the logic of Zapruder film alteration

[Roger Odisio]

If you don't believe the Oswald-as-the-lone-assassin story--if you think there were more than three shots, or more than one shooter, or at least one of the shots came from the front--it follows that the original Zapruder film showing those kind of things would contradict that Oswald  story.  It would expose the story as false.

 

What is to be done by the WC in that case?

 

We know the WC used certain methods to deal with evidence that contradicted their story: ignoring, destroying, losing, or altering it.

 

But the original Zapruder film was a special problem.  The first three ways wouldn't work with it.

 

Zapruder shot his film from right in front of the fatal shots, clearly capturing the murder.  That day he was on TV explaining what his film showed.  Already there was a bidding war between at least Life mag and CBS for the rights to the film.  Life won and had plans to feature some stills in its next couple of issues.  The country was fixated on the murder that weekend. It was the crime of the century. It still is.

 

The killers were left with only one feasible choice that weekend--alteration of the film to try to obscure what it showed so as to keep the story they were already going with from imploding.  Why do you think the killers would not at least have tried that?

 

Their actions the first weekend and beyond establish that they did try.  When Life bought the limited rights to the film, we were told they sent it to their Chicago headquarters to begin work on photo layouts.  That's not what happened.

 

Instead Life immediately sent it to the NPIC, the CIA film lab in DC where key frames were enlarged and placed on briefing boards to get a clear picture of what the film showed.  The killers of course knew Oswald didn't do it.  They needed to find out how and to what extent the Zapruder film contradicted their story

 

As that task was being finished early Sunday morning, the film was sent to the then secret CIA lab at Hawkeye Works in Rochester, NY.  Why was it sent there?  What do you think they were doing at Hawkeye Works if it wasn't film alteration?

 

I asked that question of Robert Groden, an alteration denier, at the Duquesne U seminar in Nov., and he avoided the question by feigning like he misunderstood it.  He mumbled something about how the film worked on by Brugioni was not the original.  This is an important question to answer if you don't think the film was altered.

 

The film was then sent back to the CIA lab in DC that Sunday evening where a second set of briefing boards was done by a different group, unbeknownst to the first group. Why a second set if the film had not been altered?  Why was Dino Brugioni the CIA's primary photo analyst who had worked on the first set, not even told about the second set?

 

Brugioni told Doug Horne that when the JFKA investigation was heating up again in the 70's he mentioned to his then supervisor that he still had one of his boards in his safe. The supervisor became agitated and ordered him the get rid of his board.  He did.

 

If both sets of boards were made from the same unaltered film, if no changes were made at Hawkeye Works, why was it necessary to destroy Brugioni's version?  It's obvious that Brugioni's version contained things the CIA did not want the public to see.  It follows that the films from which the two sets of boards were made were not the same.

 

A simple example is the ridiculous depiction of the head shot(s) in the extant Zapruder that lasts for only one frame (1/18 of a second), shows a brief pink spray above JFK's head and a blob that sprouted on Kennedy's forehead. When interviewed by Doug Horne, Zapruder said he saw something very different:  a mostly white spray (probably more tissue and bone than blood at impact) rising much higher in the air and lasting for several frames.  That was so spectacular, it was something he could not forget, even when talking to Horne about it 48 years later. 

 

While the second set of boards was being worked on, Life went back to Zapruder and paid him more money for all rights to the film, including the right to show it in its entirety as a film. That's where you can get a true sense of what it showed, rather than from just selected slides 

 

But then Life buried it from public view for what became almost 12 years, refusing to show it. Why? 

 

They had to bury the film because, with the tools available at the time, they weren't able to completely obscure what it showed about what really happened.  All those years the film was buried gave the WR story time to take root.

 

When a bootleg copy of the film was shown on national TV in 1975,  Life's job of hiding the film was over.  They sold it back to Zapruder for $1.  

 

That shows what Life's role was. Paying for the film rights was not a money making investment for them, though they did sell extra magazines for a few weeks by publishing some of the frames from the film. They could have made a lot more by showing the film itself while the murder was fresh in people's minds. 

 

But they didn't want the public to see it.  CD Jackson, Life's publisher, was a long time CIA asset. Life was part of the conservative, anti-JFK empire of Henry Luce.  Life was fronting for the CIA throughout the process. 

 

Their judgement to hide the film was proved correct when we saw the gasps from Geraldo Rivera's audience when they saw the altered version of Zapruder, which led to a reopening of the case.  Imagine what would have been the reaction had they seen the original film showing, for example, the actual head shot(s) without the blob appended to Kennedy's forehead.

 

I could add discussion of the many examples of film distortions to flesh out the argument--like the fact that the turn on to Elm Street is entirely missing, even though Zapruder said once he started filming he never stopped until after the murder (correct me if I'm wrong about that statement).  But I wanted to concentrate on whether the claim that the film was not altered can fit the facts as we know them today.

 

The ball is in the court of the deniers and agnostics. 

 

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

I've said it before, but most people just wave it away. How can you massively alter one of the assassination films without knowing if other films and photos of the same scene would surface and immediately contradict the fakery?

[W. Niederhut]

Nice summary, Roger.

The damning Zapruder film evidence was, obviously, suppressed and altered in a high-level CIA op, with the assistance of Henry Luce's old OSS man, C.D. Jackson, at Life magazine.

Coincidentally, C.D. Jackson died of "natural causes" shortly before the WCR was released in 1964.

Was C.D. Jackson, possibly, considered a security risk by the CIA?

Jackson had worked as an Eisenhower staffer.

Is it possible that he was perturbed by the WCR cover up?

[Robert Reeves]

38 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I've said it before, but most people just wave it away. How can you massively alter one of the assassination films without knowing if other films and photos of the same scene would surface and immediately contradict the fakery?

If you wanted to camouflage the contents of the retaining wall/knoll area you could easily over populate the frames from 410 onwards with painted in Pyracantha hedge foliage. No alterations needed to the Nix, Muchmore, etc. 

The Z-Film compared to the FBI recreation (film from Z's position on both zoom and non} I believe filmed on the 11/27/63 clearly show exaggerated Pyracantha foliage displayed in the Z-film. 

 

 Unless anyone can explain how filmed from Zapruder's perch this could have happened?

[Chris Davidson]

Perhaps this reenactment will help:

Don't forget to locate the "Portable Pedestal" too.

[Chris Davidson]

21 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Perhaps this reenactment will help:

Don't forget to locate the "Portable Pedestal" too.

I know it's from a different perspective, but do any of those multiple filmers appear as if they might be in a similar location as the figure in Wiegman?

It might make one wonder why someone was drawing LOS lines on the survey plat involving the Stemmons Sign.

[Chris Davidson]

And speaking of filming from back there, how much of a"shift/angle" change in the sign would occur when compared to the extant film?

Can you locate these people using the red arrows from the Portable Pedestal frame?

 

 

[Robert Reeves]

@Chris Davidson those 2 faint lines on the survey map you posted, from whose survey map are they? I am curious as to where those lines originate 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

And speaking of filming from back there, how much of a"shift/angle" change in the sign would occur when compared to the extant film?

Can you locate these people using the red arrows from the Portable Pedestal frame?

 

 

Below,

Just imagine adding a sign post to the left side of the damaged extant frame, using the same distance relationship between the "red arrowed" post and the right side post.

That would be a match to what is seen in the reenactment frame from the previous post(obviously rotated), where the background tree lands in between and basically centered within the two posts.

 

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Robert Reeves said:

@Chris Davidson those 2 faint lines on the survey map you posted, from whose survey map are they? I am curious as to where those lines originate 

 

 

Received from Tom Purvis via Robert West.

[Robert Reeves]

30 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Below,

Just imagine adding a sign post to the left side of the damaged extant frame, using the same distance relationship between the "red arrowed" post and the right side post.

That would be a match to what is seen in the reenactment frame from the previous post(obviously rotated), where the background tree lands in between and basically centered within the two posts.

 

Creating a false zoomed effect?

[Chris Davidson]

Might just make you wonder why the limo doesn't follow the same arc especially coming out from behind the sign.

 

[Chris Davidson]

And, since the title of the topic has to do with logic, wouldn't it be logical to allow the Professional Surveyor Robert West to do his job.

First testify for the WC which he wasn't called to do.

Yet, when called in the Clay Shaw trial, the powers that be didn't want the truth revealed. Why not?

Of course, via Tom's conversations with Robert, West knew they were up to no good.

Kind of makes you wonder why CE884 has the limo traveling at 2.24mph via z161-166 or 3.74mph via z168-171(depending on which CE884 version is being referenced) when the extant film clearly shows it was not.

Wouldn't it be logical to find out why?

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

8 hours ago, Robert Reeves said:

Creating a false zoomed effect?

Referring to sizes, what version of this limo among these four choices (the fourth being the transparent combo of the top/bottom frames) best represents what is seen in the extant, full zoomed??? film, not including what's between the sprocket holes?

[Robert Reeves]

@Chris Davidson This guy dead central in the turnpike sign at the top of the steps in the FBI's recreation. What do you make of him? If you were to try and raise the level of the limo height/length you'd need some perspective, maybe if a human reference is needed, especially if one or two is needed to be eliminated from the foreground. Specifically for the frames beginning to come into sight towards the wall/knoll. Because the film also has to transcend back into non-zoomed. Back into the original z-film untouched frames?

I noticed looking at z413 an area of the frame that was odd. yellow circled below. 

I was playing around overlaying the infamous Shaneyfelt recreation exhibit onto the supposed Z413 frame. I stumbled upon this. Like I said I don't have the technical knowledge to know precisely how this was all done. I just pieced this together from a lot of the FBI recreations.

The problem is when explaining this to people: z413 frame is so garbled with detail, specifically the pyracantha bushes. You easily get lost in the painted in non-reality.

For the sake of making this easy I crop the image

cropped horizontally below

cropped vertically below

Bringing the yellow circled area into focus

So using this area in the bottom right side of the z413 frame

I noticed the symmetry of the area flashing above. An almost perfect rectangle. So I decided to see if the turnpike sign of the FBI recreation starring the guy in the suit would fit inside the rectangle. 

I am unable to enlarge the gif as it loses way too much detail, plus size of the file is huge.

1. the shading of the darkened underpass shadow seen in the FBI recreation matches in to beige/brown of the central grassy reservation in elm st in z413. 2. The underpass concrete railing fits along the the central grassy reservation area. 3. The dark tree trunk aligns with the large vertical bush branch we see on the right side of the 413 frame.

The symmetry of the smaller fbi recreation frame when overlaid with the full z413 frame it aligns. How logical that the turnpike sign fits neatly into the rectangle shape gap whilst the background underpass concrete railing aligns to the upper line of the central grass area. The lower line of the curb aligns along its original curb line seen in the FBI recreation. What are the chances? 

 

I don't have all the files on this pc so I am unable to show more details right now (there are more interesting oddities). Am I seeing too much in this? Can anyone explain why several areas align symmetrically? They shouldn't really. Or am I missing something? I welcome any insight. 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by Robert Reeves