Zapruder film alteration expertise examples

[David G. Healy]

To conclude: It's quite simple really. There is no possible way that (2) can we answered YES, for (2) could equally well have been written ' How do you know that the film was not 'doctored' ? ... as you correctly observed when you referred to the impossibility of proving a negative proposition. In other words, those who proclaim that the film is 100% genuine, would be well advised to admit that logically they have no way of knowing one way or the other, and so, to mend their ways, all they have to do is respond to (1) with an obviously logical truthful NO. The question is... Is there one of them with sufficient intestinal fortitude to admit it ? Therein lies the challenge to preserving integrity.

Just wait and see !

Ed, I believe the film is authentic. But because I wasn't there, because people sometimes lie, because there are some questions that in my view remain unanswered, I acknowledge the possibility exists that someone might have tampered with it in some way. I would also add that, in my opinion, nobody has disovered any tampering to a degree that would be meaningful in a court of law.

dgh: oh, I don't know. if, IF the extent Z-film got to a court of law LOL, I suspect the hue and cry would be so loud, 'especially from the Dallas area', we'd need earmuffs all the way out here in the desert... That film is the crux of the case for the Lone Assassin in the TSBD... if the film was altered [for WHATEVER reason], the WCR is a falsehood...

Frankly, if the Z-film was altered, I suspect the original duble 8mm film that ran through Zapruder's camera Nov 22nd 1963 was destroyed within day's of the assassination, only a ego the size of Dallas would insist on keeping a print of the in-camera ORIGINAL.

Lot's of "if's"? Yes, that's what makes this so interesting, everything required for alteration was there to do the job, including the time to do it

[Bill Miller]

dgh: oh, I don't know. if, IF the extent Z-film got to a court of law LOL, I suspect the hue and cry would be so loud, 'especially from the Dallas area', we'd need earmuffs all the way out here in the desert... That film is the crux of the case for the Lone Assassin in the TSBD... if the film was altered [for WHATEVER reason], the WCR is a falsehood...

The WC's report is a falsehood IMO if one actually rationally examines what it has said and why and it can be shown to be so without trying to create another falsehood. If you are going to consider scenarios on how a court of law is going to view the evidence, then please keep in mind that the same court of law requires 'probable cause' just to have the opportunity for the case to be heard. So far there has been NOTHING of factual basis presented by anyone to cause a grand-jury believe the Zfilm was altered. Those of us who look at these alteration claims try and do so from an informed perspective as a jury would be instructed to do so because we want accountability ..... and while I would like nothing more than for someone to expose an altered Zapruder film to the world - the evidence for that to happen has not been presented to date.

Frankly, if the Z-film was altered, I suspect the original duble 8mm film that ran through Zapruder's camera Nov 22nd 1963 was destroyed within day's of the assassination, only a ego the size of Dallas would insist on keeping a print of the in-camera ORIGINAL

Once again you have said something that could be possible, but there is no evidence that it was done. In fact, even if the original film had been destroyed the first day, you have not explained why those people who saw it the first day have not claimed it has been altered. Furthermore, no one has explained how then did someone make the changes to the first generation print that Zapruder held back and kept in his possession. After all, if the original film has been altered and/or then destroyed .... how does one not only deal with those individuals who have already seen it and when could they have swapped out an altered copy for the unaltered copy that Zapruder kept in his possession??? Please answer these points in a reasonable a logically fashion - thanks!

Lot's of "if's"? Yes, that's what makes this so interesting, everything required for alteration was there to do the job, including the time to do it [/color]

Again .... the above statement is illogical given the order of events that it supposes for proof. The facts of the case is that the original Zfilm and a first generation print remained with Zapruder until Saturday, thus there could not have been a "if" when it comes to the original film being destroyed the first day. It may be interesting to imagine what hings would have been like had JFK of lived, but it is only a pleasant though and has nothing to do with reality as we know it IMO. If someone can offer a sensible explanation for even wasting time on such an impossibility, then I would enjoy hearing it.

Bill Miller

Edited November 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

dgh: oh, I don't know. if, IF the extent Z-film got to a court of law LOL, I suspect the hue and cry would be so loud, 'especially from the Dallas area', we'd need earmuffs all the way out here in the desert... That film is the crux of the case for the Lone Assassin in the TSBD... if the film was altered [for WHATEVER reason], the WCR is a falsehood...

The WC's report is a falsehood IMO if one actually rationally examines what it has said and why and it can be shown to be so without trying to create another falsehood. If you are going to consider scenarios on how a court of law is going to view the evidence, then please keep in mind that the same court of law requires 'probable cause' just to have the opportunity for the case to be heard. So far there has been NOTHING of factual basis presented by anyone to cause a grand-jury believe the Zfilm was altered. Those of us who look at these alteration claims try and do so from an informed perspective as a jury would be instructed to do so because we want accountability ..... and while I would like nothing more than for someone to expose an altered Zapruder film to the world - the evidence for that to happen has not been presented to date.

Frankly, if the Z-film was altered, I suspect the original duble 8mm film that ran through Zapruder's camera Nov 22nd 1963 was destroyed within day's of the assassination, only a ego the size of Dallas would insist on keeping a print of the in-camera ORIGINAL

Once again you have said something that could be possible, but there is no evidence that it was done. In fact, even if the original film had been destroyed the first day, you have not explained why those people who saw it the first day have not claimed it has been altered. Furthermore, no one has explained how then did someone make the changes to the first generation print that Zapruder held back and kept in his possession. After all, if the original film has been altered and/or then destroyed .... how does one not only deal with those individuals who have already seen it and when could they have swapped out an altered copy for the unaltered copy that Zapruder kept in his possession??? Please answer these points in a reasonable a logically fashion - thanks!

Lot's of "if's"? Yes, that's what makes this so interesting, everything required for alteration was there to do the job, including the time to do it [/color]

Again .... the above statement is illogical given the order of events that it supposes for proof. The facts of the case is that the original Zfilm and a first generation print remained with Zapruder until Saturday, thus there could not have been a "if" when it comes to the original film being destroyed the first day. It may be interesting to imagine what hings would have been like had JFK of lived, but it is only a pleasant though and has nothing to do with reality as we know it IMO. If someone can offer a sensible explanation for even wasting time on such an impossibility, then I would enjoy hearing it.

Bill Miller

here's the reality champ -- JFK is dead, shot deader than a door nail in Dallas. By a group of cowards, I do not believe in Camelot, I've been around to long... I could careless about your so-called film evaluation experience (as if one could deem it as such), you've not changed my thoughts and ideas regarding the subject matter at hand.

Your dancing champ and we're playing the music... btw, you've wasted nearly 6 years of your life commenting on this issue, how sensible is THAT?

[Ed O'Hagan]

I believe the film is authentic. But because I wasn't there, because people sometimes lie, because there are some questions that in my view remain unanswered, I acknowledge the possibility exists that someone might have tampered with it in some way. I would also add that, in my opinion, nobody has discovered any tampering to a degree that would be meaningful in a court of law.

Comment:

Mark, based on what you wrote , I understand that like Robin you too have unanswered questions. Having unanswered questions is fine, and I have not the least problem with anyone asking questions. As a matter of fact the more questions that are asked, so much the better. If one keeps open-minded and asks questions, one is quite simply seeking the truth. However, if one already knows the truth, then there is no necessity to seek it.

However, how does that lead you to believe that the film is authentic? Moreover, once you countenance the posssibily of the film having been 'doctored' , which you have, then you are facing the reality of having to conclude that you really do not know for sure. You say you believe the film is authentic, which is in fact precisely what CT anti-alterationists and LNers alike are claiming. They do not know, they just believe. The only difference being, is that they will not concede even the possibility of tampering, while you do.

The most intolerant people in the history of the world's religions have been true believers. Religious fanaticism thrives on intolerance, as did the Spanish Inquisition, Nazism, and all the way up to what we are seeing to-day in Afghanistan and Iraq with the suicide bombers. As Winston Churchill observed "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject", and if Winston were alive to-day and subscribing to this forum, I am perfectly sure that he would not be constraining his definition only to one side of the house.

If you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith you might want to conclude that 'knowing' something to be true and 'believing' something to be true are not synonymous.

Keeping an open mind is just dandy. In that regard, I must say that to your great credit, both Robin and you stated your positions quite clearly. But in so doing , why is it that the answer to question (1) has not yet been provided ? ... I am still waiting.

Open -minded people, if they ever go on the attack , consistenly attack the sins and the deeds, but refrain from lashing out at the sinners and the doers. It's a pleasure to dialogue with such good people, and it reflects toleration and goodwill. When I read what they have to say, it reminds me that there are three kinds of people in the world; people who are interested in discussing people, people who are interested in discussing events , and people who are interested in discussing concepts and ideas. The third group thrives on both open -minded commom sense and unbiased thinking.

Would that we could follow the example of the two mind readers who met in the street, and one said to the other, " You are feeling really well to-day, Sir. Tell me .... How am I ?

Thanks for responding .

Edited November 23, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan

[Frank Agbat]

As Winston Churchill observed "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject", and if Winston were alive to-day and subscribing to this forum, I am perfectly sure that he would not be constraining his definition only to one side of the house.

A great quote, and quite accurate.

But in so doing , why is it that the answer to question (1) has not yet been provided ? ... I am still waiting.

Again, my statement that this is a false dilemma applies. You demand a yes/no answer to a question that may have more than two possibilities. (Aside - a common example of a false dilemma logical fallacy is the phrase "you're either with us or against us." In reality, there are shades of gray). I believe Robin expressed a similar sentiment in one of his replies.

Now, if I were to offer my answer to question #1 (ignoring the requirement for a yes/no answer) I would respond: "My current understanding of the provenance of the film, as well as widely-accepted body of scientific knowledge indicates that alteration is unlikely, at least within the detection capabilities of today's technology."

I'd like to think that this qualifies for an open-minded position, as I've certainly not closed any doors or avenues of discussion.

I think the test that would interest me the most would be to attempt to do precisely what Jack White postulated... Take a roll of split-16, blow it up to a series of 8x10's, and let a good airbrush artist go to town on it, and then re-film on to Kodachrome using a B&H Movie Camera.

[Bill Miller]

here's the reality champ -- JFK is dead, shot deader than a door nail in Dallas. By a group of cowards, I do not believe in Camelot, I've been around to long... I could careless about your so-called film evaluation experience (as if one could deem it as such), you've not changed my thoughts and ideas regarding the subject matter at hand.

Your dancing champ and we're playing the music... btw, you've wasted nearly 6 years of your life commenting on this issue, how sensible is THAT?

Excuse me ... is this not an educational forum? You are the one making the claims, thus all that is beling asked of you is to answer the questions put forth so the members here can better evaluate this matter. Instead, all we are getting from you is a run-a-round like that in quotes above that didn't address a single point put to you. I may email John Simkin and ask him to start a propagada section so people like yourself can just make accusations and not have to explain their position when their remarks are put to scrutiny, but until then I will ask what I believe to be sensible questions to see if you are serious about your position or whether you are merely trolling in order to confuse those people who do want to learn something.

My prior questions stand and I will let the record reflect whether or not you can actually address these key points so people can see how well you have thought out your position.

Bill Miller

[Charles Black]

I openly admit to the world that I am denser than an oak, poorly educated and living in a past era.

I am unable to comprehend. Acknowleging this, I ask very humbly what I have asked at least a hundred times before. Please humor me ! Someone please take the long slide down to my level and answer the one question that I have continued to ask.

I have been taught that human beings explore space, send missions to Mars that gather and send back data, have invented means of completely destroying all of mankind within a very few minutes, have found the cure to diseases and plagues, conceived the "big bang" theory regarding the creation of the universe, developed the theory of evolutuion, and have even developed the means to "clone" life....even human life.

Please explain to me...... "PLEASE" just one explanation ....WHY....cannot the most brilliant minds on this Earth.....with totally unlimited resources and space age equipment, NOT figure out a way to alter a simple piece of 8mm Kodacolor film?

Unless someone can reasonably answer this.....what the hell do you all insist on continually discussing ? Anyone......PLEASE answer this question !

Either "explain" the "IMPOSSIBILITY" of this mechanical feat, or else acknowlege that this statement is ridiculous. We are not dealing with divine forces here. We are dealing with MECHANICS.

PLEASE....WHAT MAKES THIS ACT IMPOSSIBLE?

I don't mean this post to be facetious. I am dead serious and will continue to ask this question until adequately answered.

I don't have to hear the explanation of "HOW" it

it can technically be accomplished as I am much too ignorant to begin to comprehend it.

Please tell me how you know that in the midst of this worlds accomplishments, that this 8mm film strip, could stymy minds of the level of Einstein, von Braun, and others of this caliber ?

Charlie Black

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Please explain to me...... "PLEASE" just one explanation ....WHY....cannot the most brilliant minds on this Earth.....with totally unlimited resources and space age equipment, NOT figure out a way to alter a simple piece of 8mm Kodacolor film?

Charlie Black

Charlie with all due respect I dont think the question is whether the film could have been altered, but rather, could the alteration have remained undetected, given the level of scrutiny applied to it. in other words could a cutting edge 1963 fake, pass muster in the 21st century.

[Charles Black]

Hello Stephen

You are absolutely correct ! So I will alter my question. Could the best technology on earth NOT alter in an undectable way this strip of 8mm.

When I seriously study this film, I have for years been overwhelmed with the totality of what this film DOES NOT SHOW. The only thing that I know for certain regarding this film is that something strange happened to JFK's head. I know that their was an unnatural "head snap" that was not seen by the Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses. A head snap that ballistics experts agree that should not have been caused by a bullet impact or even two bullet impacts. I do not see JFK FALLING FORWARD AND TO THE SIDE. I see Jackie making jerky movements on to the trunk of the car. I see Jackie moving so quickly out from under JFK's head that it must have produced further damage. I see Clint Hill doing some jerky things. I can't tell if the limo stopped or did not. I cannot with the naked eye, detect it slowing down. I do see JFK reacting to what appears to be throat trauma or something choking him. I do not know for certain when JBC was struck. I do not know how many bullets struck either JBC or JFK.

When I review this piece of "evidence", I realize that this "evidence" sheds absolutely no light on the shooting. I might add that it creates more questions than it answers. I therefore think that I know why this piece of "nothing" bears nearly the full burden of carrying the single gunman theory.

It has been argued with authority that this film has flaws and shows signs of alteration. It has been strongly proven that what is seen on this film is not what the Dealey Plaza witnesses who testified on the afternoon of 11/22 stated. The wound depicted in this film is neither what the Parkland medical staff reported nor what is seen in some of the autopsy pictures.

I do not place ANY value in certain "experts" telling me that they see no evidence of film tampering. For all that I know, an entire new film MAY have been created. I am however certain of one thing....what is seen on the Zapruder film is not what was reported in Dealey Plaza "on that afternoon". Is one piece of film possibly distorted, or do you feel that all of those witnesses, who testified, independently of each others testimony, were COINCIDENTALLY all mistaken....as were the medical staff at Parkland, and Clint Hill, and Sibert and Oneil, and the enlisted men who were technicians at Bethesda. during the autopsy.

Do we really believe that the BEST EVIDENCE for the single gunman is the theoretical "IMPOSSIBILITY" of flawlessly altering this film. Get serious. This piece of celluloid is very far from flawless in its present state.

My question remains unanswered. I feel that it remains so because a "non ridiculous" answer cannot be put forth !

I am sorry if I have further bored those of you, who thru the years, have been so relunctant to answer my questions.

Charlie Black

[Bill Miller]

You are absolutely correct ! So I will alter my question. Could the best technology on earth NOT alter in an undectable way this strip of 8mm.

Yes, I am happy that some researcheres see the diffefrence between saying a piece of film could be altered compared to saying a piece of film could have been altered to escape modern day scientific study. In the book "Hoax", it referenced the Mary Poppin's movie of 1964 and the animations offered as proof of whether altering a film was possible at that time. It was believed that Disney Studio's had the best of the best working for them and it was not overnight or even in a matter of days as the alterationist must believe the Zapruder film was altered, Disney had months to create their animations and when played at normal speed - a person cannot see the tell-tale signs of fakery, but when the frames are broken down and reviewed with close scrutiny and by only using the untrained naked eye ... the signs of the alteration are quite easily spotted. The alleged proof for alteration of the assasination films and photos have not stood up to follow-up investigations. (see below) Can nyou see thye changing shoe sole thickness taking place on the turtles backs and the outline of Julie Andrews in the bottom example? There are more signs, but this was Disney's best effort in 1964 and it was offered as proof of possible Zfilm altering in the "Hoax" book.

Bill Miller

Edited November 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

You are absolutely correct ! So I will alter my question. Could the best technology on earth NOT alter in an undectable way this strip of 8mm.

Yes, I am happy that some researcheres see the diffefrence between saying a piece of film could be altered compared to saying a piece of film could have been altered to escape modern day scientific study. In the book "Hoax", it referenced the Mary Poppin's movie of 1964 and the animations offered as proof of whether altering a film was possible at that time. It was believed that Disney Studio's had the best of the best working for them and it was not overnight or even in a matter of days as the alterationist must believe the Zapruder film was altered, Disney had months to create their animations and when played at normal speed - a person cannot see the tell-tale signs of fakery, but when the frames are broken down and reviewed with close scrutiny and by only using the untrained naked eye ... the signs of the alteration are quite easily spotted. The alleged proof for alteration of the assasination films and photos have not stood up to follow-up investigations. (see below) Can nyou see thye changing shoe sole thickness taking place on the turtles backs and the outline of Julie Andrews in the bottom example? There are more signs, but this was Disney's best effort in 1964 and it was offered as proof of possible Zfilm altering in the "Hoax" book.

Bill Miller

roflmfao -- keep it up! offered as proof? lmao. You forgot my examples......see you in about a year... and before you done with this thread, show us where you got the clips to Mary Poppins, hell you could of been busy these past few months.... never know. lol

Edited November 23, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Ed O'Hagan]

<Charlie with all due respect I dont think the question is whether the film could have been altered, but rather, could the alteration have remained undetected, given the level of scrutiny applied to it. in other words could a cutting edge 1963 fake, pass muster in the 21st century >

No, one would think not... and that's precisely what many subscribers on this forum and all the other JFK assassination forums have been reporting. It certainly does not pass muster. Could it be that the 'experts' cannot 'see' , or is it that they see only what they want to see.?

Such an inspired observation will most certainly be appreciated by alteration aficionados everywhere.

Well done !

[Ed O'Hagan]

<Again, my statement that this is a false dilemma applies. You demand a yes/no answer to a question that may have more than two possibilities.>

Here once again is the question : (1) [A] Assuming that every single attempt to show that the film was altered, has failed, would that be grounds for concluding that it is 100% authentic ? YES/NO.

It's simply asking does A imply B. The answer to (1) cannot be other than NO. The point being, that those who persist in rejecting the alterationist claims, have no grounds whatsoever for concluding that by so doing, it verifies the authenticity of the film, and that's it in a nutshell; nor can they prove that the fim is authentic (question # 2). All they can do is engage in tub-thumping rejectionist rhetoric and trotting out testimonials to the so-called 'experts'

Check out www.dictionary.com for the various definitions of the word 'dilemma' and you'll read

Dilemma:

1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.

2. any difficult or perplexing situation or problem.

3. Logic. a form of syllogism in which the major premise is formed of two or more hypothetical propositions and the minor premise is a disjunctive proposition, as “If A, then B; if C then D. Either A or C. Therefore, either B or D.”

Where is the syllogism in (1) ? Where are the major and minor premises? There is no dilemma . The law of excluded middle prevails, and Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ) describes it thusly :

In modern logic, the law of the excluded middle states that a proposition is either true or false. As one of the laws of classical logic, it can be symbolically expressed as P ∨ ~P. Derived from the Latin principle "tertium non datur", it is literally translated as "a third is not given." In plain language, on the other hand, the law may take the form of someone claiming that there are two points of view on the matter of such-and-such, and that no third point of view is possible.

In traditional logic, this law is formulated as "A is B or A is not B" in which statement A is a subject and B a meaningful predicate (to be asserted or denied for A) : "Socrates is mortal or Socrates is not mortal," for example. The law may also be reformulated as "B(A) or not B(A)". If one were to falsely assume that a poorly-defined predicate - the B part of the proposition - must be either true or false, that person has commited the fallacy of the excluded middle. This law has a long and complicated history in philosophy, and is commonly referred to as a false dilemma.

Either the film was 'doctored' or it was not, There is no middle ground ( "tertium non datur" ) , but apparently you think that there are two or more alternatives, not alone w.r.t to (2) , but you erroneously apply the self-same malarky above in the opening quote in responding to (1)

< "My current understanding of the provenance of the film.....indicates that alteration is unlikely, at least within the detection capabilities of today's technology." >

That's the direct opposite of what one of your fellow travellers is saying, namely, "...... could a cutting edge 1963 fake, pass muster in the 21st century?" Also, there's nothing like CYA just in case it turns out that future technolgy reveals that you chose the losing side

<I'd like to think that this qualifies for an open-minded position, as I've certainly not closed any doors or avenues of discussion.>

I can accept that you like to think that - D'ont we all ? But when it comes to closing doors, out of nowhere you appeared and attempted to slam one right in my face. Take care that your readers do not misinterpret 'open-mided ' as being 'self-righteous'. The cultivation of a few redeeming faults serves all of us admirably, as does the adoption once in a while of a modicum of intellectual humility . There is absolutely no disgrace in being wrong about something. Confession is ever good for the soul, so they say. Talents differ and to err is human. Everyone , and no matter how talented or intelligent, can make mistakes . There's a saying, 'Anyone who never made a mistake, never made anything'.

.

[Bill Miller]

roflmfao -- keep it up! offered as proof? lmao. You forgot my examples......see you in about a year... and before you done with this thread, show us where you got the clips to Mary Poppins, hell you could of been busy these past few months.... never know. lol

David, your continued say-nothing-non-responses say a lot about your inability to address the issues before you. As far as the Mary Poppins clips go - they came from the Ed Forum archive because they were posted in response to your nonsense the last time the Mary Poppins Movie was discussed. (Maybe b ecause you didn't bother facing the facts last time ... it has caused you to not remember it) For the record - It is the same Mary Poppins Movie that was mentioned in Hoax .... you people did study the movie frames before mentioning it in "Hoax" - didn't you or did you all do as it now appears ... you used the Mary Poppins Movie for an example without thoroughly examining the possibilities that it could produce the results you had purposed! Below is just another example of how the 1964 alterations were detectable.

Bill Miller

Edited November 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Frank Agbat]

Ed,

You wrote, "Either the film was 'doctored' or it was not, There is no middle ground ( "tertium non datur" ) , but apparently you think that there are two or more alternatives, not alone w.r.t to (2) , but you erroneously apply the self-same malarky above in the opening quote in responding to (1)"

Strawman (but I appreciate the Latin). This is not what I said.

I was referring to your YES/NO questions as being a false dilemma, because to THOSE questions, there are conditions that exist that could lead to a third (or more) answer...

Consult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Also, you wrote: "The point being, that those who persist in rejecting the alterationist claims, have no grounds whatsoever for concluding that by so doing, it verifies the authenticity of the film, and that's it in a nutshell; nor can they prove that the fim is authentic (question # 2). All they can do is engage in tub-thumping rejectionist rhetoric and trotting out testimonials to the so-called 'experts'"

Rejecting a claim does not *necessarily* lead to the opposite being true, with this I agree. However, there is a BIG difference between "rejection" and "questioning", a distinction which seems to have been missed.