Reactions to 6 Shots in the Zapruder Film

[Dan O'meara]

Question for Mr. Griffith:

How was the Zapruder film lettered?


Were some Zapruder frame simply removed?

Were some Zapruder frames not removed but altered?

Were some Zapruder frame removed but replaced by a new image that was not an altered frame ?

Were some new frames created afresh (again, not an altered frame) and inserted into the Zapruder film?


These are simple questions that you want to dodge.

I don't accept the Zapruder film has been altered. Any argument I have ever seen in favour of this has been easily dismissed nonsense, my personal favourite being Costella's "Blunder of the Century".
That's for a different thread though.

[John Tonkovich]

So, Mr Griffiths, where did these 6 shots come from?

Evidence, please. Thx.

[Joe Elliott]

I don't accept the Zapruder film has been altered. Any argument I have ever seen in favour of this has been easily dismissed nonsense, my personal favourite being Costella's "Blunder of the Century".
That's for a different thread though.

I think this is too rich for another thread. I assume you are talking about Dr. John Costella, PhD:

Yes, it seems that the blunder of the century was Mr. Zapruder while rotating his camera to track the limousine failed to keep it perfectly upright as he panned across the Stemmons Freeway sign, making it appear that the Stemmons sign was rotating.

I wonder if Dr. Costella understands that it is the Earth that is rotating and not the Sun racing across the sky.

And, of course, in the middle of his explanation, he gets distracted by wondering where the hell the umbrella is. I don’t know. Why do polar bears disappear when it starts snowing? Maybe the black umbrella blends in with the black limousine in shadow.

[Joe Elliott]

So, Mr Griffiths, where did these 6 shots come from?

Evidence, please. Thx.

Evidence, hell. I’ll just settle for a consistent narrative as to the number of shots and when they occurred, when using the “Acoustic Evidence” and when using the Zapruder film. Mr. Griffith has to learn how to keep from contradicting himself from week to week before he can start to learn how to use real evidence.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Evidence, hell. I’ll just settle for a consistent narrative as to the number of shots and when they occurred, when using the “Acoustic Evidence” and when using the Zapruder film. Mr. Griffith has to learn how to keep from contradicting himself from week to week before he can start to learn how to use real evidence.

Yeah, right. Are you ever going to get around to dealing with the reactions to six shots documented in my article?

You have a habit of talking about everything but the subject at hand and then pretending that you have addressed it.

[Dan O'meara]

Yeah, right. Are you ever going to get around to dealing with the reactions to six shots documented in my article?

You have a habit of talking about everything but the subject at hand and then pretending that you have addressed it.

I raised a few issues in reply #6

[Joe Elliott]

Yeah, right. Are you ever going to get around to dealing with the reactions to six shots documented in my article?

You have a habit of talking about everything but the subject at hand and then pretending that you have addressed it.

I did deal with the “six shots” documented in your article. I pointed out that the timing of the shots you argue for this week, from the Zapruder film, is different than the timing of the shots you were arguing for last week based on the Acoustic evidence. A minimum qualification, for me to take someone’s arguments seriously, is that they cannot contradict themselves.

Modifying individual frames of the Zapruder film won’t throw off the timing as to when the shots occurred. We should still get some correspondence between the acoustic evidence and the Zapruder evidence, on when the shots occurred, if both analyzes are correct. You keep avoiding questions about this:
Were:

1.   Some frames modified?
2.   Some frames removed and replaced with brand new frames created somehow?
3.   Inserted brand new frames that were created somehow?
4.   Removed some frames?

Or some combination of this?


And don’t forget to answer Dan’s points.

[Michael T. Griffith]

So, Mr Griffiths, where did these 6 shots come from?

Evidence, please. Thx.

What does it matter where the shots came from in terms of establishing their existence? If there were six shots, or even just four shots, we know there had to be at least two gunmen. It is impossible to tell from the Zapruder film exactly where the shots originated, but we can clearly see reactions to six shots in the film, and four of those sets of reactions are beyond any rational, honest dispute. Again, four or more shots means there had to be at least two gunmen.

One of the few worthwhile contributions of the HSCA photographic evidence panel is that they discussed the science behind blur/jiggle analysis. Tests have proved that people will jiggle the camera in response to gunfire, even if they know the gunfire is coming, every single time.

A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z155.

A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z189.

A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z226.

A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z289.

Each of these blur/jiggle events is accompanied by visible reactions by bystanders and/or by limo occupants, and each of them occurs at a time when witnesses said they heard gunfire.

And, of course, these four events do not include the Z313-320 headshot.