Zapruder movie

  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
4,453
57

Main Question or Discussion Point

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

Answers and Replies

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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?
 
4,453
57
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.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,167
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
Mentor
19,016
5,167
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.
 
Last edited:
4,453
57
Just find yourself that copy and judge for yourself (hint = youtube
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,167
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.)
 
686
0
Was the original of high quality anyway? That was 40 years ago.
 
4,453
57
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Andre, that video has been shown on US televisions for decades.
 
It's available on Youtube, without having to log in. So you don't have to be over 18 to view it.
 
728
13
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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 [Broken]
[/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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4,453
57
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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 [Broken]
[/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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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.
 
Last edited:
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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.
 
9
0
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.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Has anyone checked other sources for the film to ensure that what we see here isn't the real hoax?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
4,453
57
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
Gold Member
1,919
1
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.
 
Last edited:
26
0
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_bullet_theory#ABC.27s_The_Kennedy_Assassination:_Beyond_Conspiracy
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Zapruder movie

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
905
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
41K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
135
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
972
Top