Jump to content

Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Duncan, I find this a bit puzzling. Jack made measurements, using the height of

the pedestal as a yardstick. It looks to me as though his calculations were made

correctly. Where are your measurements? What is their height in each of these,

as you determine them, and how? I think that you need more to make your case.

Jim,

It's plain to see simply by blowing up each of the stills to the approximate size, that the figures are the same size in all of them.

ZapSitzComp.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

If you are this ignorant about the wounds JFK incurred, then you really need to find other ways to spend your time. Even

Jackie testified that, from the front, he looked just fine, but that she had a hard time holding his brains and skull together

at the back of his head. The eyewitnesses and the Parkland physicians were quite consistent about the wound to the back

of his skull. The mortician reported "large gaping hole in back of head" and "smaller wound in right temple". The wound

can even be seen in late frames of the Zapruder, such as 374. You would know these things if you had read the studies of

the medical evidence in MURDER and HOAX, for example. Your massive lack of knowledge is making you look like a nitwit.

....with the fabrication of the Zapruder, but that is established by the inclusion of events that did not occur--....

(bold mine)

ROFLMAO! You really are a piece of work jimbo....

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are this ignorant about the wounds JFK incurred, then you really need to find other ways to spend your time. Even

Jackie testified that, from the front, he looked just fine, but that she had a hard time holding his brains and skull together

at the back of his head. The eyewitnesses and the Parkland physicians were quite consistent about the wound to the back

of his skull. The mortician reported "large gaping hole in back of head" and "smaller wound in right temple". The wound

can even be seen in late frames of the Zapruder, such as 374. You would know these things if you had read the studies of

the medical evidence in MURDER and HOAX, for example. Your massive lack of knowledge is making you look like a nitwit.

....with the fabrication of the Zapruder, but that is established by the inclusion of events that did not occur--....

(bold mine)

ROFLMAO! You really are a piece of work jimbo....

Roflmao

No Fetzer, the nitwit is YOU! Aside from your massive ignorance of a good part of the work you "pimp", your continued attempts to make your works seem definitive is laughable! And to think you pimp Hoax when you can't (or won't..you choose) even verify the works you choose to publish and "pimp" as so calld fact.

Your speculative publications are not fact jimbo....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha! You are showing off your ignorance again! I didn't say anything about Z film fabrication ... that is your fantasy, not surprisingly unproven (and ridiculous) despite your reams of repetitive graffiti on cyberspace walls.

What it has to do with is basic principles ... doesn't matter what the picture is ... why don't you ask Jack, the photo expert to explain it to you? And if he can, then he can explain to all of us how he can draw lines on photographs taken at different times from different angles by different cameras, with a whole host of other unknowns, and compare the size of a "known" object to objects farther from the camera. And this would be true even if he had NOT used pictures that are so fuzzy and muddy as to make it nothing but a wild assed guess where he chooses to put his lines ... especially those supposedly marking Z's height.

Aside from all that, is it really a foreign concept to you that people bend and move ... especially when taking photographs or panning with a movie camera?

There have been some doozies overs the years, but this latest "proof" has got to be one of the most preposterous profferings yet. The rearch community cringes; they are not laughing with you.

Barb

OK, I'll bite. What are you showing here, Tom? Barb seems to think it has something to do with the fabrication of the Zapruder,

but that is established by the inclusion of events that did not occur--such as the massive blow-out to the right front--and exclusion

of events that did occur--such as Chaney motoring forward or, dare I say it?, Mary stepping into the street. But I thought that I

had explained this many times, so I am baffled that Barb, who should know better, apparently does not.

Jim, you don't have a clue what Tom is showing there! Why do you think this should be in the Moorman thread? LOL!

What he shows are basics that apply to everything ... not just Moorman, and in what he posted, it directly applies to the

Zapruder on the pedestal issue.

Is it any wonder the ridiculousness of the changing heights thesis sounds like a winner to you? Or do you even look at anything Jack White puts in front of you and evaluate it before you promote it?

What Tom has demonstrated is only one of the problems with Jack's "proofs" ... and it is all lost on you because by your reply you revealed you are clueless.

And you want to be taken seriously with your promotion of this kind of nonsense as proof of anything!?

Barb :-)

Tom, These look very interesting, but they belong on a Moorman thread. Please move them there and add some explanation about what you take them to show. Then I and others who care about the Moorman might address them on those threads. Thanks. Jim
Quite difficult to merely "look" at a photographic image without having absolutely precise means of measurement confirmation, and therefore determine if the focal plane was in direct parallel alignment with the true vertical plane of the target/image.

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha! You are showing off your ignorance again! I didn't say anything about Z film fabrication ... that is your fantasy, not surprisingly unproven (and ridiculous) despite your reams of repetitive graffiti on cyberspace walls.

What it has to do with is basic principles ... doesn't matter what the picture is ... why don't you ask Jack, the photo expert to explain it to you? And if he can, then he can explain to all of us how he can draw lines on photographs taken at different times from different angles by different cameras, with a whole host of other unknowns, and compare the size of a "known" object to objects farther from the camera. And this would be true even if he had NOT used pictures that are so fuzzy and muddy as to make it nothing but a wild assed guess where he chooses to put his lines ... especially those supposedly marking Z's height.

Aside from all that, is it really a foreign concept to you that people bend and move ... especially when taking photographs or panning with a movie camera?

There have been some doozies overs the years, but this latest "proof" has got to be one of the most preposterous profferings yet. The rearch community cringes; they are not laughing with you.

Barb

speaking of fantasy and basic principels, are you finishing out your JFK assassination USENET career on this board? If so, I certainly hope you and Tony Marsh have a pleasant retirement.... For the life of me, I'd love to see something, anything you investigated [or research] concerning the JFK assassination that was original. I'd hate for you to go down in assassination lore as Bab's the rubber-stamp, blue-hair lady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really knew the medical evidence, Jim, you would know that's not exactly what Jackie said, nor how she characterized it. What she said makes perfect sense if one knows that, indeed, there was a large wound in the right rear of the head, AND that there was also a flap of bone opened on the side of the head ... as captured on the Z film, related by Z in person on camera a short time later, and seen by others on the north side of Elm as well.

It does not have to be either or ... it was both.

And Jackie speaks of two things: holding his hair and skull on, AND keeping the top of his head down so no more brains would fall out. The first would be holding the flap (hair and skull) closed, the second would be keeping his head down because of the nasty wound in the back of his head.

I doubt anyone has spent more time defending the Parkland crew in cyberspace than I have. I know that evidence well. And what they saw was corroborated by the autopsy findings ... their notes, measurements and drawings. 10 x 17 cm is a heck of a big whole from stern to stem ... virtually the whole right side of his skull was destroyed....including the right rear behind the ear where Parkland noted the wound they saw AND the area where the flap opened up so graphically in DP.

Barb

If you are this ignorant about the wounds JFK incurred, then you really need to find other ways to spend your time. Even

Jackie testified that, from the front, he looked just fine, but that she had a hard time holding his brains and skull together

at the back of his head. The eyewitnesses and the Parkland physicians were quite consistent about the wound to the back

of his skull. The mortician reported "large gaping hole in back of head" and "smaller wound in right temple". The wound

can even be seen in late frames of the Zapruder, such as 374. You would know these things if you had read the studies of

the medical evidence in MURDER and HOAX, for example. Your massive lack of knowledge is making you look like a nitwit.

....with the fabrication of the Zapruder, but that is established by the inclusion of events that did not occur--....

(bold mine)

ROFLMAO! You really are a piece of work jimbo....

Roflmao

No Fetzer, the nitwit is YOU! Aside from your massive ignorance of a good part of the work you "pimp", your continued attempts to make your works seem definitive is laughable! And to think you pimp Hoax when you can't (or won't..you choose) even verify the works you choose to publish and "pimp" as so calld fact.

Your speculative publications are not fact jimbo....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healy spatteth: "speaking of fantasy and basic principels, are you finishing out your JFK assassination USENET career on this board? If so, I certainly hope you and Tony Marsh have a pleasant retirement.... For the life of me, I'd love to see something, anything you investigated [or research] concerning the JFK assassination that was original. I'd hate for you to go down in assassination lore as Bab's the rubber-stamp, blue-hair lady."

You seem to have a fixation with Tony Marsh. Are you trying to emulate him? Like you, he's much like fingernails scritching down a blackboard ... always chirping about people but never really saying anything of any import on the evidence. There is a cure for that, I found (not original, but hey, it works) ... ignoring.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've stated, I'm an agnostic on the alteration question. However, I'd like to add my two cents, which any or all of you are free to reject and/or scoff at.

To the alterationists, I'd like to state that I think you are placing too much emphasis, and expending too much time, on what is obviously a contentious issue, even among believers in conspiracy. As has been noted, there is abundance evidence that Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963, and the clear indications of a massive cover up are everywhere throughout the official record. I acknowledge that you've raised some interesting points, and I do think there may quite well be something there. That being said, I don't think at this point that the continuing arguments are helping to heal what was already a bitterly divided critical community.

To the non-alterationists, I'd like to state that the vitriol you expend on Jack White, Jim Fetzer and co. is often transparently personal. It's also baffling, in that you seem to consider their claims to be more objectionable than lone nutterism itself. Why do you think it's impossible that those who killed a sitting U.S. president and launched a cover up so extensive that it is still being promoted consistently by every organ of the mainstream media today, would alter film footage of the crime? I'm familiar with your interpretations and counterarguments, but do you acknowledge that such a thing was possible?

On both sides, the animosity is ugly. Can Jim Fetzer and Jack White acknowledge the contrbution made by Josiah Thompson, in his important book "Six Seconds In Dallas?" Can Josiah Thompson acknowledge the crucial early studies Jack White did on the backyard photos, as well as the fact he was (I think) the first critic to study all the photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, and theorize about his "many faces?" Can Josiah Thompson credit Jim Fetzer for putting together the important book "Assassination Science?"

I readily admit that I'm a bit biased here; I tend to believe the worst about our corrupt leaders, and thus have an instinctive attraction for most conspiracy theories. Thus, I am bound to find myself agreeing with White and Fetzer more often than I would with Thompson (I think- because Josiah doesn't post much about anything besides the alteration issue, I'm not completely sure about his other beliefs, except that he did argue against a 911 conspiracy). I can see both sides of this question, in spite of that. I simply think that the debate over the credibility of the films is taking up way too much time and attention on this forum.

Those are the thoughts of someone who is just observing this debate, and is not one of the heated participants. Can all of you remember the crucial points you do agree upon (at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right? Isn't that more imporant than whether the Zapruder film is legitimate? Of course, I'm not referring to Craig, who is plainly a lone nutter. He is almost certainly in disagreement with all of you about the essential facts of this case.

Okay, I'm not used to being the voice of moderation. Let me get back to being a radical....

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A film that includes events that did not take place--and excludes others

that did, such as Chaney motoring forward, not to mention Mary stepping

into the street--cannot be a film that Zapruder took. You might want to

review some of my posts on this forum and elsewhere, incuding "New

Proof of JFK Video Fakery", which you can find on-line, and, of course, my

studies at JFKresearch.com/Moorman/ and JFKresearch.com/Moorman2/ .

We need a much better idea of what an authentic film would have shown.

Mr. Fetzer,

I know all about the other film claim ... do you not recall that it was I on DellaRosa's site that asked just how many 'other film(s)' are there supposed to be. I asked that question because the list of names that I saw that were alleging to have seen this so-called 'other film' were all describing different events in their films. Either most, if not all, were making up a story about seeing this other film or there were a dozen versions of another film floating around.

Now about DellaRosa seeing the 'other film' ... I recall what school I was attending when the guy who did the whistling for the Andy Griffith theme came and gave a presentation. I remember where in the school it was held, some of the peoples names that saw it with me. DellaRosa claimed to have seen this horrible very clear film of the assassination and I remember him not being able to divulge squat as to the details surrounding anything that could add support to his claim. Just more rumor and innuendos propaganda.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the non-alterationists, ............... I'm familiar with your interpretations and counterarguments, but do you acknowledge that such a thing was possible?

All things are thought to be possible ... a stray bullet from a hunter a mile out of Dallas may have hit JFK in the head and killed him, but there is no evidence to support it. When it comes to the alteration of the Zapruder film (shot with Kodachrome II film) it is IMPOSSIBLE from what I have learned for it to have been altered and be undetectable by forensic science today.

Claiming the same photos to be real in one breath and altered in the next to help support ones ever changing position is not science and certainly suspect to say the least.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Miller

quote

When it comes to the alteration of the Zapruder film (shot with Kodachrome II film) it is IMPOSSIBLE from what I have learned for it to have been altered and be undetectable by forensic science today.

close quote

Nice claim, but you know, as I do, that no independent Zapruder film investigation of any forensic science team exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've stated, I'm an agnostic on the alteration question. However, I'd like to add my two cents, which any or all of you are free to reject and/or scoff at.

To the alterationists, I'd like to state that I think you are placing too much emphasis, and expending too much time, on what is obviously a contentious issue, even among believers in conspiracy. As has been noted, there is abundance evidence that Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963, and the clear indications of a massive cover up are everywhere throughout the official record. I acknowledge that you've raised some interesting points, and I do think there may quite well be something there. That being said, I don't think at this point that the continuing arguments are helping to heal what was already a bitterly divided critical community.

To the non-alterationists, I'd like to state that the vitriol you expend on Jack White, Jim Fetzer and co. is often transparently personal. It's also baffling, in that you seem to consider their claims to be more objectionable than lone nutterism itself. Why do you think it's impossible that those who killed a sitting U.S. president and launched a cover up so extensive that it is still being promoted consistently by every organ of the mainstream media today, would alter film footage of the crime? I'm familiar with your interpretations and counterarguments, but do you acknowledge that such a thing was possible?

On both sides, the animosity is ugly. Can Jim Fetzer and Jack White acknowledge the contrbution made by Josiah Thompson, in his important book "Six Seconds In Dallas?" Can Josiah Thompson acknowledge the crucial early studies Jack White did on the backyard photos, as well as the fact he was (I think) the first critic to study all the photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, and theorize about his "many faces?" Can Josiah Thompson credit Jim Fetzer for putting together the important book "Assassination Science?"

I readily admit that I'm a bit biased here; I tend to believe the worst about our corrupt leaders, and thus have an instinctive attraction for most conspiracy theories. Thus, I am bound to find myself agreeing with White and Fetzer more often than I would with Thompson (I think- because Josiah doesn't post much about anything besides the alteration issue, I'm not completely sure about his other beliefs, except that he did argue against a 911 conspiracy). I can see both sides of this question, in spite of that. I simply think that the debate over the credibility of the films is taking up way too much time and attention on this forum.

Those are the thoughts of someone who is just observing this debate, and is not one of the heated participants. Can all of you remember the crucial points you do agree upon (at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right? Isn't that more imporant than whether the Zapruder film is legitimate? Of course, I'm not referring to Craig, who is plainly a lone nutter. He is almost certainly in disagreement with all of you about the essential facts of this case.

Okay, I'm not used to being the voice of moderation. Let me get back to being a radical....

Just to be clear Don, since you appear to have missed it the many other times I've posted it...I have NO theory as to who killed JFK, nor do I care. I think in general that the cult of JFK is a massive waste of time. If you cut to the chase, very few today would give a tinkers damn if it was proven JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald. One or two nights on the evening news and then gone forever in the general publics mind.

I do this for entertainment and I enjoy using my unique skillset to puncture the MASSIVE disinformantion that exists in the commentary about the JFK photography.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

I guess I can understand your concern in presenting a more united front, and certainly, your lean toward alterationism as a possibility, because you believe that the cover-up was massive, and something like this would not be above the conspiracists.

Where the problem lies is here:

"Each photo and film taken in Dealey Plaza has to fit into a more general fabric. If you take photos and movies of a single event from multiple standpoints, all the films and photos have to agree. They can only vary with respect to the standpoint from which they were taken. For example, with respect to Mary Moorman, the Muchmore and Zapruder films show her from wildly different angles. Yet these films can be matched up frame-by-frame to lay out every detail of her actions as the limousine passes her. The same can be said of all the photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza. If a film or photo were altered, it would stand out. It would be discrepant with the rest of the photo record."(Thompson)

This is certainly a true and reasonable statement. And there is nothing wrong with challenging the photographic evidence. It should pan itself out as consistent. It either is or is not altered. Studies demonstrating possible alteration should be subject to the same constraints as any other studies. They should be peer reviewed, and if the reviews poke holes in the studies, they should be tossed out. It has nothing to do with personality, or, ideally, should not.

The problem with this particular issue, is that each time an objection is made, the explanation gets turned toward something else. For example, it is being argued that Zapruder is shown at many different height(although Duncan shows him the same height), and one reason that is produced to explain this is that Z may have been made of rubber...

I also find it kind of funny, and this is nothing against you at all, that Barb's, Josiah's, and Bill's leanings could be questioned because of their stance.

..at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right?

By this I mean that some folks may have no problem throwing them into the LN camp merely because they are questioning a theory. I would hate to think that because I do not believe in alteration, that I am not a conspiracy supporter. But then as well, I would hate it even more if other folks align the alteration concept as being a cornerstone of conspiracy theory.

I agree with you about the "vitriolicity" that is displayed, and I don't know what one can do about it.

We need to be reasonable and rational to go forward. We have to have a solid evidentiary base. And, because of this, it is essential to review the alteration point.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

I guess I can understand your concern in presenting a more united front, and certainly, your lean toward alterationism as a possibility, because you believe that the cover-up was massive, and something like this would not be above the conspiracists.

Where the problem lies is here:

"Each photo and film taken in Dealey Plaza has to fit into a more general fabric. If you take photos and movies of a single event from multiple standpoints, all the films and photos have to agree. They can only vary with respect to the standpoint from which they were taken. For example, with respect to Mary Moorman, the Muchmore and Zapruder films show her from wildly different angles. Yet these films can be matched up frame-by-frame to lay out every detail of her actions as the limousine passes her. The same can be said of all the photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza. If a film or photo were altered, it would stand out. It would be discrepant with the rest of the photo record."(Thompson)

This is certainly a true and reasonable statement. And there is nothing wrong with challenging the photographic evidence. It should pan itself out as consistent. It either is or is not altered. Studies demonstrating possible alteration should be subject to the same constraints as any other studies. They should be peer reviewed, and if the reviews poke holes in the studies, they should be tossed out. It has nothing to do with personality, or, ideally, should not.

The problem with this particular issue, is that each time an objection is made, the explanation gets turned toward something else. For example, it is being argued that Zapruder is shown at many different height(although Duncan shows him the same height), and one reason that is produced to explain this is that Z may have been made of rubber...

I also find it kind of funny, and this is nothing against you at all, that Barb's, Josiah's, and Bill's and leanings could questioned because of their stance.

..at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right?

By this I mean that some folks may have no problem throwing them into the LN camp merely because they are questioning a theory. I would hate to think that because I do not believe in alteration, that I am not a conspiracy supporter. But then as well, I would hate it even more if other folks align the alteration concept as being a cornerstone of conspiracy theory.

I agree with you about the "vitriolicity" that is displayed, and I don't know what one can do about it.

We need to be reasonable and rational to go forward. We have to have a solid evidentiary base. And, because of this, it is essential to review the alteration point.

Kathy

"We need to be reasonable and rational to go forward."

Are you actually referencing the human species here????????

"Reason" left the realm of JFK assassination discussion years ago.

My dog(s) tend to be more reasonable and rational than many humans and most (claimed) JFK assassination researchers.

"We have to have a solid evidentiary base. And, because of this, it is essential to review the alteration point."

Not unlike 1,000 government lawyers at the bottom of a lake. A good start!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Altered_Evidence.pdf

P.S. Glad to see you are still awake and with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healy spatteth: "speaking of fantasy and basic principels, are you finishing out your JFK assassination USENET career on this board? If so, I certainly hope you and Tony Marsh have a pleasant retirement.... For the life of me, I'd love to see something, anything you investigated [or research] concerning the JFK assassination that was original. I'd hate for you to go down in assassination lore as Bab's the rubber-stamp, blue-hair lady."

You seem to have a fixation with Tony Marsh. Are you trying to emulate him? Like you, he's much like fingernails scritching down a blackboard ... always chirping about people but never really saying anything of any import on the evidence. There is a cure for that, I found (not original, but hey, it works) ... ignoring.

;)

Barb my work has been on JFKResearch.com for years, viewed thousands and thousands of times! If you read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, you ran into it too. All 30+ pages of it..... but, alas, most fair-haired rubber stamp Lone Nut folks don't look at what they criticize. Why? They're simply terrified their government might have lied to them, it's called D-E-N-I-A-L, that's why..... LMAO! And you expect CT's to take you seriously?

Speaking of the website JFK Research, weren't you thrown out of there? And for what reason, praytell? As far as Tony Marsh goes, Barb you have 1000's of back and forth posts with Tony Marsh most on alt.assassination.jfk (John McAdams home away from home, ya know the place most Lone Nuts ran too when when they couldn't deal with conspiracy), if anyone has a fixation it is you..... annnnnd, Tony Marsh appears to be a Lone Nut in CT clothing, certainly afraid to debate one Ben Holmes (at alt.conspiracy.jfk) concerning JFK assassination/WCR evidence. What are we Ct's to think? Even .john became mum when it came to the 45 questions and the 16 smoking guns, as have all his Nutter minions... and where do we find you guys? Hiding all over the internet debating distance measurements concerning a xxxx*ty, absolutelty useless Polaroid photo called the Moorman #5 that means nothing, nada, nil when it come to the assassination of the President of the United States.... Minutae! Even has a NYT best selling author all wrapped up in the nonsense, can you imagine THAT?

The posted (alt.conspiracy.jfk) 45 questions and the 16 smoking guns, answers to those will get to the bottom of the conspiracy angle concerning the assassination of JFK. Care to give them a whirl Barb? They've been posted to this forum, too! Might wanna take a peek at the Tom Purvis work, too! Appears he's found a few anomalies in the WCR work in Dealey PLaza.... 'SEARCH' is your friend!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...