Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film Alteration Synopsis


Recommended Posts

Paul Bacon writes:

Quote

I don't have time to say anything more, but you need to open your mind

My mind is open to any strong evidence you care to provide. I'll be perfectly happy to accept that the Zapruder film is a fake, as soon as someone comes up with strong evidence to justify that claim.

So far, two areas of evidence have been put forward.

1 - The Car Stop

I can go over this yet again if you insist. No-one has shown why we should prefer the evidence of a minority of witness statements over (a) the majority of witness statements and (b) no fewer than four home movies which show that the car did not stop.

Chris is the only person to come up with a coherent argument against this, by suggesting that we should interpret the plain "slowing down" witness statements to mean something like "slowing down (almost) to a stop". Because witnesses are often inaccurate when recalling details, Chris's interpretation is plausible.

But so is the opposite interpretation: that the "slowed almost to a stop" witnesses were exaggerating what they saw. Personally, I think it's far more likely that people would exaggerate the extent of the slowing down than fail to mention that the car came (almost) to a stop.

A large proportion of the spectators who could see the car at the time of the head shot didn't report the car slowing down at all, let alone coming to a stop. The slowing down was not significant to them. As we see in the four home movies, the car didn't slow down by a huge amount.

2 - The Film's Chain of Custody

Look at the document I linked to earlier (http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf), which contains a plausible interpretation of the film's chain of custody that is contrary to Horne's. Zavada made a good case that the film Brugioni and McMahon recalled several decades after the event was not the original but two separate copies.

So far, no-one has pointed out any problems with Zavada's account. Until someone can show that Zavada's account is not plausible, why should we not accept it?

Horne's account requires the extra complication of a team of Bad Guys going to a lot of trouble to alter a home movie to support the lone-gunman theory but doing it so incompetently that the film ended up contradicting the lone-gunman theory. Zavada's account does not require this extra  (and incoherent) complication. The only rational course is to accept the simplest, least complicated account.

3 - The Turn Onto Elm Street

There's a third claim that needs to be resolved, but for some reason no-one seems able even to state what the claim actually is.

Again, if anyone really thinks there was something incriminating in the car's turn onto Elm Street that necessitated the removal of a chunk of the Zapruder film, could you please fill in the missing details? Since it was Ron who made the original claim, perhaps he could explain what he thinks happened and why it was so incriminating.

Until someone actually explains what the problem is, we can ignore the turn onto Elm Street, don't you think?

The Standard of Proof

I realise that the 'everything is a fake' types might find it puzzling even to think about something like a standard of proof. If it makes you feel all fuzzy inside to believe that the film has been altered, isn't that enough to prove that the film has been altered?

I mentioned earlier that the appropriate standard of proof is: evidence that would convince rational, open-minded people with no preconceived opinions about the assassination. Does everyone agree? If not, could you explain what you think would be a reasonable standard of proof for a claim like 'the Zaprduer film is a fake'?

If you do accept this standard of proof, why you think no-one has come close to reaching it with the evidence that's been put forward so far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 4/26/2022 at 3:37 PM, Rick McTague said:

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

Thanks Rick.  Until I saw the Horne/Brugioni documentary and read the link Paul provided I was unfamiliar with the intricacies of 8mm home movies.  Filmed side by side on 16mm film.  

Your note of my mistake is an important one.

The 25' 16mm film being split on Friday night in Dallas into a 50' 8mm spliced together film is the key to the mystery Horne solves.

If split on Friday night it could not have been a re assembled/taped back together 16mm version seen by McMahon on Sunday night 11/24 at the NPIC.  Thats impossible. 

As you allude to the only way for that to happen with a copy of them back together.   The only place capable of that on the east coast was Hawkeyeworks.  Where the alterations on one side of it were also accomplished.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/22/2022 at 8:34 PM, Ron Bulman said:

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 Air Force 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.

 

 

Ron Bulman has done a good deed by posting here a link which will lead to Doug Horne's discussion of the chain of possession of the Zapruder film.  One key to understanding the deception that was unfolding on the weekend following the assassination is to follow and understand Horne's account of the two sets of briefing boards that were made that weekend.  I'll return to this again soon; but here is the link:

 

The story is easy to follow, but if you wish to understand the technicalities, prepare to be immersed.

DSL

 

Edited by David Lifton
improve clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My .02

One part of the film that was spliced was the head shot sequence.I believe that the shot that hit Kennedy in back of the head was before the head shot in front that hit the temple.They combined these two together by a split second instead of showing them seperate as it happened.

1st) Back of the head shot

2nd) Front of the head shot right temple

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2022 at 6:49 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks Rick.  Until I saw the Horne/Brugioni documentary and read the link Paul provided I was unfamiliar with the intricacies of 8mm home movies.  Filmed side by side on 16mm film.  

Your note of my mistake is an important one.

The 25' 16mm film being split on Friday night in Dallas into a 50' 8mm spliced together film is the key to the mystery Horne solves.

If split on Friday night it could not have been a re assembled/taped back together 16mm version seen by McMahon on Sunday night 11/24 at the NPIC.  Thats impossible. 

As you allude to the only way for that to happen with a copy of them back together.   The only place capable of that on the east coast was Hawkeyeworks.  Where the alterations on one side of it were also accomplished.  

Error.  Sorry, no text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

My .02

One part of the film that was spliced was the head shot sequence.I believe that the shot that hit Kennedy in back of the head was before the head shot in front that hit the temple.They combined these two together by a split second instead of showing them seperate as it happened.

1st) Back of the head shot

2nd) Front of the head shot right temple

4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

 

This is what I believe Michael. From a recent post by Pat Speer I think it is possible the triangular fragment had a piece of the entry bevelling for your second shot. I think the X-ray bullet track is from the second shot. I accept the tangential wound theory is plausible from some of the physical evidence, but overall your scenario is a better fit in my view.

I haven't seen a detailed rebuttal of Horne's film alteration scenario. We need one to consider.

Edited by Eddy Bainbridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This frame 313 is from a 6k copy of a 3rd generation (32 mm) copy of Zapruder film, posted on midnightwriternews.com. The colours are in logarithmic scale. The black blob in the back of the head appears as a crude alteration aimed to cover for the large wound in the right occipital-parietal area. Difficult to dispute this alteration in my view.

Frame-317-HD-First-Version-Sent-1024x576

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That black blob puts me in mind of what Nigel Tufnel said in This Is Spinal Tap.

 

Quote

There's something about this that's so black, it's like how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

This frame 313 is from a 6k copy of a 3rd generation (32 mm) copy of Zapruder film, posted on midnightwriternews.com. The colours are in logarithmic scale. The black blob in the back of the head appears as a crude alteration aimed to cover for the large wound in the right occipital-parietal area. Difficult to dispute this alteration in my view.

Frame-317-HD-First-Version-Sent-1024x576

 

Rather obvious when used in a comparative manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about something Doug Horne said towards the end of the presentation linked a page or two ago.  Kind of brainstorming it you might say, the old spaghetti on the wall.

He mentions the possibility that the violence and speed of back and to the left in the extant Z film of today could be an effect of editing.  I.E. when frames are removed from a film it speeds up the process of what ever is taking place at the time.  I believe he mentioned this being a known effect in the film industry, maybe that there is a term for it?

Brugioni seemed emphatic that he saw multiple frames of a white spray and brain matter 4-5 feet in the air on the original he watched multiple times.  There is one frame on the film we see today - 313.  If a few frames before, and, after that were removed what might they have contained/eliminated.

Would before have eliminated the violent forward movement described by Dan Rather and Cartha Deloach, apparently from original copies made in Dallas on 11/22.  Why would They do that?  To eliminate the limo stop or evidence of multiple shots?

What of frames after 313?  To also help eliminate the limo stop?  Maybe together these frames before and after might have eliminated a violent forward motion instantly countered by a stopping of it turned into a rearward motion.  By two shots from the front.  Just not as quickly as it appears to in the film today.

Horne is also excellent on the medical evidence as a result of his time with the ARRB and work with I believe Dr's Chesser, Mantick and Aguilar.  I believe some of these gentlemen now agree JFK was likely hit in the head by three shots almost instantaneously, one from the back, two from the front.  Their conclusions are based on expertise and experience in their field and evidence.  Like half an entrance wound in the lower rear edge of the back of the skull blow out, or should we say black out?  Like two entrance wounds in the front/side of the head.  From the x-rays in the National Archives. 

Might frame removal have eliminated a violent movement of the head forward from a shot from the rear, countered within a split second by two from the front?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When I brainstorm,I often wonder what kept the temple & the shot in the back from bleeding?Temple shot could have bled into the hairline,but I would expect to see some blood running down the forehead.The back shot......now that is a complete mystery.Lifton suspects that it was man made,but didn't a Secret Service man claim to see it?

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2022 at 8:43 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I've been thinking about something Doug Horne said towards the end of the presentation linked a page or two ago.  Kind of brainstorming it you might say, the old spaghetti on the wall.

He mentions the possibility that the violence and speed of back and to the left in the extant Z film of today could be an effect of editing.  I.E. when frames are removed from a film it speeds up the process of what ever is taking place at the time.  I believe he mentioned this being a known effect in the film industry, maybe that there is a term for it?

Brugioni seemed emphatic that he saw multiple frames of a white spray and brain matter 4-5 feet in the air on the original he watched multiple times.  There is one frame on the film we see today - 313.  If a few frames before, and, after that were removed what might they have contained/eliminated.

Would before have eliminated the violent forward movement described by Dan Rather and Cartha Deloach, apparently from original copies made in Dallas on 11/22.  Why would They do that?  To eliminate the limo stop or evidence of multiple shots?

What of frames after 313?  To also help eliminate the limo stop?  Maybe together these frames before and after might have eliminated a violent forward motion instantly countered by a stopping of it turned into a rearward motion.  By two shots from the front.  Just not as quickly as it appears to in the film today.

Horne is also excellent on the medical evidence as a result of his time with the ARRB and work with I believe Dr's Chesser, Mantick and Aguilar.  I believe some of these gentlemen now agree JFK was likely hit in the head by three shots almost instantaneously, one from the back, two from the front.  Their conclusions are based on expertise and experience in their field and evidence.  Like half an entrance wound in the lower rear edge of the back of the skull blow out, or should we say black out?  Like two entrance wounds in the front/side of the head.  From the x-rays in the National Archives. 

Might frame removal have eliminated a violent movement of the head forward from a shot from the rear, countered within a split second by two from the front?   

Nothing on my thoughts?  I'm not nutty?  It's possible?  Nobody read it. Nobody cares.  No one else would consider such an outlandish possibility?

Maybe I'm in a purple haze here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ronn Bulman writes:

Quote

Brugioni seemed emphatic that he saw multiple frames of a white spray and brain matter 4-5 feet in the air on the original he watched multiple times.

The first part of that sentence should read: "Brugioni seemed emphatic that, three or four decades earlier, he saw multiple frames of a white spray and brain matter".

Not that decades-old memories are necessarily mistaken, of course, but we shouldn't assume that they are correct either.

Quote

There is one frame on the film we see today - 313.  If a few frames before, and, after that were removed what might they have contained/eliminated.

When we check the Zapruder film, which is something we really ought to do if we're making a claim of this type, we discover that a spray of brain matter is visible in several of the frames immediately after frame 313:

And that's in a copy of the film that isn't particularly detailed. There is even a hint of a spray in frames 317 and 318 of that edition, which might be more clearly visible in a better-quality edition.

The spray of brain matter can't have been removed, because it is still there.

Quote

Might frame removal have eliminated a violent movement of the head forward from a shot from the rear, countered within a split second by two from the front?

All sorts of things might have happened, but there isn't any good reason to believe that there was a violent forward movement of the head. Very few witnesses described it.

The film does show JFK's head moving forward, after it moved back and to the left. The fact that only a small number of reports described it as 'violent', or words to that effect, suggests that these witnesses were exaggerating. It is especially understandable that people such as DeLoach and Rather would do this once the official dogma was established of a lone gunman firing from behind.

Quote

He [Horne] mentions the possibility that the violence and speed of back and to the left in the extant Z film of today could be an effect of editing.  I.E. when frames are removed from a film it speeds up the process of what ever is taking place at the time.

What Horne is doing is irrational. He is inventing a conspiracy to explain something that doesn't need to be explained.

The 'back and to the left' head movement is the most obvious evidence to most people that JFK was shot from the front. No film-altering masterminds would have altered the film, even accidentally, to show JFK being shot from the front. The idea is insane.

Horne was so desperate to believe in all-powerful masterminds who altered the film (and JFK's body) that he was willing to dismiss the strongest prima facie evidence for a shot from the front. This sums up the stupidity of the extreme, everything-is-a-conspriacy thinking that the JFK assassination attracts.

There are plenty of rational grounds to doubt that JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman. There's no need to invent a hugely improbable conspiracy involving teams of film-fakers and body-alterers. The simplest explanation is almost always the most credible explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The film does show JFK's head moving forward, after it moved back and to the left.

His head actually moved forward before the back and to the left.  The rest of that forward movement was excised, per Doug Horne.  This is what Dan Rather saw in the unaltered version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2022 at 4:39 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

This frame 313 is from a 6k copy of a 3rd generation (32 mm) copy of Zapruder film, posted on midnightwriternews.com. The colours are in logarithmic scale. The black blob in the back of the head appears as a crude alteration aimed to cover for the large wound in the right occipital-parietal area. Difficult to dispute this alteration in my view.

Frame-317-HD-First-Version-Sent-1024x576

 

Andrej, I’m not sure this is 313, it seems to resemble 317 more. Whichever frame it is, it seems a clumsy attempt at alteration, one I can’t find anywhere else? Is this pic a still or did you capture it from film footage - I visited MWN but couldn’t find it.

799BBD53-CE2A-403A-B2E9-C81F253C5CF1.thumb.jpeg.92eb303a44cb108ef17965914084f8a9.jpeg
 

Pic from John Costella’s site showing 313 and the forward motion before the head shot.

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...