Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Gordon Gray]

Sheery Fiester suggested a reason why the Z film doesn't show the reward ejecta is that it would have had a greater velocity than the back spatter that we do see. It may not have registered on the film at the speed of 18 fps. As to the front vs rear, these terms are not specific enough, IMO. What we see on the Z film is a fracturing and blow out of the scull in the temporal region, which is above the ear and slightly to the front of it, but still on the side of the head. I always took Jackie's expression to mean his face was intact. I find Horne's evidence of the two events at the NPIC in conjunction with the accounts of the "other film" to be persuasive as to alteration. For me the question is to what degree and to what intent. If the technical facility was present to remove the evidence of rear ejecta, a full limo stop, and two distinct head shots, why was the obvious rearward head snap left in? Was the purpose of alteration to fool the people at Time, the WC, or the public? Those involve three different time frames; 12 hours, two months, and 10 years, respectively.

[David Josephs]

Sheery Fiester suggested a reason why the Z film doesn't show the reward ejecta is that it would have had a greater velocity than the back spatter that we do see. It may not have registered on the film at the speed of 18 fps. As to the front vs rear, these terms are not specific enough, IMO. What we see on the Z film is a fracturing and blow out of the scull in the temporal region, which is above the ear and slightly to the front of it, but still on the side of the head. I always took Jackie's expression to mean his face was intact. I find Horne's evidence of the two events at the NPIC in conjunction with the accounts of the "other film" to be persuasive as to alteration. For me the question is to what degree and to what intent. If the technical facility was present to remove the evidence of rear ejecta, a full limo stop, and two distinct head shots, why was the obvious rearward head snap left in? Was the purpose of alteration to fool the people at Time, the WC, or the public? Those involve three different time frames; 12 hours, two months, and 10 years, respectively.

Let me first say that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to remove the kinds of events described if the film was taken at 16-18fps... without reworking the entire film with traveling mattes and extensive work...
As David H tells us... 2 weeks in 1963.

I am of the opinion - since we have B&W copies of the film THAT WEEKEND which match the extant film... the alteration (at least some key aspects of it) would have to have been completed by Saturday evening.


The evidence for a rear, and rear ONLY wound is offered by a number of witnesses within inches of the man's head.... The autopsy materials ALL try to illustrate a completely blown out Temporal and forehead area..
The Zfilm HIDES the rear headwound while creating a FALSE wound to match the Autopsy materials created LATE FRIDAY NIGHT IN DC.
(Chief Rowley of the SS has a copy - or original - of the film LATE FRIDAY NIGHT)

Ask yourself WHAT was actually shown to people between KODAK 11/22 and NPIC 11/24. We have a few showings in Dallas yet only the most unrevealing descriptions and Q&A' ever asked about these viewings.
Dino tells us what HE saw and what he sees on the extant film are NOT the same... he actually says: MORE FRAMES OF THE HEAD EXPLODING... (trying to support my 48fps theory - lol)
He also feels that Hill not only touched JAckie but "violently" pushes her back into the limo.. another sequence potentially missing.

But since we have no definitive description of the 25 seconds of film... from the "original" that weekend... all we do have are the 486 frames.

So all anyone got to see were FRAMES (the problems with the zfilm were so bad that on April 27, 1963 Redlich writes Rankin that what they described as happening and what they see on the extant Zfilm may not even be corroborative.


We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine
whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to
frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which
corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish
by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the
President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the
point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole
assassin.

(That last line just takes my breath away... MUCH worse than Katzenbach... This is April 27, 1964 just as they start "gathering/evaluating evidence".... but I digress)

The B&W copies from that night of the 23rd - possibly made when the altered film was done to give LIFE the source material for it's B&W enlargements... (if they really did have the original on 11/23, the images would have come straight from that film, in wonderful color, as LIFE was famous for... that LIFE published crappy B&W images has to say something)

I would need to look further yet I do not think these B&W copies were seen by many and turn up years later...

Other than these B&W copies, all that was ever offered were FRAMES... so WHO KNOWS about seeing a "limo stop" on the film, or the entire Elm Turn, or the complete movements of the occupants of the limo between 285 and 345...
Dan Rather, Henry Luce, CD Jackson, Phil Chamberlain, Richard Blair, Zapruder, Schwartz, Stolley, Shanklin... ???

Nobody who would be doing any talking about it... especially if the SS/FBI issued its "warnings" to the key players outside the circle...

Finally GG... nothing was LEFT IN on purpose.... If the theory about 48fps is correct, there is a limit to the number of frames that can be removed without the skipping looking obvious (even though most of the skipping IS obvious)

I don't think the "Limo Stop" was of such a duration (32-96 frames at 48fps: 2/3 to 2 seconds) as we may have thought... Science tells us time APPEARS to slow during these types of situations becasue the level of memories are so deep and rich they are remembered as being longer. We KNOW the limo slows to less than 3 mph and may even momentarily stop... yet the distances covered in the # of frames offerred relates to speeds which fluctuate HUGELY and are not seen on the Zfilm we have.

By keeping the correct frames the limo would appear to slow, not stop... appear to be moving faster than reality (like Greer's head movements), yet since JFK is shot during this period he cannot simply go from sitting there to laying on Jackie... so we see an impossible "back and to the left" movement that removes debris seen by ALL the other early viewers (and remains the ONLY thing that most remember from the film that weekend) and we see Greer spinning his head at impossible speeds in the frames just following 313... (please see z316 to z317... that's impossible)

This gif give us 4 frames 315-316 and 4 frames 316-317 with one frame overlap in the middle... the 302 to 304 turn is even worse... with 1/48th of a second between frames we can go from 36 frames (2/3 second at 48fps) to 12 frames (also 2/3 second yet at 18fps) by removing the most damaging 24 frames... only many years later when we have access to the frames - IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION PICTURE - could we even BEGIN to notice this difference.

FRAMES were all that were offered and for very good reason... with YEARS going by between these same people publically seeing the film... minute details, versus the most horrific explosion of the head, could get lost... Zap DOES seem to be saying he filmed the entire Turn... the location of the limo on Elm as offered by the Surveys... ALL of them... show how the Zfilm is not a possible or accurate representation.

Especially when you go look at CD298 - the FBI's conclusions as to what happened...

and the CONCLUSION of the Redlich to Rankin memo:

I should add that the facts which we now have in our
possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
present a completely misleading picture.

Suffice to say..... Rankin does not bring this up with the commissioners in the April 30 Exec Session, or in any session or recorded statement thereafter...

DJ



[ATTACH=CONFIG]5215[/ATTACH]



[ATTACH=CONFIG]5214[/ATTACH]

[Gordon Gray]

David I don't know why you are addressing my post. My question was to what extent and to what intent was the Zfilm altered. I can't see how you have addressed either question. I am not contesting the fact that it was altered.

[David Josephs]

David I don't know why you are addressing my post. My question was to what extent and to what intent was the Zfilm altered. I can't see how you have addressed either question. I am not contesting the fact that it was altered.

you just posted:
For me the question is to what degree and to what intent. If the technical facility was present to remove the evidence of rear ejecta, a full limo stop, and two distinct head shots, why was the obvious rearward head snap left in? Was the purpose of alteration to fool the people at Time, the WC, or the public? Those involve three different time frames; 12 hours, two months, and 10 years, respectively.

I believe I addressed to what EXTENT by talking about what actually needed to be SHOWN versus what we finally see on the film 12 years later... Individual FRAMES are the only things that needed alteration if you accept that the B&W copies were not made until much later... and the B&W frame enlargements came from Hawkeye.

As to INTENT... the film had to match the autopsy record which - when completed that weekend - shows the right and top FRONT of his head gone, with the back intact.

That, imo, was the INTENT of work like this... I think we're on the same page... sorry if I was not more clear in my answer

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5216[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5217[/ATTACH]

[Daniel Gallup]

Sheery Fiester suggested a reason why the Z film doesn't show the reward ejecta is that it would have had a greater velocity than the back spatter that we do see. It may not have registered on the film at the speed of 18 fps. As to the front vs rear, these terms are not specific enough, IMO. What we see on the Z film is a fracturing and blow out of the scull in the temporal region, which is above the ear and slightly to the front of it, but still on the side of the head. I always took Jackie's expression to mean his face was intact. I find Horne's evidence of the two events at the NPIC in conjunction with the accounts of the "other film" to be persuasive as to alteration. For me the question is to what degree and to what intent. If the technical facility was present to remove the evidence of rear ejecta, a full limo stop, and two distinct head shots, why was the obvious rearward head snap left in? Was the purpose of alteration to fool the people at Time, the WC, or the public? Those involve three different time frames; 12 hours, two months, and 10 years, respectively.

Gordon, Sheery Fiester is so off base it is laughable. It might be possible for a piece of bone to travel at a very high velocity so as to be missed by the camera, if the bone was directly hit by the exiting missile. But peripheral tissue, esp blood and brains? No chance. The ejecta was removed because the rear wound, as seen at Parkland, had to be removed from history. Let us be very, very clear about this. The alteration of the film to remove evidence from a frontal shot went hand in hand with the removal from the autopsy camera's eye of the rear exit wound seen at Dallas. Notice the autopsy photos hide the Dallas wound. Now to answer your question: the plotters were not magicians. The cost of removing the considerable amount of blood and brains exiting the back of Kennedy's head was the " head snap." Should the film ever come to light, and at the time the plotters may have thought this eventuality would never come to pass, the head snap could be explained away, precisely because there was no evidence of ejecta exiting the back of the President's head. Neuromuscular reaction or some other nonsense. The film hides the limo stop; but even more, it hides the fact that blood and brains left the President's head in a spray that was visible to everyone except the extant Z-film. See Debra Conway's groundbreaking interview with Toni Foster, the running woman, in KAC summer 2000, for her eyewitness view of the ejecta.

[Phil Dragoo]

Hargrave had blood and brains on his windshield and person to the extent he thought he'd been hit

Very right to lay the coverup of occipital wounding on the Zapruder film beside that of the Bethesda photos

Groden tallies eighty-one who saw what Nurse Bowron swore under oath she'd seen (ah to be civilian)

Where's that halo of blood and brain around the president

Where's that dramatic slowing, stopping (police know the various rationalizations of stop sign violation)

Horne's two events, David's use of 48 fps, the delay in "full" access to the film

And, face it, the relatively simple task

Yes, he snaps back and to the left

But we may have a very misleading 33-1/3% of the picture

I, too, take Jackie's "from the front there was nothing" to mean there was none of the sledge-hammering to the right parietal seen at Bethesda

The back of the head in Zapruder at 317 was airbrushed with the finesse of an LA graffiti artist

The Bethesda back of head photo blended pre-mortem image of the president with the base post-autopsy shot

The Zapruder film must be appraised in light of the other evidence

Witness the phone call by Mantik to Ebersole; see how the mention of the 6.5 mm artifact in the AP skull ended the conversation

When these poseurs are caught, they are outraged and exit in a huff

Stay in the room and take what you get

With Zapruder you get a limo which POPs into view

Which NEVER stops or even shows signs of slowing

A head with no wound ejecta--yet an avulsive wound seen by eighty-one

Head turns out of The Exorcist

The film was closely held--who was that CD Jackson anyway, what does a psychological warfare chief do

The absence of edge markings, the anomaly of intersprocket images, the numbering which sends 0183 to the memory hole

Believe, believe, believe

Fifty years of this crap

Oh no it wasn't altered and the coin under your pillow came from the Tooth Fairy

Who lives in a big house with all the shrieking fairies of journalism who dare not question

[Charles Drago]

[Should the film ever come to light, and at the time the plotters may have thought this eventuality would never come to pass, the head snap could be explained away, precisely because there was no evidence of ejecta exiting the back of the President's head. Neuromuscular reaction or some other nonsense.

We must consider the possibility -- indeed, in my view the near-certainty -- that the "plotters" insured that the altered Z-film, with all of its waiting-to-be-discovered evidence of tampering was shown publicly in order to stir immediate and lasting controversy, further Balkanize the research community, serve as a prime component in the multi-doppelganger gambit that runs throughout this case, and most importantly prolong debilitating doubt.

[Dawn Meredith]

This unpopular opinion should, I suppose, be its own thread. Here is what I have to say on this topic:


5) other than a possible patch on back of JFK's head and perhaps something at Z313, there is no visible evidence or trace of any alteration work.

There is an important problem that you did not address, and which has received little quality attention from defenders of the authenticity of the Z-film. ITEK determined long ago that the extant Z-film shows no ejecta leaving the back of Kennedy's head. Yet the doctors at Parkland were witness to an avulsive wound with the bones sprung open and a great loss of brain in the back of the head. So we have an effect without a cause, if the present Z-film is authentic. In fact it gets worse. In the present film we see a great loss of brain from the front - right of the skull (and presumably a great loss of skull as well). It's right there in the film. But what did Jackie say? "from the front there was nothing..." . So then we have an cause (a bullet seeming blasting the right front of Kennedy's skull) without an effect (no such wounding was viewed not just by Jackie or Hill but also at Parkland). No matter how much one tries to defend the extant film, there is simply no answer to this conundrum other than film alteration.

In 1975 I did my second research paper for college on this case. This paper was a direct challenge to one of the many CBS/Dan Rather bs "docudramas" on the case. CBS also relied on Cambridge- based ITEK and I was able to demonstrate that ITEK was little more than a CIA and front corp. for the Rockerfellers. So I would not trust any analysis by ITEK.

Just sayin'

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

[Should the film ever come to light, and at the time the plotters may have thought this eventuality would never come to pass, the head snap could be explained away, precisely because there was no evidence of ejecta exiting the back of the President's head. Neuromuscular reaction or some other nonsense.

We must consider the possibility -- indeed, in my view the near-certainty -- that the "plotters" insured that the altered Z-film, with all of its waiting-to-be-discovered evidence of tampering was shown publicly in order to stir immediate and lasting controversy, further Balkanize the research community, serve as a prime component in the multi-doppelganger gambit that runs throughout this case, and most importantly prolong debilitating doubt.

Exactly, CD! One more thing to argue about. Lack of unity in the community has served the plotters well.

Dawn

[Daniel Gallup]

This unpopular opinion should, I suppose, be its own thread. Here is what I have to say on this topic:


5) other than a possible patch on back of JFK's head and perhaps something at Z313, there is no visible evidence or trace of any alteration work.

There is an important problem that you did not address, and which has received little quality attention from defenders of the authenticity of the Z-film. ITEK determined long ago that the extant Z-film shows no ejecta leaving the back of Kennedy's head. Yet the doctors at Parkland were witness to an avulsive wound with the bones sprung open and a great loss of brain in the back of the head. So we have an effect without a cause, if the present Z-film is authentic. In fact it gets worse. In the present film we see a great loss of brain from the front - right of the skull (and presumably a great loss of skull as well). It's right there in the film. But what did Jackie say? "from the front there was nothing..." . So then we have an cause (a bullet seeming blasting the right front of Kennedy's skull) without an effect (no such wounding was viewed not just by Jackie or Hill but also at Parkland). No matter how much one tries to defend the extant film, there is simply no answer to this conundrum other than film alteration.

In 1975 I did my second research paper for college on this case. This paper was a direct challenge to one of the many CBS/Dan Rather bs "docudramas" on the case. CBS also relied on Cambridge- based ITEK and I was able to demonstrate that ITEK was little more than a CIA and front corp. for the Rockerfellers. So I would not trust any analysis by ITEK.

Just sayin'

Dawn

Fair enough, Dawn. But I see nothing in the extant film to contradict ITEK's findings.