Was the zap film altered?

Mon 06 Jul 2020, 1:31 am

First topic message reminder :

Mick Purdy runs his ruler over the various claims.

Short answer: Technically possible. Logistically: highly unlikely

additionally, though technically possible - 1963 technology would make it easily detectable.

A Waving Flag on this 4th of July is the final nail.

A much appreciated addition to efforts at clearing the crap,

https://gregrparker.com/essays/

#zapruder

Thu 06 Aug 2020, 6:55 pm

The wholesale alteration theory relies on taking the Zapruder amateur 8mm hand held film shot at approximately 16-18 frames per second, a reversal film no less, and applying extremely complex traveling matte overlays on both the motion picture foreground and background portions of each and every frame in the Zapruder film. The film having been hand held is the key in this analysis. In my view it was not possible to achieve this at least not without being completely detectable. It is the reason why I am extremely confident that complex matte work was not and could not have been applied to the film we see today.

Thu 06 Aug 2020, 11:55 pm

Mick_Purdy wrote:
The wholesale alteration theory relies on taking the Zapruder amateur 8mm hand held film shot at approximately 16-18 frames per second, a reversal film no less, and applying extremely complex traveling matte overlays on both the motion picture foreground and background portions of each and every frame in the Zapruder film. The film having been hand held is the key in this analysis. In my view it was not possible to achieve this at least not without being completely detectable. It is the reason why I am extremely confident that complex matte work was not and could not have been applied to the film we see today.

Mick,

I am not describing a process including complex masking alterations.
What I recently posted about the frame removal process can be completed in this fashion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezs695bLZIo

Fri 07 Aug 2020, 10:10 am

Chris_Davidson wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:
The wholesale alteration theory relies on taking the Zapruder amateur 8mm hand held film shot at approximately 16-18 frames per second, a reversal film no less, and applying extremely complex traveling matte overlays on both the motion picture foreground and background portions of each and every frame in the Zapruder film. The film having been hand held is the key in this analysis. In my view it was not possible to achieve this at least not without being completely detectable. It is the reason why I am extremely confident that complex matte work was not and could not have been applied to the film we see today.

Mick,

I am not describing a process including complex masking alterations.
What I recently posted about the frame removal process can be completed in this fashion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezs695bLZIo

Chris,
This was not necessarily directed at you. It is a general comment and my professional opinion that it was impossible for the sort of extremely complex traveling matte scenarios spoken of by some researchers with regards to changing content within the original film.

If you are alluding to the excising of frames from the original then I think we can agree that has happened as we can plainly see in today's copy of the Z film.
I cannot subscribe however to any idea that film we see today has had large sections of it's content altered in any way. I do not detect any form of manipulation for the purposes to omit certain content to create an illusion of some other scenario.

I understand that the optical machinery which you refer to was capable of producing many effects including seamless joins in the final product, but I fail to see any signs of its use in the film we see today.

I think having more than several copies of the original film processed on that Friday pretty much ends the argument for me. Otherwise we have to travel down the path of believing that all copies of the original were confiscated and destroyed on the Friday and that the original also was destroyed after the film was altered. I just can't go there Chris, I'm sorry.

Fri 07 Aug 2020, 10:28 am

Yes, Chris. And has been said about this numerous times before, you claim that frames were removed from the Z film. You claim that because the diorama that was made by the FBI the weekend of the murder show that the cars were much further down Elm when the shots hit. Then, for some nefarious and mysterious reason, the diorama was changed and the cars were moved up closer to where we know the shots were fired.

A simple mistake by the FBI becomes a full-blown conspiracy with frame removal. What you never take the time to answer here is:

Altgens was there. You [and I or anyone else on this forum] were not. You can see him in the Z film. He said he was 15 feet or so away when the head shot hit. He also said that no further shots were fired afterward. So was Altgens wrong? How could he be wrong, Chris? The film clearly shows him right there on top of the action as the bullets are hitting. His testimony matches almost perfectly with the film.

You claim that frames were removed. Why were they removed, Chris? And how do you know what was in the removed frames, Chris, when you nor anyone else has ever seen these frames, Chris?

And yes, I'm going to continue to use that NZ synched video of the Z and Nix films, Chris. Because you can't just expect all films to magically sync up with frames cut out here and there. It's not nearly as easy or possible as you think it is, Chris.

As another member posted above, several copies of the movie were made during the weekend. How on Earth would they have been able to keep track of these copies of the film without one slipping out showing something completely different, Chris?

I've worked in multimedia for 34 years, Chris. I made several 8mm short films back in the day. I have 3 Telly awards for production excellence on my desk collecting dust. I know I'm right on this, Chris. You need to let go of this film alteration nonsense. It in no way furthers the case and makes a laughingstock of people who read you and the other crazies' horseshit on outrageous conspiracy claims.

Fri 07 Aug 2020, 12:15 pm

Chris_Davidson wrote:You keep referring to the Nix/Z sync video.
Please read Nix's grand-daughters book pertaining to the film's provenance.
Two camera's running at the same frame rate. Filming the same event.(I'm quite familiar with Muchmore/Bronson too.)
Step them through the optical printer, remove the same desired frames in a mostly uniform fashion(removing/smoothing out an instantaneous limo stop) while the end result is speeding up the limo back to its pre-altered speed.
Does it require more or less frames generated to cover the limo traversing the same distance when the limo has slowed down?
A second headshot was removed.
It occurred after the extant 313 headshot.
Actually, in specifically designated frame spans, 70% frame removal was achieved.
The only special effects I see in the extant Zfilm are frame specific and there are very few of them. imo
67% was based on 48 slo-mo.
70% is based on 18.3fps
Breneman did the initial survey work along with Robert West.

Your questions were answered. You don't comprehend what is being explained to you.
I've already covered Altgen's many times before.
Select any part of the film provided, preferably prior to and during the headshots(you know, when many said the limo either slowed down greatly or stopped briefly) and start the Sequencer by keeping one then removing 2 or 3.
Show us the end result.
Otherwise, we're through for now, as this is just rehashing the same old stuff.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6ZXhR_qYjAETDJ-WxnAu1GeWYI8mmzu/view?usp=sharing

Sat 08 Aug 2020, 12:08 pm

This is all I need to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc Douglas Horne ARRB and Dino Brugioni.

Sat 08 Aug 2020, 2:07 pm

Bigjohnaz wrote:This is all I need to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc Douglas Horne ARRB and Dino Brugioni.

Note Horne only uses the word " he believes" when referring to what may have transpired.
Brugioni did this interview in 2007? recounting from his memory of an event from 1963.

Horne makes big claims which don't appear to be supported by earlier reports and statements from 1963-1964.
And whilst Brugioni might have been an expert in his field at one time he certainly was in his senior years when agreeing to the interview with Horne.

I put it to you that Horne probably spent several hours possibly days prior to the sit down interview with Brugioni leading him through the questions that would be asked. It would be foolish to think he hadn't briefed Brugioni of the topic for discussion.
Horne had an agenda we know that now.

Why would this be all you need to know when there is so much more evidence in the record to draw from to explain the provenance of the film from Friday onward and which is at complete odds with the claims Horne has made.

Sat 08 Aug 2020, 6:20 pm

prior to and during the headshots(you know, when many said the limo either slowed down greatly or stopped briefly)

The whole limo-stopped-during-the-shooting thing is overstated. Only a small number of people actually claimed that it stopped, although they did include Bill Newman, who was one of the closest spectators.

Most of the witnesses who have been put forward as claiming that the limo stopped either didn't have a good view of the limo, or actually claimed that one of the cars further back near them stopped or that the presidential limo might have stopped but they weren't quite sure. In other words, the usual jumble of unreliable recollections. More here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street

One thing that struck me about claims that the Zapruder film was altered is that there's no general agreement on what alterations were actually made, or why. Mary Moorman was standing in the street! Why on earth alter the film to cover that up? In that case, it turned out to be just the usual Jack White idiocy. One of the lamp-posts looks a bit weird! Again, why?

At least the limo-stop claim makes some sort of sense. You can see why the bad guys might have decided to remove that, even though it could be explained away as an innocent mistake by the driver in the heat of the moment. But the film contains far more obvious evidence for conspiracy: the famous back-and-to-the-left reaction at frame 313. Why didn't the bad guys remove that bit? I've even heard it suggested that the head movement didn't actually happen but was a by-product of alterations to remove some other thing.

As rogerhucek pointed out earlier, the Zapruder film contains two items of evidence that are inconsistent with the lone-nut theory: the head movement and the timing which forced the two-hits-and-a-miss single-bullet theory. It's as though people are so fixated on the notion of a grand super-conspiracy that they are willing to dispose of (or they are actually oblvious to) evidence that actually disproves the notion of a lone gunman.

Sun 09 Aug 2020, 3:17 am

Chris_Davidson wrote:

Select any part of the film provided, preferably prior to and during the headshots(you know, when many said the limo either slowed down greatly or stopped briefly) and start the Sequencer by keeping one then removing 2 or 3.
Show us the end result.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6ZXhR_qYjAETDJ-WxnAu1GeWYI8mmzu/view?usp=sharing

All one would have to do after the limo slowed down/stopped would be remove the extra frames created, in whatever sequential pattern was desired.

There are other supportive methods (Tim Nicholson) used to determine frame removal occurred:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426501

I provided the slowed down version above, here is the the Photoshop sequencer version.
Note the frame count ghost numbers.
Was the zap film altered? - Page 2 Final8c07500c7b7c9429

Was the zap film altered? - Page 2 Final8c07500c7b7c9429

Sun 09 Aug 2020, 12:16 pm

Chris Davidson wrote:

Chris_Davidson wrote:

Select any part of the film provided, preferably prior to and during the headshots(you know, when many said the limo either slowed down greatly or stopped briefly) and start the Sequencer by keeping one then removing 2 or 3.
Show us the end result.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6ZXhR_qYjAETDJ-WxnAu1GeWYI8mmzu/view?usp=sharing

All one would have to do after the limo slowed down/stopped would be remove the extra frames created, in whatever sequential pattern was desired.

There are other supportive methods (Tim Nicholson) used to determine frame removal occurred:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/?do=findComment&comment=426501

I provided the slowed down version above, here is the the Photoshop sequencer version.
Note the frame count ghost numbers.

Chris,

when was all of this work done and why? You know there were more than several copies in Dallas and elsewhere by the Tuesday after the assassination. Were they all confiscated?

Do yourself a favor.
Take a really decent copy of the film, and play it back on an extra large high definition screen. Mask the the foreground of the film on the TV with paper or fabric or whatever you have at your disposal.

Having completely covered the bottom portion (approx 1/3) of the TV play the film back.

Watch the background only, watch it very closely. The background of the film is completely fluid, everything including the objects, the landscape and the human figures move exactly as they should do on a piece of film shot at around 18 FPS.

There is zero evidence of tampering in my opinion, except for two splice points. The back ground behaves completely as it should which strongly indicates the film is as it was shot in camera in my view.

At the Clay Shaw trial Zapruder was shown a copy of his film and without any doubt he confirmed to the court under Oath that the copy the court had in its possession was the same as the film he’d watched and filmed in 1963.

Sun 09 Aug 2020, 12:17 pm

Richard Stolley 1988:

Interview:

https://youtu.be/iAEHdy70-fM?t=100

Mon 10 Aug 2020, 2:15 pm

Roland Zavada Bio:

Was the zap film altered? - Page 2 Zavada11

Roland Zavada was eminently qualified to determine if the Zapruder original "out of camera" footage was authentic. His conclusions should be taken seriously.
This was a man who was a principal member of the team of engineers from Eastman Kodak who introduced the Kodachrome 11 film along with other various film stock. He was considered the foremost authority of the Film stock which Zapruder had used in his camera.

http://rochester.nydatabases.com/story/zavada-report-jfk-assassination-evidence

In May 1996, James Milch, director of the Image Science division at Kodak's research labs, met with the ARRB to discuss how Kodak could lend its expertise. He recommended two experts to lead the research efforts.

The first was Zavada, who even in retirement was the world's leading expert on 8mm Kodachrome II film.
Milch also enlisted James Toner, head of Kodak's R&D Imaging Science Resources Lab, to see whether any of the company's cutting-edge digital imaging technology could shed new light on the photographic evidence.

Although the Zapruder film is the most studied film in history, most people had just seen second- and third-generation copies. Zavada was one of a handful of people to see the original since it came out of Zapruder's camera.

"I saw it four times, hands on," Zavada said. "You can tell a lot by feeling the film, in terms of how it's been stored or kept, whether it's fluted, whether or not you have edges that have been damaged. You can just feel the perforation."
By studying the physical characteristics of the film and analyzing the symbols encoded on it, Zavada was able to conclude where the film stock came from.

"One of the things I certified was that Zapruder's film was made in 1961," Zavada said. Zavada analyzed the edge print on the film — machine codes that were added to Kodachrome II during the slitting, spooling and perforating process. "I could tell it was finished in Rochester based upon the codes."

Zavada tracked down the technicians who had developed Zapruder's film in Dallas hours after the assassination and made copies for the Secret Service. He looked at Zapruder's camera, and talked to experts at Bell & Howell to understand its characteristics. He concluded that all of the artifacts on the film had been caused by the camera itself. Some of those anomalies weren't visible on the copies.

But Zavada found no evidence of splicing, and instead saw the tell-tale fogging that occurs when a movie camera paused with film in its gate.

Originally intending to spend four days working on his analysis, Zavada spent more than 100, delivering an exhaustive, 150-page report, supplemented with hundreds more pages of notes, appendices and technical documents.
Zavada's report concluded that Zapruder's film was an "in camera original" and that any alleged alterations were not feasible.

Any attempt at forgery would have left visible artifacts of "image structure constraints of grain; (and) contrast and modulation transfer function losses. It has no evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, (or) contrast buildup."
Zavada concluded that the Zapruder film that the ARRB had was the original and that it had not been tampered with.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/21/zapruder-film-analysis-still-disputed/3672031/

Isn't it time to acknowledge Zavada's work as valid and accept that the Zapruder film has not been altered. We have to stop distracting ourselves from what's really important.

Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:49 pm

CHRIS DAVIDSON:

"I provided the slowed down version above, here is the the Photoshop sequencer version. Note the frame count ghost numbers."

OK, Chris, so instead of someone here answering the above, why don't you simply complete your above statement. "Note the frame count ghost numbers" - what about them? What is it in your mind what's "wrong" with those numbers?

It seems like every single time someone points out something - whether it's Roland Z, or James Altgens being where he said he was - you and others like you come back with "what about this?" or "what about that?" Or you'll make a statement above without putting yourself on the line and providing an answer to it.

So instead, explain what you mean about the "ghost numbers," Chris. Further, you can't formulate a conclusion and then work backwards. If I took two unknown chemicals and put them together and they made rainbow smoke, I can't conclude why that is right there. I'd have to find out why then come to a conclusion.

The same with this whacky Z alteration theory. What exactly do YOU see in the film, Chris, that makes you conclude that it's been altered? Forget about the diorama, which is the basis of your theory of frame removal, and point it out to us. I personally don't see anything wrong with the film that's been around for 56 years. As Mick P said, all movements are fluid. There's no herky-jerky or odd glitches in it that would raise questions, at least not for me.

Some have even said frames were removed between 157-158. I have each frame on my computer and if you toggle through each frame, the movements of the guy stepping back onto the curb are all natural movements. It looks more like a splice of continuous frames vs. frame removal.

So what it is, Chris? Finish your statement and tell us about the "ghost numbers."

Tue 11 Aug 2020, 1:17 am

In my individual case, I guess it simply is do you believe Bruno or not? Of course Horne is going to formulate questions for impact, if he did use leading questions, I really don't think there were many.

Yes, all our memories fade and corrupt as we age. But, it wasn't as if Bruno stammered every time he was asked something, trying to pull it from the depths and years from long ago. For me, the clincher is the 2 compartmentalized briefing board sessions. Maybe the film IS legit. But the obvious way they needed to create the 2nd group of boards indicates the coverup in full bloom 48 hrs after the murder. Along with the shell game with the body at Bethesda, all bets are off on the entirety of the handling of the evidence.

Again, the time-worn cliche, if it was a slam dunk investigation, why all the subterfuge and sleight of hand?

Tue 11 Aug 2020, 8:21 am

Again, the time-worn cliche, if it was a slam dunk investigation, why all the subterfuge and sleight of hand?

It's a legitimate question.

But the issue for me is if the underlying premise is legitimate, or simply smoke being blown by authors and critics with their own agendas.

One example is the so-called "mysterious deaths" list. I have looked into a few of those at random and with each one, there is no mystery at all. Albert Bogart for example, was not murdered because he took a fake Oswald for a test drive. If there was a fake Oswald being run to frame the real Oswald, surely you would want Bogart talking about it. Surely that was the whole point. The fact is that Bogart had relationship and financial problems and had been talking Dramamine - known to cause paranoia and depression.

As for witnesses long removed from what they saw and heard -- it is remarkable how malleable memory becomes once infused with decades of news stories, books and TV shows and then having the witness steered through an interview with someone who has already made their conclusions. Armstrong and his witnesses are Exhibit A.

I instinctively distrust Horne, so bear that bias in mind. My distrust of Lifton however, is based on personal experience, supported by what Weisberg had to say about him, and just the sheer unbelievability of his claims dating back to when he was promulgating his theory that there were snipers firing from papier-mâché trees. It's a tough field when you are competing with the like of Groden, White, Fetzer, Cinque, Baker and a few minions of each as being in the top 5 least trustworthy in this community.... but that's where he is... in my opinion. A trait common to each of them: a huge opinion of themselves and a drive for self-promotion.

I say all of that conceding that Bethesda is a bad look. But it is a big leap from that to a convoluted body snatching theory.

Tue 11 Aug 2020, 9:00 am

JFK_Case wrote:CHRIS DAVIDSON:

"I provided the slowed down version above, here is the the Photoshop sequencer version. Note the frame count ghost numbers."

OK, Chris, so instead of someone here answering the above, why don't you simply complete your above statement. "Note the frame count ghost numbers" - what about them? What is it in your mind what's "wrong" with those numbers?

So what it is, Chris? Finish your statement and tell us about the "ghost numbers."

If you can't tell the difference between the slowed down version and the normal speed version I provided, how could you ever tell the difference when 2/3 of the frames were pulled from a slowing limo version.
The ghost numbers are just a validation I removed 2/3 frames from that same slowed down version.
That is what the sequencer control on the optical printer accomplishes, I just mimicked it the Photoshop way.

Tue 11 Aug 2020, 10:38 am

Chris wrote:

Two camera's running at the same frame rate. Filming the same event.(I'm quite familiar with Muchmore/Bronson too.)
Step them through the optical printer, remove the same desired frames in a mostly uniform fashion(removing/smoothing out an instantaneous limo stop)

Chris is this really your contention? That somehow all of the films of the same event were altered to match the other. Is that really believable?

Tue 11 Aug 2020, 1:29 pm

Bigjohnaz wrote:In my individual case, I guess it simply is do you believe Bruno or not? Of course Horne is going to formulate questions for impact, if he did use leading questions, I really don't think there were many.

Yes, all our memories fade and corrupt as we age. But, it wasn't as if Bruno stammered every time he was asked something, trying to pull it from the depths and years from long ago. For me, the clincher is the 2 compartmentalized briefing board sessions. Maybe the film IS legit. But the obvious way they needed to create the 2nd group of boards indicates the coverup in full bloom 48 hrs after the murder. Along with the shell game with the body at Bethesda, all bets are off on the entirety of the handling of the evidence.

Again, the time-worn cliche, if it was a slam dunk investigation, why all the subterfuge and sleight of hand?

Bigjohnaz,

It's not that I don't believe Dino Brugioni in the 2007 interview with Horne. It's more a case of finding myself questioning the accuracy of his recollections of an event some 44 years prior.
Horne was on a mission and it's easy to understand that Brugioni was most likely lead by Horne's questioning. An elderly gentleman who most likely had forgotten the fine detail of certain aspects of the work he'd done over the passage of time.
Horne was there to prompt when required and fill in the gaps.

The 2 different events at Hawkeye for example are continuously noted as shrouded in secrecy and supposed to point to a vast conspiracy to alter the Zapruder film.

It could be as simple as that the two separate crews were called in to examine the film or the frames with different or varying briefs on two separate shifts. Brugioni's crew had worked through the Saturday night until the early hours of Sunday morning. It's more than possible that the second crew were called in to relieve the Brugioni's team.

Wed 12 Aug 2020, 7:58 am

Mick_Purdy wrote:Chris wrote:

Two camera's running at the same frame rate. Filming the same event.(I'm quite familiar with Muchmore/Bronson too.)
Step them through the optical printer, remove the same desired frames in a mostly uniform fashion(removing/smoothing out an instantaneous limo stop)

Chris is this really your contention? That somehow all of the films of the same event were altered to match the other. Is that really believable?

Only needed the optical sequencer on four of them to succeed with the required excisions.
Same frame rates(piece of cake) for three of them, the most difficult was Bronson.

I realize many don't care for math, but I would highly recommend it in this instance.

Was the zap film altered? - Page 2 Glover-Z-Bronson33870789f761c185c

Was the zap film altered? - Page 2 Glover-Z-Bronson33870789f761c185c

Was the zap film altered? - Page 2 Bronson-Camera

Wed 12 Aug 2020, 10:12 pm

CHRIS: Only needed the optical sequencer on four of them to succeed with the required excisions. Same frame rates(piece of cake) for three of them, the most difficult was Bronson. I realize many don't care for math, but I would highly recommend it in this instance.

Math is useful, Chris. It helps me figure mortgage rates and monthly payments, helps me stay on a monthly budget, and allows me to figure square footage. But once again, Chris, when you're asked this, you never reply. You either post more GIFs or turn the tables and accuse me or someone else with ignorance (e.g., "If you can't figure it out...").

So I ask again - why in god's name were the frames removed? What were those frames showing that they were so Earth-shattering that agents had to go out and collect all of the footage and cut the frames out? And how do you know they removed when no one has ever seen a different version of the film?

A simple explanation will do. Not cut off phrases. No more GIFs. No more, "If you don't understand, then it's your problem..." Just tell us what you're seeing that convinces you that agents had to take frames out of all of the footage to hide something from the general public. From a piece of film that was not even seen by the public until 12 years later, mind you. And why they were removed.

Write it in a clear, concise manner.

And by the way - that Bronson/Zap GIF is interesting. I counted five frames between the white glove that you're pointing to in both clips. In other words, you see the glove, you stop it, then 5 more frames and you see it again and stop it. I'm guessing here because like Dave Josephs, you're never clear when you make posts like this, but are those the missing frames? And what would be nefarious that those frames would need to be taken out?

I simply think that you don't have those films synched up in the right place.

Thu 13 Aug 2020, 9:56 am

Chris_Davidson wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:Chris wrote:

Two camera's running at the same frame rate. Filming the same event.(I'm quite familiar with Muchmore/Bronson too.)
Step them through the optical printer, remove the same desired frames in a mostly uniform fashion(removing/smoothing out an instantaneous limo stop)

Chris is this really your contention? That somehow all of the films of the same event were altered to match the other. Is that really believable?

Only needed the optical sequencer on four of them to succeed with the required excisions.
Same frame rates(piece of cake) for three of them, the most difficult was Bronson.

I realize many don't care for math, but I would highly recommend it in this instance.

Chris is this really your contention? That somehow all of the films of the same event were altered to match the other. Is that really believable?

Sorry Chris to repeat the questions but I don't believe this reply post answers them.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm not debating whether or not, if it were technically possible to excise frames from strips of the various films. I'm asking whether in your opinion it was possible to confiscate all the films from their owners or the authorities and perform the work that you've described on all the films which had filmed the assassination and then then persons unknown went about destroying the originals so there would be no evidence of such work having taken place.

Where and where was all this work done Chris? It's a valid question. And by who and why?

Your argument seems to me to be that it was technically possible to achieve frame deletion or some such on all films of the same event.
I'd argue that it was not possible to achieve that without leaving witnesses behind to tell the story of the alteration work having been done.

Thu 13 Aug 2020, 11:44 am

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Bigjohnaz wrote:In my individual case, I guess it simply is do you believe Bruno or not? Of course Horne is going to formulate questions for impact, if he did use leading questions, I really don't think there were many.

Yes, all our memories fade and corrupt as we age. But, it wasn't as if Bruno stammered every time he was asked something, trying to pull it from the depths and years from long ago. For me, the clincher is the 2 compartmentalized briefing board sessions. Maybe the film IS legit. But the obvious way they needed to create the 2nd group of boards indicates the coverup in full bloom 48 hrs after the murder. Along with the shell game with the body at Bethesda, all bets are off on the entirety of the handling of the evidence.

Again, the time-worn cliche, if it was a slam dunk investigation, why all the subterfuge and sleight of hand?

Bigjohnaz,

It's not that I don't believe Dino Brugioni in the 2007 interview with Horne. It's more a case of finding myself questioning the accuracy of his recollections of an event some 44 years prior.
Horne was on a mission and it's easy to understand that Brugioni was most likely lead by Horne's questioning. An elderly gentleman who most likely had forgotten the fine detail of certain aspects of the work he'd done over the passage of time.
Horne was there to prompt when required and fill in the gaps.

The 2 different events at Hawkeye for example are continuously noted as shrouded in secrecy and supposed to point to a vast conspiracy to alter the Zapruder film.

It could be as simple as that the two separate crews were called in to examine the film or the frames with different or varying briefs on two separate shifts. Brugioni's crew had worked through the Saturday night until the early hours of Sunday morning. It's more than possible that the second crew were called in to relieve the Brugioni's team.

Mick, If indeed the 2nd night's events were simply to relieve, you honestly believe Bruno's boss hid that fact from him his entire life? Per Bruno, he was his right hand. I mean, not one mention of it in passing ever? And the directive from the agent on the second night to not discuss it with anyone. And why relieve when the work was successfully completed to the the satisfaction of the SS? And the 2nd night's team using a newly printed film that was unslit? I will go to my grave believing Bruno, it being obvious that once the powers that be viewed the film after Bruno's team did their work, THAT film could never see the light of day. If that film is an extant film, fine. But the whole weekend stinks to high heaven.

Thu 13 Aug 2020, 12:47 pm

Bigjohnaz wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Bigjohnaz wrote:In my individual case, I guess it simply is do you believe Bruno or not? Of course Horne is going to formulate questions for impact, if he did use leading questions, I really don't think there were many.

Yes, all our memories fade and corrupt as we age. But, it wasn't as if Bruno stammered every time he was asked something, trying to pull it from the depths and years from long ago. For me, the clincher is the 2 compartmentalized briefing board sessions. Maybe the film IS legit. But the obvious way they needed to create the 2nd group of boards indicates the coverup in full bloom 48 hrs after the murder. Along with the shell game with the body at Bethesda, all bets are off on the entirety of the handling of the evidence.

Again, the time-worn cliche, if it was a slam dunk investigation, why all the subterfuge and sleight of hand?

Bigjohnaz,

It's not that I don't believe Dino Brugioni in the 2007 interview with Horne. It's more a case of finding myself questioning the accuracy of his recollections of an event some 44 years prior.
Horne was on a mission and it's easy to understand that Brugioni was most likely lead by Horne's questioning. An elderly gentleman who most likely had forgotten the fine detail of certain aspects of the work he'd done over the passage of time.
Horne was there to prompt when required and fill in the gaps.

The 2 different events at Hawkeye for example are continuously noted as shrouded in secrecy and supposed to point to a vast conspiracy to alter the Zapruder film.

It could be as simple as that the two separate crews were called in to examine the film or the frames with different or varying briefs on two separate shifts. Brugioni's crew had worked through the Saturday night until the early hours of Sunday morning. It's more than possible that the second crew were called in to relieve the Brugioni's team.

Mick, If indeed the 2nd night's events were simply to relieve, you honestly believe Bruno's boss hid that fact from him his entire life? Per Bruno, he was his right hand. I mean, not one mention of it in passing ever? And the directive from the agent on the second night to not discuss it with anyone. And why relieve when the work was successfully completed to the the satisfaction of the SS? And the 2nd night's team using a newly printed film that was unslit? I will go to my grave believing Bruno, it being obvious that once the powers that be viewed the film after Bruno's team did their work, THAT film could never see the light of day. If that film is an extant film, fine. But the whole weekend stinks to high heaven.

Bigjohnaz,

Maybe there was no need to alert the other crew. If it was just an operation to examine the film in detail and produce various boards for agencies then what is so abnormal about having the two crews on separate occasions? I have no idea what restrictions or limitations were placed on the personnel working on the project.

This story of Brugioni somehow being perplexed by not having been told of the 2nd "event" is making a lot out of nothing in my view. And what of an agent telling personnel not to discuss the work with others, why is that so unreasonable and suspicious? It sounds completely reasonable to me.

Again what would have been so unusual about a second crew being employed to either carry on with or further investigate the film in more detail.

As for the unslit film on the second night that could easily have been the 16mm gauge film from the first nights work when they produced the negatives from the 8mm postive print for their boards.

One thing a lot of people forget is this. Time Life and Zapruder had struck a commercial business deal over the rights to the original film on Saturday morning after a conversation on the Friday evening where Zapruder had been advised of Time Life's intentions by Richard Stolley. Stolley in various publications confirms that the original film was held by Zapruder at least until the following Tuesday along with one copy struck from the original double 8 mm footage.

There is no way the original was in anyone else's hands other than in Zapruder's possession. I feel extremely confident of this fact drawing from my own experiences working in the film and TV game. Time Life and Zapruder would not ever allowed that original film out of their sight once the rights deal had been struck. And further to that is the fact that no one would have projected the original film in a viewing device ahead of any copies. Period! That would have been the gold standard.

This is the nail in the alteration argument. And it shows Dino Bruginio was mistaken about working with the original film. The agencies are on record as stating that the copies they received of the film on the Friday and Saturday would suffice as evidence or for study and examination purposes.

I don't assume Horne's work is anywhere near accurate or truthful like so many others might. His work reeks to my mind as someone who has placed way too much importance on things which quite simply were normal in every respect, making mountains out of mole hills.

Hornes theory is shot to flames in my view just for the simple undeniable fact at least to my mind that the Zapruder film as we see it today online is a copy of the original unaltered film. There is no, zilch, zip, nada evidence of any matte work or complex alteration on that film in my professional opinion.

At least we can agree on one thing mate, that the weekends events stunk to high heaven. Ain't that the truth!

Thu 13 Aug 2020, 5:25 pm

Mick_Purdy wrote:

And further to that is the fact that no one would have projected the original film in a viewing device ahead of any copies. Period! That would have been the gold standard.

A film was projected before copies were made.
It was played on an inspector projector at a high frame rate.

Thu 13 Aug 2020, 9:57 pm

Chris, I wonder if you might post an executive summary of your hypothesis. No need for the evidence and analysis and all the work that would entail. It would be great if it simply stated for example, 'the film(s) was(were) altered in the following way(s) and for the following reason(s), or whatever structure best suits the ideas you are putting forward.

I don't imagine that it should take much more time than an average post would. Many if not all of us are at a loss to understand the piece meal posting style that you use in presenting and responding to the ideas being discussed here.

Was the zap film altered?

Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?

Re: Was the zap film altered?