Zapruder, Four questions..

[Len Colby]

debunk, nonsense! change your angle of view -- well now, THAT's real specfic for you!

______________

READ the book! THEN get back to me! Btw, you haven't argued with anyone that I recall, there's absolutely no basis in considering ANY of your ramblings, scientific - so why argue...? Get the varsity in here you guy's sheesh!

You brush my points off but don't meaningfully reply.

You say the technology and know how to make the alleged alterations existed in 1963 but are unable to cite a single movie from that period to back your claim.

You fail to explain why the plotters would have altered the film in such a complicated fashion, Why move Mary Moorman? Why shoot the background on a different street? If the background really was shot on a different street how come your team could only find 2 very small discrepancies?

As for Costella's lamppost fallacy I can't specify the difference in the angle of view because I don't have the data. Costella doesn't specify what the difference is between the angle of the post in the 2 images is so maybe you should e-mail him and ask him to be more specific.

Are you disputing that the apparent angle of the lamppost would not different for people at opposite ends of the pedestal? Why is the angle of the post in my photos not the same?

As for the supposed lack of pincushion distortion in the highway sign, what program did Costella use? Was it one of his own design or one that is commercially available?

[Len Colby]

I've asked some of these questions before but haven't gotten straight answers from any of the contributors to TGZFH so I rephrased them. Others are being asked for the first time.

In TGZFH it is alleged the plotters altered the movie in a very complex fashion. They pre-filmed the background on a different street and then doctored it to look like Elm St. in Dealy Plaza.

Amazingly this was done so perfectly that after overlaying Z-frames on stills of the plaza John Costella only detected two small anomalies. Everything else lined up. How was it possible to alter a film of another street in 1963 so perfectly that even +42 years later using computer technology that only two small inconsistencies can be found? This begs the question – Why not just film Elm St. on the real Elm St.?

The authors not only allege that Zapruder didn't really film the assassination but that no one: not `Mr. Z' nor Marylyn Stizman nor anyone else was on the DP pedestal. The plotters then had to alter all photos and films of the pedestal to show them there and they even faked photos of them near the pedestal after the assassination. – Since according to this theory Z & S were "in on" the plot why not have one of them film it or at least "put them on a (the) pedestal"? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier? What would they have done if someone had photos or films that clearly showed no one there?

If the images of the limo weren't filmed from the pedestal where were they filmed from? Shouldn't this have created perspective errors that Costella, who Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the (Zapruder) film" and a `specialist' in optics, and White should have been able to detect? Why film it from one location and say it was filmed from another?

What was the point of moving Moorman from the street to the grass?

Before handing over the original film and copies to the Secret

Service and Life magazine Zapruder showed the unaltered film to several people including Dan Rather and other reporters, family friends and 14 employees of the Dallas Kodak lab. Why would he do this if he were part of the plot to produce an altered film of the assassination?

I found this "timeline" for the Z- film. Are these times correct? Note that this comes from the Fetzer friendly Della Rosa site and is based on one of Fetzer's books

My question to Healy, White, Fetzer and Costalla is this how did they have time to do it? If it took 1.75 hours to develop Kodakchrome then to have the altered version ready by 3 AM they would have had to have finished the editing and copying by 1:15. So they had only 3 hours 15 minutes (10 PM - 1:15 AM) to get the film from Andrews to the NPIC, review it, make all the changes and make the altered copy. Let's not forget that they would be only able to review their work after developing the copies. If they didn't get everything right the first time the timing gets very complicated. I have done much simpler video editing using far more modern technology and the timing seems hardly realistic. Costella said they "…cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did". Let's not forget that Healy said earlier that these alterations would have taken a few weeks.

Of course Healy and White have yet to cite a single example of a movie from the period with such extensive special effects.

If it is theorized that move extensive alterations were done later how did the CIA switch all of Life's copies? How could they have been sure no secret copies were made? When I worked in a photo lab we made copies of stuff we found interesting all the time. If Life was "in on it" why did they publish an article calling for the assassination to be reinvestigated?

Also as far as I know there is no record of their being a

Kodakchrome lab at the NPIC or anywhere else near DC. Is there any evidence there was one. Even today Kodakchrome can only be developed at a handful of Kodak labs and one or two private ones.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/z_timetable.htm

Zapruder Film Timeline

22 Nov 63

12:30P CST JFK shot; Zapruder films it

o Zapruder returns to his office in Dal-Tex Bldg

o Zapruder calls Dallas FBI office

o Zapruder took his camera to WFAA-TV in the hope that they

could process the film (they couldn't)

o Zapruder was interviewed on air by Jay Watson

o Forrest V. Sorrels, head of Secret Service in Dallas

accompanied Zapruder from the interview

o Zapruder 's film was taken to Eastman Kodak lab across from

Love Field for processing

o film was developed using K-14 process

o processing took 1.75 hours

o Zapruder and Sorrells went to Jamieson Film Co. on Bryant St. in Dallas who made 3 copies (contact prints) of the original film

(Shaeffer's opinion that a Bell & Howell model J made the contact prints rather than optical prints. An optical printer omits any photographic scenery in the sprocket hole area; a contact printer does not. However, Bruce Jamieson told author Noel Twyman the copies were made with an optical printer).

4:00P CST o Copies completed.

6:00P CST o Richard Stolley of Life Magazine learned of the Z

film from part time Life reporter Patsy Swank who called him from DPD headquarters.

o Stolley began calling Zapruder 's residence in 15 minute intervals finally reaching him at 11:00P CST

9:30P EST o The original film and at least 1 copy are flown from Love Field in Dallas to Andrews AFB in Camp Springs Md, 1,307 miles away.

10:00P EST o The films are taken to the National Photographic

Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Suitland Md, 8 miles from Andrews AFB.

o CIA then had the film and re-processed it -- the original was reviewed and at least partially edited

o A modified camera having similar characteristics to Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera made a duplicate copy to replace the original.

o 3 copies were made using a standard optical printer

23 Nov 63

3:00A EST o Editing and copying completed at NPIC

3:20A EST o Films depart Andrews AFB

6:40A CST o Films arrive @ Love Field in Dallas

7:00A CST o Films arrive at Zapruder's office

8:00A CST o Stolley arrived at Zapruder 's office an hour early; buys certain rights to the Z film for Life Magazine

9:00A CST o Zapruder Film was shown at Zapruder 's office by the Secret Service to a small press corps including Dan Rather of CBS and reps from the Saturday Evening Post and the Associated Press.

10:00A CST o Stolley left Zapruder 's office with the duplicate original and 1 copy and sent them to the R R Donnelly Graphics Co Life lab in Chicago.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

I've asked some of these questions before but haven't gotten straight answers from any of the contributors to TGZFH so I rephrased them. Others are being asked for the first time.

In TGZFH it is alleged the plotters altered the movie in a very complex fashion. They pre-filmed the background on a different street and then doctored it to look like Elm St. in Dealy Plaza.

Amazingly this was done so perfectly that after overlaying Z-frames on stills of the plaza John Costella only detected two small anomalies. Everything else lined up. How was it possible to alter a film of another street in 1963 so perfectly that even +42 years later using computer technology that only two small inconsistencies can be found? This begs the question – Why not just film Elm St. on the real Elm St.?

The authors not only allege that Zapruder didn't really film the assassination but that no one: not `Mr. Z' nor Marylyn Stizman nor anyone else was on the DP pedestal. The plotters then had to alter all photos and films of the pedestal to show them there and they even faked photos of them near the pedestal after the assassination. – Since according to this theory Z & S were "in on" the plot why not have one of them film it or at least "put them on a (the) pedestal"? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier? What would they have done if someone had photos or films that clearly showed no one there?

If the images of the limo weren't filmed from the pedestal where were they filmed from? Shouldn't this have created perspective errors that Costella, who Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the (Zapruder) film" and a `specialist' in optics, and White should have been able to detect? Why film it from one location and say it was filmed from another?

What was the point of moving Moorman from the street to the grass?

Before handing over the original film and copies to the Secret

Service and Life magazine Zapruder showed the unaltered film to several people including Dan Rather and other reporters, family friends and 14 employees of the Dallas Kodak lab. Why would he do this if he were part of the plot to produce an altered film of the assassination?

I found this "timeline" for the Z- film. Are these times correct? Note that this comes from the Fetzer friendly Della Rosa site and is based on one of Fetzer's books

My question to Healy, White, Fetzer and Costalla is this how did they have time to do it? If it took 1.75 hours to develop Kodakchrome then to have the altered version ready by 3 AM they would have had to have finished the editing and copying by 1:15. So they had only 3 hours 15 minutes (10 PM - 1:15 AM) to get the film from Andrews to the NPIC, review it, make all the changes and make the altered copy. Let's not forget that they would be only able to review their work after developing the copies. If they didn't get everything right the first time the timing gets very complicated. I have done much simpler video editing using far more modern technology and the timing seems hardly realistic. Costella said they "…cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did". Let's not forget that Healy said earlier that these alterations would have taken a few weeks.

Of course Healy and White have yet to cite a single example of a movie from the period with such extensive special effects.

If it is theorized that move extensive alterations were done later how did the CIA switch all of Life's copies? How could they have been sure no secret copies were made? When I worked in a photo lab we made copies of stuff we found interesting all the time. If Life was "in on it" why did they publish an article calling for the assassination to be reinvestigated?

Also as far as I know there is no record of their being a

Kodakchrome lab at the NPIC or anywhere else near DC. Is there any evidence there was one. Even today Kodakchrome can only be developed at a handful of Kodak labs and one or two private ones.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/z_timetable.htm

Zapruder Film Timeline

22 Nov 63

12:30P CST JFK shot; Zapruder films it

o Zapruder returns to his office in Dal-Tex Bldg

o Zapruder calls Dallas FBI office

o Zapruder took his camera to WFAA-TV in the hope that they

could process the film (they couldn't)

o Zapruder was interviewed on air by Jay Watson

o Forrest V. Sorrels, head of Secret Service in Dallas

accompanied Zapruder from the interview

o Zapruder 's film was taken to Eastman Kodak lab across from

Love Field for processing

o film was developed using K-14 process

o processing took 1.75 hours

o Zapruder and Sorrells went to Jamieson Film Co. on Bryant St. in Dallas who made 3 copies (contact prints) of the original film

(Shaeffer's opinion that a Bell & Howell model J made the contact prints rather than optical prints. An optical printer omits any photographic scenery in the sprocket hole area; a contact printer does not. However, Bruce Jamieson told author Noel Twyman the copies were made with an optical printer).

4:00P CST o Copies completed.

6:00P CST o Richard Stolley of Life Magazine learned of the Z

film from part time Life reporter Patsy Swank who called him from DPD headquarters.

o Stolley began calling Zapruder 's residence in 15 minute intervals finally reaching him at 11:00P CST

9:30P EST o The original film and at least 1 copy are flown from Love Field in Dallas to Andrews AFB in Camp Springs Md, 1,307 miles away.

10:00P EST o The films are taken to the National Photographic

Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Suitland Md, 8 miles from Andrews AFB.

o CIA then had the film and re-processed it -- the original was reviewed and at least partially edited

o A modified camera having similar characteristics to Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera made a duplicate copy to replace the original.

o 3 copies were made using a standard optical printer

23 Nov 63

3:00A EST o Editing and copying completed at NPIC

3:20A EST o Films depart Andrews AFB

6:40A CST o Films arrive @ Love Field in Dallas

7:00A CST o Films arrive at Zapruder's office

8:00A CST o Stolley arrived at Zapruder 's office an hour early; buys certain rights to the Z film for Life Magazine

9:00A CST o Zapruder Film was shown at Zapruder 's office by the Secret Service to a small press corps including Dan Rather of CBS and reps from the Saturday Evening Post and the Associated Press.

10:00A CST o Stolley left Zapruder 's office with the duplicate original and 1 copy and sent them to the R R Donnelly Graphics Co Life lab in Chicago.

When Colby's initial paragraph is full of misstatements, why should

we bother to reply to him? He says:

In TGZFH it is alleged the plotters altered the movie in a very complex fashion. They pre-filmed the background on a different street and then doctored it to look like Elm St. in Dealy Plaza.

A DIFFERENT STREET????

Nowhere in the book does anyone refer to filming the pilot film

on a DIFFERENT STREET! That would make NO SENSE!!!! Apparently

the pilot film was taken from the Zapruder pedestal perhaps

20 minutes before the motorcade arrival. It was NOT doctored,

but shows the crowd as they were 20 minutes before the arrival

of the limo. That is why the spectators on the north sidewalk

SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO EMOTION NOR MOVEMENT DESPITE

THE PRESIDENT PASSING BY. NOBODY WAVES, NOBODY

MOVES. This is completely abnormal.

If Colby wonders why his asinine challenges go unanswered, he should

consider the ineptness of his questions.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

I've asked some of these questions before but haven't gotten straight answers from any of the contributors to TGZFH so I rephrased them. Others are being asked for the first time.

In TGZFH it is alleged the plotters altered the movie in a very complex fashion. They pre-filmed the background on a different street and then doctored it to look like Elm St. in Dealy Plaza.

Amazingly this was done so perfectly that after overlaying Z-frames on stills of the plaza John Costella only detected two small anomalies. Everything else lined up. How was it possible to alter a film of another street in 1963 so perfectly that even +42 years later using computer technology that only two small inconsistencies can be found? This begs the question – Why not just film Elm St. on the real Elm St.?

The authors not only allege that Zapruder didn't really film the assassination but that no one: not `Mr. Z' nor Marylyn Stizman nor anyone else was on the DP pedestal. The plotters then had to alter all photos and films of the pedestal to show them there and they even faked photos of them near the pedestal after the assassination. – Since according to this theory Z & S were "in on" the plot why not have one of them film it or at least "put them on a (the) pedestal"? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier? What would they have done if someone had photos or films that clearly showed no one there?

If the images of the limo weren't filmed from the pedestal where were they filmed from? Shouldn't this have created perspective errors that Costella, who Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the (Zapruder) film" and a `specialist' in optics, and White should have been able to detect? Why film it from one location and say it was filmed from another?

What was the point of moving Moorman from the street to the grass?

Before handing over the original film and copies to the Secret

Service and Life magazine Zapruder showed the unaltered film to several people including Dan Rather and other reporters, family friends and 14 employees of the Dallas Kodak lab. Why would he do this if he were part of the plot to produce an altered film of the assassination?

I found this "timeline" for the Z- film. Are these times correct? Note that this comes from the Fetzer friendly Della Rosa site and is based on one of Fetzer's books

My question to Healy, White, Fetzer and Costalla is this how did they have time to do it? If it took 1.75 hours to develop Kodakchrome then to have the altered version ready by 3 AM they would have had to have finished the editing and copying by 1:15. So they had only 3 hours 15 minutes (10 PM - 1:15 AM) to get the film from Andrews to the NPIC, review it, make all the changes and make the altered copy. Let's not forget that they would be only able to review their work after developing the copies. If they didn't get everything right the first time the timing gets very complicated. I have done much simpler video editing using far more modern technology and the timing seems hardly realistic. Costella said they "…cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did". Let's not forget that Healy said earlier that these alterations would have taken a few weeks.

Of course Healy and White have yet to cite a single example of a movie from the period with such extensive special effects.

If it is theorized that move extensive alterations were done later how did the CIA switch all of Life's copies? How could they have been sure no secret copies were made? When I worked in a photo lab we made copies of stuff we found interesting all the time. If Life was "in on it" why did they publish an article calling for the assassination to be reinvestigated?

Also as far as I know there is no record of their being a

Kodakchrome lab at the NPIC or anywhere else near DC. Is there any evidence there was one. Even today Kodakchrome can only be developed at a handful of Kodak labs and one or two private ones.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/z_timetable.htm

Zapruder Film Timeline

22 Nov 63

12:30P CST JFK shot; Zapruder films it

o Zapruder returns to his office in Dal-Tex Bldg

o Zapruder calls Dallas FBI office

o Zapruder took his camera to WFAA-TV in the hope that they

could process the film (they couldn't)

o Zapruder was interviewed on air by Jay Watson

o Forrest V. Sorrels, head of Secret Service in Dallas

accompanied Zapruder from the interview

o Zapruder 's film was taken to Eastman Kodak lab across from

Love Field for processing

o film was developed using K-14 process

o processing took 1.75 hours

o Zapruder and Sorrells went to Jamieson Film Co. on Bryant St. in Dallas who made 3 copies (contact prints) of the original film

(Shaeffer's opinion that a Bell & Howell model J made the contact prints rather than optical prints. An optical printer omits any photographic scenery in the sprocket hole area; a contact printer does not. However, Bruce Jamieson told author Noel Twyman the copies were made with an optical printer).

4:00P CST o Copies completed.

6:00P CST o Richard Stolley of Life Magazine learned of the Z

film from part time Life reporter Patsy Swank who called him from DPD headquarters.

o Stolley began calling Zapruder 's residence in 15 minute intervals finally reaching him at 11:00P CST

9:30P EST o The original film and at least 1 copy are flown from Love Field in Dallas to Andrews AFB in Camp Springs Md, 1,307 miles away.

10:00P EST o The films are taken to the National Photographic

Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Suitland Md, 8 miles from Andrews AFB.

o CIA then had the film and re-processed it -- the original was reviewed and at least partially edited

o A modified camera having similar characteristics to Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera made a duplicate copy to replace the original.

o 3 copies were made using a standard optical printer

23 Nov 63

3:00A EST o Editing and copying completed at NPIC

3:20A EST o Films depart Andrews AFB

6:40A CST o Films arrive @ Love Field in Dallas

7:00A CST o Films arrive at Zapruder's office

8:00A CST o Stolley arrived at Zapruder 's office an hour early; buys certain rights to the Z film for Life Magazine

9:00A CST o Zapruder Film was shown at Zapruder 's office by the Secret Service to a small press corps including Dan Rather of CBS and reps from the Saturday Evening Post and the Associated Press.

10:00A CST o Stolley left Zapruder 's office with the duplicate original and 1 copy and sent them to the R R Donnelly Graphics Co Life lab in Chicago.

time to do WHAT? Extract a few frames for early LIFE publication? btw, you got 5 hours from the time the prints were completed till the film was on the way to WASHington that evening what happened during those hours? -- what film was screened the next day, original or dupe - split version or the unsplit version of the film. Stolley and Dan Rather saw what? Split or unsplit version?

Ducks in a row Mr. Colby -- ducks in a row.....

Edited January 8, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

When Colby's initial paragraph is full of misstatements, why should

we bother to reply to him? He says:

In TGZFH it is alleged the plotters altered the movie in a very

complex fashion. They pre-filmed the background on a different

street and then doctored it to look like Elm St. in Dealy Plaza.

A DIFFERENT STREET????

Nowhere in the book does anyone refer to filming the pilot film

on a DIFFERENT STREET! That would make NO SENSE!!!!

Jack – I agree with you 100 % it doesn't make any sense but that is the implication of two of Costella's analysis. "The Sign Mistake" (

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/sign.html

) and "The Lamppost Mistake" he points to what he claims are anomalies in these items as they appear in the Z-film. This proves he says that that they were "pasted in". In the second article he claims that the Elm Street seen in the Z-film is not the "real Elm Street"

The sign:

When you look at Zapruder's film, a large road sign blocks the view of the President when he first gets shot

…

When scientists removed the pincushion effect from the film, the road sign gave them a surprise: it bent and twisted as it traveled across the bottom of the film!

A real sign

would not do this. When the pincushion effect is removed, a real sign would just sit there, and line up with the background.

…

The road sign is another mistake made by the forgers.

They pasted a perfectly rectangular sign into the film frames,

without realizing that they should have included the pincushion effect.

The lamppost:

To check that the Elm Street shown in the Zapruder film agrees with

the real Elm Street

in Dallas, Texas, scientists made use of photographs taken in 2002, as well as photographs taken in the week after the assassination by the Dallas police, together with precise survey maps of the area, to construct a panoramic view from the place from which Zapruder said he took his film.

…

Overall, the Zapruder film agrees

with real Elm Street

extremely well. As a whole, the Zapruder film has the correct pincushion distortion and perspective effects.

But there are two things that don't match up properly.

One is

the road sign

, which comes out blurry. This is because

it was pasted into the film

incorrectly, as described on the

last page

.

The other is the lamppost to the right of the sign…

…

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.

Why would Costella insinuate that Elm St. wasn't the "real Elm Street" unless he believed that it wasn't, why would Fetzer put that on his site (and I presume in his book) unless he agreed? Why would the forgers have to paste in features like signs and lampposts if they already were there?

Aparently the pilot film was taken from the Zapruder pedestal perhaps 20 minutes before the motorcade arrival. It was NOT doctored, but shows the crowd as they were 20 minutes before the arrival of the limo.

It was NOT doctored? - That is in direct contradiction to Costella (see above) can't you guys get your stories straight?

When Colby's initial paragraph is full of misstatements, why should

we bother to reply to him?

...

If Colby wonders why his asinine challenges go unanswered, he should

consider the ineptness of his questions.

This is an obvious cop out from Jack. When he does have a good answer to a question he makes up reasons not to reply.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

time to do WHAT? Extract a few frames for early LIFE publication? btw, you got 5 hours from the time the prints were completed till the film was on the way to WASHington that evening what happened during those hours? -- what film was screened the next day, original or dupe - split version or the unsplit version of the film. Stolley and Dan Rather saw what? Split or unsplit version?

Ducks in a row Mr. Colby -- ducks in a row.....

Dave - Are you now claiming the films started to be altered in Dallas before they were sent to Washington? How do get 5 hours. This part of the chronology is a bit confused but if the film arrived at Andrews at 10 EST then it would had to have left Dallas by 7:30 EST or 6:30 CST. Are you saying the prints were ready by 1:30 PM? That was before Zapruder went to Kodak? I guess math isn't your stong suit.

Do have any evidence that NPIC had a Kodakchrome lab? IIRC officially there were only three Kodakchrome labs in the US - Rochester, Dallas and LA. Why on earth would they have a Kodakchrome lab, when they could use Ektachrome which was and still is much easier, faster and cheaper to process.

There are only two possibilites they made all the changes that night or they only made some initial changes, then doctored the film some more and switched all of Life's copies. Life had "the orginal" and a first generation copy and imediately made more copies. That night they would had to have made the doctored Elm St. and removed the limo stop* and made the other changes in the Life frames. They could not know which frames Life would publish nor if unauthorized copies would be made so the basic changed would have to have been in place.

*IIRC Dan Rather said the limo didn't stop but I'm not sure

PS - I'll be out of town for a few days so I won't beable to respond to White and Healy's replies till Friday

Edited January 9, 2006 by Len Colby

[David G. Healy]

[snip]

Dave - Are you now claiming the films started to be altered in Dallas before they were sent to Washington?

dgh02: I suspect nothing happened immediately after the assassination other than, frames lifted/distributed for immediate LIFE/press publication [those first images weren't numbered, btw]. I'm sure THOSE particular frames were touched up and enhanced. And yes, if those frames were touched up and enhanced that IS altering camera original Zapruder Film content. As for wholesale alteration? Didn't have to start until well into December, more than likely, earlier -- The ONLY audience that mattered was the yet to be formed Warren Commission, any others were voyeurs. Seated WC members didn't [offically] screen the film till late Feb '64. By my counting that left at least 2 months to get a massive [whatever THAT means to those that care] altering job done.

Might want to find out how long it took for MPI [creator of the latest and greatest version of the Zapruder film - for sale on VHS and DVD at local video stores] to alter the alledged camera original Zapruder film -- their documented procedure for doing alteration is right there on the DVD -- knock yourself out!

I notice you're not answering very simple questions -- if you don't know answers to the previous questions consult the Tinkster or GaryM. If they can't help you out, you've been answered in a large way. Let us know

How do get 5 hours. This part of the chronology is a bit confused but if the film arrived at Andrews at 10 EST then it would had to have left Dallas by 7:30 EST or 6:30 CST. Are you saying the prints were ready by 1:30 PM? That was before Zapruder went to Kodak? I guess math isn't your stong suit.[/font][/size]

Do have any evidence that NPIC had a Kodakchrome lab? IIRC officially there were only three Kodakchrome labs in the US - Rochester, Dallas and LA. Why on earth would they have a Kodakchrome lab, when they could use Ektachrome which was and still is much easier, faster and cheaper to process.

There are only two possibilites they made all the changes that night or they only made some initial changes, then doctored the film some more and switched all of Life's copies. Life had "the orginal" and a first generation copy and imediately made more copies. That night they would had to have made the doctored Elm St. and removed the limo stop* and made the other changes in the Life frames. They could not know which frames Life would publish nor if unauthorized copies would be made so the basic changed would have to have been in place.

dgh02: they would? how about: replace the LIFE copies!

*IIRC Dan Rather said the limo didn't stop but I'm not sure

PS - I'll be out of town for a few days so I won't beable to respond to White and Healy's replies till Friday[/size]

Edited January 9, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

(bump)

come on Mr. Colby -- up'n at 'em, batter up, all that good stuff - you got a few questions to answer

The Nov23rd Zapruder-Stolley screening of the Z-film -- was it split or unsplit, camera original or optical print, who else witnessed Kodak/Jamieson/Zapruders office screening, NAMES, not just "members of the press", please. Same questions split/unsplit - camera original or optical print. How many times did it run? Which film did Dan Rather see, split or unsplit, camera original or optical print?

#0184 a familiar number to you?

Oh, how many different dupes/versions of the Z-film does the 6th floor Museum have these day's? There's got to be 30 out there, at least... I bet all of them are SPLIT versions!

You want to talk about Z-film time related - film altering possibilities, your gonna need some education and Z-film background if you expect to be taken seriously...

[snip]

Dave - Are you now claiming the films started to be altered in Dallas before they were sent to Washington?

dgh02: I suspect nothing happened immediately after the assassination other than, frames lifted/distributed for immediate LIFE/press publication [those first images weren't numbered, btw]. I'm sure THOSE particular frames were touched up and enhanced. And yes, if those frames were touched up and enhanced that IS altering camera original Zapruder Film content. As for wholesale alteration? Didn't have to start until well into December, more than likely, earlier -- The ONLY audience that mattered was the yet to be formed Warren Commission, any others were voyeurs. Seated WC members didn't [offically] screen the film till late Feb '64. By my counting that left at least 2 months to get a massive [whatever THAT means to those that care] altering job done.

Might want to find out how long it took for MPI [creator of the latest and greatest version of the Zapruder film - for sale on VHS and DVD at local video stores] to alter the alledged camera original Zapruder film -- their documented procedure for doing alteration is right there on the DVD -- knock yourself out!

I notice you're not answering very simple questions -- if you don't know answers to the previous questions consult the Tinkster or GaryM. If they can't help you out, you've been answered in a large way. Let us know

How do get 5 hours. This part of the chronology is a bit confused but if the film arrived at Andrews at 10 EST then it would had to have left Dallas by 7:30 EST or 6:30 CST. Are you saying the prints were ready by 1:30 PM? That was before Zapruder went to Kodak? I guess math isn't your stong suit.[/font][/size]

Do have any evidence that NPIC had a Kodakchrome lab? IIRC officially there were only three Kodakchrome labs in the US - Rochester, Dallas and LA. Why on earth would they have a Kodakchrome lab, when they could use Ektachrome which was and still is much easier, faster and cheaper to process.

There are only two possibilites they made all the changes that night or they only made some initial changes, then doctored the film some more and switched all of Life's copies. Life had "the orginal" and a first generation copy and imediately made more copies. That night they would had to have made the doctored Elm St. and removed the limo stop* and made the other changes in the Life frames. They could not know which frames Life would publish nor if unauthorized copies would be made so the basic changed would have to have been in place.

dgh02: they would? how about: replace the LIFE copies!

*IIRC Dan Rather said the limo didn't stop but I'm not sure

PS - I'll be out of town for a few days so I won't beable to respond to White and Healy's replies till Friday[/size]

[Len Colby]

[snip]

Dave - Are you now claiming the films started to be altered in Dallas before they were sent to Washington?

dgh02: I suspect nothing happened immediately after the assassination other than, frames lifted/distributed for immediate LIFE/press publication [those first images weren't numbered, btw]. I'm sure THOSE particular frames were touched up and enhanced. And yes, if those frames were touched up and enhanced that IS altering camera original Zapruder Film content.

Do you have any evidence to back your suspicion that "THOSE particular frames were touched up and enhanced"? Do you believe this was done by the CIA or Life? Though technically that would qualify as alteration it doesn't fit with alterations alleged in TGZFH.

Might want to find out how long it took for MPI [creator of the latest and greatest version of the Zapruder film - for sale on VHS and DVD at local video stores] to alter the alledged camera original Zapruder film -- their documented procedure for doing alteration is right there on the DVD -- knock yourself out!

Irrelevant – they were using much more modern technology and did far less extensive alterations.

I notice you're not answering very simple questions -- if you don't know answers to the previous questions consult the Tinkster or GaryM. If they can't help you out, you've been answered in a large way. Let us know.

You're joking right!? What questions haven't I answered? How about questions you refuse to answer? Some of these have been pending for months.

1 – The title of one film using technology available in Nov. '63 that used compositing as complex as alleged in the book. Forget that book and those magazines, the names of an actual movie or two will suffice.

2 – Your background with film compositing. This IS relevant because you are cited as an expert.

3 – Any evidence that the NPIC could process Kodakchrome which seems highly unlikely.

4 – How could they have been sure of being able to switch all of Life's copies and be certain no "bootlegs" were made?

5 – How could they have been sure there would be no major discrepancies with other films?

6– Why superimpose images of the limo on a background film of Elm St. shot earlier?

7 – If the background film was shot on Elm St. why would objects like signs and lampposts have to be pasted in?

8 – Since Zapruder was part of the plot and his camera was used, and he was in tha vicinity of DP, why not have him or Stitzman actually film the assassination.

9 – Why film the assassination from one location and say it was filmed from another? Wouldn't this cause parallax errors.

10 – The names of any trained photo analysts who back your theories.

I'll add two more.

11 – The name of anyone with proven experience in film compositing using optical printers who says the supposed alterations could have made with 1963 – 4 technology and "know how", within the time frames and be undetectable using current technology. Feilding's book doesn't count, some who finds your theories re: the "Z-film" plausible.

12 – Any evidence that Zapruder's original went to the NPIC along with the 2 copies or that any films went back to Dallas the next morning. What time did the plane leave Love Field and arrive at Andrews?

(bump)

come on Mr. Colby -- up'n at 'em, batter up, all that good stuff - you got a few questions to answer

The Nov23rd Zapruder-Stolley screening of the Z-film -- was it split or unsplit, camera original or optical print, who else witnessed Kodak/Jamieson/Zapruders office screening, NAMES, not just "members of the press", please.

How exactly is this or any of your questions relevant? Jack avoids answering questions he doesn't have a good answer to by rationalizing reasons not to respond, your smokescreen is asking (mostly technical) irrelevant questions. You would much rather discuss those than answer the ones above, I don't blame you!

IIRC the camera original which was split at Kodak was shown by Zapruder (and possibly his business partner Erwin Schwartz) to Stolley and Secret Service agents at about 8 AM the morning after the assassination. According to one account he showed it to "newsmen from AP and UPI and other magazines" a little bit later. Witnesses at Kodak were about 14 lab employees, Zapruder and possibly Schwartz, I'm not sure who saw it at Jamieson but presumably Mr. Jamieson and a few workers did. Perhaps you can fill us in on those people's names and other irrelevant tidbits.

Same questions split/unsplit - camera original or optical print. How many times did it run? Which film did Dan Rather see, split or unsplit, camera original or optical print?

I believe Rather saw an unsplit Secret Service 1st generation contact print at KRLD with some Secret Service agents. I have no idea who else was present or how many times it was shown.

#0184 a familiar number to you?

That was the infamous "missing" Kodak ID number that you like to make a big deal about. There are at least 2 logical explanations 1) Kodak processed another roll of film between the time Zapruder first got there and when he got back from Jamieson 2) the number was skipped for some reason I worked at a photo lab in the 80's that is not uncommon. I know some people believe a forth copy was made even if true this doesn't help your theory.

Oh, how many different dupes/versions of the Z-film does the 6th floor Museum have these day's? There's got to be 30 out there, at least... I bet all of them are SPLIT versions!

I have no xxxxing idea why don't you ask Gary? Your irrelevant questions are getting tiring.

ou want to talk about Z-film time related - film altering possibilities, your gonna need some education and Z-film background if you expect to be taken seriously...

Your point would be stronger if you could come up with some relevant questions that I can't answer. Do you really think your continued refusal to discuss important points that cast doubt on your implausible theory will go unnoticed by the followers of the "Z-film" threads? "You're gonna need" to come up with some plausible answers or no one will take you seriously. Are you going to ask me about more irrelevant details like what Schwartz's middle name was or the lot number of the Z-film?

Edited January 16, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

3 – Any evidence that the NPIC could process Kodakchrome which seems highly unlikely.

According to Bennet (Ben) Hunter, the assistant manager of the NPIC color lab in 1963 as paraphrased by Jim Fetzer, "…NPIC did not have that (sic)capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for the most part."

Hunter said the Z-film work was classified "above top secret" and he had been told a SS agent had "personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" he and his boss Homer McMahon believed the film had been processed in Rochester. If the NPIC, near D.C., had a Kodakchrome lab it would have made no sense for a "above top secret" undeveloped film from Dallas to be sent processed at an unsecure commercial facility in Rochester, but there are no indications that Hunter or McMahon questioned this.

Nor does it make sense that the conspirators would have secretly rushed the original film to the NPIC that night for alteration and submit it for analysis to people there who weren't "in on it", Fetzer cites Hunter to back alteration claims. Nowhere in descriptions of Hunter and MaMahon's accounts is anything said about copies being made or altered that weekend only stills. If the manager of the color lab and his assistant didn't know about the doctoring who did the work and how and where did they do it?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/disdeb10.html

If they couldn't process Kodakchrome at NPIC there isn't enough time for the overnight alteration senario. So tell us how they got an altered version of the z-film to Dallas by 8 AM the next morning.

ROTFLMHO

Edited January 16, 2006 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

3 – Any evidence that the NPIC could process Kodakchrome which seems highly unlikely.

According to Bennet (Ben) Hunter, the assistant manager of the NPIC color lab in 1963 as paraphrased by Jim Fetzer, "…NPIC did not have that (sic)capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for the most part." Hunter said the Z-film work was classified "above top secret" and he had been told a SS agent had "personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" he and boss Homer McMahon believed the film had been processed in Rochester. If the NPIC near D.C. had a Kodakchrome lab it would have made no sense for a "above top secret" undeveloped film from Dallas to be sent processed at an unsecure commercial facility in Rochester, but there are no indications that Hunter or McMahon questioned this. Nor does it make sense that the conspirators would have secretly rushed the original film to the NPIC that night and submit it for analysis to people there who wasn't "in on it", Fetzer cites Hunter to back alteration claims. Nowhere in descriptions of Hunter and MaMahon's accounts is anything said about copies being made or altered that weekend only stills. If the manager of the color lab and his assistant didn't know about the doctoring who did the work and how and where did they do it.http://www.assassinationscience.com/disdeb10.htmlIf they couldn't process Kodakchrome at NPIC there isn't enough time for the overnight alteration senario. So tell how they got an altered version of the z-film to Dallas by 8 AM the next morning? ROTFLMHO

Colby does not even comprehend the significance of what he has written.

If "a SS agent had personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)"

...then this conficts with the official story, which is that Zapruder had the film developed by Jamieson lab.

A discussion cannot be conducted with someone who does not know the facts.

IPOTIOTKWTATA!

Jack

[Len Colby]

Jack - Your reading comprehension problems have once again led you astray, I did not say that "a SS agent had personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" but rather that Hunter said he had been told that. Obviously the film was developed at Kodak in Dallas as I have noted at various times.

In that paragraph I was not concerned with where the film had been developed but where Hunter and McMahon believed it had been. That they apparently didn’t question that the film had been developed in Rochester is another indication that they didn’t have Kodachrome processing at the NPIC, in another government facility or anywhere near Washington. Don’t forget that Hunter said they didn’t have color film processing capabilities. Even if they did it probably would have been color print or Ektachrome. As a photographer I’m sure you are aware that Kodachrome was and is far more expensive and complicated develop than other types of color film. There were only about 6 known Kodachrome plants (3 Kodak and 3 independents) in 1963 none of them anywhere near Washington.

See if you can address any of my other points. No Kodachrome processing at or near the NPIC = no possibility for overnight alteration of the Z-film = no rational explanation of how Life ended up publishing altered frames a few days after the assassination as alleged in TGZFH.

3 – Any evidence that the NPIC could process Kodakchrome which seems highly unlikely.

According to Bennet (Ben) Hunter, the assistant manager of the NPIC color lab in 1963 as paraphrased by Jim Fetzer, "…NPIC did not have that (sic)capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for the most part." Hunter said the Z-film work was classified "above top secret" and he had been told a SS agent had "personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" he and boss Homer McMahon believed the film had been processed in Rochester. If the NPIC near D.C. had a Kodakchrome lab it would have made no sense for a "above top secret" undeveloped film from Dallas to be sent processed at an unsecure commercial facility in Rochester, but there are no indications that Hunter or McMahon questioned this. Nor does it make sense that the conspirators would have secretly rushed the original film to the NPIC that night and submit it for analysis to people there who wasn't "in on it", Fetzer cites Hunter to back alteration claims. Nowhere in descriptions of Hunter and MaMahon's accounts is anything said about copies being made or altered that weekend only stills. If the manager of the color lab and his assistant didn't know about the doctoring who did the work and how and where did they do it.http://www.assassinationscience.com/disdeb10.htmlIf they couldn't process Kodakchrome at NPIC there isn't enough time for the overnight alteration senario. So tell how they got an altered version of the z-film to Dallas by 8 AM the next morning? ROTFLMHO

Colby does not even comprehend the significance of what he has written.

If "a SS agent had personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)"

...then this conficts with the official story, which is that Zapruder had the film developed by Jamieson lab.

A discussion cannot be conducted with someone who does not know the facts.

IPOTIOTKWTATA!

Jack

Edited January 16, 2006 by Len Colby

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just a point of clarification regarding some drivel from Bill Miller and

Debra Conway as well as a comment or two along the way. Miller is

completely untrustworthy. With regard to a conversation in which he

whined endlessly about his complaints with Jack, I told him that many

people disagreed with some of Jack's findings, but that they tended to

misunderstand what he is doing. Jack is now and always has been

looking for oddities and anomalies in the photographic record. His

item-by-item research is not intended to be definitive but, in its cum-

ulative impact, it creates enormously powerful evidence for photo and

film alteration. I explained that to him. I have always stood behind

Jack's work, when it is properly understood. These are pilot studies

and his batting average is so good that it would be idiotic to disregard

them. What is needed in methodical and scientific investigations are

ideas--hypotheses, theories, speculations--worth investigating. It is

my opinion that Jack has contributed more ideas worth investigating

than any other student in the history of the case. That's the score!

As for Debra Conway, she may have been here and she may have

been there, but what she knows about the Zaprduer film and issues

of alteration could not fill a thimble! It is completely ridiculous for

her to be offering her opinion when it carries no weight whatsoever!

She is a promoter, a marketing agent, not someone with any kind of

background or credentials that would be in an appropriate position to

appraise complex or technical issues such as those involved in the

alteration issue. (Hell, when I gave her a quote for Ian Grigg's new

book that pointed out that Bill Newman's testimony offered proof of

Z-film alteration, SHE EDITED IT OUT! That was a gross abuse of

her position!) As for Len Colby, he is a dupicitious operator, who

cannot be taken at face value on any issue--even his own qualifica-

tions for research on these issues! Anyone who repeatedly raises

the same issues over and over again, even when they have been

decisively refuted, is playing a role, not searching for the truth. I

have seen him do this over and over again. He is playing a role,

not searching for truth. I think he should not be taken seriously.

Anyone who is serious about the issues of alteration--and those who

are arguing without looking at the evidence presented in the book

are not--should go to my public issues web site and study the Intro

to Zapruder Film Alteration presented there by John P. Costella,

Ph.D., who is the leading expert on technical issues related to

the film. I cannot imagine how anyone who studies the evidence

he presents could possibly continue to deny that the film has been

massively altered--actually, recreated, because otherwise ghost-

images in the sprocket areas, which link successive frames toget-

ther, would have revealed the deception immediately! Debating

what is already conclusively, objectively, and scientifically settled

is silly--unless you have an agenda, such as attempting to push

back research to the state it was in prior to late 1992 and early

1993, when David did his work on the X-rays and Bob advanced

his conclusions aboout the substitution of someone else's brain.

That is the whole motivation behind the disinformation move-

ment: to keep issues in the air so everything is believable and

nothing is knowable! What is knowable in this case depends on

the authenticity of the evidence, which is where technical and

scientific expertise comes in. Don't be taken in by charlatans

who insist that "credentials don't matter": no one could have

discovered that the X-rays had been altered without a back-

ground in medine, especially radiation, and in physics, espec-

ially optical densitometry. While a non-expert could have in-

ferred that the Parkland physicians' descriptions of wounds,

especially extruding cerebral and cerebellar matter, were in-

compatible with the diagrams and photographs of a brain in

the National Archives, having a world authority on the human

brain assert that as his conclusion was enormously important!

I cannot abide the amount of ignorance that motivates much

of the debate over the film's alteration. Here Colby is even

discussing an early chronology, apparently the one that Roy

Schaeffer and Mike Pincher put together from my first book,

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), when they should be

dealing with the issues as they are addressed in my third

book, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Quite a

lot of new research took place in the meanwhile. To me, it

is extremely revealing when self-appointed experts like Len

Colby offer arguments that have already been refuted in a

book that he should have read to qualify as an "expert" in

the first place! Either he has read the book or he hasn't.

If he has, then since he is repeating arguments that were

already discredited, he is clearly posing as an expert, not

acting like one; and if he has not read the book, then it is

even more obvious that he is posing as an expert and not

acting like one. He is a poser, not an expert! Many of the

issue he raises were already refuted in the book's Preface!

And don't be taken in by a priori arguments about why the

film could not, should not, or would not have been altered!

Just go to http://www.assassinationscience.com and scroll

down to "The JFK Introductory Seminar" and review what

Costella has put together. I can assure you that, anyone

with a remotely open mind will find conclusive scientific

evidence that the film has not merely been edited but has

actually been recreated by reshooting the frames to avoid

exposing the fraud by merely studying the sprocket images.

This is not a question that remains open for debate, and any-

one who asserts the contrary is either unfamiliar with the

evidence or cognitively impaired--or pulling your chain!

And they aren't doing it for simple amusement but in an

attempt to push back our understanding of the death of

JFK to a time when "the best source" was CASE CLOSED!

Well, one case IS "closed": the Zapruder film is a fake!

3 – Any evidence that the NPIC could process Kodakchrome which seems highly unlikely.

According to Bennet (Ben) Hunter, the assistant manager of the NPIC color lab in 1963 as paraphrased by Jim Fetzer, "…NPIC did not have that (sic)capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for the most part." Hunter said the Z-film work was classified "above top secret" and he had been told a SS agent had "personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)" he and boss Homer McMahon believed the film had been processed in Rochester. If the NPIC near D.C. had a Kodakchrome lab it would have made no sense for a "above top secret" undeveloped film from Dallas to be sent processed at an unsecure commercial facility in Rochester, but there are no indications that Hunter or McMahon questioned this. Nor does it make sense that the conspirators would have secretly rushed the original film to the NPIC that night and submit it for analysis to people there who wasn't "in on it", Fetzer cites Hunter to back alteration claims. Nowhere in descriptions of Hunter and MaMahon's accounts is anything said about copies being made or altered that weekend only stills. If the manager of the color lab and his assistant didn't know about the doctoring who did the work and how and where did they do it.http://www.assassinationscience.com/disdeb10.htmlIf they couldn't process Kodakchrome at NPIC there isn't enough time for the overnight alteration senario. So tell how they got an altered version of the z-film to Dallas by 8 AM the next morning? ROTFLMHO

Colby does not even comprehend the significance of what he has written.

If "a SS agent had personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it)"

...then this conficts with the official story, which is that Zapruder had the film developed by Jamieson lab.

A discussion cannot be conducted with someone who does not know the facts.

IPOTIOTKWTATA!

Jack

Edited January 16, 2006 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Dr. Fetzer, you're obviously a bright guy. Can't you see the slope you're on? (Other people's "experts" don't agree with my "experts" so their "experts" must not be as "expert" as my "experts".) If the case has shown us anything, it's that being an "expert" is no substitute for using one's common sense. Larry Sturdivan has admitted that he made a mistake in his testimony and mis-identified exhibit F-114. Why didn't any of the experts catch that? Why did a non-expert catch something that all the experts seem to have missed? In my presentation I also offer a rational explanation for the white spot on the x-rays (it's the wing of bone seen in the right lateral autopsy photo) and the mystery bullet slice on the back of Kennedy's skull (it's not on the back of his skull at all but behind his right eye-precisely where Humes found it.) Why did I catch this when none of the "experts" could? Is it because I'm smarter than them? Or is it because I came to the case with few pre-dispositions and tried not to let myself get caught up in proving anything? I support Len's efforts to get White and Healy to present an alteration scenario that is consistent and makes sense. From what I've read this is yet to have been done. Not sure if I'll agree with it or not once (and if) it is presented.

If I'm incorrect, and you feel that a logical and consistent alteration scenario has been achieved, I apologize for my ignorance. I would consider it helpful if someone out there would list a short scenario--the when-where-and what--so all of us can better understand what's being argued. In your last post you stated that Costella's study of the sprocket holes indicated little alteration of the film, but instead a re-staging. I'm confused. What does that mean? Does that mean that the film was taken of a crowded plaza, and that all the cars and witnesses were added in later? Or was the whole motorcade re-created using look-alikes?

Edited January 16, 2006 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

Jim, as someone with a background in the scientific method why do you say this: 'case closed'

It is a hypthesis. Albeit one that you are convinced by. However that is not enough.

Could you please provide the relevant directions to abstracts of responses within the scientific community (not amateur theorist responses) that are necessary in order to follow this discussion? There are vary few 'laws' in science, very few 'cases closed'.

Judgement by peers in reputable independent scientific publications are what is necessary here it seems. Costellos theories are presumably published for the perusal of scientists. What are the headings/abstracts of relevance there? I'm not a scientist so I cannot judge a paper put forward by a scientist, (I'm only aware, through what you say, of the existence of a book and website that promotes this hypothesis) and I must depend on peer responses to guide. So a complete list of classification/field/publications abstracts that will pinpoint the relevant papers particularly those of scientists who have raised critical objections seem necessary here in order for an amateur to make any sort of responses.

I have access to local universities and will follow up with any directions provided.

(similarly the background papers would be helpful)