The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.

With the anniversary of the assassination at hand the main stream media continues to ignore the evidence of a government conspiracy.
Many posts on ATS are based on Zapruder like it is actual evidence.
There is abundant evidence that Zapruder is a hoax.
Someone needs to step forward to tell the other side of the story.

I will give a brief but convincing example of the hoax. For more evidence google "zapruder film hoax".

Here is Mary Moorman (and Jean Hill (in red)) taking her famous Polaroid
photo as shown in the fake Zapruder frame 300.

Here is the photograph she took.

What is wrong? Moorman was not standing on the grass as shown in the green color under her feet in frame 300. She was standing in the street. She (and Jean Hill) said they had moved to the street to be closer to JFK to take the picture.
Furthermore, this fact was confirmed by a scientific study presented on the Discovery Channel. The two women appear standing on the green grass by photo forgery.

Here is a link to the documentary evidence.
Zapruder Hoax

People who present evidence of the assassination based on the Zapruder film without stating the film is a hoax are guilty of perpetuating the hoax.

Please elaborate on the evidence present in regards to the individuals standing on the street and not on the grass. Are you saying the grainy b/w pic is the evidence ? It could have well been shot from the grass.

On top of that, I strongly believe that each and every aspect of the JFK assassination has been covered in countless ATS threads already.

H1ght3chHippie
Please elaborate on the evidence present in regards to the individuals standing on the street and not on the grass. Are you saying the grainy b/w pic is the evidence ? It could have well been shot from the grass.

On top of that, I strongly believe that each and every aspect of the JFK assassination has been covered in countless ATS threads already.

You did not click on the documenting link and read the evidence, did you?

You had rather I spoon feed it to you?

OK. Both Hill and Moorman stated they were in the street.

Furthermore, the 50th anniversary calls for a renewal of the debate regardless of past threads. You are a bully.

I'm not going to click on a blind link posted by someone who doesn't seem to know what they are talking about....

Zabruder was standing on a cement fence several feet above the street....What is the OP trying to say ?

leostokes

H1ght3chHippie
Please elaborate on the evidence present in regards to the individuals standing on the street and not on the grass. Are you saying the grainy b/w pic is the evidence ? It could have well been shot from the grass.

On top of that, I strongly believe that each and every aspect of the JFK assassination has been covered in countless ATS threads already.

You did not click on the documenting link and read the evidence, did you?

You had rather I spoon feed it to you?

OK. Both Hill and Moorman stated they were in the street.

Furthermore, the 50th anniversary calls for a renewal of the debate regardless of past threads. You are a bully.

edit on 19-11-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

Eyewitness testimony is oftentimes suspect - at best. Memory is faulty. Hell, it even sometimes actively tricks us into believing something that didn't actually happen the way we remember it actually did. This is especially true during and after traumatic events. Even more so when the event is one that was undoubtedly discussed in the immediate aftermath by and around the eyewitness, A LOT.
In addition, I agree with the poster above that the b&w photo could very easily have been shot from the positions indicated in the "hoax" Zapruder frame. It would depend on the lens her specific camera used.

Unrelated to the thread... My aunt had a coat just like that supernova-bright red/orange monstrosity worn in the Zapruder frame you posted. My retinas are still crying out in pain from when she used to wear it when she'd visit at Thanksgiving and Christmas.

cathar
I'm not going to click on a blind link posted by someone who doesn't seem to know what they are talking about....

Zabruder was standing on a cement fence several feet above the street....What is the OP trying to say ?

edit on 19-11-2013 by cathar because: (no reason given)

Ha! Touché, Mr. Bully!! ;-)

Oh. And thread-related... Upon closer examination of your Zapruder frame 300 or whatever, who's to say that her holding the camera to her eye in that specific frame is when she actually released the shutter on her camera.
She could have been aiming her shot in that frame, then took it later. Hell, she could have even aimed (what your frame 300 shows), moved closer to the street and then took the photo.
In fact, it kinda looks like that's what happened when you look at the b&w shot in comparison to frame 300. The angle of the car is off and the mounted police officer looks to be at such an angle between her and the car that "some" time has passed between seeing her in frame 300 and when she took the pic.
So, anyway, that's one more possible hole in the hoax theory based on these images. And it took all of what? 5 minutes?

reply to post by leostokes


I'm sorry, but how does a polaroid of a US President being shot (in the head) which by the way DOES coincide with the Zapruder film prove a HOAX?

I did click on the link, but all they do is discuss how the frame 300 from the Zapruder film looks different then what those women took. There was nothing there that really proves anything except that the women's memory of that day may have been off.


Lets look at the basic facts of what you're presenting:
* A filmed event takes place (which is claimed to be faked)
* A picture of the event is also taken of this event (which is being used to prove that the film is fake)
* The events shown in the film, and the events shown in the picture match up.
* The events captured in the picture are shown being taken by the film.
* The film being taken is shown in the captured picture.

Do you see the problem here?

Sorry, but the whole idea the Zapruder film was/is a hoax based on frame 300 is a crock. Assumes that the picture in question was taken at the same time. I do not recall where any concrete evidence has been presented supporting such a claim.

may be my eyes, but it looks like they are about a foot away from the edge of the grass and the pavement. Are you saying the Zapruda film is a hoax because of a foot? They can remember to a foot where they were standing? Sorry OP, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me

totallackey
Sorry, but the whole idea the Zapruder film was/is a hoax based on frame 300 is a crock. Assumes that the picture in question was taken at the same time. I do not recall where any concrete evidence has been presented supporting such a claim.

The hoax idea is not based on frame 300.

You did not google "zapruder film hoax" did you?

expatwhite
may be my eyes, but it looks like they are about a foot away from the edge of the grass and the pavement. Are you saying the Zapruda film is a hoax because of a foot? They can remember to a foot where they were standing? Sorry OP, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me

As the limo approached Hill and Moorman, they both ran into the street to get a closer picture. They both have said this. Therefore, the Zapruder frame 300, which shows the limo passing Hill and Moorman, should show them standing in the street.

There was nothing there that really proves anything except that the women's memory of that day may have been off.

reply to post by Guyfriday

You take a picture of a scene and mark the floor where you stood. Then analyze the picture by taking measurements on the photograph itself of fixed items in the scene for reference. You can scale up these photo numbers to the same reference points in the actual physical scene itself. From this analysis you can return to the mark on the floor.

That is, you can compute from data in the photo the spot from which it was taken.

When this was done by the Discovery Channel study, the result confirmed that Hill and Moorman were in the street as they said.

reply to post by 35Foxtrot

It would depend on the lens her specific camera used.

Well if you read the PDF in the link you will learn for yourself without my having to tell you that the Discovery Channel study took into account the lens and focus of Moorman's Polaroid camera.

reply to post by leostokes




Since from where she was standing in Zapruder shows no motorcycle policeman to the cars' right, the polaroid picture must have been taken a half second or so later, and if they were moving towards the street then they might have remembered it as being in the street (although in Zapruder neither of them seem to be moving, judging on foot positions, postures, and muscle movement). In frame 300 she's aiming the camera but hasn't yet taken the picture.

More importantly, she did capture the time traveler in the bubble who really killed JFK. Often mistaken as a motorcycle policeman on the cars' left, the time-warp egg in which the time traveler traveled (if a woodchuck could chuck wood) lasted for but a ferminanosecond, just enough time to get the shot off. The only reason she was able to capture the time-warp on film was the neon orange coat of her companion, which reflects time and space, thus reflecting the killer's mode of transportation into the lens of the camera.

leostokes
reply to post by 35Foxtrot

 

It would depend on the lens her specific camera used.

Well if you read the PDF in the link you will learn for yourself without my having to tell you that the Discovery Channel study took into account the lens and focus of Moorman's Polaroid camera.

OK. Even if I give you that point, I notice that you conveniently avoided responding to any of my other assertions. Hmmm.

reply to post by leostokes


So what was Zapruder's film supposed to hoax ? A murder that it shows ? Two women standing on the lawn or the street ? (btw. agree with previous posters. Memory is faulty...if they said they were on the street...I wouldn't put much credence to that, certainly not make a conspiracy of it).

The film simply deals with the moment of assassination...no politics, no conspiracy...just the scene. At least, the important part.

So tell me...let's say you are right...and the film is a hoax...to what end ? What does it hide/show that you feel didn't happen or did ?

35Foxtrot

leostokes
reply to post by 35Foxtrot

 

It would depend on the lens her specific camera used.

Well if you read the PDF in the link you will learn for yourself without my having to tell you that the Discovery Channel study took into account the lens and focus of Moorman's Polaroid camera.

OK. Even if I give you that point, I notice that you conveniently avoided responding to any of my other assertions. Hmmm.

Sorry if I missed it. Ask again.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

So tell me...let's say you are right...and the film is a hoax...to what end ? What does it hide/show that you feel didn't happen or did ?

Well numerous things.

The first thing is this. Many eye witnesses say that the limo came to an almost complete stop. After shots were fired. It was at its slowest point when the fatal shot exploded JFK's head. That is evidence that the Secret Service was involved (which implies a conspiracy). The Secret Service thereby gave the shooters the best target to complete the job. The film was altered to show the limo always moving.

The red blob was painted in. Also the spray of the blood was added.
The frames with the red blob on the right side of JFK's head and the blood spray were done to try to hide the fact that the fatal last shot(s?) came from the front. And to support the lone shooter in the rear. That is why the painted blood appears to spray forward. The real spray went backwards.

The alterations were intended to hide the conspiracy.

leostokes

35Foxtrot

leostokes
reply to post by 35Foxtrot

 

It would depend on the lens her specific camera used.

Well if you read the PDF in the link you will learn for yourself without my having to tell you that the Discovery Channel study took into account the lens and focus of Moorman's Polaroid camera.

OK. Even if I give you that point, I notice that you conveniently avoided responding to any of my other assertions. Hmmm.

Sorry if I missed it. Ask again.

Unbelievable.

reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? My posts stand. re-read 'em if you want.
But, you won't. Because then you'd have to address the ideas that eyewitness testimony is flawed, that frame 300 could show a point in time OTHER than when she actually released the shutter on her camera, that the b&w photo could be one of several taken at or around that time, that frame 300 could show the woman before she MOVED to take that specific photo....and on and on and on.
But why am I bothering? You could have simply re-read my posts and addressed those points. That you didn't do so (after berating me and others who supposedly didn't click on the source you linked before taking issue with your conclusion) speaks VOLUMES.

35Foxtrot

leostokes

35Foxtrot

leostokes
reply to post by 35Foxtrot

 

It would depend on the lens her specific camera used.

Well if you read the PDF in the link you will learn for yourself without my having to tell you that the Discovery Channel study took into account the lens and focus of Moorman's Polaroid camera.

OK. Even if I give you that point, I notice that you conveniently avoided responding to any of my other assertions. Hmmm.

Sorry if I missed it. Ask again.

Unbelievable.

reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? My posts stand. re-read 'em if you want.
But, you won't. Because then you'd have to address the ideas that eyewitness testimony is flawed, that frame 300 could show a point in time OTHER than when she actually released the shutter on her camera, that the b&w photo could be one of several taken at or around that time, that frame 300 could show the woman before she MOVED to take that specific photo....and on and on and on.
But why am I bothering? You could have simply re-read my posts and addressed those points. That you didn't do so (after berating me and others who supposedly didn't click on the source you linked before taking issue with your conclusion) speaks VOLUMES.

edit on 19/11/13 by 35Foxtrot because: (no reason given)

You take a picture of a scene and mark the floor where you stood. Then analyze the picture by taking measurements on the photograph itself of fixed items in the scene for reference. You can scale up these photo numbers to the same reference points in the actual physical scene itself. From this analysis you can return to the mark on the floor.

That is, you can compute from data in the photo the spot from which it was taken.

When this was done by the Discovery Channel study, the result confirmed that Hill and Moorman were in the street as they said.

Scientific evidence is my strong suit.

As the limo approached Hill and Moorman, they both ran into the street to get a closer picture. They both have said this. Therefore, the Zapruder frame 300, which shows the limo passing Hill and Moorman, should show them standing in the street.

Have you noticed that these answers that I give to you were already given above. Did you miss them?