The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.

leostokes

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?

edit on 19-11-2013 by leostokes because: add quotes

What?! How does positional analysis of where she is when she took the picture prove the Zapruder film a hoax? I've listed several ways that frame 300 could be a true an accurate representation of what happened while, simultaneously, the photo you posted taken by the woman eyewitness could be just as true and accurate.
There IS a difference between scientific evidence and RELEVENT scientific evidence, but maybe that's NOT your strong point?
If you feel that strongly that you need to be right about this - enough so that you ignore any logical explanations and keep repeating irrelevant data points - OK, you win. You're right.

"I picked the wrong week to stop sniffin' glue..."

reply to post by 35Foxtrot

that the b&w photo could be one of several taken at or around that time

Do you know that the polaroid camera produces paper pictures that roll out moments after the shutter closes?
Moorman had time for only one picture.

reply to post by 35Foxtrot

What?! How does positional analysis of where she is when she took the picture prove the Zapruder film a hoax?

The scientific analysis by projective geometry proves she was standing in the street.

I feel sorry for the OP, not because of the topic presented, but the mindless attacks on him that follow immediately by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

The Zapfruder film has been proven heavily edited, on many occasions, through many different scientific approaches, of which this is only one. If you research the topic you would know that and you would be hard-pressed to defend the film as being original and unaltered.

Apart from the anomaly presented in this thread, there are many eye witness testimonies claiming that the limousine came to a complete stop, during which shots were heard fired. The Zapfruder film is edited so, that the limousine never stops. That alone should sound all alarm bells for an honest investigator of the topic.

There are many more anomalies and inconsistencies, that I invite you to research for yourself.

RationalDespair
I feel sorry for the OP, not because of the topic presented, but the mindless attacks on him that follow immediately by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

The Zapfruder film has been proven heavily edited, on many occasions, through many different scientific approaches, of which this is only one. If you research the topic you would know that and you would be hard-pressed to defend the film as being original and unaltered.

Apart from the anomaly presented in this thread, there are many eye witness testimonies claiming that the limousine came to a complete stop, during which shots were heard fired. The Zapfruder film is edited so, that the limousine never stops. That alone should sound all alarm bells for an honest investigator of the topic.

There are many more anomalies and inconsistencies, that I invite you to research for yourself.

You are a gentleman and a scholar.

I am a teacher. In every class there are slow students. Patience is required.

reply to post by Aleister

In frame 300 she's aiming the camera but hasn't yet taken the picture.

It does appear that she has yet to snap the shutter. Maybe frame 301 would make a better example

leostokes
reply to post by 35Foxtrot

 

that the b&w photo could be one of several taken at or around that time

Do you know that the polaroid camera produces paper pictures that roll out moments after the shutter closes?
Moorman had time for only one picture.

You do know that one is able to take multiple pictures with a "polaroid-type" camera? Depending on the model, they either stack up or fall out if you fail to have the manual dexterity to remove it yourself. All this goes back to the one point you keep dodging (and not just from me). Eyewitness testimony is severely FLAWED. This woman claims she took that specific picture (not one a second later or before) from a certain position. She claims that specific picture is the only one she took (I'm assuming that based on your fixating on that "fact"). I'm simply claiming she may be mistaken as are many eyewitnesses everyday.
Look, maybe there is some conspiracy concerning the assassination of JFK. Maybe there are edits to the Zapruder film. Based on some stuff I've read, I'm pretty sure there are problems with taking the Zapruder film at face value.
All I'm saying is that this specific claim presented in this specific thread is pretty flimsy.

Now feel free to tell me how slow I am again.

Douche.

35Foxtrot

leostokes
reply to post by 35Foxtrot

 

that the b&w photo could be one of several taken at or around that time

Do you know that the polaroid camera produces paper pictures that roll out moments after the shutter closes?
Moorman had time for only one picture.

You do know that one is able to take multiple pictures with a "polaroid-type" camera? Depending on the model, they either stack up or fall out if you fail to have the manual dexterity to remove it yourself. All this goes back to the one point you keep dodging (and not just from me). Eyewitness testimony is severely FLAWED. This woman claims she took that specific picture (not one a second later or before) from a certain position. She claims that specific picture is the only one she took (I'm assuming that based on your fixating on that "fact"). I'm simply claiming she may be mistaken as are many eyewitnesses everyday.
Look, maybe there is some conspiracy concerning the assassination of JFK. Maybe there are edits to the Zapruder film. Based on some stuff I've read, I'm pretty sure there are problems with taking the Zapruder film at face value.
All I'm saying is that this specific claim presented in this specific thread is pretty flimsy.

Now feel free to tell me how slow I am again.

Douche.

We all know that eye witness testimony is shaky. That is why we look for scientific evidence to test it. This Discovery Channel study concludes that the scientific evidence supports the witness testimony in this case.

Is this a dodge to your question about eye witness testimony?

reply to post by Aleister

More importantly, she did capture the time traveler in the bubble who really killed JFK.

Moorman gave her photo to the FBI. They returned it with a bubble added.

reply to post by leostokes


Ok.

But do you feel that we (or someone) had the technology to pull off that kind of a HOAX on a low grade, ancient video tech, without anyone today...with all the equipment, noticing it. Have you seen films from the 60's ? I mean the hollywood films. Special effects are rather poor and often very visible.

I sincerely doubt that anyone would be able to edit it in the 60's in a way you claim it was tampered with...without this tempering being very visible. Especially with today's tech.

I could be wrong of course. There were many eyewitnesses that day...anyone editing the video would have to be sure that no other videos or shots counter his editing. It would be very dangerous.

reply to post by leostokes

Yeah, a peculiarity is there for sure.

In the original black and white frame we can decipher a motorbike cop and the secret service dude, who are not in the frame during the Zapruder image.

The position of JFK's head in Jackie's arms remains consistent though, doesn't it?

I don't reckon the two images were synchronized;

The hubub with panic didn't set in until after the head shot, which just occurred in the black and white image? Milliseconds I'd say; the sound of gunshots would startle me into pressing the capture button too.

Also, how would the motorbike cop fit in the photo if the image was taken from curbside, is that 400 speed film she used? Depth perception is hard to judge. In the Zapruder image, I'd guess that the woman is about 18 inches away from the curbside...

In her image, there are no markers to determine how far into the roadway she stepped, but the bike and serviceman are blurred pretty good.

Synching the two images would lend a more accurate assessment, IMOHO

reply to post by leostokes


although they did have techniques to edit film back then they were not sophisticated enough to alter all that would have needed to be done in order to do what is claimed.

you might want to go look at some more stills and films.
here is one i bet you never saw before.

here is The Marie Muchmore film, looped on the head shot. notice that it shows Mary Moorman and Jean Hill standing in the exact same place as the zapruder film.



now knowing the techniques used back then, there is noway they could have taken every film and matched them to show the same basic event. to many things that would have to be taken in account.

just one that i see immediately, is the shadows on the street. if the women were in the street, their shadows would be there just as the cops is on the motorcycle the rides in front them of the is. if you look at the z film you see their shadows on the grass. just where it would have been. itf they would have tried to airbrush the film i think that there would have been no way to match the curb through all the frames.

ETA: if you look at her arms( Moorman in black) during the first 4 secs. you see her arms coming down, i say she had just taken the picture she gave the FBI.

reply to post by leostokes


Actually what it shows is that the two women were by the street (which is what all the pictures and other film shows as well)

After seeing the Marie Muchmore film it's even harder to say that the Zapruder film is faked. Now (in this thread alone) we have three different points of reference all that show the exact same event.
* The Zapruder Film
* The Marie Muchmore Film
* The Hill and Moorman Photograph

The analysis of the Hill and Moorman Photograph doesn't seem to dispute anything other then what these two women remember is faulty (which is to be expected during a shocking event like this)

***POINT TO PONDER***

It's the same issue with people saying that the car slowed down/stopped at the point where JFK was shot. An event happened before their eye's which was unexpected and horrific. When these types of events happen the level of detail remembered will make the event seem like it's running in slow motion (this causes a person to believe things like items slowing down or even stopping) Ask any IED victim to recall how long it took them to escape a damaged vehicle, then ask others vets that where there how long it took the victim to escape. You'll see a difference in the duration of perceived time between the two stories.

If the Z film had been edited, I would think it would only be to make it palatable to TV audiences (i.e. changing the color of his blood from red to black). While color televisions were rare at that time, Ma and Pa American didn't need little Johnny and Sally American seeing their beloved King of Camelot's brains getting a tan.

The fact remains that he was killed that day and if a few feet of celluloid was tampered with doesn't change that. The world changed that day in those meager seconds and we have it recorded for 'posterity'.

The how at this point doesn't matter, but the whom and why are still very important. Who had the most to benefit with the President o.d.'ed on lead supplements? What happened in the following years that he may have opposed/prevented?

here is another shot from the nix film. not real good quality but if you look to the right edge, you can see Hill and Moorman in black and red just on the edge of the curb just like the z film and muchmoore

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by leostokes

 

although they did have techniques to edit film back then they were not sophisticated enough to alter all that would have needed to be done in order to do what is claimed.

you might want to go look at some more stills and films.
here is one i bet you never saw before.

here is The Marie Muchmore film, looped on the head shot. notice that it shows Mary Moorman and Jean Hill standing in the exact same place as the zapruder film.

now knowing the techniques used back then, there is noway they could have taken every film and matched them to show the same basic event. to many things that would have to be taken in account.

just one that i see immediately, is the shadows on the street. if the women were in the street, their shadows would be there just as the cops is on the motorcycle the rides in front them of the is. if you look at the z film you see their shadows on the grass. just where it would have been. itf they would have tried to airbrush the film i think that there would have been no way to match the curb through all the frames.

ETA: if you look at her arms( Moorman in black) during the first 4 secs. you see her arms coming down, i say she had just taken the picture she gave the FBI.

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

Your comments are interesting.

Yes you do see Moorman's arms coming down.

But where are the shadows of Moorman and Hill? We do not see them. If they were on the grass we would see their shadows on the grass would we not. The absence of the shadows is evidence they were in the street. In the Muchmore film (without the loop) you see a figure to the right of Moorman and Hill. This figure is a woman standing on the grass along with her shadow.

The level of the street is a step down from the grass which hides their shadows in the lower level street.

Whatever the level of the film technology in those days, the conspirators had access to the highest level.

As for synchronization of Zapruder with all the others, the Zapruder film was kept from the public for nearly 6 years. Plenty of time to sync with the others.

Modern computer technology supports the hoax. For example the pin cushion effect. The Stemmons Freeway sign (that is the back of it) in zapruder shows no pin cushion effect while the objects in the background do show the pin cushion effect. This is evidence that the sign we see in zapruder was inserted because it does not match the background in this respect. This leads to a new question. Why insert the new image?

Because there was a bullet hole in the sign.

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by leostokes

 

Ok.

But do you feel that we (or someone) had the technology to pull off that kind of a HOAX on a low grade, ancient video tech, without anyone today...with all the equipment, noticing it. Have you seen films from the 60's ? I mean the hollywood films. Special effects are rather poor and often very visible.

I sincerely doubt that anyone would be able to edit it in the 60's in a way you claim it was tampered with...without this tempering being very visible. Especially with today's tech.

I could be wrong of course. There were many eyewitnesses that day...anyone editing the video would have to be sure that no other videos or shots counter his editing. It would be very dangerous.

Below is a quote from my reply to hounddoghowlie. The pin cushion effect is not consistent in Zapruder. Some objects have it while others do not. This difference was discovered with modern computer technology.

Whatever the level of the film technology in those days, the conspirators had access to the highest level.

As for synchronization of Zapruder with all the others, the Zapruder film was kept from the public for nearly 6 years. Plenty of time to sync with the others.

Modern computer technology supports the hoax. For example the pin cushion effect. The Stemmons Freeway sign (that is the back of it) in zapruder shows no pin cushion effect while the objects in the background do show the pin cushion effect. This is evidence that the sign we see in zapruder was inserted because it does not match the background in this respect. This leads to a new question. Why insert the new image?

Because there was a bullet hole in the sign.

hounddoghowlie
here is another shot from the nix film. not real good quality but if you look to the right edge, you can see Hill and Moorman in black and red just on the edge of the curb just like the z film and muchmoore

Just on the edge of the curb or standing in the street?

Guyfriday
reply to post by leostokes

 

Actually what it shows is that the two women were by the street (which is what all the pictures and other film shows as well)

After seeing the Marie Muchmore film it's even harder to say that the Zapruder film is faked. Now (in this thread alone) we have three different points of reference all that show the exact same event.
* The Zapruder Film
* The Marie Muchmore Film
* The Hill and Moorman Photograph

The analysis of the Hill and Moorman Photograph doesn't seem to dispute anything other then what these two women remember is faulty (which is to be expected during a shocking event like this)

***POINT TO PONDER***

It's the same issue with people saying that the car slowed down/stopped at the point where JFK was shot. An event happened before their eye's which was unexpected and horrific. When these types of events happen the level of detail remembered will make the event seem like it's running in slow motion (this causes a person to believe things like items slowing down or even stopping) Ask any IED victim to recall how long it took them to escape a damaged vehicle, then ask others vets that where there how long it took the victim to escape. You'll see a difference in the duration of perceived time between the two stories.

I address your issues in my replies to other posters. Please look to my other replies for my answers. The Discovery Channel scientific study supports the assertions of Hill and Moorman that they were in the street.

reply to post by leostokes


So what you're saying is that every film made that day of that event is faked because of a memory issue that two women have of where they were standing (never mind that the issue of a few feet could have something to do with the Discovery Channel trying to make ratings)

Before I leave this thread I'm going to ask;
"Why are you defending this HOAX theory so hard, when all the facts point to the film not being a HOAX?"