The Z-film according to the CTs
bigdog
factoids about the Z-film. One is that the Z-film was altered. Two,
that the WC never intended for the Z-film to be made public. This
raises an interesting question. If they intended to keep the Z-film
hidden from the public, why bother to alter it?
John Blubaugh
Once again, you present a faulty argument. The people who suggested the Z
film was never intended to be made public are Marsh and I. Neither of us
has ever said the the Z-film was altered. Please keep your stories
straight. But, LNs never do that, do they?
JB
Herbert Blenner
The WC published the statements or testimonies of two dozen eyewitnesses
whose descriptions of the head shot and its immediate aftermath prove that
"back and to the left" is only seen in the movies of Stone and Zapruder.
Perhaps, James Altgens said it best when he testified, "What made me
almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I
was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move
a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time---- well, he was in a
position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but
when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were
hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just
enough forward that he came right on down."
The other eyewitnesses saw various details of the head shot and agree on
one critical point; they saw no "back and to the left" in Dealey Plaza.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
Obviously the Z-movie featuring "back and to the left" was the fiction
that enabled the authorities to hide the Z-film.
Herbert
Barb Junkkarinen
Please don't paint this Zfilm alteration stuff with a whole CT brush.
There's a small segment of conspiracy believers who believe the film
was faked. And there is a very vocal number who argue against it.
Good question too. One myself and others hasve asked. There's never
an asnwer. There's also never an answer to the "if they wanted it to
look like it happened this way or that way, or that all shots came
from one place ... then why not just DO it that way in the first
place?"
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
Ah, you don't seem to understand the alterationist claims. They do not
claim that the WC altered the Zapruder film. They argue that the
conspirators altered the Zapruder film even before it got to the WC.
Second, the WC itself feared that if the public ever got to see the
Zapruder film for itself that their house of cards would come crashing
down. The alterationist theory is that it was altered to fool the
investigators who were not yet in on the plot.
bigdog
So are you saying that people who believe the Z-film was altered are
kooks?
bigdog
No, the Z-film and the witnesses tell us the same thing. JFK did not move
"back and to the left" following the head shot. His initial movement was
forward. He then recoiled straight back after which his limp body fell to
the left in the direction he had been leaning.
bigdog
wrote:
Barb, I'm glad to hear you say what you did. You are one of the few CTs on
this forum who can present your position both rationally and honestly and
I respect that. Of course, I know that not all CTs believe in Z-film
alteration. My purpose in creating this thread was to try to get the CTs
to pick one argument or the other. To argue both makes no sense. I don't
expect all CTs to speak with one mind even though there are some on this
board, who I don't need to name, who think that all LNs must agree on
every single point in order for our position to be valid. They insist we
all must agree on exactly which frame the single bullet struck or what the
cause of JFK's rearward movement was. What I find silly are arguments that
either the Z-film was altered or that the WC formed conclusions which are
at odds with what the Z-film showed believing that they could get away
with that because they thought the Z-film would never be made public.
Robert Harris
wrote:
>On Jan 14, 8:36 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Recently, the CTs on this board have been telling us two interesting
>> factoids about the Z-film. One is that the Z-film was altered. Two,
>> that the WC never intended for the Z-film to be made public. This
>> raises an interesting question. If they intended to keep the Z-film
>> hidden from the public, why bother to alter it?
>
>The WC published the statements or testimonies of two dozen eyewitnesses
>whose descriptions of the head shot and its immediate aftermath prove that
>"back and to the left" is only seen in the movies of Stone and Zapruder.
>
>Perhaps, James Altgens said it best when he testified, "What made me
>almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I
>was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move
>a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time---- well, he was in a
>position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but
>when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were
>hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just
>enough forward that he came right on down."
>
>The other eyewitnesses saw various details of the head shot and agree on
>one critical point; they saw no "back and to the left" in Dealey Plaza.
This is utter nonsense. The "back and to the left" is easily seen in the
Nix film. Claiming that someone tried to coverup a shot from the front, by
fabricating a rearward motion, is far beyond ludicrous.
Robert Harris
Spiffy_one
This PLOT just keeps going and going and going and going. Aren't
enough ever readies to keep all these conspirators GOING.
Herbert Blenner
> On 14 Jan 2010 17:14:46 -0500, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net>
I challenge you to name the person who claimed "that someone tried to
coverup a shot from the front, by fabricating a rearward motion."
You have three possible choices. If you name me then I will call you a
liar. If you name someone else then I will rub your nose in your foolish
attempt to put words in my mouth. If you ignore this challenge then I will
continue to point that the WC published the statements or testimonies of
two dozen head shot eyewitnesses who described no motion even remotely
resembling "back and to the left."
So far, since 2005 nobody has posted a statement or quoted the testimony
of a WC witness who words may be interpreted as describing the "back and
to the left" motion. This sorry state of affairs raises the serious
question of whether the authorities made sanitized movies from a few
motion picture films or manipulated the statements and testimonies that
went to print.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
Name the WC witnesses who saw JFK recoil "straight back" before he fell to
the left. This should be easy, if your claim that "the Z-film and the
witnesses tell us the same thing" is true. Nevertheless, I have posted the
WC statements and testimonies of two dozen witnesses who tell us a
different story. Many saw the head shot and the fall to the left. Yet none
of the WC witnesses described any motion even remotely resembling JFK
going "straight back."
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
Frankly, bigdog, you have put yourself between a rock and a hard place. If
you cannot name the witnesses then my argument stands unchallenged.
However, if you do find these elusive witnesses then they would strongly
suggest that the authorities manipulated the statements or testimonies of
the two dozen head shot eyewitnesses who did not report JFK going
"straight back."
Herbert
bigdog
> >one critical point; they saw no "back and to the left" in Dealey Plaza.
>
> This is utter nonsense. The "back and to the left" is easily seen in the
> Nix film. Claiming that someone tried to coverup a shot from the front, by
> fabricating a rearward motion, is far beyond ludicrous.
>
>
I should know better than to bother asking this, but I'll try again. Can
you explain how, if JFK went back and to the left, he is still on the
right side of the limo at Z320? If you can come up with a rational
explaination for that, you will be the first.
claviger
I believe the point bigdog is making is the Zapruder film is the best
witness we have to work with. We can slow it down, blow it up, and
study it frame by frame. No other witness quite compares to the
Zapruder film. It is the 'control group' so to speak that all other
witness testimony is compared to.
John Blubaugh
No. I just don't agree with them. I don't agree with you and I still don't
call you a kook. That is an LN and right wing tactic. Kill and defile the
messenger. I even have friends that I don't agree with. It is not a
necessary ingredient for friendship with me. I doubt, however, that you
and I will be sharing dinner any time soon.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, the Z-film does show a violent back and to the left motion in
spite of your denial. Have you ever considered having those eyes
examined?
JB
John Blubaugh
And then there are some of us who don't give a damn what you all agree or
disagree on. You have only one thing in common. You are all wrong and you
are all trying to support the WCR and their absurd explanations when the
simple fact that there was a shot from the front and to the right would
have ended most disagreements.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, and it always screams "back and to the left" and you have no
answer for that one. You make up lots of phony science to avoid the
obvious conclusion.
JB
Herbert Blenner
The Zapruder film has impeached itself as a trustworthy witness.
Frames Z-311, Z-312, Z-314 and Z-315 show Toni Foster gracefully
walking forward.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withoutz313.gif
Inclusion of Z-313 in its numerical sequence disrupts the smoothness
of Foster's motion.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/withz313.gif
These gifs show that Z-312 and Z-314 provide no time for an
intermediate member.
The following link enables users to examine the head shot sequences either
with or without Z-313. They can zoom in or undo the magnification while
viewing sequences or studying still frames.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/backward.htm
This proof that Z-313 does not fit between its neighbors is akin to a
cloud with a silver lining. If Z-313 were a true member of its numerical
sequence then the forward nod of the head without a comparable or dominant
leftward spin would undermine the medical finding of a rear to front wound
track confined to the right side of President Kennedy's head. For details
see:
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/conflict.htm
Curiously the New York Daily News of November 24, 1963 reported that
officer Bobby W. Hargis saw a bullet strike spin Kennedy's head. I quote
the News.
"As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him,
and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around.
I was splattered with blood."
During my youth I speculated that the public would have misinterpreted a
spinning of the head to the left as proof of a shot from the right. Since
retirement, my experiences at alt.assassination.jfk have reenforced my
earlier speculation. I now consider it likely that a film showing a head
motion consistent with the medical evidence would have provoked the chant
of Spin to the left - Shot from the right.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 14, 6:05 pm, Barb Junkkarinen<barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2010 08:36:32 -0500, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, the CTs on this board have been telling us two interesting
>>> factoids about the Z-film. One is that the Z-film was altered. Two,
>>> that the WC never intended for the Z-film to be made public. This
>>> raises an interesting question. If they intended to keep the Z-film
>>> hidden from the public, why bother to alter it?
>>
>> Please don't paint this Zfilm alteration stuff with a whole CT brush.
>> There's a small segment of conspiracy believers who believe the film
>> was faked. And there is a very vocal number who argue against it.
>>
>> Good question too. One myself and others hasve asked. There's never
>> an asnwer. There's also never an answer to the "if they wanted it to
>> look like it happened this way or that way, or that all shots came
>> from one place ... then why not just DO it that way in the first
>> place?"
>>
>> Barb :-)
>
> Barb, I'm glad to hear you say what you did. You are one of the few CTs on
> this forum who can present your position both rationally and honestly and
> I respect that. Of course, I know that not all CTs believe in Z-film
> alteration. My purpose in creating this thread was to try to get the CTs
> to pick one argument or the other. To argue both makes no sense. I don't
No, your only purpose in being here is to attack.
> expect all CTs to speak with one mind even though there are some on this
> board, who I don't need to name, who think that all LNs must agree on
> every single point in order for our position to be valid.
No, I just have fun making fun of your hypocrisy and self-righteous
claims.
They insist we
> all must agree on exactly which frame the single bullet struck or what the
> cause of JFK's rearward movement was. What I find silly are arguments that
> either the Z-film was altered or that the WC formed conclusions which are
> at odds with what the Z-film showed believing that they could get away
> with that because they thought the Z-film would never be made public.
>
They worried that some day someone would see the films and realize that
the WCR was a lie. That's what cover-up means.
Anthony Marsh
The Best Witness is the limousine.
>
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps I should have been more explicit when I said the witnesses and the
Z-film tell us the same thing. I was refering to the forward movement
described by Altgens which is exactly what we see in the Z- film. JFK's
head moved forward at impact. Now your position that the witnesses who do
not recall the rearward recoil following the head shot proves the Z-film
is a fraud is just so much nonsense. Zapruder's camera, as well as Nix's
and Muchmore's, were the only DP witness that had perfect recall. I don't
doubt that some witnesses' eyes were drawn to the cloud of gore that
exploded from JFK's head and did not catch JFK's recoil into the backseat
which was completed in less than half a second. The Z-film, the Nix film,
and the Muchmore film all show the same recoil. These films are authentic
and the best witnesses we have available. Any witness who does not
remember what these films show us is just plain wrong.
Anthony Marsh
I thought your theory was that he fly back and to the right. So, in
which frame did he fall to the left?
Anthony Marsh
I can only speak for myself. That's what I've always said.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
That forward movement was being done by everyone in the limo. Were they
all shot in the back of the head? The limo was slowing down and that was
the reaction to that. You make things much more difficult than they really
are. If you just look for simple explanations and are honest (if an LN can
do that), you will start to see the light.
JB
Anthony Marsh
More nonsense. The ghost images in the sprocket hole area show that
frame Z-313 is in its proper place.
claviger
All one has to do is look at the frame by frame Z-film to see that is
not the case.
Robert Harris
Well, yes he is still on the right side of the limo, but he is much
more to his left at 320 than he was before he was hit.
Robert Harris
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You keep insisting that JFK went back and to the left even though you
can't explain why he is still on the right side of the car seat at Z320.
Earlier, you made a feeble attempt by claiming this was due to a recoil
from the head snap but that explaination does not hold water because the
recoil occurred after JFK had hit the right side of the car seat. Have you
been able to come up with a better explaination since?
I realize that by challenging the back and to the left myth, I am
attacking one of the tenets of your religion. People who accept things as
articles of faith generally will deny things that are incompatable with
that faith, no matter how obvious they are.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you think by saying that over and over again, you can make it come
true?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
No answer is needed for something that didn't happen. What did happen
is that JFK was on the right side of the car seat at Z320 and you have
no answer for that.
bigdog
More nonsense. The tilt of JFK's head changes in relation to everything in
the limo including Jackie.
John Blubaugh
Deny, deny, deny, that is all LNs can do. Well the entire rest of the
world sees it clearly. Perhap it is the LNs who need some optical help.
JB
Herbert Blenner
Herbert Blenner
Of the two dozen head shot eyewitnesses whose testimony I have quoted,
Altgens was the only one to describe the forward movement of the head.
Researchers have criticized Altgens on this point because the forward
movement of the head is indiscernible when we view the Z-film as a motion
picture. For this reason researches doubt that Altgens observed the
forward head movement of Z- 312 and Z-313.
Now name the other WC witnesses who you claim saw the forward movement of
the head.
> Now your position that the witnesses who do
> not recall the rearward recoil following the head shot proves the Z-film
> is a fraud is just so much nonsense.
Again, bigdog, you resort to making up nonsense to attribute to me. Did
you misinterpret "Two Dozen of One or One of Another" as Two Dozen of One
Disproves One of Another?
> Zapruder's camera, as well as Nix's
> and Muchmore's, were the only DP witness that had perfect recall.
The issues are the trustworthiness of the Zapurder, Nix and Muchmore
movies.
> I don't
> doubt that some witnesses' eyes were drawn to the cloud of gore that
> exploded from JFK's head and did not catch JFK's recoil into the backseat
> which was completed in less than half a second.
The debris cloud formed before and dissipated as JFK's recoil began.
Compared with the half second recoil the tenth second cloud was brief.
More important the recoil was the eye catcher of the head shot sequence
while the debris cloud was far less obvious.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen_files/backandtotheleft.gif
> The Z-film, the Nix film,
> and the Muchmore film all show the same recoil. These films are authentic
> and the best witnesses we have available. Any witness who does not
> remember what these films show us is just plain wrong.
The head shot sequence of the Zapruder film shows a head with a constant
shape being carried generally rearward on a rotating torso. By contrast
the head shot sequence of the Nix film in slowed motion shows the upper
portion of a head changing shape as it rotated upward and backward.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen_files/sackofjelly.gif
These Nix frames show the hat of Mrs. Kennedy holding nearly constant
shape. So the far larger changes in the shape of JFK's head are not
distortions introduced during filming or copying the frames.
Your abuses of the word "same" are becoming notorious.
Herbert
John Blubaugh
I do because it is true. Do you think saying it isn't true over and over
again will change public opinion? You have already lost that battle. The
next generation will get to the truth when you and your ilk are long gone.
They won't be coming to your conclusions, I can guarantee you that.
JB
John Blubaugh
> > all shot in the back of the head? The limo was slowing down and that was
> > the reaction to that. You make things much more difficult than they really
> > are. If you just look for simple explanations and are honest (if an LN can
> > do that), you will start to see the light.
>
> > JB
>
> More nonsense. The tilt of JFK's head changes in relation to everything in
> the limo including Jackie.
Wrong!! The was not a tilt of JFK's head, his whole body is going forward
and so is the body of everyone else in the limo including Jackie. None are
so blind as those that cannot see. Why do you insist on repeating this
horse manure? I think you are a glutton for punishment or is it just your
right wing nature to say no to everything including evidence that is right
in front of you.
JB
bigdog
Oh really? Much more? How much more? What are you seeing that tells
you that?
bigdog
Zapruder's camera, Nix's camera, and Muchmore's camera. What else do
you need?
> > Now your position that the witnesses who do
> > not recall the rearward recoil following the head shot proves the Z-film
> > is a fraud is just so much nonsense.
>
> Again, bigdog, you resort to making up nonsense to attribute to me. Did
> you misinterpret "Two Dozen of One or One of Another" as Two Dozen of One
> Disproves One of Another?
>
> > Zapruder's camera, as well as Nix's
>
> > and Muchmore's, were the only DP witness that had perfect recall.
>
> The issues are the trustworthiness of the Zapurder, Nix and Muchmore
> movies.
>
The issue is your ability to comprehend the obvious.
> > I don't
> > doubt that some witnesses' eyes were drawn to the cloud of gore that
> > exploded from JFK's head and did not catch JFK's recoil into the backseat
> > which was completed in less than half a second.
>
> The debris cloud formed before and dissipated as JFK's recoil began.
> Compared with the half second recoil the tenth second cloud was brief.
> More important the recoil was the eye catcher of the head shot sequence
> while the debris cloud was far less obvious.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen_files/backandtotheleft.gif
>
> > The Z-film, the Nix film,
>
> > and the Muchmore film all show the same recoil. These films are authentic
> > and the best witnesses we have available. Any witness who does not
> > remember what these films show us is just plain wrong.
>
> The head shot sequence of the Zapruder film shows a head with a constant
> shape being carried generally rearward on a rotating torso. By contrast
> the head shot sequence of the Nix film in slowed motion shows the upper
> portion of a head changing shape as it rotated upward and backward.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen_files/sackofjelly.gif
>
> These Nix frames show the hat of Mrs. Kennedy holding nearly constant
> shape. So the far larger changes in the shape of JFK's head are not
> distortions introduced during filming or copying the frames.
>
> Your abuses of the word "same" are becoming notorious.
>
It's amazing the things you have convinced yourself of. It is comical the
reasons you invent. Heads changing shape. Loss of gracefullness of motion.
WTF???!!!
bigdog
> > true?
>
> I do because it is true. Do you think saying it isn't true over and over
> again will change public opinion? You have already lost that battle. The
> next generation will get to the truth when you and your ilk are long gone.
> They won't be coming to your conclusions, I can guarantee you that.
>
> JB
Why do you think the next generation is going to be able to prove
something your generation has failed miserably to do? You are giving the
LNs way to much credit. We have not kept the CTs from getting to the
truth. The reason the CTs have failed to get to the truth is that they
have spent 46 years avoiding the truth. I'll guarantee you they won't be
coming to your conclusions because you guys haven't been able to come to
any conclusions.
bigdog
> > > That forward movement was being done by everyone in the limo. Were they
> > > all shot in the back of the head? The limo was slowing down and that was
> > > the reaction to that. You make things much more difficult than they really
> > > are. If you just look for simple explanations and are honest (if an LN can
> > > do that), you will start to see the light.
>
> > > JB
>
> > More nonsense. The tilt of JFK's head changes in relation to everything in
> > the limo including Jackie.
>
> Wrong!! The was not a tilt of JFK's head, his whole body is going forward
> and so is the body of everyone else in the limo including Jackie. None are
> so blind as those that cannot see.
So how would you describe people who see things that didn't happen,
like "back and to the left".
Herbert Blenner
According to the FBI the forward movement of the head was not visible on
the Zapruder, the Nix and the Muchmore films. For this reason they used
the tenuous debris cloud to synchronize the three films.
Your tactics are crystal clear. You cannot name even one WC eyewitness who
reported JFK going "straight back" so you make an unsupportable statement
about the forward movement to divert attention from your earlier failure.
>
> > > Now your position that the witnesses who do
> > > not recall the rearward recoil following the head shot proves the Z-film
> > > is a fraud is just so much nonsense.
>
> > Again, bigdog, you resort to making up nonsense to attribute to me. Did
> > you misinterpret "Two Dozen of One or One of Another" as Two Dozen of One
> > Disproves One of Another?
I note your silence.
>
> > > Zapruder's camera, as well as Nix's
>
> > > and Muchmore's, were the only DP witness that had perfect recall.
>
> > The issues are the trustworthiness of the Zapurder, Nix and Muchmore
> > movies.
>
> The issue is your ability to comprehend the obvious.
Do you have the ability to comprehend this section from the formerly
classified minutes of the WC Executive Session of December 16, 1963?
CHAIRMAN: I might say to the members that Time has volunteered to make
this film available to us, and I accepted.
MR. MC CLOY: Now, here he's reaching up for his throat.
REP. BOGGS: But he's looking straight ahead, reaching up for his
throat, that's very significant, I think.
CHAIRMAN: There's another sequence which they did not include and it
shows the burst of blood and things from his head, blown out, they did
not put it in because they thought it was too gruesome, and that's the
head shot, which apparently came from the rear. They've got that and
you can blow it up and stop it and do everything, and we can have it
whenever we want it.
End of quotation.
The words of the chairman, which confirmed the existence of Zapruder
frames too gruesome for initial viewing by the presidential commission
were spoken two weeks before Time/Life published sanitized frames for
viewing by an unrestricted audience. The WC published these sanitized
frames in the CE 885.
An X-ray technician at Bethesda described JFK's head as a hard-boiled
egg with an extremely broken shell. I quote the ARRB disposition of
Jerrol Custer.
A: So, I had to build the head up. But when I built the head up -The
had was so unstable due to the - the fractures. The fractures were
extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hard-boiled egg, and
just rolled it in her hand. And that's exactly what the had was like.
Q: So, when you say that it's like that, you mean the pieces of the
shell arc analogous to the pieces of the skull; is that right?
A: Right. And every time we picked the head up, you could feel it.
This part of the head would come out; this part of the head would be
in. And was just - The only thing that held the head together was the
skin. And even that was loose.
End of quotation.
Frankly, bigdog your performance in this thread has been pathetic. Of
course, I do not fault you since I recognize that the WC failed to present
evidence to defend the Zapruder movie. I understand your predicament of
being forced to stand on your own two feet and argue the case that the WC
ignored. Under normal circumstances I could fell sorrow for you. But your
habits of stating falsehoods to deflect the argument, making things up and
degrading your opponent negate any sympathy that I would have for a person
in your situation. In short bigdog, this is my way of telling you to GFY.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Just as the second generation in 1978 proved conspiracy when no one
wanted to even deal with it in 1964. And new evidence keeps popping up.
A reexamination of the brain will prove the shot came from the front,
not the back.
bigdog
Let's just sum this up in one simple sentence. I am not so foolish to
believe that eyewitness recollections are more reliable than three
seperate movie cameras.
John Blubaugh
> Let's just sum this up in one simple sentence. I am not so foolish to
> believe that eyewitness recollections are more reliable than three
> seperate movie cameras.
Oh, I think you sell yourself shot, you every bit that foolish. You
can't even look at one film and analyze what it shows.
JB
Herbert Blenner
I note that following my posted evidence you did not claim that the films
from the three separate cameras are more reliable than the eyewitness
recollections.
Herbert
bigdog
It is so obvious that I didn't think it was necessary to say it.