Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Jan Klimkowski]

Doug Horne on The Two NPIC Z-Film Events

The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film's Alteration
by Douglas P. Horne

All - there's a long DPF thread discussing Doug Horne's article here.

[Charles Drago]

I should note that I understand and support without reservation the manner in which DPF co-owners have acted unanimously to ban from our pages individuals to whom we have affixed the label(s) agent provocateur, lone nut proponent, and/or source of debilitating disruption. Please do not interpret my previous post -- wherever and whenever it appears -- as a charge that my partners do not recognize the fact that we are under attack.

Rather, I'm attempting to make the following points:

1. We are erring -- drastically -- on the side of caution when we attempt to challenge with less than all means at our disposal those DPF posters who walk and quack and swim like a disinformation duck. Each challenge will warrant a unique combination of those means; some may be subtle, others not so much.

2. We are at war with the killers of JFK. And we can fight and win that war -- but only if we acknowledge its existence -- with the weapon of non-violence -- but only if we choose to wield it.

For those of you who care about such things, know that the internal disagreements at DPF that have led to my being placed on moderation are related to the differing opinions noted in this and my previous post. Disagreements have escalated into verbal hostilities. We are trying to sort things out.

But make no mistake, this conflict has been inflamed not only by my pigheadedness and other traits -- positive and negative -- but also by some of the very individuals who have come to DPF with evil intent and who have posted here free from the a priori restraints of moderation.

I seek not to shift to others blame that rightfully falls on me. Nor do I believe that currently debilitating differences among DPF co-owners are irreconcilable.

But all within the sight of my e-voice had best summon the wisdom to understand that a state of war exists between us and the killers of JFK -- and the courage to take up non-violent arms against our common enemy.

[Charles Drago]

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.

[Jan Klimkowski]

As you've noted elsewhere, Jan, we all have our personal boiling points. How many times can we reasonably be expected to the make the same sound, complex arguments and refute the same unsound, simple-minded arguments before we reach that point?

And Albert Rossi has contributed much in his short time here at DPF. I share his disgust at the manner in which the arguments in this thread have been made.

As you know, I've reached out to Albert publicly and privately to urge him to reconsider. He has responded privately, so I'm not at liberty to share his thoughts as expressed in those communications. And now I once again ask Albert to rejoin his comrades here at DPF who have enjoyed and learned much from his contributions to date.

Researchers need thick skins.

Hypotheses need testing against the known and potential evidence.

Agreed. Heartily agreed!

Researchers don't need abuse from the research community.

And that is what I see here.

Ahh, but the wolves come to us in the fine wool garments of researchers.

Here we just may have reached the core of the greater disagreement that weakens our friendship.

I submit that your expectations regarding DPF are unrealizable.

By the very nature of the subject matter it is dedicated to exploring and exposing, DPF does not and indeed cannot ever exist as a pure deep politics research e-institution.

Why? Because the forces we would help eradicate will not play by our rules or any others but their own. They do, however, see vulnerabilities in DPF rules and do not hesitate to exploit them. They take and make opportunities to disrupt, disinform, and degrade us individually and collectively. They pit us against each other. The sophistication and virulence of their methods increases in direct proportion to their perceptions of the level of threats posed by DPF to their masters.

By the way, none of us should be surprised by this reality -- by what we "see here".

Jesus asked, "But what did you go out into the wilderness to see? A man dressed in soft clothing?" (Luke 7:24)

I had no such expectations when I went out in the wilderness of mirrors.

To be clear: I do not suggest that we should abandon decorum in our exchanges.

But forget at your own grave peril that we remain at war with the killers of JFK, and that one way of describing what we're doing here is returning the fire that erupted in Dealey Plaza.

Such bellicosity to describe a struggle that is, for us and by choice, non-violent! Yet as Gandhi taught us, "Non-violence is a weapon of the strong."

A weapon. And weapons are used in wars.

Gandhi wrote, "Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked, always deserves respect or pity as the case may be. 'Hate the sin and not the sinner' ... It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. For we are all tarred with the same brush, and are children of one and the same Creator."

I've published my own humble take on this as follows: Until the life of the terrorist is held to be as sacred as the life of the terrorized, the terror will continue.

(I mention in passing that this position of mine has been vehemently decried by some of the DPF founders who are most disturbed by the vitriolic nature of some of my posts.)

This is very difficult for me. Apparent contradictions abound. Even, it appears, for Gandhi; the man who wrote "Hate the sin and not the sinner," also told us that "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence....I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence ..."

In a literary endeavor such as DPF, our non-violent weapon of choice is rhetorical in nature. Hence so much (but not, alas, all) of my own weaponized prose is deeply considered and carefully targeted -- and always has been.

I will not hesitate to use irony, metaphor, logos, pathos, ethos, hyperbole, understatement, and every other rhetorical device at my humble command to wage this war. I will not hesitate to incorporate praise, ridicule, comfort, threat, satire, etc. into my rhetorical assaults on perceived enemies.

Of course the risk here, common to all who would wage war of any description, is that of loss of control. And thus I have sinned. Repeatedly.

I warmly welcome your thoughts, Jan, and those of all other correspondents of good will. And, for that matter, those who bear us ill will.

Charles - I have deep and genuine respect for your philosophy.

But we all live, and we all sin, according to our own conscience. And I do not share your philosophy in its entirety.

For me, the real enemies are those who rape children. Those who bomb the innocent. Those who commit atrocities as part of the Strategy of Tension.

Can I forgive them? I'm not sure I have enough compassion and enough soul.

I suspect I cannot forgive Pinochet, Bush, Reinhard Gehlen, Allen Dulles......

I will save my tears and my soul for the men, women and children who were victims of their horrific crimes.

So perhaps, Charles, you are a better man than I.

You have a fine pen. An insightful pen. A vengeful and venomous pen.

You must continue to use it in the search for the truth.

And when that truth is challenged, expose the the quality of the challenge - with wisdom, with evidence, with intelligence.

Make the case, and make the case well, but beware the early resort to malign conclusions.

For every agent provocateur, there will be a person of good intent but poor reasoning.

For every Sunsteinian psyop, there will be a stubborn truthseeker groping blindly towards epiphany. Towards a revelation which may never come.

Charles - you know well that when the signal to noise ratio of a member has become intolerable, or the DPF founders judge there to be overwhelming evidence of malign intent, then we will act to ban a person.

You know that we are no respecters of reputation, and will act according to our collective and considered view.

Until that point, my own personal view is that we should fight the fight with evidence, with logic, with insight and with as much patience as we can muster. And avoid the charge that X is an enemy agent.

Even though we know that the infiltration of the agent provocateur is a standard MO of the enemy.

[Jan Klimkowski]

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]

[Michael Cross]

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.

Thank you Charles. The enormity of this alternate film virtually overwhelms my thinking. Allowing such a thing to exist, to be seen by a few, is so malicous it falls beyond my understanding - at least at this point.

[Michael Cross]

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]

And thanks to you too Jan.

[Charles Drago]

Charles - I have deep and genuine respect for your philosophy.

You honor me, and I return the respect ten-fold.

But we all live, and we all sin, according to our own conscience. And I do not share your philosophy in its entirety.

For me, the real enemies are those who rape children. Those who bomb the innocent. Those who commit atrocities as part of the Strategy of Tension.

Can I forgive them? I'm not sure I have enough compassion and enough soul.

I suspect I cannot forgive Pinochet, Bush, Reinhard Gehlen, Allen Dulles......

I will save my tears and my soul for the men, women and children who were victims of their horrific crimes.

So perhaps, Charles, you are a better man than I.

Most certainly I am not. And you know me well enough to realize that if I were, I wouldn't hesitate to say so!

Pinochet, Bush, Gehlen, Allen Dulles ... these are my blood enemies, too. And I know myself well enough to realize that I may talk a good Gandhi ball game, but I haven't the slightest idea how I would react if I had my hands around their foul throats.

Make the case, and make the case well, but beware the early resort to malign conclusions.

For every agent provocateur, there will be a person of good intent but poor reasoning.

For every Sunsteinian psyop, there will be a stubborn truthseeker groping blindly towards epiphany. Towards a revelation which may never come.

I am wary of my own demons. And of the frailty of my judgements.

I'll have my good days and my bad as I struggle to make the former outnumber the latter.

Charles - you know well that when the signal to noise ratio of a member has become intolerable, or the DPF founders judge there to be overwhelming evidence of malign intent, then we will act to ban a person.

You know that we are no respecters of reputation, and will act according to our collective and considered view.

Until that point, my own personal view is that we should fight the fight with evidence, with logic, with insight and with as much patience as we can muster. And avoid the charge of enemy agents.

Even though we know that the infiltration of the agent provocateur is a standard MO of the enemy.

See my next post, please.

And thank you, Jan. Thank you very much.

[Charles Drago]

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.

Thank you Charles. The enormity of this alternate film virtually overwhelms my thinking. Allowing such a thing to exist, to be seen by a few, is so malicous it falls beyond my understanding - at least at this point.

You're entirely welcome.

[David Josephs]

Jeff's qualifications are more than adequate to discuss the Z film. They are far better than most. As far as I can see in the thread he states that some alteration was possible but extensive alteration was highly unlikely. {snip}.

Yes his qualifications are Magda.... yet please read into WHY he feels extensive alteration is unlikely.... and then see if those ideas are supported or even supportable.

It does not seem to bother you that he cannot address even one of the key questions to defend his conclusion
that a variable speed in the fps, due to a spring, would result in VISUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE FILM - i.e. the Greer head turn.
(if all you are referring to is the matte work DH supports, fine, I happen to think that did not happen given the time line and it still does not excuse Jeff from addressing question about his ideas)

He makes that assertion repeatedly... I could care about his politics or tactics at this point... he only needs to back it up, or understand that he cannot be taken seriously - Just cause he claims to have experience in the area.

I offered the math which shows a 12/10,000th of a second difference PER FRAME over 100 frames at a slower fps speed - if the camera filmed the entire sequence SLOWER than it should have been.
He claims these changes are enough to affect 3 frames. 36/10,000th of a second difference in fps over 3 frames would create the visually impossible movement of Greer's head.
The fps would have to drop to 9fps for the film to have missed all of the movement we see between 302 and 304... Basic Math Magda.

I also offered the logical opposite of his conclusion... speed variance cannot only be SLOWER fps, but also FASTER for this wacky spring that cannot unwind linearly...
For at least one series of frames the spring was moving FASTER than 18.3, meaning MORE FRAMES PER SECOND which equates to Slow motion... (48fps being true 1/3 slow motion)

If the spring only SLOWS to LESS than 18.3, it could not AVERAGE 18.3. There MUST BE as many frames above 18.3 to create the weighted average.
I simply asked that he point out in the film where we see action in Slow Motion as we see the FAST MOTION in 302-303-304 .

There's no worries in admonishing long time members, respected researchers and EXPERTS in their field for repeatedly trying to elicit some idea of why he posts facts that are wrong and unsupported conclusions that defy logic.

Yet there is no reciprical request that he explain himself...

He also mentions 16fps to 48fps artifacts would be seen... when I mentioned that these frames, if they did exist, would also be removed with the alteration...
That 302-304 cannot be accomplished in the manner he suggests - and rather than understand such limitation...
all we get is SPRING-MECHANISM and FPS inaccuracies...


The most obvious sign of something amiss with a poster is usually a refusal to address requests to explain oneself.
To illustrate the ideas which are repeated yet never explained.

You all would not take it from JF when he dove off the deep end and refused to address questions of inconsistency with the presentation...
a man with infinitely more qualification/resourcess to explore the possibilities and tangents than many of us

Mr Carter helped with the 50 reasons... Kudos - this should then RAISE the expectations for his posts and the expectation of accuracy...
If this was something given extensive thought - why such a hard time offering an explanation for FPS and SPRINGS ??? Why use Straw man tactic to change the subject rather than address the questions?
Why so many inaccuracies in his posts... the he proudly proclaims he will "stand behind everything he's posted" yet sidesteps even the slightest nudge

He states definitively that from Z1 to Z486 the film is authentic... Don't know about y'all, but that's a pretty BIG statement to make here of all places... without some well developed argument in your behalf.

Yet no one other than Charles and David and I has even attempted to get a reason from him, ask a question of him...
So much concern for the protection of this person who by Jim's admission should be able to easily defend himslef with facts, figures, examples or point to one of the 50 episodes...

Something other than:

That said, I stand by most everything I have said on any post. All of the points I listed at the beginning of this thread are repeated, and with greater clarity and detail, by Zavada in his 'Open Letter".

David also denies that there was any NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. He did not ask for a citation, preferring to again attack my credibility on this issue. But this analysis is discussed right in the Introduction to McKnight's "Breach Of Trust". I mentioned it not because I am an arrogant bullshit artist, but because I assumed that you already knew about it.

What Jeff actually posted:
Might the CIA's reluctance to admit interest in the Z-film have anything to do with the report the NPIC presented on Nov 25 which stated there were at least two shooters?

John Simkin asked McKnight specifically this question: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....topic=5226

(2) On page 6 you point out that after analysizing the Zapruder film for the CIA, the National Photographic Intelligence Center (NPIC) concluded: "First, the first shot at the motorcade had not come from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" where Oswald had allegedly secreted himself. Second, there had been at least two gunman in Dealey Plaza shooting at the motorcade". You add: "The results of NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film were suppressed."

Did you discover who was involved in suppressing this evidence? Did the House Select Committee on Assassinations see this report? Did G. Robert Blakey include it in his report? What do you think of Dale K. Myers' work on the Zapruder film. Supporters of the Warren Report seem to be now very reliant on Myers' research.

Posted 03 November 2005 - 06:39 PM
McKinght's Answer:
2. I never saw a Commission document that indicated it ever was familiar with the NPIC results of the Z film examination. A month or two after the WC Report became public the CIA requested from the FBI a loan of the Z film so the agency could use it for training purposes. I think this was to cover the fact that the CIA had made copies of the film borrowed from the Secret Service over the weekend following the assassation. The FBi request was just ass-covering scheme. I might point out that the FBI's analyis of the Z film also concluded that the first shot came before Z 210, that is at about Z170, before a shooter in 6th floor had access to JFK (my emphasis). I think we'll come to a time when it will be agreed that there were at least 6 shots fired that day. Probably three shots fired just before Altgens famous photo.

My source on the Z film is Dave Wrone's seminal work. I am looking forward to Richard Trask's work on the Zapruder film to be released soon. The title I think is "National Nightmare. . . . .something"

The ONE report that has surfaced - is CIA450.... does not conclude anything of the sort, nor was it dated Nov 25th... A pile of assumptions does not equate to proof....

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...elPageId=4 NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION(CIA450 pages)

If there was a NPIC report that STATED there were at least two shooters, as opposed to illustrating how the scenario the SS decided upon was not necessarily possible... while the FBI decided the shots were at 224, 313 and 375 (I do not know what report McKnight is referring to here...) the FBI in the months after the assassination concluded the following and graphically created it PRIOR to January 20th 1964:

I'd be interested to see the FBI conclusions about a shot BEFORE 224... which contradicts the time, effort and accuracy they built into this model and the report that accompanies it... which ALSO was never shown to the WC and was burried in a WCD called:

Commission Document 298 - FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...ocId=10699

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5188[/ATTACH]




Stating as FACT that a report existed from the NPIC about two-shooters is again...

If there was a report from the NPIC from the 25th, as opposed to the report and boards created by Dino on the 23rd/24th which indeed gives the impression of two or more shooters... please post it...
McCone was in the room with LBJ on the 24th with Dino and Arthur L. The boards are gone, the rpoerts are gone.... If the NPIC offered a report about two shooters on Nov 25, it is surely gone to history... The NPIC was not supposed to have had the film at all that weekend... the CIA denied it although the NPIC was a joint CIA/DoD creation.... the CIA 450 pages - help suggest something may have gone on that weekend... Horne's work and the Dino and Homer interviews proves it.

This comment MAY be a result of the Dino Boards McCone saw...

On December 9, 1963, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., advisor to President Kennedy, met with RFK and asked him what he thought about his brother's assassination. As Schlesinger wrote in his diary, published in 2007:
"I asked him, perhaps tactlessly about Oswald. He said there could be no serious doubt that he was guilty, but there still was argument whether he did it by himself or as a part of a larger plot, whether organized by Castro or by gangsters. He said the FBI people thought he had done it by himself, but that McCone thought there were two people involved in the shooting." [Emphasis added](Journals 1952-2000, p. 184).


Bottom line - I take this very seriously... I search and compile and read and compare and search more and ask and confirm and include it as part of my understanding of the case...

When someone comes along making statements that conflict with this knowledge base, I DO NOT ASSUME they are wrong... I assume I may be wrong and would like to understand the reasoning behind this difference.

My approach may not be as polished as others... but I go out of my way to include sources, images and back-up to what I post and EXPECT to be questioned about it, EXPECT to have it torn apart expecially if I am making a statement that goes so against the grain of research to this point.

How about enough tiptoeing around Jeff's "rights" here and start promoting the expectation that posting here requires some level of support to one's stated "facts"...
whether he is US or THEM will bear out in time...

avoiding the questions, posting inaccuracies and refusing to discuss WHERE one is coming from is NOT the way to go about it...

my .02
DJ