Simple proof that the Zapruder film has been altered.

[Jonathan Cohen]

49 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Jonathan, they did not immediately release the Z film. The only thing the public saw for years is some individual frames. Since they didn't release it, we might assume that if it was altered they were holding it as an Ace in the Hole. Either way holding on to it for years would allow them to compare their forgery to all the other documented photographic evidence.

But Chris, even if you're right, and all they did was alter portions of the film at first, they'd still potentially be in the same trouble because they wouldn't have the complete Dealey Plaza film and photo record to compare their alterations with.

[Chris Bristow]

9 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

But Chris, even if you're right, and all they did was alter portions of the film at first, they'd still potentially be in the same trouble because they wouldn't have the complete Dealey Plaza film and photo record to compare their alterations with.

The fact it wasn't released for so many years means they would have had almost the complete daily Plaza record by then. And when it was released it was leaked. It wasn't their intention to release it to the public even in 1978.

[Barry Keane]

57 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

But if there was a limo stop removed  the alteration was an undeniable success.

Success of what? The head snap is there still. A shooter from in front, conspiracy!

[Jonathan Cohen]

20 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

The fact it wasn't released for so many years means they would have had almost the complete daily Plaza record by then. And when it was released it was leaked. It wasn't their intention to release it to the public even in 1978.

"By then," maybe. I'm talking about early/initial alterations that would have needed to be "changed" later on, to reflect the extant photo record. Are you thus claiming that the original alterations could have themselves been altered again later on, so as to keep the photo record consistent?

[Chris Bristow]

56 minutes ago, Barry Keane said:

Success of what? The head snap is there still. A shooter from in front, conspiracy!

Success of what??? I made it very clear I was talking about success in hiding a limo stop. A shot from the front does not have to implicate the SS but the limo almost stopping at 313 would raise huge questions. If the limo stopped they were successful in hiding it regardless of whether they addressed the head shot or not.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

"By then," maybe. I'm talking about early/initial alterations that would have needed to be "changed" later on, to reflect the extant photo record. Are you thus claiming that the original alterations could have themselves been altered again later on, so as to keep the photo record consistent?

"By then" definitely. Almost every bit of photographic evidence was known by 1978. Their risk lessened with every year they held the film without releasing it. If later evidence contradicted their alterations they could destroy the film or bury it or use more modern technology to modify an alteration.
 It is not necessary to debate if it could have been altered twice because the point here is simply that they did not have to worry about being outed by the contradictory evidence because they had a choice regarding releasing the film, keeping it locked up or just destroying it.
 By 1978 the issue of new contradictory evidence was almost a complete non issue.

[Mark Knight]

14 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

There is a shelf life for proving something before people become apathetic and it descends into irrelevance. That’s not to say that you or I feel the JFKA is irrelevant, I think it was a seminal moment in twentieth century history. We care, but, for most of the population it’s trivia now. History is full of injustice and crooks that got away with terrible things. Those who gained from the JFKA enjoyed the spoils of their actions. There was no accountability. 
 

 

Chris,

Your point is quite valid. I was 9 years old when the JFK assassination occurred. My son is now 42, and a couple of years back he explained to me why the JFKA wasn't a big deal to him. "It's been almost 60 years, Dad. If you do figure out who did it, what then? There won't be anyone left to prosecute; they'll all be dead. So, other than simply knowing the truth, what is gained by knowing the truth? That your time wasn't wasted, maybe? My generation just doesn't care."

And I realize he's right. I'm just here not to sell any particular theory, but to hopefully finally discover the truth.

These days, that and a $10 bill will get you a mighty fine cup of coffee.

 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Chris,

Your point is quite valid. I was 9 years old when the JFK assassination occurred. My son is now 42, and a couple of years back he explained to me why the JFKA wasn't a big deal to him. "It's been almost 60 years, Dad. If you do figure out who did it, what then? There won't be anyone left to prosecute; they'll all be dead. So, other than simply knowing the truth, what is gained by knowing the truth? That your time wasn't wasted, maybe? My generation just doesn't care."

And I realize he's right. I'm just here not to sell any particular theory, but to hopefully finally discover the truth.

These days, that and a $10 bill will get you a mighty fine cup of coffee.

 

I have pondered all of this many times. My father wept when JFK was killed. My brother had a similar conversation with me, he said something like I was wasting time taking such an interest in it and that nothing would change that history or bring JFK back. I made some points that I think were valid. He didn’t have a further retort. 
 

- The JFKA was the controversy that made me expand on my knowledge on many topics, it took my down a path of scrutinising twentieth century history and on a quest to better understand twentieth century history. It made me look at foreign policy a totally different way, instead of consuming what media and initially schooling put in front of me, I began to weigh things up, and make my own mind up. A modern phrase might be that the JFKA “red pilled” me but, as some author eloquently put it; it was the moment America lost its innocence. Given America has dominated geopolitics in our lifetimes, I would suggest that it is quite an important thing to understand. 
- I told my brother that if it wasn’t for the JFKA, I wouldn’t understand what is happening today. That knowledge has tremendously benefitted me, and in turn my younger brother. 
 

At this point he accepted that my wasted time reading all these books has developed both of us in some way. I think we all need heroes, role models, archetypes, and JFK became one of mine. Idealism is alluring, I think in each hero we have, we see a part of ourselves or something we aspire to be. I am conscious that when someone is taken by such a tragedy, that it plays to our senses. If we’d seen JFK grow old and foolish, or had he been taken by Addison's, collitis or whatever else, there would be much less of a fascination. I think his short life was extraordinarily interesting, he was living every moment, perhaps like Hunter S Thompson and Ernest Hemingway, two more of my heroes. Their lives intersect with JFK to some degree. Thompson's words on Nov 22 63. Hemingway was too sick to speak at JFK’s inauguration. All of this may just be relevant to my personality type, and what I value. It may mean nothing to the next man. i am certain it’s put me on a better path.
 

I find the whole story profoundly sad, it’s right up there with the Greek tragedies. Two brothers slain in a 5 year period. In my interpretation tackling the same spectre. The latter being compelled to follow in his brothers footsteps. No brother could be anything other than a moth to a flame in the situation, if he cared. Those with feeling, caring for a future, can’t help but find some of the JFK and RFK speeches magnetic. The words spoken are of great men. IMHO this is why American’s and the people of so many countries revered JFK, their hopes rested on his shoulders, he showed them a glimpse of something better, and that is irresistible. He was imperfect, he made mistakes, but, I believe we can say he risked it all for his strong ideals. That’s why I think he occupies the place in history that he does. You just don’t get characters like this in politics very often. We have so few archetypes or heroes today. 
 

I have aired my thoughts here many times on why JFK and the JFKA is important, and why there is such a fascination when it comes to his death and speeches on Youtube. This is a loose thread in world history, a seminal moment in the last century, few people want to pull on this thread, those that do, see the past 50 years of history unravel in many ways. For those who want to understand what is happening now, you must understand what happened then and what the 35th president was up against. 

PS. One final note on discovering the truth. Is that the reason we are here? Or is it deeper than that? Do we already know the truth, deep in our hearts and minds? Don’t get me wrong, it’s the greatest murder mystery of all time, an incredible “whodunnit”. We all focus so much on who fired the guns and from where, whether the Z film is kosher or whether there we 2 Oswalds, its interesting. But, perhaps the truth has been staring at us all along. ‘Cui bono’, who benefited and benefitted the most? What did JFK represent, what would America have been like if he and his brother had 16 years? What would it of meant for the people he was up against?  Its not inconceivable that one family could have ruled for 24 years. This is hypothetical but, his enemies, the class he betrayed would have seen this as a problem. 
 

I think we could all do a lot worse in this day and age than be researching and debating this. There is a lot of wisdom contained in this forum and certainly in the many books that the members have read.
 

 

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I 100% believe there was a conspiracy, also. We agree on that. Was it 13 years that the public waited to watch it? How quickly did Hoover’s FBI watch it? 
 

If you were to control the narrative around such an event, you’d need to sequester all evidence, including film and stills. See what you have and work on a narrative that explains that in a way that is palatable to the public. IMHO that’s exactly what they did. In terms of propagandising the public in the aftermath, you’d just need the MSM of the time on board. If a lie is told enough times, it becomes truth. If a couple of bits of evidence contradict the rest, it’s like so what, the most powerful mediums of communication explained them away as if they are immaterial. Look at the magic bullet. That’s such an audacious attempt to hide the truth and for all intents and purposes it worked or did a good enough job. You think The Z film failed, so do I in convincing us that that the WC was conclusive. But, it succeeded in another way. That’s in convincing enough people that it went down as the state said it did. People believe that what they see with their eyes can’t deceive them. If the narrative has been set from trusted sources, and they have taken it in, their eyes will see what they want to see. The scrutiny here is greater than 99.9% of the public. We have many tools that Joe public didn’t have in 1964. 
 

It might seem that way but, if you’re a student of history, we’ve seen this all of the time. There is a shelf life for proving something before people become apathetic and it descends into irrelevance. That’s not to say that you or I feel the JFKA is irrelevant, I think it was a seminal moment in twentieth century history. We care, but, for most of the population it’s trivia now. History is full of injustice and crooks that got away with terrible things. Those who gained from the JFKA enjoyed the spoils of their actions. There was no accountability. 
 

 

One of the elements of the crime that continues to intrigue me is the possibility there was some accountability. Hoffa, Giancana, Rosselli...all murdered, their murders never solved. Johnson, Helms, and Nixon...all forced out in disgrace. I've always wondered if maybe just maybe Ted Kennedy was pulling the strings on a lot of this, and if he did not in fact avenge his brothers' murders. 

If I was to write up that period as a drama, that would be my take. In fact, it was my take. It was while researching a screenplay with such a plot that I got sucked into this quagmire. That was 20 years ago. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

One of the elements of the crime that continues to intrigue me is the possibility there was some accountability. Hoffa, Giancana, Rosselli...all murdered, their murders never solved. Johnson, Helms, and Nixon...all forced out in disgrace. I've always wondered if maybe just maybe Ted Kennedy was pulling the strings on a lot of this, and if he did not in fact avenge his brothers' murders. 

If I was to write up that period as a drama, that would be my take. In fact, it was my take. It was while researching a screenplay with such a plot that I got sucked into this quagmire. That was 20 years ago. 

Hi Pat,

I think that’s a very interesting perspective, and I agree and disagree. For what it’s worth I’ll explain. 
 

Ted was the patriarch of that family after RFK was assassinated. He suffered greatly, drank excessively with all that trauma, Chappiquiddick (whatever actually happened there), left him neutralised. In reality if he’d been elected, I believe he’d be another premature gravestone. I often wonder how he continued in politics, having all those death threats coming in the post, saying despicable things like they’d chuck acid in the kids faces as they leave school. Imagine that weighing on your mind or the constant threat of assassination. He had to be a role model or paternal figure to JFK and RFK’s kids, a lot of them. I read about how important he was in that role. If he was a head stone, they’d have suffered more without fathers. I think he did an amazing job as a politician, he fought his own way, tried to do good, and perhaps that was the best he could do. I think you’re right, he put some nails in the coffins of some of those guys behind the scenes, with clever political pressure. 
 

However, where I feel differently is; I think Hoffa, Giancana, Rosselli, Johnson and Nixon were just pawns, conduits, facilitators etc. IMHO it’s bigger than those guys. They were expendable when it came to the crunch. I am not undermining their status as criminals or politicians respectively. They just wen’t the people who stood to gain the most from JFK’s murder. Yes, the mafia wanted the anti corruption purge to cease. Yes, Johnson got to be president. Yes, Nixon got to be also. Did these guys gain as much as the bankers, oil men, etc? What might those guys have lost with 8 years of JFK and 2 brothers continuing that legacy? The profiteering in the Vietnam war alone was enormous.   
Perhaps the layers make it so interesting but, also muddy the waters? 

[Mark Knight]

I agree with your take, Chris. I think Nixon was the primary beneficiary on the POLITICAL side, but he never got rich. When he'd served their purpose, he was discarded...like Rosselli, Giancana, Hoffa and others. But others were bankrolling Nixon. Hell, CREEP was so flush with cash that Watergate was done as a third-rate burglary. Had there been less money, I'd wager that the Watergate burglary idea would've been nixed. But the money was there, and it was going to be spent somewhere...so...

When Nixon went to "inspect" Mar-a-Lago when it was about to become a government property, Bebe Rebozo went with him. I still don't think we know all about Rebozo that we should, but that's only ONE person...and there were many, many others. I think if we can do a timeline on Mar-a-Lago, we might accidentally learn more about the big players. But that's just opne segment of the past that's coming back around today.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Jonathan, it is hard to know what is is the mind of the conspirators.  But , I don't think they cared about what you brought up.  They just wanted to get the stories lined up  and in sync.  The lone nut , LHO , did the deed. He is dead now. That was easy to understand by the average American.   Move on.  And, that is how it went down.  There were a lot of tears for JFK, but people went back to school, to their jobs, etc.  

Only a few people thought the Warren Commission was  a cover up.  Most people don't/did not have the time or resources to do their own investigation of the JFKA. For some people , such as John Newman, Bill Kelly and many people who contribute  to this website, the JFKA is a  very important event that needs to be better understood.  

 

[Allen Lowe]

5 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Success of what??? I made it very clear I was talking about success in hiding a limo stop. A shot from the front does not have to implicate the SS but the limo almost stopping at 313 would raise huge questions. If the limo stopped they were successful in hiding it regardless of whether they addressed the head shot or not.

You’ve obviously never witnessed a shooting, which I have. Things freeze up, fear takes over, snd certain kinds of actions are exaggerated. In the Z film You can clearly see that the limo slows down. The affect of that slowing down plus the altered state of panic likely produced the sense that everything had stopped.

[Chris Bristow]

42 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

You’ve obviously never witnessed a shooting, which I have. Things freeze up, fear takes over, snd certain kinds of actions are exaggerated. In the Z film You can clearly see that the limo slows down. The affect of that slowing down plus the altered state of panic likely produced the sense that everything had stopped.

Maybe people did freeze but I can't conclude that it explains all the witness reports.  Consider that Hargis, Chaney, Jackson and Martin said it stopped or almost stopped. Those bike cops are tasked with maintaining a certain distance from the limo through the entire motorcade. They would be keenly aware of changes to the speed of the limo and they were the closest to the limo. They were also cops who, imo, would be less likely to freak out in a shooting and more likely to jump into action.
 But my point in this thread was not about debating whether the limo stopped. My point is if it stopped and they took it out of the Z film, then the film served as valuable propaganda. That is the entirety of my point.
 If it was a proven fact that the limo did not slow to almost a stop then there would be no discussion about altering the film to remove the stop. But what we have is strong opinions and debates, not facts.  
 
 
 

[Allen Lowe]

20 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Maybe people did freeze but I can't conclude that it explains all the witness reports.  Consider that Hargis, Chaney, Jackson and Martin said it stopped or almost stopped. Those bike cops are tasked with maintaining a certain distance from the limo through the entire motorcade. They would be keenly aware of changes to the speed of the limo and they were the closest to the limo. They were also cops who, imo, would be less likely to freak out in a shooting and more likely to jump into action.
 But my point in this thread was not about debating whether the limo stopped. My point is if it stopped and they took it out of the Z film, then the film served as valuable propaganda. That is the entirety of my point.
 If it was a proven fact that the limo did not slow to almost a stop then there would be no discussion about altering the film to remove the stop. But what we have is strong opinions and debates, not facts.  
 
 
 

Actually if you look at the film you can see that the car almost comes to a stop. It’s pretty clear.