Simple proof that the Zapruder film has been altered.

[Chris Bristow]

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

I was sure I'd seen at least one newspaper containing the Moorman photo, and that I'd mentioned this in a previous thread, so I trawled through my posting history. Here's an example I'd found a while ago:

https://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres48.jpg

That's the front page of The Fresno Bee of Saturday 23rd. As far as I can see, that copy of the photo seems to be identical to the existing photo. If so, any alterations must have been made on the afternoon of the assassination, before the original had been copied and distributed to journalists.

Although I haven't checked them all, there may well be other examples here:

https://www.downhold.org/lowry/JFK-NUPFRONTS.html

In addition, Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain, p.242, implies (but doesn't state explicitly) that the photo was printed in the Friday evening edition of the Dallas Times Herald (on page A-17, in case anyone wants to look it up online or in a physical newspaper archive). Trask states that Moorman's photo was copied at the Dallas Times Herald's photo lab, the same lab that printed the Altgens photos, one of which also contradicts the claim that the limo moved into the left-hand lane. The Altgens photos were distributed shortly after 1pm, leaving virtually no time for them to have been altered.

It all comes down to deciding which of two alternatives is the more likely:

• A small number of witnesses got a small detail wrong when recollecting a brief, stressful experience, as witnesses are known to do.
• Or several home movies and photographs, which corroborate each other, were altered.

Since no-one has come close to demonstrating that the second option is correct, the only rational conclusion is that the first option is correct.

On the plus side, Chris is at least looking to argue rationally that all of these images were altered, rather than take the usual approach of looking at a poor-quality copy, seeing a blob or squiggle that probably doesn't exist in a better-quality version, and declaring it to be proof of alteration.

That's a good find, thanks for providing it. The Mary Moorman photo was not altered. The only way the limo could have slowed/stopped would be if the slowing started just a few frames before the head shot or if the Moorman photo represents a frame after 315, or both combined.  I suppose it could be claimed it was altered Friday night but they would have to have already calculated the Z film slowing and knew how much to move the limo and bikes.  If there was an organized conspiracy and they had the clean up possibilities mapped out maybe it was possible. Usually when considering a new idea like the limo stopping later it starts easy then complications arise.  So I am just trying to address everything and rule out what does not work.
   The newspaper photo has barley visible portions of the fingerprint on it. I thought that occurred during the time the FBI was holding the photo but it must have happened by Saturday.  I assume the photo must have gone out over the AP "Wire" for it to printed in a California paper by Saturday. There must be other copies out there.
     With each response you repeat the same arguments that I have already considered. Laying speculation upon speculation leads to speculative conclusions. I consider those but conjecture like all the bike cops being mistaken does not hold much weight. When you can't make a good solid argument against something like the bike cops accounts you should not try to address the point with such speculation as 'they just got it wrong" (Paraphrased). This weakens your overall argument and lessens your credibility in my view. You may think repeating your opinions over and over will cause a light bulb to go off in my head, but it does not serve to bolster your case at all. 
 

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Just a heads-up to info some of you already have that I saw a copy of what may have been the unaltered Zapruder in NYC in lat 1964.  

From your post: "I viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964 that differs from what we are currently seeing. I had no idea at the time just how unusual my experience was."
  I often wonder how difficult it would be to compare the memory of the Z film seen in 64' to maybe 14 years later? I know folks like Greg Burnham said he saw the unaltered film and the umbrella man was pumping his umbrella vigorously.  I guess the difference between that account and the Z film would be easy to distinguish even after many years. I would think a limo slowing would be harder to compare after many years compared to a  full stopped . If the film was projected at a slightly different speed it might complicate the issue too. 
   I'm not implying you got it wrong at all, but I an wondering how obvious the difference was to you.

[Chris Davidson]

On 8/17/2022 at 9:37 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Simple proof.

Maybe Bronson/Z subtlety next, but un-necessary.

 

 

Motion is much easier to compare.

Jackie's hand should help you with the timing.

Right Stride, Left Stride, Right Stride

Might take some time to load.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Chris Davidson
Different Image hosting Site

[Pamela Brown]

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

From your post: "I viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964 that differs from what we are currently seeing. I had no idea at the time just how unusual my experience was."
  I often wonder how difficult it would be to compare the memory of the Z film seen in 64' to maybe 14 years later? I know folks like Greg Burnham said he saw the unaltered film and the umbrella man was pumping his umbrella vigorously.  I guess the difference between that account and the Z film would be easy to distinguish even after many years. I would think a limo slowing would be harder to compare after many years compared to a  full stopped . If the film was projected at a slightly different speed it might complicate the issue too. 
   I'm not implying you got it wrong at all, but I an wondering how obvious the difference was to you.

Not sure what your point is. I am able to recall what I saw. There was no 'blob', for example...

[Chris Bristow]

47 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Not sure what your point is. I am able to recall what I saw. There was no 'blob', for example...

Okay, yes my point was vague and wordy. I wanted to know how confident you were in your memory of the original event. You gave a pretty direct answer to that question.

I would guess everyone watching that film would have had their eyes directly on Kennedy which adds to the credibility of your observation.

I think most researchers look at frame 313 and wonder what we might have seen underneath that blob. Your observation also brings up the question as to how much of the other bloody images are real. It opens up a whole can of worms.

[Pamela Brown]

5 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Okay, yes my point was vague and wordy. I wanted to know how confident you were in your memory of the original event. You gave a pretty direct answer to that question.

I would guess everyone watching that film would have had their eyes directly on Kennedy which adds to the credibility of your observation.

I think most researchers look at frame 313 and wonder what we might have seen underneath that blob. Your observation also brings up the question as to how much of the other bloody images are real. It opens up a whole can of worms.

Exactly. I am quite uncomfortable looking at the other copies of the Z-film(s).  

[Mark Ulrik]

On 8/18/2022 at 11:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

That's a non sequitur logical fallacy.

It's like saying that, since nobody has come close to demonstrating that Johnny took the last cookie from the cookie jar, the only rational conclusion is that he didn't.

Johnny still may have taken the cookie. And if there is any evidence that he did, that would justify the pursuit of further evidence or proof that he did. Even circumstantial evidence would justify it. For example, if Johnny is the only one in the family who likes those cookies.

I think you forgot about the film showing that Johnny's hand never went into the cookie jar.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Mark Ulrik

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

On 8/18/2022 at 3:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

That's a non sequitur logical fallacy.

It's like saying that, since nobody has come close to demonstrating that Johnny took the last cookie from the cookie jar, the only rational conclusion is that he didn't.

Johnny still may have taken the cookie. And if there is any evidence that he did, that would justify the pursuit of further evidence or proof that he did. Even circumstantial evidence would justify it. For example, if Johnny is the only one in the family who likes those cookies.

Expand  

 

23 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I think you forgot about the film showing that Johnny's hand never went into the cookie jar.

 

That is offset by the witnesses who say they saw Johnny take the cookie. And the fact that Johnny's overprotective father is capable of editing films.

Fact is, I was trying to keep the analogy simple.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/18/2022 at 7:17 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Motion is much easier to compare.

Jackie's hand should help you with the timing.

Right Stride, Left Stride, Right Stride

On 8/18/2022 at 7:17 PM, Chris Davidson said:

 

Whoa! In the red square you can see a guy running away from the procession.

It actually looks like he is running backwards. And when the film runs in reverse, it looks like he is running forward, toward the procession.

Is that the point of your showing this Chris?

It does look like you synchronized the two films at the point when Jackie raises her hand. But the Zapruder inset runs forward from there whereas Bronson runs backward. Is that to show us the same guy running toward the procession in each?

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Bristow writes:

Quote

The Mary Moorman photo was not altered.

At least, until someone demonstrates that it could have been altered before being distributed to journalists on the afternoon of the assassination, we have to conclude that it wasn't altered.

If the Moorman photo wasn't altered, it must show us the actual position of the limo a fraction of a second after the head shot.

Insofar as the Moorman photo is consistent with what we see in the Zapruder film, the Moorman film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, and the Altgens 7 photo, these images too must show us where the limo was during the shooting.

If that's the case, any witnesses whose statements do not match what we see in these mutually consistent images, must be mistaken. That group of mistaken witnesses must include the police motorcyclists, whose statements in any case are not as consistent or unambiguous as Chris seems to think.

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

• Bobby Hargis told the Warren Commission: "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." In a later taped interview, he claimed that the car "slowed down almost to a stop."
• James Chaney was reported second-hand as saying that "from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped." According to another second-hand report, Chaney said that "the Presidential car stopped momentarily after the first shot," but also that "the automobile came to - almost came to a complete halt after the first shot - did not quite stop, but almost did."
• B.J. Martin stated that the presidential car stopped "just for a moment."
• Douglas L. Jackson stated that "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment."

As we can see, Chaney's first quoted statement ("the car ... pulled to the left and stopped") is contradicted by the Moorman photo. If the Moorman photo wasn't altered, Chaney must be mistaken.

It's worth noting that Hargis and Chaney contradicted each other, and made statements that cannot both be correct. Hargis claimed that the limo stopped after the head shot, which Chaney claimed that the limo stopped after the first shot. At least one of them must be wrong, unless the limo stopped twice.

Witnesses make mistakes sometimes, even when riding police motorcycles!

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/17/2022 at 10:37 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Simple proof.

Bell enlightens us.

 

 

(First, note that Bell is the film that is overlaid at an angle and Nix is the one behind it.)

There are two groups of procession observers in these frames. The Nix film shows that the limo first passes the group with the child, and then passes the group with the  guy wearing a tan jacket.

With that knowledge in hand, the Bell frame above should have occurred first followed by the Nix frame above. Bell then Nix.

However, that is contradicted by the appearance of the overpass. The Bell frame -- not the Nix -- shows that the limo is nearer the overpass. (I guess this is what Chris wants us to see.)

I wonder if this is the result of Mr. Bell using a telephoto lens. Telephoto lenses have the affect of bringing things far away up close.

For this to be the case, Mr. Bell would also have to be located further north than Mr. Nix because his camera is aimed more to the west (toward the overpass) than Mr. Nix's camera. It would also mean that the second group of people might also appear in the Bell frame. Unfortunately, that area of the Bell frame has been painted brown for some reason.

The one piece of evidence that suggests my hypothesis might be wrong is that the shape of Jackie is almost exactly the same in both frames. If Mr. Bell were standing further north and aiming more to the west (i.e. my hypothesis), he would not have captured so much of Jackie, and her shape would be different.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If the Moorman photo wasn't altered, it must show us the actual position of the limo a fraction of a second after the head shot.

 

But how is it possible to determine the precise location of the limo in a frame based on the location in a photograph or other film's frame? Perspective makes it very difficult if not impossible.

The limo may have slowed down very briefly before it took off. It may have been located just a few feet behind where it would have been had it not slowed down at all. Can the Moorman photograph prove that to be wrong?

 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Insofar as the Moorman photo is consistent with what we see in the Zapruder film, the Moorman film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, and the Altgens 7 photo, these images too must show us where the limo was during the shooting.

If that's the case, any witnesses whose statements do not match what we see in these mutually consistent images, must be mistaken. That group of mistaken witnesses must include the police motorcyclists, whose statements in any case are not as consistent or unambiguous as Chris seems to think.

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

• Bobby Hargis told the Warren Commission: "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." In a later taped interview, he claimed that the car "slowed down almost to a stop."
• James Chaney was reported second-hand as saying that "from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped." According to another second-hand report, Chaney said that "the Presidential car stopped momentarily after the first shot," but also that "the automobile came to - almost came to a complete halt after the first shot - did not quite stop, but almost did."
• B.J. Martin stated that the presidential car stopped "just for a moment."
• Douglas L. Jackson stated that "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment."

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As we can see, Chaney's first quoted statement ("the car ... pulled to the left and stopped") is contradicted by the Moorman photo. If the Moorman photo wasn't altered, Chaney must be mistaken.

It's worth noting that Hargis and Chaney contradicted each other, and made statements that cannot both be correct.

 

But what Chaney reportedly said is hearsay, right? If so, then what Chaney himself said may be correct. The part of the story that is consistent among the multiple reports is that the limo came to almost a complete stop. And that corroborates what Hargis, Martin, and Jackson said.

 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Hargis claimed that the limo stopped after the head shot, which Chaney claimed that the limo stopped after the first shot. At least one of them must be wrong, unless the limo stopped twice.

Witnesses make mistakes sometimes, even when riding police motorcycles!

 

[Chris Davidson]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Whoa! In the red square you can see a guy running away from the procession.

It actually looks like he is running backwards. And when the film runs in reverse, it looks like he is running forward, toward the procession.

Is that the point of your showing this Chris?

It does look like you synchronized the two films at the point when Jackie raises her hand. But the Zapruder inset runs forward from there whereas Bronson runs backward. Is that to show us the same guy running toward the procession in each?

 

The Bronson film reverses(loops back and forth) from its end point so you can see the step pattern of the man in the red box.

Since you understand the importance of Jackie's hand in both films, try locating that same man(within the red box) in the Z film.

Then pay very close attention to his step pattern and compare them in both films.

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

(First, note that Bell is the film that is overlaid at an angle and Nix is the one behind it.)

There are two groups of procession observers in these frames. The Nix film shows that the limo first passes the group with the child, and then passes the group with the  guy wearing a tan jacket.

With that knowledge in hand, the Bell frame above should have occurred first followed by the Nix frame above. Bell then Nix.

However, that is contradicted by the appearance of the overpass. The Bell frame -- not the Nix -- shows that the limo is nearer the overpass. (I guess this is what Chris wants us to see.)

I wonder if this is the result of Mr. Bell using a telephoto lens. Telephoto lenses have the affect of bringing things far away up close.

For this to be the case, Mr. Bell would also have to be located further north than Mr. Nix because his camera is aimed more to the west (toward the overpass) than Mr. Nix's camera. It would also mean that the second group of people might also appear in the Bell frame. Unfortunately, that area of the Bell frame has been painted brown for some reason.

The one piece of evidence that suggests my hypothesis might be wrong is that the shape of Jackie is almost exactly the same in both frames. If Mr. Bell were standing further north and aiming more to the west (i.e. my hypothesis), he would not have captured so much of Jackie, and her shape would be different.

 

 

The Bell/Z films have a common action(measuring point) among them. When both vehicles disappear into the underpass shadow.

If one compares/plots moving backwards from that point, Jackie in Bell, is in the same upright position that she is in Nix, but after she has sat down in Z at 417.

What happened!!! She got back up on the trunk. No

Why?

Because extant Z after 417 doesn't show it.

Whatever altering was done to the film/s was going to show up in some form, at some point. Timing

This is the reason Nix is cut at Z411.

It's also why it takes Jackie 1/3 second to miraculously slide down into her seat from Z411-Z417.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

At least, until someone demonstrates that it could have been altered before being distributed to journalists on the afternoon of the assassination, we have to conclude that it wasn't altered.

If the Moorman photo wasn't altered, it must show us the actual position of the limo a fraction of a second after the head shot.

Insofar as the Moorman photo is consistent with what we see in the Zapruder film, the Moorman film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, and the Altgens 7 photo, these images too must show us where the limo was during the shooting.

If that's the case, any witnesses whose statements do not match what we see in these mutually consistent images, must be mistaken. That group of mistaken witnesses must include the police motorcyclists, whose statements in any case are not as consistent or unambiguous as Chris seems to think.

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

• Bobby Hargis told the Warren Commission: "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." In a later taped interview, he claimed that the car "slowed down almost to a stop."
• James Chaney was reported second-hand as saying that "from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped." According to another second-hand report, Chaney said that "the Presidential car stopped momentarily after the first shot," but also that "the automobile came to - almost came to a complete halt after the first shot - did not quite stop, but almost did."
• B.J. Martin stated that the presidential car stopped "just for a moment."
• Douglas L. Jackson stated that "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment."

As we can see, Chaney's first quoted statement ("the car ... pulled to the left and stopped") is contradicted by the Moorman photo. If the Moorman photo wasn't altered, Chaney must be mistaken.

It's worth noting that Hargis and Chaney contradicted each other, and made statements that cannot both be correct. Hargis claimed that the limo stopped after the head shot, which Chaney claimed that the limo stopped after the first shot. At least one of them must be wrong, unless the limo stopped twice.

Witnesses make mistakes sometimes, even when riding police motorcycles!

Many witnesses said the car stopped or almost stopped. They described it as going so slow they couldn't be sure if it stopped or almost stopped. This is consistent and indicates the car crawled along very slowly for a moment. That's why so many people said it stopped or almost stopped.

  You said that  Chaney's quote about the car stopping after the first shot was a second hand report. That makes it much less reliable.

  I could see getting the order of events wrong when they happen very close together. But the cops pacing right next to the limo would have a very good idea of exactly how much it slowed.

 if Hargis is correct and the limo stopped just after the headshot then the Moorman photo would not need to be altered.

There is a clip of Chaney from the 1990's in which he states that the limo came almost to a halt. What is interesting is that he prefaces his statement by saying " this is not to be shown publicly but that guy came almost to a stop." That's a slight paraphrase because he added a sentence in the middle to try and explain why Greer stopped.

What I have to wonder is why would he preface it by saying it should not be shown publicly. The official story about how much the limo slowed down is demonstrated in the Z film and by 1995 we had seen the official version. I can't think of any reason for him to ask for it not to be shown to the public other than he is contradicting the official story. in the Z film the limo slows to 8 mph. His description of coming almost to a stop is not at all consistent with the official story.

For a motorcycle trying to Pace the limo the difference between 8 miles an hour and almost stopping is huge. The bike cops testimony is very powerful and extremely credible. I rode motorcycles for many years and find it impossible to believe that they didn't know the difference between almost stopping and continuing at 8 mph when they're riding 3 ft from Limo! Add to that the fact that none of those four cops supported the story about the limo continuing at 8 miles an hour. Not one of them supported the official version. I don't think I can overstate how damning their testimony is.