Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film Alteration Synopsis


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 5/15/2022 at 3:01 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Paul Bacon writes:

Of what he thinks he saw nearly half a century earlier.

People get stuff wrong sometimes. This particular 48-year-old memory contradicts not only the majority of the fresh witness accounts but also several home movies. It's irrational to prefer a small amount of weak evidence over a larger amount of strong evidence, even if the weak evidence tells you what you really, really want to hear.

I've explained why each of the four claims for frame-removal have failed:

  • The car-stop witnesses were in a small minority, and four home movies show that the car didn't stop.
  • The 'violent' forward head movement witnesses were in an even smaller minority, and three home movies fail to show a 'violent' forward head movement.
  • The vertical spray of debris is still visible in the film, and so cannot have been removed from the film.
  • The horizontal spray of debris need not have been caught on film; it could have happened while the shutter was closed between frames 312 and 313.

Against all of that, an anomalous 48-year-old recollection counts for nothing. Then you have to consider that for Brugioni's 48-year-old recollection to be accurate, a ridiculously complex and incoherent scenario must have occurred. There's no contest.

The majority of the witnesses were correct, and what the four home movies show is what actually happened.

In 1971, I spent hours with both Newmans in November 1971. Plus two other Dealey Plaza witnesses (at least). There's no question, but that the JFK limo stopped (momentarily).  Bojczuk will never be persuaded on that point; and his false view  is destined for the dustbin of history.  I say that with great confidence because, as author Josephine Tey wrote, "Truth is the daughter of time."  DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 5/15/2022 at 6:16 AM, Paul Bacon said:

I don't know if it was recorded Ron.  I have looked for info on that conference before and have come up empty handed.  In fact, I've tried to find more information about any of their work, and can find nothing.  I don't know what it's come to.

The last word from Doug Horne, and this was a few years ago, was that they're still working on it.

I've gotta believe Larry Schnapf would know, given how involved he is...

I came up empty handed too using multiple combinations of terms on line.  This is a shame.  They did the work.  It should be public information, easily accessible for the sake of History.  Hiding the Truth should be a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

Lots of unlikely things are possible. But not all possible things are equally likely to have happened.

In this case, we have a large number of witnesses who would have had a good view of the car at the time it is claimed to have stopped (or almost stopped, or slowed down significantly). It is reasonable to assume that all or virtually all of those spectators would have been looking at the car, firstly because looking at the car was what they had come to Elm Street to do, and secondly because several films and photos show that virtually all of the spectators were facing the motorcade.

It's also reasonable to assume that spectators would have found a car stop more significant than a drasitc slowing down, and that they would have found a drastic slowing down more significant than a slight slowing down. The more significant the event, the more likely it is to have been mentioned.

We know that only a small minority of those spectators claimed that the car came to a stop (or almost came to a stop). What we have to decide is which of the following two options is the more likely:

  • The car came to a stop (or almost came to a stop), and a large majority of the spectators who saw it didn't think it was worth mentioning.
  • The car merely slowed down a bit, just as we see in the home movies, and a large majority of the spectators either mentioned it or didn't think the slowing down was significant enough to mention.

It has to be the second option, doesn't it? It's far more likely that a slight slowing down was exaggerated by a few than that a severe slowing down was considered insignificant by many.

But there weren't "many" witnesses who claimed this. As I've explained, it's much more likely that a small number of witnesses could have been mistaken than that a much larger number failed to mention something that would have struck them as worth mentioning.

The Bronson film's relevance is that it appears to be consistent with the Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder films in showing that the car didn't slow down significantly before going out of the frame immediately before the head shot.

It's good that Sandy acknowledges that all of the other three home movies (Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore) show no significant slowing down of the car at around the time of the head shot. If one of them was altered to hide a drastic slowing down or stopping, all of them must have been altered.

It's also good that Sandy acknowledges that the witnesses who claimed the car came to a stop could have been exaggerating what they saw. Witnesses do sometimes exaggerate, and this provides a plausible explanation for any statements that the car slowed down more drastically than we see in the home movies.

Again, just because something is possible doesn't mean that it happened. If the claim is that the FBI (or whoever) altered a particular film, it's necessary to show, at the very least, that they had the opportunity to do so. But such opportunities appear to have been very limited:

In the case of the Nix film, the FBI had the original for three days from 1 December, after which time at least one copy existed and any alterations to the original were at risk of discovery.

In the case of the Zapruder film, copies were made on the afternoon of the assassination and other copies were made the following day, again creating the risk of discovery; and it's quite possible that the authorities didn't have access to the original until much later.

In the case of the Muchmore film, the authorities appear not to have had possession of the film at all, and weren't even aware of its existence until after frames had been published in a book a few months later.

In the case of the Bronson film also, the authorities appear never to have had possession of the film.

There seems to have been very little opportunity to alter any of these films without the risk of discovery. No-one has yet come up with a plausible scenario that explains how the authorities could have altered two home movies for which early copies existed and two others to which the authorities never had access, in order to eliminate a car stop which the bulk of the witness evidence shows never actually occurred.

the in camera original NIX film is gone, fini, poof -- the in-camera original Zapruder is under question, no one can validate it's originality, hence, any case against Oswald is toast.

Ya wanna talk case JFK assassination evidence, present both those originals with validation right here, otherwise you are stuck with eyewitnesses and that probably won't go well for the *Owald did it all by his lonesome crowd* -- that's when we'll discuss the merits of the Z-film, till then, you're making noise -- actually, more like a fa*t in a sealed spacesuit....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Butler writes:

Quote

Just out of curiosity, where would you place this slow down or stop at?  Front of the TSBD or down by the GK?

The few witness statements which claim that the car stopped either state or imply that this took place either immediately before or after the head shot at Zapruder frame 313.

Quote

You keep saying a small minority as versus a larger majority saw the slow down or stop.  Can you put a number to the small minority and the larger majority.

 There's an analysis of the statements here, if you want to add up the numbers:

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

Quote

The date of this 302 is 12/4/63.  Marie sold her film on 11/25/63.  Do you think that the FBI didn't know about the sale?

The FBI eventually found out about the sale of her film, since it was the publication in a book of several frames from her film that prompted the FBI to track her down. The book didn't mention her by name, but attributed the images to UPI. On 10 February 1964, the FBI contacted UPI, who told them about Muchmore.

I presume the FBI didn't know about the sale at the time of her interview with the agent Robert Basham (whose report is the document John has included), since Basham's report doesn't mention it. I'd guess that Muchmore didn't tell Basham about it, for whatever reason. Since Muchmore sold her film before it had been developed, she may not have known that it contained anything of interest to the FBI. Alternatively, Basham may not have thought it was worth including in his report, for whatever reason. Either way, no-one further up the FBI food chain would have known about the film until February.

Quote

she said she was standing on Main and Houston Streets when the parade passed by and she heard a shot.

Muchmore's later FBI interview gives a more detailed account, and contains this sentence: "Mrs. MUCHMORE stated that after the car turned on Elm Street from Houston Street, she heard a loud noise which at first she thought was a firecracker but then with the crowd of people running in all directions and hearing the two further noises, sounding like gunfire ..." (Commission Document 735, p.8: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133#relPageId=17).

There appears to be no evidence that the FBI or any other official agency knew of Muchmore's film until the middle of February, by which time frames had been published and the film had been shown on TV. The evidence we have suggests that no official agency ever had possession of the original film. Without having access to the original film, how could any official agency have altered it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

But either 1) all the films had frames removed, or 2) the slowing-down witnesses were all wrong.

No. Either all the films had frames removed, or the slowing-down witnesses were correct and the car-stop witnesses were wrong.

The bulk of the witnesses who would have noticed that the car stopped did not mention that the car stopped. Many of them mentioned that the car slowed down, just as we see in the home movies.

The slight slowing down that we see in the home movies is consistent also with the many witnesses who didn't mention any slowing down, let alone that the car stopped. The evidence that the car did not stop is overwhelming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Lifton writes:

Quote

There's no question, but that the JFK limo stopped (momentarily).

If anyone still wants to claim that the car stopped, you need to find a way around these obstacles:

  • A large majority of the witnesses who would have seen the car stop did not report that it stopped.
  • A minority of those witnesses reported that the car slowed down, but did not report that it slowed down drastically.
  • Three home movies show that the car neither stopped nor slowed down drastically.
  • These three home movies, along with a fourth home movie and at least two photographs, also contradict those car-stop witnesses who claimed that the car pulled to the left when it stopped.
  • If the car stopped, three home movies must have been altered by having frames removed.
  • If the car pulled to the left as it stopped, four home movies must have been altered by having frames removed, and two photos must have been substantially altered. Of the two photos, one was distributed around the world half an hour later, and the other was broadcast on TV less than three hours later.
  • Those home movies and photos came into the possession of the authorities at different times, and some of them may never have come into the possession of the authorities at all.
  • Once copies were made of unaltered original films, any alteration would have been at risk of discovery.

Rather than invent far-fetched theories about papier-mâché trees and presidential body-snatchers, perhaps David could formulate a theory that will provide a plausible explanation for all of these facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Healy writes:

Quote

no one can validate it's [sic; see https://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling] originality, hence, any case against Oswald is toast.

This is probably the most ridiculous claim we've heard so far. David is implying that if the Zapruder film is authentic, it supports the lone-gunman theory.

That's not the case. If the film is authentic, it contradicts the lone-gunman theory. The Zapruder film is probably the most important single item of physical evidence which undermines the lone-gunman theory, for two main reasons:

  • Firstly, the famous back-and-to-the-left head movement after frame 313 is, to most viewers, the most obvious prima facie evidence of a shot from the front. Maybe it is consistent with a shot from behind, but the lone-gunman apologists' explanations (e.g. the jet effect, or some sort of muscular spasm) have failed to convince most people.
  • Secondly and more importantly, the film allows us to time the car's progress throughout the shooting, from the first shot (whenever that may have been) to the head shot at frame 313. This timing puts a limit on the amount of time available for a lone gunman to fire three shots from the sixth-floor rifle. Once you take into account the time a non-expert would have taken to aim, fire and reload that rifle three times, the lone-gunman theory becomes, in David's description, toast.

This last point is worth emphasising. If no frames were removed from the Zapruder film, the car was moving too fast to allow a non-expert lone gunman to have fired three shots in the time available. The Zapruder film undermines the lone-gunman theory.

There's also the film's depiction of Governor Connally, which demonstrates to most people, including Connally himself, that he wasn't hit at he same time as President Kennedy at around frame 225. If that's the case, we can say goodbye to the single-bullet theory, which also means that the lone-gunman theory is toast.

The Zapruder film shows that the lone-gunman theory cannot be correct. If you are claiming that the film is not authentic, you are invalidating this evidence. It would be just as though the film did not exist at all.

Without the Zapruder film, lone-gunman apologists would be able to claim that, however long a non-expert gunman would have taken to fire three shots, the car took longer than that to travel the required distance. The Zapruder film is the only evidence we have that contradicts that claim.

It's bizarre that the 'everything is a fake' brigade don't seem to appreciate that the Zapruder film is evidence against the lone-gunman theory, not for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There's an analysis of the statements here, if you want to add up the numbers:

Jeremy,

Are you saying there were 59 witnesses to the car stop?  I would like to confirm that number.  And, this would be out of a population of how many witnesses?  59 witnesses may be a minority (we'll see), but it certainly is not a small minority of the witness who were available to see the car slow/stop.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jeremy,

Are you saying there were 59 witnesses to the car stop?  I would like to confirm that number.  And, this would be out of a population of how many witnesses?  59 witnesses may be a minority (we'll see), but it certainly is not a small minority of the witness who were available to see the car slow/stop.

59 witnesses by Vince Palamara to the p. limo slow/stop incident.  If you took this number and compared it to the general population of witnesses (around 500) then it would be a small minority.  But, all of the general population of witnesses was not there to see what was happening on Elm Street.  So, that raises the question of how many were there in position to see the vehicle slow or stop.  Just from a general recollection of whose who and where they were I would suspect the witness pool to shrink drastically from approximately 500.  I think the number is something like 545, but am not sure.

So, witnesses need to be counted in that area from the following locations:

1. The intersection of Elm and Houston (Zapruder film).  Houston street folks would not be able to see down the hill to where this incident supposedly took place.

2. In Front of the TSBD.  This can be taken from the Couch film.

3. In front of the SW corner of the TSBD (Croft photo)

4. In the TSBD witnesses. (2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors)

5.  Mannikin Row- the 19 people before the Stemmons sign.

6.  Below the Stemmons sign and the grassy field between Elm and Main (Bronson film)

7.  Mary Moorman Polaroid (men on steps)

8.  Railroad overpass, Stemmons Highway, and railroad bridges between Stemmons Highway and the Triple Underpass.

9.  Various SS agents and other vehicle occupants of p. limo, SS agent vehicle, VP vehicle, and Security vehicle for Johnson.

I would think that would get all or most of the witnesses who could have witnessed a slow/stop.

I have a problem with the people standing in the crosswalk at the eastern part of the intersection of Houston and Elm.  Would they be able to see down hill to where the p. limo was when allegedly there was a slow/stop there.  (in front of the Grassy Knoll.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is the count?  This is an approximate and I am sure someone could find a minor difference in their count.

Witness count for seeing the car slow-down in Dealey Plaza

So, witnesses need to be counted in that area from the following locations:

1. The intersection of Elm and Houston (Zapruder film).  Houston street folks would not be able to see down the hill to where this incident supposedly took place.  (In Zapruder you can count about 25- In Altgens 5 you can count 30).  Count for the intersection 30.

2. In Front of the TSBD.  This can be taken from the Couch film. Two frames= 42

3. In front of the SW corner of the TSBD (Croft photo) 17

4. SW corner of Elm and Houston (Zapruder) 16

5. In the TSBD witnesses. (2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors) 2nd Floor=1, 3rd Floor =1, 4th Floor =10, and 5th = 5- Total=17

6.  Mannikin Row- the 19 people before the Stemmons sign. 19

7.  Below the Stemmons sign and the grassy field between Elm and Main (Bronson film) 19

8.  Mary Moorman Polaroid (men on steps) 3

9.  Railroad overpass, Stemmons Highway, and railroad bridges between Stemmons Highway and the Triple Underpass. 1 police officer on TU, 2 officers on railroad tracks between the TU and the Stemmons Street Overpass, and the Stemmons Street Overpass 2.  Total= 15. 

10.  Various SS agents and other vehicle occupants of p. limo, SS agent vehicle, VP vehicle, and Security vehicle for Johnson.  P. limo passengers = 6, SS vehicle = 10, VP vehicle 5, VP Security vehicle 5.  Total = 26

Grand total: 201.

30 people in the intersection not counted.  10 railroad men not counted.  161

 

At the most the total population of witnesses is 201.  Then 59 witnesses would equal about 30%.  Not a small minority.

And even smaller when the railroad men and intersection people not counted.  161 percentage 59 = 36%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The FBI eventually found out about the sale of her film, since it was the publication in a book of several frames from her film that prompted the FBI to track her down. The book didn't mention her by name, but attributed the images to UPI. On 10 February 1964, the FBI contacted UPI, who told them about Muchmore.

The FBI knew about her perjury about filming before the Feb. 18, 1964 302 doc.  It may have been the FBI  learned on 2/10/64.  I think earlier.  It might have taken this long to track down this film.  They may not have realized the implications until they called UPI.  

Regardless, Marie did two things.  1.) Admit that she did film in the intersection of Main and Houston and down Houston towards the intersection of Houston and Elm and, 2.) change her story about hearing a gunshot in the intersection of Main and Houston followed by 2 more.  She changed the shooting area to Elm and Houston.  Here is the FBI 302 for 18 Feb., 1964.

Marie-Muchmore-FBI-2-18-64-a.jpg

There is nowhere being said by anyone I know that the FBI or any other government agency tracked down and changed these films over night.  I would suspect it was a lengthy process.

One way to check is to see if the photos published in this book match what is seen in the current version of Marie Muchmore.

Since, you mentioned it what was the name of the book?  I don't know of many published within less than 2 months of the assassination.  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Quote

Sandy Larsen said:

But either 1) all the films had frames removed, or 2) the slowing-down witnesses were all wrong.

14 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

No. Either all the films had frames removed, or the slowing-down witnesses were correct and the car-stop witnesses were wrong.

 

No. The slowing down was definitely significant. There are quite a few witnesses who thought that the limo stopped. Either it stopped, or it was an illusion it stopped. An abrupt slowdown caused by pushing the brake pedal for a moment could appear to be a momentary stop, which is what some described.

I just saw the list of witnesses on your website and what I discovered is that the witnesses with the best view largely agree that the car abruptly slowed down or stopped. You are in denial. To support your denial you count people who had the worst view to pack the number of witnesses who didn't mention the slowdown.

(BTW, I also disagree with what you say, that the films show a moderate slowdown. I see perhaps a little slowdown in Zapruder, and none at all in the other films.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's bizarre that the 'everything is a fake' brigade don't seem to appreciate that the Zapruder film is evidence against the lone-gunman theory, not for it.

 

That's because most of us are looking for the truth, not just to exonerate Oswald.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

That's because most of us are looking for the truth, not just to exonerate Oswald.

I was replying to David Healy's incoherent implication, not for the first time, that it was necessary to alter the Zapruder film in order to claim that Oswald was a lone gunman. He's wrong.

If frames were removed, the original film would have permitted the claim that Oswald was a lone gunman.

If frames were not removed, the film rules out the claim that Oswald was a lone gunman.

David Healy doesn't seem able to get his head around this, but I presume that Sandy can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy continues:

Quote

There are quite a few witnesses who thought that the limo stopped. Either it stopped, or it was an illusion it stopped.

Here we are, back at the beginning. The "quite a few witnesses" amounted to a small proportion of those who would have seen the car stop, had it done so. Many more witnesses claimed that the car merely slowed down, and some of the witnesses who claimed that the car stopped also claimed in other statements that the car merely slowed down.

Once you accept that witnesses sometimes exaggerate what they saw, you have a plausible explanation for the minority of witnesses who claimed that the car either stopped or slowed down drastically. You've eliminated the minority of witness statements which contradict what the films show.

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...