7 missing Zapruder frames

[charles wallace]

A new theory that determines how many Zapruder frames were deleted from the
original Zapruder film during that day November 24, 1963 per the alteration
discovered by Douglas Horne.

CBS News conducted an experiment to determine a person's reaction upon
hearing a gunshot. They determined that a person will have a startle
reaction to a gunshot even though he might know there will be a gunshot
about to happen and try not to react. The Wallace shots were determined
using only the Zapruder film. The Wallace shots are derived using the
Clark Wilkins Theory and Zapruder's involuntary reactions to determine
when the shots occurred. We all know Zapruder reacted to each shot he
heard, its just a matter of determining where and what shows it in the
film.

The Wallace shots are a slight modification of the Wilkins shots based on
the belief that the JFK head shot is from the vicinity of the small wall
on the knoll and not from Oswald's rifle. The shots from the knoll take
one Z frame less time to reach Zapruder's ears than do the time it takes
from Oswald's rifle.

Shot 1: Wallace shot= Z180-Z181
For comparison sake:
(acoustic derived Don Thomas shot is Z175 and Anthony Marsh shot is Z180.)

Shot 2: Wallace shot= Z199-Z200
For comparison sake:
(acoustic derived Don Thomas shot is Z204 and Anthony Marsh shot is Z210.)

Shot 3: Wallace shot= Z228-Z229
For comparison sake:
(acoustic derived Don Thomas shot is Z224 and Anthony Marsh shot is Z230.)

Shot 4: Zapruder shot= Z312-Z313
For comparison sake:
(acoustic derived Don Thomas shot is Z312 and Anthony Marsh shot is Z313.)

Shot 5: Wallace shot= Z322-Z323
For comparison sake:
(acoustic derived Don Thomas shot is Z326 and Anthony Marsh shot is Z330.)

The Zapruder camera was measured by the FBI to film at the average rate of
18.3 frames per second. Don Thomas span of shots: Z326-Z175= 151 frames
(=8.25 seconds). Anthony Marsh span of shots: Z330-Z180= 150 frames
(=8.20 seconds). Charles Wallace span of shots:
(Z180-Z181)-(Z322-Z323)= 142 frames (=7.75 seconds).

Let's round the time difference to .4 of a second in missing time between
film frame startle reactions and acoustic derived frames. This is
equivalent to about 7 Zapruder frames. I believe they were all deleted
near the head shot frame of Z313, before and after this frame.

Here is my guess based on looking at the film frames. There is a frame
missing between Z310 and Z311. There is a frame missing between Z311 and
Z312. There is a frame missing between Z312 and Z313. There is two frames
missing between Z313 and Z314. There is a frame missing between Z314 and
Z315. There is a frame missing between Z315 and Z316. This totals to 7
missing frames.

For those interested in what really happened they can find posts on my JFK
murder page that explain it.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/JFKs-murder/681606495193460

[Robert Harris]

charles wallace wrote:
> A new theory that determines how many Zapruder frames were deleted from the
> original Zapruder film during that day November 24, 1963 per the alteration
> discovered by Douglas Horne.

None of the arguments Horne presented were convincing to me, Charles.

As for when high powered rifle shots were fired, it is ridiculously easy
to make that determination.

Any shots that actually startled Zapruder, startled the limo passengers
much more, since they were many times closer to the path of the bullet
and the center of the cone of the muzzle blast.

So, unsuppressed, high powered rifle shots, loud enough to startle
Zaruder, will provoke much more dramatic, visible reactions among the
limo passengers. That only happened twice, following 285 and then 313.

All other shots were not nearly that loud.




Robert Harris

[Tom Ross Lee]

Doug Horne was a former mental patient of mine.

[Herbert Blenner]

On Sunday, August 24, 2014 11:16:15 PM UTC-4, charles wallace wrote:

A discontinuity in the distance moved by any object would betray removal
of a frame. For example, if the limousine moved distances x from one frame
to the next over some given interval then removal of a frame would disrupt
the smooth pattern of x, x, x, x, x, . . . and produce a betraying pattern
x, x, 2x, x, x, . . ..

[Tom Ross Lee]

The occupants of the limo could have been startled by the Governor's
voice, Mrs. Kennedy's voice, etc.

[Robert Harris]

That's not what they said. Every nonvictim in the limo either described
two shots closely bunched at the end or after events that were post-223.
Nellie for example, said she heard two shots after looking back at JFK
(258). Jackie heard two shots after Connally began to shout, circa 240.

It was unanimous.

And what they described is what the agents in the car behind them
described, as did the overwhelming majority of other relevant witnesses in
DP that day.

What I am telling you is not a theory. It is what happened.





Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

Dream on, Harris.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>

[mainframetech]

"...the overwhelming majority of other relevant witnesses..."

Who determines the relevancy of the witnesses?

Chris

[mainframetech]

I suggest viewing these videos to the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE

Chris

[dixie...@gmail.com]

Doug Horne states in the comments section of one of the recent topics at Morley's site that he believes Abe Zapruder began filming at 18 fps & then pushed the button all the way down & caught the Elm St. sequence in slow motion(48 fps). he explains why he believes this & how frame removal would be relatively easy on an optical printer with little or no noticeable 'jump' in background & foreground scenes. If correct, many more than 7 frames were excised from the film.

Honest, diligent interviewers will now need to ask Dan Rather, Richard Stolley plus anyone else alive that saw Zapruder's original (or one of the 3 copies the ambush weekend) if any portion they viewed was in slow motion. Both the SS & FBI had an original copy of the film, how many & who saw it is unknown.

Horne's NPIC event #1 witness/participant does not remember seeing the Elm Street turn, the limo stopping or JFK's head being thrown violently forward. Horne didn't mention if he asked Dino if any portion of the film he viewed was in slow motion.

Like a lot of folks interested in this topic, Doug Horne seems to be expecting a debunking effort from someone within Hawkeyeworks at the time of the alleged Zapruder alterations.

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

> And what they described is what the agents in the car behind them
> described, as did the overwhelming majority of other relevant witnesses
> in DP that day.
>
> What I am telling you is not a theory. It is what happened.
>

Nonsense.

>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>

[Robert Harris]

In article <ab0e4238-2758-48fe...@googlegroups.com>,

Relevant witnesses are those who make statements about the spacing of
the shots.

Chris, do you really feel compelled to follow me around from thread to
thread, attacking every syllable I utter, because I disagreed with your
alterationist theories?

There is no shortage of other people who disagree with you. Can't you
shadow some of them?


Robert Harris

[Tom Ross Lee]

How many of those occupants of the limo testified that they heard a shot
at Z-285? NONE!

[Tom Ross Lee]

What you are telling us is speculation. It is not what happened.

[mainframetech]

========

The old cameras were wound up manually, and often would run slower as
the spring unwound. That should be take into account for the length of
the Z-film.

Only memory can help now for folks to remember if the Z-film was in
slow motion near the end. There are no more originals left.

Horne's 4th volume of 5 on the ARRB information that came out is of use
here. A large amount of pages were spent discussing the Z-film and why
and how it was altered.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Robert, you've made another mistake. I check most of the threads that
have new posts in them, and I comment in ANY of them where I find
something that I know is wrong, or where an addition will be helpful for
the thread users. As proof, you can check all the posts you've made
recently or since yesterday, and you'll find many that you commented on
that I had no comment to add whatsoever. Please don't always think it's
about you.

When you ran off with no decent argument, I learned something and
chalked it up to your foibles. Irritated? Yep. But I got over it
quickly. You have to if you're going to stay here in this forum and argue
points.

chris

[Robert Harris]

In article <c58dd2bb-5d15-4425...@googlegroups.com>,

dixie...@gmail.com wrote:

> Doug Horne states in the comments section of one of the recent topics at
> Morley's site that he believes Abe Zapruder began filming at 18 fps & then
> pushed the button all the way down & caught the Elm St. sequence in slow
> motion(48 fps).

Did Horne actually say that??

If so, he is a much bigger idiot than I thought he was.

If he were correct, then the limo would have been setting speed
records, racing through Dealey Plaza.

Even David Mantik has admitted that the Zapruder film synchs perfectly
with the Nix and Muchmore filmes. Were they running at 48 fps too??






Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Hmm. All very odd to me. The type of camera that Zapruder had was a
manual windup model. Those will slow down a bit when they get further
along in the unwinding. I had a similar camera (not exactly the same, but
a manual wind up type) and that was a problem I experienced.


It surprises me too that no one has felt the need to comment on the
proofs offered by some other researchers into the Z-film's invalidity, is
there something wrong with the proofs? Or are folks just afraid to
address it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE


Along with the many missing frames that many people have found, and the
statement of someone who saw the REAL original film and said the current
version was not the original, I don't know how anyone can use the silly
thing for measuring time or anything with it.

Chris

[charles wallace]

I don't believe the JFK limousine stopped on Elm Street even though some
cars in the motorcade did stop. I do believe just before the headshot it
slowed down by a greater amount than government officials have said. I
believe the original Zapruder film was altered November 24, 1963 like
Douglas Horne discovered through his research. My analysis indicates there
were 3 frames deleted before the headshot, one frame deleted during the
headshot, and 3 frames deleted after the headshot. Using a time comparison
between acoustic recordings and Zapruder startle reactions for the shots,
I know there is missing time hence frames were deleted. Based on the
knowledge that the film was altered and visual observations of frame to
frame movement discrepancies the majority of frame deletions were to make
it appear that the limousine did not slow down as much as it actually did.
I offer an eye witness account to bolster my claim.

An excerpt from an FBI report:

Mrs. MOONEYHAM stated that following the assassination of President JOHN
FITZGERALD KENNEDY, she observed a re-enactment of the assassination on
two separate occasions on one day, and it was her impression that the
Presidential Motorcade was going slower than the re-enactment motorcade.
She stated that it was her estimation that the Presidential car was going
approximately five or six miles per hour at the time of the assassination,
however, she noted that her estimation was based upon her observation of
the Presidential car as it moved west on Elm away from the position where
she was located.

[Tom Ross Lee]

7 missing huh? Could there be 8? How do you know that 7 is the number?
Did you actually see the real Zapruder film? Your argument uses poor
reasoning.

[charles wallace]

Yes, it could be 8. If you don't believe Clark and I have chosen the
proper frames for each shot and if don't believe Thomas and Marsh studied
a recording of the shots so be it. Your beliefs will not change the facts.

[wewereyou...@gmail.com]

This is called a "Jump Cut" and you are correct.. It would be as obvious
as an ass on a goat.

[wewereyou...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 25, 2014 at 8:52:53 PM UTC-5, Herbert Blenner wrote:

Exactly. And it's called a "jump cut" and there are no visible jump cuts
in the zap film other than the obvious jump cut at 132 - 133, this being
due to a camera stop and restart.

[Anthony Marsh]

We have one cut of 4 damaged frames, but it quite obvious by the top
of the fram being Z-208 and the bottom of the frame offset and being
Z-212, and we see those missing frames on the other 2 copies.

Again, studying the info in the sprocket hole area allows us to rule out
tampering by frame removals.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/9/2017 4:17 PM, wewereyou...@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry I missed the original message. Retention problems probably with
Google:

Error!
newsgroup server responded:no such article number in this group

Perhaps the article has expired

<ff3b86bd-fc5a-4359...@googlegroups.com> (565594)

Click here to remove all expired articles


You both made some excellent points, but you should read my article if
you haven't already:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/zapruder.htm


BTW, I can't be sure where the Z-230 shot came from because the HSCA did
not publish the echo pattern for that shot. I suspect window #10 due to
the angle to hit Connally only.