Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film Alteration Synopsis


Recommended Posts

John Butler writes:

Quote

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.

This has to be a joke, surely? It was the lizard people who did all of this, right? Or was it aliens from the planet Zog?

Did the lizard people fake these home movies before they faked the Moorman photo? No, faking the Moorman photo must have come first, mustn't it, because that photo was shown on TV not long after the assassination. So how was that done? How did they remove the original background and replace it with a fake background, as John claimed on another thread?

And how did the aliens insert a back-to-front car in the Zapruder film, as John has also claimed? Did the aliens do that at the same time as the lizard people were faking the Moorman photo? Who was it who did all the face-mask alterations on the Altgens photo? Was that the aliens or the lizard people? How exactly did they do it?

How exactly was the Muchmore film altered? How exactly was the Nix film altered? How exactly was the Bronson film altered? How exactly was the Bell film altered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On the subject of the practicality of altering films and photos, let's return to something Sandy wrote earlier:

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

I've provided evidence (in this post) that two of the films "were never in the hands of the feds". These two films, along with the other two films, do not appear to show anything like an "abrupt slowdown", let alone a complete stop.

Will Sandy admit that the "abrupt slowdown ... didn't happen"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

This has to be a joke, surely? It was the lizard people who did all of this, right? Or was it aliens from the planet Zog?

No, Jeremy.  It wasn't lizard people or aliens from Zog.  I can see that you have a hard time controlling your imagination.  Come back down to planet Earth rather than Zog.

It was representatives of our government who did it.  These were henchmen of the government officials who planned and executed the assassination.  Personnel, rogue or otherwise, from the CIA and the FBI are responsible for all or most of the film alteration in Dealey Plaza. 

Lately, I have begun to think that the folks at Jaggers, Chiles, Stovall are responsible for some alterations.  I also think that Altgens home base, The Daily Morning News, is also responsible for some alterations.  These two outfits had the equipment for such tasks and Altgens was a master of it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

I have not read any of Adamson's work.  I had never heard of him until digging into the Zapruder affiliations.  It turns out that Adamson knows quite a bit about George de Mohrenschildt and has authored a 10-volume treatise on him called "Oswald's Closest Friend".  A 2004 Reno News article summarizing the Art Bell/George Noory radio show “Coast to Coast,” Adamson states that he became obsessed with De Mohrenschildt in 1992, after reading his 240-page Warren testimony.  He contacted the West Palm Beach Sheriff’s office in 1992 and obtained a copy of De Mohrenschildt's personal phone book for genealogical research.  One of the volumes is titled "Allen Dulles' Paine Must be Let Luce (Oswald's Closest Friend: The George De Mohrenschildt Story, Volume 6).  Another volume is about George's brother, Dimitri, entitled "The Very First Cold Warrior: Dimitri Von Mohrenschildt" who died in 2002 at the age of 100.  One of the book reviews states the following: 

Dimitri founded the Russian Review while he worked for the OSS and was instrumental in the promotion of the CIA's Radio Free Europe.  William H. Chamberlin, a conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, was Dimitri's close friend and allegedly instructed Allen Dulles on how to shape the Warren Commission. 

Adamson describes himself as a historian and self-taught genealogist who graduated in 1985 from Santa Monica City College majoring in real estate and was a postal worker for several years.  He was briefly a member of the EF in 2005 where he described his self-published books.  There is an interesting EF thread in December 2011 about George de Mohrenschildt's "suicide" that gets into the Larry Flynt story and involves Adamson. His style and content come across as unorthodox, and much of his focus is on George Bush, Allen Dulles and The Dallas Council on World Affairs.  Adamson's interviews have been over the phone, as he is apparently reticent about having his likeness put on TV or in print (a picture is attached). 

Gene

23677-01.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2022 at 4:54 PM, David G. Healy said:

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

 

David,

In your post that I'm replying to, you quoted Jeremy. However, in that Jeremy-quote it begins with "Sandy Larsen writes:."  I didn't write what follows that... Jeremy did. So please delete the words "Sandy Larsen writes:."

Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

 

Jeremy,

You are making an argument where you assume that any witness who noticed the slow-down would have mentioned it. That is a bad assumption to make. For example, it's possible that ALL the witnesses noticed the slow-down but only a few mentioned it. The fact is that we don't know how many witnesses noticed the slow-down... we are ignorant of that number. Therefore you are arguing from ignorance.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

In your post that I'm replying to, you quoted Jeremy. However, in that Jeremy-quote it begins with "Sandy Larsen writes:."  I didn't write what follows that... Jeremy did. So please delete the words "Sandy Larsen writes:."

Thanks.

 

done.... hmmm, I know exactly who I was responding to. Software issue, maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I've provided evidence (in this post) that two of the films "were never in the hands of the feds". These two films, along with the other two films, do not appear to show anything like an "abrupt slowdown", let alone a complete stop.

Will Sandy admit that the "abrupt slowdown ... didn't happen"?

 

Jeremy,

I meant to thank you for your summary of film provenances.

I studied the three films -- Nix, Muchmore, and Bronson -- carefully and could not detect any significant slowdown in any. I determined that the Bronson film was useless in drawing any conclusions. But the other two were clear enough to see that there is no slowdown.

So I certainly would have agreed with you that there couldn't have been a significant slowdown. Problem is, the films were in other people's hands and could have easily been "borrowed" by the FBI for altering.

Once I determined that changes could have been made to all the necessary films, I decided to look and see how convincing the statements made by the slow-down-witnesses are. I'd never paid  particular attention to them before because, while it is true that I'm an alterationist on many things, I had never delved into the slow-down issue.

I've now read the testimony of the slow-down witnesses and I find it hard to believe that so many witnesses could have seen a significant slow-down had there not been one.

FWIW, I'm now a believer in the slow-down, that it was a significant slowdown, and that frames have been removed from all the films with the possible exception of the Bronson film.

BTW, I was already a strong believer that the back-of-head blowout on the Zapruder film has been blackened out. The high quality frame that Andrej posted -- the one with a logarithmic color scale -- makes that an indisputable fact IMO

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Butler writes:

Quote

Personnel, rogue or otherwise, from the CIA and the FBI are responsible for all or most of the film alteration in Dealey Plaza. ...  the folks at Jaggers, Chiles, Stovall are responsible for some alterations.  I also think that Altgens home base, The Daily Morning News, is also responsible for some alterations.

That's a good start. We've got some suspects. Now we need some details.

Let's start with the Moorman photo that John famously claimed was altered within a couple of hours of the assassination by having its original background (the book depository) replaced by the fake background we see today (the grassy knoll). How was that done?

It's a Polaroid photo. Can John demonstrate that it is even possible to alter a Polaroid without leaving traces? Once he has done that, can John demonstrate that swapping one detailed background for another equally detailed background could have been done in the limited time available? If he can't, will he acknowledge that he's wrong and that the Moorman photo is genuine?

Once John has shown that the Moorman photo could have been altered, he can try the Muchmore film, which he claims "has had frames removed". I've provided evidence that none of John's above-mentioned suspects would have had access to the original Muchmore film for a long time after the assassination, if ever. Can he demonstrate that the alterations he mentions were possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

You are making an argument where you assume that any witness who noticed the slow-down would have mentioned it. That is a bad assumption to make. For example, it's possible that ALL the witnesses noticed the slow-down but only a few mentioned it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

I've now read the testimony of the slow-down witnesses and I find it hard to believe that so many witnesses could have seen a significant slow-down had there not been one. 

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

Quote

I studied the three films -- Nix, Muchmore, and Bronson -- carefully and could not detect any significant slowdown in any. I determined that the Bronson film was useless in drawing any conclusions. But the other two were clear enough to see that there is no slowdown.

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

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

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

Quote

Problem is, the films were in other people's hands and could have easily been "borrowed" by the FBI for altering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Jeremy.

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

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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

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

When I talk about where the shooting takes place I can put a number to the witnesses. (It is not an exact number since I am to lazy to go back and count.  But, it is a very close number such as 90+)

Here is some info on Marie Muchmore I wrote some years back.  The FBI was aware of her film and perjury.

Marie Muchmore:  A second look at truthfulness Part I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Muchmore was an employee of Justin McCarty Dress Manufacturer in Dallas located at 707 Young Street, four blocks south of the Texas School Book Depository. On November 22, 1963, Muchmore was in Dealey Plaza with five co-workers, including Wilma Bond, who had a still camera, to watch the presidential motorcade. Muchmore stood near the northwest corner of Main Street and Houston Street with her 8 mm Keystone movie camera and awaited the president’s arrival….

Muchmore sold the undeveloped film to the Dallas office of United Press International on November 25, 1963, for $1,000. It was processed by Kodak in Dallas, and flown to New York City. It appeared the following day on local television station WNEW-TV.[6] The film now belongs to the Associated Press Television News, (Altgens outfit) which restored it in 2002. 

Wikipedia is saying in this article that Marie Muchmore is a xxxx and committed perjury to the FBI in her statement dated December 4, 1963.  She basically said two things of importance there.

First, she said she was standing on Main and Houston Streets when the parade passed by and she heard a shot.  This statement had to be clarified so that one wouldn’t think that she heard a shot on Main Street as the President passed by.

Secondly, her perjury statement saying she did not take photographs as the presidential motorcade passed by.  These statements are underlined in red.  Understanding these statements make it easy to interpret what happened in her next statement to the FBI on February 14, 1964.  Because of a possible perjury charge the FBI could have induced her to say anything they wanted.

marie-muchmore-12-4-63-FBI-1.jpg

 

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

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

But there weren't "many" witnesses who claimed [a slowing down].

 

There weren't a large number of people who had a good view of the side of the limo, which is what would be required to notice a slowing-down. Relative to that number, I think a good percentage of them reported the slowing down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

You can see the car for only a short moment in Bronson. I couldn't tell if it slowed down or not.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sandy said:

Problem is, the films were in other people's hands and could have easily been "borrowed" by the FBI for altering.

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Again, just because something is possible doesn't mean that it happened.

 

Right. But either 1) all the films had frames removed, or 2) the slowing-down witnesses were all wrong. Given the fact that the Z film was otherwise altered (to remove the back-of-head blowout), I think that the statements of the slowing-down witnesses has greater weight than the fact that the feds taking-the-films is not documented.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There weren't a large number of people who had a good view of the side of the limo, which is what would be required to notice a slowing-down. Relative to that number, I think a good percentage of them reported the slowing down.

 

That's why I asked Jeremy if he could put a number to these witnesses (minority/majority) of the slowdown.  Supposedly, the slowdown occurred in front to the GK or in that general area.  There were not many people in that area below the Stemmons sign who would have seen this close up from the side.  There were not many people there at all.  This needs to be investigated and Jeremy's invalid proclamation for the minority being insufficient to support the claim of a slowdown is proved or disproved.

The same argument goes for my 90+ witnesses who said shooting occurred in front of the TSBD.  It is not 90+ out of 500, but 90+ out of the number of people were around the TSBD when the p. limo went through.  That is a smaller number.  

How much of smaller minority is the folks who said they saw the slowdown as versus the total population of witnesses past the Stemmons sign?  I would bet that is a small number and may be the larger number.  In other words, Jeremy's majority may be imaginary.

 

Edited by John Butler
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...