Re: Motorcycle Policeman Hargis said Limo stopped !

[Mitch Todd]

It seems to me obvious that the key point in his observation is that the explosion he saw was NOT to the rear of the end but the top right of head. Just as we see in the films today.

Whether that explosion was, as he remember it, higher or lower in the Z-film is a, at best, ancillary matter.

If he said the explosion was to the rear of the head and not the top/right then the alterationists would have something to grab onto.

Quite the astute observation!

[Jack Trojan]

You seem to be confused. I never said that "the Z film Brugioni saw was not the film we see later" in any way, shape, or form.

What I am trying to get across is that Brugioni didn't say that he thought the Zapruder film had been altered. That asserrtion is a projection (pun intended, just so you know) generated by the hopefully faithful z-film alterationistas. All he said was that the explosion in frame 313 didn't extend as high up into the frame as he remembered. He was about 90 years old at the time of the interview, and he was trying to recall something that he saw on day 50 years before, so his recall isn't the best evidence for anything. I have pointed out here that, if you do the photogrammetry, the "scatter" (as he called it) in the existent frame reaches a good 40" above the top of JFK's head, which places it in the 3'-4' range that Dino remembered. I also advanced, for the sake of argument, two entirely reasonable explanations that would explain why he remembered that particular image a certain way without needing to rely on alteration. They seem to be reasonable enough that nobody has objected to them. To me, it's significant that he doesn't seem to have an issue with what is in the image rather than where it is.

You are correct that Bruglioni's statement is itself a fact. I mean, Janney recorded it! But that's not the point here. The point is whether his memory would be sharp enough for it to be considered a significant factor 50 years after the fact. Some might want to believe that it would be so, but I wouldn't count on it.

So are you saying that Brugioni didn't have a clue whether he was looking at the original Z film or a copy? That's all I need to know else name 1 other person that has allegedly analyzed the original film. And isn't that strange that there is so little provenance for the most crucial piece of evidence documenting the crime of the century?

[Mitch Todd]

So are you saying that Brugioni didn't have a clue whether he was looking at the original Z film or a copy? That's all I need to know else name 1 other person that has allegedly analyzed the original film. And isn't that strange that there is so little provenance for the most crucial piece of evidence documenting the crime of the century?

I haven't said anything either way about whether Brugioni or McMahon or whoever else at NPIC saw the original or a copy. It really has nothing to do with what Dino said remembered seeing.

[Matt Grantham]

You seem to be confused. I never said that "the Z film Brugioni saw was not the film we see later" in any way, shape, or form.

What I am trying to get across is that Brugioni didn't say that he thought the Zapruder film had been altered. That asserrtion is a projection (pun intended, just so you know) generated by the hopefully faithful z-film alterationistas. All he said was that the explosion in frame 313 didn't extend as high up into the frame as he remembered. He was about 90 years old at the time of the interview, and he was trying to recall something that he saw on day 50 years before, so his recall isn't the best evidence for anything. I have pointed out here that, if you do the photogrammetry, the "scatter" (as he called it) in the existent frame reaches a good 40" above the top of JFK's head, which places it in the 3'-4' range that Dino remembered. I also advanced, for the sake of argument, two entirely reasonable explanations that would explain why he remembered that particular image a certain way without needing to rely on alteration. They seem to be reasonable enough that nobody has objected to them. To me, it's significant that he doesn't seem to have an issue with what is in the image rather than where it is.

You are correct that Bruglioni's statement is itself a fact. I mean, Janney recorded it! But that's not the point here. The point is whether his memory would be sharp enough for it to be considered a significant factor 50 years after the fact. Some might want to believe that it would be so, but I wouldn't count on it.

 Being old is no proof of a faulty memory for everyone You also seem to be wandering in some kind of no mans land claiming first that the fact  Brugioni said he saw something different in the film isn't equivalent to it being an altered film, or maybe that was just Tim and Steve And now you simply ad his memory does not count At least the latter point has some internal logic, regardless of the blatant subjectivity of such a claim He hardly comes across as parson who has forgotten the details of the event, but maybe everything he seems to remember so clearly is just a sign of an even more advanced state of dementia Pretending to remember so many details that a person of his age can be eliminated an a priori assumption that age means no significant memories are valid

 Also worthy of note is that Brugioni felt the head moved forward for more frames than are shown which corroborates Dan Rather and the two bullet scenario Regardless of what it all means in the end there are at least two people who saw a different film among the very few who saw the early copies

[Mitch Todd]

Being old is no proof of a faulty memory for everyone You also seem to be wandering in some kind of no mans land claiming first that the fact  Brugioni said he saw something different in the film isn't equivalent to it being an altered film, or maybe that was just Tim and Steve And now you simply ad his memory does not count At least the latter point has some internal logic, regardless of the blatant subjectivity of such a claim He hardly comes across as parson who has forgotten the details of the event, but maybe everything he seems to remember so clearly is just a sign of an even more advanced state of dementia Pretending to remember so many details that a person of his age can be eliminated an a priori assumption that age means no significant memories are valid

 Also worthy of note is that Brugioni felt the head moved forward for more frames than are shown which corroborates Dan Rather and the two bullet scenario Regardless of what it all means in the end there are at least two people who saw a different film among the very few who saw the early copies

You're trying to shift the burden. That load falls upon those who claim the the film is altered and Brugioni's statement is the proof. Why should we take so literally something a 90 year old man remembered about a film he'd seen one day 50 years before?  And speaking of old men, what about Abe Zapruder? He was shown a copy of the extant film during the Shaw trial, and said that it was a proper copy of the film he took. How do you square what Zap said six years after the fact with what you seem to want to believe Brugioni said 50 years after?

[Matt Grantham]

You're trying to shift the burden. That load falls upon those who claim the the film is altered and Brugioni's statement is the proof. Why should we take so literally something a 90 year old man remembered about a film he'd seen one day 50 years before?  And speaking of old men, what about Abe Zapruder? He was shown a copy of the extant film during the Shaw trial, and said that it was a proper copy of the film he took. How do you square what Zap said six years after the fact with what you seem to want to believe Brugioni said 50 years after?

 Don't ignore Rather Your comparison is apples and oranges A person who gets to watch the film frame by frame has an extraordinary advantage over someone seeing it only in real time, and one time only Not to mention Zapruder does say the early frames are missing

[Royell Storing]

You're trying to shift the burden. That load falls upon those who claim the the film is altered and Brugioni's statement is the proof. Why should we take so literally something a 90 year old man remembered about a film he'd seen one day 50 years before?  And speaking of old men, what about Abe Zapruder? He was shown a copy of the extant film during the Shaw trial, and said that it was a proper copy of the film he took. How do you square what Zap said six years after the fact with what you seem to want to believe Brugioni said 50 years after?

     Brugioni was an Image Expert and Examined the Z Film on 11/23/63 for several hours employing the finest equipment available at that time. Zapruder Eyeballed a fractured flicker from the witness stand amidst a packed courthouse reminiscent of a scene out of "To Kill A Mockingbird". On top of that, Zapruder had a contract with Time/Life for $150,000 for the Z Film being displayed before him. If Zapruder were to discredit that film in Any manner, to Any degree, he would have been putting His $150,000 in severe jeopardy.

[Mitch Todd]

Don't ignore Rather Your comparison is apples and oranges A person who gets to watch the film frame by frame has an extraordinary advantage over someone seeing it only in real time, and one time only Not to mention Zapruder does say the early frames are missing

Yeah, Rather. The guy who saw the film then got it spectacularly wrong 20 minutes later. Zapruder, by the way, saw the actual event, plus seeing the film in 1963. If anyone would have noted significant discrepancies, it would be he.

Now, as to Zapruder thinking there were frames missing, is that something he said, or something someone said he said?