Len Colby Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) I will start a poll to determine if members of this forum believe the Zapruder film was altered. I'd like to get feedback before I set it up. I though of offering the following options: Q. Do you believe the Zapruder film was intentionally altered to support the LHO as LN hypothesis? 1 – Yes, the film definitely was altered. 2 – Probably yes, the case for alteration is strong but not conclusive. 3 – It's hard to say either way - it might have been altered, but then again it might not. 4 – Probably no, I don't think it was altered but I can't be sure. 5 – No, there's no way it was altered. If any of you have any suggestions regarding the question or answers or adding addition questions they would be appreciated. I will probably start the poll Monday night.(Tuesday morning for you Aussies). Len Edited February 10, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Alter:---to make or become different. Therefore, the Z-film which we see has been altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret Holborow Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) I am firmly in the corner of Altered and badly so..... At the risk of sticking my neck on the chopping block here is an example. Yeah ok I know its a jpeg image, but really even the lower quality does not account for the discrepancies. I also believe that the jpg format shows the errors up because of the pixelization effect. The list of reasons and evidence that the film was altered is to the point that I scratch my head and frown puzzlingly at the detractors of alteation. The problem is the film is taken as such definitive evidence of what happened when and if the film is proved to be altered because of the chain of evidence there is at least two gov departments that have high treason charges to be answered. Plus many researchers have made their findings and lifes work including books around the events in the film, so there is many quarters that wish to keep the alteration evidence under wraps and ignored and forgotten about. 1, Green grass pixelation where the back of the neck of person at the back is standing. Appears head to be pasted on 2, Man at front has face blacked or browned out, it doesn't match the back of pic 3, something is going on in the middle of the photo, it appears there is a person in the middle that has been edited out. 4, sunglasses in the middle. Can be seen easier when using a solar filter to find the edges of the photo. I wondered about all those apparent sunglasses until I rered John Costellas page where he saidabout the way it could have been done by pasting other images in places. In this case looks like sunglasses. Perfectly defined too. Taken from ... http://www.rejectz.com/jfk2.htm Edited February 10, 2006 by Margaret Holborow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 1- This really not the thread for presenting evidence as to whether the film was or wasn't altered, there sre several of those already on this forum. You should read through them and pay close attention to the points being made by both sides and especially the questions that the alterationists don't want to answer. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ghlite=zapruder 2 - I just don't see any of the disrepancies that you claim to. But rather than debate them here I suggest you post your analysis on one of the applicable threads such as.this one. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...owtopic=5708&hl 3- If you have any suggestions on how to improve the poll let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret Holborow Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) Hello Len I answered the question and gave a brief reason of why. I am sorry if you didn't like me popping that info up in here but oh well. I consider myself chastised. I'll add to my post by a suggestion. You are saying by the first response, do you believe the film was altered BECAUSE. I think a poll question should be just plain old. "Do you believe the Z film was Altered". and it might be an idea to present a list of reasons from the alteration camp that shows their points and evidence to alteration and also a list of reasons that "prove the film is genuine" from the anti z film conspiracy camp so people reading the poll can get an idea to formulate responses. One can't take into account that all people responding know the main or even half the points from both camps. I know you have politely pointed out to me debate threads are available but it would be nice to see it presented fresh and neat from both sides for your poll. ' Mr Purvis in his answer, minus the pics and extras from my post pointed out another fact. How altered? So another question could be "if you believe the film was altered do you believe it was altered without conspiracy to change the truth, like for example simple enhancements or was it altered with conspiracy to change the truth to support the official theory. and thats ok, you don't have to see the discrepancies if you don't want to. and thanks for advice about reading careful, I always do read very carefully, it helps me really understand who is who in the zoo and what is what. Like stepping through a bog or a minefield really and I have read both sides of the debate from many quarters including this forum and others. I am good at multi tasking but alas I can not be in all places at once and will get to them in time to post my own "twobits". Edited February 10, 2006 by Margaret Holborow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Zapruder AGAIN, sigh"" I think I'd rather have a good old debate about the Files farago then trudge though this again, Oh well people, batten down the hatches, and get ready for cannon fire..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 1- This really not the thread for presenting evidence as to whether the film was or wasn't altered, there sre several of those already on this forum. You should read through them and pay close attention to the points being made by both sides and especially the questions that the alterationists don't want to answer.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ghlite=zapruder 2 - I just don't see any of the disrepancies that you claim to. But rather than debate them here I suggest you post your analysis on one of the applicable threads such as.this one. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...owtopic=5708&hl 3- If you have any suggestions on how to improve the poll let me know. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have any suggestions on how to improve the poll let me know ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reference to "altered" does not provide definitive explanation of what is being sought. Not unlike a good test exam, any question must specifically define the parameters which are sought. IE: 1. Do you believe that frames from the original Zapruder film were omitted from general publication? a. YES_______ b. NO_______ c. I do not know_______ 2. Do you believe that frames from the original Zapruder film have been "trimmed" and thereafter reproduced for presentation to the public? a. Yes________ b. NO________ c. I do not know______ And so on! In merely referencing "ALTERATION", many envision the claims of the GURU of film alteration, which have of course taken this subject far beyond the bounds of rationale and reason. As a final note, there are those who continue to operate under an accepted "general assumption". That being the assumption that the entire Z-film would have had to be "altered"/re-manufactured utilizing processes that were available only in the early 1960's. As any serious (& competent researcher) should know, the WC decided that there was nothing past Z334 worth viewing, and therefore did not present any of the frames of the film past this point. Therefore, it would appear as an unsubstantiated asssumption that portions of the Z-film which were after Z334, have not had considerable time in which various advances in film technology could have aided in some form of "minor" alteration to frames of the film. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER. Well, have you viewed the films, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. I have; yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Was there something special in your viewing of the films which led you to believe that there were more than three shots? Mr. KELLERMAN. No: it doesn't point out more than three shots, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Which films are you referring to? Mr. KELLERMAN. These are the colored ones that were taken on the right side. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Could you give your defenition of aleration for this poll?Duncan If I made that "Q. Do you believe the Zapruder film was intentionally altered using optical printing to support the LHO as LN hypothesis as alleged in TGZFH and other books? I thought the question was already clear because it precluded the edits and an enhancements made by Life. Margaret, I don't think it's of interest to ask people why they think it's altered or what if any alterations they think were made because as Steve indicated the subject has pretty much been discussed to death. IMHO not much it to be gained until the "alterationists" start answering the questions they've been evading. Also formulating these points into mutiple choice questions would be rather akward/complicated. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I'll play, Len. I choose answer 4, for reasons stated on the other threads. Probably no. Since I believe the Zapruder film, when taken together with the autopsy evidence and eyewitnesses, STILL suggests conspiracy, I think it's illogical to think it's been altered in order to change its value as evidence. To me, that's like saying O.J. planted Nicole's blood in his car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Tom wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have any suggestions on how to improve the poll let me know ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reference to "altered" does not provide definitive explanation of what is being sought. Not unlike a good test exam, any question must specifically define the parameters which are sought. IE: 1. Do you believe that frames from the original Zapruder film were omitted from general publication? a. YES_______ b. NO_______ c. I do not know_______ 2. Do you believe that frames from the original Zapruder film have been "trimmed" and thereafter reproduced for presentation to the public? a. Yes________ b. NO________ c. I do not know______ And so on! In merely referencing "ALTERATION", many envision the claims of the GURU of film alteration, which have of course taken this subject far beyond the bounds of rationale and reason. As a final note, there are those who continue to operate under an accepted "general assumption". That being the assumption that the entire Z-film would have had to be "altered"/re-manufactured utilizing processes that were available only in the early 1960's. As any serious (& competent researcher) should know, the WC decided that there was nothing past Z334 worth viewing, and therefore did not present any of the frames of the film past this point. Therefore, it would appear as an unsubstantiated asssumption that portions of the Z-film which were after Z334, have not had considerable time in which various advances in film technology could have aided in some form of "minor" alteration to frames of the film. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER. Well, have you viewed the films, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. I have; yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Was there something special in your viewing of the films which led you to believe that there were more than three shots? Mr. KELLERMAN. No: it doesn't point out more than three shots, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Which films are you referring to? Mr. KELLERMAN. These are the colored ones that were taken on the right side. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for bring up these points, Tom. ALL of them ! Course one has to define "rationale and reason" when it comes to possible Z-film alteration. As Moe Weitzman said in his HSCA testimony; "there are tests that can be performed... Mere fact that posing possiblity of same, get's more than a few hackles up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I'll play too, Len--though I have little knowledge of the technology. #2. It probably was altered but the case for alteration is not conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) I'll play too, Len--though I have little knowledge of the technology.#2. It probably was altered but the case for alteration is not conclusive. Hi all I go along with Mark Stapleton's assessment. There does seem to be evidence of alteration. However, to me, the film appears to be have been shot in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination and I don't buy the contention of Jack White and others that the whole film has been faked. It shows too much of the murder scene that could not have been "mocked up" to make it look like the real thing. The contention that Hollywood could fake such a film using special effects as in "Mary Poppins" is faintly ridiculous. Moreover, as has been pointed out by many people, the film appears to show that the headshot that blew apart JFK's head came from the Pergola side or the front (maybe from the bridge ahead), which does not at all support the lone assassin theory, i.e., that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the fatal shots from the TSBD, behind the presidential procession. Chris Edited February 10, 2006 by Christopher T. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Sorry, but since I have what I consider definitive proof that the Z film was altered, I’m going to post it here. Look at this crop from Z371: Obviously the person playing Clint Hill in this reenactment was running with nothing on his feet but black socks. (Possibly he had some new Florsheims that had started hurting his feet after several takes.) Not only that, but he appears to be in the very act of fracturing his left foot by hitting it under the bumper. Note how the foot is grotesquely bent. (There’s no way to bend a man’s dress shoe that way.) Obviously there would be no more takes after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret Holborow Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Thanks for that one Ron. I hadnt picked that point up before but its a grin seeing it now....i bet he had blisters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Ron - I think you were joking but some people didn't get it. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now