Zapruder Film Alteration

[David G. Healy]

Hi Ed,

Been quite a while -- Nice to see you here, there's a few researchers hereabouts, more than a fair share of those that need attention, ANY kind of attention, too....

Hope you have a nice holiday season!

David Healy

Edited December 14, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Bernice Moore]

Pat:""While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not. As Len suggests, there were no pre-1964 films with inserts and mattes as seamless as the Z-film. As a Valley kid growing up in the sixties, I would make a yearly trek down to Universal Studios, our local amusement park. While most kids were fascinated by The Munsters set or the Western stunt show, my favorite part as I remember was a demonstration on how Hitchcock filmed The Birds. This was state-of-the-art stuff; nevertheless, to today's critical eye, much of the action looks fake. ""....

Hi Pat:

Some thoughts on your post above, you or anyone, if I am incorrect please feel free to correct me..

The Zapruder film we see today, and for the past several years is not the Zapruder......that was Not seen till Mr. Garrison was able to get a copy, which was provided to him by Life, I believe in 1968, and it was a very bad and blurry film copy, I have read many times..therefore it was almost useless in trying to analyse..When Groden's copy of said film was shown by Geraldo on television, it was some better but far from being clear enough for analysis.

The MPI Zapruder film that was done a few years ago, was and is very clear, and available now..But they did cut out some frames, and therefore it is not the entire film, nor are all the frames within such, as Mr. Zapruder stated he had begun filming as the President's limo began it's turn onto Elm St. and as we know, it is cut at that instant and then jumps to see the motorcyle officer in view, and the limo has passed the corner and is proceeding down Elm Street..there are also some other frames that have been cut out of the film..as well.....and some that were destroyed by Life in developing, I believe......therefore in the final analysis the Zapruder film has been and is altered...and was.....in the first place, or rather what is available to us...

If other alterations of the original Zapruder film have been made, as for information shown within now, they did have many years to alter such, it was not as you seem to imply, available to all, immediately in 1963, in fact it never was....for many years, therefore the time needed to have to have accomplished such if they did...and to develop the technology was available to them...

Pat:""No, I haven't read much on flim alteration, outside of a few articles online, Jack White's article on the Z-film hoax in Murder in Dealey Plaza, and most of Fetzer's book. I decided I didn't want to get sucked into that discussion. What's important to me is that I get as many people as possible to agree that the z-film, x-rays, and autopsy photos are firm evidence for multiple shooters, irregardless if they have been altered. What bugs me the most about the arguments for alteration is that they send a clear signal to a newbie or a newsman, for that matter, that the research community agrees with the mainstream media and the lone-nut community that the evidence taken at face value suggests only one shooter. In my presentation I attempted to demonstrate that this simply isn't true! I still have hopes that Fetzer, Healey, Mantik, White, Groden, Livingstone and others will come to agree."

I do not understand here what you are saying ??

The CTrs include the alterationists.....How can they whom have worked for so many years, at trying to prove that some of the films, photos, information and whatever have been altered and therefore proves that it was not a lone assassin, as their work has been to show other shots were fired from other areas within the film..and other films and photos altered........so how do they ever agree with the lone nut community or show the media that the evidence taken at face value supports a lone assassin....?.The evidence does not ,taken at face value suggest a lone shooter....for instance take just those that were the closest to the limo when the President was killed, by what they stated,and what some testified to, certainly leads to more than one shooter.....certainly not a lone assasin...I perhaps missed your point, but did not understand clearly what it was you are trying to say....??..

If you could clarify for me any of these thoughts, I would appreciate such..

In your latest post to Dr.Fetzer, you said.

""What bothers me is that because so many believe the evidence was altered, very few have spent any real time researching what the evidence shows. I just spent two years of my life doing this, basically full time.""

This Pat is what many of us do and have been doing for many years as the information and documentation has become available, no you are far from alone in your quest..there are others who have searched and spent real time, in learning what the evidence shows, as you say...

I do believe some evidence has been altered, just one instance, some witnesses related this information themsleves, that what statements they gave to whomever, be it DPD, SS or FBI, and or the WC, was not what was placed within their reported statements when later checked..just one being Sam Holland to the WC..So within that area alone, if studied, it shows that there was more than one shooter, and a conspiracy..within that said evidence..

I have gotten your new studies re the X-Rays, thanks ,and just want you to know, that I for one, intend to study all and what your findings are along with a friend of mine who is more than qualified, as we have the Horn Research and the Second Autopsy studies in the past....as soon as I get more time and the holidays under control...... and I am very interested, I study it all, as many do..the good reports the so called bad and the same with the books....we do try not to miss anything, if much....I have found through the years there is always some information to be found in everything put out connected with the assassination ....in anyway....

Thankyou....

B..

Edited December 14, 2005 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

David Healy wrote "no burden of proof falls here, Ray -- This isn't a courtroom"

David, this forum will do until a courtroom comes along. We try to be reasonable people, and therefore susceptible to sound argument. Most JFK researchers have neever seriosly doubted that the Z-film is authentic, therefore we see no need to question it. If you could create that doubt, however, some of us might be motivated to investigate further, and maybe find evidence of alteration overlooked up to now. But first you must persuade us that there is real, living doubt.

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

Dictionary.com defines the word 'forum' as follows:

-The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

-A public meeting place for open discussion.

-A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.

-A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

-A court of law; a tribunal.

If this forum "will do until a courtroom comes along" it would seem that ideally it should function as a medium for open discussion and voicing ideas. Ideation is, therefore, to be encouraged and speculation, hypothesizing, and 'grand intuitive leaps of the intellect ' are no less worthy of consideration than are the so-called hard facts of the case. If we behave as lawyers conducting cross-examinations of witnesses, we are doing little more than attempting to discredit the statements of others in order to prevent their input from upsetting the way that we perceive things should be... upsetting our applecarts would be an appropriate description.

We are nowhere near a courtroom stage, and if all we wish to do is to close our minds to other possibilities, concepts, ideas, etc. we succeed in doing nothing much more than discouraging others from posting/contributing/whatever. If we have to tag a name to where we are in our thinking about the JFK assassination, I would suggest that instead of lawyers, we might more profitably think of ourselves as being homicide detectives who are extremeley short on leads, and the case is getting colder by the minute. And lest we forget... speculation, theorizing, role playing, simulation, and betimes even the assistance of psychics, have all been used in attempting to put the pieces together in a variety of murder investigations.

What I fear is that if the 'prove it to me' attitude persists, the overall high quality of this forum will rapidly deteriorate. It has happened before on other JFK assassination discussion boards, and it would be a real pity if the same thing were to happen here. Nor is this the first time that I have responded to this type of thing. On one occasion on another forum , I wrote as follows:

All of my posts have been framed within the context of what is termed a limited response question. In other words, a simple yes/no answer was all that was needed, meaning 'Yes, I can see it/No I cannot see it'. Each and every single one of the pictures was cropped from other pictures presently posted here on the forum. I looked and I saw what was being missed, and when I enlarged and presented what I was seeing, the responses which were were posted went far beyond the boundaries of objective evaluation and common courtesy.

The basic element in the development of a lynch-mob mentality is one of fear, and it always has to begin with some loud-mouth, who thinks he knows it all, screaming out ,"Let's hang the bastard! He's not one of us. He thinks black is white. He's has no right to be here. Let's get rid of him."

Simply put, all of this reduces to the question of whether or not I am accurately reporting what I have observed. I have deceived no one by posting pictures. How would that be possible? All that one had to do was to look and either see/not see. Why anyone would think they are entitled to make demands to suit their own purpsoes, is beyond comprehension. If they cannot see what I have enlarged for them, why do they think they could do any better by producing their own enlargements of those very same images. But what does come across loudly and clearly, are undeniable projections of intolerance, arrogance, self-deception, and plain down-right ignorance. If that's what the quest for truth and justice is supposed to generate, then it's a very sad state of affair indeed.

Empty vessels do indeed make the most sound. On the forums the local resident loud-mouth consistently 'trashes' anything that he sees as threatening to his own opinions. He goes for the jugular immediately. He's first in and last out. He sets the tone and dedicates the remainder of his time to shaping the content of thread topics entirely to his own preferences. He believes only in himself. He cannot possibly allow anyone even to suggest that he might do well to take a second look at things. And I assure everyone reading this that everything I have posted on this specific forum - and shall be posting in the future- is demanding of people taking both their time and that most necessary second look at things, prior to jumping in with both feet in support of any loud-mouth detractor whose only interest is self-aggrandizment and impressing like-minded fellow travellers. The latter forget that what they write to impress each other, is also being read by a far larger second group of subscribers comprised in a silent majority.

Need I observe, that suppressing any and all positive input in support of a particular post that does not sit well with a loud-mouth's perpspectives, becomes a major goal... and God help anyone who attempts to voice support, and they know it and so they remain silent. Therein, and historically down through the ages, tyranny has prospered while people have sat on their hands and done nothing. Victory and justice are not necessarily aimiable bed-fellows. Nietzche told us that victory belongs to the powerful, not to the just and righteous, and it was Voltaire who reminded us in 'Candide' , that if things are really bad, there is no reason at all to conclude that hoped for improvements will come to pass. To put it bluntly, 'ad hominem' attacks on the individual, speculating on his/her motivation(s), and downright insulting attacks on a person's character and integrity, not alone are despicable in and of themselves, but , if tolerated to the point that they become commonplace in their acceptance, point directly to the ultimate demise of the institutions, organizations, and societies which permit their expression.. .and please, no attempt should be made to justify any of it by an appeal to the rights of individuals granted via constitutional processes and/or amendments thereto. Objective commentary and/or criticism is never to be feared , but when it reduces to the level of character assassination, insinuation, and totally self-serving attacks on a very long list of dedicated CT fellow researchers, it's not too difficult to understand that if one dares to say a single word concerning anything that is going to be regarded as being contrary to the resident Divinity's omniscient perception of the reality of His universe, apocalyptic fire and brimstome will immediately descend from above.

****************************

Hi Ed:

Hope all are well.....Been awhile, and nice to see you..

Kudos on your post, you are right....imo....and we know they , whomever

are always around,they are nothing new,

they come and they go.... and need to be ignored....when treated so

is what they fear the most.

They do not come to learn nor to add to the discussions, nor look into

research that others have perhaps presented....

...They come to sound off on how others are wrong..period..

.they have been around a long time,

but then so have we...carry on..

.Best.

B

Edited December 14, 2005 by Bernice Moore

[Pat Speer]

Bernice, while I don't claim to be an expert on the history of the Zapruder film, I do know that the window of opportunity for any kind of alteration was very brief. There is the original film, which was purchased by Life, which had a few frames removed, most likely by accident. And then there is the Secret Service version, which is a copy made from the original before the frames were lost. The film is identical, except for the extra frames. Since the frames of the shot sequence of the Zapruder film were included in the Warren Report's 26 volumes, this means they had less than a year to fake the film. And then there's the fact that the frames printed in Life Magazine within a week of the assassination are all in the current film and all appear consistent with the current film. So, if it was faked, when was it faked, how was it faked, who faked it, and why was if faked? I don't know if this can be answered satisfactorily.

As to your other questions, I'll try to better explain myself. The vast majority of so-called "medical evidence" you will find on the assassination is not medical evidence at all, but eyewitness evidence. Arguing about who saw what and when and going back and interviewing people forty years after the fact is interesting, but not all that productive, IMO. I decided to read articles on forensic pathology, and to find out what x-rays of gun shot wounds actually looked like, etc. And I found a lot of things that should have been found years ago, but were not, due in large part IMO, to so many people spending their energy looking into alteration. One example of this is Gary Aguilar's focus on eyewitness testimony but complete disregard for the absolute deception employed by Baden et al regarding the so-called "mystery photo". Another example of this is David Mantik's concession to the lone-nut crowd that the physical evidence if it has not been altered is a slam-dunk case against Oswald. (I hope that he doesn't really believe this.) And then there's Harrison Livingstone's contention of the missing face in the x-rays, which he would have known is complete bunk if he'd spent one day looking through radiology texts. Ultimately, I believe all these men were seduced by the concept of "alteration", and their desire to catch the government pulling a fast one...

When you read my presentation, I think you'll see what I mean. Thanks for being open-minded enough to take a look.

Pat

Edited December 14, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Len Colby]

ROFL

Why, oh WHY would I debate someone, anyone claiming no knowledge of the subject at hand? That is IF I choose to debate in the first place! I suspect the contributors of HOAX feel the same. Peddle your ignorance elsewhere -- btw, have a nice holiday.

David

You find it easy to dismiss points you don't want to answer.

1) Cite one film made at the time of the assassination that used composite composition as undetectably as in the Z-film. If you can't that suggests that the technology or "know how" didn't exist at the time. Don't tell me to go look at some magazine or book or cite some obscure movie none of us will be able find, it the 'where with all' existed I'm sure Hollywood would have put it to good use.

2) Tell us YOUR credentials regarding composite filmmaking. For all I or the others know you are just a film maker who has read about such techniques. If you could post some composite images you actually made (using technology similar to what was available at the time) that would go a long way to establish your credebility as an expert on the subject. Your reluctance to do leaves one with the impresion that you haven't done any composite work and therefore have no qualifications as an expert on the subject.

3) What exactly are the qualifications of the other contibutors as photo analysts? IIRC the only one of you who even claimed any prior experience was Jack White, a "self-trained" expert with a dubious track record.

4) Rationalize why you haven't been able to come up with ONE recognized forensic photo analyst who backs your alteration claims. If the evidence is so telling I can't imagine there wouldn't be one out there who would want to make a name for himself (or herself).

5) Two of your principal "experts" have proposed ideas that even most CT minded Forum members would find absurd, doesn't this diminish their credibility.

6) You asked "Why, oh WHY would I debate someone, anyone claiming no knowledge of the subject at hand?". Why, oh Why should I or anyone else take a group of people who claim but are unable to demonstrate expertise seriously?

Len

Edited December 14, 2005 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not.

Pat, did you actually ask any photographers or film-makers if it would have been possible to pull off the alterations that the contributors to Hoax claim were made?

[Ed O'Hagan]

To continue:

This thread is captioned 'Zapruder Film Alteration, Yes or No? Those who have already made up their minds that the footage is unaltered, have consistently dared proponents of the alterationist camp to produce the evidence. In that regard the words ' show me' have often been used. Unfortunately seeing does not always result in believing, and in the end it all comes down to the interpretation of perceived imagery. As I stated in the previous post, either you see something or you do not.

To illustrate, I have embedded the following images which were cropped and enlarged from Z. frame#311. and then into black and white .

This is an exercise in visual perception, and right away you may see that you are looking at a depiction of JFK's face in profile. That's also what I see right away at first glance. However, I also see that there is another possible reconfiguration of the constituent elements of the picture that indicates that the image has been deliberately altered to dupe perception.

[John Dolva]

cropped and enlarged from Z. frame#311. and then into black and white .

Ed, could you confirm whether it's frame 311 or perhaps 267 we're looking at there? Also could you mention what it is you see there? I realise you probably wish for people to have their own impressions so a no is fine.

[Pat Speer]

While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not.

Pat, did you actually ask any photographers or film-makers if it would have been possible to pull off the alterations that the contributors to Hoax claim were made?

Film-maker Mark Sobel, who has only spent 5 years of his life filming and editing his movie The Commission, has said publicly that the film could not have been faked as suggested. I have a close friend who is a film producer and music video director, and who is aware of all the visual gimmicks under the sun, and he laughs at the notion the film was faked.

Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, two of the reseachers who pioneered the study of the Z-film, are also skeptical about any alteration. This of course makes them "the bad guys" to the alterationists.

[David G. Healy]

While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not.

Pat, did you actually ask any photographers or film-makers if it would have been possible to pull off the alterations that the contributors to Hoax claim were made?

Film-maker Mark Sobel, who has only spent 5 years of his life filming and editing his movie The Commission, has said publicly that the film could not have been faked as suggested. I have a close friend who is a film producer and music video director, and who is aware of all the visual gimmicks under the sun, and he laughs at the notion the film was faked.

Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, two of the reseachers who pioneered the study of the Z-film, are also skeptical about any alteration. This of course makes them "the bad guys" to the alterationists.

Hello Pat,

Maybe Mark Sobel can laugh his way over here and we can speak to his knowledge of film compositing and techniques for accomplishing same.

Your producer buddy aware of all the visual effects gimmicks under the sun [which I doubt] maybe he'll do us all a favor and drop by too?

5 years ago I tried to get Mack and Thompson for a Z-film symposium, which I wanted to do at the 6th floor, no soap there... Lest we forget Roland Zavada quick decesion to NOT participate in the 2003 UnivofMinn Z-film Synposium.

The BAD GUYS keep on ducking - I suspect it's because they haven't a clue regarding the subject matter... to much VESTED interest in the single bullet theory, which of course is a pure LN wet dream

[Ed O'Hagan]

cropped and enlarged from Z. frame#311. and then into black and white .

Ed, could you confirm whether it's frame 311 or perhaps 267 we're looking at there? Also could you mention what it is you see there? I realise you probably wish for people to have their own impressions so a no is fine.

John,

It's cropped from Z. frame 311. Preferably I would rather viewers came to their own conclusions. Yes/No are both acceptable responses . I would like to give as many viewers as possible a couple of days to have a look at it. Hopefully, someone will report , " I see ................ ", and if it's not a pink elephant or as one guy once told me , a hidden image of Nero piddling while Rome burned, I'll be more than happy either to provide additional information or to declare myself in agreement. In the meantime , and since you asked, I'll drop you a line or two privately.

Thanks for responding , John... and for a quick look at Z.311 please click on http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg

Edited December 15, 2005 by Ed O'Hagan

[Frank Agbat]

I'm reluctant to enter this fray, but I'd like to add a few minor points of consideration. I'm not necessarily endorsing alteration claims. In fact, I'm honestly skeptical of the claims -- but skeptical in a healthy, "need to learn more" kind of way...

That said:

I find some interesting points in the comparisons to Hollywood films. First off, 8mm film (yes, the z-film is actually 16mm, but the imaging area is a pair of 8mm surfaces, if I understand the camera correctly) is not very common in Hollywood. There isn't much film surface with which to work. This ends up cutting both ways if one is attempting to alter the image. The area with which to work is much less, but the reduced quality of the image (even the original) lowers the standards required for alteration to be believable.

In the same way, the poor-quality lenses on home movie cameras introduce errors, are inconsistent, and when operated in "telephoto" mode cause more light loss than their commercial/professional counterparts. This, too, may end up "lowering the bar" for those attempting to alter the film.

Lastly, it is not necessarily valid to compare hollywood special effect with what "theoretically" might have been available those performing the alteration. If one subscribes to the "Government Involvement" theory, the assumption is that any alteration that took place might have access to all sorts of leading-edge technology -- including defense-related technologies. One should note that the DoD had, in 1963, the capability to produce VERY high quality photographic images from insane altitudes, while flying in a plane at high speeds. It could then take those pictures, develope them, optically enlarge them, and read license plate numbers, etc, etc... From a theoretical perspective, one would have to compare leading-edge MILITARY photographic technological capabilities in 1963, not necessarily Hollywood technology.

In fact, it is fairly safe to say that Hollywood special effects have, in their own way, received the normal technology "trickle down" effect from advancements made in the name of "defense spending."

Of course, to make a counterpoint to my own argument (no, I don't need to see the nice men in white coats... yet):

Having the equipment or technology available is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Even if alteration was technically possible with high-end military photo gear, one would still have to know how to do it... This requires not only knowledge but practice. It strikes me as unlikely that there was an active program on the "alteration and manipulation of evidentiary 8mm home movies" by the pentagon...

This, and my *opinion* that the z-film matches the autopsy x-rays and photos (see John Dolva's "X-Rays" thread) lands me in the skeptical camp -- but not so much so that I could never be convinced otherwise.

[Len Colby]

While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not.

Pat, did you actually ask any photographers or film-makers if it would have been possible to pull off the alterations that the contributors to Hoax claim were made?

Film-maker Mark Sobel, who has only spent 5 years of his life filming and editing his movie The Commission, has said publicly that the film could not have been faked as suggested. I have a close friend who is a film producer and music video director, and who is aware of all the visual gimmicks under the sun, and he laughs at the notion the film was faked.

Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, two of the reseachers who pioneered the study of the Z-film, are also skeptical about any alteration. This of course makes them "the bad guys" to the alterationists.

Pat - You make it sound like Sobel only made one movie. Acording to IMDb he has directed 31 movies, TV series and episodes, editted three of those and worked as a cinephotograher and camera operator. Meanwhile Healy refuses to talk what composite work if any he has done.

http://imdb.com/name/nm0811764/

[Len Colby]

Lest we forget Roland Zavada quick decesion to NOT participate in the 2003 UnivofMinn Z-film Synposium.

The BAD GUYS keep on ducking - I suspect it's because they haven't a clue regarding the subject matter... to much VESTED interest in the single bullet theory, which of course is a pure LN wet dream

Dave -

-Talking about ducking I'm still waiting for you to tell me about;

1) Any movies made around the time of the assassination (or even a few years later in light of Frank's post) that were altered in a way similar to the Z-film.

2) Any work you've done (not read about, done) involving composites using technology similar to what was available back then.

-Do you think distorting the truth will get you anywhere: Obviously "the Bad Guys" (Tink and Groden etc.) don't back the LNT or SBT

- The "non-alterationists" say that Zavaada authenticated the Z-film what's YOUR spin?

[John Dolva]

cropped and enlarged from Z. frame#311. and then into black and white .

Ed, could you confirm whether it's frame 311 or perhaps 267 we're looking at there? Also could you mention what it is you see there? I realise you probably wish for people to have their own impressions so a no is fine.

John,

It's cropped from Z. frame 311. Preferably I would rather viewers came to their own conclusions. Yes/No are both acceptable responses . I would like to give as many viewers as possible a couple of days to have a look at it. Hopefully, someone will report , " I see ................ ", and if it's not a pink elephant or as one guy once told me , a hidden image of Nero piddling while Rome burned, I'll be more than happy either to provide additional information or to declare myself in agreement. In the meantime , and since you asked, I'll drop you a line or two privately.

Thanks for responding , John... and for a quick look at Z.311 please click on http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg

Ed, no worries, I appreciate your approach in carefully looking at these things, perhaps by sharing with opposing starting points we can benefit. We need to establish exactly which frame we're talking about.. As far as I have them numbered the image you have cropped is from frame 267.