Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film Alteration Synopsis


Recommended Posts

Paul Bacon writes:

Quote

Dino Brugioni has a very vivid and detailed memory of what he saw.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

That's an argument from ignorance logical fallacy: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The argument from ignorance fallacy is essentially a shifting of the burden of proof, e.g. you haven't shown that the trees on the grassy knoll were not made of papier-mâché; therefore they were made of papier-mâché.

The claim I made was:

Quote

A large majority of witnesses who would have had a good view of the car at the time of the head shot didn't mention that the car slowed down at all

This isn't an argument from ignorance. I'm claiming that a drastic slowing-down or a complete stop would have been noticed by a large number of witnesses. There's a specific reason that explains this particular absence of evidence.

The fact that only a small minority of these witnesses mentioned such an event, combined with the fact that witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes, is positive evidence for two conclusions:

  • For a large majority of the witnesses, the slowing-down of the car wasn't drastic enough to be worth commenting on, which matches what we see in the home movies.
  • The car neither stopped nor slowed down significantly, just as we see in the home movies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sandy continues:

Quote

If other films show that there was NOT an abrupt slowdown, and if those films were never in the hands of the feds, then I agree that it didn't happen ... Can anybody tell me which films were not confiscated?

There were four home movies which showed the car when it is supposed to have stopped, at around the time of the fatal head shot. According to Richard Trask's book Pictures of the Pain, this is what happened to them:

  • The Zapruder film was sold on 23 November to Time Life, who had possession of the original for some unspecified time after that. This is consistent with the document I linked to earlier, which explains that the film supposedly sent to NPIC probably wasn't the original.
  • Orville Nix retained possession of his film until he handed it to the FBI on 1 December, more than a week after the assassination. The FBI made a copy and returned the original to Nix three days later. A couple of days after that, Nix sold the original to UPI. The Warren Commission began examining the original film no earlier than 29 January. (Trask, pp.183-190.)
  • The Bronson film, in which the limo goes out of sight immediately before the head shot, was developed at the Kodak plant in Dallas on 24 November. The FBI were contacted, and two agents watched the film, along with Bronson. The agents reported that the film contained nothing of interest. Trask writes: "As for Bronson and his pictures, that was the last contact he had with any investigative official. No agency contacted him again, no copies of his pictures were requested for study purposes, and the cursory examination of the film and slides by these two FBI agents satisfied any interest in the Bronson eyewitnesses or the fim and pictures" (Trask, p.288). Bronson's film did not become widely known until the late 1970s.
  • The Muchmore film was sold, undeveloped, to UPI on 25 November. UPI had possession of the film thereafter. The authorities were unaware of the existence of Muchmore's film until 10 February, when frames were published in a book. The FBI contacted UPI, asking about where the images came from. Muchmore was interviewed, but only as a witness; the FBI showed little interest in her film. UPI sent the FBI a copy of the film for examination, but kept the original. (Trask, pp.205-206.)

In summary, none of these films were confiscated. In the case of the Bronson and Muchmore films, the authorities don't seem to have had access to the originals at all. We know from the accounts of other Dealey Plaza photographers that the authorities showed little interest in the films and photos in general.

Anyone who wants to claim that any or all of these four home movies were altered needs to come up with a plausible scenario that's consistent with the varying times at which the original films became available to the authorities, which in the case of two of the films appears to be never.

Also in need of an explanation is the absence of any obvious inconsistencies between the four films, and the fact that none of them appear to show the car either stopping or abruptly slowing down.

Until anyone does all of that, the default explanation still holds: what we see in the four films is what actually happened.

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Paul, in the link you posted Larry Schnapf talks about Sidney Wilkinson and husband Thom Whitehead discussing their work and showing a video at the 2018 CAPA conference.

Do you (or Larry) know if the presentation was recorded, and, if so is it and or the video mentioned available for public viewing by now?  I'll look around myself but direction or a "no" if so would be helpful.  Thanks in advance to you or anyone else who might know. 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
On 5/14/2022 at 3:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 The witness statements give us no good reason to believe that frames were removed.

 

Au contraire... the witness statements are the primary reason to believe frames were removed.

And BTW, of course the slowdown was significant just as I said (and you refute). If it weren't significant, the witnesses wouldn't have noticed it.

Senator Yarborough said after the shooting SS agents left their vehicle.  That is not in any film or photo.  They wouldn't have left their vehicle if it was in a high-speed mode going to Parkland.  Others mention the same thing.  Therefore, frames showing that were removed.  The Muchmore film has had frames removed when the p. limo was in the intersection of Maine and Houston Street.  There are several gaps there. 

The Nix film and the Bronson film have been altered.  The Bell film has been altered on Houston Street.  There are 8 or so films, including the ones mention that either go haywire with unwatchable film or they simply skip showing the p. limo approach and go past the Court Records Building. 

Therefore, I conclude that something happened on Houston Street that was worthy of altering in those 8 films.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

The claim I made was:

A large majority of witnesses who would have had a good view of the car at the time of the head shot didn't mention that the car slowed down at all.

This isn't an argument from ignorance.

 

Yes it is. You were arguing that most witnesses would have noticed a significant slowdown if it occurred. Problem is, you are ignorant of the number of witnesses who noticed the significant slowdown. Just because a person didn't mention it doesn't mean they didn't notice it. Thus, it's an argument-from-ignorance logical fallacy.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron

For starters, there is an EF Thread begun in November 2009 entitled "Abraham Zapruder and Jeanne LeGon".   It contains some very interesting facts and comments about Abraham Zapruder and his affiliations.  In the news clippings and TV footage, Zapruder is seen with a masonic pin on his lapel.  A Freemasonry website states that Zapruder was an Inspector-General (33rd degree) of the Scottish Rite.

He was also an active member of the Dallas Council on World Affairs and The Crusade for a Free Europe, CIA-backed domestic groups in Dallas whose membership included some notable figures including George DeMohrenschildt.  The Baron's wife, Jeanne LeGon, worked with Abraham Zapruder at a clothing company called Nardis of Dallas (owned by Bernard Gold).  The timeframes are   This information is sourced from a January 2000 article in The Fourth Decade by Harrison Edward Livingstone, and also from author Bruce Adamson who stated that Zapruder and LeGon worked "side by side" at Nardis (in 1953-54) - corroborated by several individuals who worked there - and documented in his book "The de Mohrenschildt Story". He confirmed that Zapruder's obituary mis-stated the year of Zapruder's departure from Nardis as 1949 ... when it was really 1959.  

As you piece all of these coincidences together, it seems that Le Gon and Zapruder were not simply seamstress and tailor.  Originally named Eugenia Fomenko, Jeanne LeGon (later Jeanne de Mohrenschildt) first moved to Dallas in 1953 where she was employed by Nardis Sportswear. In April 1954 she relocated to California but returned to Dallas where she met George de Mohrenschildt.  She divorced her then husband (who complained to the FBI that she was a communist spy) and later married George ... apparently the same year that Zapruder formed his own company called "Jennifer Juniors".  Jeanne testified before the Warren Commission:

Mr. Jenner: All right. Now, eventually, you reached Texas. How did that happen? 

Mrs. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, my daughter had asthma. She is a very allergic child. And her health was really terrible. In spite of all the care given to her, she just could not stand the New York climate. And our family doctor said the only way to save her--she was getting really sick from antibiotics and penicillin--is to change the climate. So, I was very anxious to change the climate going to California, that was my aim. But I could not reach California. Mr. Gold, of Nardis Sportswear in New York, wanted to open a suit department. And, of course, the buyers did know me all over the country--the same buyers--recommended to get in touch with me and engage me. And it was pretty good. It was $20,000 a year, plus two trips to Europe, with expenses paid, and about $7,000 to buy the models--you just cannot go in and look at the shows. I went to Texas in 1953, I believe.

Mr. Jenner: Did your husband accompany you?

Mrs. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. I came in the summer, and then I had to go immediately to Europe. And he came over in the fall, when my daughter returned from camp. He came over in the fall, and then shipped all the furniture.
In the meanwhile, I stayed with the Golds. They have a very big mansion.

Harrison Livingstone, in Killing Kennedy (1995), maintained that Zapruder was directed to go to the Plaza in order to film that day, but does not state by whom, other than possibly hinting at his co-partner, Erwin (Irwin) Schwartz. No firm proof on this point was furnished, beyond the suspicious delayed return of Schwartz to the Dal-Tex office of Zapruder at about 2:00 PM.  Schwartz, alleged to have had mob ties and a friend with Jack Ruby, took an active role in the subsequent negotiations of the film rights. Zapruder was born in the Ukraine in 1905 and emigrated to the U.S. in 1920 where he worked for a dress manufacturer in New York. He moved to Dallas in 1941 and worked for Nardis, a local clothing manufacturer.  In 1959, Zapruder started his own company which he called "Jennifer Juniors" which occupied the 4th and 5th floors of the Dal-Tex Building across the street from the TSBD.  Zapruder was a dress manufacturer and wholesaler outlet representative for the New York company, Jennifer Juniors (or Jennifer of Dallas), although Livingstone and other authors dispute the legitimacy of this company as it existed at the Dal-Tex Building.  It has been alleged that Jennifer Juniors vacated its premises at Dal-Tex Building by the end of 1964 and filed for bankruptcy.  

Zapruder was a member of the Temple Emanu-El Congregation. He died in 1970 from stomach cancer.

Gene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Ron

For starters, there is an EF Thread begun in November 2009 entitled "Abraham Zapruder and Jeanne LeGon".   It contains some very interesting facts and comments about Abraham Zapruder and his affiliations.  In the news clippings and TV footage, Zapruder is seen with a masonic pin on his lapel.  A Freemasonry website states that Zapruder was an Inspector-General (33rd degree) of the Scottish Rite.

He was also an active member of the Dallas Council on World Affairs and The Crusade for a Free Europe, CIA-backed domestic groups in Dallas whose membership included some notable figures including George DeMohrenschildt.  The Baron's wife, Jeanne LeGon, worked with Abraham Zapruder at a clothing company called Nardis of Dallas (owned by Bernard Gold).  The timeframes are   This information is sourced from a January 2000 article in The Fourth Decade by Harrison Edward Livingstone, and also from author Bruce Adamson who stated that Zapruder and LeGon worked "side by side" at Nardis (in 1953-54) - corroborated by several individuals who worked there - and documented in his book "The de Mohrenschildt Story". He confirmed that Zapruder's obituary mis-stated the year of Zapruder's departure from Nardis as 1949 ... when it was really 1959.  

As you piece all of these coincidences together, it seems that Le Gon and Zapruder were not simply seamstress and tailor.  Originally named Eugenia Fomenko, Jeanne LeGon (later Jeanne de Mohrenschildt) first moved to Dallas in 1953 where she was employed by Nardis Sportswear. In April 1954 she relocated to California but returned to Dallas where she met George de Mohrenschildt.  She divorced her then husband (who complained to the FBI that she was a communist spy) and later married George ... apparently the same year that Zapruder formed his own company called "Jennifer Juniors".  Jeanne testified before the Warren Commission:

Mr. Jenner: All right. Now, eventually, you reached Texas. How did that happen? 

Mrs. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, my daughter had asthma. She is a very allergic child. And her health was really terrible. In spite of all the care given to her, she just could not stand the New York climate. And our family doctor said the only way to save her--she was getting really sick from antibiotics and penicillin--is to change the climate. So, I was very anxious to change the climate going to California, that was my aim. But I could not reach California. Mr. Gold, of Nardis Sportswear in New York, wanted to open a suit department. And, of course, the buyers did know me all over the country--the same buyers--recommended to get in touch with me and engage me. And it was pretty good. It was $20,000 a year, plus two trips to Europe, with expenses paid, and about $7,000 to buy the models--you just cannot go in and look at the shows. I went to Texas in 1953, I believe.

Mr. Jenner: Did your husband accompany you?

Mrs. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. I came in the summer, and then I had to go immediately to Europe. And he came over in the fall, when my daughter returned from camp. He came over in the fall, and then shipped all the furniture.
In the meanwhile, I stayed with the Golds. They have a very big mansion.

Harrison Livingstone, in Killing Kennedy (1995), maintained that Zapruder was directed to go to the Plaza in order to film that day, but does not state by whom, other than possibly hinting at his co-partner, Erwin (Irwin) Schwartz. No firm proof on this point was furnished, beyond the suspicious delayed return of Schwartz to the Dal-Tex office of Zapruder at about 2:00 PM.  Schwartz, alleged to have had mob ties and a friend with Jack Ruby, took an active role in the subsequent negotiations of the film rights. Zapruder was born in the Ukraine in 1905 and emigrated to the U.S. in 1920 where he worked for a dress manufacturer in New York. He moved to Dallas in 1941 and worked for Nardis, a local clothing manufacturer.  In 1959, Zapruder started his own company which he called "Jennifer Juniors" which occupied the 4th and 5th floors of the Dal-Tex Building across the street from the TSBD.  Zapruder was a dress manufacturer and wholesaler outlet representative for the New York company, Jennifer Juniors (or Jennifer of Dallas), although Livingstone and other authors dispute the legitimacy of this company as it existed at the Dal-Tex Building.  It has been alleged that Jennifer Juniors vacated its premises at Dal-Tex Building by the end of 1964 and filed for bankruptcy.  

Zapruder was a member of the Temple Emanu-El Congregation. He died in 1970 from stomach cancer.

Gene

Hi Gene - have you read Adamson’s writings on the DeMohrenschildt family? Your post got me fishing, so I’ve read a bit. Adamson asserts that George DeMohrenschilt got a line of credit in May 1963 of $300,000 from Brown Brothers Harriman. Any idea if that is true? Reading Adamson made me much more curious about George’s brother Dmitri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

The argument from ignorance fallacy is essentially a shifting of the burden of proof, e.g. you haven't shown that the trees on the grassy knoll were not made of papier-mâché; therefore they were made of papier-mâché.

The claim I made was:

This isn't an argument from ignorance. I'm claiming that a drastic slowing-down or a complete stop would have been noticed by a large number of witnesses. There's a specific reason that explains this particular absence of evidence.

The fact that only a small minority of these witnesses mentioned such an event, combined with the fact that witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes, is positive evidence for two conclusions:

  • For a large majority of the witnesses, the slowing-down of the car wasn't drastic enough to be worth commenting on, which matches what we see in the home movies.
  • The car neither stopped nor slowed down significantly, just as we see in the home movies.

"which matches what we see..."  and ah....who is *we* big guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Zapruder's son, Henry, worked for the Justice

Department at the time. Abe Zapruder was

a member of the Dallas Petroleum Club along

some other persons of interest in the case.

So, Henry Zapruder worked for Bobby Kennedy?

Dressmaker Abe was a member of the Dallas Petroleum Club along with Harold Dry Hole Byrd, owner of the Texas School Book Depository?  As well as George de Mohrenschildt and George Herbert Walker Bush, richest man in the world at the time H L Hunt, among others of interest.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, from memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

you are ignorant of the number of witnesses who noticed the significant slowdown. Just because a person didn't mention it doesn't mean they didn't notice it. Thus, it's an argument-from-ignorance logical fallacy.

I was referring to those witnesses who were in a position to see the car clearly at the time it is supposed to have stopped. It's reasonable to assume that pretty much all of them were looking at the car, since that is what they had come to see. If the car had stopped or slowed down significantly, those witnesses would have noticed it.

That is not an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy, because I gave a specific reason why those witnesses would have noticed that the car had stopped, if it had.

If the car had stopped, plenty of people would have noticed it, and plenty of people would have found it significant enough to mention.

If the car had merely slowed down somewhat, as all four home movies show, plenty of people would have noticed that too, but far fewer of them would have found it significant enough to mention.

The fact that only a small proportion of those witnesses actually mentioned the car stopping or slowing down abruptly is good evidence that the car didn't stop or slow down abruptly. What the four home movies show us is what actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Healy writes:

Quote

"which matches what we see..."  and ah....who is *we* big guy?

Anyone who can read English should be able to work out that "we" refers to everyone who has watched the Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, and the Bronson film.

All of these four home movies show us that the car neither stopped nor slowed down significantly, which is consistent with the balance of the witness evidence.

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...