Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Peter Lemkin]

The one with the complicit treason of the Praetorian Guard.....leaving no doubt as to who done what to whom.

Given the number of well versed researchers here (and well respected - by this poster), I'm curious: How credible is the existence of the "second version" film? I'm assuming most of us will never have the opportunity to view such a thing, and wondering how anyone is so privileged as to get a look.

I am personally acquainted with three individuals of unimpeachable character who have viewed versions of the Z-film other than that which is commonly accepted as authentic and has been viewed publicly since the 1970's. Each was intimately familiar with the historic Z-film prior to viewing a different version of it.

I take them at their word and trust the acuity of their perceptions.

Why were they chosen to view alternate Z-film versions (and for the record: since each did so alone, we have no way of knowing how many altered versions exist)? My best guess is precisely because they are all but universally trusted and respected within the honorable JFK research community, and because they could be expected to speak/write publicly of their experiences, and because their claims would implicitly support the Z-film doppelganger gambit that continues to Balkanize said community and thus prolong doubt.

Michael - in addition to Charles' comments, please see the DPF thread dedicated to this topic.
[URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?9480-Rich-DellaRosa-talks-about-the-Other-Zapruder-film.&highlight=zapruder"]
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film[/URL]

I had EXTENSIVE email exchange with yet another who saw the 'other film' and their report was essentially the same as that of Rich and the others. One can question if it is 'real' in the sense of accurate, but it does seem to be out there and IMHO comports more with the evidence than does the 'Z-film', leading me to believe it is the untampered with version. N.B. the person that detailed to me what they saw in the film was [and likely still is] involved in intel, with some very big players of the time and places related to the Big D. [no, not Plumlee] I related this on Rich's forum long ago. I also trusted Rich highly - a man of great integrity who I can't imagine inventing the story of the 'other film'.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I had EXTENSIVE email exchange with yet another who saw the 'other film' and their report was essentially the same as that of Rich and the others. One can question if it is 'real' in the sense of accurate, but it does seem to be out there and IMHO comports more with the evidence than does the 'Z-film', leading me to believe it is the untampered with version. N.B. the person that detailed to me what they saw in the film was [and likely still is] involved in intel, with some very big players of the time and places related to the Big D. [no, not Plumlee] I related this on Rich's forum long ago. I also trusted Rich highly - a man of great integrity who I can't imagine inventing the story of the 'other film'.

Peter - thank you for sharing.

You are a researcher we can trust implicitly, and when you choose to withhold an identity, we can respect your decision absolutely.

[Michael Cross]

My mind boggles.

I have the "Twilight Zone" movie with Dan Ackroyd looping in my mind: "Wanna see something really scary?"

[Gordon Gray]

According to Doug Horne there was about a 12 hour time frame in which to make alterations of the film at Hawkeye. What alterations could be done in 12 hours? It seems to me what we see in the Z film today, is pretty much what Life received from Hawkeye, that Sun. in time for their early editions to be prepared. While a lot could no doubt be done in the time the film was withheld from the public, it doesn't appear to have been done. I wonder if it was possible to remove evidence of a limo stop in 12 hours. Would it have been possible to remove evidence of two head shots, a rear blowout, and rear brain spatter in that time frame?

[Chris Davidson]

http://www.mejuba.com/albums/jfkass/1129...w/original

Filmed at 48 Frames Per Sec.

Frame removal pattern is keep 2 , discard 3. A 60% reduction.

Playing at approx 18 fps.

chris

[David Josephs]

http://www.mejuba.com/albums/jfkass/1129...w/original

Filmed at 48 Frames Per Sec.

Frame removal pattern is keep 2 , discard 3. A 60% reduction.

Playing at approx 18 fps.

chris

Great to hear from you Chris....

Now, Keep 1 and discard 2 and play at 16fps...

The ratio of 48/18.3 is obviously not 3.... To have a smooth film, 48fps less 2/3rds the frames shown at 16fps should be smooth, and identical to the same scene filmed at 16fps.

IS images intact and everything.

Cheers
DJ

[Charles Drago]

According to Doug Horne there was about a 12 hour time frame in which to make alterations of the film at Hawkeye. What alterations could be done in 12 hours? It seems to me what we see in the Z film today, is pretty much what Life received from Hawkeye, that Sun. in time for their early editions to be prepared. While a lot could no doubt be done in the time the film was withheld from the public, it doesn't appear to have been done. I wonder if it was possible to remove evidence of a limo stop in 12 hours. Would it have been possible to remove evidence of two head shots, a rear blowout, and rear brain spatter in that time frame?

This is pure sophistry:

sophistry [ˈsɒfɪstrɪ]
n pl -ries
1. (Philosophy)
a. a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
b. the art of using such arguments

Not all of the alterations we note today need to have been accomplished in a 12-hour time frame.

And we have no real idea of the sophistication of equipment available to the plotters in 1963.

There was no need in 1963 to remove evidence of a limo stop that would not become the subject of controversy for over a decade -- at least.

If the hypothesis that alterations were made to be discovered -- a much more sound and convincing deep political argument than any you've yet to proffer -- your entire argument is rendered moot.

Insofar as you did not view the film received at Hawkeye, on what basis of fact do you make your "it seems to me" and "it doesn't appear to me" declarations?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't your first "seems to me" rodeo, is it, pod'ner?

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...sis/page18

I have to wonder how these sponsors managed to get on the same page as to the goals of this plot. Did they meet in some clandestine gentlemen's club per the film Executive Action? It seems to me that the sponsors were a disparate group with varying agenda's in relation to an assassination. Wall Street wanted to keep the Federal Reserve and most likely the business coming from a policy of opposing wars of liberation. Big Oil wanted to keep the Oil depletion allowance. Right wing extremists wanted an end to the Civil Rights movement and the commie Kennedy. The military right wanted Cuba and a confrontation with the Soviets because they believed they could wipe them out and end the cold war. The intelligence community wanted to oust Castro and stop the importation of wars of liberation in Latin America. The Mob wanted payback for Joe Kennedy's betrayal and back into Cuba for drugs prostitution and gambling interests. If they were all of one mind, why was Phillips still pushing the Oswald Mexico City thing even after the formation of the Warren Commission? [emphasis added by Drago]

When in response to this all-but-unfathomable reasoning I reproduced, in full, the Evica-Drago Model for the JFK conspiracy, you came back thusly:

The facilitators are very clear to me as are the mechanics. [emphasis added by Drago]

Well then clear it all up for the rest of us so we can fold up our tents and go home.

[Chris Davidson]

Great to hear from you Chris....

Now, Keep 1 and discard 2 and play at 16fps...

The ratio of 48/18.3 is obviously not 3.... To have a smooth film, 48fps less 2/3rds the frames shown at 16fps should be smooth, and identical to the same scene filmed at 16fps.

IS images intact and everything.

Cheers
DJ

Hi David,

http://www.mejuba.com/albums/jfkass/1129...w/original

Keep 1 discard 2.

Playing at 15fps.

chris

[David Josephs]

Charles -

An excellent point about the limo stop.... after the showings that weekend - who outside the government/TIME-LIFE sees this as a FILM until 1975.

All that was needed were the frames with some crushed contrast, or a little painting over... with this understood, even the film Dino sees may not have been "original"

I've been reading a bit about the "hollysood" type set-ups the CIA and related intelligence agencies had available to it at that time.
To believe that Rochester was the only place that could do this kind of work MAY be a bit of an over statement...

We didn't know about Hawkeye... is it not possible there were technical facilities within DC that could accomplish the same things and are still not known?

From a technical basis what was needed was one of those Oxberry machines, someone who knew how to use it, and a roll of KII film.
While the painting should have involved 35mm enlargements - was that absolutley necessary? and based on the results, as I've posted, the job really was not all that good so that it MIGHT have been done within the 8mm format
exactly as Healy describes.

AT SOME POINT though, the film is shown and does NOT show the stopping of the limo or the debris from his head, or the motorcycle zooming forward or the correct movements of a human between 300 and 320.

Since the IS area does indeed match "close enough" from frame to frame, I am at a loss as to how 40 of 50 frames could be removed from an 18fps film and not see huge skips in the IS area...
It could only appear conitguous if the frames are removed to give the illusion of slowing down...


Chris....

THANK YOU THANK YOU...

It is fairly obvious now that a decent looking, complete film can be created as I described, from a 48fps original... it is even MORE possible that these 48fps frames are VERY FEW IN NUMBER within the original Zfilm
If, just saying, that 48fps was only used from the Sign (z207-z212 - something happened to the film at that point, right?) until just past the headshot(s) it could be less than 100 resulting frames from about 250 48fps frames taken. It may have been fewer than that given the few specific spots that needed "alteration".

Conally's "hand/hat movement" may also be the result of missing frames
We KNOW Greer's headturns must be
There's the falling man who's left leg whips under him

ALL of these within that 100 frame sequence.

DJ

[Jeff Carter]

Again I must clarify misrepresentations.


I have indeed provided supporting material. Roland Zavada's "Open Letter To Doug Horne , in great detail and clarity, discusses the most of the points I made at the start of this thread. I have also quoted from "Exposure Control of Optical Printers" by Mehrdad Azarmi. Both gentlemen are credentialed professionals, their observations and descriptions are not controversial, and are accepted throughout the industry. It is remarkable to witness tantrums from people who don't actually know what they are talking about. There has been no attempt to address the fine points of Zavada's critique because most persons sharing the extensive alteration viewpoint do not have the technical background to even understand what he is saying, let alone develop a response. But they are somehow very very certain he must be wrong.


http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf


Doug Horne does tremendous work in tracking the Z-film through the first weekend. But his flat declarative statement that the Z-film was in fact altered has no basis in fact. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that something was done, but nothing in his article can actually pinpoint where, when or how. He is therefore presumptive in his conclusion. He too misunderstands basic technical issues, as Zavada points out in his patient, though exasperated, letter.


Quite honestly, I have been baffled by the ferocity shown here, and will move on after stating one last time: if you persist in your claims without pausing for reflection on the clearly identified technical hurdles, you risk being embarrassed in a huge way down the road.

Good luck with your theories, guys.