How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?

[John Mytton]

Life magazine printed 30 frames from the Zapruder film a week later in the 29th of November 1963 issue and considering the time it took to get the film and then the time it takes to organise, write, format, print and then get the magazine distributed across the country left the amount of time the conspirators had to do any alteration to be a couple of days at most.

   

                               

In the following gif the Life magazine photos have superimposed over the original Zapruder Film and all the way through the most important events we get a perfect match to every image which means that to add a new element across a number of frames then there will be a knock on effect to these surrounding frames. The only frames we don't see are the actual headshot and the resulting back and to the left but if you had the time wouldn't these frames be the ones you would alter? Doh!

 

So in conclusion these Life Magazine photos published a week later are all the proof anyone needs to show no Zapruder fakery.
But in addition to this powerful evidence there is;

perfect synchronization between the Muchmore/Nix and the Zapruder films



the impossible to fake ghost image in the sprocket area is an accurate representation of images captured with Zapruder's type of camera



and upon microscopic examination the Zapruder film shows the correct and overall consistent grain level for the relevant Kodak film stock.






JohnM

[Chris Scally]

John,

By my calculations, having studied the chain-of-possession in detail, the film arrived at Life's printing plant in Chicago somewhere between 2 and 5pm on the afternoon of Saturday, November 23, 1963. The black-and-white frames used in the issue of November 29 were available to the printers, according to my information, at around 8pm on the Saturday evening, so the only available time for any (highly-improbable, IMHO) manipulation was almost certainly restricted to within that 3-6 hour period.

Chris S
 

[Bob Prudhomme]

[Joe Elliott]

Bob believes that eyewitnesses, either eyewitnesses at Dealey Plaza, or an early witness of the Zapruder film, overcomes the most logical of arguments. There is no way the eyewitnesses could be mistaken. Either as a group, or as an individual, like Dan Rather.

It does not matter that the eyewitnesses disagree with each other. The fact that the eyewitnesses disagree with the Zapruder film shows that this film was faked.

Can the film be faked in a few days using 1963 technology? Of course, it could. The eyewitnesses show us it did happen and so was possible.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Bob believes that eyewitnesses, either eyewitnesses at Dealey Plaza, or an early witness of the Zapruder film, overcomes the most logical of arguments. There is no way the eyewitnesses could be mistaken. Either as a group, or as an individual, like Dan Rather.

It does not matter that the eyewitnesses disagree with each other. The fact that the eyewitnesses disagree with the Zapruder film shows that this film was faked.

Can the film be faked in a few days using 1963 technology? Of course, it could. The eyewitnesses show us it did happen and so was possible.

What you fail to understand, Joe, is that when a large group of eyewitnesses recall something incorrectly, they seldom tend to corroborate each others' mistaken memories. A large number of witnesses saw the limo stop, and a large number of those witnesses also saw the limo swerve to the left.

[Chris Davidson]

The first alteration is the removal of the Elm St turn.
The frame rate of Z's camera was not known until the first week in December (Joe Webb-FBI)
A 16mm film(frame rate 24fps) on a 16mm projector shown at 24fps.
24fps x 20.25 seconds = 486 frames
133 + 353 = 486
Excerpts from Rather's video description.
No reference made to the initial motorcycle cop footage.

[Krulvyn Skaarg]

Supporters of Z film authenticity just won't address matters like Rather's description of a film that differs significantly from the established version. An hour of studying a 20m clip and you get something WRONG like 'back and to the left' after the fatal head shot. I respectfully ask you LNers to step up and explain this glaring discrepancy.

[Richard Smith]

Another example of CTers entertaining multiple and sometimes mutually exclusive realities.  In some cases, they rely upon the Z-film as proof of a conspiracy (e.g. "back and to the the left").  In others, that the film is faked or altered to avoid showing evidence of a conspiracy.  The Alamo defense of all CTer claims ultimately boils down to suggesting that all evidence is faked or the product of intentional lies.  The Catch-22:  Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is suspect and dismissed for that reason alone.