The Zapruder Film

[Frenchy]

Anyone think the Zapruder film is fake?Watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5rqf7pf-6wComments please

[katisha]

I don't know, Frenchy - the whole thing's so blurry and I don't know enough about the technical side (ie how they would have done the fakery) to know if what the narrator is saying is true.I'd raise a couple of points:1. Could the anomolies be from the damage that was caused in the laboratory when they made the first 'second generation' copies? I read somewhere that a couple of frames were spoilt and they just roughly spliced together the ones on either side of the ruined ones.2. The lamp post 'proof' doesn't convince me at all. Neither Zapruder, the lamp post nor the backgound was moving, so surely the 'line' connecting them would stay constant: why say the lamp post should have moved in relation to the background? I don't get that at all.Not dissing the theory out-of-hand (like I said, I don't know enough about the technicalities), and thanks for finding and posting it. Very interesting.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

katisha wrote:I don't know, Frenchy - the whole thing's so blurry and I don't know enough about the technical side (ie how they would have done the fakery) to know if what the narrator is saying is true.I'd raise a couple of points:1. Could the anomolies be from the damage that was caused in the laboratory when they made the first 'second generation' copies? I read somewhere that a couple of frames were spoilt and they just roughly spliced together the ones on either side of the ruined ones.2. The lamp post 'proof' doesn't convince me at all. Neither Zapruder, the lamp post nor the backgound was moving, so surely the 'line' connecting them would stay constant: why say the lamp post should have moved in relation to the background? I don't get that at all.Not dissing the theory out-of-hand (like I said, I don't know enough about the technicalities), and thanks for finding and posting it. Very interesting.Those are very good questions. Can anyone help explain it to us? I'm not poo-pooing the notion either. I just don't know what to look for either.

[Frenchy]

Try this one folkshttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6264396057713515921

[katisha]

An hour's worth? You've got more time on your hands than I have, Frenchy. I'll wait and see what others think about the one you originally posted.

[Frenchy]

Its well worth watching

[tom jeffers]

i have no doubt in my mind that the z film has bee altered. i think wim disagrees but if you study the chain of posession as well astestimonies of those who have seen the original unaltered you will understand my belief. the lw of phisics cease to exist in that car. it appears to speed forward as everone's head jerks forward as if the car breaked suddenly. there are glass panels attached to the front seat in front of the connelys and you can clearly see thir heads hit the glass and fall downward as the car appears to go forward.in fact i will go so far as to say that zapruder was placed there specifically to record the event with that specific camera so that it could be used later to support the lone gunman theory

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Frenchy wrote:Anyone think the Zapruder film is fake?Watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5rqf7pf-6wComments pleaseWell, I automatically had a problem with the narrator initially saying that certain bystanders were looking behind the presidential limosine when the limosine had already passed them. Um...there WERE a lot of other vehicles in the motorcade, and VP Johnson was only a couple of cars BEHIND JKF's car, so naturally they'd be looking behind JFK's car too. Then there's the issue about the bystanders being large by comparison? I didn't see that at all. I saw a large man standing on the grass, but he didn't change shape or size.Then there's the example of a man's legs supposedly being together then apart a split second later. I saw blury footage that made it LOOK like his legs were together initially. Then he says that Conally and his wife were thrown to the floor by the limo stopping. I saw Conally collapsing downward into his wife's lap because he was SHOT. LOLThe analysis in that link seems to be trying to call into question the timing of the Zapruder film, which kind of bothers me except for the fact that the narrator implies that the film may have been altered to conceal Secret Service cooperation in the assassination.The Zapruder film established a definitive timeline on the assassination making it possible to only justify THREE shots from the Oswald rifle. It's because of the Zapruder film that the Warren Commission could only justify three shots and three shots only because there was no TIME for Oswald to have possibly fired a fourth shot. Without the Zapruder film timeline, it could be argued that Oswald fired MORE than three shots, negating the necessitiy of the magic bullet theory.I'm wondering if the people who put this analysis out there are just trying to muddy the waters...you know...call into question the Zapruder film itself to negate its evidentiary value. It's something to consider. Here's another question. If they did all of that fancy alteration of it, why didn't they just alter it to look like JFK's head went FORWARD! LOL

[tom jeffers]

there was only so much you could do back then and still make the film seem legit