Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film Alteration Synopsis


Recommended Posts

Referring to my comment about the supposed car stop, John Butler writes:

Quote

What one needs to consider here is reasonable doubt.  Were there enough reasonable, corroborated witnesses to establish reasonable doubt in the vehicle stop notion.

I've explained all of this several times, here and on other threads. There is more than enough "reasonable doubt in the vehicle stop notion". That doubt is largely based on which witnesses are corroborated and which aren't.

I'll try again, and see if the message gets through at the umpteenth attempt:

  • Only a minority of witness statements claimed that the car stopped.
  • A larger number claimed that the car didn't stop, but merely slowed down.
  • All four of the home movies which show the car at around the time of the head shot fail to show the car stopping.
  • All four films corroborate the witnesses who claimed that the car didn't stop.
  • No evidence exists which corroborates the witnesses who claimed that the car stopped.

If you are arguing that the car stopped, you are arguing that all four of the home movies were altered, and that the majority of the witnesses were mistaken. You need to prove all of that.

I don't think I can make it any clearer. If John still doesn't grasp the point, it must be because he is incapable of processing arguments that contradict his beliefs.

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Added some formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Chris Bristow writes:

Quote

We can't assume those witnesses saw no stop or extreme slowing just because they did not mention it.

But what we can assume is that they noticed nothing that struck them as suspicious. We can be sure that the car slowed down, because there are a number of witnesses who said so, and because four home movies show it doing so. But we can't be sure that the car stopped, since only a minority of those witnesses said so, and none of the films show it doing so.

Of course, it's conceivable that the 'slowing-down' witnesses saw the car stop but didn't think it was worth mentioning. But it's also conceivable that the 'car-stop' witnesses were mistaken, especially as some of them were not consistent in claiming that the car stopped.

Quote

Some witnesses saying it stopped and others saying it almost stopped is very consistent for a event where the car slowed to almost a stop.

Yes: the car slowed down but didn't stop, which is exactly what all the home movies show.

Quote

You should be able to maintain your opinion and still acknowledge the consistency of the bike cops reports.

As I pointed out, two of the four cops were not consistent. Each claimed that the car both stopped and didn't stop:

  • Hargis: "the Presidential car slowed down. ... the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." And "[the car] slowed down almost to a stop."
  • Chaney: "from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped." And "the automobile came to — almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."

The question is: which of their statements are more likely to be correct? It's a simple matter of weighing up the evidence for and against. A few witnesses claimed that the car stopped, but no films show that the car stopped. A larger number of witnesses claimed that the car merely slowed down, and four films show that the car merely slowed down. There's no contest.

Chaney's claim that the car "pulled to the left and stopped" is also contradicted by those four home movies and at least two photos. The Moorman photo and the Altgens 7 photo show that the car had not "pulled to the left" during the shooting; the Altgens 7 photo actually shows that the car moved to the right, not the left. No photos or home movies, as far as I'm aware, show the car in the left-hand lane. We can be certain that that part of Chaney's claim is incorrect.

Quote

The best argument against alteration is the problems associated with altering multiple films.

Exactly! Home movies do not, as a general rule, get maliciously altered. If someone is claiming that even one home movie was maliciously altered, let alone four of them, the onus is on them to prove it. It's an enormous hurdle to overcome, and no-one has yet come close to doing so.

If it were just a matter of X number of witnesses said this and Y number of witnesses said that, one could argue that either group could have been correct. But when you consider that one group of witnesses can only have been correct if four home movies were altered (and maybe a couple of photos too), that claim becomes far more difficult to accept. Until someone comes up with proof that the four films were altered, the claim is worthless.

That difficulty increases further when you consider these facts:

  • The Zapruder film contradicts the lone-gunman theory, a fact that somewhat undermines the notion that the film was altered to support that theory.
  • There appears to be nothing in the film that unambiguously supports the lone-gunman theory (as we've seen on another current thread).
  • Almost all of the claims for alteration rely on nothing more than amateurish anomaly-spotting (back-to-front cars, Phil Willis's extra-long leg, and other similar nonsense).
  • People have been searching for around 30 years, and no-one has come close to demonstrating the sort of proof of alteration that would satisfy a reasonable, open-minded person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

But what we can assume is that they noticed nothing that struck them as suspicious. We can be sure that the car slowed down, because there are a number of witnesses who said so, and because four home movies show it doing so. But we can't be sure that the car stopped, since only a minority of those witnesses said so, and none of the films show it doing so.

Of course, it's conceivable that the 'slowing-down' witnesses saw the car stop but didn't think it was worth mentioning. But it's also conceivable that the 'car-stop' witnesses were mistaken, especially as some of them were not consistent in claiming that the car stopped.

Yes: the car slowed down but didn't stop, which is exactly what all the home movies show.

As I pointed out, two of the four cops were not consistent. Each claimed that the car both stopped and didn't stop:

  • Hargis: "the Presidential car slowed down. ... the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." And "[the car] slowed down almost to a stop."
  • Chaney: "from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped." And "the automobile came to — almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."

The question is: which of their statements are more likely to be correct? It's a simple matter of weighing up the evidence for and against. A few witnesses claimed that the car stopped, but no films show that the car stopped. A larger number of witnesses claimed that the car merely slowed down, and four films show that the car merely slowed down. There's no contest.

Chaney's claim that the car "pulled to the left and stopped" is also contradicted by those four home movies and at least two photos. The Moorman photo and the Altgens 7 photo show that the car had not "pulled to the left" during the shooting; the Altgens 7 photo actually shows that the car moved to the right, not the left. No photos or home movies, as far as I'm aware, show the car in the left-hand lane. We can be certain that that part of Chaney's claim is incorrect.

Exactly! Home movies do not, as a general rule, get maliciously altered. If someone is claiming that even one home movie was maliciously altered, let alone four of them, the onus is on them to prove it. It's an enormous hurdle to overcome, and no-one has yet come close to doing so.

If it were just a matter of X number of witnesses said this and Y number of witnesses said that, one could argue that either group could have been correct. But when you consider that one group of witnesses can only have been correct if four home movies were altered (and maybe a couple of photos too), that claim becomes far more difficult to accept. Until someone comes up with proof that the four films were altered, the claim is worthless.

That difficulty increases further when you consider these facts:

  • The Zapruder film contradicts the lone-gunman theory, a fact that somewhat undermines the notion that the film was altered to support that theory.
  • There appears to be nothing in the film that unambiguously supports the lone-gunman theory (as we've seen on another current thread).
  • Almost all of the claims for alteration rely on nothing more than amateurish anomaly-spotting (back-to-front cars, Phil Willis's extra-long leg, and other similar nonsense).
  • People have been searching for around 30 years, and no-one has come close to demonstrating the sort of proof of alteration that would satisfy a reasonable, open-minded person.

Most every argument you make ignores the circumstances of the event. As I have said a limo moving as slow as 1/2 mph with a momentary stop could result in the types of witness stories we have. This would explain why many did not report a stop. All it would take to miss the stop is a person looking around after hearing two shots or turning their head for a split second to say something about it.
Trying to discount the bike cops stories by ignoring the circumstances is more than unreasonable. I think it shows you are more concerned with maintaining your pov than accepting the point for what it is worth.
 The basis of the CT is about alteration. Claiming the films as proof requires accepting that they are not altered. But of course that is the basis of the issue. If we all agreed the film can't be faked then this thread and the limo stop subject would never have existed. Even if I consider the films may be impossible to fake it would be an illogical leap to say the films prove something when it the films authenticity that is in question.

 "A larger number of witnesses claimed that the car merely slowed down,"
 Did they say "merely" or "only slowed a little" or "barley slowed"? You are taking liberties with the meaning of their statements. Altgens said it did not stop(I think), but unless the "large number" specifically contradicted the limo slowing down to a crawl they are just ambiguous. Again, all it takes is to look away for a second or be freaked about about seeing his head explode. 

On the 4 points below.
1. Maybe they could only take out the limo stop and put a black patch on his head. Maybe changing his motion to forward and to the left instead of back and to the left was too hard to fake. Manipulating a human figure realistically could be much harder than speeding up the limo. That is just my thoughts on it. We can only speculate on this.
2. I would speculate again and say maybe they were just trying to take out the stop because it looked incriminating. Should we expect they would have changed the film to "unambiguously support the lone-gunman theory"? Maybe if they could get away with it but all we can do is create more conjecture. We don't know what they were capable of or what they thought needed to be altered.  Maybe they already dreamed up the jet effect/ muscular spasm theories and thought that would be the better way to handle it. Maybe because lots of witnesses would have a very specific horrible memory of that moment and know very well which way he moved.  WHO KNOWS? All we can do is fabricate theories and debate our conjecture. I don't think it gets us very far.
3. This 50 year old murder mystery is the most popular whodunit of the last century. Everybody want to weigh in on a whodunit so of course there is a mountain of theories out there. The size of the mountain is not a measure of what truth may lie at the bottom of it.
4. Yes but how many experts have been allowed to inspect the original film? Mr Zavada is one. Is there a half dozen others? If not, why not? I really don't know.

  • The Zapruder film contradicts the lone-gunman theory, a fact that somewhat undermines the notion that the film was altered to support that theory.
  • There appears to be nothing in the film that unambiguously supports the lone-gunman theory (as we've seen on another current thread).
  • Almost all of the claims for alteration rely on nothing more than amateurish anomaly-spotting (back-to-front cars, Phil Willis's extra-long leg, and other similar nonsense).
  • People have been searching for around 30 years, and no-one has come close to demonstrating the sort of proof of alteration that would satisfy a reasonable, open-minded person.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks Paul.  This is the type of correction I hoped for, rather than some of the blather.  I started to edit my post and looked at my notes, which didn't detail this.  It was from memory.  Now I'm confused and need to watch that part of the documentary again.

Mc Cone called CIA NPIC director Lundall and said the Secret Service needed assistance.  Two SSA's arrived at the NPIC with the film, (so it was Intercepted in Chicago by the SS?) watched it for the first time, picked out frames for two briefing boards, then took the original to the CIA's Hawkeye Works at Kodak in Rochester NY.

Where it was further evaluated by them, altered, then taken back the next night for a set of four briefing boards by a different team than the one from Saturday night 11/23.

Is this closer to right?  Anyone who has actually watched the documentary?  Concisely, please.  

Ron, there's a boat load of stuff Doug Horne has written about the two NPIC events.  Some of it I've saved on my computer.  Here's a link to an article I have saved:

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

What I like about Doug Horne's style of writing is that he's so detailed and clear that you can not help but get almost a visual understanding of what he's saying.  All one needs to do is pay close attention to his words.

In my mind, Doug is among the most honest, open-minded, even tempered, seeker of only the truth researcher alive today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2022 at 3:09 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[The bike cops weren't consistent. Two of the four made statements denying that the car stopped:

  • Hargis: "slowed down almost to a stop"
  • Chaney: "almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."
On 4/24/2022 at 3:09 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The other two weren't exactly positive about an obvious stop:

  • Martin: the car stopped "just for a moment."
  • Jackson: "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment."

 

LOL, Jeremy is such a unalterationist ideologue that he can't bring himself to admit (or even see!) that all four cops are saying essentially the same thing. They all say that the limo slowed down to approximately 0 MPH.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

And you think you are a reliable judge of people?

BTW, where is your proof that Horne is unreliable?

 

In his vast, but one-sided imagination and rhetoric.  And, with a few ad hominems thrown in for good measure.  If he is not criticizing someone, he is unhappy.

He has absolutely no proof that Doug Horne is unreliable other than his outrageous claim.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my 2013 book INTO THE NIGHTMARE:

 

“THE ONLY ONE WHO DUCKED”

 

While I was interviewing Senator Yarborough about [George H. W.] Bush, I took the opportunity of discussing with him the events of the Dallas motorcade. He offered an important revelation he also made over the years to some other researchers, and gave me some possibly significant insights into Lyndon Johnson’s state of mind that day. Yarborough was riding in the second car behind Kennedy’s, sitting behind the driver in the back seat of a convertible with Vice President and his wife, Lady Bird Johnson. In the front seat were the driver from the Texas Highway Patrol, Hurchel Jacks, and the VP’s Secret Service agent, Rufus Youngblood. LBJ sat directly behind Youngblood, and Lady Bird between her husband and Yarborough. Directly ahead of their car was the Secret Service presidential followup car, the “Queen Mary.”

Senator Yarborough, who had “a lifetime of handling arms,” described for me his reactions to the shots fired in Dealey Plaza, giving an eyewitness and earwitness account that matched that of numerous other witnesses but is, like theirs, at odds over some details with what can now be seen in the altered Zapruder film:

 

The first shot I heard I thought was a rifle shot. The second shot, the motorcade almost came to a halt. They said later that the president‘s car slowed to something like five miles an hour. I wondered what the hell they were stopping for when somebody is shooting. People were jumping out of the car in front of me [the Secret Service followup car] and running to the president‘s car. I thought maybe somebody had thrown a bomb in there. The third shot I heard was a rifle shot.

 

When I asked Yarborough if he thought there was a gunman on the Grassy Knoll, he said,

 

I believe I would have heard or picked the shot up. I just don’t [think so]. I didn’t think so at the time. There’s one possibility -- I don’t think there was a second gunman, but if somebody else fired a shot at the identical time as the gunman in the School Book Depository, if two shots were fired instantly, it would be hard to differentiate them. I know that when I’ve gone deer hunting, if I fire my rifle at the same time as somebody else fires his, you can’t tell the two shots apart. I agree with John Connally that it’s foolish to say that only two shots were fired [Yarborough apparently is alluding to the single-bullet theory, which Connally never accepted].

I’ve talked to Dallas policemen who told me that the people from Washington gave them an awful grilling. They came down with a theory in mind and they didn’t want to hear anything else that might not match up with their theory. I have the suspicion this fellow Ruby knew somebody about it, with his criminal connections. Oswald went by his room in Oak Cliff, to get his gun or something, and the direction he was walking in was the direction of Ruby’s apartment. I think it was a conspiracy, of course, but I don’t know who the conspirators were. Anyway, too many people wanted Kennedy dead.

 

The official story put forth by Lyndon Johnson after the assassination was that when the shots were fired, Secret Service Agent Youngblood heroically vaulted over the seat and covered the VP with his body. Although Johnson arranged to have Youngblood receive the Treasury Department’s highest honor, the Exceptional Service Award, on December 4, 1963, and the agent was eventually promoted to Special Agent in Charge of the White House Detail and then deputy director of the Secret Service, Youngblood’s 1964 Warren Commission testimony contained significant qualifiers. He said that after hearing the first shot and seeing unusual crowd movement as well as movement in the Secret Service followup car behind the president’s limousine, “I turned around and hit the Vice President on the shoulder and hollered, get down, and then looked around again and saw more of this movement, and so I proceeded to go to the back seat and get on top of him. I then heard two more shots. But I would like to say this. I would not be positive that I was on that back seat before the second shot. But the Vice President himself said I was.” Asked to describe his movements further, Youngblood added another qualifier: “Well, the Vice President says that I vaulted over. It was more of a stepping over. And then I sat on top of him, he being crouched down somewhat.”

Yarborough scoffed at that story. He said Youngblood never left the front seat. The back seat was so full, as photographs of the car in the motorcade confirm, that there would not have been room for the agent along with three other people; Yarborough would have known if a large man was sharing the seat with them. Yarborough’s description of Johnson’s reaction after the shots were fired was  suggestive:

 

Absolutely motionless. Said nothing. You know that tale Johnson liked to tell about Youngblood, the Secret Service man, jumping over the front seat when the shots were fired and shielding him with his body? Well, that’s as big a cock-and-bull tale as the time he told the Marines in Da Nang that his great-grandfather had fought at the Alamo. [Actually, Johnson told servicemen at Camp Stanley in Korea, “My great-great-grandfather died at the Alamo.”] Youngblood never jumped over the seat. Johnson sat there stoically. The only time they moved was when we were going through the Triple Overpass, and Youngblood leaned over the seat -- he had a small radio receiver in his hand -- and Johnson leaned over, they were about six inches apart, and they listened to some transmission together on the radio. [A photograph indicates Johnson had ducked earlier: See below.]

I asked them what happened, and they didn’t say anything. They were afraid somebody might tell the truth. They knew damn well what happened, because when the cars pulled up at the hospital, the Secret Service men swarmed all around Johnson, and one of them said, “Mr. President.” They left Mrs. Kennedy alone in the car with the body, grieving over it. They knew he was dead instantly, because his head was blown off. Mrs. Kennedy was holding onto him and wouldn’t let him go until they put a suit coat around him to cover his head [Secret Service Agent Clint Hill did that].

 

It isn’t entirely clear from the transcript of our interview what Yarborough meant by saying, “They were afraid somebody might tell the truth.” Agent Youngblood that day was carrying a large walkie-talkie radio from a shoulder strap (it can be seen in the photograph of him escorting Johnson out of Parkland Hospital). The Secret Service was communicating on two frequencies in Dallas, Baker and Charlie. The Baker frequency was for transmissions between cars in the motorcade, including those between the vice president’s car and his followup car, but the Charlie frequency had much broader links among the Trade Mart, Air Force One and Two, the president’s limousine, its followup car, the lead car in the motorcade, and the rest of the motorcade, via the temporary White House Communications Agency Center setup at the Sheraton Hotel, which was itself linked directly to the White House. Youngblood told the Warren Commission that after the shots were fired, he radioed his followup car, “I am switching to Charlie”; but perhaps he and LBJ had been listening on Charlie all along, to follow the larger picture.

One wonders if the behavior of Johnson even before the shots were fired meant he had some kind of premonition of trouble. Penn Jones always said that “Johnson was the only one who ducked” in the motorcade. He based this on the famous James Altgens panoramic photo of Elm Street during the shooting, in which it appears that Johnson is leaning sharply forward (possibly to duck for safety, possibly also to listen to Youngblood’s walkie-talkie) while Lady Bird and Yarborough smile and wave, momentarily oblivious to the gunfire. When I asked Yarborough what Johnson’s mood had been during the motorcade from Love Field before the shooting started downtown, the former senator said,

 

He hardly spoke. The crowd would holler at him on the street, and even though he was a politician he did not smile or wave, he just looked straight ahead all day long. Johnson was worried about some revelations that were supposed to come out that day before a congressional committee in Washington about Bobby Baker, Johnson’s bagman. Johnson was scared to death it was going to blow that very day. I wondered why he was being so dour in the car, when the crowds were giving him so good a response. I tried to butter him up and said, “Mr. Vice President, why don’t you wave at them? Look how fond of you they are.” He never would respond, not a word.

 

Senator Yarborough made it clear in our interview that what he thought Johnson was worried about came from his later knowledge of what was happening in the congressional committee at the time. Johnson was indeed very worried about the testimony being given at that exact moment in Washington by Maryland insurance man Donald Reynolds before a closed hearing with the staff of the Senate Rules Committee. As Robert A. Caro writes in the fourth volume of his Johnson biography, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Passage of Power (2012), “[O]n that Friday, for the first time a Lyndon Johnson financial transaction was going to be described by a witness, seated beside his lawyer, to representatives of the United States Senate.” This is Caro’s description of the atmosphere in the car when the motorcade began at Love Field: “Lady Bird, sitting between Yarborough and her husband, tried to make conversation but soon gave up. The two men weren’t speaking to or looking at each other -- the only noises in the car came from the walkie-talkie radio that Youngblood was carrying on a shoulder strap -- as the motorcade pulled out.” . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Bristow writes:

Quote

As I have said a limo moving as slow as 1/2 mph with a momentary stop could result in the types of witness stories we have.

Maybe it could, given that the details of witnesses' recollections are often inaccurate and are able to be interpreted in different ways. But there is no justification for supposing that it did, for two reasons. Very few witness statements specifically claimed that the car slowed "almost to a stop" (or words to that effect), and there are four home movies which all show that the car did not slow down to anything like that speed.

Witness statements and photographic evidence are not equally likely to be inaccurate. Witnesses are often wrong about the details of what they saw, but home movies and photographs are almost never maliciously altered (I'm not aware of any uncontroversial examples of such alteration, though I suppose some may exist). When there is a conflict, we have to trust the films and photos unless there is strong independent evidence for alteration.

A plausible explanation for many discrepancies in witnesses' statements is that the witnesses were exaggerating what they saw. It is uncontroversial that people exaggerate things (I could cite trillions of examples of this). Rather than interpret the many plain "the car slowed down" statements to mean that the car slowed down drastically to something that was virtually indistinguishable from a stop, we should instead do the opposite, and interpret the few "almost to a stop" statements as exaggerations.

If you interpret these few anomalous statements as exaggerations, even more of the witness statements support what we see in the four home movies.

Since the four home movies and two photos corroborate the majority of the witness statements, it is perverse to believe the minority, no matter how exciting it might be to imagine all-powerful Bad Guys seizing and altering a bunch of home movies and photos in order to support the lone-gunman theory but doing it so incompetently that none of those home movies or photos actively support the lone-gunman theory and at least one of them positively contradicts that theory.

The car did not stop; it slowed down, but not to anything like half a mile per hour.

Quote

The basis of the CT is about alteration. Claiming the films as proof requires accepting that they are not altered.

Accepting that a film is not altered is the only rational starting point. Because home movies and photographs do not routinely get maliciously altered, the default position with home movies and photographs is that they are genuine.

If anyone wants to challenge this default position, it is up to them to prove (to whatever degree of certainty is considered appropriate) that the film or photo has been altered. It is not up to anyone else to prove that the film or photo is genuine. This really is a huge barrier, and it's hardly surprising that no-one has succeeded in surmounting it.

The degree of certainty that I would go for is that the proof of alteration should satisfy a rational, open-minded person with no preconceived opinions about the assassination. Does that sound reasonable?

Unfortunately, no-one has got anywhere near this level of proof. All we have is anomaly-spotting and speculation. And that's after three decades of trying, which suggests that such proof is unlikely to be found, and that it's time for the film to be accepted as genuine even by the more speculative and fanciful enthusiasts who still cling to the notion that the Zapruder film might be faked. The more rational critics of the lone-gunman theory have accepted it as genuine for decades, mainly because of the simple fact that the film not only contradicts the lone-gunman theory but is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence against that theory.

The evidence we have is insufficient to prove alteration. Is any new evidence likely to come along? There may be one or two witness statements somewhere in the Dallas police's files or down the back of a drawer in the National Archives, but surely there won't be enough of them to make any difference. There may be a hitherto unknown home movie or photograph (the latter is more probable than the former), but what are the chances that it will contradict the films and photos we already have? It's more likely to corroborate them, isn't it?

Of course, people can keep playing the game if it amuses them. But it's difficult to see how they aren't wasting their time when they could be doing something productive to help get the case reopened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than derail the current Minox camera thread, which has moved back to discussing Minox-related matters, I thought I'd use this Zapruder film-related thread to reply to a couple of Zapruder film-related points.

Sandy Larsen wrote:

Quote

It's not what is in the Z film that supports the lone gunman theory, it's what is not in the film that supports the theory.

Thank you! At last, someone is brave enough to admit that there is nothing in the Zapruder film that supports the lone-gunman theory.

The film does not contain evidence that unambiguously supports the lone-gunman theory, but it does contain evidence that contradicts that theory. I hope everyone is now aware of this important fact, and will take it into account.

The second point is that one of the three claims Ron made was that the car's turn onto Elm Street is evidence of conspiracy, and was the reason for chopping out part of the Zapruder film.

Could someone explain what the deal is with the turn onto Elm Street? This is a genuine question. I've heard several times now that something sinister happened, but no-one has explained what it is that's supposed to have happened, or what the evidence is that anything suspicious happened, or why this mysterious event was so incriminating that it would have necessitated altering a home movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure I can add anything useful to this debate. Those who believe the film has been altered cannot prove their case because the unaltered film does not exist. Those who deny alterations to Zapruder film field on the inability to provide the original film. The film was likely altered but it is almost impossible to prove it after 59 years. 

The points that lead me to believe that alteration may have occurred have been highlighted in this and in parallel threads:

1. Zapruder and Sitzman believed Zapruder has also filmed the sharp turn from Houston onto Elm street. However, no such footage exists in the film as we know it. A potential alteration consisting in cutting off that part of film would not be possible to prove if it happened. 

2. Kennedy's head wound was in the right occipital region. This was reported by Dr. McClelland and a number of other witnesses present in Trauma Room 1 in Parkland Hospital (well described in Dr. Crenshaw's book). However, no such wound is visible in frame 313/314. Instead, the film shows a bone flap in the right temporal region which none of the doctors in Parkland reported to have seen. No autopsy photograph shows the occiciptal wound seen by Parkland surgeons, however, the ARRB obtained a credible testimony from Saundra Spencer in 1977 (Spencer was a US Navy petty officer in charge of the White House Lab at US Navy Photographic Center, Washington, DC) in which Spencer testified under oath that on the assassination weekend she had been asked to develop photographs related to JFK's autopsy. Spencer claimed the official photographs showing intact back of Kennedy's head were not the ones she had developed; those she had developed showed an occipital wound. Of course, there are many more problems pertaining to the autopsy, and in a way, alteration to Zapruder film is tightly linked to the results of the autopsy.  

To disprove alteration to Zapruder film, one needs to consider all these witness testimonies to be false. I personally cannot disprove them that easily.

3. The stopping of the car during the shooting reported by quite many witnesses is not seen in any of the assassination films. However, some reduction of frames during the critical period of shooting is likely (which would obfuscate the car slowing down or stopping) because more than one frame should show the avulsion of brain matter and fluids after the head shot while Zapruder film only shows some feeble signs of a vertical halo in frame 313. The volume of brain matter and fluids discharged does not seem to correspond to the halo seen in frame 313.

The match with other films presents an interesting puzzle. It should be pointed out that Nix family never received the original film which raises the possibility that frames may have been deleted from Nix film and no one could verify it. I am not sure about other films though. I studies Moorman's photograph in great detail using near-infrared photography and layer analysis, first proposed by Tom Wilson. There was an apparent defect in the right parietal-occipital region of the head in Moorman's photograph (consistent with Tom Wilson's data) consisting of two tunnel-like openings, however, I do not think it was the large tennis-ball size defect seen in Parkland. However, there may have been multiple head shots and Moorman's picture could have only captured the early shot(s) and not the fatal head shot that may have come a split of a second later.  

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2022 at 10:34 PM, Ron Bulman said:

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.

 

Ron,

Just for accuracy's sake, the film Dino received on 11/23 was an "8mm slit film" (the developers had to slit the 16mm film in half to develop it).  The film received on Sunday was an "16mm unslit film", according to Doug Horne.

When the developed original was sent to Hawkeyeworks, it was an 8mm slit film, as were the 3 copies, ready for projection.  The 16mm unslit film could only have been manufactured in Hawkeyeworks which was not able to be projected.  The camera original 16mm unslit film was slit in Dallas by Kodak to develop the 4 (1 original and 3 copies) 8mm films.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2022 at 5:55 AM, Paul Bacon said:

Ron, there's a boat load of stuff Doug Horne has written about the two NPIC events.  Some of it I've saved on my computer.  Here's a link to an article I have saved:

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

What I like about Doug Horne's style of writing is that he's so detailed and clear that you can not help but get almost a visual understanding of what he's saying.  All one needs to do is pay close attention to his words.

In my mind, Doug is among the most honest, open-minded, even tempered, seeker of only the truth researcher alive today.

Thanks again Paul.  This time for the link above.  The article fleshes out the video where Horne interviews Brugioni in greater detail.  The part about Mc Mahon believing JFK was hit 6-7 times, from the altered version of the film, is eye opening given his expertise in his youth as a champion competition shooter and trick shooter.  That carries weight to me. 

I have to agree with you regarding Hornes manner of presentation.  Both in writing and verbally/on video.  He's measured while engaging, using facts.  I started watching his five part 2014 series on the medical evidence on the Future of Freedom site a good while back but got side tracked.  It is several hours worth in total.  What I saw I remember being very informative and excellently presented.  I'd love to find time to go back and watch the whole thing as well as read his five book series on his time with the ARRB, it's and his findings. 

Just on what I have read and watched though.  While I'm not qualified educationally to make such a decision.  I think Ohio State University should consider awarding him an Honorary Doctorate Degree.  For his Cum Laude BA in History.  For his service and further education serving us all in the US Navy at Pearl Harbor in relation to his writing of FDR's foreknowledge of the attack on that base in 1941 (which I've not read).  For his work at the ARRB, this alone should qualify him, it in and of itself was History in the making.  For his written works.  For his continued research (E.G. Brugioni).  For his video lectures.  For educating all who will listen with truth based on facts.

Jeremy can put this in his pipe and smoke it regarding telling me about Mr. Horne's "reliability".

What are your credentials jb?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Bulman writes:

Quote

Jeremy can put this in his pipe and smoke it regarding telling me about Mr. Horne's "reliability".

Thank you, Ron, but I don't smoke.

Horne spent a lot of his time with the ARRB trying to push Lifton's body-alteration nonsense, a topic few people take seriously. That should warn you that he's liable to make far-out claims based on minimal evidence.

In a subject as contentious as the JFK assassination, you shouldn't believe any significant claims without checking the relevant evidence and examining alternative interpretations. Did you take these elementary precautions? You appear not to have done so. If not, why not?

If you don't exercise sufficient critical thought, you're liable to end up believing any old nonsense. This is a big problem with the JFK assassination, in which all sorts of wacky, nonsensical ideas are floating around. Only a few hours ago on another thread, someone repeated the claim that the driver shot JFK, as though it was a serious idea.

People who are willing to apply critical thought to the nonsensical lone-gunman theory then switch off their brains and swallow equally weak claims about ridiculously improbable conspiracies. If you want to do more than simply confirm your own biases, you have to question the conspiracy theories too, I'm afraid.

Horne's claims are based on little other than decades-old recollections. You must have been aware that decades-old recollections are liable to be mistaken. What critical thought did you apply to Horne's claims? Any at all?

What other interpretations did you consider before you decided that Horne's far-fetched speculation was the most convincing interpretation around? I'd guess you didn't consider any alternative interpretations. If you didn't take this elementary step, what were the reasons behind your decision not to do so? Was it because Horne told you what you wanted to hear?

I gave you a link to an alternative interpretation of the Zapruder film's history. Were you aware of this document's existence before you went public? Evidently not. Have you read the document yet? If not, why not?

Here's that link again. It's Roland Zavada's open letter responding to chapter 14 of Horne's book. It deals with the technical aspects of altering Kodachrome films, and with the Zapruder film's chain of possession:

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

Perhaps you could read it and let us know why we should believe Horne's claims instead.

Warning 1: the document is over 30 pages long! It will probably require more effort to read this than to watch a YouTube video.

Warning 2: once you have read the document, you will need to evaluate competing claims about topics such as chains of custody and whether this or that copy of the film was slit or unslit at a particular time. This will certainly require more effort than passively accepting a far-fetched YouTube video. 

Here's Zavada's conclusion:

The very interesting twist to your chapter is that it has done more to ensure the Zapruder film at NARA is authentic rather than altered.

Your interviews with Dino Brugioni and Homer McMahon and their handling of what they interpreted [Zavada's emphasis] as "original" films, most likely were the Jamieson copies provided to the Secret Service by Zapruder and flown to Washington on successive days. (With the FBI requesting two copies, returned to Dallas, of their viewed double 8 copy.)

Nonetheless, your analysis of those interviews and the conclusions you draw about the briefing boards have provided a tight focus to establish the time frame and possible venue for the purported 'sanitizing' of the Zapruder original. Both reinforce all of the technology and film reproduction constraints to confirm our conclusion that alteration to the 8mm original and its reconstitution, as a 'sanitized' KODACHROME II equivalent, was impossible.

So much for Horne's claims.

I'm still curious about Ron's original claim that a section of the film was removed to hide the car's turn onto Elm Street. No-one seems willing to explain what this is all about. What is supposed to have happened when the car turned onto Elm Street? How is this supposed to be evidence of conspiracy? What was so incriminating that it required a section of the film to be removed?

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...