Jump to content
The Education Forum

Altering the Z film


Recommended Posts

On 4/18/2022 at 1:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[...]

On 4/18/2022 at 1:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The earliest claim of alteration I'm aware of was in an article published in 1984, nearly 40 years ago. The craze seems to have taken off in the early 90s, when characters like Jack 'no planes hit the World Trade Center' White and James 'Sandy Hook was a false flag operation' Fetzer got involved.

[...]

craze? ? ? ahhh, ya might try doing some research on that date 1984, if fact, ya might ask David Lifton specifically. And a hell. of a book was written concerning same in 2003/4. I'll send you my autograph...

Re Jack White, I knew Jack, well. Owner of a Texas ad agency for years and years, knew more about a film darkroom the anyone who ever posted here, in fact, I believe he testified in a congressional hearing regarding Kennedy assassination film  imagery and lectured widely on the subject... your efforts to drag his name through the mud have been noted, again... About the only thing nutters have these days...

 

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Zapruder told the Warren Commission he Did film the limo turning from Houston onto Elm.  That's straight from the horse's mouth, the guy who filmed it.  Where is That at in the version we see today?

Bump.  An unfortunate ignored but important circumstance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Healy writes:

Quote

a hell. of a book was written concerning same in 2003/4. I'll send you my autograph... 

If you're referring to James Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, thanks, but I have a copy already. There are one or two useful essays in there, but the majority of it is laughably idiotic.

Rain sensors in Dealey Plaza are actually listening devices! They were placed there by Them to spy on fearless investigators who think Mary Moorman was standing in the street! The lampposts were tilted - by Them - to prevent the lampposts being measured accurately! One of the contributors was followed from the airport by Them! His shirt and electric shaver were damaged by Them when They broke into his hotel room!

It's exactly the sort of semi-paranoid stuff that allows the media to equate serious Warren Commission critics with flat-earthers and moon-landings deniers.

And speaking of moon-landings deniers ...

Quote

Jack White ... I believe he testified in a congressional hearing regarding Kennedy assassination film  imagery

Indeed he did! He got humiliated because he set himself up as an expert but didn't understand perspective and didn't know what photogrammetry was. Here's the transcript:

http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html

White's embarrassment at the HSCA hearings came about because he misinterpreted photographs of the sixth-floor rifle, something he did again years later in Fetzer's book.

If you turn to page 99, you'll see a montage containing three photos of the sixth-floor rifle. Each photo was taken side-on but from a slightly different angle, which caused the relative dimensions of the rifle to appear differently in each photo. Jack White claimed that this proved there were three different rifles. The man was an idiot.

With his belief in faked films, faked rifles, faked Oswalds, faked moon landings, and a faked attack on the World Trade Center, Jack White probably did more than anyone else to discredit JFK assassination research as a serious subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2022 at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If there's no serious evidence that it was altered, and no serious reason why it should have been altered, the notion that the film was altered is no better than a faith-based belief.

 

On 4/16/2022 at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

his is the sort of simplistic, amateurish approach taken by flat-earthers and moon-landings deniers.

 

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If you're referring to James Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, thanks, but I have a copy already. There are one or two useful essays in there, but the majority of it is laughably idiotic.

 

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The man was an idiot.

Jeremy,

How do you get away with saying these kinds of thing?  I'd like to know so I can say similar things to you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Zapruder told the Warren Commission he Did film the limo turning from Houston onto Elm.  That's straight from the horse's mouth, the guy who filmed it.  Where is That at in the version we see today?

I'm asking Jeremy similar questions.  Mainly about the biggest alteration in the film which you speak of here.  The Zapruder Gap.  So far, Jeremy hasn't answered the question.  He wrote a clever answer which if one doesn't read it carefully he was arguing that the Zapruder film supports conspiracy theories.  In his reply he did not answer the question.  Why?  Their is no explanation other then alteration for the Zapruder Gap.  Zapruder said he did not turn his camera off and filmed the p. limo turning on to Elm Street.  I believe Dan Rather said he saw that.  There is no ending frame or startup frame for the gap between Z 132 and Z 133. 

There is roughly 275 frames or 15 seconds missing.  How long was the shooting sequence?  Would there be enough time for that to happen in the intersection?  Would frames show from that missing segment of the film show things similar to things we see further down the road?

There is about 250 frames between the beginning of the shooting and when the Zap film ends.  That's pretty much like the same number of frames missing from the Zapruder Gap.  Allow for a few extras taken out to eliminate the limo stop and the head shot as it should be.  I would say that's a fair match.  Of course that it just speculation which in my opinion is the beginning of truth many times.    

So, I will ask again.  Jeremy, how do you explain the Zapruder Gap.  Since this is a vital part of your arguments, please provide proof and motive in your reply.  Tell me why this isn't an alteration of the Zapruder film by those who were in charge of the film.  What were they covering up?

Hint:  90 or so witnesses who heard shooting when the p. limo was in the intersection and in front of the TSBD.  Witness testimony is generally considered better then films or photos.   

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Bulman writes:

Quote

Zapruder told the Warren Commission he Did film the limo turning from Houston onto Elm.

Since we know that people's recollections are often mistaken, one plausible explanation for the apparent discrepancy is that Zapruder's recollection too was mistaken.

Are there any reasonable grounds to suspect that the film would have contained incriminating evidence from the car's turn onto Elm Street?

I'm not aware of any. No reasonable person has claimed that the shooting had started by that point. What else might have happened that would have needed to be removed from the film?

Other images exist of the car during the period when it isn't shown in the Zapruder film. Do any of these images show anything incriminating? If they don't, what grounds are there to suspect that the Zapruder film would have done so?

Given that the Zapruder film actually contains strong evidence that contradicts the lone-gunman theory, what good reason is there to believe that a section before frame 133 was removed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Other images exist of the car during the period when it isn't shown in the Zapruder film.

Jeremy, I have a question for you.  Where is the turn?  Show me the picture(s) that clearly depict the Presidential limo IN the arc from Houston onto Elm (the intersection).  Offhand, I know of none.  There are videos/pictures taken from all the way down at Main/Houston which show just the back end of the car turning with virtually no way of telling where it is positioned in the turn.  There are photos/films showing the limo after it is on Elm and at or beyond the doorsteps, but NONE in between these two points      (that I am aware of).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Since we know that people's recollections are often mistaken, one plausible explanation for the apparent discrepancy is that Zapruder's recollection too was mistaken.

I don't believe you can contradict direct testimony by a general to specific rationalization.  Where is your evidence that Zapruder forgot that he didn't film the motorcade, particularly the p. limo, in the intersection and in front of the TSBD.

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Are there any reasonable grounds to suspect that the film would have contained incriminating evidence from the car's turn onto Elm Street?

There is a great deal of evidence.  How about 90 or so witnesses.  Poor, young Toni Clover said she saw his head explode when the p. limo turned into the intersection.  That is something that no 11 year should see.

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Other images exist of the car during the period when it isn't shown in the Zapruder film. Do any of these images show anything incriminating? If they don't, what grounds are there to suspect that the Zapruder film would have done so?

Yes.  That is so.  But, only one film shows any detail worth looking at.  That is the Towner film.  I consider the film an animation.

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Given that the Zapruder film actually contains strong evidence that contradicts the lone-gunman theory, what good reason is there to believe that a section before frame 133 was removed?

Tell that to the FBI and the Warren Commission. See how far that takes you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Jeremy, I have a question for you.  Where is the turn?  Show me the picture(s) that clearly depict the Presidential limo IN the arc from Houston onto Elm (the intersection).  Offhand, I know of none.  There are videos/pictures taken from all the way down at Main/Houston which show just the back end of the car turning with virtually no way of telling where it is positioned in the turn.  There are photos/films showing the limo after it is on Elm and at or beyond the doorsteps, but NONE in between these two points      (that I am aware of).

Richard,

You are essentially correct.  There is the Towner film.  I consider it an animation.  I seem to recall looking at the film and seeing one frame per second or one frame repeated for a second. 

Then there is writing in the film such as "hit x".  I'm pretty sure that's not a film artifact. 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've seen this and believe the film wasn't altered, you need to talk to your psychiatrist.  I'm sure some will nitpick, but that's all bullshit.

Like the magic, pristine single bullet, start with the chain of custody.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Price writes:

Quote

Jeremy, I have a question for you.  Where is the turn?  Show me the picture(s) that clearly depict the Presidential limo IN the arc from Houston onto Elm (the intersection).  Offhand, I know of none.

I'm not sure what the significance of that question is. Would the absence of images imply that the turn didn't happen, and that the car magically vanished from Houston Street and appeared through a cloud of smoke a few seconds later on Elm Street? That doesn't sound very likely.

There are home movies and photographs that show the car turning in front of the book depository. If the complete turn isn't captured on any of the home movies or photographs, what's the problem? Is that supposed to be suspicious? If so, why?

Seriously, what is supposed to have happened in front of the book depository that would warrant chopping out a section of the Zapruder film? What evidence is there of anything suspicious at that point in the car's journey?

Since it was Ron who first mentioned the subject, perhaps he could answer the question. Why should anyone have wanted to remove that particular section of the Zapruder film?

John Butler writes:

Quote

Where is your evidence that Zapruder forgot that he didn't film the motorcade, particularly the p. limo, in the intersection and in front of the TSBD.

The fact that the film doesn't show it, of course. Unless someone can come up with a good reason for chopping out that particular section of the film, the only plausible explanation is that Zapruder's recollection was faulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm not sure what the significance of that question is.

Jeremy, I can't speak for others, but to me the significance is about where the limo turned.  Did it make the same turn as the rest of the motorcade or did it swing out wide and look almost like it was turning on the Elm St. Extension which ran directly past the TSBD entrance into a parking lot as at least two witnesses said.  If it did this, I believe that the "Position A" starting point for the recreation may be the result.  If that is not the case, then why would the recreation start in the first lane (at an angle) instead of in the middle lane where the motorcade was (and for the most part) did stay.  The significance of that event can only be explained by its absence in films and photos. Why?  The only film showing the entire turn (Towner), fails to provide any image which can be definitively position the car and there appear to be absolutely no images which depict the limo in the arc onto Elm St and its initial position.  Explain Position A if the limo did not swing out wide.  Position A is not in the Zapruder film, where did they come up with it (and WHY?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2022 at 1:39 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

David Healy writes:

If you're referring to James Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, thanks, but I have a copy already. There are one or two useful essays in there, but the majority of it is laughably idiotic.

Rain sensors in Dealey Plaza are actually listening devices! They were placed there by Them to spy on fearless investigators who think Mary Moorman was standing in the street! The lampposts were tilted - by Them - to prevent the lampposts being measured accurately! One of the contributors was followed from the airport by Them! His shirt and electric shaver were damaged by Them when They broke into his hotel room!

It's exactly the sort of semi-paranoid stuff that allows the media to equate serious Warren Commission critics with flat-earthers and moon-landings deniers.

And speaking of moon-landings deniers ...

Indeed he did! He got humiliated because he set himself up as an expert but didn't understand perspective and didn't know what photogrammetry was. Here's the transcript:

http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html

White's embarrassment at the HSCA hearings came about because he misinterpreted photographs of the sixth-floor rifle, something he did again years later in Fetzer's book.

If you turn to page 99, you'll see a montage containing three photos of the sixth-floor rifle. Each photo was taken side-on but from a slightly different angle, which caused the relative dimensions of the rifle to appear differently in each photo. Jack White claimed that this proved there were three different rifles. The man was an idiot.

With his belief in faked films, faked rifles, faked Oswalds, faked moon landings, and a faked attack on the World Trade Center, Jack White probably did more than anyone else to discredit JFK assassination research as a serious subject.

I would disagree. Jack was a sincere guy who, as you said, was limited in his understanding of perspective. While he was often wrong, he was not a charlatan...seeking fame and money from his wrongness. Unlike the leader of his pack, Fetzer, Jack was not at war with everyone who disagreed with him. In fact, he was often generous with his fellow researchers. For example, while disagreeing with me over a certain photo, it might come out that I didn't have access to a clear version of the photo Jack had in his collection. He might then send it to me. He was good in that way. It should also be noted that before his death he donated his research materials to the Poage Library at Baylor University. At one point I noticed that among these materials were some VHS recordings of the HSCA hearings. I contacted the Library and they made a few copies for me--I think it was the testimony of Sturdivan and Canning--for something like 20 bucks total. This was quite a savings compared to the National Archives asking price which was roughly 50 bucks a video, as I recall. (They claimed they could not copy the videos themselves, and that I would have to contact an approved outside company to do that for me--and that was their asking price. As I recall...) 

In any event, Jack was a colorful and sometimes helpful member of this forum. His presence here brought an expert on NASA and a professional photographer to the forum. Their arguments/discussions about film fakery etc, were often quite informative, and often served to debunk Jack's claims. 

So I wouldn't put Jack at the top of the heap of those who've discredited the "community." Not by a long shot. 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this info.  I have found some interesting things.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He was good in that way. It should also be noted that before his death he donated his research materials to the Poage Library at Baylor University.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...