Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder Film


Recommended Posts

>>>>Marie Muchmore's film never had the chance to get into the Feds hands before it was shown on TV. Once that occurred, it was too late for it to be altered.

Marie Muchmore kept her "undeveloped" film in her purse until Monday (11/25/63) at which time she went to UPI and sold them her undeveloped film sight unseen. UPI then sent that film, along with other images they were buying up pertaining to the assassination, to New York. There the film was developed and shown at a local TV station to see if it was of any value. Upon seeing that it did show the shooting of the President, it was then sent over to editing and aired on Television. That film being shown on TV is how the Feds found out about it.

>>>>>So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination.<<<<<

What the?.....Surely you jest right?

You would presume that only the photographer could induce the editing of film? In particular if the photgrapher DID NOT view the film before giving it over to someone else.???

Weak to the extreme.

Surely you are aware of the acknowledged FBI dragnet that went on for months in Dallas/Fort Worth of all photo labs and even public appeals on public media?

Weak very very weak....

The same film labs that kept photos from patrons rolls of film as reported in [red flag warning..] Crossfire/Marrs kept negatives and prints to use as "evidence" that seemingly never were, these same labs and U.P.I. are suddenly above the things some know they did do?

Some members here have posted elsewhere the little notices that were placed in packages of prints when the negatives and prints were "gone missing" (my words).

I'll show you why this point is so lame. You again conveniently it seems to me forget the history of the ordeal of the Nix film's return and the request to get another copy because this print isn't as clear as the original print they VIEWED before they turned it over to government agencies. They even got the camera fixed by the F.B.I. which the F.B.I did pay them for.

Or the history of Life magazine's photo lab technician "accidentally" breaking the most important piece of film, (Abe's original? MAYBE NOT!) they ever had control of, in a world class photo lab.

These are not the kinds of histories that give me total confidence in media photo facilities that you have. No matter the particular film or lab you refer to.

Then we have C.I.A. front firm ITEK examining and declaring the Nix film showed nothing of value. But the Orville Nix family has claimed that the film they viewed before and after it left their possession are different.

To the point that Orville Nix requested a new copy from the FBI and got it.

No clearer but they got it and the camera fixed at tax payers expense.

I won't qoute Twyman as I know that puts you in an absolute foaming at the mouth frenzy, all this is detailed on pp. 149 - 153. -- BLOODY TREASON

The claim of alteration of film is even more explict than that passage, from another source, Orville Nix's daughter stated that beside not being as clear as the original copy they viewed before turning the film over to the FBI on December 1, 1963, wasn't darkened in the knoll scenes, To be expected I suppose.

But as for the Muchmore film: it is too much to stretch credibility to say:

"Marie Muchmore's film never had the chance to get into the Feds hands before it was shown on TV. Once that occurred, it was too late for it to be altered. "

Oh really? Weak weak weak. Assuming too much.

However this is WEAKER

"So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination. "

It most certainly does not coincide with the Z cartoon. Nor is it clear to me that the film couldn't be altered, in fact the truth is that grave doubt exists as to it's authenticity too.

See [red flag warning] The Great Zapruder Film Hoax pp. 291 - 308 - "The Reel Story or the Real Story" by Dr. David W. Mantek.

So what about another odd coincidental film ruined at exactly the headshot frames?

Coincidence my butt. Too many coincidences, too many unquieried presumptions of facts that are not facts.

Ah well it again an agree to disagree as I just want the STUDENTS you so cavalierly dismiss to check things for themselves ALWAYS.

Do not take my word or any one elses, do your own research and thinking.

Paraphrased from the introduction to Jim Marrs' CROSSFIRE

Jim Hackett II

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

>>>>>So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination.<<<<<

What the?.....Surely you jest right?

You would presume that only the photographer could induce the editing of film? In particular if the photgrapher DID NOT view the film before giving it over to someone else.???

Weak to the extreme.

Jim, I have as little of an idea as to what you are talking about as you probably do. Your statement is typical of those who push for film alteration and do not know the facts or has taken the time to try and reason them out. First of all - Muchmore was the "photographer" and no she did not edit her own film. So why you would say that 'I'd presume that only the photographer could induce the editing of the film' makes absolutely no sense at all! Muchmore had heard that UPI was buying assassination images. When she walked into their Dallas office on the afternoon of the 25th, they gave her a choice to buy her film sight unseen for $1000.00 or to have it developed and possibly offer her more if it showed anything of value. Muchmore didn't know if she had captured anything substantial or wherther her film even exposed correctly so she opted to take the safe money. Please sit down and figure out how long it took to fly that film across country along with the other images UPI had bought and see what's the earliest time they could have made it to New York City. Try to remember NY is an hour ahead of Dallas time. So lets say that UPI rushed Muchmore's film to NY and the flight took 4 hours to get there. If the flight left at 2PM Dallas time, then it got to NY's airport at 7PM. Then the film was taken for developement and watched for the first time by heads of UPI and the TV station people. (See Richard Trask book for the details concerning Muchmore's film) Then once the film was viewed - it was rushed to editing and immediately shown to the public. If I remember correctly, the next morning there was an article written about its airing the evening before. Now please educate me on two things ...

1) How could one have edited and manipulated Muchmore's film in that short of time so to match all other possible assassination films and photographs?

2) This question stems from the first. If UPI had bought the film and sent it to their home office in NY with the other images and data they had purchased in Dallas, who are you saying performed this magical editing and alteration of Muchmore's film and how could they have known what to edit in or out without all the assassination photos and films in their possession so not to show something that didn't match another set of images? For to have made such a mistake would have been disasterious. Taking a film and destroying it would be quick and convenient ... altering a film without knowing what to edit would be insane. I realize that the Muchmore film is a thorn in the alterationist side and many of them take the easy road as you have done here. But the fact remains that Muchmore's film was never given the chance to have been worked on before being shown on TV, nor on the 25th of November did anyone know if all the assassination films and photos had been turned in so to know what or what not to alter.

Surely you are aware of the acknowledged FBI dragnet that went on for months in Dallas/Fort Worth of all photo labs and even public appeals on public media?

Yes, I am aware of it and please tell this forum just what Marie Muchmore said about that ... I am very curious to learn what you know about it because surely you have bothered to check things out thoroughly before just making an inference about a dragnet the FBI put out? For instance ... are you aware that those messages telling people to turn their assassination related films into the authorities were being placed on the developed film boxes. The developer wouldn't know what's on a roll of film unless projected, so those messages were going on everything. It was being left up to the public to turn them in as I understood it.

Now how was it that Muchmore's film didn't get that message placed onto the box? It was because that message was being put on film boxes in Dallas by the film developers and Muchmore's film wasn't developed in Dallas. :huh:

I'll show you why this point is so lame. You again conveniently it seems to me forget the history of the ordeal of the Nix film's return and the request to get another copy because this print isn't as clear as the original print they VIEWED before they turned it over to government agencies. They even got the camera fixed by the F.B.I. which the F.B.I did pay them for.

Or the history of Life magazine's photo lab technician "accidentally" breaking the most important piece of film, (Abe's original? MAYBE NOT!) they ever had control of, in a world class photo lab.

I made my point clear in the beginning. What separates Muchmore's film is that within hours of its sale to UPI - it was shown on National TV and that is how the Feds found out about it. Regardless of any suspicion that one may carry as to what the Nix film should or should not show - Muchmore's film got through the flood gate and once it was shown - history was stuck with it. Your talking about the Nix film or the damage Life magazine did to the Zapruder film has nothing to do with Marie Muchmore's film anymore than it does with Moorman's number five Polaroid which was shown on NBC within 3 hours of the assassination. Furthermore, Zapruder had three copies made of that original film and they have not been damaged, so your point falls on its own weight. (The best copy Zapruder kept in his possession)

"Marie Muchmore's film never had the chance to get into the Feds hands before it was shown on TV. Once that occurred, it was too late for it to be altered. "

Oh really? Weak weak weak. Assuming too much.

However this is WEAKER

Typical response from someone who knows not the facts of the case to debate with, but rather debates on emotion in their place.

"So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination. "

It most certainly does not coincide with the Z cartoon.

Anytime you wish to debate the so-called Z cartoon, I will be happy to do so.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Are you done wasting our time yet?

My my

EZ there Lar

Don't blow a gasket.

YOU DID NOT SUCCEED IN MAKING ME MAD ONLY WISER TO WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE.

SORRY TO DISAPPOINT...........NOT.

DO NOT EVER PRESUME TO TELL ME I DO NOT KNOW THE CASE AS YOU HAVE YET TO IMPRESS ME WITH YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE.

You demonstrate an inability to do more than claim to be the final source on everything.

You BLOVIATE. Blow Smoke in place of data.

Come on cite a source.

it's harder than blowing off out of your head, but much more rewarding.

Show what you have, not what you say you have.

I am once lived in Missouri and you have to show me, after this display and others.

"I think you should take a stress pill Dave."

You know open the relief valve and chill.

Weak sister junk Lar.

It is impossible to think clearly when one is so worked up Lar and there are serious health consequences to Blood Pressure spikes.

Like film couldn't be edited in New York? Or after broadcast on "TV" before the age of VCRs? Weak beyond a spinachless Popeye cartoon. How can you prove it wasnt?

Duh... Or was? Double Duh...

I decide whom I will engage in discourse with.

Show me something worthy of my participation as it is my choice there Lar.

You cite no references.

I have very clear positive concrete opinions and SOLID KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE AND THE SOURCES TO CITE, you DO NOT or you refuse to do so. Why? ?

IT SEEMS ALL YOU HAVE IS INSULT AND BOVINE EXCREMENT. And the ever present implication that you know more than EVERYBODY ELSE. Implied as always never proven, never cited, just hot air.

Silly as always there Bill er excuse me Lar.

Think I am alone in my opinion? Not even close there Lar,

Relax.

You do know the difference between spouting presumed implied but oh so questionable "data" and citing sources don't you. I have to wonder looking at all ALL, ALL your input.

NOT ONE CITATION FOR YOUR DATA.

But you really don't think I read all your posts do you. A waste of time as I knew all along.

Are there any citations in them?

And you cover the same old long ago refuted junk data. Is this why you refuse to cite references?

VERY WEAK.

syntax and attitude will out as they say.

Otherwise save the lies and bloviation for the ones you can fool.

No cites, no real data.

It takes a falsely inflated ego to refute the work of Ph D's as you insist on doing. Moreover with no citations to do so.

So put up your data or shut the hell up.

You obviously do not respect yourself or others.

To engage me further you will have to learn repect for others and yourself and the more learned.

Cite something Bill er Lar, and from a refutable source?

It is proven that X-rays are fabricated, it is quite resonable to hold serious doubt as to all films in this case. Those are proven FACTS.

Now PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE INCORRECT.

Where are my sources you ask? Don't you dare!

But I have them if you do. Do you?

IT'S your big chance Lar, go fer it.

Sorry I didn't get mad to make your day.

OH YEAH I ALMOST FORGOT THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE TOO.

In the words of a political pundit (amended):

It's the data Stupid."

This is the same mentality you showed on Lancer and the looney forum before leaving them. You just spewed off a complete page of emotion and didn't print a single word about the facts of the JFK assassination. You ask for me to cite a source and I believe I did when I mentioned Trask book "Pictures of the Pain". Read the chapter on Marie Muchmore's film and investigate the foot notes you may find. Your emotional say nothing rantings are such a waste of space in my opinion.

If you want to know the TV station that aired the Muchmore film - contact Gary Mack at the 6th floor Museum as I did a long time ago and get the name of it. If you need another source - talk to Robert Groden and find out what he knows about it. I have done all these things at one time or another.

One correction I should make is over something that I misstated earlier. UPI had the film developed just prior to its leaving Dallas and then they rushed it on to New York City. That makes the timing factor for altering Muchmore's film an even bigger zero, unless one thinks it could have been done in an hour or so between the developer and the airport.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating though much of this debate is I would like to remind all users of our Board Guidelines. I have had to delete a post in this thread from Mr Hackett this morning for breaking these guidelines. If members want to hurl abuse at each other I am sure they will find forums and boards more tolerant of such behaviour.

As it is an education forum could we all also please make an effort to write in standard English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else getting heartily sick of this?

I set this up as a forum for teachers and educators. Personally I have no interest in JFK but my friend and colleague John Simkin tells me that research of some interest and significance is being discussed here and that hopefully a valid teaching resource will come of it. This is why I am tolerating it.

However I am not prepared to let the good name of this forum be besmirched by the rants, complaints and flounces of adults (plural) who in my opinion ought to know better. Please wise up guys, communicate in your "indoor voices" and debate with a bit of maturity or you will have to find somewhere else to play :huh::angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is proven that X-rays are fabricated, it is quite resonable to hold serious doubt as to all films in this case. Those are proven FACTS.

Now PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE INCORRECT.

I'll address the only part of your last rant that mentions a JFK assassination related issue.

Yes, I too believe the Xrays were fabricated. That is obvious when the man who took them say they do not show the damage to the rear of JFK's head that he seen when taking the photos. It's obvious they are fabricated when they do not show the large wound in the back of the head that each and every person at Bethesda who saw Kennedy had mentioned seeing, despite the false report on those statements that was given to the HSCA.

It is also reasonable to have doubts about other films and photographs, but not after gaining the history of the suspected films and photos. Moorman's instant picture of the knoll was shown on TV within 3 hrs of the assassination. Muchmore kept her film in her possession until turning it over to UPI. Zapruder only turned over two copies of his film and kept the original and the 1st genneration copy with him. If I remember right, that film was projected and viewed before Life damaged it.

I wish there was proof that an assassination film was altered to hide a conspiracy, but the fact is the allegations that are being said to prove Zapruder film alteration cannot support their own weight.

Below is a link to a critique on the claims made in Jim Fetzer's new book concerning the Zapruder film being altered. Go look at the critique and bring back any point that you think is in error and I'll be happy to discuss my view on it.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...sg_id=276&page=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the interesting points that some researchers have made in the past is that all the assassination films seem to be in sinc with one another. Cutting a removing frames is one thing, but making them all show the same things at the same time is another thing altogether. Those who say the Zapruder film was a product of putting two films together have not considered that the other assassination films would also have to have been dubbed and edited from similar films as well. The whole idea gets a little too far out there to be taken seriously IMO.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry;

I have to agree with your last statement. Although I haven't analysed any of the films in depth, I have seen (all??) of them several times. I also seriously doubt that each film and just about each photo has been doctored with. I do agree that some frames may have been deleted in the Zapruder film due to skips and jumps and unnatural movements etc.

Antti Hynönen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

"McGoo" is correct in noting that the Zapruder film is consistent with the other films of the assassination. Jack White has responded to this by claiming that ALL of the films were altered, which only adds to the absurdities.

Speaking of which, some "respected" JFK Assassination related film researchers stated 3, perhaps 4 years ago: "... the seamlessness of the Dealey Plaza assassination films..."

So seamless they'd [respected JFK assassination film researchers] create a model showing such, so they said - well, we've been waiting 4 years. Will it EVER materialize? BTW, the term "seamless" comes from those associated in some fashion with the 6th Floor museum in Dallas, Texas. It wasn't Gary Mack.

Guess these latter day Z-film experts can't quite get today's computer software up and running. Up and running to the point of demonstrating, or getting the 4 primary assassination films on a single screen at the SAME time, in frame accurate**sync**, with the alledged Zapruder camera original.

How's this for a scenario, if they DID get them in sync, and the Moorman 5 photo didn't jibe with the 4 films, maybe? What kind of havoc would THAT create?

Makes one wonder, WHY can't this simple (with today's software and computer) demonstration be done? In today's 'lingo' the technique is called (matte - special effects terminology) "quad split". Maybe the films aren't quite as seamless as were being led to believe, or at least TOLD to believe.

Then again, you know all this, don't you Martin?

Not *one* person presently commenting from the NON-Zapruder film alteration aspect of this murder has EVER reviewed SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers] or SMPTE [society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers] documentation as to what is/was possible in the art of film special effects cinematography circa 1963 - 1964.

SMPE was created in 1915. In 1915 its first order of business was to set US industry standards for 35mm film. SMPE/SMPTE has published a monthly journal covering ALL aspects, including technological advances of the artform in Cinematic Film for 80+ years.

Today, any second year film student knows of proper matte techniques required to do the job. Including sophisticated matte techniques.

For that matter the recently released [few years back] MPI Z-film [DVD version], the Z-film was altered yet AGAIN, for our viewing comfort and enjoyment, of course. -- Every computer assisted fix done on the MPI DVD version of the Z-film was createdable in 1963 on film optical printers, and THEN some.

Only the naive think it was impossible to alter the Z-film in 1964.

An intertesting question to ask oneself: WHEN was the last time the Zapruder camera original film was 'laced' up on a projector and projected?

Did the Warren Commission, in fact, VIEW the Zapruder film, EVER?

Talk about absurdity, did the Warren Commission sit down and view the Zapruder Film? - the list goes on and on and ON --

Dr. Jim Fetzer's Z-Film Hoax should stand as *one* beacon of discontent.

If the Z-film is altered, WHY is it altered? Hiding what? Many have pinned their reputations on the validity of Zapruder's film. I feel their PAIN! Some have dared question the validity of the film - those that counter queries resort to using terms such as: "absurdsity". ROFL, I wonder if they can tell me how a film projector mounted on a optical film such as the Oxberry printer feeds film; top to bottom; bottom to top; or both?

David G. Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with your last statement. Although I haven't analysed any of the films in depth, I have seen (all??) of them several times. I also seriously doubt that each film and just about each photo has been doctored with. I do agree that some frames may have been deleted in the Zapruder film due to skips and jumps and unnatural movements etc.

There is no doubt that frames are missing from the damage Zapruder film, but as I said before - three additional copies were made the very afternoon of the assassination. Some assassination photos were on the news wire within the hour, such as Altgens #6 photograph. Other assassinations images were unknown. There was no way anyone could think that all the images were turned in within days of the assassination so to know what to alter, if anything. I know a lot has been made out of the splice at about Z155/156/157 or so. What would be the purpose Life could have had for damaging the film at that spot? According to Betzner - the first shot wasn't fired until after he took his photograph which correlates with Z186. Any frames of the limo before that time are of little value if the shooting hasn't commenced yet. I know the Commission needed an earlier time for the first shot to make the lone assassin theory work and it appears to counter this - some CT's went after the first splice on the Zapruder film and raised suspicion for its occurrence. The fact is it had no real value anymore than if the film had been spliced when Zapruder was filming Sitzman's backside before the motorcade rolled into the Plaza. Thank goodness there were copies made. If the Feds wanted to do anything to Zapruder's film - they would have seized it as evidence, not allowed copies to be made, and then destroyed the film in some freak accident. The best the film alterationist can do is say they believe it was possible. They should have left it at that for in Fetzer's new book - each and every mistake they made concerning film alteration of the Zapruder film just cast more doubt about their claims of film alteration having any merit because of their past poorly thought out observations.

Below is another example of a claim of Zapruder film alteration that was a result of poor research. The author of this claim took a photo from the pedestal that Zapruder filmed from. Then he overlaid a known 5' tall Toni Foster taken from the Zapruder film onto his photograpgh. Considering Jean Hill's large size next to the man at the lampost nearest the street - one might question his scaling methods before ever getting started. But even if the author of this claim had scaled Toni Foster correctly, he never considered how one will look against objects when seen from an elevated position as Zapruder had filmed from. To this day I have never read where Fetzer or any of the alteraionist ever pointed out this error to the author of this erronious claim and certainly not before it went right into a book that was to tell the world that this observation was part of the proof that showed Zapruder film to be altered. I mean, how hard was it for these guys to miss this point? If we stand on top of a building and look down and across the street at someone standing next to a 14 foot lampost and from that view the top of the lampost is almost the same height as the person next to it - are we to believe that person is about 14 feet tall! It obviously was how those who praised the Toni Foster alteraion claim were seeing it or else they knew it was wrong, but didn't care to say so.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes one wonder, WHY can't this simple (with today's software and computer) demonstration be done? In today's 'lingo' the technique is called (matte - special effects terminology) "quad split". Maybe the films aren't quite as seamless as were being led to believe, or at least TOLD to believe.

I am curious about two things. Are you saying that technology was better for altering films back in 63' than it is today?

And why is it someone should show how something wasn't altered - should not the claimant instead show how it was altered? That's like saying little fairies exist - now prove to me they they don't!

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

OK let me say this one question.

It wouldn't hurt to calmly consider others view would it?

Maybe the indivdual you all played so cavalierly had a point some want to avoid, it make me wonder why?

It isn't painful to anyone I know to cite material or to calmly consider other views.

Debate was never allowed was it.

It would seem some very valid point are raised to strongly suggest that films are ALTERED.

It seems that too easily this point was dismissed with little to really refute the ideas.

I just viewed the Nix film and I do not see such "total agreement".

I intend to do a pixel study on my own, but I am that way. I try to insist on my own study rather than just stating it is so. Pro Or Con.

As the other poster tried to say, the background is intermittent. Dark and Light in odd ways.

The central issue is to state films were not altered with no proof of that is wrong.

Is is clear to this viewer that VERY STRONG reasons for doubt exist.

The point raised and cited about the Nix family are true. It is so recorded in 4 books that I do have.

They think it is bogus and it is SIGNIFICANT that they all viewed the film before the powers that be had the film.

Had they not done so other claims made could be accepted so blindly.

But they did and they all said the same thing.

In effect where is the camera original, as serious doubt is becoming clear as to camera originals for the other films the question must be adressed.

I have no intention to "debate" with one so positve about everything as Mr. Peters presents himself to be.

I have a CD that has the 3 films under discussion and it can produce motion views and "slo-mo" and frame by frame comparisons. Also some graphics software to use, as well as a few sources. But I would want to raise the points for the consideration of others.

The point is to think for one's self in the face of possibly false statements that are sometimes attempted to be made "true" by "vain and constant repetition."

I think the world has had enough of "newspeak" and the like of late, eh?

JRyan

Edited by Jack Ryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the limousine slowed considerably, it didn't stop. Witnesses alongside the limousine mostly support this - and most witnesses who report a stop were viewing the limo from behind. I don't recall any early statement by Moorman, Hill or the motorcycle officers that the limo stopped.

You are correct in what you have stated, Martin. Slow moving vehicles to appear to be stopped when viewed from behind or from in front. Many of the witnesses who mentioned anything stopping was referring to the motorcade and not the limo from what I have read. As the limo slowed to a near crawl, the follow-up traffic had a delayed reaction time which did cause the traffic further back to be held up for several seconds. So it is very reasonable that witnesses were either assuming the limo also stopped for several seconds as well - or they were just talking about the motorcade alone and the limo somehow was thrown into the mix by someone else at a later time. How many of us have come up on a line of very slow moving traffic and because we were several cars back in the line - we actually had come to a halt for a brief period of time. Then as with what happens at a stop light - the lead car takes off and then after a delayed reaction - the next car goes and so on. The further back you are - the more the delayed reaction time has built up, thus making others cars wait even longer before being able to move forward.

UPI White House Reporter said this:

I was riding in the so-called White House pool car " " " " " . The President's car, possibly as much as 150 or 200 yards ahead, seemed to falter briefly " " " " . Our car stood still for probably only a few seconds, but it seemed likie a lifetime."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...