Re: Motorcycle Policeman Hargis said Limo stopped !

[Matt Grantham]

I wondered if you didn't really know whether Zapruder really said that frames were missing from his film (as opposed to someone else saying he said it), and were playing coy about admitting it. At least you came out and admitted it the second time.


So, it's down to six degrees of Abraham Zapruder then?

 Is it your suggestion that I knew there was no supporting evidence for the quote attributed to Zapruder that once hew started filming he did not stop and simply came clean when you caught me?

[Jack Trojan]

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?

Zapruder's only claim was that he did not recall stopping the camera as the limo turned onto Elm. Coincidentally,  the "damage" that Time/Life did to the film corresponded to a splice that cut out the turn onto Elm. But how do you damage a whole section of film? I can see melting a few frames or snapping the reel and splicing it back together, but removing over a hundred frames of film because you "damaged" it, is just a lame excuse for whatever editing you did to it.

So what went down during the turn onto Elm that we weren't supposed to see? And why didn't Oswald take a shot then? And where is the original film? Not in the Sixth Floor Museum of the TSBD, that's for sure.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Zapruder's only claim was that he did not recall stopping the camera as the limo turned onto Elm. Coincidentally,  the "damage" that Newsweek did to the film corresponded to a splice that cut out the turn onto Elm. But how do you damage a whole section of film? I can see melting a few frames or snapping the reel and splicing it back together, but removing over a hundred frames of film because you "damaged" it, is just a lame excuse for whatever editing you did to it.

So what went down during the turn onto Elm that we weren't supposed to see? And why didn't Oswald take a shot then? And where is the original film? Not in the Sixth Floor Museum of the TSBD, that's for sure.

Where did Zapruder say the he didn't recall stopping and re-starting the film?

Newsweek never had the film. The original (and a first generation copy) was owned/purchased by Time/Life magazine.

Where did you get this information that over a hundred frames were damaged? And where is your information as to which frames were damaged?

From what I've read, Time/Life said the ORIGINAL was damaged (a few frames but not over a hundred). So they took the frames from the first generation copy they had and added or spliced them to the original. Nothing was removed or taken out.

Zapruder's Shaw testimony is here: http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw.html

[Royell Storing]

Where did Zapruder say the he didn't recall stopping and re-starting the film?

Newsweek never had the film. The original (and a first generation copy) was owned/purchased by Time/Life magazine.

Where did you get this information that over a hundred frames were damaged? And where is your information as to which frames were damaged?

From what I've read, Time/Life said the ORIGINAL was damaged (a few frames but not over a hundred). So they took the frames from the first generation copy they had and added or spliced them to the original. Nothing was removed or taken out.

Zapruder's Shaw testimony is here: http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw.html

                                                ZAPRUDER/SHAW TESTIMONY

        ATTORNEY - "Is the copy you have here today Identical to the original or are there any plates missing?"

       ZAPRUDER - "That would be hard for me to tell, Sir."

            COURT  - "I cannot hear the witness. What is it?"

       ZAPRUDER  - "That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there were any frames missing."

             COURT - "What is your answer?"

        ZAPRUDER - " I couldn't say."

           Clearly, Zapruder while under oath is Not going to verify that the Zapruder Film he himself brought to court has Not been altered.

[Mitch Todd]

Zapruder's only claim was that he did not recall stopping the camera as the limo turned onto


And where does he actually say this? More to the point, what exactly did he say?

Elm. Coincidentally,  the "damage" that Newsweek did to the film corresponded to a splice that cut out the turn onto Elm. But how do you damage a whole section of film? I can see melting a few frames or snapping the reel and splicing it back together, but removing over a hundred frames of film because you "damaged" it, is just a lame excuse for whatever editing you did to it.

Life had the film, not Newsweek

So what went down during the turn onto Elm that we weren't supposed to see? And why didn't Oswald take a shot then? And where is the original film? Not in the Sixth Floor Museum of the TSBD, that's for sure.

There were scores, if not hundreds, of people lining the street at the Elm Houston intersection. If anything particularly remarkable happened during the turn, it would have been particularly remarked upon by any number of witnesses. I can't say I recall any hullabaloo about witnesses remarking about any such particulars.

As for why Oswald (or any other posited TSBD gunman) didn't shoot while the limo is turning, no one can say for certain without holding a seance. My own opinion, based on my experiences at the 6FM and in Dealey Plaza, is based on two observations. The first is that the sniper's nest was set up specifically so that the shooter is firing Westwards down Elm; a shot at the limo at the corner, or on Houston would require the gunman to take a shot, then step over or around the box on the floor in a very tight space and re-set himself in order to continue firing at Kennedy. Also, it looks to be a fairly awkward shot given the angle to the car, the shallowness of the SN (it's only 2' wide), and the partially closed window. 

[Mitch Todd]

Is it your suggestion that I knew there was no supporting evidence for the quote attributed to Zapruder that once hew started filming he did not stop and simply came clean when you caught me?

My suggestion is that you said something based on a either a vague memory of something someone else said at some point in the past or a memory of something vague that someone said, also in the past. Either way, you didn't remember the original source, and may not have ever known the original source other than via someone else's commentary about it. I suspect that you believed it when you said it, but when called on it, the underlying knowledge was a bit more nebulous than you'd first figured.

I give you a lot of credit for coming clean. This kind of thing happens more than we like to realize. Lots of people would simply try to bullshit their way out; you didn't.

[Mitch Todd]

                                                ZAPRUDER/SHAW TESTIMONY

        ATTORNEY - "Is the copy you have here today Identical to the original or are there any plates missing?"

       ZAPRUDER - "That would be hard for me to tell, Sir."

            COURT  - "I cannot hear the witness. What is it?"

       ZAPRUDER  - "That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there were any frames missing."

             COURT - "What is your answer?"

        ZAPRUDER - " I couldn't say."

           Clearly, Zapruder while under oath is Not going to verify that the Zapruder Film he himself brought to court has Not been altered.

You left out the last question from the exchange between Drymond and Z:


BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

He says only "one or two", nothing like what would be missing if they'd carved out a section where the limo approached and turned onto Elm Street.