When someone explains the technical indications of alteration in the Zapruder film, then we can proceed from there. But so far the film's defenders have been unable to explain those indications.
And then there's the impossibly fast movement of Brehm's son, which has been discussed in detail. I continue to challenge anyone to do a reenactment with a child of the same approximate height and weight and show that those movements can be carried out in the time they are done in the film. It's impossible. I tried with one of my sons. He could not even come close to duplicating those movements in the required amount of time.
In addition, not only does Charles Brehm’s son not show any ‘impossibly fast’ movement, Michael Griffith never explains why the people who altered the Zapruder film, wouldn’t just show his son without any modification. Why was it necessary to doctor with the images of the son?
Was he picking his nose? Holding a sign saying “Oswald is just a patsy”?
It should be noted, that these “Zapruder film was altered” theorists, usually point out alleged changes that serve no purpose.
Like showing Charles Brehm’s son moving with impossible speed. Or showing Jean Hill and Mary Moorman standing on the grass when both had really stepped onto the road. None of these alleged alterations make any sense. Why would they have made them? This is a question that is never addressed.
It would make more sense to falsely claim the Zapruder film was altered to show JFK’s head initially (z312-z313) moving forward, and the blood and brains splatter being directed forward (frame z313), to make it appear the headshot came from behind. I think this is done because they don’t want to admit that the Zapruder film, in any way, indicates the head shot came from behind. And that is why the “Zapruder film was altered” theorists tend to focus on alleged alterations that make no sense. That don’t help the Lone Gunman narrative. That have no reason for these alterations being made in the first place.
I would like Michael to provide a plausible motive for those who made the alternations for doing so. Something better than “Who knows why they did this. They must have been crazy.”