Do you think you question your own beliefs enough?

I hope I do. But no-one's perfect.

Quote

What is the compelling piece of evidence that makes you right? I am not asking for anecdotal or the subjective, just your proof.

Makes me right about what? I was pointing out some similarities between the more far-fetched JFK assassination conspiracy theories and claims that the moon landings didn't happen and that the earth is flat. I presume the similarities I mentioned are obvious.

Quote

there are hundreds of millions in the world that may believe JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy. I believe this is a growing number. The point is, you can't give two or 3 examples as if its representative of such a large body of people

I wasn't claiming that the more far-fetched conspiracy theorists are representative of those who doubt the lone-nut theory.

If anything, I was trying to show that the opposite is true. Crazy or ridiculous or absurd conspiracy theories are neither typical nor necessary, and the people who promote them are not representative of Warren Commission critics in general.

The case against the lone-nut theory does not depend on believing that the Zapruder film or any of the other home movies or photographs are fakes. Or that JFK's body was snatched on Air Force One and surgically altered. Or that Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term doppelganger scheme. Or any other equally far-fetched claims.

I hope Chris doesn't think that the only alternative to believing that Oswald did it all by himself is to believe in a ginormous conspiracy run by super-powerful masterminds who planned everything in detail and had the ability to fake vast amounts of evidence. If there was a conspiracy, which I think is pretty much indisputable these days, it was a plausible, realistic one, not a far-fetched one involving a cast of thousands with super-human powers.

I'm sure Chris can appreciate that an outsider, someone with a casual interest in the JFK assassination, who stumbles across this forum hoping to find out more about the subject, might get the wrong impression if all the nonsensical stuff goes unchallenged.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

the original Mary Moorman Polaroid may have been completely different in background then what is currently there. ... the background of Mary's Polaroid would be the SW corner of the TSBD rather than the Grassy Knoll.

Pat pointed out that "the photo was shown on television around 2 1/2 hours after the shooting". That's true, but it isn't the only problem. Copies were made that afternoon and distributed to journalists. The photo appeared in many newspapers the following day.

All John needs to do is examine those newspapers, some of which I'm sure are available online, and see how many of their versions of the photo have the book depository in the background.

I suspect he'll find that none of them do, and that the background is the one we are all familiar with.

What this means is that if Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid was altered, the alteration must have taken place before the copies were made and distributed to the journalists on the afternoon of the assassination.

Can John come up with a plausible technical explanation of how this alteration might have been done in the very limited time available? If not, will he admit that the Moorman photo is genuine?

Edited February 21, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Barnard writes:

Who is struggling to debunk what? I made the point that many of the claims of alteration, over many years, have been easily debunked. I gave a link to a claim which I debunked, without any struggle, just the other day:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27630-the-other-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=454632

The claims I was referring to as crazy are both far-fetched and supported by grossly insufficient evidence. If 'crazy' isn't the appropriate word, how about 'absurd' or 'ridiculous'?

I hope I do. But no-one's perfect.

Makes me right about what? I was pointing out some similarities between the more far-fetched JFK assassination conspiracy theories and claims that the moon landings didn't happen and that the earth is flat. I presume the similarities I mentioned are obvious.

I wasn't claiming that the more far-fetched conspiracy theorists are representative of those who doubt the lone-nut theory.

If anything, I was trying to show that the opposite is true. Crazy or ridiculous or absurd conspiracy theories are neither typical nor necessary, and the people who promote them are not representative of Warren Commission critics in general.

The case against the lone-nut theory does not depend on believing that the Zapruder film or any of the other home movies or photographs are fakes. Or that JFK's body was snatched on Air Force One and surgically altered. Or that Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term doppelganger scheme. Or any other equally far-fetched claims.

I hope Chris doesn't think that the only alternative to believing that Oswald did it all by himself is to believe in a ginormous conspiracy run by super-powerful masterminds who planned everything in detail and had the ability to fake vast amounts of evidence. If there was a conspiracy, which I think is pretty much indisputable these days, it was a plausible, realistic one, not a far-fetched one involving a cast of thousands with super-human powers.

I'm sure Chris can appreciate that an outsider, someone with a casual interest in the JFK assassination, who stumbles across this forum hoping to find out more about the subject, might get the wrong impression if all the nonsensical stuff goes unchallenged.

A sensible take in several ways.

However, if Oswald didn't have such an incredibly unusual background in the last 7 years of his short 24 year long life, filled with dozens of extraordinary untypical and often incongruous travels, actions, activities and contacts that just beg suspicious motive inquiry, it would be so much easier to accept the lone nut finding.

Why couldn't Oswald have just had crazy posters and scribbled threats in crayons and markers all over his room walls or at least in a messy, coffee, soda pop and chocolate candy bar stained journal with endless circles and stick figure drawings?

Or carried around in his back pocket an old tattered paperback copy of some deep insecurity and fear feeding dystopian book?

Or even looked kind of disheveled or confused crazy like Hinkley, Bremmer, Fromme, etc.?

Why did he have to have had such a clean cut, well groomed and totally calm look and demeanor and kept his living spaces quite tidy outside of occasional scattered library books? Or listen to classical music, learn Russian, and fuss over his daughter Junie with somewhat normal father loving care and concern and like and play calm and focused mind chess with others?

And if only Oswald's New Orleans pro-Castro Free Cuba flyers didn't have an address in the same building as Guy Banister and Sylvia Odio and her sister Annie didn't both recall being introduced to an exact look-alike "Leon Oswald" at their apartment door by Angelo ... etc. etc.

[Chris Davidson]

On 2/17/2022 at 12:51 PM, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

The more completeness of films we acquire, the clearer the true picture becomes.

It’s called “transparency” which there is quite a lack of in this case, at least in terms of original video availability.

Fifty nine years and counting!!!

It is not possible for Jackie to do her thing in the time allotted from extant z411-z417.

Fortunately, an early Bell frame with sprocket holes provides more support for her extra time needed.

Mark Tyler and I mostly agreed on Z435/6 synced with Bell, within a few frames, during his Motorcade sync project.

The early (sprocket hole) Bell frame occurs eight Bell frames before the Z436/Bell sync.

We used two other sync points between the two films and 18.3fps for Z, which put Bell’s fps at 15.6.

Eight Bell frames before the z436 sync = 8 x (18.3/15.6) = 9.38Z frames

Z436 - 9.38 Z frames = Z 426.62 = early Bell frame

Now, sequentially compare Jackie’s position in Nix at Z411 to Z417 to Bell/Z426.62 .

Doesn’t work. She was still in a laid out position in the Bell frame.

The following gif (both frames at a 1.33/1 aspect ratio) will give you a better idea of Jackie’s matching body orientation between Bell/Nix.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TUy4w5BqqFto3aClgVyXMh2RoEyVtRM-/view?usp=sharing

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Chris Davidson
Removed plotted distance entries for now.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/20/2022 at 3:08 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm sure Chris can appreciate that an outsider, someone with a casual interest in the JFK assassination, who stumbles across this forum hoping to find out more about the subject, might get the wrong impression if all the nonsensical stuff goes unchallenged.

 

Well then challenge it! With evidence and logical arguments, rather than just labeling it tinfoil-hat-wearing nonsense.

 

[John Butler]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:13 PM, Pat Speer said:

John, your idea that there was plenty of time to work on the Z-film is just wrong. Frames from the film were published in the 11-29-63 issue of Life, which was on the streets days before and almost certainly sent to press on the 25th or so. These frames are identical to the frames seen today. It appears you're also claiming the Moorman photo is a fake. Well, the photo was shown on television around 2 1/2 hours after the shooting, and Moorman tried to auction the photo off a few years back. Are you claiming she's a fraud and a huckster?

There was plenty of time to alter these frames.  This is all the public was allowed to see.  Add Moorman's Polaroid and the Altgens photos and you have the official story.  Somewhere near 100 witnesses said these scenes happened in front of the TSBD.  The action was over by the time we see the first frame, Z 133 above.  The work was done at the Hawkeye Works and at the NPIC.  These are in the "original" film since they were altered to be in that film.  The rest came later.   

The rest of the film took more time.  There was plenty of time to do that later after all of the witnesses' testimony was gathered and all other films were in the possession of the government.  This is what John Costella meant by his thinking that the film was built from the ground up. 

Stage sets in Zapruder:

1.  Mannikin Row- this group of 19 people between the Stemmons Sign and the lamppost near the TSBD does very little moving.  And, that is suspicious.  Many have remarked on this.

2.  The crosswalk at the intersection of Houston and Elm on East Houston.  This group of people in Zapruder does not match the ones shown in Altgens 5.  It is a stage set.  Jack White first noticed this.

3.  The SW corner of Houston and Elm.  The number of people on this corner in Zapruder does not match the number of people seen in Elsie Dorman during the same time period.  There are people in Elsie Dorman who do not show up in the Zapruder film.  I would like to say the same for Zapruder people not in Dorman, but I am not certain at this point.  The different number of people first noticed by yours truly.

No. 1 is somewhat arguable.  Nos. 2 and 3 are not.  Since, the critics here do not pay attention to facts or clearly seen images then they can say whatever they want. 

I think Mr. Healey would probably call those groups traveling mattes.

[John Butler]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:09 PM, Sean Coleman said:

Of course NARA could be tellers of untruths as could Mr.Zap…..but you gotta believe something sometimes 

Why?  The truth doesn't depend on quantity or randomness.  The truth depends on an honest interpretation of a single event.  And, there could be a long series of true events.

Edited February 21, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm sure Chris can appreciate that an outsider, someone with a casual interest in the JFK assassination, who stumbles across this forum hoping to find out more about the subject, might get the wrong impression if all the nonsensical stuff goes unchallenged.

Sandy didn't say this.  Jeremy B. did.

Jeremy has a disturbing habit of expressing his opinion as if it is the opinion of others.  Someone with a casual interest would not know enough about the assassination to judge whether something is nonsensical or not.  Of course, everything that Jeremy disagrees with is "nonsensical stuff".  And, of course his opinion and the folks that agree with him are the ones that count as true and nonsensical.

Edited February 21, 2022 by John Butler

[Sean Coleman]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Why?  The truth doesn't depend on quantity or randomness.  The truth depends on an honest interpretation of a single event.  And, there could be a long series of true events.

Yes, true. But your ‘honest interpretation of a single event’ may be different to mine. One event may have multiple explanations. You, me- everyone - then has to weigh up the options and decide which one you like. I happen to believe the film stayed with Zap and NARA supplied a chain that could not be disputed. Or it would have been.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Yes, true. But your ‘honest interpretation of a single event’ may be different to mine. One event may have multiple explanations. You, me- everyone - then has to weigh up the options and decide which one you like. I happen to believe the film stayed with Zap and NARA supplied a chain that could not be disputed. Or it would have been.

No problems Sean,

A person believes what they believe.  Intelligent people will find a counter argument whether it is valid or not.  Speaking of beliefs, I have doubts about the NPIC/Hawkeye Works story.  But, those doubts have nothing to do with the so-called chain of evidence on the handling of the film.