From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Zapruder Film
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:57:39 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:


>There is more to the story of the Z-film:

>1. While it is clear that several frames are missing from the
>frame-by-frame WCH, frame 210 is shown in the WCR.  It is
>shown to illustrate that at this frame the limo was past
>the tree, as seen through the rifle's scope.

Is this the *real* 210, or just a frame called 210?

>2. If you watch the z-film you will note that it is quite seamless
>after the initial pause. (motorcycles come into view, pause, then
>limo is seen)

Seamless? Of course it's seamless. 4 missing frames aren't enough to
cause the human eye much trouble when videotaped.

>3. The story of the purchase of the z-film can be found in the 
>book _Life in Camelot_.  The man who purchased the film on behalf
>of "Life" (Tommy Thompson, if I recall) relates that he heard about
>the film from a local stringer.  He began calling Zapruder's house
>every hour on the hour.  At 9 pm he finally reached Zapruder, who
>was quite exhausted and emotionally drained.  He had *already seen*
>the film; if someone else (CIA, FBI) had a copy overnight they
>certainly did not have Zapruder's original.  This is the one sold
>to "Life" and the one used by the WC.  

Can you prove the WC had the original since the original was not shown
publicly until the late great Jim Garrison forced Life to turn it over
for the Clay Shaw trial? If it was the original?
 
>At 9:00 the next morning
>Thompson and Zapruder and Sitzman and a few others viewed the
>film.  Thompson typed up a contract and paid Zapruder the initial
>installment of $50K.  In 1975 "Life" turned the film over to
>Zapruder's heirs.  Zapruder's heirs turned the film over to the
>National Archives though they retained television rights.

And Zapruder got 4 additional 50,000 payments, which nobody liked to
publicize.

>There is no evidence whatsoever that the Zapruder film has been
>tampered with.  

Really? Do you have copy from before the CIA got it's hands on it and
a copy from after the CIA had it?

>Indeed, conspirators would have had to have worked
>very quickly to have it back in Zapruder's hands prior to 9 pm
>that night.  And one must wonder how the film-alterers could have
>known so quickly just what alterations to accomplish.

You claim Zapruder had seen the film by 9pm?

How did he develop color movie film that quickly? 
Did he have a lab in his basement?


>You will note that none of the damage postulated by second
>gunman theorists is visible in any of these views.  The z-frames
>shown by Groden/Livingstone are so fuzzy that Jackie's dress can
>be represented as a portion of a wound.  Clear pictures show that
>all the damage to JFK's head is pretty much where Humes, Lattimer,
>Clark Panel, Wecht, Rockefeller Commission Panel, HSCA Panel
>all place it. 

And possibily *exactly* what the CIA's NPIC wanted you to see.

Humes, in case you forgot, said the wound was 13cm in greatest size
and extended from the occipital -- the *back* of the head -- through
the parietal and into the temporal -- the temporal being the bone
above the ear. That wound was *not* visible on the Z film.

The Parkland Staff also said the wound was in the right rear of JFK's
head, as did several SS agents including Clint Hill. That wound was
*not* visible in the Zapruder film.

More and more as I go back and read what all the Doctors and Nurses,
and most of the autopsists, and the SS agents who saw the wounds, said
-- I have to conclude the Z film was tampered with.
-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk