Zapruder Film Alteration Synopsis

[Ron Bulman]

I started to post this in Chris Barstow's thread but figured it would get buried there in a hurry.  Reading Joseph McBride's Political Truth: The Media and the Assassination of President Kennedy: Joseph McBride: 9781939795618: Amazon.com: Books I learned of Shane O'Sullivan's 2014 documentary The Zapruder Film Mystery with Doug Horne and Dino Brugioni.  

I had read or seen in other videos bits and pieces of this before.  E.G. I remembered some about Hawkeye Works and the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).

I thought of writing some notes from a very few I'd taken and what I remembered to organize it all in my own mind.  Then I thought why not share it.  Invite relevant, informed, concise comments or criticism from those who take time to watch it.  I imagine many here already have seen it with 1.8 million views.  For those who won't take time to watch it or have irrelevant comments or long distracting time wasting diatribes please don't waste my time, yours or that of others.  It will be linked at the end of this long initial post.  So, here we go.

Zapruder had it developed that night on 11/22.  That night or on Saturday 11/23 before he sold it to Time-Life he had three copies made.  Ultimately one for the Secret Service, one for the CIA, one for him to keep, the original to Time-Life.

Saturday afternoon/evening two copies were taken to Washington on a military jet from Carswell Airforce base in Fort Worth by a Secret Service agent.  The original was sent to Time-Life in Chicago.

From there the original was taken by the CIA to Hawkeyeworks, their front company at the Kodak research facility in New York City.

CIA director John Mc Cone called the director of the National Photographic Interpretation Center and ordered two, two pannel briefing boards.  The NPIC director called in Dino Brugioni and a team.  Two agents arrived with the 8 mm original un split film.  They all viewed it, repeatedly, the agents had not yet seen it.  All were shocked.  Yet they picked out frames that Dino had enlarged and put on the boards.  The agents took the film and boards.

Sunday evening 11/24, the NPIC received a copy, believed to be the original, in a split 16mm format.  They were asked for three sets of four panel briefing boards.  A different team processed them from the copy.  A copy of that is what we see on the internet today.  Each generation loses quality.

Neither team ever knew of the other until Doug interviewed Dino.

The turn from Houston onto Elm was eliminated at Hawkeyeworks.  As was the limo stop.  And the violent forward head movement seen by Dan Rather and Cartha De Loach.

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Ron Bulman writes:

Quote

The turn from Houston onto Elm was eliminated at Hawkeyeworks.  As was the limo stop.  And the violent forward head movement seen by Dan Rather and Cartha De Loach.

That's three claims you need to demonstrate, not merely assert.

What evidence is there that the turn was eliminated? What was so incriminating about the turn that it would have required the film to be altered?

What evidence is there that the car stopped? That claim has been debunked here, several times. See, for example, this thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27114-what-prevented-dulles-angleton-from-destroying-the-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=441219

A small number of witnesses claimed that the car stopped, while a larger number claimed that the car merely slowed down. Why should we believe the smaller number over the larger number? The witness evidence is collected and analysed here:

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

If the car stopped, it isn't just the Zapruder film that must have been altered, but also the Muchmore film, the Nix film, and the Bronson film, and possibly the Moorman photo too. Is all of that even remotely credible? If you think it is, you need to demonstrate how such a task was possible.

A couple of people recalled JFK's head moving forward. How does this prove that the film was altered? The film does show JFK's head moving forward, after the 'back and to the left' movement which indicates to most people that he was shot from the front, and which for some reason was not removed from the film. How is that supposed to work? They altered the film to remove the innocuous turn onto Elm Street but forgot to take out the part that shows him being shot from the front?

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the film provides strong evidence against the lone-gunman theory. How does that fit with the idea that it was altered to support that theory? What is there in the film that unambiguously supports the lone-gunman theory?

And as for Douglas Horne, there is no reason to take anything he says seriously unless it is confirmed by a reliable source. Horne even supports Lifton's body-alteration nonsense! Would you buy a used theory from this man?

Horne's claim relies on interviews made several decades after the event. His account of what happened to the Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination is contradicted by Roland Zavada's account in his review of Horne's book, here:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

Here is where I pointed out that the Zapruder film actually contradicts the lone-gunman theory:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27703-is-there-or-is-there-not-a-minox-camera-in-this-dpd-evidence-photo/?do=findComment&comment=458154

The Zapruder film is evidence against the lone-gunman theory, not for it.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

That's three claims you need to demonstrate, not merely assert.

Ron's more right than wrong.  His assumptions are based in reality of witness statements.  These are things missing from the Zapruder film.  They are missing to put Oswald on the 6th floor, rifle in hand, murdering Kennedy in the right place, not the wrong place.  The wrong place is the intersection, and the right place for LNers is the Grassy Knoll.  Oh, sorry from your recent comments I believe you have changed your position.   

Edited April 23, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

f the car stopped, it isn't just the Zapruder film that must have been altered, but also the Muchmore film, the Nix film, and the Bronson film, and possibly the Moorman photo too. Is all of that even remotely credible? If you think it is, you need to demonstrate how such a task was possible.

Film alteration.  They had months to do it.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

And as for Douglas Horne, there is no reason to take anything he says seriously unless it is confirmed by a reliable source. Horne even supports Lifton's body-alteration nonsense! Would you buy a used theory from this man?

Show proof why these honorable men should not be believed.  Give a motive for whey they would deceive the public.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Horne's claim relies on interviews made several decades after the event. His account of what happened to the Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination is contradicted by Roland Zavada's account in his review of Horne's book, here:

I have never believed Zavada's account for the film.  And, many other don't, also.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A couple of people recalled JFK's head moving forward. How does this prove that the film was altered?

Yes.  If it doesn't show the head moving forward.  The forgers believe what we see helped with proving Warren Commission conclusions.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A small number of witnesses claimed that the car stopped, while a larger number claimed that the car merely slowed down. Why should we believe the smaller number over the larger number? The witness evidence is collected and analysed here:

We should believe witnesses unless their testimony is refuted.  Whether 59 people or 90 people say something then they should be listened to and not slickly denied because more witnesses say another thing, or it offends your bias.  There is such a thing as reasonable doubt.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What evidence is there that the turn was eliminated?

Gee! Golly!  It is not in the Zapruder film.  Several films show the turn from a distance, and one can't really see anything in detail.  Then, there is the Towner film.  It is an animation.  I went back and counted the frames.  The film shows the same frame for 5 times and then moves on to the next and does that again.  Some of the instances of showing the same frame over and over reach 6 or 7 times.  It looks like one frame per second.

Who could believe that except someone who wanted to. 

[David G. Healy]

On 4/23/2022 at 2:17 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 

That's three claims you need to demonstrate, not merely assert.

[...]

 

who are you to demand that anyone needs to demonstrate any of the three claims?

Edited April 25, 2022 by David G. Healy

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

who are you to demand that anyone needs to demonstrate any of the three claims?

 

Exactly!   LOL

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

For those who won't take time to watch [the video] or have irrelevant comments or long distracting time wasting diatribes please don't waste my time, yours or that of others.

 

Jeremy somehow missed this in Ron's first post.

 

[John Butler]

15 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

who are you to demand that anyone needs to demonstrate any of the three claims?

Well, Jeremy is the all wise and all knowing fellow on the assassination.  He now claims he is a conspiracy theorist saying that the Zapruder shows that and therefore there was no need to alter the film.

[John Butler]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jeremy somehow missed this in Ron's first post.

It is my opinion, and I reluctantly say it in fear of the censors, that Jeremy sees only what he wants to see.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, John Butler said:

It is my opinion, and I reluctantly say it in fear of the censors, that Jeremy sees only what he wants to see.

 

... and ignores the rest.

That is the definition of an ideologue. You can't reason with an ideologue.