JFK Assassination: Is the Zapruder Film Faked?

[Andre]

Would the Zapruder film (JFK assassination) be discussable? Not really suitable for minors or? I saw some pretty compelling evidence that it's faked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Faked? That's a first.

If Evo doesn't want to discuss that here we can move it to S&D. What do you have?

 

[Andre]

I'm not into US politics and I should be neutral. But from what I observed, I do think that JFK was on the very short list of the best US president ever and I understand why there could be a conspiracy to get rid of him and that sucks. Circumstantial evidence for that would be tampering with the Zapruder movie, but before I link to the movie itself, here are the problems:

The first people on the grass left of Elm road are clearly looking far behind the presidential vehicle, even before anything unusual was going on.

The street sign that hides the presidential car for a few seconds does not match the structure of the film (sharpness, grain, size), same problem with the street light a few seconds later.

The people on the grass behind the vehicle are too large, which could be consistent with an editing trick known in 1963 already.

Although the car moves at an even pace in the film, the motor drivers suddenly overtake it, while simultaneously all passengers move forward. This could be consistent with the car actually braking but the movie being altered to hide it.

The driver and front seater look back and forward again at an incredible unrealistic pace.

The shadows of the last bystanders on the grass move from blurred to sharp and blurred again within one frame, suggesting some editting. In the same frame the male bystander has his legs together but in the next frame they are almost a foot apart.

 

[russ_watters]

Not having a copy of it handy, it is tough to comment on the claims except to say that if the evidence of tampering is so obvious, why wasn't it exposed in 1964?

 

[russ_watters]

It's not an easy shot but then the shooter wasn't an average, or even an excellent shot, he was an exceptional marksman.

I don't believe the conspiracy theories, but we often hear about his marksmanship skills. According to the Wik link on him, his level of qualification was relatively low. He qualified as "sharpshooter" which is, in fact, the middle of three qualification levels, not the highest.

 

[Andre]

Just find yourself that copy and judge for yourself (hint = youtube

 

[russ_watters]

A youtube copy of the film could not possibly be of good enough quality to see such effects. In fact, if you noticed such effects on a YouTube video, you very likely saw compression effects, which block-off different parts of the frame and compress them separately.)

 

[Poop-Loops]

Was the original of high quality anyway? That was 40 years ago.

 

[Andre]

No I saw the complete explanation of all the artificialities and when shown it's obvious. Myself I discovered already that the first pair of people on the grass are looking in the wrong direction.

Still reluctant to link to that movie, as I think it's unsuitable for minors.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Andre, that video has been shown on US televisions for decades.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It's available on Youtube, without having to log in. So you don't have to be over 18 to view it.

 

[fourier jr]

When I watch the Zapruder film I see JFK's head go back & to the left, which implies that a shot came from the front/right. (probably from the grassy knoll) I've never understood what the debate is all about.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/6258/225ch3.jpg

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

When I watch the Zapruder film I see JFK's head go back & to the left, which implies that a shot came from the front/right. (probably from the grassy knoll) I've never understood what the debate is all about.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/6258/225ch3.jpg

[/URL]

Actually it looks that way but it actually goes forward. If you watch the video carefully, it looks like Jackie pushes him back after the shot hits. The debate is about the unreliable assumptions, that don't stand up to well to detailed analysis.



That doesn't rule out a shot form the grassy knoll, but it doesn't rule it in either.

 

[Andre]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I watch the Zapruder film I see JFK's head go back & to the left, which implies that a shot came from the front/right. (probably from the grassy knoll) I've never understood what the debate is all about.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/6258/225ch3.jpg

[/URL]

A bullet fired from the rear left can cause the head to recoil back and left. This results from conservation of momentum and the expelled mass moving forward and right. It was first demonstrated in regards to this investigation by Luis Alvarez by shooting into a watermelon.

Try setting up the three-body problem [bullet, head, expelled mass]. One can see that this result is allowed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Look folks, this is about the Zupruder film, not conspiracy theories.

Remember, if this degenerates into a conspiracy discussion then the thread will be locked and points issued for violations of the posting guidelines.

The off topic posts have been deleted.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well in that case it seems pretty clear cut, the video was faked, I think André's youtube link is pretty convincing. Apologies, but the video does involve leading questions about the event, never meant to take it into x territory, just to say that I find x territory to be somewhat lacking generally.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Eh, there are a couple of interesting points. The one that I found most interesting is the spread of the man's legs that allegedly changes in one frame. I was watching his motion relative to that of the people in the car, and there does seem to be a discrepancy.

Most of the rest didn't impress me on a first pass. What they claim could be so but I hardly see it as self-evident. There are other points that bother me as well. For example, while some people do appear to be looking the wrong direction, it seems that I can also see a few people tracking the car with their cameras.

This is a clear cut case of S&D so I'm moving the thread. Debunking or debate about the film is fine, but we can only speak to the evidence on the film and not to greater conspiracy theories.

 

[Briant232]

Eh, there are a couple of interesting points. The one that I found most interesting is the spread of the man's legs that allegedly changes in one frame. I was watching his motion relative to that of the people in the car, and there does seem to be a discrepancy...

While I seriously doubt LWO was a lone gunman (I doubt he was a gunman at all), I don't buy this video. If you watch the man's legs come apart too fast, you will see that the secret service agent's legs come together just as quickly. In other versions of the film, the man appears to be walking with the woman next to him, which makes it not so hard to believe his legs could separate so quickly (again look at the secret service agent). And the lamppost appears to just have a sign strapped to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has anyone checked other sources for the film to ensure that what we see here isn't the real hoax?

 

[Mk]

This link makes 3D models to investigate the sign and the lampost:
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/costella.html

High resolution Zapruder film:
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Eh, there are a couple of interesting points. The one that I found most interesting is the spread of the man's legs that allegedly changes in one frame. I was watching his motion relative to that of the people in the car, and there does seem to be a discrepancy.

Most of the rest didn't impress me on a first pass. What they claim could be so but I hardly see it as self-evident. There are other points that bother me as well. For example, while some people do appear to be looking the wrong direction, it seems that I can also see a few people tracking the car with their cameras.

This is a clear cut case of S&D so I'm moving the thread. Debunking or debate about the film is fine, but we can only speak to the evidence on the film and not to greater conspiracy theories.

The woman in red seems to be standing on the grass when she was supposed to have taken the photo where as - clearly in her own photo and as she herself said - she is standing in the street. That would be another one. It looks a touch dubious to me. I'm not entirely sure what it's meant to prove anyway, even given the fact that it is 100% accurate it simply isn't that leading.

For all we know someone could have ran into the street as the shot was fired, thus distracting the officers. There are hundreds of explanations, I'm not sure why we have to pick the most incredible one, at least without further proof, and not dodgy photos of the grassy knoll. And looking at the footage in slow motion anyway the head appears to go forward.

Your second link doesn't seem to work for me MK, QT opens up but it won't download it.

 

[Andre]

Well, the proof is in the pudding. t would be very easy to reconstruct the whole scene. I think Elmstreet is still unchanged and it would not be too hard to make a movie of bystanders and the cars driving and compare it with the movie, it would either confirm or deny the authenticity of the Zapruder movie. Who dares?

 

[baywax]

Well, the proof is in the pudding. t would be very easy to reconstruct the whole scene. I think Elmstreet is still unchanged and it would not be too hard to make a movie of bystanders and the cars driving and compare it with the movie, it would either confirm or deny the authenticity of the Zapruder movie. Who dares?

Perhaps there has been a bit of "snip snip" with the film. It certainly turned out to be an item of national inquiry and security. {edit}Another explanation would have to do with the make of the camera and how well its sprockets worked, not to mention the commotion going on around the photographer perhaps disrupting him.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, the proof is in the pudding. t would be very easy to reconstruct the whole scene. I think Elmstreet is still unchanged and it would not be too hard to make a movie of bystanders and the cars driving and compare it with the movie, it would either confirm or deny the authenticity of the Zapruder movie. Who dares?

It has already been done, albeit in a digital way. A 3d reconstruction was done several years ago based on many forms of evidence ranging from the film itself to recorded events from the day on an open mic of a police officer, all synchronised and modeled as accurately as possible.

It's certainly convincing, they even plotted the bullet lines from the window - a perfect line from there through the neck and through the governer in the jump seat in front of JFK, i.e. debunking the magic bullet theory totally and supporting the single bullet.

Was shown on British TV a couple of years ago, not sure the origin though.

Edit: Possibly "ABC's The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy" as referenced in the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single..._The_Kennedy_Assassination:_Beyond_Conspiracy

 

[Andre]

It's not about bullet theories, it's about people behind the car being much larger than the people in the car.

 

[Magic Man]

Yep, very interesting. The 'cut-out' on the lampost I always took as being some sort of sign there.

That 3d reconstruction is featured here

 

[rbj]

I'm not into US politics and I should be neutral. But from what I observed, I do think that JFK was on the very short list of the best US president ever and I understand why there could be a conspiracy to get rid of him and that sucks.

probably the same thing will happen to President Obama, for about the same reason.

(BTW, i am not much of a conspiracy nut, but i do think that the "Single Bullet Theory" is harder to believe than the alternative and that, for likely conspiratorial reasons, it was pushed despite the physical unlikelihood, because they didn't want to deal with the alternative.)

 

[baywax]

probably the same thing will happen to President Obama, for about the same reason.

(BTW, i am not much of a conspiracy nut, but i do think that the "Single Bullet Theory" is harder to believe than the alternative and that, for likely conspiratorial reasons, it was pushed despite the physical unlikelihood, because they didn't want to deal with the alternative.)

Don't know until someone makes a move.

I'm surprised that FDR never had an assassination attempt on his life. His first term was stellar in the way he mobilized a social network for the out-of-work... during the mid 30s etc... But his second term proved him to be very unpopular in Vermont, Maine etc... where all the money was. They could afford to hire a few hit men, but never did.

Then FDR did his best to influence the international stage, against the majority of opinions (isolationists) in the US and still wasn't "taken out". Then, Peril Harbour, whatever the conspiracy story is surrounding that... and the rest is history... and no assassination. So, good hearted, well meaning presidents don't always get assassinated. And the ones that are buffoons seem to keep on ticking like a toy bunny.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Can someone please list exactly what's in dispute? I keep watching it over and over and am not seeing anything wrong. The sign looks fine, and what legs are everyone talking about?

 

[baywax]

It's not about bullet theories, it's about people behind the car being much larger than the people in the car.

A zoom lens will sometimes create that effect.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I don't see any effect of the people being larger behind the cars. Compare their head sizes, Jackie's is always larger than theirs. So is the poilceman on motorcycle.

 

[baywax]

Great, I checked out the high def version of the Zapruder film and watched it go back and forth continuously... wishing life was as simple... then I checked out the Stemmons Freeway sign and lamppost theory and overlapped the two compositions in my head. If the sign is not pasted in... (which was hollywood's craft and it wouldn't have been easy to find a movie artisan who was willing to cover up JFK's true assassin) the sign provides cover for something that has bothered JFK. As he emerges from behind the sign both arms are up in agitation and his wife is wondering what's wrong. Then the second hit comes to JFK's head.

It may just be coincidental convenience that the sign hides the first hit and it may be that it is placed to hide the angle etc... of the hit. Either way, you guys lost a great leader to someone who didn't take voting as the way to change a government.

If you compare the stills with the film you can see quite a few people up behind the grassy knoll, behind the white enclosure. One in particular stands out in a beige overcoat that is unusually pregnant with something under it. I've been in Dallas and the weather there never struck me as "overcoat" material.

 

[Isarmann]

Two little things on this

First, if you want to discuss the Zapruder film, you must get the copy released as "Image of An Assassination"--- this is the ONLY copy on Earth made by going back to the original print, and taking photos of each frame as 5cmX5cm high-resolution slides. There are four versions on the DVD-- one of which shows the "never seen" area in between the sprocket holes on the left-hand side, and two of which were assembled using Kennedy's head as the centering point, instead of the frame edges (removes camera and shutter shake).

If you haven't seen this material, then you might as well discuss a drawing of the film made by someone who saw it once, somewhere--- the difference is nothing short of earth-shattering. THEN you can make your analysis and conclusions.

As just one little example of this; recall how Kennedy raises both hands towards his throat after the first hit? Well, from the versions I had always seen before ("high-quality" or no), it looked like he was actually touching his throat--- and I could never tell for sure either way. Well, watching this version there is absolutely NO question--- his hands are both at least six inches from his throat. That's just one example of what this kind of clarity does for your examination--- based on that one observation I later found out that it is characteristic of bullet injuries high on the back--- those muscle movements are, for the most part, involuntary reactions to the muscle trauma.

Just one other little point that stood out to me, and shows the difference between this and other versions of the film you may have seen--- BOTH the victims are completely free of the Stebbins Freeway sign when the shot that hits both of them comes along--- most people think it happened when they're still behind the sign. It most emphatically did not; and seeing it clearly will also permantently set your mind at ease about the question of whether or not it was a single bullet--- it was; and you can see them both react to it in the same instant of time... it's like a bee suddenly zipped through the car, they both jerk convulsively at the impact.

I will leave you to make your own observations and conclusions, but please--- do get ahold of the best source material. You're just spinning conjectures with anything less. Especially these fine points about scissoring legs and whatnot... you simply will not be able to tell for sure what you're seeing otherwise.

The issue of provenance or "doctoring" of the film I will not address here; suffice it to say that ANY analysis made off of a YouTube video (compression artifacts, anyone?) is back in "my kid saw it once and made me a very accurate drawing with crayons" land.

The provenance of the video I'm discussing here is discussed, at length, on the DVD--- make of it what you will.

The other point I'd like to make, seperately, has to do with the existence (or non-existence) of a "grassy knoll shooter," but perhaps now is not the time. I know this is one of 'those issues' that people get very passionate about, and my goal here is merely to elevate the debate by encouraging the use of the best possible source material. I believe, though, that I've discovered a very compelling reason why, second shooter or no, there is virtually no possibility any firearm was discharged from the 'fence' area on the grassy knoll.

If anyone's interested in hearing about that, just ask...