The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish

[Royell Storing]

   In 1963, people in large population areas received maybe 7 total TV channels. And 3 of those were the Network channels. If a reporter was on a Network National News Broadcast, it was a very Big Deal. Rather knew this. He described what he saw on the Zapruder Film to a nation that at that time, had no idea what the Zapruder Film was. Rather also described seeing an agent in the front seat of the JFK Limo holding a telephone. If Rather was making stuff up, why would he mess around with including inconsequential information such as this? He wouldn't. 

[John Mytton]

The Z Film was privately owned and under lock-n-key for 12 years. As evidence it is worthless.

The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.







The following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.





JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.







The following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.





JohnM

On top of that, all other films and photos relating to the assassination would have to have been similarly altered within the same time-frame, so as to perfectly match any alterations made to the Z-film.
Let's just assume this is impossible.
On top of which Zavada, the "worlds leading expert" on Kodachrome II authenticated the original.
Josiah Thompson wrote a good essay highlighting the abject failure of those arguing for alterations to the Z-film - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html

"One way of looking at this continuing argument is to see it as a gigantic waste of time, as a prime example of junk science from educated people who ought to know better. It may have amusement value in some chronicle of "silly science," but, in terms of knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, it has produced literally nothing."

[Tom Graves]

Rather described seeing an agent in the front seat of the JFK limo holding a telephone. If Rather was making stuff up, why would he mess around with including inconsequential information such as this? He wouldn't.

Storing,

Poor Dan Rather was probably shown the Zapruder film only once, because he was only about 60% correct in his description of what's visible in it. He made up the bit about watching the limo actually turn onto Elm Street (in one of the videos I watched, but not in the other), but it's not a big deal that he did so except to fringe JFKA film-alteration conspiracy theorists like you.

He didn't make up the important bit about seeing Kellerman holding the microphone, however. (He mistakenly thought it was a telephone -- maybe it was shaped like one!) In case you didn't know, Kellerman testified to the Warren Commission that he had grabbed it to communicate with Secret Service Lawson in the lead car.

Question: Why did Kellerman start turning his head so far to his right in Z-148?

As a conscious reaction to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing everything shot at hypothetical "Z-124," or to check out the pretty women JFK had just finished waving to?

[Dan O'meara]

   In 1963, people in large population areas received maybe 7 total TV channels. And 3 of those were the Network channels. If a reporter was on a Network National News Broadcast, it was a very Big Deal. Rather knew this. He described what he saw on the Zapruder Film to a nation that at that time, had no idea what the Zapruder Film was. Rather also described seeing an agent in the front seat of the JFK Limo holding a telephone. If Rather was making stuff up, why would he mess around with including inconsequential information such as this? He wouldn't.

The amount of incorrect information being pumped out on TV and in the newspapers in the hours and days after the assassination was amazing.
The emphasis was on getting the story out quickly, before anyone else. So many mistakes were made.
Reports were coming in that a Secret Service agent was killed during the assassination. Someone like you would jump all over this insisting that no responsible reporter/journalist would say such a thing therefore it must have happened and was covered up. But it was just a mistake.
Rather made a mistake. That's all.
The Zavada Report proves the authenticity of the film but you know better. The points John makes about the impossibility of faking the Z-film in the time given are just ignored. As is the point that all other films and photographs would have to be accordingly faked, making the whole thing just a wild fantasy. Mistake after mistake was made by the media in their rush to get the stories out but you just ignore all of this.

[Royell Storing]

  Is that the same "LIFE Magazine" that printed the Z Frames out-of-order? Made it look like JFK's head was pushed Forward instead of BACKWARD? That Life Magazine? And let's not pretend that anybody Knew with certainty what the 1963 US Gov could do in the area of film CGI. As NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni said, "They could do anything" at Top Secret "Hawkeye Works".

[Royell Storing]

On top of that, all other films and photos relating to the assassination would have to have been similarly altered within the same time-frame, so as to perfectly match any alterations made to the Z-film.
Let's just assume this is impossible.
On top of which Zavada, the "worlds leading expert" on Kodachrome II authenticated the original.
Josiah Thompson wrote a good essay highlighting the abject failure of those arguing for alterations to the Z-film - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html

"One way of looking at this continuing argument is to see it as a gigantic waste of time, as a prime example of junk science from educated people who ought to know better. It may have amusement value in some chronicle of "silly science," but, in terms of knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, it has produced literally nothing."

  With respect to altering other assassination films, specifically what "other films" were shot from the (N) side of Elm St? And "Viva Zavada" was so late to this party that he is Not worth mentioning. Whatever he is looking at that point in time is 30+ years old. And you guys continually want to question the "memories" of eyewitnesses vs your parading around an allegedly 30+ year old piece of film whose "chain of custody" has holes that you could drive a mack truck through? Seriously?