Watch this video, especially at the 1:19 mark. It is one reason why I no longer dismiss the idea that Abraham Zapruder’s film of JFK’s assassination was altered.
Thanks to Doug Horne’s interview with Dino Brugioni, the CIA’s leading photo analyst, I have had to revisit my previous skepticism. Brugioni viewed the Zapruder film not long after it was delivered to the CIA on November 23, 1963, and he recalls seeing imagery that does not appear in the film that is now in the National Archives.
Many will scoff at such statements as conspiratorial foolishness.
Yet Brugioni is a highly credible source, to say the least. He headed the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center for decades. He has no conceivable interest in fostering doubts about the authenticity of the Zapruder film and every reason not to. Yet his cogent and detailed comments do exactly that. Those who scoff at the idea that the film was altered need to address Brugioni’s comments.
Horne argues that the alteration of the film removed images of the presidential limousine making a brief but definite stop when the shots rang out. Horne argues these frames depicted JFK hit by gunfire from multiple directions. He says they were removed from the film when it was process at Kodak’s “Hawkeyeworks” R&D lab, in Rochester, New York, the weekend after JFK’s assassination.
While I knew that many eyewitnesses said the limousine had come to a stop amid the gunfire, I assumed these accounts were shaped by the “time slowing down” phenomenon that witnesses to surprising events often report.
But in this video, found by Washington attorney Dan Alcorn on David Von Pein’s JFK Channel on YouTube, Bob Clark of ABC News, a trained newsman who was riding in the presidential motorcade, reports what he saw: JFK’s limousine “came to an immediate stop.”
In an email Horne contends Clark’s account corroborates those of other witnesses including:
(1) Jean Hill (who stood to the immediate left of the limousine with her friend Mary Moorman during the assassination), in her Sheriff’s Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63, stated that the limousine stopped for an instant;
(2) Hugh Betzner (standing behind the limousine during the assassination), in his Sheriff’s Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63, said twice that the limousine stopped during the assassination;
(3) Roy Truly, Oswald’s boss at the TSBD, later stated that the limousine swerved to the left and stopped during the assassination;
(4) DPD officer Bobby W. Hargis—riding escort to the immediate left rear of the limousine—in an interview never published by a local newspaper, but whose text was later found and written about by Richard Trask in his book Pictures of the Pain, stated that the limousine stopped during the assassination; and
(5) In numerous interviews over many years, Bill Newman (standing to the immediate right of the limousine during the assassination with his wife and two children) has repeatedly and consistently recalled that there was a very brief, but definite car stop by the limousine during the assassination
But.
The alleged removal of frames would have also removed the movements of people standing around the presidential motorcade. It seems me that such alteration would render their movements more discontinuous than in the rest of the film. I don’t see such discontinuity in the Zapruder film.
So while I am not intrigued, I am not convinced.
Here’s the Zapruder film, slowed down and stabilized: What do you think?
Do you all seem to forget that Brugiani was not the only CIA Photo expert who worked on the film What do you non believers think? They made all this up? Of course it was altered!
>The first time the Zapruder film was shown on television – the slow down of the limo was very apparent.>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxCH1yhGG3Q
I don’t see any slow down on this video
Comparing the Nix film to the Zapruder film – there appears to be a sizable discrepancy as to how far Jackie Kennedy crawls out onto the back of the limo before she moves back into it, and I am looking for any hypothesis explaining this.
Savvy article ! I loved the insight ! Does someone know if my business would be able to locate a sample SSA-1372-BK copy to type on ?
Just food for thought. As the limo approaches – and as it recedes, the smaller frontal angle to Zapruder makes it move optically less against the background. Thus, if the limo slowed down (even substantially, without fully stopping), it would appear to be moving quite a lot faster (optically against the background) when Zapruder was at about a 90 degree angle to the limo. I think the limo slowed so substantially that the witnesses could well interpret that as a momentary “standstill”.
The first time the Zapruder film was shown on television – the slow down of the limo was very apparent. The film in circulation today is much messier and has clearly been modified.
The days following the initial showing of the film caused tremendous outrage among viewers. I was disgusted by the behavior of the Secret Service driver who slowed the vehicle and turned around twice; Not speeding away until he saw Kennedy’s head explode.
The resulting outrage helped convince Congress to re-open the investigation.
Endless laughs from McAdams & Co, the hoops being jumped through in an effort to make the story stick are… mirthful.
IMO the most important evidence of alteration is the non-presence of Officer Chaney’s “ride up front”. This particular piece is missing from a LOT of the photographic evidence, it’s quite apparent that an effort was made to have it deliberately scrubbed.
According to multiple testimonies, Officer Chaney bypassed the limo and drove his motorcycle straight up to the lead car, and actually talked to Curry. Therefore we should clearly see Chaney and his bike engaged in this activity, however it is not present.
And, if the FBI found a need to remove Chaney from “one” of the films, then clearly he had to be removed from “all” of them, right?
Both the Muchmore film and Nix film show the car slowing to almost a complete stop, whereas we never see that in Zapruder’s film.
The Z film looks continuous where as the munchmore film looks like the limo almost stops as Clint Hill jumps on. Does anyone else see this?
The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.”~Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf
The hoaxers are: Lifton, Horne, Healy, Costella, Jack White, Larry Rivera (who posts on JFKacts) and Fetzer…to name just a few.
\\][//
“35 to 40 Hollywood film experts”?~Douglas Horne
I know of two so-called “experts” , WHO are they? What are there names?
The only two so far mentioned are the husband-wife team; Sydney Wilkinson and husband; Tom Whitehead
His page: IMBD (key grip) (post-production) (best boy electric) (post-production) (gaffer) (completed)
This is hardly the resume’ of a “Hollywood Film Expert”
I can find no references to Sydney Wilkinson having to do with film expertise at all, and I have looking for over a month!
It has been four years now and Horne has recently claimed “dozens” of these so-called “experts” have seen and agreed to the back of the head being blacked out. So where are the signed depositions of these Hollywood experts with their names and lists of expertise? Why the stall? Until this “report” is made public I cannot take Horne’s assertions seriously.
\\][//
“Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.”~Douglas Horne
This is rhetorical nonsense and innuendo. Neither Zavata nor Fielding agree’d with Healy. They emphatically disagreed in a signed rebuttal. The insinuation that the “Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging,” Fielding explains in his book are simply being misrepresented by ignorant and technically naïve interpretation; as expressly stated by Fielding himself :
Professor Fielding for review and received
comments that included:
“You may quote me if you wish in saying that
(1) I agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and the time line involved,
(2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation
of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the
technology then available,
(3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the
footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived
professional scrutiny, and
(4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in
the document you sent me, are technically naïve.”~Raymond Fielding – 2010
http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
. . . . . .
\\][//
Another point I wanted to make is that with the advanced film technology of today, it is much easier to tell if a film has been altered than it would have been when the Zapruder film was first made available for viewing.
I would think that as the film is further analyzed, the chances of finding any possible alterations become greater.
I have seen some comments above talking about re-filming in order to alter the original Zapruder film. With the technology available even in 1963, you would not have to re-film to make alterations. You could use the original film and make alterations that would not harm or change the original film, but that could produce a copy of it with the alterations being made with the equipment available at that time.
See the Youtube video that I referred to in my above comment to see how this could have been done.
Antonio D’Antonio,
As I pointed out above on April 15, 2015 at 12:41 pm:
If the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.
As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also be easily identified by chemical examination.
You obviously do not grasp what this means.
You say, “With the technology available even in 1963, you would not have to re-film to make alterations. You could use the original film and make alterations that would not harm or change the original film, but that could produce a copy of it with the alterations being made with the equipment available at that time.”
Do you not see that claiming, “you would not have to re-film to make alterations,” and ending with “produce a copy of it” is only possible by refilming the film you have altered?
Further you cannot make alterations to the original film that will not harm or change it.
It is most obvious to me that you have no idea of how special effects were produced in film in 1963. You are also obviously unaware of Rolland Zavada and Raymond Fielding’s rebuke of Douglas Horne’s assertions about the faking of the Zapruder Film.
If you are unaware of who Fielding and Zavada are, and their standing in the field of film and special effects cinema, then you had better get to work and learn the facts of what you are attempting to address here.
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
\\][//
Mr. Whitten,
I will admit that I’m a newcomer to all this new information that I didn’t know existed since I have not watched much on the assassination for a while and I’m also not familiar with the technical aspects as you are.
I’m a person that has no problem admitting when I’m wrong, which obviously I was in this case.
However, one thing I have found when reading these comment boards related to the JFK assassintaion is people admitting they are wrong is not at a premium on any of them!
Whether it’s WC believers or WC deniers, no one seems to give an inch when it comes to these discussions.
No matter what is brought up by whatever side, there is always something to counter it.
It’s almost gotten to the point where it seems like both sides have their own set of taking points and counter points to use for anything that’s brought up by the other side.
It’s just as if I’m watching some politically oriented TV show or reading a politically oriented comment board with conservative and liberals spewing their talking points and counter talking points at each other!
I can see that the more I get into discovering all this new info and reading the comments coming from both sides the more likely it is that I will probably take the same course I did with the political discussions, which is get fed up with it drop it all together!
Just look at it as one less person to have to correct about being wrong!!!
I actually meant to say:
However, one thing I have found when reading these comment boards related to the JFK assassintion is people admitting they are wrong is at a premium on all of them!
“The alleged removal of frames would have also removed the movements of people standing around the presidential motorcade. It seems me that such alteration would render their movements more discontinuous than in the rest of the film. I don’t see such discontinuity in the Zapruder film.”
I have seen a video on Youtube called “JFK Zapruder Hoax – David Healy, which is in several parts. His delivery of the presentation leaves a lot to be desired , but he explains the process that was available and could have been used in 1963 to make it possible to alter the main action of the film, remove frames and or stretch frames and still be able to keep the background or foreground with the people look unaltered and continuous.
If you look at the Zapruder film, as the limo starts coming down Elm Street, there are a line of people on the Book Depository side of the street that just stand there and do nothing as the limo goes by with Kennedy waving. You would think that at least one of those people would have been waving back if not many of them, but they don’t. This could possibly be an example of not matching up the surroundings with the action of the limo or even changing the surroundings when the alteration was done.
Hey Willy…I have always felt that Greer was slowing the limousine to allow Hill access, Sometimes its ok to be called naive but there are times when you just have to follow your higher impressions about things and for me this has been one of them. The slowing of the limousine was just an added benefit for the shooters not a planned event.
I stumbled onto this post while researching some of the pages on the Barry Kursch website. Thanks for dumbing down the photo jargon, that stuff gets me every time…lol. Thanks for your research efforts , insightful as always.
Marcus-interesting insight about Hill. Would love to know if either (Greer-Hill) or Kellerman were asked that question to confirm. Seems to me unlikely only because his field of vision was turning to his right where Hill would be coming from his outside left…but that’s speculation as Kellerman may have told him to stop for Hill-the Cuban’s arm wave after shots 1 and 2 may have distracted him as I believe.
If you pause the film right after the Stimmons sign and capture the Cubans wave, you will clearly see Greer looking right at him. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Willy, I’m sorry but I just won’t get into the debate of authenticity with you. I too appreciate your efforts, but you like many who sit on one side of a JFK issue forget that the purpose here is for us to work together. Many of my initial presumptions have been debunked. And in this case, you have a serious number of credible researchers who believe the film has been altered. Neither your position or theirs has been declared a “Fact” while simultaneously both sides have presented facts.
Let’s not forget we are all in this together…or at least I am and I hope so for everyone else. We’d like to know the truth all of it.
There are many reasons that prove it is impossible to have altered the Zapruder film. Too many to even give a synopsis here, other than this:
The Core Issue on the Zapruder Film Authenticity
The central point of this whole argument is that it would be impossible to recreate a “Kodachrome original” by any means whatsoever.
Quoting Zavada again:
“The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination.”
What this means is, if the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.
As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also be easily identified by chemical examination.
…..
For a detailed exposition on this matter see:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
\\][//
Have you ever worked on the film, because I don;t recall seeing you at any Zapruder film conference or lecture or seeing a footnote with your name on any of the literature to this subject.
“Have you ever worked on the film, because I don;t recall seeing you at any Zapruder film conference or lecture or seeing a footnote with your name on any of the literature to this subject.”~Tom Coccia
That is totally irrelevant to this discussion, what you did or not notice; whether I have been involved in conferences or not.
Let’s stick to the substance of the matter. What is your expertise in film and special effects? Can you speak to the technical issues I have raised here and in my presentation on my blog?
\\][//
I’m not a film expert. And no I can not speak to the technical issues and special effects. I have looked at Costella’s presentation re: the black spot at impact. TO a laymen, it’s convincing. Doug Hornes research with Dino Brugioni is also worthy research. And both Jim Marrs and Jim Fetzer support a case for the film being altered.
My recommendation: Let the people decide. You’ve published your finding (s). Posting replies that insult people’s interpretation isn’t persuasion, it’s called bullying.
“It is most obvious to me that you have no idea of how special effects were produced in film in 1963. You are also obviously unaware of Rolland Zavada and Raymond Fielding’s rebuke of Douglas Horne’s assertions about the faking of the Zapruder Film.
If you are unaware of who Fielding and Zavada are, and their standing in the field of film and special effects cinema, then you had better get to work and learn the facts of what you are attempting to address here”
If Greer hit the brakes and the car stopped as Rich Delarosa claims that would explain the movement forward of all 6 passengers.Even Mrs. Kennedy clearly seems to move forward. In my opinion, the car broke as the lights show in the Mormon photo. If the car stopped completely or not, the movement forward and the impact of the shot from the right front best explains the Presidents movements after the fatal shots impact. Also, with eye’s forward Greer’s obvious “ducking” and his fatal “look back” give 2 indications that the brakes would be pressed vs acceleration. I’d like to see a solid list of the Z Films viewers and comb thru all their testimony.
My personal opinion is when Emory Roberts saw the Z film in its 1st viewing he immediately identified all of the Secret Service failures (the Houston and Elm turn-Greer braking-no agents on the car) and escalated those concerns that promulgated the cover up.
The American public & subsequent JFK researchers never lynched the Secret Service’s role/failure in comparison to the other conspirators roles in killing JFK. (CIA, MOB, OSWALD, BIG OIL, CUBA ect.)
The Secret Service’s role was not complicit in my opinion but created the exposure to pull off the assassination. Film of the entire Texas trip shows exposure not consistent with SS protocols. I’d would like to know the timeline(s) from the point the motorcade route was published/finalized/established to identify when the assassins identified the location to establish the amount of time they would have had to plan the attack.
Although Greer’s breaking was an unintended consequence, it was the headshot that was fatal. The question we all miss is what would have happened in JFK had lived??? We take this position that JFK’s passing, lead to Vietnam, RFK, MLK, Watergate, and some rightfully follow the path right to Martha’s Vineyard.
But had JFK lived, the Presidential security would have merited the office’s impact to a nation. Had JFK survived this shooting, the United States would have “escaped” a national tragedy vs. experiencing one. Had he lived, we would not have lost our innocence, we would have grown up.
Something as simple as Roy Greer hitting those brakes had implications beyond our comprehension. It was the lynchpin…
“If Greer hit the brakes and the car stopped as Rich Delarosa claims that would explain the movement forward of all 6 passengers.” ~Tom Coccia
Let me point out that if Greer hit the brakes, whether the car stopped totally or not, it would still throw the passengers forward.
The limousine clearly slowed down dramatically as it went into the pavilion area. I think this is because Greer realized that Kennedy had been hit, and he looked around to see Agent Hill racing towards the car at the same time he saw Kennedy clutching his throat. I think he braked to give Hill a chance to reach the limo. the head shot happened almost the same instant.
I don’t think Greer slowed down or braked purposely to give a clear shot at Kennedy. I do think that the higher ranking Secret Service people were in on the hit. But I don’t think Kellerman or Greer would be involved and agree to be in a car that was meant to be a target of rifle fire.
Connally may have known something was to take place, but I think he assumed it would happen at the Trade Mart, not on the journey there.
I am a retired cinematic special effects artist, with more than 25 years of professional experience. I understand the nomenclature and the techniques of special effects intimately. My professional opinion is that the Zapruder film is authentic.
I have given a link in a previous post here to a page that goes into this issue in great detail. I hope you and others will visit that page and take advantage of the information therein.
~Willy Whitten \\][//
William Manchester claims that Greer told Jackie Kennedy at Parkland Hospital: “Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn’t mean to do it, I didn’t hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn’t help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I’d seen it in time!”
Funny we do not see the limousine swerving in the Zapruder film, despite many witnesses reporting the limo swerved to the left when it came almost to a stop. Even Roy Truly saw this swerve.
“Mr. BELIN. All right.
Then what did you see happen?
Mr. TRULY. I heard an explosion, which I thought was a toy cannon or a loud firecracker from west of the building. Nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after two more explosions, which I realized that I thought was a gun, a rifle of some kind.
The President’s–I saw the President’s car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in this area. It is misleading here. And that is the last I saw of his ear, because this crowd, when the third shot rang out–there was a large crowd all along this abutment here, this little wall, and there was some around us in front–they began screaming and falling to the ground. And the people in front of myself and Mr. Campbell surged back, either in terror or panic. They must have seen this thing. I became separated from Mr. Campbell. They just practically bore me back to the first step on the entrance of our building.”
Bob,
Truly simply did not have the POV or the closeness to the event to use his testimony in any way.
\\][//
What’s your source?
Roy Truly was just outside of the TBDB during the shooting and inside less that a minute afterward.
Which means his POV was far behind and he could only see the rest of the motorcade, and could not have had a clear view of the limo, far ahead of the other cars.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/truly2.htm
\\][//
Logical Willy, on the Greer/Kellerman not agreeing to being in the car if they had foreknowledge. I appreciate your expertise on the film aspects and comments on it and other subjects. But a big question for me is why Greer slowed don to 10-12 mph when he, as an experienced Presidential driver knew the protocol for that point in time was 20-25 mph (like SSA Agents Roberts and Ready lied about them going).
“But a big question for me is why Greer slowed don to 10-12 mph when he, as an experienced Presidential driver knew the protocol for that point in time was 20-25 mph (like SSA Agents Roberts and Ready lied about them going).”~Ronnie Wayne
I agree with you here Ronnie, but lets face it if protocol would have been followed there would have been two agents riding the rear of the limousine as well.
Despite the excuses of having to go over the middle island given, the very fact that the limousine took that hairpin turn from Houston to Elm itself broke protocol. This was the President of the United States, they should have simple stopped through traffic and given the presidential caravan direct access to the FWY, even if it had to go against what would have been oncoming traffic. The officials had every authority to make these exceptions.
So this kettle of worms is complex and I understand it perfectly.
I also understand the issues involved in attempting to make a counterfeit Z-film that would pass expert examination. It is those issues which will be the real ‘tell’of the authenticity of the Z-film. Not hearsay, not contradictory witness testimonies, but real physical evidence.
\\][//
Seems semantical to debate that brakes=movement forward since most 3rd graders reach that conclusion.
Within context, the theme of my post on this subject is:
1) The slow down or brake made the fatality (Or success) of the assassination overwhelmingly more possible.
2) The presumption I’ve made is that most of the Parkland doctors said he could have survived the throat and back wounds.
3) Had he lived…and survived this assassination attempt the “what ifs” would be wonderful to entertain.
I do not believe the Zapruder film is authentic. I think the work done on this matter has conclusively shown that to be true. Appreciate your feedback.
Tom
It would be much easier for top Hollywood special effects artists to get things done if they had the kind of latitude to screw with things that we see on the Z-film.
A chunk of the footage is literally just dropped without explanation. The motion blur doesn’t match from frame-to-frame. The image is zoomed-in & cropped down to remove everything in front of the limo during the kill shots. A big sign appears & blocks everything without obeying physics. The entire film has the image resolution of a child’s watercolor painting. You can find spray-painted graffiti images on the walls of buildings with more detail.
The Z-film as we know it does not compare to a professional 35mm Hollywood effects job. I’m sure a very high level of skill went into the job but the final result is pitifully bad by real motion picture standards. And even with all this fudge room, the altered Z-film STILL does not really conform to the official story, it just fails to conclusively disprove it.
The bad quality of the film isn’t just a drawback to deciphering what happened, it is an active part of the deception. It radically eased the job of altering the film and made it that much harder for us to understand what we are seeing.
I’d never had a lot of concern regarding “the limo stop”. About 4 pages in Vince Palamara’s “Survivor’s Guilt”, I think there was a thread on the EDU Forum. Something on u-tube showing brake lights. Palamara spoke of 60 witness statements and provided a few of them.
He also mentioned Greer slowing down FROM 11.6 mph, well below the 20-25 mph they should have been going per SS protocol.
There is a jewel near the end of Richard Charnin’s “Reclaiming Science”. The statements of all 60 of these witnesses. I’ve never seen them put together this way. Seems to be an overwhelming consensus. If the limo didn’t stop it came about as close as one can without doing so. Coming to a stop or coasting until after the head shot then accelerating. These are witnesses close to the crime and many of them of an official capacity (e.g. dpd, us, state, city govt.). All four of the DPD motorcycle cops riding beside the limo, Hargis, Chaney, Martin and Jackson. O’Donnell, Powers, Yarborouhg. Roy Truly, Bill Newman, Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Bill Lovelady. SSA’s say slowed or accelerated after last shot.
“Richard Charnin’s “Reclaiming Science”. The statements of all 60 of these witnesses.”
I have read this part of Charnin’s work, and he does not give a full accounting of the entire testimonies of these 60 witnesses, nor of the retractions of comments made to the press, once these witnesses were testifying under oath. The Garrison trial narrowed down on several of these witnesses who admitted they weren’t really close enough to determine with certainty. Others admitted that although they said the limo had stopped, what they really meant was it slowed down dramatically but did not actually stop.
Others were witness to the limo stop at the on-ramp to they freeway far beyond the plaza and minutes after the event. Both Palamara and Charnin fail to distinguish these witnesses from the plaza witnesses.
They both fail to segregate the witnesses would have a close enough view or a view from the proper angle with those who did have a good vantage point.
Then the problem arises of small pool of witnesses with great vantage points, who contradict each other.
These issues I just outlined are one of the main reasons that actual photographic evidence, both still and moving must trump witness testimony.
What I just outlined here is gone through in great detail in my article:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
\\][//
1. Mantik quotes Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped.
Unfortunately, though, Baker’s statement was heresay – he was only
quoting what was told to him by Chaney. It is wrong to cite both as
independent witnesses to bolster any argument.
2. Mantik cites Chaney’s statement as “Warren Commission testimony.”
Please tell me where, in your copy of the Warren Commission, you find
Chaney’s testimony. (Try looking at Mantik’s cite of “3H221” for Chaney.)
If a mere mistake on Mantik’s part, where’s the apology and Errata?
If Mantik, though, is relying on subordinates for research and then
claiming authorship without verifying facts, we have a larger problem.
3. See if you truly believe Mantik’s use of Officer Brown’s WC
testimony is a fair representation. Don’t use the “had to cut it short
due to space constraints” argument. Sure, Brown used the word,
“stopped,” in describing the limo. But what Mantik DOESN’T offer
us is his “retraction” during that SAME session of testimony:
Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped…
After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.
Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?
Brown: That, I couldn’t swear to.
Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?
Brown: Yes; slowed down.
. . . . . .
4. Mantik gives us the impression that Palamara claimed at least 48
witnesses stated that the limo “stopped” right before the fatal head
shot(s).
Please read Palamara’s article for yourself, and expecially his
opening remarks regarding his research, to see how Mantik
misrepresented Palamara’s work.
Anthony Marsh dissected Palamara’s work, and comes up with 14
witnesses who stated “stopped” and 19 who stated
“slowed down”.
http://www.jfk-info.com/mantik-1.htm
\\][//
I agree that Linn Dunn was a great Hollywood artist who literally invented the techniques of film alteration that get thrown around in these Zapruder discussions by people who never even met him and have no idea what he could really do with the equipment he created.
Unfortunately I still have gotten no reply as to the mysterious
“Hollywood Group” examining the Z film and I keep hearing incorrect information being put out on the whole subject.
Enough frames were published within a week of the assassination to make
any further alteration impossible so the time frame is ridiculously small.
One of the biggest problems is that repositioning of the car would require
resynchronization of every reflection visible on it’s surface using a technique called “interactive light effects” that is extremely difficult to do even with high resolution images. I did interactive light on several 35mm films with explosions and tracer bullet reflections but it took weeks of agonizing work and endless test shots.
I would really love to hear a realistic explanation of how it could be done faster in an 8mm film in 1963.
I have experience with an optical printer and concur that claims of extensive alteration to the Z-film do not account for the severe technical challenges. Roland Zavada covered much of this ground a few years ago:
http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf (technical hurdles starting p 18). One of the most important factors, as you note, being the requirement for test shots (and their processing and developing) along the way. A limited job – such as a patch in a few frames – is possible for work occurring during the first weekend. But otherwise…not so likely.
The Nov. 29, 1963 Life showed frames before and after the headshot that locked in the position of the car and background so you could not go back in later and reposition anything to remove the “limo stop” if it happened. Nothing would have matched in the background.
I also think the forward movement of the passengers was more about ducking the bullets than slamming on brakes.
Connelly is just falling over and Nellie is pulling him down out of the line of fire. A big heavy Lincoln would have lurched like crazy in a sudden stop but there is no sign the car does that. If you could remove the cars lurch why leave in the
passengers lurch?
The car does slow a few seconds before the headshot as seen
in the Muchmore film of the brake lights. Muchmore was
shown publicly on Nov. 25 so again it seems there was no time to alter it. Acceleration out of this slow down matches up with Kennedy
moving backward after the headshot, which combined with Jackie
pulling him toward her might explain the whole backward movement thing.
I have never been convinced of a frontal shot since it would be
very risky for anyone to be out in the open with cameras and
a large crowd around and it would obviously risk a bullet hole
in the car or a bystander from the wrong direction.
Since Kennedy was exposed in the back of the car two or three shooters in or on buildings behind the car make more sense.
In the past I have analyzed frames from traveling matte
composites I shot myself for 35mm motion pictures and while they look believable when run on screen I can tweek the contrast, sharpness and color to reveal the imperfect matte edges and I can’t find similar defects in Zapruder even though we are told the manipulation is”obvious”.
I do think Zapruder does have some actual evidence that has gone unnoticed which makes me think it was not altered or that would have been removed. It has some intriguing evidence against the single bullet theory that I have never heard brought up.
Okay RM – you’ve got us all waiting. What is the intriguing evidence against the single bullet theory in the zfilm?
At the point where the 4 front passengers are ducking all the gunshots have stopped in the official version. They duck after the headshot at 313. So do you think there were extra shots?
Connally’s movements are the most bizarre of anyone in the limo. After being shot he sits up straight and looks at Kennedy, then turns again to the front where he jerks forward and then Nellie pulls him down into her lap. That doesn’t match with either of their WC testimony.
I don’t know how the alterations were done technically but have you seen John Costella’s youtube presentations? He goes into some detail of why and how the zfilm has been altered.
Thanks for your views.
Starting in 1970 I worked for 25 years photographing animated special effects for motion pictures and television and I am extremely curious as to who the mysterious “experts” are who are studying the Zapruder film. It would be interesting if Doug Horne would direct us their list of film credits on the IMDB.
I’ve been following the discussion for the past four years and I still
have heard no details about who they are or what kind of techniques they are familiar with.
I knew with Mr. Linwood Dunn for many years and did work for his company Film Effects of Hollywood in the 70s and for Walt Disney Productions in the 80s as well as many other special effects and animation companies.
My specialty was IN-CAMERA photographic effects which did not rely on an optical printer for compositing, although I also filmed elements for use in
optical printers when required. Most techniques I utilized had been created in the 1930s so film alterations were doable in 1963 if you used the right methods. However any extensive alteration would have required a large
number of skilled effects animators and in 1963 there just were not very many
of them in Hollywood. In those days it was a highly specialized
boutique business and no schools taught anything about special effects.
I learned by making 8mm Kodachrome home movies.
Regarding the 48 frame-per-second film speed I looked into that aspect of the case in the 70s and while skip printing could account for some of the
possible alterations it would greatly complicate the process.
For one thing the motion blur visible on moving objects would suddenly be one third the length it would appear at 16 frames per second. Yet Zapruder
has constant motion blur all the way through the film with no sign of
sudden and sustained sharpening of the images.
Also if the original film was 48 fps I am quite sure Dino Brugioni would have mentioned that it was a slow motion film since he viewed it projected
not just frame by frame.
I am puzzled as to why Kodak would need to send film to NPIC at all since they obviously could have created the prints themselves and had no need
to send it anywhere else. Brugioni himself said they could do anything so why
couldn’t they make a briefing board?
Yet they sent not one but two films, which really seems like a dead giveaway
since that fact alone destroys the credibility of both films.
Brugioni saw a SLIT 8mm film on Nov. 23 and McMahon saw an UNSLIT 16mm film on Nov. 24. Obviously they cannot both be the “Zapruder Camera Original”
so chain of custody is totally destroyed even if there was no alteration at all.
After 40 years of looking at Zapruder alteration I’m still on the fence about
how much could be done and in what kind of time frame.
I had 35mm high quality original footage to work with and several highly skilled artists and it still took weeks and lots of time consuming test composites to complete a finished scene that would look convincing.
R.M–
I see a familiar name, Linwood Dunn. The Dunns were my neighbors a lifetime ago, in Burbank. King Kong and the Enterprise right next door. How fortunate you were to work with him!. He was the best of the best. I look forward to the response to your question, as seen through your…er…lens. No, I couldn’t resist.
Denise
Probably the most complete documentary on “the big event” is “THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY,” EPISODES 1-10.
Even if the Pres. or Senate offered complete immunity from prosecution on the pretense of NS issues, the “EXTREME RIGHT” would never allow it. AMERICA has become the newest version of the NSDAP…
at least an Americanized Version anyway…Sorry. Hate to be deliver bad news, but you know what they did to the messenger!
….If I could only tell you more! D.E.
PS…it’s ALL too obvious and it’s just what you think,but worse!
Barr McClellan said THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY was an outstanding program by Nigel Turner. Those who criticized it, like Gerald Ford(which is most understandable)may have felt the program got too close to the truth-or that it showed the silliness of Oswald being the lone killer-or both.
One should read FBI 302 Report,File#SD 62-1529/SD 44-251, taken on 27NOV63,by SA Joseph L. Gerry from one Russell Ross Farrell, CMDR,USN (RET). Although this report is in ref. to one Ruby,Jack; it does spell out the conspiracy at almost the earliest point, with clarity.
Kennedy was given a “21 gun salute.” Seven teams total firing three rds ea. The “killzone” was marked on one side by yellow paint onthe curb. the “recording of the event” was captured on the police freq. by “shotcaller”beside the umbrella man who had a keyed mike in his pocket. the shooting teams were making commo via that freq by keying the mike and radio silence-for the most part! just “watch” a mil firing squad/detail at a funeral. close your eyes and count the shots…
Truth be known;if citizens knew how much their own claundestine svc was being, or had been mis-used..they would cry while they were running. of coarse frames were removed;films confiscated; people liquidated…within the “borders” of the US.
Come on people…we just fought two wars for over twelve years and nobody knows why? Gimme a break… D.E.
the avg. speed a human can run for a short distance is 12-15 mph so if the limo and the follow up car are going as slow as 12-15 mph Clint Hill would not have been able to run from one car to the other. since he did manage that feat,how slow was the limo going to allow that to happen ? if someone wants to calculate the distance and try to determine the speed necessary to allow Clint Hill to run forward to the Limo go ahead. To me the fact that he made it is the smoking gun as to the limo stopping or almost stopping. Also note that when Mr Hill stepped off of the follow up car he didnt fall down , go ahead,try stepping off of a moving vehicle and let me know how that works out for you
Thanks John – that’s a really good point about the speed of the limo and Clint Hill. I think there is a lot of good evidence now to show that the limo stopped including witness statements, the brake lights going on in the Nix film, the simultaneous lurching forward of the Connollys and the SS Agents in the z film and now, Clint Hill’s ability to even reach the limo at all.
Vanessa,
Physicist Luis Alvarez studied the Z film and found that at c. Z300 the limo abruptly slowed from about 12 to c. 8 mph. when Greer apparently took his foot off the accelerator as he glanced back.
Films taken from the opposite side of the street (e.g., the Nix) show that the limo slowed but did not stop.
The Connallys and Kellerman all said that after the President’s fatal wound, brain debris rained down on them — this may account for their lurching movements at that point.
When the limo suddenly slowed it produced a chain reaction, so that some cars near the Elm/Houston corner came to a complete halt, but the limo itself did not stop, as the other films prove.
Hi Jean
Thanks for your comments. I’ve only just seen this response. I’m actually one of those who believe that all the films have been altered in some way. Sounds ludicrous I know but there are just too many inconsistencies between the various films, the eyewitness testimonies, the things the films don’t show (including the turn onto Elm St) and what can actually be seen in the films themselves. I find John Costella’s assessment of the z film the most convincing.
The movement of the 4 people in the front of the vehicle looks too involuntary and simultaneous to be a reaction to brain matter to me. Unfortunately I don’t think the films show what actually happened. To misquote Shakespeare, the films honour the truth more in the breach than in the observance. (ie what’s left out is actually more important than what is left in). What do you think of John Costella’s assessment of the z film? Thanks for your views.
Vanessa, I’ve enjoyed your commentary here. About the Kennedys not moving whereas the Connalys and Kellerman lurch forward, I wonder if that means they(the latter group) were anticipating shots from either direction.
Thanks Paul, I appreciate that.
Possibly….but would they all have ducked at precisely the same time at a point in the zfilm when there is not supposed to be any gunfire? The ‘flung forward’ movement happens after all the official (and unofficial) shots have occurred.
This looks to me to be the best evidence for the limo having the brakes slammed on at that time. And the lack of movement by the Kennedys to be the best evidence that the film has been altered.
What do you think?
Vanessa, I’ll have to go through the section that researcher Bob Harris does on the various reactions by the limo passengers(and Greer himself)to understand the logic of the Zap film being altered, to be sure I can see hot it WAS altered. Have you watched Harris’ videos on the JFKHistory Page website? I like the work he’s done, but at the same time I want to understand it better. Hope that doesn’t sound too strange, lol. There sure was a lot of conspiracy evidence altered, I AM sure of THAT.
John and Vanessa, I’ve been trying to figure out Clint Hill’s actions throughout the shooting(that is, from before the first shot to after the last one). As I remarked in an earlier post, researcher Bob Harris called Hill a “true American hero”(JFKHistory Page)….I wonder if that was due to Hill’s actions helping us see the conspiracy.
Hi Paul
I’ve seen Bob Harris’s videos, he’s very reasonable and rational. (Although I’m now wondering if the reason for the splodge on the Hughes film as the limo turned onto Elm St is to obscure our vision of the TSBD doorway as much as it is obscuring anything happening in the limo.)
The reason I find the forward movement of the 4 front passengers so significant is that it’s simultaneous and appears involuntary. If they were reacting to being sprayed with brain matter or a gunshot or any other outside stimulus I would expect that we would see them reacting at different times and presumably in slightly different ways. Wouldn’t some of them bend down more or lean to the left or right to get out of the line of fire or brain matter?
But they all react the same. The jerk forward appears to be identical in nature – as though they were all being subjected to the same force at the same time.
And if this was due to the limo decelerating as someone suggested (rather than braking) then I would expect the Kennedy’s to jerk forward as well but they don’t. Which seems to be against the laws of physics.
Thanks for your views.
Hi John, I didn’t try to measure Hill’s speed but I did look at his stride rate and compared it to a 1998 study. In the Nix film, he’s swinging his legs unlike any other human. Not bad for a hungover smoker with leather-soled shoes!
http://d63.butterpaper.com/articles/25/clint-hill-s-swing-time
I think it;s the Zap film that shows Hill focusing hard on the left side area(where Jean Hill, Mary Moorman, and others were). Was he suspicious of something in particular from the left? In his words, the people there were “taking pictures, and that sort of thing”. What’s dangerous about that, Clint? He was still looking left when the first shot rang out(which was on the right side, of course). He moves his head to the right, but the second shot comes in the middle of his head rotation. NOW, things are dangerous, Clint.
I count three instances of the hair above JFK’s forehead flipping upward in the frames preceding 313. This is probably old territory to others on the site so I would just ask what the conventional wisdom is; bullets or wind? One looks well timed with a reaction from Conally, as though it might have missed JFK and hit Conally. If misses then obviously out of sequence with any notion of a lone gunman. If wind, then there is a very odd oscillation of quick gusts interspersed within relative calm.
Notice in this video that the newscaster says, “Police and Secret Service men quickly pulled their guns and rifles, but it is not yet known whether they returned any fire.” So the rifle (AR-15) was seen, and there was thought that the Secret Service may have returned fire. Supports the Donahue theory. And the Donahue theory explains why the limo stop would have been removed.
But USAF General Partin and Colonel Fletcher Prouty were nutbars and Garrison had good relations with various Mafia figures:
“Oser: What did the limousine do then?
Simmons: It paused and then accelerated real fast after the motorcycle got out of the way.
And Penn Jones Jr.
“Simmons said he believed it was the motorcycle cop at the left front of the automobile who got in the way, and who made it appear he was trying to find out what the shooting was all about” (Forgive My Grief III pg 55)”
The superb scholarship of Larry Rivera in his studies of the motorcycle officers has contributed immensely to our understanding of the movements of the limousine along Elm Street.
Corroboration of the limo stop comes from yet another one of the motorcycle officers in the motorcade: Jimmy W. Courson. Courson was one of the mid-motorcade officers, who was driving up Houston Street when he heard the shots. When the motorcade came to a standstill, Courson rode forward to observe the stricken president. When he drove down Elm Street, the presidential limo was at a full stop, allowing Courson to peer inside the vehicle.
Here are the words of Officer Courson
“Everything stopped. When I pulled up on the left side of the car and looked in, Mrs. Kennedy looked up….There was brains and blood and hair on the jump seat in front of the president, and the flowers were all over the seat and on the floor. I knew exactly what happened to the president.”
For Courson to have heard the shots on Houston Street and driven forward to the middle of Elm Street and then peer into the open limousine, Greer had to have brought the vehicle to a full stop.
Regarding Jeff Morley’s major reservation about Z-film alteration that “the alleged removal of frames would have also removed the movements of people standing around the presidential motorcade”: In fact, through the use of an optical printer, the integrity of the bystanders movements could be preserved while making abundant alterations to frames depicting the limousine. As it turns out, the forgers of the Zapruder film were actually very sloppy with their work with the bystanders. At the start of the film, the people standing along Elm Street are statuesque, not reacting to the passing of president, while the people across the street are jumping up and down and moving into the street. And have a look at the frames that depict Jean Hill: she is not even looking at the limousine, but her gaze is directed back up the hill on Elm Street!
Here is more proof of sequences removed from the Z film. This is from interview with Harry Freeman regarding his position on Elm Street at the time of the shooting:
Harry Freeman
Whitney: What position did you have at that point, when they were coming down Elm Street toward the underpass? (9:33)
Freeman: I was right to the left front, I was out, oh a few feet out the left front (9:41)
Whitney: The lead car – Curry’s car?
Freeman: No no, at that time I was between Curry’s car and the uh, limousine. (9:55)
Whitney: And you were at that position when the shooting took place.
Freeman: Right.
Whitney: You were ahead of Curry then at that point, at the underpass. (36:53)
Freeman: At the underpass? No Curry was ahead of me. (36:55)
Whitney: Curry was ahead of you.
Freeman: Yes (36:58)
Obviously, Freeman is not seen in the Z film at any point.
And here is more from James Simmons at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969:
Oser: What did the limousine do then?
Simmons: It paused and then accelerated real fast after the motorcycle got out of the way.
And Penn Jones Jr.
“Simmons said he believed it was the motorcycle cop at the left front of the automobile who got in the way, and who made it appear he was trying to find out what the shooting was all about” (Forgive My Grief III pg 55)
That’s excellent Larry. I’ve also always wondered why Gov Connolly said he couldn’t see JFK at all when he turned around to the left (not shown in the z film at all) and then turned to the right but still couldn’t see JFK. Yet before and after frame 275 Connolly is clearly looking directly at JFK for a number of frames. And at frame 290 a slice appears to have been taken out of Jackie’s pink hat. It is suddenly sliced on the right side instead of the full rounded hat. To me the jumps in the film are visible when it’s in slow motion. There’s no question that it’s been cut to pieces.
Vanessa writes:
“There’s no question that it’s been cut to pieces.”
Is it your belief that the Kennedys’ heads or bodies were excised from the ‘authentic’ film so the president’s wounds could be manufactured or touched up? And then their retouched bodies were reinserted into the ‘authentic’ film? And other frames were cut and spliced and painted and otherwise manipulated to make the ‘bogus’ film conform to a preconceived scenario? Hmmm.
Suppose a frontal shot had hit the president right in the middle of his forehead. Had the plotters prearranged with the forgers to erase such a wound? Did the plotters trust the autopsy prosectors (and everyone else at the autopsy . . . and Parkland) to pretend that a dead center frontal head wound didn’t exist? Did the forgers coordinate with the prosectors to manufacture the ‘official’ wounds that became so controversial?
Do you understand how deep this gets . . . very quickly? Did Katzenbach, Hoover, the autopsy team and the forgers all have pre-knowledge of the assassination, and if so, who were the forgers trying to fool? After all, the public didn’t see the film for twelve years! And when the film was finally aired, the public overwhelmingly believed Kennedy had been shot from the front . . . because that’s the way it appears in the film.
Mr. Horne believes the film was altered to conceal a rear blowout wound. Yet, how many of the wounds does the film actually show? Connally’s wounds? Kennedy’s back wound or neck wound? The rear head wound described by the prosectors? Isn’t it conceivable that fragments of a frontal shot exited the rear of JFK’s head without being highlighted in Z’s film? And if the ‘authentic’ film actually showed a rear blowout wound, what difference would it make? The government would have found an expert to explain the blowout as some kind of natural effect of a rear entry shot. I can’t think of any persuasive rationale to justify film alteration.
Incidentally, Connally first turned to his right, and then back to the left. I’m one of those who believes Connally was hit much later than the official version claims.
[FWIW, I think Kennedy’s ambush was a hit & run involving three or four shooters plus a few support personnel, orchestrated by the usual CIA suspects.]
Hi Bill
Thanks for your comments. I can’t say how the alteration was done as I’m no expert in film or cameras. But on the z film there are a number of inconsistencies that can’t be explained any other way. For me the prime example is the Connollys and SS Agents jerking forward and the Kennedays not moving. I don’t see how that could physically happen.
Like you my first reaction on hearing about the z film being ‘fake’ was “Why on earth would they fake the film and still leave in evidence of a shooter from the front”? But after reading the various explanations and looking at the film frame by frame it’s hard to disbelieve anymore. I think that whoever was altering the film had several problems to contend with including a car stop, a shot from the front, an additional shot from behind and Connollys movements. Trying to ‘fix’ all these problems led to the inconsistencies we see. As you know the film wasn’t shown for 12 years and there were obviously good reasons for that. What strikes me as odd is that in the conflict between eliminating the car stop and any evidence of a shot from the front it appears that eliminating the car stop won out. Whereas my choice would have been to eliminate the shot from the front leave in the car stop and blame it on human error. Kellerman’s WC testimony admits that Greet tapped the brakes to see if they would respond. And yes it make for a massively wide and deep conspiracy for this to have occured. The best explanation I’ve seen of how the conspiracy could have happened is in “JFK and the Unspeakable” ie CIA was embedded throughout the government and used it’s pre-existing assets including the TSBD and Oswald to carry it out. The one thing I’ve never understood about the assassins is why they left those 2 or 3 shell casings on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Especially if you know you have at least 2 different shooters. Why limit your options to only 3 shots when it’s possible many more may be fired. Without that ‘evidence’ of only 3 shots they would have made the cover up much easier! They should have just taken the shells with them. Thanks for the tip about Connolly going right first but we should still see him turning left shouldn’t we. I still don’t understand why he couldn’t see Kennedy when he was sitting up in the seat looking right at him. I agree there were more shooters too. What do you mean by ‘hit and run’ though? Thanks for your views.
James…it is physical impossible for for JW Courson, who was in postion near the Press Bus, to do what he has said he did. Just impossible. I have real doubts about his statement pertaining to him riding up and seeing the President’s vehicle WHILE ON ELM STREET. Here is an exchange between Officer McClain and Mr. Dodd, at the HSCA hearing. in the photo I am alluding to, Exhibit number, Ex F-675, One can see that the Limo is well out of Elm…far gone under the Overpass, and Mr. Courson is just getting to the spot where the last bullet struck JFK. In fact, the Presidents Limo was already out of the plaza when that occurred.
Take a look at the photo and it will reveal many things. The most startling is the appearance of News Cameramen standing there. These men jumped out of the press vehicle and RAN down Elm after the Limo. They certainly didn’t outrun the limo carrying Kennedy. Obviously Courson can’t have possible have seen the aftermath of the last shot…and be zooming down the street.
I believe the quote cited, about him pulling along side…may have occurred at Parkland…(or never at all). Check out the link and you’ll see that it just plain old shoots that alteration theory to death. In fact, the Zapruder Film is proven, again, to be the real record, especially when viewed in conjunction to Bell, Nix, etc, let alone still photos (such as in the link).
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
Let’s hear from the motorcycle cops themselves:
James Chaney
Chaney: I know I stopped.
Whitney: Right
Chaney: Whenever I seen what happened there, then, I know Hargis, the motorcycle escort on the other side run across the front.(5:30)
Whitney: Yeah, Bobby, I just spoke to him just a few minutes ago. Yeah, you know I think at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop…
Chaney: Whether the lead car did or not – I don’t believe that it did….it slowed down enough that this agent, whats his name Clint Hill?,
Whitney: Right, right.
Chaney: …slowed down enough that he did get on that car, now whether or not he was on there or not you know – several different times during the procession there, he would run up and jump on this little step and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off, and (6:09) – that all depends on how fast it was going along and where we were at – so whether, I don’t believe that it actually stopped, it could have, but I don’t know – I know that the second car did ’cause I recall the officers..[humming] and Officer Hargis jumped off the motor and run in front
of me. [This proves the Bell film has been hacked]
Whitney: Right, right, that’s another thing –
Chaney: I don’t recall myself stopping – I must have or come almost to a stop. Hargis did, he got off of his motorcycle over on the left hand side and run between those two cars…and run in front of me, so apparently I did too. I don’t recall stopping, but I’m not sure.
Bobby Hargis
Hargis:
Whitney: Do you remember how long it stopped when it was on Elm Street.
Hargis: Oh – you mean after that first shot?
Whitney: Right.
Hargis: Only about uh, oh 3-4 seconds. Maybe about 5-6. That’s all.
Whitney: You say it stopped for about 5 or 6 seconds.
Hargis: Yeah, but you won’t find that in the Warren Commission report.
Whitney: Don’t they claim that it stopped?
Hargis: Huh?
Whitney: Don’t they claim that it stopped?
Hargis: Ah no I don’t think it didn’t – you’ve seen a rolling stop have you? It’s going less than one mile an hour?
Whitney: Right, right.
Hargis: Well that’s what he was doing he wasn’t completely stopped or dead still.
Douglas Jackson
Whitney: OK…What you think of the film?
Jackson: I liked it. The only thing is I thought that caravan stopped and it didn’t.
B.J. Martin
Whitney: ‘Cause we see a lot of things in there. In fact we see one thing which is very disturbing, that the car doesn’t even stop in that film, doesn’t even slow down.
Martin: Doesn’t slow down at all?
Whitney: No, somebody’s monkeying around with, some things…
Martin: I would’ve sworn that, that it was, uh, the time that he, uh, tried to get up, that the car stopped, and then….(56:00)
Whitney: You say who was trying to get up.
Martin: ..the agent – after the shooting? That when he came up to, and jumped up to the back of the car – at that instant is when it stopped, and I believe he lost his balance. And then they
started again, and of course was throwing him off and that’s when she turned around and – I thought was trying to help him get up on the, you know, help him up on the back of the limousine.
Stavis Ellis
Whitney: The President’s limousine stopped for a while, right at that point?
Ellis: Well no it didn’t stop, it almost stopped. If you’ve ever ridden a motor, you know if you go so slow, your motor will want to lean to one side, you have to put your foot down and balance
it, but we were going so slow, that’s what was happening we were having to kick our foot down, a very slow pace, this was, after the first shot was fired, we were – we cut the speed, the Secret Service cut the speed, on the convoy.
Whitney: You know for how long?
Ellis: Well, it was just momentarily, it never did stop, it almost stopped, it got so slow, we were just barely moving – and then they hollered Go Go Go! Lets go. Get him to the hospital as
quick as you can!
Excellent work Larry.
Hargis said ‘rolling stop’ (this is how I would describe it from viewing the Nix film on this site).
Ellis said ‘almost stopped’.
Works for me but haven’t noticed this in the Z-film for some reason.
Thank you Gerry, but Hargis also said the limo stopped 4-5 seconds AND Chaney was clear about seeing Hargis run in between the two cars, which would have been the SS100X and the Queen Mary, the Cadillac containing the SS agents. For this to have happened, both vehicles had to have been at, or near a complete stop. Here is even more from Chaney:
Chaney: I don’t know whether the lead car stopped or not but I know that uh, I mean uh, Kennedy’s car, the one behind them,..apparently did because it was officers that run from the left hand side, in front of me –
When he mentions “lead car” he is referring to the car driven by Chief Jesse Curry, where FBI agent Winston Lawson was in the front passenger seat, and Sheriff Bill Decker and SSAIC Forrest Sorrels in the rear seats.(See Schematic Listing by Todd Wayne Vaughan, 1993) Under close examination of the Altgens7 photograph, which was originally cropped http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=2&pos=5 to cut part of Curry’s white Ford 4-door Mercury, one can clearly see Sheriff Decker turned around, facing the JFK limo AND both break lights on. http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5983&fullsize=1 Compare with the “original” surviving Altgens7 which has additionally been chopped off in the upper right hand corner http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=6179&fullsize=1
And finally, I offer a portion of Douglas Jackson’s manuscript written the night of 11/22:
“..and Secret Service men were running past the Presidential car drawing their guns as they ran”
It is quite obvious that neither of these events are seen in the extant Zapruder film.
There was a lot of wild and wacky testimony from Dealey Plaza witnesses, and of course it conflicts with what’s in the Zapruder film.
And Nix and Muchmore.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/witnesses.htm#wacky
One really needs a sense of how unreliable witness testimony is.
John, would you describe as “unreliable” comments from witnesses who thought the shots came from the TSBD 6th floor?
I would say witnesses who saw a gun or a shooter are pretty reliable evidence of a shooter in the Depository. There are several (Euins, Couch, Mrs. Cabel, Worrell, Brennan) who corroborate each other.
Those who merely thought they heard shots from that direction are not, on the face of it, more or less reliable than those who heard shots from some other direction.
Thanks Professor
“There was a lot of wild and wacky testimony from Dealey Plaza witnesses, and of course it conflicts with what’s in the Zapruder film”.
Why “of course” Professor?
There is another atrocity caught on film and that is the Boston bombing. I haven’t seen any interviews with witnesses that contradicts what they actually did on the film. I haven’t seen any events which numerous witnesses testify actually happened (ie Chaney talking to Curry) which don’t appear at all and I haven’t seen anything on the Boston bombings films that defies the laws of physics.
Why don’t we see any discrepancies between the witness accounts and what is on the Boston bombing film compared to what we see in the witness testimony and the Zapruder film?
I don’t think film exists of the double assassination in Sarajevo in 1914, but, if eyewitness accounts of the event differ, I am unaware of it.
Have you noticed that three of your witnesses said the car didn’t stop?
Only slowed down.
Hello, Larry. I’m curious as to where you got the transcript for these interviews with the motorcycle cops. I recognize the Chaney interview as one posted on the Ed Forum by Tink Thompson in order to demolish the claim Chaney believed the limo stopped. He credited it to a researcher named Gil Toft, however. Who is Whitney?
Your help appreciated.
Perhaps Greer slowed down because he thought that the shots came from the front.
Hmmmm. Never thought of that angle.
When physicist Luis Alvarez examined the Z film, he found that the limo slowed from about 12mph to 8mph beginning at around frame 300. As I recall, he attributed this to Greer’s taking his foot off the gas pedal when he turned around quickly to look into the back seat.
The limo’s abrupt slowing apparently caused a chain reaction that rippled back, because several cars (like Mayor Cabell’s) did stop momentarily.
Some of the witnesses who said the limo itself stopped (as opposed to “the motorcade stopped,” which is not the same thing) were well behind the limousine. Bob Clark, e.g., was in the back seat of the 5th car behind the limo. Scroll down here to see the motorcade lineup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Motorcade_vehicles_and_personnel
Truly and Betzner were also far behind the limo near the corner of Elm and Houston. IMO, from where they were standing, it may’ve *looked* as if the limo’s quick slowdown was an actual stop.
This reminder about Alvarez’ finding is a good one, but did Alvarez rely on the Zapruder film only? What did he cite as his reasoning?
I recall from the presentation of the Nix film in another thread on this site, that the slowdown seemed more dramatic than I thought possible. It was almost like ‘rolling stop’. I was surprised to tell you the truth.
Zapruder vs. Nix vs. Muchmore: Has anyone ever tried to exhaustively compare/contrast these films frame by frame (or even second by second) to see if they depict precisely the same series of events or not? Doug Horne above gives the example of the Nix film in Executive Action showing something the “official” Z-film does not: Clint Hill’s left arm and hand touching Jackie’s right shoulder.
If one or more of these films were deliberately altered, it seems to me that because of the different filming perspectives and frame rates, whoever altered them probably failed to do a completely consistent job. So how many obvious inconsistencies between them can be identified – frame by frame, second by second? Has anyone with the necessary expertise ever attempted such a comprehensive comparison of all three films?
Not sure if someone has done a universal comparison.
I also have the DVD by Groden called The Assassinaton Films (as well as that of the motion picture, Executive Action) and will check for differences.
You mentioned different films having different perspectives. That may account for what APPEARS to be a difference in CONTENT, when such may not be the case (it’s just the perspective that’s changed).
Hi Dave you can start here
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=135
I’m interested as to why Greer looked in the back seat. As the driver of the limo, shouldn’t he have focused on doing just that, and that ONLY?
Dear Doug
Just wanted to thank you for your fantastic work on the JFK assassination.
I agree with your views on the Zapruder film and how the public’s views of it will change. I’m wondering if I can ask you what you think of frames 326 onwards when it is fairly clear to the naked eye that all four occupants in the front of the vehicle lurch forwards suddenly as though the brakes had been applied sharply? This can be most clearly seen in the youtube video ‘The JFK assassination – a simple introduction”. In the section named the “Fast-Forward Mistakes” at around paragraphs 31-35 it seems clear that the Connollys and the SS agents lurch forward suddenly while the Kennedys don’t move at all. I don’t see how this could be physically possible unless the film has been altered. Thanks for any comments you have.
regards Vanessa
To show that there’s more than just one side to the “Limo Stopped” story, here is an interview on 11/22/63 with reporter Pierce Allman of WFAA in Dallas, who said “The car kept going; the car did not stop.” ….
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/pierce-allman.html
Also note Allman’s account of the spacing of the THREE shots he heard — “The shots didn’t seem rapid at all. They were three well-spaced, reverberating shots.”
Hi David
Thanks for that. I’m just wondering if you’ve seen the youtube video I referred to in my post and in particular the section about “Fast Forward” mistakes. Does it look to you as though the Kennedys don’t move but the Connollys and SS agents jerk forward? I can’t get past that as evidence for the film having been altered.Thanks for your views. regards Vanessa
David Von Pein:
A much more complete interview with reporter Pierce Allman appears on a different internet site. Your link offered only a brief audio clip. The following video provides a detailed recreation of the crime scene with Allman describing his original viewing and auditory experience in Dealey Plaza:
http://www.everythinglubbock.com/story/d/story/jfk-extended-interview-pierce-allman-eyewitness/38889/fFDtcSEF4EOHTZNDPlk8hA
Allman was standing at the corner or Houston and Elm, and he walks us through his experience. Towards the close of the interview, Allman states, “Right after the third shot, the limo paused momentarily and then took off.” That statement corroborates other eyewitnesses who observed either a slowing or a full stop of the limo. It is also consistent with the abundant citations of the police officers provided by Larry Rivera and me on this thread.
Additionally, Allman describes in lurid detail how Jackie was “up on the back…trying to retrieve that massive piece of skull that had blown off of her husband’s head.” But in the Zapruder film, we do not see the piece of skull or any other brain debris that was the objective of Jackie frantic and near full body extension on the limousine trunk.
Toni Glover, Ph.D., who is now an Associate Professor of English at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania, was an 11-year-old standing on one of the Dealey Plaza abutments very near the location of Pierce Allman. Toni’s perch at the corner of Houston and Elm gave her a bird’s eye view of the limousine slowly lumbering down Elm Street. She witnessed JFK’s head explosion and the debris on the trunk. In a CNN interview last November, Toni stated that “the back of the trunk was a mess . . . . covered in brains and blood.” Again, we do not see any of this gruesome evidence in the Zapruder film.
Allman also describes how Secret Service Agent Clint Hill “was giving thumbs down to the guys in back indicating it is bad, and he is screaming at the driver, ‘Go!'”
For decades, Hill has maintained that he turned and gave the “thumbs down” sign to his cohorts. But we never see that dramatic gesture in either the Zapruder and Nix films. And why would Clint Hill need to scream, “Go!” to the driver if the limo had not slowed substantially or stopped?
Wow. Fascinating. He also said that Jackie went up on the trunk to retrieve a piece of the President, not to get out of limo, etc. etc.
If his account here is more frank, does that mean he was more reserved back then to, censor unpleasant details or to not make anyone in authority look bad for fear of recrimination?
David,
He’s just one voice of many that saw or heard otherwise.
(I’ll buy an autographed copy of your book when re-published).
At 4:45 of this video Pierce Allman states that the President’s limousine paused momentarily after the first shot. At 4:05 of this video Mr. Allman states that he witnessed Clint Hill giving the thumbs down sign from the trunk of the limousine. Mr. Allman states he was at the corner of Elm and Houston across the street from the TSBD building.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3wPKVY3BM
Subject: ABC News: JFK Limo Stopped
Date: 8/28/2014 11:02:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
—————
Hi Dave,
Nice summary but there are a few more things you need to know. First, there’s no way to know when Allman’s TSBD report saying the car didn’t stop actually aired, but it was definitely within the first ten minutes or so, and here’s why.
After running to the Newmans and then to the knoll fence, he went to the TSBD and called WFAA radio where he was program director. He spoke to newsman John Allen, who put him on the air immediately. My estimate is ten minutes or [less] after the shooting.
Unfortunately, WFAA didn’t start recording its broadcasts until later, but Pierce’s report was recorded as it aired live. That recording was saved and played back later and that is what survives today. The original WFAA tapes are part of the Museum’s collection and I noticed the replay years ago when the tapes first arrived.
As for Horne, he never explains when, where and how all four films of the head shot were altered to perfectly match each other when the documentation is clear that could not have happened. Zapruder’s film is well documented, Nix’ film wasn’t even processed until December 1, Muchmore’s film went directly from her camera to the lab on November 25 and then flown to New York where it was shown on local TV the next night, and the Bronson film was processed on 11/24 and kept in his possession from that day until 1978 when reporter Earl Golz and I watched it in his house and took it back to Dallas.
Nor has Horne bothered to view the Zapruder film frames in stereo pairs, a test that always – repeat, always – reveals alterations to motion pictures. For that matter, he ignores the Secret Services copies that were made in Washington immediately upon receiving one of the three Zapruder copies the night of the assassination. One of those Washington prints is probably what Dino Brugioni saw that weekend.
An easy way to understand what Greer did and why is to drive the actual route (as I have) which folks will be able to do within a few weeks when Houston Street returns to its two-way status of 1963. Once out of the intersection, the street slopes down and away so drivers briefly cannot see the road. Then it quickly makes an S-turn to the left and then the right, so since Greer had never driven the road before he had to have been very surprised and a bit confused as to where to go.
Greer had to process all that information while keeping an eye on Curry a hundred feet ahead or so and also, once he recognized the pops were gunshots, he had to decide what to do and where to go. How many seconds does that take? Five, ten, more, less? Who can say?
Gary
——————–
Subject: Re: JFK Limo Stopped & Pierce Allman
Date: 8/28/2014 2:12:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
—————
Gary,
Thanks (as always) for all the great information.
One clarification, however, regarding Pierce Allman’s reports…..
The on-the-air (and in-the-studio) report provided by WFAA’s Pierce Allman that is heard at the link below is most definitely NOT the same “from the TSBD” report that Pierce phoned in just a few minutes after the shooting.
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/pierce-allman.html
The report linked above was aired live on WFAA-Radio about 80 to 90 minutes after the assassination took place and about half-an-hour or so after JFK was officially pronounced dead. The timing of his report becomes obvious when Allman talks about the fact that the President had, in fact, died. So this cannot be a taped replay of Allman’s first report from the Book Depository.
DVP
Thanks Gary and David
I have driven the route about 20 years ago and there is certainly a sharper dip in the road than you can work out from the various films. But it certainly didn’t prevent us from seeing the road just like any other turn and certainly didn’t require braking. And we come from a country where they drive on the opposite side of the road to the USA. I think if the stop was just human error then why not ‘fess up to it. Kellerman went some way towards that in his WC testimony when he said Greer tapped the brakes to see if they would respond. And yet the extant z film contradicts that.
The view that all assassination films could not be altered leaves out the fact that all of them are in pieces (including Zapruder). Matching scenes are not in all of them. Bronson, Nix, Bell & Muchmore all miss the Umbrella Man & DCM. NONE of the films have a complete, un-cut turn onto Elm Street from Houston Street. An alternate analysis is to look for scenes spliced (Towner)into or missing (Elm Street turn). Bronson’s Elm Street sequence lasts all of about 2 seconds. Interestingly, Bronson returned to his film spot post-ambush & the tree foliage blocking the steps area of the North Pergola is much higher & not blocking the view.
The long arm of CIA, FBI & the media working together in secrecy is not difficult to visualize a concentrated effort to distort the visual record in some way or form without having ‘insider’ confirmation such activities transpired. That’s what Doug Horne is demonstrating in his new research: the long arm of the CIA gained possession of Zapruder’s film, changed it & fed the results to the global public via Life & Time magazines. Just about all of the 2nd wave of films & photos Life got its hands on in 1967 have been accused of becoming more & later victims of visuals alteration.
The pattern I have noticed about the assassination footage is the Secret Service followup car seems to disappear as it tailgated the Presidential limo during the attack on Elm Street. There is no complete visual record of the SS car the entire trip down the street during the attack. The brief glimpse of the agents & their followup car Bronson’s film provides is obscured by spectators. Another obvious pattern is that the same photographers that took the time & trouble to be at Dealey Plaza to film JFK’s entourage either missed filming him turning onto Elm Street or following his limo the entire length of the street. Too much of a coincidence for me, I believe much frame omission & resizing took place to hide the guards & their car plus the turn onto Elm Street. What’s missing from the films is the evidence of alteration IMO.
I agree Preston. I find the fact that none of the films has the turn onto Elm St undamaged the most telling. Either the most incompetent group of homevideo makers ever assembled all damaged their own film at the same spot at the same time or something happened at that point in the motorcade which wasn’t consistent with the story the assassins were trying to sell.
At least something happened at that point in the motorcade which wasn’t consistent with the story the government was trying to sell.
SINCE THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD IS A POSSIBLE CAR STOP, and its removal from the Zapruder film, please allow me to engage in some informed speculation here, as I present my hypothesis about what probably happened:
I do not think it would be possible to remove even a brief car stop (or a rapid deceleration tantamount to a brief “stop”) from a film shot at 16 fps without a huge, undeniable, massive JUMP CUT in the finished product.
I also note that Zapruder and his secetary, Marilyn Sitzman, both were certain that he started filming the motorcade BEFORE the limousine turned from Houston to Elm. And yet that limo turn is NOT in the extant film.
I believe these two subjects are interrelated.
I believe Z. filmed the limo turn at the normal speed of 16 fps, then pressed down a little harder on the operating switch after the turn, INTENTIONALLY, and began filming the motorcade on Elm at the much faster frame rate of 48 fps—three times normal speed—which was oddly enough called “slow motion” (see camera switch closeup in Shane O’Sullivan video). The fast frame rate was called “slow motion” because a film with three times the normal frames shot per second, when played back on a home movie projector at the normal speed of 16 fps, presented a “slow motion” version of what was filmed at the faster speed.
If Z. did this—shot the Elm Street motorcade at 48 fps instead of 16—then the film’s manipulators, in that instance, WOULD, I believe, have been able to remove a brief car stop WITHOUT a massive “jump cut” being seen in the new version of the film, providing the new, reassembled film was only at the normal rate of 16 fps. Those altering the film would have had the freedom of junking—removing—two thirds of the frames in the 48 fps Z film as they excised the car stop, and reassembled a new film that would run at about 16 fps. This would have been done using step printing in an optical printer. (ALSO, an animation stand in an aerial optical printer would have been used to alter wound images—black out the back of the head—during the same operation.)
But changing operating speeds would have produced a giveaway in the film—a massive density change for many, many frames until the light meter and iris adjusted to the faster frame rate. That would have been an indicator that Z had switched from the normal run speed to SLOW MOTION (i.e., 48 fps). Since the reassembled film (now without the car stop) was reduced to a 16 fps “normal” film speed again, the entire turn sequence containing the density change would have HAD TO BE OPTICALLY EXCISED—edited out—to avoid revealing that Z had switched the running speed to a much higher frame rate.
We note today that there IS a jump cut in the film, well up Elm Street, from scenes of advance motorcyclists to scenes of the JFK limo suddenly appearing out of nowhere. There is NO first-frame overexposure at this abrupt transition, as there should be in any spring-wound camera. The absence of first-frame overexposure, Hollywood experts agree, is an impossibility when one stops and then restarts a spring-wound camera. Therefore, I conclude that the turn from Houston to Elm was optically excised in an optical printer, and that is why there is no first-frame overexposure at this transition.
It all hangs together, or seems to.
I believe Z. shot the motorcade sequence AFTER the limo turn, at 48 fps (all he had to do was press down more firmly on the operating switch), and that the 48 fps film had to be reduced back down to about 16 fps because of the removal of the car stop.
This is what I believe happened. I believe the many, many persuasive eyewitnesses to the brief limo stop. Their accounts represent reality, and the extant film, in some respects, does not.
Does this remind you of the Japanese masterpiece “Rashomon?” It should, for we are arguing here about what is real and what is not. But I think that in time, we shall come to a firmer conclusion than the audience does when viewing “Rashomon.”
I believe the Zapruder film will remain a critically important film document, but not for the reasons it once was cherished. I think that 20 years from now, when this debate about alteration is over, the Zapruder film will represent NOT the closest thing to ground truth in the Kennedy assassination, but rather crucial evidence of a massive U.S. govt cover-up. END
If living witnesses can be located & willing to speak on record about viewing the Zapruder film original(or one of the 3 copies) the ambush weekend can confirm that some of the Zapruder film they saw was in slow motion it’s game over for the people pushing the view the government would not or could not falsify Zapruder’s film of the assassination. There is no slow motion in the film housed at the National Archives. Great work, Mr. Horne. Once this Zapruder falsification of evidence sinks in folks will be calling you a hero for bringing the public much closer to the truth of JFK’s death & who was responsible for it.
This is one of the best, most precise explanations about the how and why of possible Z-film alteration (which, coupled with the CIA man’s memory of how the film was presented to him and was different from the final version in the Archives) should be further investigated. I’m hoping that the film experts in California can further add to this research. A car stop would make it easier for the assassin(s) in front to hit only JFK and not LBJ’s friend, Governor Connally again, and especially not to miss and hit the First Lady, someone they really did not want to hit by mistake.
Is that evidence that Zapruder was in on the conspiracy? Is there an innocent reason for his filming the motorcade that way?
“I also note that Zapruder and his secetary, Marilyn Sitzman, both were certain that he started filming the motorcade BEFORE the limousine turned from Houston to Elm. And yet that limo turn is NOT in the extant film.”~Douglas Horne
Besides the fact that Zapruder himself said that he stopped the camera after the first escort motorcycles went past and the caravan still wasn’t in view, and that he began filming again when the limo finally was in view – catching it a bit late for that actual turn; there is also Zavada’s explanation of a “first frame slight overexposure” each time it was restarted.
Zavada in fact documents all of the particulars of the camera Zapruder was using. He was the first to explain what caused the “ghost images” that float around the left margins of the film – and which are actually a reflection of the frame just previous to the main frame shown. And THIS is the proof that no frames have been removed from the sequence! Each ghost image in the film corresponds with the previous frame throughout the whole sequence.
It was 30 years after the film was shot that these anomalies were explained. If someone were to attempt to fake the film by removing frames, they would not have known that they had to account for the previous image as ghost image.
There are other, even more dramatic reasons that it is impossible for the Z-film to have been counterfeited, and those have been given further down-thread, in my commentary on the chemistry of Kodachrome II.
\\][//
The extant Nix film shows a dramatic slowing of the limo to a near stop but no swerve to the left.
I don’t know why it’s hard to believe the Z-film could have been altered to eliminate a limo stop. There are plenty of obvious anomalies in the Z-film in addition to the anomalies detected by careful analysis of film frames. The Z-film literally screams, “I’m a fraud.”
I agree that the Nix film shows a much more dramatic slowing than the Zapruder film. But how much of that is due to a different shooting perspective and distance? Do we really need to throw the baby out with the bath water?
Let’s assume that the Z film was faked.
What would be the reason to hide a slowing down of the limo?
Was Greer afraid of losing his job? (I say this tongue-in-cheek).
The SS probably covered their ass a bit (their files were destroyed just prior to the ARRB getting their hands on them IIRC), but I doubt they would get themselves involved in tampering with the Z film to eliminate evidence that the limo slowed down. The deceleration could’ve been an honest mistake, but I doubt that it would’ve made a difference if they got to Parkland a little quicker.
About Greer being afraid he’d lose his job, the lengthy KGB report on the assassination does say that Greer’s actions were a breach of Secret Service protocol.
One explanation is that Greer might had hesitated because he felt he was driving toward the gunfire. That would be a natural reaction.
Just re-visiting.
Could be the case, or echoes but what was he expected to do if they were from the front? Back up and drive in the opposite direction. He had to barrel out of there the instant he heard a shot!
To Gayle Nix Jackson:
In Mark Lane’s 1966 film “Rush to Judgment,” your grandfather Orville Nix comes across as a very honest and credible person. As I recall, he told Mark Lane on film that some frames were missing from his film.
That, to me, seems consistent with him telling you that “it looked different” to him when he got it back.
My hope is that the increasing interest in the Zapruder film and its possible/probable alteration (the evidence is growing), and Shane O’Sullivan’s 85 minute extra feature “The Zapruder Film Mystery,” featuring Dino Brugioni, will inspire someone involved with the Zapruder film’s alteration—someone who was a young technician in November of 1963—to come forward, as Dino did, and describe in detail (as Dino did for the briefing board events) his own role in the film’s alteration.
Gayle, I have noted one difference already between the Nix film and the Zapruder film. In the Nix film (as I view it in the feature “Executive Action,” the 1973 movie), Clint Hill places his left arm and hand around Jackie’s right shoulder…but I DO NOT see that happen in the Zapruder film. Serious food for thought…and further study. One can study the Nix film frame by video frame in the Executive Action DVD and see what I am describing here.
One startling reaction Dino had to the extant Z film during his interview with me in 2011 (which is not in Shane’s documentary interview) is that Dino strongly recalled Clint Hill striking Jackie Kennedy—forcefully hitting or shoving her—to get her back into the limo. He was very disturbed that he did not see what he remembered about Clint Hill’s actions in the extant film.
Doug Horne
So once we start talking about Zapruder film alteration to conceal the nature of the head wound, it’s seems we have to say that Nix was altered too.
But then Muchmore shows the same thing: brain matter blown upward and forward.
Want to go for Muchmore alteration too?
Let’s just posit that everything was altered. That way we can continue to believe in a conspiracy.
Professor, I agree that we see that frontal ‘splash’ in more than one film, but the counter argument is that it is blow-back* or back splatter, which are legitimate, forensic pathological observations or phenomena.
*http://books.google.ca/books?id=UfmeQfP4PTkC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=blow-back+in+forensic+pathology&source=bl&ots=_xO-UM3LX3&sig=Js1IGSmSxL8Bxys4iXWJrmL2YY8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ocz8U-LSG8K0yAS8s4DQCA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=blow-back%20in%20forensic%20pathology&f=false
It also begs the question again: how does an exit in the right parietal/temporal area occur when a shot is allegedly fired from TSBD above and ALSO to the right?
Addendum: The Google link is not ‘hot’ due to the asterisk immediately in front of it. Highlight the rest of the link with your cursor, then right click and choose ‘Go to …’ to visit the page (assuming you use Chrome).
At the time of the head shot, Kennedy’s head was rotated a bit to the left.
Just a bit, but not enough.
The sniper’s nest is not directly behind the limo. There’s still an angle with a right to left trajectory.
You don’t know that, especially since a bullet can deflect when hitting the hard bone of the skull.
In reality, it fragmented, and there is no principle of wound ballistics that says it would have had to exit on the left side.
See Canning’s analysis here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958&relPageId=48
@ John McAdams, August 28, 2014 at 10:28 a.m.
Please show me the page that details the analysis of the head shot trajectory (the link you provided only showed a simple diagram for that, but only an analysis of the SBT trajectory based on a 60 degree *right* head turn).
In any event, I question any analysis by the HSCA which is predicated on a 4 inch shift of the alleged BOH entrance wound based on ambiguous photos (in certain photos, the alleged cowlick wound looks like a blood stain) and a dubious x-ray.
Moreover, Olivier and Dziemian said that the blunt nose of the Carcano bullet is very stable. Even if it fragmented, please show me that their experiments were oriented along the same trajectory as postulated for JFK (high from the top right) to yield a right side exit.
Never mind, the analysis for the head wound case begins here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958&relPageId=41
However, they are stating the ‘out shoot’ was on the right side, not from wayward fragments.
Yet, this diagram is **inconsistent** with that right, exit trajectory and would mean an exit out of his forehead.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958&relPageId=47
Sorry but it seems like more junk science to me.
John, I think there were 2 head shots..one to the back and one to the front(the latter being the one his Mac Kilduff showed to the nation in his brief press conference). What do you say to researcher Bob Harris who states(in so many words)that Oswald might have fired one of the shots to the head, but not both? In fact, I’d say if he got JFK in the head, it would have to be the one that hit him in the backside.
Which head shot..the one that hit his back side, or front?
Thank you Doug,
Yes, you did tell me that Dino said both those things and though I’m not 100% convinced of anything anymore (other than the camera original Nix film is missing) logic would tell me (and I would think Mr. McAdams) that if you alter one, you must alter all. As for the Muchmore film, UPI had it the day after the assassination…were you aware Mr. McAdams that the Nix film wasn’t seen until the week after the assassination? I don’t have the answers to all of this and I question those on both sides who think they do. I try to be open-minded about this case and do not understand why some are not. It seems to me that if you have all the answers, there’s no need to haunt newsgroups, forums and websites like this one… then again, one may have more time than others to do that sort of thing.
Thank you Doug for replying to my post!
You’ve put your finger on a very plausible reason for altering all the available evidence: alter it all, and the real truth is difficult or impossible to prove. And anybody who points out that all the evidence is altered can be accused of being irrational.
John, in two earlier posts, you talk about people having trouble remembering things from 30 years ago. Would you include in that list people who were certain LHO was the only shooter??
Mr. Horne,
If the original Z film showed an exit wound in the low back of the head, why didn’t Dino Brugioni describe *that* wound, instead of the wound located where we see it now, in the right top of the head? (Brugioni’s description is at c.28 & 37 min. into the video). If the rear wound hadn’t yet been “blacked out,” why didn’t he see and describe it?
Brugioni seemed puzzled when told that the explosive debris was visible on only one Z frame, but it’s actually visible longer than that:
313-314
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/z-frags.jpg
315:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
Here, you can watch and interview of Orville Nix by Mark Lane. He describes frames “missing” and/or “ruined.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtj0bDxuSj4
Thank you Millicent!
Just how much credence should we give these early reports?
Here is some context:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/05/jfk-assassination-media-errors.html
If you know ANYTHING about historical research – the credibility of a number of witnesses that consistently corroborate each other make the early reports examples of primary sources – that is how reliable history is written.
Minus an authentic autopsy in Dallas & authentic films & photos – these statements by the motorcycle policemen lend credence to the limousine coming to a stop or near stop that is not seen in the film.
The problem is they don’t corroborate each other. The “limo stopped” witnesses that Rivera posted mostly didn’t say that the limo stopped. It just slowed.
And indeed, only a minority of the witnesses said the limo stopped.
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Mantik1.htm
The alterationists are simply using selected witnesses (and distorting what those witnesses said) to make their case.
You don’t seem to believe in these early reports, and from your responses on the thread about the event at NPIC the weekend of the assassination re: Dino Brugioni, you don’t give much credence to later-discovered recollections either. So you are suggesting that no witness testimony is valid, correct? Because the corroboration is pretty thin for the Commission’s star witness, Howard Brennan, as well.
Witness testimony, especially from traumatic events (or gotten after 30+) years), is very week evidence.
As for Brennan: he was an honest witness, and conspiracists try to smear him fifteen ways from Sunday, but there was only one thing wrong with his testimony. He saw Oswald on TV before he was taken to the line-up.
That came out when an honest Warren Commission counsel asked him if he had seen Oswald before the line-up, and an honest Brennan said he had. When further asked whether seeing Oswald on TV could have affected his identification, he said “That is something I do not know.”
Conspiracy books present Brennan as the WC’s “star witness,” but the WC was only willing to conclude that Brennan had at least seen somebody who resembled Oswald, and that he believed he had seen Oswald.
The solid evidence putting Oswald in the Sniper’s Nest is circumstantial.
@ John McAdams.
Thank you Professor for acknowledging that the evidence putting Oswald at the SN is circumstantial.
Many lone-nutters (if I may use that term) will hang their hat on Brennan’s testimony as irrefutable proof that Oswald was the shooter.
As for his response “That is something I do not know”, it doesn’t seem honest. It sounds more like he’s afraid to admit “yes” or “Probably”.
“The solid evidence putting Oswald in the Sniper’s nest is circumstantial”.
I personally could not agree more in one respect.
Because it’s circumstantial it’s not solid at all when explored.
I would add to your statement that evidence placing Oswald in the 6th floor window at the time of the shooting is circumstantial AT BEST. I readily submit that this is only my opinion based on study of witness statements and testimony as well as the physical evidence.
I would also submit that there are several other honest witnesses whose testimony — when taken — were, and are, dismissed and/or smeared by those who believe in the loan gunman theory. Do they not deserve the same respect as does Brennan?
I agree with Jeff. My skepticism is now almost to the side of belief after speaking with Mr. Horne and watching Dino Brugioni on video. He had no reason to lie. Now my concern is that the Nix film was altered as well. My grandfather did say, “it looked different” to him. When will the lies stop and someone have the cajones ala Snowden to just blow the freaking whistle? Dino is as close to a whistleblower as we may get. I would also like to know the true identity of the elusive “Mr. Bill Smith” supposedly from the SS.
For whatever it’s worth Gayle, the slow down of the limo in your grandfather’s film IS discernible (like a ‘rolling stop’). I was amazed when I watched it again on this website.
Is it possible that the driver of President Kennedy’s limousine slowed down, or stopped, but that this was not planned? In other words it was just a reaction (for example shock) to the shooting, and that he had no knowledge of any plot beforehand? I think there probably was a plot, but I am not sure the driver had anything to do with it.
One should keep in mind that it is not the tactical validity of the stop that makes it an issue, rather it is simply that it does not appear in the film as reported by reporters on the scene.
It doesn’t matter why it may have stopped, it matters that it does not stop in the film.
I agree with you that Greer may have slowed down almost to a halt due to the shock of seeing the President hit, and forgot about his training.
What Frank mentions, however, could be more important than a SSA’s mistake, for it spells cover-up.
I know someone with a boot leg copy dating back to the early 70s. I will ask him if one can see the limo slow down in his.
(I’ve seen his film a few times over the last 20 years but don’t recall anything remarkable about the speed of the limo).
GM, the driver should have sped up at the first shot he heard, not slowed down. Greer’s action was a breach of Secret Security protocol. I agree with you that there probably was a plot, but I do question Greer’s behavior at the time of the shots.
When is the media going to address this issue of Zapruder film alleged alteration conducted behind the scenes by government operatives & fed to the public via Life Magazine? Where is the ‘Cold Case: Zapruder Film Alteration’ episode? Surely, the media is aware of the situation via Jeff Morley’s website (if it hasn’t noticed it discussed elsewhere).
The initial handlers & viewers of the film in Dallas (or their friends & family they talked to about the film) can help resolve this controversy. These people include those who developed & copied the film & later developed the copies in Dallas, Zapruder, his wife, Zapruder’s business partner, Zapruder’s lawyer, Marilyn Sitzmen, Zapruder’s lawyer, Dan Rather & Richard Stolley are among the few that saw the film before it ended up at Hawkeyeworks & NPIC & allegedly tampered with & the evidence it contained distorted or destroyed forever.
It’s unfortunate for history that Zapruder, thru his lawyer, did not make a copy of his film available to the Soviet or Cuban embassies (both adversaries at the time). The alleged alterations would have been exposed immediately by both governments & Zapruder could have tripled his money.
When is the government & media of today going to come clean about the Zapruder film affair & release what really happened on Elm Street almost 51 years ago? All the public has ever wanted was simply the truth. Is either entity capable of telling the truth (even if for once)?
Just how much credence should we give these early reports?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/05/jfk-assassination-media-errors.html
To me what’s more important than the stop itself was the comment by Brugioni that he saw head and brain matter flying backwards in the film. He was very clear that there was more than one frame that depicted the head explosion. This convinces me that some frames were removed.
(1) As I recall (subject to correction,) Mr. Brugioni did not explain why his briefing board failed to include a frame of the “obvious” large blowout wound in the back of JFK’s head . . . or the high flying skull pieces. I don’t remember him claiming that the first board showed such damage while the second board omitted it.
(2) Even “if” the limo had come to a complete [brief] stop, this would not have necessitated alteration of the film. The Secret Service could have explained the stop as an assist to Clint Hill in mounting the limo . . . or the agency could have said the driver mistakenly hit the brakes instead of the accelerator. The government’s case never had any credibility, anyway. Why would an easily-explained detail necessitate such an intricate cover-up?
(3) Film and photo alteration presumes that US security agencies had prearrangements with lots of (secret) people to find, intercept and manipulate evidence to support a precise assassination scenario – only one shooter to the rear. Plus, the alteration had to be so good that no one could conclusively prove it. Ever.
(4) Altering the film didn’t matter anyway, as the film was suppressed for thirteen years. When citizens finally saw it, all of them believed that Kennedy had been shot from the front.
(5) The government was in panic mode on the weekend of the assassination. [I believe Oswald’s name and associations triggered this response.] I don’t see anything unusual about the US security apparatus – FBI, CIA, military, justice department, etc – trying to compartmentalize things and prevent crosstalk and rumors. It’s what they do. The two briefing boards can be explained in many ways . . . not necessarily just the sinister version.
And I’ll make a prediction: no one will ever present persuasive proof that the Z film has been altered.
Rather than taking the time to address each point individually, suffice to say that if these comments accurately represent the extent to which Mr. Brugioni’s information can and can not be disputed, then those who would espouse a non-sinister scenario while accepting events #1 and #2 took place as they have been related by the various witnesses to the events, then non-conspiracy theorists definitely have an extremely difficult situation on their hands for now and the foreseeable future. Perhaps that explains the dead silence the exposure of Mr. Brugioni’s experiences on November 23rd/24th, 1963 have garnered from the MSM today.
I carefully measured the motion of JFK’s head using high resolution images from the 6th Floor Museum. Between Z312 & Z313 his head goes about 3.8 cm forward. At Z314 it is 3.9 cm forward, then his head accelerates backwards. The driver, William Greer, turns his head 75 degrees between Z292 & Z293 at a rate of 75*18.3=1372 degrees/second. This is about 4 times faster than a normal for a quick head turn and 50% faster than humanly possible. His head also does this at Z302 & Z316. People wishing to read my report can send me an email at tim.a.nicholson@gmail.com. Noel Twyman also did these measurements and concluded that the film was altered. The limousine was therefore going only about 2 mph when JFK was hit in the head and his head goes back 4 times faster on the film then in reality.
Based on the work of David Wimp, Dr. Josiah Thompson made a case at last year’s Lancer conference in November, that the alleged forward movement of JFK’s head between 312 and 313, based on measurements between points of reference in these two frames, is nothing more than an OPTICAL ILLUSION.
If you see this photo of a presentation slide I took, it was explained that bright areas of reflected sunlight seem to be ‘stretched’ due to blurring from jiggling. (Discernible in these bright regions due to high energy content, or something to that effect, IIRC).
See for yourself in this before-and-after frame analysis (see pointed examples of ‘elongation’).
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2uskb2d&s=8#.VAZYuvldV8E
I disagree, Gerry. Even in your own illustration, notice how the top of JFK’s head is closer to Jackie’s hat in 313. Or in this one:
http://www.keepandshare.com/userpics/r/i/c/k/off/2013-11/sb/zapruder_film_frame_312_313-78246782.jpg
@ Jean Davison, September 2, 2014 at 9:51 pm
How can you tell that it’s closer when:
a) 313 is blurry & partially obscured by blood mist (undefined lines);
b) The white strip behind JFK and even JBC’s forehead are ELONGATED. In JFK’s case, it gives the **appearance** of a forward shift, but it’s an illusion.
Josiah Thompson got it right the first time. When David Lifton went to Cal Tech Professor Richard Feynman in 1966, Feynman determined a definite forward movement between Z312 and Z314. I measured a movement of 3.9 cm. The movement between Z312 and Z313 is about 3.6 to 3.8 cm. After that JFK’s head accelerates backwards.
@ Tim Nicholson
(In reply to your November 8, 2014 at 5:32 am post)
The great Richard Feynman(man I wish he was still alive), did measure a slight forward movement between Z-312 & Z-313, but he assumed that there was no jiggle causing an optical illusion or blur that distorts anatomical or mechanical reference points.
Even if Tink & Wimp are wrong, the late Sherry Fiester explained that objects struck move in an instant towards a bullet before moving in the direction of the bullet (this explains a shot from the front).
(1) Mr. Brugioni clearly recalled different frames depicting head damage that was never seen again afterwards. There’s no way around him saying that.
(3) There’s alteration and simply removing certain frames like the head shot, either one is evidence of tampering.
(4) This is a good point but it still might matter because the jet effect theory is plausible when the missing frames described by Mr. Brugioni are omitted but implausible if they are present.
(5) Claim #1 above associated with Mr. Brugioni raises suspicions.
Taken as a totality including all the suspicious actions by the authorities, there is an undeniable pattern of deception. This pattern cannot prove anything because the people in charge of the evidence and presenting it to the public are the ones that are regarded as suspects or accessories in this crime.
I have done the momentum calculations estimating the mass and velocity of the brain matter exiting out the front of JFK’s head and Alvarez’s jet effect theory is more plausible when the recoil speed of JFK’s head is 4 times slower then it appears on the extant film. The jet effect theory explains why his head reverses direction and accelerates backwards. No other scenario explains this.
I guess you missed Tink Thompson’s presentation at last year’s Wecht Conference. The “Jet Effect” is dead and buried. Alvarez fudged his data.
I re-iterate what Pat Speer said about Tink’s presentation.
In another thread (if not this one), I’ve posted the relevant slide show frames of his presentation.
Also, Google Tony Szamboti P.E.’s article on this. A melon was used by Alvarez (a coconut would’ve been a reasonable facsimile for a human skull). Unfortunately, the shear or tensile strength is not the same as skull bone.
Steward Galanor’s book points out that those jet effect experiments show a single ejection stream of matter, whereas matter splashed in all directions in JFK’s case.
Do not be fooled by junk science.
Just when I thought it was impossible to come up with something more ridiculous than:
– The Jet Effect
– The Neuro-Muscular Reaction
I found not one but TWO even more risible:
– It was the combination of the two, acting in perfect harmony. This is in the PBS website.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/conspiracy-cases-for-and-against/
Not to mention… Wait for it… Drum roll, please…
– It was the limo speeding which slammed JFK (and only JFK) backwards.
I disagree. Was Joe Valacci a law abbiding citizen?
Dear Bill
I hope you’ll forgive the intrusion as I’m new to this site. I think that the persuasive proof that the Z film has been altered starts at about frame 326 when the Connollys and Greer and Kellerman all lurch forward at the same time. It’s much clearer in the youtube film “A Simple Introduction” by John Costella. I don’t see how the four people in the front of the car can all be flung forwards and the Kennedys not move at all without the film having been altered. Happy to hear an explanation of how that could happen though.
regards Vanessa
Vanessa,
The Connallys and Kellerman all reported being showered with debris from the head wound after Z313 and they may’ve been reacting to that.
There is another explanation: 30+ year-old testimony is just no good. Even perfectly honest witnesses “remember” strange things after decades.
If one looks at the totality of testimony that Horne got, one finds that a lot of it contradicts the “official story,” but then those same witnesses contradict each other.
Stringer and O’Neill on the photos of the brain, and the photos of the back of the head are just two examples.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm#arrb
Then there was the Saundra Spencer account, which makes no sense whatsoever.
It was sent from Dallas to Rochester, NY. What was the meaning of that?
One scene that WASN’T removed was the direct line of the shot that killed him. I’ll bet that was the “puff of smoke” that witnesses like Sam Holland and Ed Hoffman saw. Certainly, they had an easier, clearer view of the fence at the knoll than of the TSBD.
Thomas-Focusing on what is important really condenses the dialogue into more solutionary findings. Thank you for that!
I call it, “Playing The Result” to get a determination of fact.
“To me what’s more important than the stop itself was the comment by Brugioni that he saw head and brain matter flying backwards in the film.”~Thomas
That is not correct, Brugioni said he saw the brain matter flying higher, like four or five feet above Kennedy’s head – but the fact of the matter is that in the extant Zapruder film we are all familiar with today if you look closely the shot causes ‘stuff’ to fly up at least five to six feet high. So WHAT is it that Brugioni means by this? That he hasn’t viewed the film currently in view? he describes exactly what I see in the film today!
\\][//
I tend to agree with Jefferson Morley’s observation that there doesn’t seem to be any discontinuity in the Z film.
However, in another thread of this website which examines the film taken by Orville Nix, the deceleration of the limo IS discernible. So the ABC news report above corroborates this. To me, it seemed like a ‘rolling stop’. I was amazed to see this.
Scotsman discusses some of the phenomena associated with alteration a la Fetzer and others. I don’t know enough about that to comment.
We do know that Life Magazine damaged some frames in their copy and were forced to splice it, which might account for the ‘speed-up’ of the Z film, but there are other undamaged versions out there, including the original. Both versions are shown in the DVD, Images Of An Assassination, but I don’t recall a marked difference between them.
“The alleged removal of frames would have also removed the movements of people standing around the presidential motorcade.”
JFK’s Revenge doesn’t just look at the odd behaviour of people around the motorcade, but also the inconsistencies with objects like the lampost. The video looks at how separate layers could have be combined with 1963 era technology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA
“such alteration would render their movements more discontinuous. I don’t see such discontinuity in the Zapruder film….So while I am not intrigued, I am not convinced.”
Maybe the Z-film alteration invoved more than just removing frames? The hieght of some bystanders and the reaction of people may supports the idea that the background action is out of sync with the limousine. Bystanders seen on the lawn seem to be looking not at the limousine which is passing them but behind it as if it is not reached them yet.
Even if it was a brief stop, the film does show it slowing down-perhaps to allow for an easier target for shooters from the grassy knoll or elsewhere. By the time JFK’s head explodes, the car has clearly slowed way down because you then see it speed up. Greer’s driving was a breach of Secret Service protocol, as the KGB report stated.
Hello Paul,
Can you specify a frame range where you see it slowing down?
The high quality Z-Frame above zooms in as it progresses, which might explain why it’s hard to detect slower motion in the background, although I checked again and still don’t notice it.
Gerry, to me the range appears to be frames 180-312(312 being the point where the shot comes to his right temple area).
Boy, that’s quite a range. So you’re saying the limo began slowing down after the 1st (or possibly 2nd) shot?
Yes….as it was nearing the grassy knoll area.
Not only was driver Greer a Protestant from Ulster, it has recently come out that he was a member of the Orange Order while he was still in Ulster in his youth.
Greer was one of three drivers in the presidential detail. Actually, one of two at the time of the assassination, because one of the three had died of a heart attack shortly before 11/22.
The Bob Clark account of the assassination in which he states the limousine stopped is at 1:19:36 on this video. Apparently Bob Clark was in the press pool car that was several cars back in the motorcade from the President’s car.
Walter Cronkite reported in one of his early bulletins that the President’s car came to a momentary stop at the time of the shooting. This report is at 22:00 in the video at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwtqvuWOVWo
It is intersting to see the differences between the network coverages.This live coverage from NBC ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd5QL6oY8fQ ) does not look much different from the assassination footage taken 4 decades earlier. They seemed to be still using film…
WNYW TV archives were missing 43 minutes of the first hours. Fortunately it was found on a German YT channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls0CRXEVO34
Mr. Brugioni has been quoted as saying words to the effect of “They could do anything”, so he doesn’t appear to be skeptical of the capability. He also wrote a book entitled “Photo Fakery” in addition to his other books.
Those books and his own personal history as it is interwoven with the geo-political history of his era yield a very impressive internet presence, yet nary a word appears regarding his blockbuster revelations concerning the handling of the Zapruder film. One must dig a bit deeper to find that. It just doesn’t fit that official narrative started way back on the day of the assassination. Actually, Mr. Brugioni is about as official as it gets, without actually being official. Yet nary a word about it from anyone. What are they afraid of? That he will come out with more?
Even the name Hawkeyeworks was classified until relatively recently because it is where the film was processed from first eye in the sky satellites that replaced the U2, film delivered by the SAC. From the secret KODAK plant the developed film was delivered to the CIA’s NPIC, which was located above a car dealership in DC until after the Cuban Missile Crisis when JFK visited and arramged for a new building at the Anacosta Navy base.
While the identity of who was briefed by the second set of briefing boards, it seems like Art Lundal, the founding director of NPIC used the first set assembled by Brugioni to brief CIA dieector John McCone, who then told RFK that the amalysis concluded there were two shooters.
Art Lundel’s briefings were concise and to the point.
BK
I think thre is an easy eay to find out if the Z film was altered or not: if ONE (one is enough) or more frames have the “moving” limo and the bakgroud BOTH focused then the fim was altered.
PMB
The best way to know for sure that the Z-film was not altered is to understand why it is impossible to make an undetectable copy of ANY Kodachrome II film.
And Rolland Zavada, who lead the team that invented Kodachrome II can explain this very simply:
The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about 5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about 1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination. The film was not designed for printing response so that its dye set matched the spectral sensitivity of laboratory intermediate negative or positive films.
A reversal duplicating film was available, but that was for direct simple copies, and not expected to be used as an intermediate. Further the film’s daylight sensitivity; contrast and spectral characteristics do not render it receptive for use as a “print” medium
The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.”~Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf
\\][//
Is this technical stuff in any way related to my comment?
What i ask is: is there one or more frames with the limo and the background BOTH focused or not?
“Is this technical stuff in any way related to my comment?”~Pedro Malafaya Baptidta
Yes Pedro, it absolutely is.
You tell us which frame in the Z-film you think has both the limo and the background in focus. Then explain to the people here that you picked up this bogus nonsense from Costella’s BS series on the Zapruder film.
Costella is simply wrong due to his ignorance of film and the fact of the shot in question is in full focus because of the depth of field setting and the full sunlight. The people in the background are still within the same depth of field as the limousine.
This is the reason “the technical stuff” is important to know when dealing with the issue of the Zapruder Film.
\\][//
i picked up nothing, i don´t know what you are accusing me of cause i don´t even know what are you talking about.
But i do know that i think by my own mind, using plain logic, and i do know that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any unaltered type of film to have a frame with a moving object and the background both on focus. Leica as a still camera that has multifocal planes but you can see only one plane on focus at a time.
Therefore i infere by your fervorous commitment that such a frame (or even more) does exist. If that is the case, the film was altered, case closed.
John Costella did chose one frame, that of the limo just as it was right in front of Zapruder.
The picture is in focus as much as your picture of the couple walking the dog in the page you offer.
Again the amount of light is a determining factor as well as focal length of a lens.
I am sorry to be suspicious about your claim not to know who Costella and Fetzer are, as you JUST HAPPEN to come up with this argument that is one of the key arguments they put forward. So I will assume you got this idea from watching one of Doug Horne’s video presentations and have simply forgotten who he cites for the analysis. And that analysis is dead wrong.
\\][//
Doug Horne huh? Thank you for your suggestion, will study it.
PMB
Just an add-on: http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/photograph-moving-objects.shtml
PMB
As Jeff Morley writes:
“Horne argues that the alteration of the film removed images of the presidential limousine making a brief but definite stop when the shots rang out.” Yes he does, but that is not what Brugioni says at all. Horne “interprets” Brugioni thus. And that is a very great distinction.
\\][//