Simple proof that the Zapruder film has been altered.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Barry Keane said:

Because of the head snap any alteration of the film is negated. So why go to great lengths to hide the reality of the film if the back and to the left movement is retained? If conspirators had the power and sophistication to alter the film why not just make it disappear?

Thank you, Barry, for again injecting some sense into this otherwise absurd thread.

[Michael Griffith]

I am persuaded by Doug Horne and David Mantik's research on indications of alteration in the Z film. 

One of the things that first stood out to me was the impossibly fast-yet-controlled movement of Brehm's son. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less. IOW, in Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father, but, just ten frames later, he is standing calmly and steadily beside him and clapping his hands--all in a fraction over half a second.

Years ago, I used my youngest son in an attempt to duplicate Brehm's son's movement. The only way my son could even come close to Brehm Jr.'s feat was to practically jump from his starting position to the final position, but even then he had to take a moment to steady himself and start clapping. My son was never able to duplicate Brehm Jr.'s amazing movement. My son's fastest time was .77 seconds, and that was when he practically jumped to the new spot. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Barry Keane said:

Because of the head snap any alteration of the film is negated. So why go to great lengths to hide the reality of the film if the back and to the left movement is retained? If conspirators had the power and sophistication to alter the film why not just make it disappear?

Hi Barry, I think about it a little differently. The sophistication to alter the film was available. The objective would have been to do the best they could in the given situation. If there were movements that indicated multiple shots hitting JFK or Connelly, they needed altering for the WC to stand up to the already building scrutiny. Obviously in an ideal world if you had JFK’s head lunging forward, it would be optimal. I would suggest that they couldn’t achieve that. Knowing there was public pressure to release the video, they had to put something out and cleaned it up best they could. it’s important to think about the time, how would the public view the Zap film? They had no youtube, no facility to magnify, sharpen and play it over and over the way we do. It may look obvious to those of us who have some experience shooting stuff the way something should move when shot from the front or back. To a layman seeing a short clip, accompanied by trusted MSM experts telling them what happened, what chance is there that a layman would be certain? The conspirators knew that had to cover it up for 20 years probably, at which point the public wouldn’t care enough, as other traumatic events or distractions would have taken their attentions.

 

In short, I think they did the best they could altering aspects and it didn’t matter that it looks fishy to some of us with a keen eye. History is written by the victors, and in this case elites, security apparatus and government that succeeded JFK. Unfortunately, if the news repeats the same message day after day, its effective and most people will follow if its from a trusted source. 

 

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

I am also " persuaded by Doug Horne and David Mantik's research on indications of alteration in the Z film. "

[Barry Keane]

I don't "know" what happened in Dealey Plaza, but I do believe there was a conspiracy. As far as film alteration, how did the conspirators know the Zapruder film needed altering? When was this done? What about all the other films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza, were they also altered? If the purpose of altering the Zapruder film was to disguise evidence of multiple shooters, it failed. 

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

The conspirators knew that had to cover it up for 20 years probably, at which point the public wouldn’t care enough, as other traumatic events or distractions would have taken their attentions.

Oh really! Enormous presumption. Even if the film did not exist, there is enough evidence to suggest a conspiracy. The public did care and still does. The cover up succeeded in protecting the guilty from justice,  but not from the judgement of history.

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Phillip Pratt said:

My point is, all this was very specialised work, originating in the mid 70’s...

 

From Mary Poppins, 1963:

 

I got a passport photo taken when I was a kid. When the photographer noticed I felt bad about a particularly bad acne breakout I had that day, he took the negative and remove the acne with a pencil. He did it right in front of me, using a magnifying glass, completing the process within a matter of a few seconds.

It's been my observation that people who scoff at alterationists usually do so out of ignorance. I presented evidence of alteration in this thread's first post and so far nobody has been able to explain how it could possibly have occurred naturally.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Barry Keane said:

 

I don't "know" what happened in Dealey Plaza, but I do believe there was a conspiracy. As far as film alteration, how did the conspirators know the Zapruder film needed altering? When was this done? What about all the other films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza, were they also altered? If the purpose of altering the Zapruder film was to disguise evidence of multiple shooters, it failed.

 

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. 
 

4 hours ago, Barry Keane said:

Oh really! Enormous presumption. Even if the film did not exist, there is enough evidence to suggest a conspiracy. The public did care and still does. The cover up succeeded in protecting the guilty from justice,  but not from the judgement of history.

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. 
 

 

[Chris Bristow]

If events on Elm had to be denied and covered up an altered Z film would be of significant value as propaganda. In fact the Z film is touted as proof positive that the limo did not stop and JFK's head wound was not in the rear.
 I think there would be good reason not to ditch the film if they could make a passable forgery and keep control of it in order to avoid serious scrutiny. Without the Z film to support their case it would be much harder to cast doubt on the consistent accounts of so many witnesses. 
  A patch on the back of the head would have been fairly easy. The limo stop would have been much more complicated. The violent backward movement may have been impossible to change and make it look real. You couldn't  just reverse frames unless you did a matte of JFK in the limo. In addition you would have to take out the bloody effects of the blast and put it back in reverse order so he gets shot at the beginning of the movement not the end. 
 If there was a limo stop and they had the ability to remove it I think it would have been a high priority because it could have been very incriminating. If they were not able to convincingly manipulate JFK's violent rearward movement they may just be forced to leave it in and engage in disinformation.  
    
   
  

[Barry Keane]

When did the alteration take place?

[Chuck Schwartz]

Barry, read the "Dino Brugioni" thread right here on this website for a view of when the alteration occurred.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Barry, read the "Dino Brugioni" thread right here on this website for a view of when the alteration occurred.

Chuck, how could the conspirators be confident when altering the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination that dozens of additional films and photographs from Dealey Plaza wouldn't immediately contradict their forgeries?

[Barry Keane]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chuck, how could the conspirators be confident when altering the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination that dozens of additional films and photographs from Dealey Plaza wouldn't immediately contradict their forgeries?

I agree. But if it was indeed altered, it didn't achieve it's intention. So it was a waste of time and effort.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Barry Keane

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I am also " persuaded by Doug Horne and David Mantik's research on indications of alteration in the Z film. "

Yep.  Horne alone is enough.  See Dino Brugioni. 

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chuck, how could the conspirators be confident when altering the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination that dozens of additional films and photographs from Dealey Plaza wouldn't immediately contradict their forgeries?

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.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Barry Keane said:

I agree. But if it was indeed altered, it didn't achieve it's intention. So it was a waste of time and effort.

If their sole intention was to remove evidence of a second shooter in the front then yes it failed. But if there was a limo stop removed  the alteration was an undeniable success. As I stated before the Z film has convinced Millions that the witnesses had to be wrong.

Whenever I see a debate on the limo stop the Skeptics inevitably point to the Z film as absolute proof that it didn't stop, " case closed", they often say. The Z film has been their go-to argument for  decades. It's an extremely powerful tool in the limo stop debate.