Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

#591 Jim Marrs Alternate Zapruder Film Claim
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219
    I did a quick search on Google Video and came up with this: http://www.videoce.info/9aab4e63e.html

    It's a short interview with a French journalist, name of Reymond, who claims to have seen the early Zapruder version mentioned in an email to Jim DiEugenio. Take it for what it's worth.

    Just a couple of points.

    1) The reporter claims the copy came from H. L. Hunt--who bought a copy from Zapruder--via a French right-winger.

    2) The car came to a full stop, at which point Kennedy was shot TWICE in the head.

    3) There was an obvious hole in the freeway sign.

    4) Elm Street turn is on film.

    5) Eight or nine shots were fired.

    One wonders what DiEugenio will do with this, considering his belief that the film was not altered. Clearly, if this guy is for real, Costella is right about film alteration and reconstruction.

    "Curiouser and curiouser."
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    I've been fascinated for a while by the specter of the 'Other' film. While I think much of Costella's work has probably been superceded by Doug Horne's work on the film and the possibility that the 'Other' film is/was the original Zapruder -- the anomalies with today's extant film do have to be addressed.

    The problem, though, is that the extant film was used to such dramatic effect in JFK that researchers have a very hard time putting it aside. The 'back and to the left' motion itself is some of the most compelling evidence of a second shooter and, therefore, conspiracy.

    To my mind, the extant film could have been altered with the main goal in mind of removing signs of Secret Service involvement. That's why you have two salient features removed: the Elm Street turn and the limo full stop.

    In those early days, they probably weren't worried about latter-day forensic reconstructions of the shooting. They were maybe more likely worried about what would have really jumped out at the layperson watching the film: first, the badly taken Elm Street turn, which would have implanted the idea that the Secret Service didn't know what they were doing (or raised questions about the route). Second, the limo full stop, which would have made the layperson yell: WHY DIDN"T THEY GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE?

    I think it's possible that the back-and-to-the-left was an accidental by-product, an artifact of the film's alteration that they missed because they were looking at the big picture. They might never have anticipated the whole JFK conspiracy culture of how many shots and from which direction...instead looking at the big picture of cutting out any irregularities with the Secret Service's involvement that day.
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219
    Heinrich said while counting the number of OKs in Jim DiEugenio's last appearance on BLOPRA:

    "Second, the limo full stop, which would have made the layperson yell: WHY DIDN"T THEY GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE?"

    If Reymond is telling the truth, it's more like WHY DID THEY SIT THERE WHILE SOMEBODY PUMPED TWO BULLETS INTO KENNEDY'S HEAD?

    I suppose I should do some research on who exactly this Reymond guy is. Like, is he an honest person? Does he have an agenda? What is his connection with the French right? etc. The funny thing is, if the person with the film really is a hard right French reactionary type, he might be in a better position to release the film without getting himself suicided by the goofy Americans. One can only hope and keep chipping away at the lies.

    EDIT: It turns out that William Reymond is the guy who co-authored JFK: Le Dernier Temoin (JFK: The Last Witness) along with Billie Sol Estes, about whom DiEugenio was speaking on his last appearance. I'm not sure what this does to his credibility or lack thereof. Looking at his other books, none, as far as I can tell, having been translated into English, he would appear to lean toward right-wing conspiracy theories: Toxic food, the "murder" of Marilyn Monroe, cocaine in the intial formula for Coca-Cola, etc.
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    I saw that interview with Marrs and Reymond some time ago...if the guy hasn't come forward with the video, it ends up sounding like another specious claim. The more so if he wrote a book with Billy Sol Estes...

    Still, there's some reason to believe there may be a film out there. You have the group of DellaRosa and others who claim to have seen it. You have the anomalies in the Z-film itself, some of which might have innocent technical explanations (somehow). I highly doubt there was a *second* camera up there, next to Zapruder, filming a la the supposed tripod found in one of the shots. This sounds like the 'unnecessary multiplication of entities' supposed to be avoided by Occam's razor.  I also doubt, pace Costella, that the Z-film from start to finish is some sort of Moon Hoax, fabricated from start to finish through an elaborate reconstruction.

    P.S. I thought it was implied in my layperson's question, but you can amend the above to read if you like: "Why didn't they get the hell out of there (so that somebody couldn't pump two shots into Kennedy's head)?"
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219
    I doubt whether it's up to Reymond whether the film is released or not. It's not his property and it's not in his possession. As for whether his other books reflect poorly on him, Richard Belzer is on right now flogging his new book dealing with many of the same ideas. I guess I should brush up on my French and read some of Reymond's books.
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    Wouldn't it be nice if somebody digitally tranferred this 'other' film anonymously to YouTube in time for the 50th....
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219
    We'd all love to see that . . . but don't hold your breath.
  • Hi! I'd like to comment on Jim DeEugenio's remarks about LBJ and Mac Wallace's involvement in the assassination. Jim said a third fingerprint expert from up north looked at the cardboard box fingerprint and couldnt match it to white. I saw that guy on The Men Who Killed Kennedy '03. He was with Texas DPS or Austin police in austin. he swore up and down, with 22-point match, that the fingerprint was Mac (Malcom) Wallace fingerprint. Jim seemed not to know or not to believe that, which puzzles me. i feel there is ample evidence of the meeting at Clint murchesons' house the night before.. Jim discounts madeline brown and the kitchen worker interiewed on MWKK '03 , the
  • @harryashburn -

    You probably ought to start a new thread for a comment like that. But since it's posted: DiEugenio has a strong command of the facts, but sometimes he seems to work from instinct. For example, on that same show you're talking about it sounded like he even pooh-poohs the idea of LBJ and Madeleine Brown having an affair. But -- if you've ever seen the photo of the supposed offspring, he's the spitting image of LBJ.

    Goes to show you that, unfortunately, the subjective aspect can creep in no matter who the expert is. But all that being said: I myself doubt whether there was such a meeting of all those big-wigs. Sounds like too likely a story to me. But I don't doubt the LBJ/Madeleine Brown affair.

  • heinrich said:

    @harryashburn -


    You probably ought to start a new thread for a comment like that. But since it's posted: DiEugenio has a strong command of the facts, but sometimes he seems to work from instinct. For example, on that same show you're talking about it sounded like he even pooh-poohs the idea of LBJ and Madeleine Brown having an affair. But -- if you've ever seen the photo of the supposed offspring, he's the spitting image of LBJ.

    Goes to show you that, unfortunately, the subjective aspect can creep in no matter who the expert is. But all that being said: I myself doubt whether there was such a meeting of all those big-wigs. Sounds like too likely a story to me. But I don't doubt the LBJ/Madeleine Brown affair.








    Since this has devolved into a
    discussion of what Jim D finds plausible, I will just mention that what
    most annoys me is his problem with the Zapruder alterations. Though I
    doubt that it was a complete fabrication as Costella suggests, I think
    it's obvious that, at the very least, the sign was altered (enlarged,
    moved, whatever) and that the Life Magazine cover shot was some kind of
    composite merging a sharp foreground frame with a sharp background
    frame. Some people seem to forget that before computer paint programs
    arrived, the art of photographic manipulation was already well
    developed, viz. the Hitler dancing in front of the train sequence.
    Removing the car stop would have been more difficult, but, from what I
    can see, most of the slowing down remains, so that only a few seconds
    need to have been removed. The very fact that the car was stationary
    would have made it fairly easy to pull this off. Costella points out
    that many of the background figures were peculiarly stationary.

    As
    for the pre-assassination party, that does sound a bit hard to believe,
    but then again, never underestimate the arrogance of the powerful.
  • @LordBalto -

    Your feeling is pretty much my feeling on it. It looks like there certainly are anomalies with the Zapruder film. To take just one example, the instance where in one frame one of the girls just beyond the car is standing with her legs clearly apart. In the very next frame, they're back together.

    Now it's possible that any number of these anomalies might have prosaic explanations. Maybe the camera Zapruder was using has a known glitch where it'd skip frames -- probably not, but you get the idea. Some people have come up with a theory to address all these anomalies and the gist of their theories is 'alteration'.

    Until somebody comes along who can explain the anomalies -- convincingly, not in a Bugliosi style -- then alteration is the best explanation, in my view. Doug Horne's made a good case for it. My opinion is that overall his theory supercedes Costella's. Like you, I don't think the elaborate reconstruction and recreation that Costella proposes holds up all that well. But Costella's work identifying the anomalies themselves is valuable, and he should be commended even today.
  • I like Doug Horne's perspective on the photographic evidence. In fact, the only volume I actually bought was the one on photographic alteration, since I was an industrial photographer/printer for many years. The only real complaint I can muster is his use of italics and underlining in the same work, which is a definite literary faux pas. Underlining was used with typewriters because they had no italics font. And he uses both to excess. At some point, emphasis loses its effect when one uses too much of it.

    I think, if one had to pick out the most important assumption made by Costella that led him down the wrong track, it was that the Life cover was a single frame and not an assembled image.

    What interests me about the Marrs interview is that the purported differences from the current version of the film are just those that would have been easiest to sanitize: Snip out some frames turning the corner; enlarge/add the sign; cut out the limousine stop with minor alterations of the background to make it look fluid; and do a bit of aerial imaging to get a sharp foreground with a sharp background. I'm not saying this has in any way been proved, but it just seems to hang together, in my view. If the interview is a lie, it is such a subtle and well thought out lie that one would have to applaud its creator for his restraint.

    [I should point out, as an afterthought, that the Life cover image would not necessarily have been done in some darkened room at some secret CIA photographic facility, at least not before the creation of the revised Zapruder film. It could easily have been done right out in the open at the printing plant. This kind of assembly was common in the printing industry before the arrival of computers. For example, every time you see a photograph in an advertisement in an old magazine with type running across the photograph, that was assembled by a retoucher, the gravure equivalent of an offset stripper. The photographic positive, with which the final photographic stage was made, was done by flashing a series of negative layers, constructed by the retoucher, onto a single sheet of film.

    Assuming that the sign was simply layed over an original image that had no sign, or it was a larger version of one that was already there, this too could have been accomplished just as easily in the printing process. None of this was rocket science. I assure you none of the folks I met working in a gravure printing plant knew anything about rockets. Only later on would it have been necessary to alter the film in a way that mimicked the printing alterations, and they had years to do this. So I'm not sure any of Horne's midnight scurrying about would have even been necessary. All that would have been necessary was the cooperation of Henry Luce and a few compliant printers unwilling to see their families murdered in their beds by government agents.]

    Edit, 2012-09-22: In case it wasn't obvious from what I wrote, all of the printing manipulations were done at full size, that is, the size at which the images were actually printed.
  • Great post. Thanks for it.
  • ..ok..but why  would Robt. Groden lie? he sez a few frames (assumingly damaged) were clipped from the film.  who is more familiar with the phsical film strip itself?  thank you.
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219

    ..ok..but why  would Robt. Groden lie? he sez a few frames (assumingly damaged) were clipped from the film.  who is more familiar with the phsical film strip itself?  thank you.



    I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But, in any case, what Robert Groden is "familar with" isn't necessarily the original film. I think that's the whole point of this thread. Am I missing something here?