Zapruder film alteration or not?

[Bob]

kenmurray wrote:By David Healy:http://www.jfkresearch.com/Technical_Aspects.pdfAnother phenomenal resource from the Wizard of Link!

[Dealey Joe]

ThomI value your opinions. I am also suprised that this subject of the Zapruder film is still being kicked around.I am not sure what can be proven and I feel sure the film, or some version of it hasbeen examined.I see room for alterations having been made. I guess it could be a total fake.My problem is, Why? For what purpose?Do you see the film as much more than intertainm?How can you use hearsay as fact? What someone says they saw to refute what you can see?How do you know frames have been switched??The magazine artical published less than 7 days after the film was shot shows only 30 framesmost of which show Jackis climbing out onto the trunk.How can you tell with 30 out if 300 frames that they have been swiched?Don't get me wrong, I am noy saying that it has not been altered or a total fake.It should not be hard to show if it has.I just want someone to show me.

[andries]

i think the film now and in particular the close up headshot supportsthe statement of files one bang two bullets almost simultaneousif the film is altered, both roy orbinson and stevie wonder were definitly in charge duringthe alteration..i have doubts about james files, but dicusing alteration off the film is to painfull for me as a pro conspiratist, it makes us all look like fools and horses against the dark sideit has never done any good.

[ThomZajac]

andries wrote:i think the film now and in particular the close up headshot supportsthe statement of files one bang two bullets almost simultaneousif the film is altered, both roy orbinson and stevie wonder were definitly in charge duringthe alteration..i have doubts about james files, but dicusing alteration off the film is to painfull for me as a pro conspiratist, it makes us all look like fools and horses against the dark sideit has never done any good.Can you explain why the Zapruder film does not show a rear blowout of the president's head? Or are you of the opinion that no such blowout occurred (the official autopsy photos depict no such wound). Just wondering.

[Dealey Joe]

Thom the frames published in the magazine shows the back of the head blacked out, fron the ear back.I thought that was interesting, A little different than the 313 we see today?

[Brian White]

I think the speed of the car has definitely been altered in Zapruder-as many times asI've seen it, the car always seems to proceed along at a steady pace-but compare that to the Nix film, and I see a noticeable speed-up just as Hill grabs onto the car. Are my eyes playingtricks? I doubt it. Dealy Joe, watch both films back-to-back,very carefully,and see if you don'tsee it too.The head wound was altered,too,no doubt about it. Where's the proof? Hell, where'sthe proof James Files was on the knoll? And no, I'm not related to Jack White and don't know him,in case anyone was wondering.

[Dealey Joe]

OH Brian you are insisting on opening a can of worms I cant compare Zapruder film to Files.Files has been gone over with a fine comb. and has always passed except for those who just refuse to lookThe proof I want ion the film is for a professional lab to examine the film and say one way or the other.I am assuming they could do that depending on what copy they were provided?Again I don't see where it makes much difference if it has been altered other than I don't like being lied to for whatever the purpose.How many times has the film been worked over? frames changed or removed?What do you think was the purpose? was it just a knee jerk reaction that they were AFRAID WE MIGHT FIND OUT SOMETHING.Why didn't they just burn the damm thing?

[Wayne Stracener]

Because of Money, Discussion of Money did not start on the 2nd day of the assassination or the 3rd, Zapruder had it on the brain with in hours, Then Life and right on down the line.

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Gentlemen:This is meant as a positive suggestion from a neutral source, me, on this academic debate. I mean no disrespect to either side, or anybody's thoughts.I have gone on record before as stating that I never cared about the Zapruder Film. I have never had any interest because I come from a different perspective. I've know Jimmy since the 1960'S, and have developed my own interests from that perspective. I focus on my own idiosyncratic points of research, study, and writing.That said, I have skimmed, with little sincere interest, this thread and other Headlines, Posts, articles, books, and links, all on this Subject Matter.There appears to be valid points to both sides, hard to quantify and qualify any true winner. Agreed ?How about we set this up as a clear cut, more organized Pro vs. Con Academic Posted Debate.Each voluntary participant re-states his/her points by first taking his/her position, i.e., I believe it was altered, or I believe that it was not altered.Then in simple bullet points state your arguments, references, links, and concluding opinions.Clearly, many great JFK Forum Members are on either side of this issue. Let's channel that energy and interest positively. My Opinion.Food for thought. We will at least come up with the most organized, most powerful academic arguments on both sides of this issue.Comments ?Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[Dealey Joe]

I will go on record with my opinion.To me the overall film is authentic with some possible manipulation in places, but not many.Having used these old 8mm movie cameras i have no problem with a camera rewind as the limo popped around the corner while the rewind was being performed. This was a customary problem with the old wind up's, if you filmed too long you would run out of film. Keep in mind that the old cameras were probably not synchronized so shutter speed was not well controlled. It was a different world. Polaroid and Home movie taking was in it's infancy and not real sophisticatedPeople were enthralled with just seeing a picture pop out on a piece of paper or see a family member moving around even though they did not have sound.Prior to the 8mm only the wealthy could have a movie camera and the were 16mm. the same film Zapruders early camera used and was split down the center in order to make the 8mm movie.After shooting half your loaded film, the film had to be removed from the camera, turned over and re threaded in the cameraand then shoot the other half.The only question I have, one still picture I cannot explain.is Bronson5It shows what appears to be a single female shooting from the pedestal and a Pickup truck on the right end of the pergola canopy on the street.can this be explained?See what you think about this picture?