JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby lux on November 26th, 2013, 11:45 pm

BTW, 8mm movie film only has sprocket holes along one edge, not both edges as shown in the "HiDef" Z film above.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on April 24th, 2014, 12:52 am

*


MARY MOORMAN & MARIE MUCHMORE
a short / no-nonsense review of some JFK "amateur imagery"

Hey, did you know that the 27-second Zapruder film is not the only imagery (purportedly)depicting the (supposed) murder of JFK in Dealey Plaza? That's right: just like on 9/11, several other "amateur images" slowly emerged, day after day, in the aftermath of the tragic event of 11/22/1963. From Wickedpedia: "Zapruder was not the only person who photographed at least part of the assassination; a total of 32 photographers were in Dealey Plaza." I find it pretty amazing that, 50 years on, NO ONE has seriously looked into these alleged photographers of the event. Why would that be, hmm? What have all those famous JFK investigators been up to - in all these years? Tossing their dickies? Can it possibly be that no one has picked up on the following evidence of arrogant, in-your-face-mockery?

One famous POLAROID was credited to one "Mary Moorman". Mary took one picture of the event. (a still photo)

One famous VIDEO was credited to one "Marie Muchmore". Marie took many more pictures of the event (a video clip).

Let's compare two images credited to MARY and MARIE:

Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE
Image
Yes... Marie caught Mary on film - just as the two of them captured JFK's final breath... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqSEDtDk8gA

Well, let's not get into photo-analyses right now, this is not the point here. Suffice to say that, according to the official tale of the "JFK MURDER in Dealey Plaza", two women named "Mary Moorman" and "Marie Muchmore" captured the above, historical images of the event. They were both in Dealey plaza that tragic day, both were armed with a camera, and both in an ideal position (actually, one Marie behind the other Mary) to snap a shot of one of the most defining instants of our modern history.

...and - I kid you not - both shared the same birthday:

Mary Ann Moorman(born August 5, 1932) was a witness to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. She is best known for her photograph capturing the presidential limousine a fraction of a second after the fatal shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Moorman

"Marie M. Muchmore (born August 5, 1909 – April 26, 1990) was one of the witnesses to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Muchmore


Isn't it just exquisite ? "Mary Moorman & Marie Muchmore" - how very droll... :rolleyes:

Seriously, what are the chances of all these 'coincidinks' occurring in the real world - and in your honest opinion? One in a million / trillion / or zillion? And how much more BS has been "overlooked" - by those famous investigators of the JFK event? Surely, professor Fetzer must know.

In any case, here's what Fetzer's former photo expert friend Jack White had to say about the Mary Moorman Polaroid:


Image

Well, according to Wickedpedia, this is not true. Mary Moorman was called to testify by the Warren Commission, but...

She was called by the Warren Commission to testify, but due to a sprained ankle, she was unable to be questioned. She was never contacted by them again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Moorman


Aw - shucks. Mary Moorman had a sprained ankle - so she couldn't testify... :P


**********************

But there's moooore.

Another guy called "ORVILLE NIX" supposedly also captured the tragic instant of JFK's demise.

Let us compare MARY MOORMAN's Polaroid with a frame from ORVILLE NIX's video :

Image

Now, knowing what consumer-cameras we were told MOORMAN and NIX used, there is no chance whatsoever that the dramatic foreground/ background discrepancies seen here are due to some "focal distorsion" (a well-known optical phenomenon occurring with widely different lenses).

Alleged cameras used by "Mary Moorman" and "Orville Nix":
Polaroid Highlander Model 80A and Keystone Model K-810

ImageImage

The only possible explanation is that the backdrops (used to compose these two 'historical images') were just poorly proportioned by the makers of those image forgeries. Also, it would seem that (as far as I know) no one has ever pointed out - in all of 50 years - the sheer absurdity of there being that many amateur images from Dealey Plaza - several of which depicting the precise instant of "bullet(s) impact(s)". Instead, countless debates have been raging for decades between the 'most prominent JFK researchers', focusing on trivial / irrelevant minutiae of the (officially released) "JFK ASSASSINATION's" photographic record.

It appears that the image-forgery mass-deception methods used for the 9/11/2001 psyop (and its myriad related tall tales and 'remarkable coincidences') were very similar to those used back then, on 11/22/1963. In fact, the endless / exhausting controversies (upheld by leading researchers ) surrounding the photographic record of the JFK event have effectively implanted the popular notion that "there is no serious science behind photo-analysis"... As a case in point, check out this paper : http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_5.htm
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on April 25th, 2014, 1:05 pm

*

Some more observations of mine. Enjoy ! - and draw your own conclusions... :)

Image
Donald Roberdeau's website: http://droberdeau.blogspot.it/2009/08/3 ... on_09.html

Image


Image

*****************************

ps: One has to wonder why Wickedpedia features a 'randomly' cropped version (minus Chaney & Zapruder at right) of the 'all-important / historical "MARY MOORMAN" shot. To crop an image in this way really is senseless - unless it represents 'a problem' for someone...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moorman.jpg

And so does this Nov 19, 2013 Daily Mail article - which is all about the now eighty-year-old Mrs Moorman... who claims she heard Jackie scream from the limo : "My God, he's been shot!" :rolleyes: : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... story.html

Image

"Mary Moorman" (aka as "Mary Ann Krahmer" today):
Image
Scroll down that Daily Mail article to watch a video with our ol' friend Matt Lauer interviewing Mrs Moorman-Krahmer !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby Flabbergasted on April 26th, 2014, 2:43 am

Simon,

I appreciate your analyses very much. In view of the popularity of the topic, conclusive proof of fakery could help the average lone truth seeker steer off the many blind alleys laid out for him by the fetzers and bakers of this world.

The anomalies identified in the JFK-Zapruder piece go to show that media fakery strategies have been pretty much the same for decades (I am tempted to say, for the last hundred years). The importance of this realization can hardly be understated.

For some people, this realization is associated with intense emotional malaise, but I actually find it enheartening and liberating.

Sometimes I think that if it were not for the investigations prompted by the nonsensical 9/11 narrative, it might have taken very much longer to discover the common hallmarks of these psyops, including:

- fabricated "official" stories and images backed up by fabricated "amateur" stories and images released piecemeal over the following years
- scant and inexplicably poor images of key events followed many years later by the same images with "improved resolution"
- insider jokes and sick puns on names
- ad nauseam mind-numbing repetition of absurd official story in the media and schools
- red herrings embedded by design for the suspicious by nature
and so forth...
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby brianv on April 26th, 2014, 4:09 am

Stunning discovery Simon, I can see cups of coffeee being spat out all over spookdom. A certain nutty professor might too be fleeing to a bunker to escape ridicule.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on April 26th, 2014, 9:53 pm

*

"MARY MOORMAN" and her 'historical' JFK photo : a story full of holes

Image
http://www.forensicgenealogy.info/image ... oorman.jpg

I just want to get this out of the way: what credibility has this "Mary Moorman" character? I believe it is important to determine whether this woman may perhaps have been an actress employed to impersonate this "housewife who just happened to snap a (incredibly sharp) Polaroid picture of JFK - just as he was shot a few feet away from her". Judge for yourself - once you have reviewed what follows.

Here's what should be her very first TV interview (on ABC - on 11/22, 1963):
http://video.espresso.repubblica.it/tut ... /1080/1082

In this May 24, 2011 audio interview, she's presented as "a person who took one of the most important and famous pictures of the 20th century". At 14:33 - Mary tells us that when the limo was approaching, her friend Jean Hill (woman in red raincoat - see below images) shouted: "Hey, Mr President, look this way! We want to take a picture!"... Does this account sound credible to you?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.it/2011/05 ... rview.html

Here's probably her very latest TV interview - with Matt Lauer (MSNBC 11/19, 2013):
http://www.today.com/video/today/53593854#53593854
At 6:16, Mary claims to have heard Jackie Kennedy saying: "My God, he's been shot!" (after her picture was snapped). At Matt Lauer's insistence, she emphasizes that she DID indeed hear these words. This, while the motorcade (including several loud/ throbbing, police motorbike engines) was streaming by in front of her - and with the presidential limo proceeding away from her at about 20mph... She then goes on claiming that she "saw JFK's hair jump - but it wasn't his hair, it was part of his head". This, while looking into her camera lens (since she purportedly caught the very moment JFK's head went 'pop'). Is this account credible to you? Or is Mary just making all this up?

Now, as an experienced photographer, let me just make the following point. Here's "Mary Moorman" - as seen in the Zapruder clip:

Image

And here's the Zap clip - at (well, what is supposed to be) normal / actual speed :

Image

Well, I will be blunt: there's is just no way that Mary, an inexperienced photographer armed with a bulky (unfit for sports photography!) Polaroid family-camera - standing only a few feet from that 20mph-drive-by limo - could possibly have captured anything else than a very poor / blurry photograph. Yet, if you scroll up this page, you can check out for yourself the surprisingly sharp picture that Mary Moorman is credited with.

The "Mary Moorman" story is full of holes, it stinks to high heaven - and doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. The mystery remains: WHY have 50 years gone by without ANY JFK researcher (as far as I know) questioning the very legitimacy of the woman introduced that day on TV - on 11/22, 1963 - as "housewife Mary Moorman, alleged author of one of the most important and famous pictures of the 20th century"?

How could possibly a seasoned / veteran photo-expert like (the recently deceased) Jack White completely overlook these 'details' ?
How could possibly a seasoned / veteran JFK-case expert like (the still lively kicking) Jim Fetzer completely overlook these 'details' ?


****

The Polaroid Model 80A: http://www.copweb.be/UsersManual/plcam01.jpg
Model 80A manual > "To avoid fuzzy / blurry pictures, try holding your breath": http://www.copweb.be/UsersManual/plcam09.jpg
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on April 27th, 2014, 4:06 pm

*

The black & white image below (aka "the altgens6 shot") allegedly depicts JFK's motorcade as it enters Elm Street - only seconds prior to the "JFK shooting". The other color image is a frame from the infamous "Zapruder clip".

Image

The sun never lies. <_<

Is there ANY trustworthy photographic material of the event that, reportedly, took place in Dealey Plaza/ DALLAS - on 11/22 1963?

If not, does the entire narrative of this event rely solely on media accounts - and the various, alleged eye-witnesses paraded on radio & TV ?

If so, could it be within the realm of possibility that the 11/22 1963 shooting event in Dealey Plaza never actually took place?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby anonjedi2 on April 27th, 2014, 7:05 pm

Fascinating analysis as always, Simon. It seems to me that not only are the length of the shadows inconsistent in the two images you've illustrated above, but the shadows are also cast in perpendicular directions, no?
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 711
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on April 27th, 2014, 9:05 pm

anonjedi2 wrote:Fascinating analysis as always, Simon. It seems to me that not only are the length of the shadows inconsistent in the two images you've illustrated above, but the shadows are also cast in perpendicular directions, no?


No, anonjedi: the two shadows (which we will call "55%" and "120%", ok?) are oriented in similar North-East directions - as far as I can make out (thanks to this Dealey Plaza map courtesy of Jim Fetzer). The yellow arrows on this map are mine - and roughly mirror /transpose the shadows featured in my above "A SFUNNY DAY IN DALLAS" picture comparison:

Image

But yes, the shadow-orientation is an interesting question - which brings up another potential problem with these two conflicting shadows: see, where I live, the sun never casts shadows pointing in NE-direction at 12:30PM (in November). That would be more like a 2:30PM shadow (or later, actually). But this is just me thinking aloud - let us check this out in a more scientific way, shall we?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby Flabbergasted on April 27th, 2014, 10:24 pm

anonjedi2 wrote:the shadows are also cast in perpendicular directions, no?


I think anonjedi2 is right: "55" and "120" appear to be nearly perpendicular in the SFunny Day comparison.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby lux on April 27th, 2014, 11:10 pm

Here is a solar position calculator. Enter date, time and location and it gives the position of the Sun in the sky.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on April 27th, 2014, 11:18 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:I think anonjedi2 is right: "55" and "120" appear to be nearly perpendicular in the SFunny Day comparison.

Not so, dear Flabbergasted:

The orientation of the two SHADOWS are similar (and have been reasonably correctly accounted for - by the JFK photo-fakery team).

Those SHADOWS' lengths, however, are dramatically inconsistent (as demonstrated by my above 55% versus 120% argument).

We now need to verify if these shadow-orientations are compatible (with the sun's position) as of the reported 12:30PM timeline (when JFK was allegedly shot on Dealey Plaza on 11/22, 1963).


*********
Dear Lux,

Oh yes - I am VERY familiar with the NOAA Solar Position Calculator. In fact, I am using this great resource right now - and will encourage anyone to help me out here. Are those shadows seen in the JFk imagery compatible with a 12:30PM timeline over Dealey Plaza, DALLAS - USA?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby lux on April 28th, 2014, 12:04 am

A while back I spent some time studying shadow angles from various film and still photography from that day using the solar calculator. As I recall the shadows labeled “55” seem about right for that place and time but the longer Zapruder “120” shadows are not correct for Dallas noontime shadows in November or any other month.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on April 28th, 2014, 2:23 am

*

Here is a screenshot from the NOAA SOLAR POSITION CALCULATOR (for November 22, 1963 - at 12:30 PM):
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/

Image

On that day, the sun's angle would have made any shadows point ALMOST due North (or very slightly North-East, to be precise).

Well, this does NOT seem to be consistent with the steep NORTH-EAST shadows featured in the extant JFK imagery:

Image


The shadows featured in the JFK imagery would be more consistent with a 14:30 timeline :

Image

I may be missing something - so please help me out here. I welcome all good research-assistance ! :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

Postby simonshack on May 1st, 2014, 1:17 pm

*

TRUE NORTH AT DEALEY PLAZA ?


I received an e-mail today from Ian Greenhalgh - the most virulent & tireless "shack-basher" over at Jim Fetzer's blog.
He attached the below map, which he claims shows the true direction of North at Dealey Plaza, Dallas:
Image

This is very curious indeed - since Jim Fetzer's Dealey Plaza map (which I found on his own "Assassination.com" website),
shows a very different North direction (the dotted yellow line is mine - just to show what is suggested by Fetzer's N & W white arrows):
Image
source of above image found on Fetzer's website: http://www.assassinationscience.com/und ... d-JFK.html

Clearly, Fetzer and Greenhalgh are in disagreement here. But let's try and use our most modern resource, Google Maps, to see what they have to say about this :
Image
https://maps.google.it/maps?q=dealey+pl ... 2&t=h&z=20

It would appear that Fetzer's map is more accurate than Greenhalgh's. In any case, I don't think the specific point I raised about the angles of the shadows / sun angles featured in the extant JFK imagery can be properly debated over geographical maps (only a 12:30 visit to Dallas on any given November 22 would allow us to verify that). For now, my main point about the sunlight at Dealey Plaza on 11/22 1963 remains the following - which questions the lenghts of the shadows projected in the officially released imagery:

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests