Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film Alteration Synopsis


Recommended Posts

John Butler writes:

Quote

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. 

According to Richard Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p.214, n.13), the book was called Four Days, the Historical Record of the Death of President Kennedy. The author or publisher is given as "United Press International and American Heritage". Trask doesn't give a precise date for the book's publication; it's just "early 1964".

Incidentally, I'm relying on Trask's accounts of what happened to the various films and photos. If anyone has a better source, please let us know. Currently, there appears to be no evidence that the authorities ever had access to the original Muchmore and Bronson films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John also writes:

Quote

Are you saying there were 59 witnesses to the car stop?

No. There were claimed to be 59 witnesses to the car stop. When you look at what they actually said, it turns out that far fewer than 59 people claimed that the car stopped. Most of them claimed that the car merely slowed down, just as all three home movies show.

Although 59 witnesses were originally cited, Douglas Horne thinks there were more than that. It's an interesting claim, because it shows us something about Horne's mentality.

Here's what Horne wrote:

Quote

80+ witnesses reported seeing the presidential limousine slow and/or stop in the 'kill zone' during the assassination ... the simple proof that about sixteen persons in Dealey Plaza indicated that the President’s limousine stopped.

The original claim mentioned 59 witnesses, not "80+", but the larger the number, the weaker Horne's case becomes.

He claims that 16 out of 80+ witnesses reported that the car stopped, and that this is "simple proof" that the film was altered. But 16 out of 80+ implies that more than 64 witnesses reported that the car didn't stop, and only slowed down.

The proportion of car-stop to non-car-stop witnesses is 16:64, if we accept Horne's figures. That's 1:4, one car-stop witness for every four non-car-stop witnesses. If the numbers prove anything, it's that the car didn't stop.

On the one hand, we have 16 witnesses claiming that the car stopped. Against that, we have more than 64 witnesses claiming that the car didn't stop, and we also have three home movies which show that the car didn't stop. Either the majority of the witnesses were mistaken and all three home movies were faked, or a minority of the witnesses were mistaken and all three movies were authentic. It's obvious that the car didn't stop.

Horne's own numbers prove exactly the opposite of what Horne is claiming. What made him make such an illogical claim? It must be his blind, fixed belief that the film was altered. If the facts contradict his belief, well, the facts must be wrong.

I originally made this point at:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2523p50-peculiarity-of-frame-303#38463

I don't have the source of Horne's claim to hand, but it's probably mentioned earlier in that ROKC thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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

 

If frames were removed, we want to know it. Regardless of any possibility that it provides support for the lone gunman theory.

(I guess I speak only for completely honest researchers. I believe that most researchers are completely honest.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The original claim mentioned 59 witnesses, not "80+", but the larger the number, the weaker Horne's case becomes.

So, there has been a witness number change from 59 to 80+.  Let's apply that to the number of possible witnesses that could have seen a car slow or stop.  We'll treat the stop and slowing as the same.  I counted 201 witnesses that could possibly see this event.  I have reported in another post how these numbers were arrived at.  201 witnesses and 80 of these saw a stop or slowing of the p. limo.  That would be 40% of the witnesses.  A minority, but not a small one.

I have a problem with the east crosswalk folks in the intersection of Houston and Elm.  There is 30 people there according to Altgens.  I don't think they could see downhill a stop or slowing of the p. limo.  The angle is not right for that.  If not, someone can correct me with a better study.

So, let's subtract 30 from the 201 witnesses.  This is 171 witnesses.  This gives a percentage of 47%.  Definitely not a small minority.

I also have a problem with the 10 railroad men on the Triple Underpass.  I don't believe they were on the TU, but off to the side.  I am of two minds on this.  Could they witness the car stop/slowing event.  If they couldn't the percentage goes to 50%.

201 witnesses may not be an exact figure, but it includes all the areas that people were in at the time.  I wouldn't argue with 210 or 190 if someone else counted.  I don't think I missed anyone, but it's possible. 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think quibbling over whether the car stopped or slowed down is a false argument.  None of the films show this.  The films are questionable and probably could not serve as evidence in court.  So, that leaves witness testimony indicating a slowing of stopping of the p. limo.  Witness testimony is preferred anyway.  You don't have to have a majority of witnesses for an event to be believable or to be used for reasonable doubt. 

Because a witness did not mention a vehicle stopping or slowing does not mean he didn't see it.  It could simply have been unimportant, or something irrelevant to the witness. 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If frames were removed, we want to know it. Regardless of any possibility that it provides support for the lone gunman theory.

(I guess I speak only for completely honest researchers. I believe that most researchers are completely honest.)

 

Sandy,

Absolutely right.  One has to go where the evidence leads regardless to whether it affects your beliefs or not.

I have had to give up many of my "original" ideas due to others pointing out the evidence says something different.  The reason I said "original" is that there are many times when I have thought I had something original, I find on reading things from the past someone else has already done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/16/2022 at 3:53 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The Muchmore film has had frames removed when the p. limo was in the intersection of Maine and Houston Street.

Actually, I said that and not Jeremy.  His position is that the Muchmore film is unaltered.

This gif shows 3 incidents of breaks in the film.

marie-m-breaks-in-film-gif.gif

The opening frame shows the NE corner of Main and Houston.  The next frame is completely different in jumping to a street scene of a green truck.  The film skips to the next frame.  There are two more incidents where we have one scene and we skip immediately to another diffferent scene.  We end the gif with Phil Willis, the flat headed see through man.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

If frames were removed, we want to know it.

Indeed. I hope that if frames weren't removed, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates, we would want to know that too.

John Butler writes:

Quote

Because a witness did not mention a vehicle stopping or slowing does not mean he didn't see it.  It could simply have been unimportant, or something irrelevant to the witness.

It's true that we shouldn't expect witnesses to report everything they see. It's also true that witnesses would be inclined to report events that seem important to them, and not inclined to report events that don't seem important to them. It's also the case that witnesses sometimes exaggerate, and sometimes mention things that they didn't actually see.

It's reasonable to assume that a car stop would be more noteworthy than a drastic slowing down, and that a drastic slowing down would be more noteworthy than a slight slowing down.

What we find is that the range of witness statements is consistent with a slight slowing down, and inconsistent with a stop or a drastic slowing down. The balance of the witness evidence matches what the home movies show.

Quote

His position is that the Muchmore film is unaltered.

The default position is that the Muchmore film is unaltered. My position is that until someone proves otherwise, we are obliged to believe that the film is unaltered.

In the case of the Muchmore film, among the many things that need to be demonstrated is that whoever is supposed to have altered the film actually had access to it. I'm not aware of any evidence that the authorities (or the lizard people, or aliens from outer space) ever had access to the original film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 9:34 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler writes:

According to Richard Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p.214, n.13), the book was called Four Days, the Historical Record of the Death of President Kennedy. The author or publisher is given as "United Press International and American Heritage". Trask doesn't give a precise date for the book's publication; it's just "early 1964".

Incidentally, I'm relying on Trask's accounts of what happened to the various films and photos. If anyone has a better source, please let us know. Currently, there appears to be no evidence that the authorities ever had access to the original Muchmore and Bronson films.

'Four Days' must be the earliest publication on the JFK assassination beating Buchanan's 'Who Killed Kennedy?' & the Warren Report.  I obtained my copy from a DPUK book auction for £10.  Later editions have a cream colour front with a photograph of JFK but my hardback copy is black with just 'FOUR DAYS' printed in silver lettering.  The book was compiled by UPI and published by American Heritage Magazine, although my copy has Simon & Schuster printed on the hardback spine.

As the title indicates it covers the events from Friday morning in Fort Worth to the interment at Arlington.  There are just four pages of assassination pictures in Dealey Plaza. P16 has a Muchmoor frame showing the limo with the Newman's standing on the north side of Elm & Babushka/Brehm on the south side.  P17 again shows a Muchmoor frame (No55) with Jean Hill & Mary Moorman on the south side of Elm around the same time of Moorman's b/w polaroid No5, which occupies a double spread on pages 18 & 19.  P20 has another Muchmoor frame showing Clint Hill just reaching the limo which I think is equivalent to the Nix film frame No66.  Finally on P21 there are two pictures which show Hill with his foot on the rear step, very similar to Nix frame No66 & the other shows Jackie on the trunk & Hill assisting her back into her seat.

The Notes do not acknowledge any source/picture takers, simply stating that "The photographs are from the UPI newspicture services, & the sequences showing the assassination of the President are from UPI Newsfilm.  All in all, a great historical souvenir.

Although I am no expert on film matters I would tend to agree that authorities (FBI/Warren etc) did not have access to Muchmoor's film or Wilma Bond's & although FBI agents watched Bronson's brief images they were not used because of a lack of clarity and because they did not show the TSBD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, John Butler said:

I have a problem with the east crosswalk folks in the intersection of Houston and Elm.  There is 30 people there according to Altgens.  I don't think they could see downhill a stop or slowing of the p. limo.  The angle is not right for that.  If not, someone can correct me with a better study.

 

I have a problem with ALL the witnesses who had already had the limo pass them. Certainly most of them would have taken their attention off of the limo after it passed. I think it's impossible to determine the percentage of them who saw the slowdown, though the percentage would certainly be much greater than if one counts them all in the calculation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, John Butler said:

One has to go where the evidence leads regardless to whether it affects your beliefs or not.

 

Exactly, John.

That is the reason I ended up accepting the H&L theory. The evidence demands it. And I'm the kind of guy who is generally skeptical of conspiracy theories. Though I always keep an open mind and am willing to consider the evidence.

One time a guy wanted to convince me that the moon landings were a hoax. I asked him to give me a list of five things indicating the landings were faked. First he noted that none of the photographs from on the moon show stars... they just show dark skies. That was easy to explain. Had the camera been pointed toward the sky, they would indeed have shown stars (if the aperture were adjusted accordingly). But when aimed at objects on the moon, the light level was  so bright that the camera's aperture needed closing down to prevent overexposure. And because of that, the low-light level from the stars was insufficient to form images on the film.

One other piece of evidence I recall took a bit more thought. He showed two photos that were taken on the same moon mission. In the background of both photos was the same hill. In the foreground of one picture was the moon landing unit. But on the other, the moon landing unit was gone. He asked, how could that photo have been taken after the astronauts had left the moon? It took me a few seconds, but then I realized... for one photo the photographer was standing with the moon landing unit between him and the hill. In the other photo the moon landing unit was behind him when he took the picture of the hill.

I answered all five pieces of evidence pretty quickly with obvious or fairly obvious answers for each. In the end, instead of the guy being thankful for my answers, he became very angry and spewed vulgarities! Clearly he just wanted to believe that the moon landings were a hoax.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I have a problem with ALL the witnesses who had already had the limo pass them. Certainly most of them would have taken their attention off of the limo after it passed. I think it's impossible to determine the percentage of them who saw the slowdown, though the percentage would certainly be much greater than if one counts them all in the calculation.

 

Sandy,

After I did the post on percentages in which I said the East Crosswalk probably could not see the slowdown.  I thought afterwards what about the people in the doorway of the TSBD.  And, some of the people shown in Couch near the TSBD who then moved out towards Elm Street.

So, once again I have to say you are exactly right.  Jeremy's small minority is close to turning into a majority.  If I subtract the people mentioned above then Jeremy's small minority turns into a majority of 50+ percent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 3:34 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

According to Richard Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p.214, n.13),

Jeremy,

I have a copy of Richard Trask's Pictures of Pain.  I have as much respect for it as I do the Warren Commission, which is to say none.  It is simply a secondary source for the Warren Commission.  Sure, they cover a lot of incidents and evidence.  But, it leans and is biased towards Warren Commission interpretations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

John Butler writes:

According to Richard Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p.214, n.13), the book was called Four Days, the Historical Record of the Death of President Kennedy. The author or publisher is given as "United Press International and American Heritage". Trask doesn't give a precise date for the book's publication; it's just "early 1964".

Pete,

I didn't write that.  Jeremy Bojczuk did.  One has to be careful of posting material that has already been posted.

It is the fault of the word processer not you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Clearly he just wanted to believe that the moon landings were a hoax.

 

Jeremy is just like this moon landing guy. And like LNers. They all decide first what they want to believe, and then they find and argue every excuse they can -- to the point of absurdity -- to support their belief.

I've found this to be the case with a few other members of the forum as well.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
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...