The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film's Alteration

[Greg Burnham]

WOW. Thanks Jan for the excerpts. This is by far the best proof I have seen.
Then add to it Mili Cranor's experience, of yet another film....hmmmm

Dawn

Milicent Cranor, Scott Myers, Rich DellaRosa, et al...

[Phil Dragoo]

Dawn, please add anything you may have on Milicent Cranor's fascinating experience:

(9) Milicent Cranor claimed that she saw an unusual version of the Zapruder Film at the NBC archives in 1992. She studied this repeatedly in slow motion on high quality equipment.

Kennedy was hit in the right temple while Moorman and Jean Hill were visible in the background. JFK's head rotated slightly counterclockwise (i.e., left) - just a tic. A flap of skin or bone swung out on a vertical hinge. The hinge became horizontal and the flap became part of what looked like a giant clam. I never saw the famous "blob" nor did I see clouds of gore. I only saw thin translucent lines intersecting the head that scientists (in fluid dynamics) tell me are most likely condensation lines left in the wake of a bullet. One line suggested the shot came from Zapruder's immediate left. About 1/2 second later JFK went flat across Jackie's lap, not forward but leftward, away from the viewer. JFK then came back up to about where he was before. His head made two nearly imperceptible jerks, a tip to the left, a tip to the right. Then he bucked backward - but there was no head snap. He moved all of a piece, as if given a shove in the sternum.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKzapruderF.htm

Greg, you've nearly penned an Abraham, Maheu and John anthem, a context much too thick for coincidence:

http://johnfitzgeraldkennedy.net/amazing...pruder.htm

One might add something just outside that bubble, that Jackie'd dated the McHugh who normally rode between the agents in the front seat and who swears he never left the body and casket unattended on the ride from Love to Andrews.

And the year George DeMohrenschildt's alarm went off followed by a shotgun going off in his mouth William Sullivan's bullet came home sparing him the awkward testimony before the HSCA as Angleton's opposite number.

Between Edward Jay Epstein (Angleton's sock puppet) and Gaeton Fonzi (Hercule Poirot's "very good dog") George DeMohrenschildt paid the final price for I Am a Patsy! I Am a Patsy!

Did Hunt ghost the extant version? Gore Vidal (The Art and Arts of E. Howard Hunt) would have been uniquely qualified to rule.

I posit he wrote The Deadly Plaza Cinema Chimera on contract for Allen Dulles the Michael Anthony for a sponsor who wishes to remain anonymous.

[Charles Drago]

The "private" Z-films have been compared to the "historic" version.

But have they been compared to each other?

Greg and Mili: Have you spoken in depth with each other about what you saw? If so, are you of the opinion that you were shown the same "private" Z-film?

[David Josephs]

The "private" Z-films have been compared to the "historic" version.

But have they been compared to each other?

Greg and Mili: Have you spoken in depth with each other about what you saw? If so, are you of the opinion that you were shown the same "private" Z-film?

Prefer not to speak for Greg... yet in another thread he does describe differences and things DellaRosa remembers seeing that he did not....

Based on the physical desciptions of the films themselves... blank/black film, leaders, splices, etc.... a 48fps original is not hard to defend...
and based on the MATH... 48fps makes everything possible

It appears that the turn onto Elm and the syncing of Towner to the start of the Zfilm is why we lost the entire turn in Zap...

There is supposed to be a START frame light bleed that simply is not there.... and no good explanation for why it's not.
(btw - restricting jpgs to such small sizes makes it very hard to post - 97Kb max ?? that's tiny. so I am posting the link to my images)

http://s1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff39...tement.jpg

Furthermore.. the MATH that Chris Davidson has shown me and I expanded upon PROVES the physical realities of the alteration...
(and proves the WCR provided fraudulent survey data for the purpose of making it impossible to relate what we see on the Zfilm to physical reality)

I am hoping that we are getting closer to the HOW by finding WHERE in the film alteration occurred...
After z133 we only need remove about 35 frames to get everything to work...

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

[Charles Drago]

Thanks, David.

My primary interest lies in discovering the reasons why different versions were shown and why they were shown to those specific individuals. Toward these ends, I remain curious: Why, for instance, were Greg and DellaRosa shown versions of the Z-film that differ not only from the "historic" version, but also from each other?

I can suggest answers, but I'm very interested in learning what others think.

[David Josephs]

Thanks, David.

My primary interest lies in discovering the reasons why different versions were shown and why they were shown to those specific individuals. Toward these ends, I remain curious: Why, for instance, were Greg and DellaRosa shown versions of the Z-film that differ not only from the "historic" version, but also from each other?

I can suggest answers, but I'm very interested in learning what others think.

Seeing and remembering different things within a film does not necessarily mean they were shown different things... imo.

That a film or films were seen showing a differnt sequence than what is seen on the extant film is not surprise...

You were aware that the film at the archive, the "in camera original" no longer has its "0183" ID imprint on it's leader... (zavada study ARRB)
and was identified as the "original" since the SS copies have 0183 printed thru...

In essence, since the SS film has 0183... the film WITHOUT 0183 in the archives must be the original... :banghead:

makes sense in an WCR/FBI kinda way...
DJ

[Charles Drago]

David,

My narrow focus of interest on this relates to what I've termed the "doppelganger gambit" in the JFK assassination -- among other deep political operations.

Whose interests are served by promoting the existence of two -- or more -- Z-films?

For starters.

Charlie

[Greg Burnham]

Charles, Phil, David...

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if the films that each of us saw were the same or different. They were certainly different from the extant version, but from each other's version, I do not know
for certain.

David is correct in that the possibility of the films being the same yet yielding disparate recollection from the various viewers might be explained by differences in individual experiences, predilection, focus,
etc. -- However, it is still worth noting that many elements that impeach the authenticity of the extant version are present or missing (as the case may be) from ALL of the reports of the "private" film(s).
For instance, the turn onto Elm is present in each report of the "private" film(s), but missing from the extant film. The COMPLETE STOP is present in each report of the private film(s) yet missing in the
extant, etc.

Charles, I did speak to Milicent at length upon discovering that she reported seeing another film. It's interesting to note that when I first recounted my experience (during a phone conversation with Jack White)
I was unaware that anyone else had ever reportedly seen a different film. When Jack suggested that I "go public" with it, I hesitated...but eventually posted it on our forum. When I became aware that a few
others had reported seeing a similar film, I decided to contact them. So, I did a typical, "separate the suspects/witnesses" from each other in order to check the story for consistency. In other words, since
I was not very familiar with Mili back then I did not offer my account so as to avoid influencing her recollection. Of course, Jack was aware of Mili's account when we had spoken, but he didn't let on as to what
she had reportedly seen. After speaking with her--and later with Scott Myers--the similarities led me to believe that we had "perhaps" seen the same film, but not necessarily. However, I found her to be
extremely credible. Like me, she was NOT glad that she had seen this film. The same holds true for Rich. These days I spend a lot of time avoiding its discussion. It seems to be divisive amongst good, honest
researchers.

[Greg Burnham]

I just received this from another "private film" viewer. Since it came in private email, I will refrain from identifying the sender until we talk.

"I've just located a report of the limo coming "to an immediate stop" and SS agents "peeling off" the followup car.
It's in the ABC-TV coverage and you can find it on YouTube on David von Pein's channel. The report starts at about
3:45 into part 8. The car stop portion is at about 6:15 into part 8."

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR3cRwfdxv0&list=SP877B49732EC6DAC8&index= 8&feature=plpp_video[/video]


It is important to note that I believe I am the only "private viewer" who reported that Secret Service agents piled out of the Queen Mary (SS follow up
car). This has always troubled me because the others didn't report seeing this. Again it could be explained because of differences in focus, where I was
specifically directed to focus on "what went wrong" which would cause me to focus on the actions of the protective detail. The others very well could have
been "naturally" focused on other items--OR--it could have been different films.

[David Josephs]

Thanks Greg... I still keep your chilling description of what you saw in a word doc nearby.....

Not sure if you've followed any of the MATH threads Chris Davidson and I have had... I believe we found the 30-40 feet that makes up the descrepency in the "data" and it has to do with that turn onto Elm where the FBI decides that Towner is running at a speed much higher than the 16fps her camera SHOULD have taken images at... and with the "STOP".

Turns out if one simply moves the measuring point from Myer's FRONT of the LIMO to JFK IN THE LIMO we can gain or lose about 15-16 feet from a fixed measuring point (station C)
Then, by changing 16fps (1/3 of slo-mo) to 18.3 you pick up about 30 frames over the sequence... or another 1-2 seconds = 30 feet of movement, again based on where the fixed measuring point is.

2-3 mph is virtually a stop. That's regular walking speed... for a car it's crawling along.

The only way Hill reaches the limo in basically 4 steps is if the limo/QM are traveling at less than 5 mph.

Without the "0183" on the extant film at the archives - it cannot be proven to be the one developed as the Camera Original...
There is simply too much blank film

DJ

It could havehappened this way---consider this: the extant film (that is, the assassination
movie, not theZapruder family scenes present on the two Secret Service copies) in the
NationalArchives (not counting leader) consists of a strip of film 8 feet, 10 incheslong
(of which only 6 feet, 3 inches contains the imagery ofthe assassination film, and 2 feet,
7 inches is black, unexposed film with no image showing); then there isa physical splice;
then there is asegment of black film containing no imagery that is 19 feet, 3 inches long;
then there isanother physical splice; then there is another segment of black film
containing noimagery which is 5 feet, 8 inches long.

Summarizing,after the first splice
at the end ofthe assassination segment, there are a total of just over 24 feet of black film
with no imageshowing. If the camera-original film had actually been shot at
48 frames persecond---three times normal speed---
thenconceivably it would have required approximately three times the length of filmin the present assassination segment (i.e., 3 x 6 feet = 18 feet).
Currently,there is more than 18 feet of black film that is not contiguous
with theassassination movie---that is, there is actually 24 feet of black film that hasnot
been shot, butthe problem is, it is not physically connected to the assassination film.

The rhetoricalquestion becomes, how do we know the actual, camera-original Zapruder
film wasn'tshot at 48 frames per second, and then edited down to normal speed during
the alterationprocess by removing two thirds of the frames when the new film was
created in anoptical printer? The answer is, we don't know that---there is room for
subterfugehere---because the black, unexposed film on the reel of the extant Zapruder
film has beenattached with a splice.