Zapruder Film Conspiracy

[Christopher T. George]

I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc.  It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully.  While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect.  I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all

Time to revive this thread.

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.

I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.

Best regards

Chris George

[David G. Healy]

Christopher T. George wrote:

I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.

___________

I won't be responding in this thread -- responded to the other thread...

DHealy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all

By James Fetzer: No one has suggested that "the whole Zapruder film is a hoax" in the sense that every frame or every image has been faked. The film as a whole is a reconstruction using some authentic footage that was then subjected to the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. Try visiting John Costella's "Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration" on assassinationscience.com and you will have the chance to understand how this was done from the world's leading expert on the film. Try it, you'll like it--unless, of course, you are one of those zealots who cannot abide the very idea, in spite of extensive and varied evidence supporting that conclusion.

Time to revive this thread.

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.

I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.

Best regards

Chris George

Edited February 10, 2008 by Evan Burton
Added bolding to distinguish Jim's reply rather than it appearing as just a repeat of the previous posts with no additional comment

[David G. Healy]

I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all

By James Fetzer: No one has suggested that "the whole Zapruder film is a hoax" in the sense that every frame or every image has been faked. The film as a whole is a reconstruction using some authentic footage that was then subjected to the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. Try visiting John Costella's "Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration" on assassinationscience.com and you will have the chance to understand how this was done from the world's leading expert on the film. Try it, you'll like it--unless, of course, you are one of those zealots who cannot abide the very idea, in spite of extensive and varied evidence supporting that conclusion.

Time to revive this thread.

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.

I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.

Best regards

Chris George

praytell what's this about?

****This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Yesterday, 08:21 PM

Reason for edit: Added bolding to distinguish Jim's reply rather than it appearing as just a repeat of the previous posts with no additional comment***

correct me if I'm wrong, the last post to this thread was nearly 2.5 years ago (mine).... Jim Fetzer posts to this thread yesterday and you edit his post for WHAT reason again? What are you doing, Evan? This your own personal playland? Jim Fetzer have an editor assigned to him on this forum?

Edited February 10, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all

By James Fetzer: No one has suggested that "the whole Zapruder film is a hoax" in the sense that every frame or every image has been faked. The film as a whole is a reconstruction using some authentic footage that was then subjected to the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. Try visiting John Costella's "Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration" on assassinationscience.com and you will have the chance to understand how this was done from the world's leading expert on the film. Try it, you'll like it--unless, of course, you are one of those zealots who cannot abide the very idea, in spite of extensive and varied evidence supporting that conclusion.

Time to revive this thread.

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.

I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.

Best regards

Chris George

praytell what's this about?

****This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Yesterday, 08:21 PM

Reason for edit: Added bolding to distinguish Jim's reply rather than it appearing as just a repeat of the previous posts with no additional comment***

correct me if I'm wrong, the last post to this thread was nearly 2.5 years ago (mine).... Jim Fetzer posts to this thread yesterday and you edit his post for WHAT reason again? What are you doing, Evan? This your own personal playland? Jim Fetzer have an editor assigned to him on this forum?

How dense are you David? Sheesh!

[David G. Healy]

I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all

By James Fetzer: No one has suggested that "the whole Zapruder film is a hoax" in the sense that every frame or every image has been faked. The film as a whole is a reconstruction using some authentic footage that was then subjected to the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. Try visiting John Costella's "Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration" on assassinationscience.com and you will have the chance to understand how this was done from the world's leading expert on the film. Try it, you'll like it--unless, of course, you are one of those zealots who cannot abide the very idea, in spite of extensive and varied evidence supporting that conclusion.

Time to revive this thread.

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.

I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.

Best regards

Chris George

praytell what's this about?

****This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Yesterday, 08:21 PM

Reason for edit: Added bolding to distinguish Jim's reply rather than it appearing as just a repeat of the previous posts with no additional comment***

correct me if I'm wrong, the last post to this thread was nearly 2.5 years ago (mine).... Jim Fetzer posts to this thread yesterday and you edit his post for WHAT reason again? What are you doing, Evan? This your own personal playland? Jim Fetzer have an editor assigned to him on this forum?

How dense are you David? Sheesh!

have a tough time reading dates and times, too? Or am I moviong too fast for you?

[Craig Lamson]

I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all

By James Fetzer: No one has suggested that "the whole Zapruder film is a hoax" in the sense that every frame or every image has been faked. The film as a whole is a reconstruction using some authentic footage that was then subjected to the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. Try visiting John Costella's "Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration" on assassinationscience.com and you will have the chance to understand how this was done from the world's leading expert on the film. Try it, you'll like it--unless, of course, you are one of those zealots who cannot abide the very idea, in spite of extensive and varied evidence supporting that conclusion.

Time to revive this thread.

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.

I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.

Best regards

Chris George

praytell what's this about?

****This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Yesterday, 08:21 PM

Reason for edit: Added bolding to distinguish Jim's reply rather than it appearing as just a repeat of the previous posts with no additional comment***

correct me if I'm wrong, the last post to this thread was nearly 2.5 years ago (mine).... Jim Fetzer posts to this thread yesterday and you edit his post for WHAT reason again? What are you doing, Evan? This your own personal playland? Jim Fetzer have an editor assigned to him on this forum?

How dense are you David? Sheesh!

have a tough time reading dates and times, too? Or am I moviong too fast for you?

No David I read just fine...you however seem to need some remedial study. Were Evans words too big for you?

"Added bolding to distinguish Jim's reply rather than it appearing as just a repeat of the previous posts with no additional comment"

[Douglas Caddy]

Danny Vasquez posted this on Facebook today:

Abraham Zapruder films the assassination of JFK with his 8mm camera According to Harrison Edward Livingstone in “Killing The Truth”, once Zapruder turns his undeveloped movie film over to the printing lab, copies are immediately duplicated and distributed as follows:
1.
FBI lab
2.
Dallas FBI office
3.
Washington, DC, FBI office
4.
Henry Wade
5.
Dallas Police
6. & 7:
Two copies for the two couples who owned the film lab
8.
Secret Service copy
9.
Somewhere along the line, H.L. Hunt had his copy from the start.“... standard Kodak practice was to punch [a] processing number after the last image on the second side [of the film itself]. If this practice had been followed with the Zapruder film, then a 0183 should have appeared after the motorcade side. None of the remaining numbers (the image of 0183, then punched 0186) coincide with this practice. A review of the intact original home movie side might prove enlightening; unfortunately, it remains unlocated. . . The chain-of-custody affidavits (for reasons unknown) do not mention serial number 0184, which remains a mystery -because it has never been located and because the Kodak lab has no record of any roll of film that would correspond to it (critics have suggested that this was the Hunt copy.)” MIDP The chain of possession of Zapruder’s film, following the assassination, has been seriously questioned by a great many researchers. Homer McMahon, head of the color lab at the National Photographic Interpretation Center describes receiving the film from a Secret Service agent who flies it to Rochester for development before bringing it to the NPIC. McMahon’s recollections will be corroborated by one of his assistants, Bennett Hunter, who will also be eventually interviewed by the ARRB. As best as these two men recall, they receive the film on the weekend immediately after the assassination. McMahon recalls seeing the film porjected at least 10 times that night. It is his opinion, based on this viewing, the JFK was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, but the Secret Service agent tells McMahon that there were just three shots, and that these all came from the Book Depository. McMahon and his assistant are told to keep their work secret and are phohibited even from telling their supervisors (who are not present.) More recently,

William Reymond:
, a French journalist, claims to have seen a different film in France, which may be either H. L. Hunt’s copy or a descendant of it. Was the original switched at the Jamieson laboratory for a copy and then given to the Secret Service for transportation to Rochester that same evening?