Why did the conspirators offer the Z-film?

[David G. Healy]

I would be gratefull if the other side might post a similarly concise reasoning as to why they think the film was not faked.

This is about as concise as it's gonna get:

Why the Zapruder Film is Authentic

Presented in Dallas on Friday, November 20, 1998

by Dr. Josiah Thompson

http://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/josiah.html

Maybe Rigby believes that Thompson, like Weisberg is a witting servant of the CIA.

About time you found that? Josiah's article has been a Dealey Plaza film/photo [preservers of the assassination historical record] mainstay for quite a while....

Keep looking over your shoulder Mr. Hogan, da spooks be out tonight... ask BMiller, he thinks everyone that disagrees with him is paranoid... lmao!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Alternative, and much simpler, scenario.

CIA bod, "Yes, we immediately recognised the potential value of Mr Zapruder's film, and confiscated it for analysis."

Reporter, " What does it show."

CIA bod, "Nothing, the film was hopelessly overexposed, our technicians could gain nothing of evidentiary value whatsoever."

Reporter, "Will you be returning the film to Mr Zapruder."

CIA bod, "Yes, eventually, unfortunately some footage of the zapruder family, taken before the assassination was wiped by mistake, we will of course be offering to pay damages to the family, thank you gentelemen."

[Michael Hogan]

About time you found that? Josiah's article has been a Dealey Plaza film/photo [preservers of the assassination historical record] mainstay for quite a while....

Nice to see you can read. More accurately, its been around since November 20, 1998, as is clearly stated.

Speaking of "quite a while," how long have you been typing the same old tired stuff on internet forums?

It's evident that if you weren't successful at pissing people off with your insults, you would be totally ignored.

And you would hate that worse than anything. LMAO.....at you.

[Bill Miller]

Keep looking over your shoulder Mr. Hogan, da spooks be out tonight... ask BMiller, he thinks everyone that disagrees with him is paranoid... lmao!

No, David ... just the people who merely state a position, but aren't able to give a logical response based on facts for saying what they do.

Bill Miller

Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

Lovely thought, and utterly improbable, more's the pity. If any film should appear in such circumstances, I'd work from the assumption it's a further CIA fraud, until proven otherwise.

Whither next the Agency, one wonders, on this subject? Heavy concentration on a long-distance south knoll shooter, perhaps? And how about a flood of film and bits of film, stills and negatives seemingly contradicting the Z film? Makes sense: If you can't hold a strong point, deny it to the enemy - better still, plant a few booby-traps!

Paul

Given the confessions implicating Trafficante, Roselli and Giancana, I firmly believe there exists a filmed trophy of the assassination that will withstand intense scrutiny from the research community. Call me an idealist, but I think it will happen in my lifetime.

John,

I hope you're right. But don't hold your breath...

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

I would be gratefull if the other side might post a similarly concise reasoning as to why they think the film was not faked.

This is about as concise as it's gonna get:

Why the Zapruder Film is Authentic

Presented in Dallas on Friday, November 20, 1998

by Dr. Josiah Thompson

http://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/josiah.html

Maybe Rigby believes that Thompson, like Weisberg is a witting servant of the CIA.

Mike,

You're getting the hang of this - yup, absolutely.

Or wasn't Thompson a participant in that grand Agency paramilitary op in the Lebanon in '58?

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, you can call a rock - a tree, but it is no truer by you merely repeating it over and over again.

Bill, I'd rather call the Z fraud what it is - a fake.

Zapruder's film never captured the President's turn onto Elm Street.

Quite right: He, Rather, Snider and any others who described seeing the turn on the Dallas version of the film either a) made it up, or where involved in a complex conspiracy for God knows what purpose.

Very plausible.

As far as Abe's film not being a clock for the assassination .... I guess this would be true for only those who cannot compute film frames into incrememnts of time. It should be pointed out to those who forget - The copy prints made from the camera original on 11/22/63 do not have any frames removed, thus the actual assassination does have a clock!

Circular reasoning's finest hour. I am not worthy.

So in other words, Paul ... are you saying that Dan Rather actually saw the President's head go violently forward on the Zapruder film ???

Bill Miller

Absolutely. On Nov 25, the version he saw in Dallas contained precisely that nonsense. I bet it's the same version the Russians saw that evening, and the viewers of selected UPI-subscribing US TV stations saw on the early afternoon of November 26 - before the film was recalled.

Where is the KGB when you need 'em? Damn it, Chekists, leak your recording of the Nov 25 showing!

Bill Miller wrote:

No, David ... just the people who merely state a position, but aren't able to give a logical response based mon facts for saying what they do.

Bill,

Pot calling the kettle black, no? Your logical response to Z & others describing the film capture of the presidential limo's turn from Houston onto Elm is....where exactly?

And cut out the French - "mon facts" - don't you know there are sensitive American eyes persuing this richly informative thread?

Paul

[Chuck Robbins]

Getting this back to the original question...

Is it possible that without Groden's centering, the original looked useless so they felt it was harlmess to the cause?

John,

I am using your post to gain entry into this topic. I hope you do not mind me piggybacking into the thread.

One question has been on my mind for quite some time now and it would be appreciated if anyone could provide an answer.

Since the Z film had several copies made of it....why is it that the film we see has been damaged and no attempt has been made to replace the damaged frames with undamaged frames from any one of the copies known to exist?

If there is an undamaged copy around and I have been unaware of it... let me acknowledge my embarrassment now in order to save anyone the need to chastise me for my ignorance.

[Paul Rigby]

Tripple thanks for both of your general overviews, Mr. Hogan and Mr. Rigby.

Nathan,

Do you have the misfortune to own a copy of Thompson's Six Seconds?

If not, let me know and I'll do you a photocopy of the witness table at the back - it makes fascinating reading, particularly when you compare Thompson's versions of who said what was fired from where, with what they actually said.

If you have a copy already, start with, let me see, Austin Miller, perhaps?

Best wishes,

Paul

[Bill Miller]

Nathan,

Do you have the misfortune to own a copy of Thompson's Six Seconds?

If not, let me know and I'll do you a photocopy of the witness table at the back - it makes fascinating reading, particularly when you compare Thompson's versions of who said what was fired from where, with what they actually said.

If you have a copy already, start with, let me see, Austin Miller, perhaps?

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul, I invite anyone to go back and read your last two post and then try to convice this forum that you are not just here to whack-off. You are just another clown who doesn't use specifics when claiming the Zapruder film a fraud. In the future, please cite word for word what someone has said pertaining to the Zfilm being a fraud so not to have you taking remarks out of context.

Bill Miller

Edited August 30, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Michael Hogan]

Nathan,

Do you have the misfortune to own a copy of Thompson's Six Seconds?

If not, let me know and I'll do you a photocopy of the witness table at the back - it makes fascinating reading, particularly when you compare Thompson's versions of who said what was fired from where, with what they actually said.

If you have a copy already, start with, let me see, Austin Miller, perhaps?

Best wishes,

Paul

I'll save Rigby the trouble.

From

Six Seconds in Dallas

by Josiah Thompson, Bernard Geis Associates 1967, page 262

Witness #96 Austin L. Miller

Remarks:

Saw 'smoke or steam" coming from a group of trees N. of Elm; saw shot hit street past car

From Warren Commission Hearings 19H 485

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol19_0252a.htm

Austin Miller's signed and sworn statement to the Dallas County Sheriff's Department dated November 22, 1963:

My Business Address is Texas and Louisiana Freight Bureau, 215 Union Terminal Bldg. and the phone number is RI 1-1396. I and Roy Shelton who works with me was standing on the Tripple Underpass bridge with a large group of people watching for the Presidential Motorcade. I saw a Convertible automobile turn West on Elm off Houston Street. It had preceeded about halfway from Houston Street to the underpass when I heard what sounded like a shot a short second two more sharp reports. A man in the back seat slumped over and a woman in bright colored dress (Orange or Yellow) grabbed the man and yelled.

One shot apparently hit the street past the car. I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the Railroad tracks.

I did not see anyone on the tracks or in the trees. A large group of people concreated and a motorcycle officer dropped his motor and took off on foot to the car.XXXXXXXXXX

(Signed) Austin L. Miller

Josiah Thompson's version agrees exactly with Austin Miller's statement which was made November 22, 1963. Thompson cites his source in the book. Rigby was either too lazy or too dumb to check the source, hence his ridiculous statement above.

[Brian Smith]

Hello. I am new to the forum, although I have been reading it for several weeks now. I would just like to start off by saying that I am a big fan of Jack White's work, (his recent 911 pentagon photo analysis is intriguing) and completely agree with him on the subject of Zapruder film alteration. My first encounter with the Z film alteration theory was in Harrison Edward Livingstone's "High Treason 2" and the thing that clinched me was the frames that show the shoulder of Jackie's pink dress right where JFK's face should be. I mean, you can see right through where Kennedy's face should be.

No such damage to the face was described by any witness, nor is it seen in the official autopsy photos. My conclusion: The film was altered to cover up the true nature of the wounds, particularly the head wound.

[Jack White]

Hello. I am new to the forum, although I have been reading it for several weeks now. I would just like to start off by saying that I am a big fan of Jack White's work, (his recent 911 pentagon photo analysis is intriguing) and completely agree with him on the subject of Zapruder film alteration. My first encounter with the Z film alteration theory was in Harrison Edward Livingstone's "High Treason 2" and the thing that clinched me was the frames that show the shoulder of Jackie's pink dress right where JFK's face should be. I mean, you can see right through where Kennedy's face should be.

No such damage to the face was described by any witness, nor is it seen in the official autopsy photos. My conclusion: The film was altered to cover up the true nature of the wounds, particularly the head wound.

Thanks, Brian. But you can expect to be attacked unmercifully here

for supporting me. Lots of lonenutters. Welcome to the forum.

Jack

[Brian Smith]

Thanks, Brian. But you can expect to be attacked unmercifully here

for supporting me. Lots of lonenutters. Welcome to the forum.

Jack

Yeah, those guys are all over the internet. You think this place is bad, you should check out the IMDb forum. That place is infested with them. Possibly some of the same ones on this site too. It's pretty obvious what their M.O. is as soon as they start posting. They waste no time getting started with the ad hominum attacks and trolling tactics. I really have to wonder if some of them get paid to do it. Regardless, they are relatively easy to spot.

Edited August 31, 2006 by Brian Smith

[Jack White]

Thanks, Brian. But you can expect to be attacked unmercifully here

for supporting me. Lots of lonenutters. Welcome to the forum.

Jack

Yeah, those guys are all over the internet. You think this place is bad, you should check out the IMDb forum. That place is infested with them. Possibly some of the same ones on this site too. It's pretty obvious what their M.O. is as soon as they start posting. They waste no time getting started with the ad hominum attacks and trolling tactics. I really have to wonder if some of them get paid to do it. Regardless, they are relatively easy to spot.

We need more here as perceptive as you.

Jack