The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.

reply to post by leostokes


James Fetzer is a nut and a bit of a sick man. Something in him is compelled to discredit compelling evidence showing the evils of the shadow government.

He ended up doing the same thing with the 9/11 data.

Unwitting devil's advocate, that one.

reply to post by leostokes


In this clip Moorman tells of her experience starting at 1:15.
Maryann Moorman says she was in the street.

Guyfriday
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?"

People disagree. Some say hoax, others no.
"All the facts" is an extreme statement.
Books have been written supporting hoax.
I have presented good evidence here of hoax.

Why are you defending this non-HOAX theory so hard, when all the facts point to the film being a HOAX?

NewAgeMan
reply to post by leostokes

 

James Fetzer is a nut and a bit of a sick man. Something in him is compelled to discredit compelling evidence showing the evils of the shadow government.

He ended up doing the same thing with the 9/11 data.

Unwitting devil's advocate, that one.

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

Personal attacks are usless.

reply to post by leostokes

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.

here are some stills from the Muchnoore and ZAPRUDER film

these first ones are from the z film.



notice how the street #1 appears to be lower than #2 which i will call the bank.
and both of them are lower than # 3 the tree.
i would say that this bank or area where the curb and all the grass is is elevated higher than the street.
i don't think it is a perspective deal where one is further than the other and i will show in the next pictures.



now in this picture if you look at the shadows of the man#3 and boy,#1 you will notice that their shadows tend to roll down towards the street. also if you look at Jean Hill #4, she appears to be about the same distance as the man is from the curb. you will see this in the one of the next shots, that came from your op and one i took.
the woman that you mentioned #2 is there and you can see her shadow.



this picture shows the man #1,Hill#2 Moorman #3 all standing about the same distance from the curb.



in this picture from your op, there are three things to look at. first look at the shadows see how they slope forward and down towards the street. second, if you look behind them you see how the ground seems to dip. this looks as if the banks starts to level off running down the street and dips down behind them. i think this area they are standing in, maybe some sort of drainage for run off, and maybe like a holding pond.
third, look at hill feet and see how far she is from the street. now go back and look at the mans feet in second shot. looks to be the same distance.

this shot comes from the Muchmoore film.



okay, if you look at hill's feet#2 you can only see from the ankle up, if you look at the man's#4 and the boy;s #5 feet you dont even his ankles. this tells me that i was right about the bank, and if you look at the grass leading up to them from behind. it still make me think holding pond.

and did you notice that you cant see moore's , hill's, the man's or the boy's shadow, but you can see the woman's. i think that this also shows that there is a bank and they are standing on the other side of it, or the down side towards the street. and the reason you don't see their shadows is because of the angle of the sun, look at the woman's shadow and see how it starts. to get a idea of what i'm trying to say.

look i have no doubt that some thing was doctored in the film, but in all my posts i think i have shown that these frames are not edited..i just don't think these are edited frames. the technology back in the middle to late sixty's, was little more than cut and splice, cut out & paste,and double exposure when they did this it stuck out like a sore thumb.and when they air brushed to cover up or erase, it showed up just as bad.


people have to be a complete blind fools to think that oswald did all the shootin. he was there, but like he said he was a patsy.
from what i saw in the autopsy photo's, i think that the shot came from the rail road yard parking lot behind the picket fence.

leostokes

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?

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

I am responding to your post. You made a presentation, here at ATS.

Members who are interested in the JFK assassination read these posts.

It seems you believe the Zapruder film is a hoax. In support of this belief, you made the OP.

The OP provides a link. I take it you, the member who made the OP, has already perused the material provided in the link. I also take it you have provided the most salient, thought-provoking, credible, portion of material found within the link, in support of your OP. Why would you do different?

If the material you posted is the strongest support you find for the Zapruder film being a hoax, and it is found within the link you provided, then I am sorry. I can see zero reason to explore the rest of the material if this is the case.

I cannot help it the source material has led you to such a faulty conclusion.

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by leostokes

 

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.

here are some stills from the Muchnoore and ZAPRUDER film

these first ones are from the z film.

notice how the street #1 appears to be lower than #2 which i will call the bank.
and both of them are lower than # 3 the tree.
i would say that this bank or area where the curb and all the grass is is elevated higher than the street.
i don't think it is a perspective deal where one is further than the other and i will show in the next pictures.

now in this picture if you look at the shadows of the man#3 and boy,#1 you will notice that their shadows tend to roll down towards the street. also if you look at Jean Hill #4, she appears to be about the same distance as the man is from the curb. you will see this in the one of the next shots, that came from your op and one i took.
the woman that you mentioned #2 is there and you can see her shadow.

this picture shows the man #1,Hill#2 Moorman #3 all standing about the same distance from the curb.

in this picture from your op, there are three things to look at. first look at the shadows see how they slope forward and down towards the street. second, if you look behind them you see how the ground seems to dip. this looks as if the banks starts to level off running down the street and dips down behind them. i think this area they are standing in, maybe some sort of drainage for run off, and maybe like a holding pond.
third, look at hill feet and see how far she is from the street. now go back and look at the mans feet in second shot. looks to be the same distance.

this shot comes from the Muchmoore film.

okay, if you look at hill's feet#2 you can only see from the ankle up, if you look at the man's#4 and the boy;s #5 feet you dont even his ankles. this tells me that i was right about the bank, and if you look at the grass leading up to them from behind. it still make me think holding pond.

and did you notice that you cant see moore's , hill's, the man's or the boy's shadow, but you can see the woman's. i think that this also shows that there is a bank and they are standing on the other side of it, or the down side towards the street. and the reason you don't see their shadows is because of the angle of the sun, look at the woman's shadow and see how it starts. to get a idea of what i'm trying to say.

look i have no doubt that some thing was doctored in the film, but in all my posts i think i have shown that these frames are not edited..i just don't think these are edited frames. the technology back in the middle to late sixty's, was little more than cut and splice, cut out & paste,and double exposure when they did this it stuck out like a sore thumb.and when they air brushed to cover up or erase, it showed up just as bad.


people have to be a complete blind fools to think that oswald did all the shootin. he was there, but like he said he was a patsy.
from what i saw in the autopsy photo's, i think that the shot came from the rail road yard parking lot behind the picket fence.

edit on 20-11-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your new comments.

In this interview made just after the event, Moorman says she was in the street (1:15).

Mary Moorman says she was in the street.

In this video from youtube we learn that Moorman took 5 photos that day. The 5th one was the limo. The 3rd and 4th were of motorcycle cops. But look at #1 and #2. They took pictures of themselves.
Both were wearing black shoes.
What color are their shoes in Zapruder? White.
The people who doctored the film did not know what color shoes they were wearing. So the doctorers mistakenly guessed white.

Hill and Moorman in black shoes.

reply to post by 35Foxtrot

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.

Moorman states in this interview just after the assassination two things.

She took 5 photos that day. Only the last one was of JFK.

She says that she had to wait 10 seconds between photos.

Moorman 5 photos 10 seconds apart.

reply to post by leostokes


I just want to know why they were out that day in those damned ugly bath robes ?
The two women of course.

And those white socks ? CMON !

reply to post by totallackey

I cannot help it the source material has led you to such a faulty conclusion.

I assume you have read all of the posts in this thread.
I assume you have checked all of my links in this thread.

If my two assumptions are correct and you discount all this evidence, the conclusion is that we do not agree.

Therefore, it is up to the interested readers of this thread to make up their own minds.

leostokes

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by leostokes

 

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.

here are some stills from the Muchnoore and ZAPRUDER film

these first ones are from the z film.

notice how the street #1 appears to be lower than #2 which i will call the bank.
and both of them are lower than # 3 the tree.
i would say that this bank or area where the curb and all the grass is is elevated higher than the street.
i don't think it is a perspective deal where one is further than the other and i will show in the next pictures.

now in this picture if you look at the shadows of the man#3 and boy,#1 you will notice that their shadows tend to roll down towards the street. also if you look at Jean Hill #4, she appears to be about the same distance as the man is from the curb. you will see this in the one of the next shots, that came from your op and one i took.
the woman that you mentioned #2 is there and you can see her shadow.

this picture shows the man #1,Hill#2 Moorman #3 all standing about the same distance from the curb.

in this picture from your op, there are three things to look at. first look at the shadows see how they slope forward and down towards the street. second, if you look behind them you see how the ground seems to dip. this looks as if the banks starts to level off running down the street and dips down behind them. i think this area they are standing in, maybe some sort of drainage for run off, and maybe like a holding pond.
third, look at hill feet and see how far she is from the street. now go back and look at the mans feet in second shot. looks to be the same distance.
this shot comes from the Muchmoore film.

okay, if you look at hill's feet#2 you can only see from the ankle up, if you look at the man's#4 and the boy;s #5 feet you dont even his ankles. this tells me that i was right about the bank, and if you look at the grass leading up to them from behind. it still make me think holding pond.
and did you notice that you cant see moore's , hill's, the man's or the boy's shadow, but you can see the woman's. i think that this also shows that there is a bank and they are standing on the other side of it, or the down side towards the street. and the reason you don't see their shadows is because of the angle of the sun, look at the woman's shadow and see how it starts. to get a idea of what i'm trying to say.
look i have no doubt that some thing was doctored in the film, but in all my posts i think i have shown that these frames are not edited..i just don't think these are edited frames. the technology back in the middle to late sixty's, was little more than cut and splice, cut out & paste,and double exposure when they did this it stuck out like a sore thumb.and when they air brushed to cover up or erase, it showed up just as bad.
people have to be a complete blind fools to think that oswald did all the shootin. he was there, but like he said he was a patsy.
from what i saw in the autopsy photo's, i think that the shot came from the rail road yard parking lot behind the picket fence.

edit on 20-11-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your new comments.
In this interview made just after the event, Moorman says she was in the street (1:15).
Mary Moorman says she was in the street.
In this video from youtube we learn that Moorman took 5 photos that day. The 5th one was the limo. The 3rd and 4th were of motorcycle cops. But look at #1 and #2. They took pictures of themselves.
Both were wearing black shoes.
What color are their shoes in Zapruder? White.
The people who doctored the film did not know what color shoes they were wearing. So the doctorers mistakenly guessed white.
Hill and Moorman in black shoes.

i'll do this just one more time.

although i can't provide a rebuttal to her verbal statement, other than to say, that in the excitement she felt at the thought of getting a picture of the President,then the degree of shock that happened in the moment he was shot, she may thought she stepped into the street, or misspoke. hard to say.

i do know this, every film that's out there that shows her on the grass. and i do not believe that the level of sophistication for editing film or photos during that time would be able to do what is claimed.
now to the viewable evidence. once more i'll give you some screen shoots that counter the claims made.

this is from your youtube link, photos 1 and 2


this is a close up i made. 1-3 are mooreman, 4,5 are hill
# 1 is of course her shoes, they appear to be the style that women wore back then that just did cover their toes.
#2 are her socks, two things here. notice how that you see more sock than shoe and her foot looks weird.
#3 is her pants, do you see the space between her sock and the end of the pants leg.
#4 is her ankle
#5 is her shoe, this is not a good shot,but it is all that's available. if you look just above the shoe you see a little white streak, then it appears to be flesh colored. hard to tell inthis black and white photo.


shot from your op.


cropped from the op. you know who is who.
#1 is her right ankle, if you at the inside you see flesh color.
#2 is is what i think to be her shoe. it is kinda hard to tell if it's that or where her shadow starts. also see where her pants legs stops, and if you look just under the line of #2, i would say that looks white to me and i think it's her sock.
#4,5, and 6 they correspond to 1,2, and 3 in the photo she took. if you look at #4 and see how the black comes around to the front and just to the left where her little piggy would be, i say that's her shoe. remember her foot looks weird in her photo and appears weird in this to.

i cropped this one from a z*film on you tube, i didn't know which one you used so i picked one that looked close to your op.
1,2,and 3 again correspond to hers and if you look at #1 just like in the shot above where # 4 is, it looks like her shoe. only in this one you can see it better.
now this is from the op only in black and white, just to match with her photo. all # are the same.

now there is just one more thing.

The people who doctored the film did not know what color shoes they were wearing. So the doctorers mistakenly guessed white.

think about this statement. one of the most important things in editing is attention to detail.
now the people that were supposedly editing this, don't you think that they had to look at the film and decide where to cut it. don't you think they would have made notes, i mean you claim that they had the highest level of technology and skill. yet they fail to make notes and get details wrong that would give away their deception.
please you can't believe that.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Ok. Thanks for your replies which are well thought out and nicely documented.

Several posters like you discount the Hill and Moorman statements that they were in the street. Both women still say emphatically to this day that they were in the street.

As I understand your position on the shoe color, you see black shoes. Others looking at the same pictures see white shoes. We do not agree on this issue. But our disagreement is black and white. :-)

As I understand you say the shadows are absent because they are in a low place in the grass. They could also be absent because they are in the street.

Finally I will say that as I understand your posts, your position is based only on the pictures. I have presented scientific evidence that involves the physics of optics and the mathematics of projective geometry. This scientific study was undertaken precisely to test the women's statements. This evidence supports the witnesses being in the street. That is assuming the Moorman photo itself has not been doctored.

Regards

reply to post by leostokes


Here is a second example of a Zapruder frame that proves the film a hoax.

We have all snapped a picture that was blurred because the camera moved.

If Zapruder pans his camera to follow the limo then two things will happen.

The limo image will be sharp because it is motionless in the camera eye.

The background will be blurred because it is captured with a camera that moves.

On the other hand, if he stops his panning motion two things will also happen.

The background will be sharp and clear while the limo will blur due to its motion through the frame.

Therefore, there will be no image where both the limo and the background are both sharp and clear.

If there is a frame where all is sharp and clear then it could not be from Zapruder’s camera. A clear frame is evidence of hoax.

There are clear frames in Zapruder. Frame 232 is one.



Life Magazine published this picture they said was from the Zapruder film. The date was only two weeks after the assassination. Notice the sharp limo wheels and the key hole under the handle of the passenger door. In the background the tree and its leaves are particularly clear.

It must have been taken with a high quality, high speed still camera to produce this sharp image. How did it become a Zapruder frame? By forgery.

There is an explanation of all the details at this site below. I will refer you to the site rather than attempt an explanation of my own. The expertise shown in the composition of this site is spectacular.

The Zapruder blur mistake in Life Magazine in December, 1963.

randyvs
reply to post by leostokes

 

I just want to know why they were out that day in those damned ugly bath robes ?
The two women of course.

And those white socks ? CMON !

edit on 20-11-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

The weather started out cold and damp. Then it became sunny and warm. They do look dressed inappropriately.

Are those shoes white or are they black?

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)

I am saying that Moorman and Hill were standing in the street. Because at the time both said they were. In later years they have repeated this belief. Furthermore, there are independent studies of a scientific nature that support their statements.

Therefore, the Zapruder "film" showing them in the grass is a hoax.

reply to post by 35Foxtrot

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.

I agree that eye witness testimony is suspect. Therefore it needs corroboration. Testimony from a second witness is corroboration. We have two witnesses who give the same evidence.

It would be even better if we had corroborating scientific evidence. We have it in this case.

All eye witness testimony is suspect. Sometimes, of course, it is correct.

reply to post by 35Foxtrot

Hell, she could have even aimed (what your frame 300 shows), moved closer to the street and then took the photo.

Well if you were more interested in finding the facts than in attacking the OP, you might have checked frames 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, ... for yourself.

Never mind, Ill do it for you.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

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 ?

Well we do not know the level of movie technology of the 60s, do we?

For example, did Life Magazine have the technology to make blurred pictures clear? If your "ancient video tech" did not have this ability, then consider this: clear Zapruder frames prove it a hoax.


Here is a second example of a Zapruder frame that proves the film a hoax.

We have all snapped a picture that was blurred because the camera moved.

If Zapruder pans his camera to follow the limo then two things will happen.

The limo image will be sharp because it is motionless in the camera eye.

The background will be blurred because it is captured with a camera that moves.

On the other hand, if he stops his panning motion two things will also happen.

The background will be sharp and clear while the limo will blur due to its motion through the frame.

Therefore, there will be no image where both the limo and the background are both sharp and clear.

If there is a frame where all is sharp and clear then it could not be from Zapruder’s camera. A clear frame is evidence of hoax.

There are clear frames in Zapruder. Frame 232 is one.

Life Magazine published this picture they said was from the Zapruder film. The date was only two weeks after the assassination. Notice the sharp limo wheels and the key hole under the handle of the passenger door. In the background the tree and its leaves are particularly clear.

It must have been taken with a high quality, high speed still camera to produce this sharp image. How did it become a Zapruder frame? By forgery.

There is an explanation of all the details at this site below. I will refer you to the site rather than attempt an explanation of my own. The expertise shown in the composition of this site is spectacular.
Life Magazine blurr mistake in 1963.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

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.

Sure the editors made mistakes. Moorman and Hill were wearing black shoes.

reply to post by Guyfriday

* The events shown in the film, and the events shown in the picture match up.

No they do not match up.

I will show you the difference.

The Zapruder frame shows the limo (relatively) clear but the background (including Moorman and Hill) blurred.

The Moorman picture also shows the limo clear. But look, it shows the background clear as well.

SUMMARY using the nature of optics: The Moorman picture implies that the limo is stopped. The Zapruder frame implies the limo is in motion.