the logic of Zapruder film alteration

[Roger Odisio]

20 hours 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?

Your oft-repeated assertion has been ignored because it is not useful. Zapruder is not just one of the films of the murder.  As I said it immediately got national attention.  Life featured it the next few issues. The family eventually got more the $15 million to give it up to NARA. The fatal head shot(s) happened right in front of Zapruder. It is considered a main record of the murder.

Gayle Nix Jackson is right now in court trying to get the original film shot by her grandfather. If it verified the extant Zapruder, why is she having such trouble?  I know she has been told the authorities don't know where it is.

The killers knew the Zapruder film was a distinct problem that had to be dealt with that weekend.  Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters. They were already trying to sell the Oswald-as-lone-assassin-from-behind story,which they had prepared before the murder.  If the public could see the original Zapruder, their story would be dead before it ever got off the ground.

Were they worried about a contradiction later? Not nearly as much.  They distorted, lost, or destroyed lots of evidence. They controlled the flow of information to such an extent that 60years later they have got away with most of it.

But the main reason your conjecture is not useful is because the question of alteration can and should be addressed directly, based on what we have learned.  I offered facts and asked questions.  It would be useful if you would start there with a comment.  

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

33 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Your oft-repeated assertion has been ignored because it is not useful. Zapruder is not just one of the films of the murder.  As I said it immediately got national attention.  Life featured it the next few issues. The family eventually got more the $15 million to give it up to NARA. The fatal head shot(s) happened right in front of Zapruder. It is considered a main record of the murder.

Irrelevant. It is still just one of many assassination film and photo records, and they all form a self-authenticating whole. You cannot alter one without giving away the whole game.

34 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Gayle Nix Jackson is right now in court trying to get the original film shot by her grandfather. If it verified the extant Zapruder, why is she having such trouble?  I know she has been told the authorities don't know where it is.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Zapruder film was altered or not.

35 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

The killers knew the Zapruder film was a distinct problem that had to be dealt with that weekend.  Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters. They were already trying to sell the Oswald-as-lone-assassin-from-behind story,which they had prepared before the murder.  If the public could see the original Zapruder, their story would be dead before it ever got off the ground.

Roger, this is nonsense. First of all, why have shooters firing from the front in the first place if you're trying to frame an assassin allegedly firing from the rear?

36 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

But the main reason your conjecture is not useful is because the question of alteration can and should be addressed directly, based on what we have learned.  I offered facts and asked questions.  It would be useful if you would start there with a comment. 

They have been addressed directly, repeatedly, for decades by the top researchers in this case, the majority of whom reject this fanciful mass alteration theorizing. Given available technology, there is no possible way the Zapruder film could have been altered to the extent some people believe.

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Irrelevant. It is still just one of many assassination film and photo records, and they all form a self-authenticating whole. You cannot alter one without giving away the whole game.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Zapruder film was altered or not.

Roger, this is nonsense. First of all, why have shooters firing from the front in the first place if you're trying to frame an assassin allegedly firing from the rear?

RO:  I'm going to skip your usual blanket assertions and answer this question because it goes to the the heart of their plan. Their top priority was to try to make sure they got Kennedy. They chose multiple shooters rather than a shooter from one location for that reason.  If Kennedy survived, they were in big trouble.

They of course knew that choice would conflict with their Oswald story, but that was much less of a problem, given their control of information and the media.  Multiple shooters was a threshold decision they had to make from which all other choices flowed, including Oswald as patsy. History has shown they made the right choice.

Or maybe Salandria nailed it when he said the killers designed the plan with so many holes to eventually fall apart to reveal their central message:  Yes, we did it, we're in control, and there is nothing you can do about it

Anyway, before you continue on about how all those top researchers in the past "reject this fanciful mass alteration theorizing", you would do well to address the points I have raised now in the original post. Do you have any response to that?

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Anyway, before you continue on about how all those top researchers in the past "reject this fanciful mass alteration theorizing", you would do well to address the points I have raised now in the original post. Do you have any response to that?

 

I wish that those who post clues to Z-film alteration would have done so (and will do so) in a dedicated thread. So that this thread would have stayed on topic.

-------------------------------------------

There are lots of problems with the anti-alteration viewpoint. All the anti-alterationists  ever do is cherry-pick, misrepresent, witness bash, and sweep things under the rug (ignore evidence). And for what? Because they think that in a major coverup the coverup artists wouldn't go so low as to alter photographs? That's nonsense talk if you ask me.

 

[Chris Davidson]

5 hours ago, Robert Reeves said:

@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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert,

Lending you some support for that part of the film.

Extant z411-417 = 6 frames / 18.3fps = 1/3 second.

Jackie can't land her elbow down to the trunk deck(with her rear end above the seat top) and then slide to where we see her in z, 1/3 second later.(Humanly impossible-challenge offered many times before)

Conveniently, the Nix film ends there.

In the extant z411-417 span, there are four quite obvious blurred??? frames. Your z413 perspective study being in the middle of that morass.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I wish that those who post clues to Z-film alteration would have done so (and will do so) in a dedicated thread. So that this thread would have stayed on topic.

-------------------------------------------

There are lots of problems with the anti-alteration viewpoint. All the anti-alterationists  ever do is cherry-pick, misrepresent, witness bash, and sweep things under the rug (ignore evidence). And for what? Because they think that in a major coverup the coverup artists wouldn't go so low as to alter photographs? That's nonsense talk if you ask me.

 

Sandy,

You're more than welcome to remove my "illogical" posts at any time.

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I wish that those who post clues to Z-film alteration would have done so (and will do so) in a dedicated thread. So that this thread would have stayed on topic.

-------------------------------------------

There are lots of problems with the anti-alteration viewpoint. All the anti-alterationists  ever do is cherry-pick, misrepresent, witness bash, and sweep things under the rug (ignore evidence). And for what? Because they think that in a major coverup the coverup artists wouldn't go so low as to alter photographs? That's nonsense talk if you ask me.

 

I'll  drink to that, Sandy. But you may have noticed that nobody but Cohen has responded and he ignored the points I laid out.

One reason I posted the message was to see if the people who assert there was no alteration or they are on the fence about it would challenge anything. I didn't even cover all of the specific issues that  show alteration that have been discussed a lot.

My point is if you don't believe Oswald did it, if you believe there was more than one shooter, or more than 3 shots, or shots from the front, and Oswald is the official story they were going with, how can you expect they wouldn't have tried to alter Zapruder, starting that weekend, to avoid the whole thing blowing up in their face.  There is plenty of evidence that they did try alteration, as well as evidence of the alterations themselves.

[K K Lane]

59 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

One reason I posted the message was to see if the people who assert there was no alteration or they are on the fence about it would challenge anything. I didn't even cover all of the specific issues that  show alteration that have been discussed a lot.

Fair enough, Roger.   I approached my article from a neutral perspective and my conclusion is that alteration is a viable but underdog theory.   I guess that puts me "on the fence."

I hate debate on the litany of specific "smoking guns."   Some are facially nothingburgers, and I can't recall one that is truly a solid proof "smoking gun" in my view.   That said, if you have one or two pieces of evidence that you find especially compelling in favor of Z-alteration I'll provide feedback.

As others have noted Z-alteration isn't necessary to prove conspiracy which is a mark against it.

You understate the implications of altering the Z-film in a way that could be exposed by other media.   I suggest there is a distinction among types of alteration that may matter.   Editing by omission or obscuring can't be refuted easily by other media.   Omission may range from removing a Z-frame or minimizing the brain splatter of the head shot in the Z-film (as described by Dino B.).   Obscuring is a little less clean but we've all seen Whitehead's depiction of blackening of JFK's skull.   It's good evidence, but it's not proof and definitely not proof of malign comprehensive Z-alteration.

True substantive alteration would be refutable by other media; while I'm open to substantive Z-alteration I'm skeptical because of: a) other media, b) the early proliferation of the Z-film itself, c) the technical capacity in 1963 to make timely substantive alterations to the Z-film, d) no clear and evident purpose in the alteration, and e) nothing from other sources (witnesses and evidence) that absolutely proves the Z-film is wrong.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, K K Lane said:

As others have noted Z-alteration isn't necessary to prove conspiracy which is a mark against it.

 

It's only a mark against alteration if your goal is to prove conspiracy. A superior goal is to find the truth. It's superior because the more truths you discover, the easier it becomes to discover more. You get a snowball effect.

If your goal is to prove conspiracy, you might as well log out and go home. Conspiracy was proven long ago.

 

36 minutes ago, K K Lane said:

You understate the implications of altering the Z-film in a way that could be exposed by other media. 

 

Nearly every witness said they saw a large hole on the back of Kennedy's head. I've been saying 40 of 50 witnesses said that. But my numbers are conservative estimates. I think it's probably fewer than 5 who said there was no wound on the back of the head. (I'll find out when I spend more effort formalizing my proof.)

It is statistically impossible for so many witnesses to all be wrong. Therefore, there was a gaping wound on the back of the head. No question about it.

This is scientific proof the the back-of-head photos are fraudulent. (Math and statistics are branches of science.) And therefore, it is proof that the cover-up artist did resort to altering photos!

But what about the Z film? The Z film doesn't show the rear blowout wound. Well, okay, maybe the wound somehow closed up or some other way became dark while Zapruder was filming. That's conceivable. Barely.

However, the Z film show a blob of something -- brains, I guess -- popping out the top right of Kennedy's head. And it's not just a little bit... it's huge.

Not a single one of the ~20 Parkland doctors or nurses saw that huge "wound" when he was treated there. Though they all saw the back-of-head wound.

This is proof the the Z film was altered to add that blob. Which, incidentally, supports the lone gunman theory that the coverup artists were intent on selling.

Oh, and BTW, the black patch on the back of the head is pretty definitive proof on its own. You don't believe so because you have an anti-alteration bias. And maybe you aren't a technically inclined person. But really, to people like me (I'm an engineer) that patch is not natural.

 

36 minutes ago, K K Lane said:

Editing by omission or obscuring can't be refuted easily by other media. 

 

Why worry about what the other media show? Since we proved that Z313 and the few frames beyond that have been altered, it follows that the other films will naturally corroborate that... or at least not contradict it.

I've NEVER worried about that. Likewise, I've never worried about someone proving me wrong about the gaping wound being on the back of the head. Or the BOH autopsy photos being fraudulent. Why worry about things that have been proven to be true? Facts can't be discredited. At least not honestly.

 

[K K Lane]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why worry about what the other media show?

If you rest your case on this question you lose.   I am open and even sympathetic to the alterationist view (sympathetic because anti-WR evidence was quite clearly destroyed).    But to say you don't worry about other media is at least one bridge too far.   

Edited February 12 by K K Lane

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, K K Lane said:

If you rest your case on this question you lose. 

 

What did I lose?

 

[K K Lane]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What did I lose?

 

The argument.

Again, I am completely open to the Z-alterationist argument, but when you say concurrent media don't matter  you lose the argument.

Positively assert what you find compelling about the Z-alterationist argument or we're done.

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, K K Lane said:

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What did I lose?

The argument.

 

I didn't argue with you. I stated some facts.

 

[Roger Odisio]

7 hours ago, K K Lane said:

 

True substantive alteration would be refutable by other media; while I'm open to substantive Z-alteration I'm skeptical because of: a) other media, b) the early proliferation of the Z-film itself, c) the technical capacity in 1963 to make timely substantive alterations to the Z-film, d) no clear and evident purpose in the alteration, and e) nothing from other sources (witnesses and evidence) that absolutely proves the Z-film is wrong.

 

KKL:  I hate debate on the litany of specific "smoking guns."   Some are facially nothingburgers, and I can't recall one that is truly a solid proof "smoking gun" in my view.   That said, if you have one or two pieces of evidence that you find especially compelling in favor of Z-alteration I'll provide feedback.

 

RO:  I can find more than two pieces of evidence that compel a conclusion of alteration (some of them are clear alterations themselves), but the point of my original post was there is a compelling logic that drove the killers to try alteration, and what they did that weekend and thereafter shows that is what they did.

 

KKL: As others have noted Z-alteration isn't necessary to prove conspiracy which is a mark against it.

 

RO: No.  That's just a fact that neither cuts for nor against alteration.

 

KKL:  You understate the implications of altering the Z-film in a way that could be exposed by other media.   

 

RO:  I don't understate the implications of alteration  Quite the opposite. They are very important.  But in 60 years the major media have not even been interested in evaluating whether Zapruder was altered, let alone exposing it.

 

KKL:  I suggest there is a distinction among types of alteration that may matter.   Editing by omission or obscuring can't be refuted easily by other media.   Omission may range from removing a Z-frame or minimizing the brain splatter of the head shot in the Z-film (as described by Dino B.).   Obscuring is a little less clean but we've all seen Whitehead's depiction of blackening of JFK's skull.   It's good evidence, but it's not proof and definitely not proof of malign comprehensive Z-alteration.

 

RO:  There is evidence of all three things you mention and more you didn't. For example, where did that blob that appears on JFK's forehead in 313 come from?  It is apparently designed to depict an exit wound. All footage of the turn on to Elm Street is missing from the extant Zapruder.

 

Looking at all of them, I don't know why you say they are not evidence of "malign comprehensive alteration".  Certainly the intent to distort evidence is malign isn't it?  Certainly those who did the alterations intended the work to be comprehensive.

 

KKL:  while I'm open to substantive Z-alteration I'm skeptical because of:  b) the early proliferation of the Z-film itself,

 

RO: Bootleg copies of the film *after it had been altered*, shown to some people at parties, while Life was hiding the film, meant nothing, as history shows.

 

KKL:  c) the technical capacity in 1963 to make timely substantive alterations to the Z-film,

 

RO:  Yes. they were unable to obscure all of the incriminating evidence with the tools at hand.  Which is why Life went back to Zapruder to pay full film rights and then hid the film for almost 12years as the Oswald story took hold.

 

KKL:  d) no clear and evident purpose in the alteration,

 

RO: The purpose of the alteration couldn't be clearer: to eliminate or obscure evidence that would contradict their Oswald story.

 

KKL:  and e) nothing from other sources (witnesses and evidence) that absolutely proves the Z-film is wrong.

 

RO:  Evidence from other sources is not required to indicate or prove alteration.  But there is some.  One example: the voluminous testimony of witness that the limo slowed down or briefly stopped around the time of the fatal head shot(s).  The extant Zapruder does not show that.

 

But all of these details you focus on are icing.  You haven't responded to the point of the original post.  Which was:  If you do not believe the Oswald lone assassin story, and therefore think there was more than 3 shots, or more than one shooter, or at least one shot came from the front that means the original Zapruder film, which captured the crime, contradicts the Oswald story.

 

What is to be done about that? I argued the killers had no choice but to try alteration (see my original post).  A careful examination of what they did with the film that weekend and thereafter clearly shows the opportunity for alteration.  They did make changes but were not able to obscure what happened.  Hiding the film from the public became the only option.

 

There is both a logical case for alteration and clear reasons to believe that is what they did..

[Denise Hazelwood]

I will point to a few things:

1. Linda Willis's assertion that at least one of her father's slide images had been "physically altered" because "something showed in them that the Secret Service did not want known." She specifically mentioned "trains" that should have been visible. See her interview at https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553 towards the end of the interview. This is corroborated by Jim Towner in his family's Sixth Floor Museum "Living History" who said there was something wrong with one of the images on the museum's brochure, because a "train" should have been visible, but wasn't.
2. John Costella's work in describing various "proofs" of Zapruder Film forgery, including "the sign mistake," "the blur mistake," "the lamppost mistake," "the fast-forward mistakes," "the blood mistake," and "the wound mistake. Scroll down for the individual links: https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/.   
3. I have additional, more "subjective" observations to make about the extant film, pointing to its alterations. They may not meet Costella's more exacting standards of "proof," but these anomalies seem best explained (to me at least) by film alteration. See my article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/zapruder-film-alteration.html. 
4. Note Zapruder's apparent confusion when shown early frames purported to be of his film in his Warren Commission testimony. Ultimately, it is Arlen Specter who "authenticates" the images, by telling Zapruder, "Well, they were (from his film)," not Zapruder himself who authenticates the images.

-Denise