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

[Steve Thompson]

How would you explain this then:
- The Muchmore film shows the exact same content - and the EXACT same headshot - as the Zapruder film, right ?
- The Muchmore film was shown publicly on WNEW TV in NY just four days after the assassination.
- Was the Muchmore film altered so as to be in sync with Zapruder ?

Do you really believe that the conspirators were able to create a fake Zapruder AND Muchmore film that are perfectly in sync - and they were able to create a false record in just four days that would stand the scrutiny of 50+ years and guys like Zavada ?

Seriously ?

In fact, it's even more preposterous when you consider that as of three days after the assassination (Nov. 25) Muchmore's film hadn't even been developed yet - so the conspirators actually would have only have had ONE day...

"Muchmore sold the undeveloped film to the Dallas office of United Press International on November 25, 1963, for $1,000. It was processed by Kodak in Dallas, and flown to New York City. It appeared the following day on local television station WNEW-TV."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Muchmore

[John Iacoletti]

Are you really claiming that there is enough resolution and definition (not to mention the camera angle) in the Muchmore film to declare that it shows the "EXACT same headshot"?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

LOL !
You're not distracting from my point - you're making my point.

If someone says that one or more of the other assassination films - other than Zapruder - are authentic
    Then the burden is on them is to show the inconsistencies between that unaltered film and the altered Z-film...we should be able to see the inconsistencies, right ?

If someone says the opposite, that in addition to Zapruder none of the other films are authentic
    Then the burden of proof is on them to show how films like Muchmore or Nix are in perfect sync with the Zapruder film - yet somehow were publicly available within days after the assassination despite going through very different chains of custody

If the alterationists can demonstrate how either one of the above is even *possible* - let alone probable - then I'll be the first guy to listen.
If they can't, then what they're suggesting has no possible basis in fact, and I tend to disregarded it as illogical...

My point was focused more on your second observation - how did "they" get possession of the Muchmore, Nix et al. films? They had to at the very least review them to make sure their alterations of the Z film wouldn't be exposed by these other films. Then they had to either alter those films and make them in sync with the changes in the Z film or somehow make the changes in the Z film synchronize with the other films while not being exposed by them.

But first they had to review them, get possession of them. Wouldn't they?

Furthermore, how would they not know that these other films by themselves wouldn't reveal their conspiracy? That they didn't show a shooter on the knoll? That they showed there was no one in the sniper's nest? Forget having them expose the alterations in the Z film; what if they exposed their framing of Oswald?

Here's a closeup of the 6th floor taken from the Hughes' film. The sniper's nest is on the right. This was taken, apparently, about seven seconds before the first shot (yeah, whenever that really was). What if Hughes had continued filming for another 10 seconds? And it showed no shooter?



This is absurd. As I asked above, are there any limits to what "they" could have done? Seemingly many in the conspiracy world - or those that believe in the Z alteration - there wasn't.

There was no alteration of the Z film done to hide what actually happened.

And don't get me started on the claim that JFK's wounds were altered <g>.

[Steve Thompson]

Are you really claiming that there is enough resolution and definition (not to mention the camera angle) in the Muchmore film to declare that it shows the "EXACT same headshot"?

John - go ahead and point out the differences between the headshot in Muchmore vs the headshot in Zapruder.
    1.  If you *can* point out the differences - then my claim that they are an EXACT match falls from its own lack of merit.
    2.  If you *can not* point out any differences, then my statement cannot necessarily be disproven, can it ?

Hey, I'm nothing if not teachable - and open to facts and evidence.

Over to you...

[John Iacoletti]

John - go ahead and point out the differences between the headshot in Muchmore vs the headshot in Zapruder.
    1.  If you *can* point out the differences - then my claim that they are an EXACT match falls from its own lack of merit.
    2.  If you *can not* point out any differences, then my statement cannot necessarily be disproven, can it ?

Hey, I'm nothing if not teachable - and open to facts and evidence.

Over to you...

That's not how it works, Steve.  You don't get to make a positive claim like "they show the exact same headshot" and then say that it's true unless somebody can disprove it.

I'm asking you how you can tell that they are exactly the same.

[Steve Thompson]

I'm asking you how you can tell that they are exactly the same.

Oh, well that's easy... I just put my assertion out there that the Muchmore/Zapruder headshots are "exactly the same" and dare anyone to disprove it.
If, after a week or so on this forum (with all its experts) no one can disprove my assertion, then it must be a fact.

But, in all seriousness, I'd say this is one of those cases where a lack of evidence is in fact evidence.
Either they are different, or they are the same.

Once again, what are the differences ?

[John Iacoletti]

Oh, well that's easy... I just put my assertion out there that the Muchmore/Zapruder headshots are "exactly the same" and dare anyone to disprove it.
If, after a week or so on this forum (with all its experts) no one can disprove my assertion, then it must be a fact.

<facepalm>

LBJ knew about the assassination in advance.  I dare you to disprove that.

But, in all seriousness, I'd say this is one of those cases where a lack of evidence is in fact evidence.
Either they are different, or they are the same.

....OR....

Whether they are the same or not is inconclusive and indeterminate.