Is the Zapruder film a composite or an original?

[Steve Barber]

           Zapruder was Unable to ID Himself on the Zapruder Film Still Frames shown to him during his WC Testimony. Now, years later you want to swear by him when he is viewing a film in the middle of a packed courtroom? Zapruder was paid $150,000 for his film. This $150,000 would make it difficult for him to discredit an alleged copy of the film he sold to Time/Life for a small fortune. In 1963 when Zapruder sold his film for $150K, the average American was making roughly $4,000. $150,000 was a Ton of $$$ back in 1963.

  What?!!!!!  "ID himself on the Zapruder film frames"?  That makes absolutely no sense at all.  Are you referring to him being asked to look at the Willis slide which show he and Marilyn Sitzman and identify himself?  Well, if that is the  case you are wrong because he does identify himself and his secretary and where they were standing.  Since the slide is so blurry, he was pointing out that he would have to say that that is him, but he most definitely was not "wrong" because the slide shows exactly where he was standing while he filmed, Storing. Most people can't even see Zapruder and Sitzman until they are told where to look because the slide is so blurry at that point since they are off in the distance and blend in with the background. He immediately ID'd himself without being coached in any way, shape or form!  So cut the crap.

 Furthermore, didn't you read Zapruder's testimony carefully?  He didn't scrutinize his film, he didn't even retain a copy for himself, and it sounds to me like he does a good job at describing from memory the frames he is being shown. 

 So, you are saying that because Zapruder was paid such a sum of money, this makes him suspicious?   This doesn't surprise me and you most likely believe that Zaprude was in on a plot?  Is that correct?  As usual, you twist thing like a pretzel to create your fantasy.  It never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Royell Storing]

  What?!!!!!  "ID himself on the Zapruder film frames"?  That makes absolutely no sense at all.  Are you referring to him being asked to look at the Willis slide which show he and Marilyn Sitzman and identify himself?  Well, if that is the  case you are wrong because he does identify himself and his secretary and where they were standing.  Since the slide is so blurry, he was pointing out that he would have to say that that is him, but he most definitely was not "wrong" because the slide shows exactly where he was standing while he filmed, Storing. Most people can't even see Zapruder and Sitzman until they are told where to look because the slide is so blurry at that point since they are off in the distance and blend in with the background. He immediately ID'd himself without being coached in any way, shape or form!  So cut the crap.

 Furthermore, didn't you read Zapruder's testimony carefully?  He didn't scrutinize his film, he didn't even retain a copy for himself, and it sounds to me like he does a good job at describing from memory the frames he is being shown. 

 So, you are saying that because Zapruder was paid such a sum of money, this makes him suspicious?   This doesn't surprise me and you most likely believe that Zaprude was in on a plot?  Is that correct?  As usual, you twist thing like a pretzel to create your fantasy.  It never ceases to amaze me.

          YES. I am referring to the Willis Slide. Do you really believe the Copy of whatever Zapruder was shown in court was Not also "Blurry"? You have been around long enough to Know what copies of the Z Film looked like back in the 60's,70's, 80's etc. Even that bootleg Z Film that Groden revealed to the public in "75" was a mass of absolutely Blurry Images. As to Zapruder's WC Testimony, he is UNABLE to ID Himself based on what He SEES on the Willis Slide. Zapruder gives a Vague ID based on knowing his position inside Dealey Plaza. Zapruder did Not "Immediately ID Himself". This description of Yours is  incorrect.  I am Not saying Zapruder was "in on the plot". What I am saying is based on the HUGE amount of $$$ he was given for his film, he is Not going to turn around and claim In Court that the film that Time/Life had in its' possession is Not the film he shot inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.  To do so would have resulted in Zapruder then being asked to forfeit his $$$ due to He being the one that sold/personally handed it to Time/Life. I will say Zapruder's general integrity can be questioned due to: (1) He did INTENTIONALLY HIDE the FACT he was paid $150,000 for the film & (2) He did INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT to the public that he donated ALL the money from his film to the Police Fund/Officer Tippit. This was Intentional Misrepresentation/ Fake News on the part of Zapruder. 

[Steve Barber]

          YES. I am referring to the Willis Slide. Do you really believe the Copy of whatever Zapruder was shown in court was Not also "Blurry"? You have been around long enough to Know what copies of the Z Film looked like back in the 60's,70's, 80's etc. Even that bootleg Z Film that Groden revealed to the public in "75" was a mass of absolutely Blurry Images. As to Zapruder's WC Testimony, he is UNABLE to ID Himself based on what He SEES on the Willis Slide. Zapruder gives a Vague ID based on knowing his position inside Dealey Plaza. Zapruder did Not "Immediately ID Himself". This description of Yours is  incorrect.  I am Not saying Zapruder was "in on the plot". What I am saying is based on the HUGE amount of $$$ he was given for his film, he is Not going to turn around and claim In Court that the film that Time/Life had in its' possession is Not the film he shot inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.  To do so would have resulted in Zapruder then being asked to forfeit his $$$ due to He being the one that sold/personally handed it to Time/Life. I will say Zapruder's general integrity can be questioned due to: (1) He did INTENTIONALLY HIDE the FACT he was paid $150,000 for the film & (2) He did INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT to the public that he donated ALL the money from his film to the Police Fund/Officer Tippit. This was Intentional Misrepresentation/ Fake News on the part of Zapruder.

 You need to re read Z's testimony.  What caught Zapruder's eye in the Willis slide wasn't only where he and S were standing, it was the pergola as well.  He makes that quite clear when he confused the peristyles on the east end of DP with the pergola.  And where did Zapruder state that he gave "all" his money to the Tippit family?  I do not recall ever reading that.  He is quoted as saying he donated $25,000 to the Tippit family. That's not the entire sum of money from Life.

[Royell Storing]

 You need to re read Z's testimony.  What caught Zapruder's eye in the Willis slide wasn't only where he and S were standing, it was the pergola as well.  He makes that quite clear when he confused the peristyles on the east end of DP with the pergola.  And where did Zapruder state that he gave "all" his money to the Tippit family?  I do not recall ever reading that.  He is quoted as saying he donated $25,000 to the Tippit family. That's not the entire sum of money from Life.

               Zapruder purposely misled the public as to the Total sum he was being paid for his film. He agreed with Time/Life to receive 6 yearly installments of $25,000 = $150,000 total for his film. Zapruder received his 1st $25,000 installment Immediately/1963. He then made it publicly known that he gave ALL the money he had received for his film = $25,000 to the Police/Tippit Family. This technically was true at that point in time though Zapruder still had $125,000 coming his way. Zapruder hid this fact, Plus Z basked in the good PR, (he also had a business/$$$), for having donating ALL the $$$ he had received for his film to the Police/Tippit family. A complete Sham.

[Steve Barber]

               Zapruder purposely misled the public as to the Total sum he was being paid for his film. He agreed with Time/Life to receive 6 yearly installments of $25,000 = $150,000 total for his film. Zapruder received his 1st $25,000 installment Immediately/1963. He then made it publicly known that he gave ALL the money he had received for his film = $25,000 to the Police/Tippit Family. This technically was true at that point in time though Zapruder still had $125,000 coming his way. Zapruder hid this fact, Plus Z basked in the good PR, (he also had a business/$$$), for having donating ALL the $$$ he had received for his film to the Police/Tippit family. A complete Sham.

What are your sources for these claims against Zapruder? 

[Royell Storing]

What are your sources for these claims against Zapruder?

            "National Nightmare" by Richard B. Trask.   "...One installment of $25,000 being paid Immediately,  $25,000 being paid on Jan 3, 1964, and four other $25,000 installments that were paid on subsequent Jan. 3rd's up through 1968." 

[Steve Barber]

            "National Nightmare" by Richard B. Trask.   "...One installment of $25,000 being paid Immediately,  $25,000 being paid on Jan 3, 1964, and four other $25,000 installments that were paid on subsequent Jan. 3rd's up through 1968."

 Where did this come from: " He then made it publicly known that he gave ALL the money he had received for his film = $25,000 to the Police/Tippit Family. "

Everything I have read re: the donation to the Tippit family, he stated as having given a portion of what he made from his film, not "all of it".  Please point me to the citation for the exact words you are using to describe Zapruder's donation as to saying that he said he gave "all of it".