Zapruder Film Alteration

[Jason Vermeer]

I always thought it would have been great to contact a photogrammetrist or a forensic image analysis expert with regards to the question "Has the Z film been altered?". I'm not sure this was done in either the "alterationist" or "non-alterationist" camps over the years but I know what was occuring...a lot of cyber shouting and ad-hominem attacks. Same names too. I gather those experts are hard to get ahold of?

Jason Vermeer

I agree, to me it sems more incumbant on the "alerationists" they are the ones making contraversial claims that have little support even with in the JFK Assassination comunity. Also they are the ones with an economic interest in finding such expert backing for their claims, I'm sure it would increase book sales, wouldn't it have made sense for them or the publisher to pay for such a study if the results were likely to be favorable? Such experts don't come cheap, what's the incentive for Josiah Thompson or other "non-alterationists" to spend their own money on such an expert?

Len, if memory serves correct, this debate began long ago with theories of Zapruder film fakery. Jack white spearheaded a lot of the work. I always indicated then, and now, that this is an important area of research and recommended at that time AND now, that it does fall on the alterationist camp to attempt to debunk their own findings as well as getting expert confirmatiion....ESPECIALLY if the work is being published as scholarly. Are you aware that some of this work can be measured statistically?

I will also add that the non-alterationist camp assumes a similar level of responsibility of gathering photogrammetric and forensic opinion on the integrity of the Z-film in general. Really, our two previous governmental investigations IMHO, could have pursued this route. The non-alterationist does nothing but provoke if they resort to ad hominem attack or other character aspersions rather than data collection and analysis...same goes for the alterationists. Jason Vermeer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

My hat's off to Bernice for a simply outstanding post! This complements hers.

The evidence establishing the recreation of the Zapruder film comes from

diverse sources, including that frame 212 was published in LIFE with physically

impossible features; that a mistake was made in introducing the Stemmons Freeway

sign into the recreated version; that the "blob" and blood spray was added on

to frame 313; that the driver's head turns occur too rapidly to even be humanly

possible; that the Governor's left turn has been edited out of the film; that

Erwin Swartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, reported having observed blood

and brains blown out to the back and left when he viewed the original film; that

several Secret Service agents observed brains and blood on the trunk of the

limousine; that others have viewed another and more complete version of the

film; and that Homer McMahon, who was an expert at the National Photographic

Interpretation Center, studied a very different film on that very night. It is

all laid out with complete elaboration in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

It should not be surprising when the critics fail to come to grips with

the physical evidence of alteration. Take frame 212, for example, which

was published in LIFE. When a camera like Zapruder's pans a moving object

against a stationary background, point features in the background will be

blurred (by an amount that can be exactly calculated). When the camera

remains focused on a stationary background, then point features of moving

objects will be blurred. In frame 212, however, neither point features in

the background nor point features on the limousine are blurred. And this

is physically possible, given a camera like Zapruder's, only if neither the

limousine nor the background was in motion. If this frame is authentic,

there had to have been moments when neither was moving, which contradicts

the film, which shows continuous motion, and proves it has been altered. If

the frame is not authentic, however, the film itself must have been altered.

But either it is authentic or it is not. Hence, the film has been altered.

See James H. Fetzer, "Prologue", Fetzer (2003), p. 22; and John P. Costella,

Ph.D., "A Scientist's Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication", in Fetzer (2003).

Perhaps because the film appears to have become something of a sacred icon,

a lot of otherwise rational persons have great difficulty accepting proofs,

like the one just given, that establish conclusively the alteration of the

film. They seem to believe that a conspiracy that would not hesitate to

shoot down the President of the United States in broad daylight in a major

American city would hestiate to change a cinematic record that would prove

that JFK had been killed by a conspiracy! That is a psychological anomaly

that they really ought to overcome. There are gross features of the film

that should make it all too apparent that it cannot be authentic, including

the lack of response of bystanders--who had come to see JFK and Jackie--to

their presence immediately before them. No where on the entire motorcade

is there a lack of affect in their presence except here. That is anomalous

on any account other than that JFK and Jackie were not present when that

strip of film was taken. A pilot film was apparently taken and then used

to create the foreground. Other indications include that Nellie Connally's

head snaps forward far too quickly to be humanly possible and that, after

JFK is hit, the vehicle accelerates forward, yet the Connallys and Secret

Service agents are thrown forward when they should have been pushed back.

This must have been an effect of retaining footage from the limousine stop,

which a researcher who has seen the more complete film three times has said

was abrupt, causing them to be thrown forward. That appears to explain it.

See Richard DellaRosa, "The DellaRosa Report", in Fetzer (2003), Appendix E.

Anyone interested in this issue should visit my public issues web site at

http://www.assassinationscience.com and scroll down to "The JFK Introductory

Seminar" and take a look at the intro to Z-film research by John Costella.

To me this whole debate is a major distraction from the truth: the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos show convincing evidence for a conspiracy.

____________________________________

As does practically everything else surrounding the case...

____________________________________

[Jason Vermeer]

I would like to point out again, everything Dr. Fetzer explained above would have even more merit if those tennants of their overall theory are verified photogrammetrically and forensically. We have individuals who can support or refute the tennants at the highest level of expertise available to us. Jason Vermeer

[Ed O'Hagan]

Bernice,

Just excellent !

P.S Here is the clip of the head shot which you had difficulty downloading.

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Ed, for posting the head shot. To my eyes this shot came from behind, impacting on the top of the head and leaving a large gutter wound. The autopsy photos and x-rays support this conclusion. So does the nose of the bullet found on the front seat, which was covered with SKIN.

Bernice, I'm glad you're gonna read my presentation. And thank you for your breakdown of the evidence.

But you don't seem to understand. I'm not some guy who came up with a theory. I'm someone who studied the evidence FULL-TIME for two years, and came to some conclusions as a result. You say you are a student of the early testimony. Then you should know that not one of the Dallas witnesses described an entrance on the side of the head and an exit at the back. Not one. They all describe one large wound. If Kilduff pointed to his temple, and Zapruder pointed to the side of his head, and Newman pointed to the side of his head, all within minutes of the assassination, then we should conclude the wound was on the side of the head, not the back. Furthermore, Dr. Clark, the only one in Dallas to inspect the head wound, testified it was a tangential wound, ONE large wound, on the side of Kennedy's head . If there was one large wound on the side of his head it is not any more an indication of a shot from the front then a shot from behind. The Harper fragment, windshield damage, and ballistics evidence all indicate the shot came from behind.

I know my findings will upset a lot of people, but I've been able to make sense of a lot of stuff that no one could make sense of. I'm convinced there was a conspiracy. I'm equally convinced that most of the research community is wrong in their assessment of what actually happened in the plaza.

As far as the earwitnesses, it's important to remember that when Newman and Zapruder siad they heard shots from behind, their backs were turned towards the arcade area, NOT the stockade fence. And I think it was Jean Hill who claimed to have heard a bunch of shots, not Moorman. Moorman said there were 2, then 4, then 3. I believe she's said 3 for some time now.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

... inasmuch as the same general obfuscated configuration is maintained right through to #313, the basic challenge to visual perception remains unchanged...

The picture on the right was cropped directly from Z.311, then enlarged slightly, brightened, and finally changed into black and white to produce the picture on the left.

Ed, I wonder if we need to look at a different version for this study? the frame here is from a set that definitely has been altered (but not I suspect in the way you are meaning here(it's been uniformely distortion corrected and enhanced and smoothed in such a way that artifacts while meant to been removed have been introduced, Also the uniform 'correction' can only be an average and I don't know where on the spectrum of distortions the formula for the correction was derived so it's hard to reverse engineer) I think we need to look at a version that's definitely claimed not to have been altered? (it looked also that in the initial presentation you were not cropping from this poarticular version that you are now using?) Let's standardise prior to moving on?

[Ed O'Hagan]

Thanks, Ed, for posting the head shot. To my eyes this shot came from behind, impacting on the top of the head and leaving a large gutter wound. The autopsy photos and x-rays support this conclusion. So does the nose of the bullet found on the front seat, which was covered with SKIN.

Bernice, I'm glad you're gonna read my presentation. And thank you for your breakdown of the evidence.

But you don't seem to understand. I'm not some guy who came up with a theory. I'm someone who studied the evidence FULL-TIME for two years, and came to some conclusions as a result. You say you are a student of the early testimony. Then you should know that not one of the Dallas witnesses described an entrance on the side of the head and an exit at the back. Not one. They all describe one large wound. If Kilduff pointed to his temple, and Zapruder pointed to the side of his head, and Newman pointed to the side of his head, all within minutes of the assassination, then we should conclude the wound was on the side of the head, not the back. Furthermore, Dr. Clark, the only one in Dallas to inspect the head wound, testified it was a tangential wound, ONE large wound, on the side of Kennedy's head . If there was one large wound on the side of his head it is not any more an indication of a shot from the front then a shot from behind. The Harper fragment, windshield damage, and ballistics evidence all indicate the shot came from behind.

I know my findings will upset a lot of people, but I've been able to make sense of a lot of stuff that no one could make sense of. I'm convinced there was a conspiracy. I'm equally convinced that most of the research community is wrong in their assessment of what actually happened in the plaza.

As far as the earwitnesses, it's important to remember that when Newman and Zapruder siad they heard shots from behind, their backs were turned towards the arcade area, NOT the stockade fence. And I think it was Jean Hill who claimed to have heard a bunch of shots, not Moorman. Moorman said there were 2, then 4, then 3. I believe she's said 3 for some time now.

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

Not at all, Pat, it was no trouble at all; and I am pleased to hear that you found it of some assistance. I sent

the file to Bernice yesterday to have her take a look at it, but unfortunately she had problems in downloading it. I had a couple of questions for Bernice about the clip, so I might as well ask them here and now:

- How does the clip square with the evidence that John Connolly provided to the Warren Commission?

Connally told the W.C as follows:

"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now, facing, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.... Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him."(W.C.R.vol. IV, H-132-133)

- I though that Connally was struck by the 'magic bullet' that went clean through JFK's body after hitting him in the back. Judging by what is shown in the clip that must never have happened, and the first and only time Connally was hit was as is shown in the clip. In other words, either there were two shooters firing , and both fired almost simultaneously...one being responsible for delivering the fatal head shot to JFK, and the other for wounding Connally, or there was only one shooter and he brought down both men with a single shot. My question : It's understandable why the LN community upholds the integrity of the Zapruder film, but if anyone claims to espouse CT beliefs and rejects the Warren Commission report as being a complete and utter whitewashing job, how can she/he then conclude that the release of the film to Jim Garrison must have been to assist him in his inquires as to the probability of a conspiracy.? If anything, don't you think it would have been the direct opposite, and that it was intended that the footage would do nothing more than uphold the WC's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the LN assassin?

By the way, the clip was abstracted from an oldie version from the UK. If you compare it with similar sequences in N.American renditions, you may notice differences.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Ed O'Hagan

[Pat Speer]

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

Not at all, Pat, it was no trouble at all; and I am pleased to hear that you found it of some assistance. I sent

the file to Bernice yesterday to have her take a look at it, but unfortunately she had problems in downloading it. I had a couple of questions for Bernice about the clip, so I might as well ask them here and now:

- How does the clip square with the evidence that John Connolly provided to the Warren Commission?

Connally told the W.C as follows:

"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now, facing, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.... Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him."(W.C.R.vol. IV, H-132-133)

- I though that Connally was struck by the 'magic bullet' that went clean through JFK's body after hitting him in the back. Judging by what is shown in the clip that must never have happened, and the first and only time Connally was hit was as is shown in the clip. In other words, either there were two shooters firing , and both fired almost simultaneously...one being responsible for delivering the fatal head shot to JFK, and the other for wounding Connally, or there was only one shooter and he brought down both men with a single shot. My question : It's understandable why the LN community upholds the integrity of the Zapruder film, but if anyone claims to espouse CT beliefs and rejects the Warren Commission report as being a complete and utter whitewashing job, how can she/he then conclude that the release of the film to Jim Garrison must have been to assist him in his inquires as to the probability of a conspiracy.? If anything, don't you think it would have been the direct opposite, and that it was intended that the footage would do nothing more than uphold the WC's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the LN assassin?

By the way, the clip was abstracted from an oldie version from the UK. If you compare it with similar sequences in N.American renditions, you may notice differences.

Ed, are you saying that Connally was never hit until this sequence? It seems quite clear that Connally was hit at Z-224. That's the one thing Lattimer/Posner et al got right. The Connally testimony is important nonetheless, as it debunks the HSCA and Dale Myers' representations of the SBT. Both show Connally far left of the the door and Kennedy hanging over the right side of the limo. Both are at odds with Connally's testimony, as Connally says he believed he'd get a better look at Kennedy by turning to his LEFT, which is unthinkable if he was truly sitting in the middle of the car.

[John Dolva]

- How does the clip square with the evidence that John Connolly provided to the Warren Commission?

..., the clip was abstracted from an oldie version from the UK. If you compare it with similar sequences in N.American renditions, you may notice differences.

Ed, are you saying that Connally was never hit until this sequence? It seems quite clear that Connally was hit at Z-224. That's the one thing Lattimer/Posner et al got right. The Connally testimony is important nonetheless, as it debunks the HSCA and Dale Myers' representations of the SBT. Both show Connally far left of the the door and Kennedy hanging over the right side of the limo. Both are at odds with Connally's testimony, as Connally says he believed he'd get a better look at Kennedy by turning to his LEFT, which is unthinkable if he was truly sitting in the middle of the car.

a minor point; partly a sense of 'things not being quite right (particularly in timing) is promoted by the dropping of about five frames in this History Channel presentation. The frames missing seem all to be before frame 317 (namely as far as I can see 295, 304, 311, 315 and 316) so the rate of 'drop' increases up to and the Connally movement in question (spacing: 9, 7, 2, 0) and then possibly no more dropped. This would appear to be made in order to promote a particular view point.

This in itself is not an alteration of frames and as such no alteration of information on frames, but an edit of frame rate to promote a particular viewpoint and/or possibly to increase a sense that alteration is made.

Edited December 16, 2005 by John Dolva

[Ed O'Hagan]

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

Not at all, Pat, it was no trouble at all; and I am pleased to hear that you found it of some assistance. I sent

the file to Bernice yesterday to have her take a look at it, but unfortunately she had problems in downloading it. I had a couple of questions for Bernice about the clip, so I might as well ask them here and now:

- How does the clip square with the evidence that John Connolly provided to the Warren Commission?

Connally told the W.C as follows:

"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now, facing, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.... Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him."(W.C.R.vol. IV, H-132-133)

- I though that Connally was struck by the 'magic bullet' that went clean through JFK's body after hitting him in the back. Judging by what is shown in the clip that must never have happened, and the first and only time Connally was hit was as is shown in the clip. In other words, either there were two shooters firing , and both fired almost simultaneously...one being responsible for delivering the fatal head shot to JFK, and the other for wounding Connally, or there was only one shooter and he brought down both men with a single shot. My question : It's understandable why the LN community upholds the integrity of the Zapruder film, but if anyone claims to espouse CT beliefs and rejects the Warren Commission report as being a complete and utter whitewashing job, how can she/he then conclude that the release of the film to Jim Garrison must have been to assist him in his inquires as to the probability of a conspiracy.? If anything, don't you think it would have been the direct opposite, and that it was intended that the footage would do nothing more than uphold the WC's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the LN assassin?

By the way, the clip was abstracted from an oldie version from the UK. If you compare it with similar sequences in N.American renditions, you may notice differences.

Ed, are you saying that Connally was never hit until this sequence? It seems quite clear that Connally was hit at Z-224. That's the one thing Lattimer/Posner et al got right. The Connally testimony is important nonetheless, as it debunks the HSCA and Dale Myers' representations of the SBT. Both show Connally far left of the the door and Kennedy hanging over the right side of the limo. Both are at odds with Connally's testimony, as Connally says he believed he'd get a better look at Kennedy by turning to his LEFT, which is unthinkable if he was truly sitting in the middle of the car.

No, Pat , I am saying that the clip of the head shot is fraudulent .

Here's another sequence of frames from the UK version of the Zapruder film. If you have the software and the knowhow, select any frame showing Connally turning around to his right to look at JFK (and remember he said that by so doing he was unable to see him, but that's not what appears to be the case in this clip), then enlarge it bit by bit and watch as the image of Connally disappears. There are so many examples of 'poor doctoring' in this UK version, that the footage defies classsification even at the level of kindergarten finger painting.

[Pat Speer]

So, you're saying both sequences are faked? I really don't understand why anyone would fake or doctor the Z-film to depict what it depicts. To me, it's a clear depiction of a man being ambushed by more than one shooter... If the government or conspirators doctored it, it would have shown Connally and Kennedy react separately three seconds apart, so that the Single Bullxxxx Theory would not have been necessary to believe Oswald acted alone. l mean, doesn't that make more sense than altering the film and having it still poiint towards a conspiracy?

[Len Colby]

...And they had people poised to grab and alter any movie film of the assassination? ...

"...people poised?" What the hell are you talking about?

Dave - Poised is of course the past tense of poise. Webster's has 3 defenitions for poise (as a transitive verb) # 3 is:

"3 : to put into readiness " so Tim was using the word correctly and in a logical way. He was asking if the conspirators had people standing by ready "to grab and alter any movie film of the assassination?"

What would they have done if someone developed a film that they didn't know about? Just one such film would have ruined their plan and made a conspiracy even more obvious.

Since you guys argue that the film was altered before the stills were published in Life a couple of days after the assassination they would have had very little time to make all the alterations claimed in TGZFH.

When exactly was the forgery made? 1) During the time when the original was being 'developed'? 2) When the dupes were being made? 3) Between the time Zapruder gave the original to the people from Life and when it was published? No, No scratch that you guys claim the whole thing was done that evening!!! So they must of had people poised!

But wait you also argue that some people saw the "unaltered" Z-film that evening.

Ok so what time did Zapruder drop off the film and when did he get it back? How many hours did that leave them?

But wait you also say they had years to make the forgery! I'm confused, so did they make a "quicky" and then make a more extensive forgery? Please clear this up!

Edited December 16, 2005 by Len Colby

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

Single Bullxxxx Theory

Possible wording for Sen. Specter's tomb after he dies a natural death in whatever year:

ARLEN SPECTER

19xx-20xx

Author of "The Single Bullxxxx Theory"

By the way, see the footnotes in "Ultimate Sacrifice" for more on Specter.

Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford--liberal Republicans. LOL!

Remember, Reagan and his putative running mate (in 1976) Sen Schweiker KNEW it was a conspiracy!

[David G. Healy]

...And they had people poised to grab and alter any movie film of the assassination? ...

"...people poised?" What the hell are you talking about?

Dave - Poised is of course the past tense of poise. Webster's has 3 defenitions for poise (as a transitive verb) # 3 is:

"3 : to put into readiness " so Tim was using the word correctly and in a logical way. He was asking if the conspirators had people standing by ready "to grab and alter any movie film of the assassination?"

What would they have done if someone developed a film that they didn't know about? Just one such film would have ruined their plan and made a conspiracy even more obvious.

Since you guys argue that the film was altered before the stills were published in Life a couple of days after the assassination they would have had very little time to make all the alterations claimed in TGZFH.

When exactly was the forgery made? 1) During the time when the original was being 'developed'? 2) When the dupes were being made? 3) Between the time Zapruder gave the original to the people from Life and when it was published? No, No scratch that you guys claim the whole thing was done that evening!!! So they must of had people poised!

But wait you also argue that some people saw the "unaltered" Z-film that evening.

Ok so what time did Zapruder drop off the film and when did he get it back? How many hours did that leave them?

But wait you also say they had years to make the forgery! I'm confused, so did they make a "quicky" and then make a more extensive forgery? Please clear this up!

Do you know what double 8mm film is? Split and unsplit?

Leave them for WHAT -- see directly below

2-3 weeks, 4 optical film lab techs, 2 matte painters, 1 glass painter and its done..... lest you or anyone forgets -- the intended audience for a forgery was the Warren Commission whom saw the film [some of them anyway] in February, late February '64....

Pretty plain your not up to speed -- call Gary! Or read HOAX

Tell you what, you tell me the name of anyone that has seen the alledged camera original Zapruder film or one of the 3 original optical prints laced up in a projector and projected on a screen after February 1964 and I'll tell you when Abe hand carried the film to Kodak/Jamieson... Be nice if this someone could provide a sworn affidavit and a chain of custody log for same film they viewed

Len Colby drones on

[...]

No, No scratch that you guys claim the whole thing was done that evening!!! So they must of had people poised!

[...]

Ah, who is YOU guys? And who said the film was edited that evening?

I need a cite for that, you do know what is, don't you?

[Len Colby]

Do you know what double 8mm film is? Split and unsplit?

Can't say that I do, while fairly knowledgeable about still photography I don't know much about filmmaking. How exactly is this question relevant? Or are you just being a smart-ass?

Leave them for WHAT -- see directly below

2-3 weeks, 4 optical film lab techs, 2 matte painters, 1 glass painter and its done..... lest you or anyone forgets -- the intended audience for a forgery was the Warren Commission whom saw the film [some of them anyway] in February, late February '64....

Pretty plain your not up to speed -- call Gary! Or read HOAX

2 - 3 weeks that's way too long, you guts claim it was altered that evening and that doctored frames appeared in Life a few days later.

"The Zapruder film shows the lamppost leaning slightly to the right. Even though it is only a small lean, it is something that could not happen if the film was genuine.

The angle of the lamppost is another small mistake that the forgers made. Frames showing the lamppost were published in Life magazine within days. Once that was done, it was impossible to fix the mistake." http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html

As for the that evening part see below

Gary who? Mack? Don't know the guy. He's just a name to me. Although you like to insinuate otherwise I'm not 'in cahoots' with Tink or anybody else.

Tell you what, you tell me the name of anyone that has seen the alledged camera original Zapruder film or one of the 3 original optical prints laced up in a projector and projected on a screen after February 1964 and I'll tell you when Abe hand carried the film to Kodak/Jamieson... Be nice if this someone could provide a sworn affidavit and a chain of custody log for same film they viewed

I imagine you'll tell me that no one has, is that good enough? Now you tell me when the location of the original and copies was unknown long enough that evening and weekend for the alleged alterations to have been made that evening or weekend.

Len Colby drones on

Dude you need new material, that 'drones on', 'droned on' thing has long gone stale!

No, No scratch that you guys claim the whole thing was done that evening!!! So they must of had people poised!

[...]

Ah, who is YOU guys? And who said the film was edited that evening?

I need a cite for that, you do know what is, don't you?

"Who is...?" or "who are...?"? "You guys" ARE obviously the contributors to TGZFH

"Film experts believe that a real film of the assassination was quickly altered on the evening of the assassination, using machines that could create Hollywood-style special effects (like Mary Poppins, created in 1964)." http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

ROTFLMHO! - I think Costella wrote that it's from one of his pages on Fetzer's site! LOL

Edited December 16, 2005 by Len Colby