JFK Zapruder: a proven fake

[truthseeker]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

Even in 63 the media or ?

Were fooling with us.

[CryptoAnarchist]

I'm interested to hear how the perps are gonna respond to the lampost not moving against the background.

[lux]

Neither does the sign, the trees, the bystanders or any other stationary object. Why should they move against the background? They would only appear to move against he background if the camera position moved but it doesn't -- it only pans left to right from the same position.

[CryptoAnarchist]

Neither does the sign, the trees, the bystanders or any other stationary object. Why should they move against the background? They would only appear to move against he background if the camera position moved but it doesn't -- it only pans left to right from the same position.

good point...but not entirely accurate. The cameraman didn't move, but the actual lens moved from side to side. Not enough to make any difference? Do an experiment: go outside and look at something about 15 feet away against something 30-45 feet away and just move your head from side to side. There is a definite perspective change.

[lux]

Neither does the sign, the trees, the bystanders or any other stationary object. Why should they move against the background? They would only appear to move against he background if the camera position moved but it doesn't -- it only pans left to right from the same position.

good point...but not entirely accurate. The cameraman didn't move, but the actual lens moved from side to side. Not enough to make any difference? Do an experiment: go outside and look at something about 15 feet away against something 30-45 feet away and just move your head from side to side. There is a definite perspective change.

Sorry, but a camera lens and a head with 2 eyes (and thus stereo, 3D vision) are not directly analogous. Panning a motion picture camera alone won't cause foreground objects to appear to move appreciably in relation to the background unless, perhaps, an extreme wide-angle lens is being used which is not the case here.

You also sort of skipped over the fact that none of the other stationary object (the sign, etc) appear to move either (nor should they).

I'm not saying the film wasn't altered. There's plenty of evidence for that. It's just that the unmoving lamp pole isn't part of it.

[CryptoAnarchist]

Neither does the sign, the trees, the bystanders or any other stationary object. Why should they move against the background? They would only appear to move against he background if the camera position moved but it doesn't -- it only pans left to right from the same position.

good point...but not entirely accurate. The cameraman didn't move, but the actual lens moved from side to side. Not enough to make any difference? Do an experiment: go outside and look at something about 15 feet away against something 30-45 feet away and just move your head from side to side. There is a definite perspective change.

Sorry, but a camera lens and a head with 2 eyes (and thus stereo, 3D vision) are not directly analogous. Panning a motion picture camera alone won't cause foreground objects to appear to move appreciably in relation to the background unless, perhaps, an extreme wide-angle lens is being used which is not the case here.

You also sort of skipped over the fact that none of the other stationary object (the sign, etc) appear to move either (nor should they).

I'm not saying the film wasn't altered. There's plenty of evidence for that. It's just that the unmoving lamp pole isn't part of it.

Let me clarify: Do the experiment I said earlier with one eye shut. Your one eye will see the foreground object move against the background object as you move your head from side to side. That's really only a few inches that your eye moves but it makes the closer object move much more in relation to the background. Now figure in that a camera being held by someone would make a wider arc and thus an even bigger perspective change.

[lux]

Let me clarify: Do the experiment I said earlier with one eye shut. Your one eye will see the foreground object move against the background object as you move your head from side to side. That's really only a few inches that your eye moves but it makes the closer object move much more in relation to the background. Now figure in that a camera being held by someone would make a wider arc and thus an even bigger perspective change.

Let me put it this way:

According to your logic ALL the stationary objects in the clip, the trees, the people, the sign -- everything, must be fake because they don't move in relation to the background. Let me re-iterate: ALL the stationary objects. Repeat: ALL OF THEM are fake according to your eyeball experiment logic. Correct?

If not them then please explain why you are picking out the lamppost alone as being fake.

[CryptoAnarchist]

Let me clarify: Do the experiment I said earlier with one eye shut. Your one eye will see the foreground object move against the background object as you move your head from side to side. That's really only a few inches that your eye moves but it makes the closer object move much more in relation to the background. Now figure in that a camera being held by someone would make a wider arc and thus an even bigger perspective change.

Let me put it this way:

According to your logic ALL the stationary objects in the clip, the trees, the people, the sign -- everything, must be fake because they don't move in relation to the background. Let me re-iterate: ALL the stationary objects. Repeat: ALL OF THEM are fake according to your eyeball experiment logic. Correct?

If not them then please explain why you are picking out the lamppost alone as being fake.

C'mon man, really? really? The lamppost is a lot closer than all the other objects that you mentioned, so it is going to move more against the background than the other things you mentioned. C'mon man, "my logic"??? Are you saying you did the experiment I mentioned and you didn't see the changing perspective??

[nonhocapito]

[moved this to the appropriate forum]


Found via google, from http://photobucket.com/images/zapruder%20film/

I don't know if I get the point of the lamppost, but I think there is little doubt that the Zapruder movie was largely manipulated, in order to leave room for a lot of theories, but not for absolute proof. Things were deleted, others were covered up with other objects (such as the street sign). It actually gives me more reason to think that there was an original video that contained details of a real event that needed not to be disclosed, rather than imagining it to be entirely faked to being with.

[hoi.polloi]

There's also a couple (in)famous conspiracy theories that are worth at least thinking about

1. "Umbrella man" who apparently moves to signal shots at some kind of significant points. If the entire thing was acted, or whether it was real, timing and "orders from the street view" might be necessary. This video alleges that the "umbrella man" theory is all hot air. And since it comes from Oliver Stone's watered-down conspiracy theory, I am inclined to agree:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RUlYJxWE7s

2. It has been alleged that all the people in the background are slightly oversize. This is allegedly due to a post-production editing thing where the entire background was cut out, frame-by-frame, enlarged and moved to obscure details in the original. Either because the details are signs of staging or signs that reveal true conspirators' techniques, it is worth thinking about


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BEsAkXVeVM

[Terence.drew]

no doubt about it...

Connelly & his wife still get violently thrown outta their seats into the footwells - 'emergency stop'.
what the Zapruder film depicts is that the cavalcade is a cutout spliced approx 3 seconds ahead of the background.
the JFK limo is simply 'motion' animated to disguise the 2 seconds dead-stop for the hit to occur, its as plain as day.

Zapruder Fakery: Frame Deletions & Reassignment
The DEFINITIVE Zapruder composite breakdown...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNsrGgyoIgo

JFK FRAMED


WHERE'S JACKIE & JOHN THEN ?
DUNNO ! ...THEY SHOULD BE HERE... ANY MINUTE !!!

If you take the Zap film as being altered footage of the actual event and not as a fake within a fake, it becomes more or less proof that the driver of the limo, William Greer, shot Kennedy. The re-timing of the footage is to hide the abrupt slowing down of the presidents limo and also the deletion of a number of frames showing the driver turning around.

Events.

The limo is coming down the line
Kennedy is shot and raises his hands to his neck his wife leans over to comfort him
Limo jams on the brakes and occupants are thrown forward
Driver turns around quickly and with one hand shoots Kennedy in the head and K is jolted backwards from impact.
Limo speeds off

Just as K head explodes the driver makes a super human move turning 180 degrees in 1/18 (super 8 film) of a sec. i.e. deletion of his movements.

If this is what actually happened it is A+ assassination technique as the whole blarney surrounding the shooting focused on everywhere except within the car - which was the objective.

[hoi.polloi]

It baffles me why the film would be released in the first place.

Patsy Oswald's wife-and-love-of-his-life-in-hiding recently (well, allegedly) gave an interview with Coast to Coast. If I recall correctly, Lee knew he was being set up and was being surrounded by CIA people who claimed to be friendly. And she indicates/hints it was the Praetorian Guard of the President that did the actual shootings to make sure he was quite dead. If that story is believable, then the driver - who would be in the same ranks - is a necessary culprit.

I cannot rule out that it is a "fake within a fake" though. However if that's so, they made it more unnecessarily detailed, crypto, chopped up and respliced than the weirdest NASA footage.

So it very well could be real images of JFK getting shot. Not sure. The difficulty may be intentional.

It was also JFK who kind of gave way to the military-industrial complex' "Apollo" program. The entire 1960's from the Beatles to Vietnam to Apollo seems to have been a horrible mess for America.

[agraposo]

the driver of the limo, William Greer, shot Kennedy

This theory is developed in the http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/ website, which also speaks extensively on 9/11. Even there is a review of Simon's work: http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/10/grading-new-september-clues.html

See for example http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-of-lesser-doctored-versions-of.html

Does anyone know this blog? It also devotes many pages to the theory of WTC demolition by nukes. I used to read it before discovering SeptemberClues.

[SmokingGunII]

No doubt that the Zapruder film was cut & spliced. No doubt the limo came to a standstill for the final execution.

Personally, I feel the closest theory to the truth is the one that claims the gunshot came from the manhole in the gutter. The angle tallies with the head wound and backwards motion of Kennedy's head. Police and witnesses were looking down at the manhole after the shooting and it led directly out to the river that ran by the bridge we see when the car speeds off.

[Terence.drew]

the driver of the limo, William Greer, shot Kennedy

...dont buy it. ...the 'pistol' is the front passenger spooks' shiny slicked-back brylcream hair...

As difficult as it is to buy there has been a lot of research done on this topic

There is shiny brylcream hair, but why would Greer need to lift a gun that high up to his own jaw line to shoot K? The forehead of brylcream contains a faked reflection to hide something or else this man had a mirror strapped on to his head.


This is from 7forever on ATS site..http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread271559/pg16




Again from 7forever, there are deleted frames around the movement of the driver..he is looking behind and then in one instant he is facing completely forward ... impossible in real life ...frames 318 319 320 ( he has circled what he believes is the gun thrown forward by Greer)




Most damming for Greer is the opposite angle where you can clearly see his left arm travel back and shoot the K..



ET TU, WILL?