Zapruder partner : Extant Z-films "nothing like" the one he saw

[Gil Jesus]

Witnesses who viewed Abraham Zapruder's original film at Kodak described what they saw.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/first-showing.mp4

Edited April 17 by Gil Jesus

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/17/2024 at 10:01 AM, Gil Jesus said:

Witnesses who viewed Abraham Zapruder's original film at Kodak described what they saw.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/first-showing.mp4

Those are remarkably interesting interviews, Gil, especially the one of Abraham Zapruder's business partner, Erwin Schwartz, who accompanied Zapruder as the camera-original film was processed and initially viewed.

I've long been interested in Schwartz's testimony in relation to his account (as well as the accounts of numerous other witnesses) of seeing blood, brain and skull blown backwards out of the President's head -- imagery that is not in the extant "original" Zapruder film.

I have had the following, apparently from Noel Twyman's "Bloody Treason," for a good number of years:

"...When I interviewed Erwin Schwartz, I asked him several questions about what he saw on the film when he first viewed it in its original state at Eastman Kodak. [In a footnote, Twyman made clear that Schwartz was referring to first viewing the film in its 16 mm wide, unslit state at the Kodak plant in Dallas.] ...I also asked him to describe what he saw at the instant of the fatal head shot. His answer was very descriptive. He said he saw Kennedy's head suddenly whip around to the left (counter-clockwise). I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "It went this way." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "Yes." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "No; it was to the left and rear." We went over this several times with him to be certain he was clear on this point. He was very clear. Of course. Schwartz's statement that the blood and brains went back to the rear and left was completely consistent with all of the eyewitnesses who said they saw the rear of Kennedy's head blow out and brain and blood go to the rear. It was also consistent with Dallas motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis's testimony that he was riding to the rear and the left of limousine and was splattered with blood and brains...So here we have testimony from a man who first saw the original Zapruder film (he said he looked- at it at least fifteen times over the weekend)...who...saw the eruption of blood and brains in a direction opposite [to] what we now see on the Zapruder film...."

In preparation for this post I did some research and found that Richar Bartholomew published the source interview for the above material on the internet on May 25, 2023, and the following excerpts from that interview are relevant to this subject:

"...Erwin remembers that JFK leaned toward Jackie after the first shot. And the camera didn't stay on him. “It kind of moved,” Erwin said. Jackie “kind of pushed him upright,” Erwin said, and she looked at him as if to be saying, “What's wrong?” Then his head snapped back, and half of it came off. “You didn't see the open skull, but you saw stuff flying everywhere.” Erwin said the debris went toward the back. JFK was turned toward Jackie. Erwin did not see any stopping of the motion of the car or the film. “I don't think it ever came to a stop,” he said.

This motion was seen by Erwin at the first viewing and during his subsequent viewings. “People have asked me, ‘did he go straight back like that?’” Erwin said. “No, he went that way. I mean, you know, because you could see his face after the shot,” Erwin answered....

...Erwin cannot comment on witness claims that the limousine came to a stop because he wasn’t there. The car had not stopped in Erwin’s estimation. When Clint Hill caught up with it, the car was moving. Erwin did not see any indication in the film that the panning action of the camera stopped either. Erwin thinks Clint Hill’s actions were the most heroic thing he has seen. “He literally pushed her back into that seat. Dove on top of her. I mean, if anybody deserved a medal it’s that guy.”

At the first indication that JFK had been hit, Erwin could not tell where he got hit. There was no blood or anything. Erwin always saw the film at full speed. He never saw it slow. The debris flew off JFK’s head quick enough that Erwin described it as “a jerk.” When asked if he saw any debris go forward, Erwin said, “No. Not that I recall. It went backwards, left.” It looked like just one shot, “then you see her trying to get the hell out of there.”..."

'Erwin Schwartz Interview, Nov. 21, 1994'
Regarding Mr. Schwartz's and his business partner Abraham Zapruder’s early chain of possession of Mr. Zapruder's film
BARTHOLOVIEWS | By Richard Bartholomew | May 25, 2023 | https://medium.com/@bartholoviews/erwin-schwartz-interview-nov-21-1994-c86708034449

The takeaways from this, in my opinion, are that just like Dan Rather of CBS and Cartha DeLoach of the FBI, Schwartz did not see the violent backwards head snap in the camera original film (the violent backwards headsnap also was not reported by a single Dealey Plaza witness as happening in real time [Doug Horne discussing this subject speculates that the violent rearward headsnap is the result of frame removal to excise the rearward flying biological debris coming out of JFK's head]).

And Schwartz also repeatedly emphasizes seeing the rearward flying biological debris, imagery which is completely absent from the extant "original" Zapruder film (instead, we see only the black patch that covers the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head):

The following witness accounts are indicative of the rearward flying biological debris we should be seeing in the Zapruder headshhot sequence directly above, but which has clearly been completely excised from the extant film:

__________
"...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..."

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir").
__________
"...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..."

Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara).
__________
"...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...."

Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony).
__________
"...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..."

Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13
__________
"...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...."

Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ).
__________
"...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET.

Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head?

Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING.

Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly?

Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...."

Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs
__________
"...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...."

Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm
__________
"...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...."

Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.
__________
"...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..."

Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329.  

__________

Edited April 19 by Keven Hofeling

[Richard Bertolino]

7 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Witnesses who viewed Abraham Zapruder's original film at Kodak described what they saw.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/first-showing.mp4

It would be nice to have that "needle" sharp version.

[George Govus]

No mention of the film depicting the turn onto Elm from Houston. The Feds claimed Zapruder started, then stopped his film, only restarting his film after the limo was pointed down Elm. Zapruder was certain he had kept filming continuously.

[Dan Rice]

6 hours ago, George Govus said:

No mention of the film depicting the turn onto Elm from Houston. The Feds claimed Zapruder started, then stopped his film, only restarting his film after the limo was pointed down Elm. Zapruder was certain he had kept filming continuously.

I have heard this before but I can't seem to find a verification source. I thought it might be in the Shaw trial transcripts, which I have, but I now can't find where Zapruder said he never stopped filming.

[George Govus]

Good on you, trying to nail that down. Unfortunately, I don’t recall. Could be it’s in the book Fetzer edited. I can check that.

 

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, George Govus said:

Good on you, trying to nail that down. Unfortunately, I don’t recall. Could be it’s in the book Fetzer edited. I can check that.

Not sure about the book, but it's in the video The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (1998) by Jack White.

34:01 [WHITE] Well, what does the Z film miss during the break between frames 132 and 133? The third lead motorcycle, the Curry/Decker lead car approaching on Houston, turning the corner and leaving the Zapruder field of view, the limo and motorcycles approaching, turning the corner in an erratic manner and entering Zapruder's field of view and reaching the location of frame 133. None of these things are seen in the present Z film. But Zapruder said that he filmed the limo turning the corner. You will learn that he was correct. Frames are missing between frames 132 and 133.

From Martin Shackelford's review "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" Rings Very Hollow:

Jack refers to Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony, but Zapruder didn't tell the Warren Commission that he filmed the limousine turning the corner. He said: "I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street." (7H571). Nowhere is he any more specific, and as the film of the limousine begins, it is "coming in from Houston Street." Later (7H573), he is shown frame 185, and says: "Yes, that--there is Elm Street there--this is a corner." And "Yes. This is where he came in from Houston Street and turned there." He is clearly pointing out the corner in the image, not saying he filmed the turn.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

https://vimeo.com/936475992?share=copy

[Ron Bulman]

On 4/17/2024 at 11:01 AM, Gil Jesus said:

Witnesses who viewed Abraham Zapruder's original film at Kodak described what they saw.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/first-showing.mp4

Great find Gil, thanks for sharing.  I wonder if Dino Brugioni, maybe Dan Rather and Cartha DeLoache saw the same one.  Though none mention, like the latter two, the head going forward for a spit second before being slammed back and to the left.

This is so short I wonder if there was more to these guy's interviews originally.  I don't question it's authenticity but do also wonder if you know where this came from or who filmed.  Are their possibly fuller interviews still buried somewhere? 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:55 AM, Dan Rice said:

I have heard this before but I can't seem to find a verification source. I thought it might be in the Shaw trial transcripts, which I have, but I now can't find where Zapruder said he never stopped filming.

 

ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER'S WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY ABOUT FILMING THE PRESIDENTIAL MOTORCADE TURN FROM HOUSTON ONTO ELM:

Abraham Zapruder was adamant in his testimony to the Waren Commission that he intended to and did in fact film the turn from Houston onto Elm street, and Dan Rather also reported seeing that turn in the camera-original Zapruder film.

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

"...Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?

 

Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right.

 

Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

 

Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct. I STARTED SHOOTING -- WHEN THE MOTORCADE STARTED COMING IN, I BELIEVE I STARTED AND WANTED TO GET IT COMING IN FROM HOUSTON STREET...." (emphasis not in original)

 

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0290a.htm

ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER'S CLAY SHAW TRIAL TESTIMONY ABOUT FILMING THE PRESIDENTIAL MOTORCADE TURN FROM HOUSTON ONTO ELM:

"...Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury.

Zapruder: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass..." 

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm

 

ABSENCE OF FIRST FRAME FLASH IN Z-133:

Another indication that the turn onto Elm from Houston street has been edited out of the Zapruder film is the absence of "First Frame Flash" being evident in the film when it starts again after the turn, and the earliest viewers of the Z-film (such as Dan Rather and Abraham Zapruder) described seeing the presidential limousine turning onto Elm street. It's evidence that the turn sequence was deleted from the film, not stopped and restarted by Zapruder. 

With regard to Abraham Zapruder's camera, as noted by Rollie Zavada, First Frame Flash was "a given" and should have appeared in Z-133 (when Zapruder was purported to have resumed filming) just as it did appear in Z-001 when Zapruder initially started filming...

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

ROLLIE ZAVADA REPORT REFERENCE TO FIRST FRAME FLASH:

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

"First Frame Over-Exposure:

The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.

Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll."

Letter of March 14, 1998, from Malcolm Townsley

regarding first frame over-exposure.

https://archive.org/stream/ZavadaReport/Zavada+Report_djvu.txt

 

FIRST FRAME FLASH AT Z-001

 

ABSENCE OF FIRST FRAME FLASH AT Z-133

 

FIRST FRAME FLASH -- THE PROOF OF Z-FILM ALTERATION THAT SUPPORTERS JUST HATE!  

"...The extant Z-film first shows motorcycles coming up the street, then it abruptly changes to the President's limo. The last frame showing the motorcycles is frame 132 - the first frame showing the limo is frame 133. The contention of believers is that Zapruder stopped filming, then started again when the limo was in view.

Due to the mechanical nature of the spring wound camera, the film, due to inertia, cannot get up to speed instantly, and so is moving slower for the first few split seconds... meaning that the first few frames will be overexposed in comparison to the rest of the film. (as they are traveling slower, and end up receiving more light from the open shutter)

Patrick has admitted that he understands this issue. I've cited for Dale's benefit experts who state that this is the issue, and is known as 'first frame flash' for lack of a better term. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE not to have overexposed frames on a mechanical camera, because inertia will not allow the first frame to be moving at the speed that the rest of the film will very soon be moving at.

PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Camera designers work hard to minimize this effect, but it cannot be entirely removed without repealing the laws of inertia.

So Patrick KNOWS that in an unaltered film, when the camera is first started, the first few frames will be over-exposed. He's admitted this.

[And, I might add, Roland Zavada has also stated this... "First frame density difference is seen at ALL tails to head transitions."]

This was the very same issue that proved the 'Alien Autopsy' film to be a fake - as there weren't any 'first frame flash' effects where there should have been - thus proving that the film was a spliced together creation.

Patrick has also admitted that he knows that Z-133 does NOT show any overexposure... AS IT ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE. (Zavada is also on record as stating this... that Z-133 shows no overexposure in comparison to Z-132)

So Patrick has, absent any other theory, proven that the extant Z-film has been DELIBERATELY cut and spliced together.

His first attempted solution was so silly that it's worth pointing out again, just for laughs... Patrick speculated that "Hey well perhaps Time Life damaged a preceding frame to Z133 and never mentioned it......."

Of course, Patrick clearly hadn't had his morning cup of tea, since any splicing that was done on the original film could not magically transfer to the copies of the film.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Now, despite understanding that the laws of inertia were not magically overcome in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and despite his admission that the relevant first few frames do NOT show the 'first frame flash' effect, Patrick has decided to pretend that he doesn't understand these two points, and that for Zapruder, on that day, with that camera, was able to do what the designers of the camera were unable to do... completely remove the effects of inertia.

He does so by pretending that if the COPIES made of the film ALSO fail to show the overexposure of Z-133 - then yes, Zapruder overcame the laws of physics that day, and magically overcome inertia.

He has to rely on the official story that the copies were made in Dallas, and that they are the ORIGINAL copies.

In other words, he's relying on the official story that the film is legitimate in order to "prove" that the film is legitimate. (Henry Sienzant must be desperately holding his tongue on this logical fallacy!!)

Patrick knows full well the evidence that the film was at a top secret film processing facility known as "Hawk Eye Works" the weekend of the assassination, so his theory that the film is unaltered because the copies are unaltered is just silly. You cannot logically argue that the film is legitimate because the film is legitimate. Circular arguments like this are just silly.

But that's the best Patrick can do.

He can't admit that first frame flash doesn't exist - he knows full well that I can cite experts stating otherwise... including the original designer of the Bell & Howell Zoomatic camera.

He can't admit that Z-133 shows an overexposure when HIS expert, Zavada, said otherwise - and anyone can look today and see that it doesn't.

So Patrick has to simply straddle the fence - unwilling to directly contradict the laws of physics, unwilling to pretend to see overexposure where none exists - yet unable to provide an alternate CREDIBLE theory...

He's stuck.

And he's not honest enough to admit it.

*******************************************************
Patrick couldn't explain it, and Patrick runs rings around the morons that pass for Warren Commission believers in this forum. Most of the intelligent ones long since left for the safety of the censored forum...."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uUGc4-cKIJg

 

 

Edited April 19 by Keven Hofeling

[Steven Kossor]

Something was unquestionably removed from the original Zapruder film before the limo appears; the absence of the overexposure evidence is dispositive proof that the limo's appearance could not possibly have been captured at the start of the camera mechanism -- the film had to have been moving at "operating speed" by the time the limo appeared, for the overexposure evidence to be absent.  Haven't seen this evidence before but it certainly seems that the truth is becoming more apparent (incontrovertibly) as time passes.  The truth is the only thing that will let us escape the downward spiral that America has been traveling on, ever since JFK was killed.

[Mark Ulrik]

The first frame overexpose (or the somewhat misleading "flash" as some prefer) phenomenon was discussed to death decades ago. A certain newsgroup blowhard still likes to pretend that, since it's related to inertia, it must be constant and equally pronounced in every stop/start transition. Unfortunately, as shown by Tink Thompson in his Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination essay, the amount of overexposure depends on how long the camera mechanism has been idle. Zavada measured an (obvious) high decrease in luminosity between Z-001 and Z-002, and only a modest 10% decrease between Z-133 and Z-134, but this pattern is consistent with what can be observed in other parts of the film (preceding Z-001).